A very common belief among educators is that we must cater for every students’ needs in the classroom. After all, we know students differ from their interests and abilities. As a result, we are expected to differentiate instruction, adapting our lessons to each student. However, how feasible is this? And more importantly, does it lead to better learning outcomes for all?
Although it sounds tempting to view differentiation as the key to inclusive education, the idea stems from the belief that every human is unique - and this uniqueness must be acknowledged (Mccrea, 2025a). Whether it’s learning style, type of intelligence, or a diagnosed disability, we must adapt our instruction to each label. Though well-intentioned, this approach brings two problems.
First, differentiation can become overwhelming. Trying to accommodate every difference might leave educators feeling unequipped, which might even lead them to give up on adapting instruction altogether and just do whatever they believe works (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).
Second, focusing on differentiating risks reinforcing labels. When we categorize students based on their differences - be it learning preference or diagnoses-, we might begin to make assumptions and lower our expectations. These expectations can then become self-fullfilling prophecies, negatively impacting students’ self-efficacy and academic performance (Steinmayr et al., 2019). Similarly, differentiating students can lead to diagnosis overshadowing (Mccrea, 2025b), where teachers attribute learning struggles to students’ diagnosis, such as ADHD or autism, leaving aside other possible causes, such as poor nutrition, challenging family environments, or lack of background knowledge.
As Willingham & Daniel (2012) cautioned: “the observation that not every student can do everything the exact same way at the exact same time should not lead to the overreaction of hyper-individualizing the curriculum”. Instead of focusing on differences, we should shift our attention to cognitive similarities. As Mccrea (2025a) asserted, “the way we learn is more similar than different”.
Although students do differ in many ways, when it comes to learning, all students make use of the same core cognitive process and the same learning requirements apply: factual knowledge, practice, attention, feedback (Mccrea, 2025a, Willingham & Daniel, 2012). Therefore, rather than trying to meet every difference, we should focus on applying evidence-based practices that benefit all learners.
Achieving this requires teachers to understand the process of learning and its implications for classroom practice. Drawing from research (Willingham, 2021; Education Endowment Foundation, 2020), here are some teaching strategies which have proven to consistently support learning across different contexts:
Retrieval practice: Provide opportunities for students to recall what they have learned. This combats forgetting and strengthens long-term learning (Agarwal & Bain, 2019).
Worked examples: Provide many examples and use analogies to facilitate transfer and help students understand abstract concepts.
Explicit Instruction: Be explicit about what you are teaching using techniques such as think-pair-share and I-We-You (Lemov, 2010).
Metacognition: Help students understand their learning process, explicitly teaching them how to identify problems in their learning and strategies to overcome those problems.
Flexible grouping: Mix up group structures (pairs, groups of four, same level, different levels) and offer peer tutoring and after-class support.
The research on whether students learn best when taught in a way that is unique to their needs is mixed (Mccrea, 2025a; Willingham & Daniel, 2012). This suggests that our mission should not be to cater for individual differences, but to improve the overall quality of our teaching.
Strong teaching benefits everyone, not just few or some students.
From this perspective, difference is a normal part of our classrooms. Hence, it should not be a problem to be fixed, but an opportunity to “extend what is ordinarily available for all learners” (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011, p. 818).
Declaration of use of Generative AI in the Writing Process
I used ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, 2024) to improve the readability of this text.During this process, I received and edited the content as needed. I take full responsibility for the final version and claim full authorship of this article.
Agarwal, P. K., & Bain, P. M. (2019). Powerful teaching: Unleash the science of learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Education Endowment Foundation. (2020). Special educational needs in mainstream schools: Guidance report. https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/eef-guidance-reports/send/EEF_Special_Educational_Needs_in_Mainstream_Schools_Guidance_Report.pdf?v=1744039831
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to college (K-12). John Wiley & Sons.
Mccrea, P. (13 March, 2025a). Cognitive similarity. Peps' Learning Snacks. https://snacks.pepsmccrea.com/p/cognitive-similarity
Mccrea, P. (20 March, 2025b). Diagnostic overshadowing. Peps' Learning Snacks. https://snacks.pepsmccrea.com/p/diagnostic-overshadowing
Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019). The importance of students’ motivation for their academic achievement–replicating and extending previous findings. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 464340.
Willingham, D. T. (2021). Why don't students like school?: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
Willingham, D., & Daniel, D. (2012). Teaching to what students have in common. Educational leadership, 69(5), 16-21.