The shift to adaptive teaching: A research-informed guide
MARK LESWELL, RESEARCH LEAD, SWALE ACADEMIES TRUST, UK
Introduction
The number of students identified as having special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is increasing. In England, for example, 1.7 million pupils were identified as having SEND in 2024, representing 18.4 per cent of all pupils (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2024). Despite our dedicated efforts, the educational outcomes for students with SEND continue to lag significantly behind their peers without SEND. For example, those pupils with SEND that have statements or education, health and care plans (EHCPs) achieve a Progress 8 score of -1.09 (Thomson, 2019).
The challenges facing students with SEND are multifaceted and complex. Prior attainment data reveals that almost 40 per cent of pupils with SEND in mainstream schools achieved a mean Key Stage 2 fine grade of 3.0 or lower, compared to just one per cent of pupils without SEND (Thomson, 2019). The performance gap for students with SEND in mainstream settings is less pronounced than the gap between students in special schools and their mainstream counterparts without SEND, but it is still significant. These academic challenges are often compounded by socio-economic factors; pupils with SEND are more than twice as likely to be eligible for free school meals compared to their peers without SEND (28 per cent versus 13 per cent) (EEF, 2021). Furthermore, students with SEND report higher levels of unhappiness regarding their schoolwork compared to students without SEND (Barnes and Harrison, 2017), highlighting the emotional effects of these challenges.
For many years, differentiation has been the primary strategy for addressing the diverse needs of these learners. However, teachers often find that managing different activities for various student groups increases their workload and can be challenging to implement effectively. Adaptive teaching is emerging as a powerful alternative to differentiation, offering a more dynamic, responsive approach to meeting the needs of all learners in inclusive classrooms.
Research evidence
Differentiation
Differentiation, as defined by Tomlinson et al. (2003), is the proactive adaptation of curriculum, teaching methods and resources to address individual student needs. It typically involves pre-planned adjustments, such as varying tasks, grouping strategies and instructional materials, to support diverse learners.
Research evidence on differentiation’s effectiveness is mixed. A meta-analysisA quantitative study design used to systematically assess the results of multiple studies in order to draw conclusions about that body of research by Deunk et al. (2018) found a small positive overall effect on academic performance (+0.15) in primary education. The approach proved most effective when supported by technology (+0.29) or integrated within broader school reforms (+0.30). However, common differentiation practices such as ability grouping showed no benefit or even negative effects, with between-class grouping (-0.07) and within-class grouping (-0.01) proving ineffective. Notably, in-class ability grouping had a negative effect on low-achieving students (-0.20).
While differentiation acknowledges student diversityThe recognition of individual differences in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, religious beliefs and other differences, it has several limitations. It often relies on predetermined categories and fixed activities, limiting flexibility and potentially overlooking the evolving needs of learners within a lesson. Differentiation, as implemented in many classrooms, tends to primarily focus on adjustments made before the lesson (Van Geel et al., 2019). Additionally, the quality of the adaptation itself is rarely questioned – for example, the appropriateness of the specific type of instruction, content and learning activities provided in relation to an individual student’s learning needs. This appropriateness is crucial, as pupils rarely fit neatly into predetermined categories and their needs can change throughout a lesson (Deunk et al., 2015).
Adaptive teaching
Adaptive teaching, as defined by Van Geel et al. (2019), centres on the actual adaptation of teaching to the thoroughly identified needs of all students. This highlights a major distinction: the emphasis on responsiveness and real-time adjustments based on students’ demonstrated understanding and engagement. Adaptive teaching involves continuous monitoring of student progress during teaching, allowing teachers to make informed decisions while teaching, adapting their methods, resources and activities to meet individual student needs as they arise. This approach aligns with Parsons et al.’s (2018) observation that effective teachers make adaptations at different points in time in the teaching process. Rather than relying solely on predetermined plans, adaptive teaching embraces flexibility and recognises the dynamic nature of learning. Moreover, effective adaptive teaching considers the quality of adaptations made, ensuring that the chosen teaching approaches, content and materials appropriately address individual needs and support progress towards learning goals.
Research evidence suggests that adaptive teaching has positive effects on both academic achievement and non-academic outcomes (Parsons et al., 2018). Studies have found benefits across multiple subject areas, including literacy, mathematics, science and social studies. One study found that teachers’ adaptive teaching competency influenced student achievement through improved quality of instruction (Brühwiler and Blatchford, 2011).
Teacher-enabling factors
Several teacher factors appear to enable effective adaptive teaching (Parsons et al., 2018):
- Research has identified the importance of teachers’ active metacognition and reflection during instruction, with teachers constantly monitoring student understanding and adjusting their approach accordingly
- Teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge also plays a major role in enabling them to make appropriate adaptations
- Studies have found that more experienced teachers demonstrated greater adaptability, which was likely to be due to their deeper content and pedagogical knowledge, developed over time
- Teachers’ beliefs about their subject, their teaching approach and their students have also been shown to influence how and when they make adaptations.
Barriers to adaptive teaching
Research has identified several obstacles that can impede adaptive teaching practices (Parsons et al., 2018):
- limited autonomy, particularly when teachers must follow strict pacing guides or teach prescribed content
- school contexts and standards that constrain teachers’ ability to respond flexibly to student needs
- high-stakes testing pressures that restrict instructional adaptations.
These appear more common in socio-economically disadvantaged schools, where policies can be more restrictive.
Adaptive teaching vs differentiation
Table 1: A comparison between features of differentiation and adaptive teaching
| Feature | Differentiation | Adaptive teaching |
| Focus | Pre-planned variations | Real-time responsiveness |
| Timing | Primarily before the lesson | During the lesson |
| Grouping | Often relies on predetermined groups | More flexible, responsive to individual needs |
| Assessment | Used for initial planning | Integral for ongoing monitoring and adjustment |
| Materials and activities | Varied but often pre-selected | Adaptable based on student response |
| Teacher role | Primarily instructor/facilitator | Responsive expert, adjusting to student needs |
| Emphasis | Meeting diverse needs through varied instruction | Appropriately meeting identified needs through tailored instruction |
Table 1 highlights some of the differences between adaptive teaching and differentiation. Research shows that traditional differentiation can increase teacher workload and limit student achievement by predetermining learning paths (Macqueen, 2012), while adaptive teaching provides a more dynamic approach. Critically, as Deunk et al. (2015) point out, the success of adaptive teaching hinges not just on doing something different but on doing something different that works.
Evidence-informed strategies for adaptive teaching
Table 2: Adaptive teaching strategies for different scenarios
| Teaching scenario | Quick response strategies | Real-time monitoring | Useful resources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting new content | • Present material in small steps
• Model thinking processes explicitly (‘I do’ phase) • Use multiple explanation methods • Connect to prior knowledge • Address misconceptions immediately |
• Use hinge questions
• Monitor student signals • Quick comprehension checks |
• Simple visual aids
• Mini whiteboards • Worked examples • Knowledge organisers • Vocabulary displays |
| During guided practice | • Guide class through examples (‘We do’ phase)
• Provide immediate verbal scaffoldingProgressively introducing students to new concepts to support their learning • Adjust pace based on responses • Use targeted questioning • Build on student answers |
• Check participation ratios
• Use mini-whiteboard responses • Question for misconceptions |
• Think-pair-share prompts
• Success criteria • Worked examples • Partial examples |
| Supporting independent work | • Facilitate independent practice (‘You do’ phase)
• Provide prompts • Remove scaffolding responsively • Provide effort and mastery praise • Enable peer support |
• Observe independence levels
• Check work quality • Question for misconceptions • Encourage self-reflections |
• Success criteria
• Progress prompts • Resource stations • Simple checklists • Peer support guidance |
| Addressing confusion | • Switch explanation approach
• Break steps down further • Use concrete examples • Draw diagrams while explaining • Address specific barriers |
• Use hinge questions
• Use verbal checks • Question and track misconceptions |
• Step-by-step guides
• Visual breakdowns • Common analogies • Memory prompts |
| Extending learning | • Ask deeper questions
• Encourage knowledge transferThe processes of applying learning to new situations to new scenarios • Build on student insights • Enable creative approaches |
• Assess depth of responses
• Check for connections • Track use of challenge success criteria |
• Higher-order prompts
• Cross-topic connections • Application tasks • Extension questions • Challenge section of success criteria |
| Whole-class discussion | • Use strategic questioning with appropriate wait time
• Build on student responses • Enable participation from all • Address misconceptions |
• Track participation
• Monitor response quality • Use hinge questions |
• Discussion frames
• Question stems • Response prompts • Visual supports |
| Formative assessment | • Use quick checks for understanding
• Implement hinge questions • Adjust teaching based on responses • Provide immediate feedback • Address gaps promptly |
• Track comprehension levels
• Monitor progress patterns • Check for gaps • Observe response rates |
• Mini whiteboards
• Quiz templates • Exit ticket templates • Response cards |
Table 2 provides some examples of adaptive teaching strategies that can be used in various teaching scenarios.
Key considerations
1. Focus on responsiveness:
-
- Make in-the-moment adjustments rather than extensive pre-planning
- Use accessible, versatile tools that can be quickly adapted
- Respond to student signals rather than predetermining needs.
2. Maintain high expectations:
-
- Provide appropriate support while maintaining challenging goals
- Adjust support levels rather than reducing expectations
- Enable all students to access challenging work.
3. Monitor and adapt:
-
- Watch continuously for understanding signals
- Make immediate adjustments based on responses
- Use ongoing checks rather than waiting for comprehensive assessments.
Conclusion
The shift from differentiation to adaptive teaching marks a significant advance in creating more effective inclusive classrooms. While differentiation often increases teacher workload through extensive pre-planning and fixed groupings, adaptive teaching offers a more sustainable approach, focused on real-time responsiveness and appropriate support. By developing strong monitoring habits, maintaining a flexible toolkit of teaching strategies and making evidence-informed adjustments during lessons, teachers can create learning environments where all students, particularly those with SEND, can access challenging work and make meaningful progress. Research suggests that this responsive approach not only benefits student outcomes but also leads to more manageable teacher workload, making it a practical framework for meeting diverse learning needs in today’s classrooms. Success lies not in planning multiple parallel activities but in building teachers’ capacity to monitor, respond to and appropriately support student learning as it unfolds.
- Barnes M and Harrison E (2017) The wellbeing of secondary school pupils with special educational needs: Research report. Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82201fe5274a2e8ab57a08/Wellbeing_and_SEN.pdf (accessed 4 March 2025).
- Brühwiler C and Blatchford P (2011) Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learning and Instruction 21(1): 95–108.
- Department for Education (DfE) (2024) Special educational needs in England: Academic year 2023/24. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england/2023-24 (accessed 4 March 2025).
- Deunk MI, Doolaard S, Smale-Jacobse AE et al. (2015) Differentiation Within and Across Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Studies Into the Cognitive Effects of Differentiation Practices. Groningen: GION onderwijs/onderzoek. Available at: www.nro.nl/sites/nro/files/migrate/Differentiation-within-and-across-classrooms-Review.pdf (accessed 4 March 2025).
- Deunk MI, Smale-Jacobse AE, De Boer H et al. (2018) Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research Review 24: 31–54.
- Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2021) Special educational needs in mainstream schools: Guidance report. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/send (accessed 4 March 2025).
- Macqueen S (2012) Academic outcomes from between-class achievement grouping: The Australian primary context. Australian Educational Researcher 39: 59–73.
- Parsons SA, Vaughn M, Scales RQ et al. (2018) Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research 88(2): 205–242.
- Thomson D (2019) Progress 8 for pupils with SEN: Are P8 scores really that low? FFT Education Datalab. Available at: https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2019/01/progress-8-for-pupils-with-sen-are-p8-scores-really-that-low (accessed 4 March 2025).
- Tomlinson CA, Brighton C, Hertberg H et al. (2003) Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27: 119–145.
- Van Geel M, Keuning T, Frèrejean J et al. (2019) Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 30(1): 51–67.
A superb piece; thank you, Mark. We’re using this as the starting point for an upcoming PD session.