STANDARD 1.5
Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of strategies for differentiating teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities.
artefact 1:
differentiated lesson plan
Artefact 1 is a lesson plan I developed for a class with a diverse range of abilities.
My intention in designing this sequence was to create a learning experience where every student has the opportunity to succeed. This artefact demonstrates my understanding of AITSL Standard 1.5, as it reflects a deliberate approach to differentiating teaching, assessment, and learning pathways to meet the specific needs of students across a full range of abilities.To achieve this, I drew on the Understanding by Design (UbD) framework, which aligns closely with differentiated learning. A backwards design approach allows me to begin with clear learning outcomes and plan lessons that can be tailored to different readiness levels and learning styles (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). By integrating Differentiated Instruction with UbD, I was able to design a flexible unit sequence that provides multiple pathways for students to demonstrate understanding. This is evident in my use of a tiered system, which offers structured activities for students who need additional support (Tier 1) and extension opportunities for those requiring greater challenge (Tier 3).
My approach was informed by the Department of Education’s (2025) Strategies for Differentiation, which outlines three tiers:
-
Tier 1: Developing expectations, requiring additional scaffolding and support.
-
Tier 2: Meeting expectations with room for growth (majority of students).
-
Tier 3: Exceeding expectations, requiring extension tasks and independent challenges.
The language used throughout the sequence draws from Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs within the unit outcomes, that connect to different levels of higher-order thinking (HOTS). This not only encourages goal setting but also gives students agency over how they demonstrate their learning.
Within this framework, I carefully considered levels of knowledge complexity, prior knowledge, outcomes, and processes. For example, Tier 1 tasks were broken into manageable steps with explicit modelling, while Tier 3 students were given greater independence and opportunities for self-directed exploration. AERO (n.d.) highlights the importance of explicit modelling and scaffolding, noting that support should gradually be reduced as students gain proficiency. In response, I included resources on the student hub to extend modelling beyond classroom time and encourage self-directed learning, enabling students to take ownership of their artmaking processes. This reflects my belief that differentiation is not only about meeting immediate needs but also about fostering independence and lifelong learning skills.
My lesson sequence also draws on Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, incorporating visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning experiences to ensure all students can access the content in personally meaningful ways (Abawi et al., 2019). This is supported by strategies such as:
-
Modelling and demonstration tailored to different learning styles
-
Glossaries and visual cues to clarify key terminology
-
Providing multiple definitions of success and achievement
-
Embedding critical and creative thinking tools to extend learning.
artefact 2:
student data on differentiation
Artefact 2 consists of a range of data gathered from:
-
school survey statistics
-
-
LSO student profiles.
By examining data on my students’ academic, cognitive, emotional, social, and physical needs, I gain a deeper understanding of their strengths, challenges, and learning profiles, which helps me plan for effective differentiation.
Analysing academic data allows me to identify gaps in knowledge and skills, as well as areas where students may need extension or enrichment. Considering cognitive factors helps me tailor strategies to align with students’ readiness and ways of thinking, ensuring tasks are accessible yet challenging (Sousa, 2017).
I also reflect on students’ emotional and social needs, such as motivation, anxiety, or peer relationships, as these influence engagement and classroom dynamics. This guides me to integrate social-emotional learning strategies and foster a safe, supportive environment where all students feel valued (CASEL, 2020).
In addition, understanding students’ physical needs, such as health conditions or sensory impairments, enables me to make informed adjustments to resources, classroom layout, and teaching practices to promote equitable access (AITSL, 2017).
By drawing on these different data sources, I can adapt content, teaching strategies, and assessment methods to remove barriers to learning and support every student’s growth. This reflective process strengthens my commitment to creating an inclusive classroom where diversity is embraced and all learners are empowered to succeed (Tomlinson, 2014).
“Differentiated instruction is a way of thinking, not a formula or recipe. Educators draw on, apply, and adapt its tools with the goal of maximizing knowledge, understanding, and skill for the full range of learners”
(Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006)