Best AI for Differentiated Instruction and Universal Design for Learning in 2026

Quick Answer: AI for differentiated instruction and UDL generates tiered assignment designs aligned to Tomlinson's four differentiation elements (content/process/product/learning environment); CAST Universal Design for Learning lesson transformation frameworks providing multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement; Vygotsky-aligned scaffolding sequences for different readiness levels; Bloom's taxonomy-based tiered task design; flexible grouping protocols; formative assessment tools for readiness diagnosis; Gardner multiple intelligences choice menus; and UDL barrier analysis frameworks for existing lessons. EduGenius (edugenius.app) supports Grades K-9 teachers in designing responsive, inclusive instruction for diverse learners.

Every classroom is heterogeneous. Every teacher who has stood at the front of a room and looked out at twenty-five or thirty students knows — even if educational policy does not always acknowledge — that those students are not a uniform block of identical learners receiving a common educational experience. They arrive with radically different prior knowledge and readiness levels; they have been shaped by different languages, cultures, and learning histories; they have genuine differences in how they most easily access information and demonstrate understanding; they bring a kaleidoscopic range of interests, motivations, and goals to school each day; and they vary in their physical, cognitive, sensory, and social-emotional characteristics in ways that education must, in some meaningful sense, respond to.

The question is not whether to teach heterogeneous classrooms — that is the reality of every classroom — but how. Differentiated instruction and Universal Design for Learning are the two most thoroughly developed, research-grounded, and practically useful frameworks for answering that question. They are complementary rather than competing: UDL is primarily a curriculum design framework (how do we build flexibility into what we plan?) while differentiated instruction is primarily a responsive teaching framework (how do we adjust on the fly to what we observe?). Together, they provide both proactive and reactive strategies for teaching every student well.

Research Foundations of Differentiated Instruction and UDL

Carol Ann Tomlinson: Differentiated Instruction

Carol Ann Tomlinson (University of Virginia), through her foundational works The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (1999), How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (2001/2017), and Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom (2010, with Marcia Rock), developed the most comprehensive and practically useful framework for differentiated instruction:

Differentiation is Not Individualized Instruction: Tomlinson is explicit and important on this point: differentiated instruction does not mean twenty-five different lesson plans for twenty-five individual students. It means proactively designing flexible pathways through curriculum so that students with different readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles can all access the same essential concepts and skills through routes that fit their current learning needs. The goal is always the same essential understanding; the route can vary.

The Three Student Characteristics That Drive Differentiation: Tomlinson identifies three aspects of student diversity that should drive instructional decisions:

• Readiness: The student's current proximity to the learning goals of a given lesson or unit. Not a fixed trait (as ability was historically treated) but a state that changes with experience and instruction. Readiness differentiation is the most academically critical dimension: mismatching instruction to readiness (too easy = boredom and disengagement; too hard = frustration and learned helplessness) is one of the most reliable ways to undermine learning.
• Interest: What the student finds compelling, meaningful, or intrinsically motivating. Interest differentiation does not mean abandoning curriculum to follow student whims; it means finding authentic connections between required content and genuine student interests, enabling students to access essential understandings through engagement that intrinsically motivates them.
• Learning Profile: The student's preferred modes of learning — including learning style (though Tomlinson is appropriately cautious about learning style research); Gardner multiple intelligences (which Tomlinson uses descriptively, not as fixed categories); cultural background and learning context preferences; and individual cognitive strengths and challenges.

The Four Elements of Curriculum That Can Be Differentiated: Tomlinson argues that teachers can differentiate four aspects of instruction:

• Content: What students learn or how students access what they learn. Content differentiation might mean: providing text at different reading levels on the same topic; using different primary sources with different readability; supporting student reading of complex text with audio, visuals, or strategic annotations; offering supplementary materials for extension.
• Process: The activities through which students make sense of the content — the "sense-making" work that converts information into understanding. Process differentiation might mean: providing tiered tasks (same concept, different levels of complexity, abstractness, or scaffolding); different problem-solving activities for different readiness levels; choice menus that offer the same learning goal through different modalities; different amounts of teacher support during independent work.
• Product: How students demonstrate and extend their learning at the end of a unit or major learning sequence. Product differentiation might mean: offering students choices in the form of their demonstration of understanding (essay, multimedia presentation, artistic representation, debate, model); setting differentiated complexity expectations for the same product type; providing tiered rubrics with the same essential criteria but different complexity thresholds.
• Learning Environment: The physical and affective conditions in which learning occurs. Environment differentiation might mean: providing varied work spaces (whole group, small group, pairs, individual); establishing clear procedures that enable quiet independent work alongside collaborative work; creating flexible grouping structures that shift regularly based on current learning needs.

Flexible Grouping: One of Tomlinson's most important practical principles is that grouping should be flexible — changing frequently based on current learning goals and readiness assessment, rather than fixed according to permanent ability-group tracks. Fixed ability grouping (tracking) is consistently associated with negative effects for lower-track students; flexible grouping that moves students in and out of different configurations based on current learning needs avoids these effects while still enabling targeted instruction.

The Equalizer: Tomlinson uses the metaphor of an audio equalizer to describe differentiation — instruction can be adjusted on multiple "sliders" simultaneously:

• Foundational → Transformational (conceptual depth)
• Concrete → Abstract (level of abstraction)
• Simple → Complex (task complexity)
• Single facet → Multiple facets (number of variables)
• More structured → More open (degree of scaffold)
• Dependent → Independent (degree of autonomy)
• Slow → Fast (pace)

The teacher's job is to find the right setting on each slider for each student at each learning moment — and these settings will differ across students and change over time as students grow.

Pre-assessment as the Engine of Differentiation: Tomlinson is emphatic that differentiation is impossible without ongoing formative assessment data about what students already know and can do. Pre-assessment (before instruction begins) reveals students' prior knowledge and potential readiness levels; formative assessment (during instruction) reveals whether students are getting it and what adjustments are needed; both together provide the information without which differentiated instruction is guesswork.

CAST: Universal Design for Learning

CAST (originally the Center for Applied Special Technology) developed Universal Design for Learning (UDL) — extending the architectural concept of universal design (designing buildings to be accessible to all people from the outset, rather than retrofitting accessibility features for specific individuals) to curriculum:

The Core Principle of UDL: Rather than designing a single instructional approach and then providing accommodations for students who cannot access it, UDL designs curriculum to be flexible and accessible from the outset. UDL assumes that variability is the norm, not the exception, in every classroom — that there is no "average learner" for whom a single instructional approach is optimally designed — and that flexible curriculum design that provides multiple pathways serves all learners better.

The Three UDL Principles (CAST UDL Framework, 3rd edition):

1. Multiple Means of Representation — Providing options for how information and knowledge are presented. Rationale: learners differ in how they most easily access information; some learn most efficiently through text, others through visual representation, others through audio, others through hands-on manipulation, and most through combinations. Multiple representation options include: offering the same content in text, audio, and visual formats; providing digital text that can be resized and reformatted; offering translation tools; using multiple examples and non-examples; supporting background knowledge through graphics, animation, or video.

2. Multiple Means of Action and Expression — Providing options for how students demonstrate what they know and can do. Rationale: learners differ in how they can most effectively express their understanding; a student who deeply understands the causes of World War I may struggle with the essay format but could demonstrate that understanding brilliantly through a visual timeline, a debate, or an oral presentation. Multiple action and expression options include: offering choices in the form of student products; providing digital tools that support writing, organization, and communication; offering assistive technology; providing scaffolding for planning and strategy development; supporting fluency development through graduated levels of challenge.

3. Multiple Means of Engagement — Providing options for how students are recruited and sustained in learning. Rationale: learners differ in what engages them, what motivates them, and what threatens or frustrates them; optimal challenge levels, preferences for novelty or routine, social learning preferences, and the relevance of learning to personal goals all vary substantially. Multiple engagement options include: offering choices in how students engage with content; making learning goals and purposes explicit; building student self-regulation capacities (goal-setting; monitoring progress; managing frustration); fostering collaboration and community; connecting learning to students' authentic interests and goals.

The UDL Goal — Expert Learners: The explicit goal of UDL is not accessibility for disabled students (though UDL does support disabled students more effectively than conventional design) but the development of "expert learners" for all students — learners who are purposeful and motivated; resourceful and knowledgeable; strategic and goal-directed. These are not primarily content knowledge goals but metacognitive and self-regulatory goals: CAST argues that education's most enduring contribution is developing students who know how to learn, not only what they have learned.

Barrier Analysis: A central UDL practice is barrier analysis — systematically identifying the features of existing lessons, units, and assessments that create unnecessary barriers to specific groups of learners (barriers that do not relate to the essential learning goals but to peripheral features like text readability, fine motor demands, or specific prior knowledge requirements). Barrier analysis distinguishes between essential and peripheral curriculum features, enabling targeted design decisions about where flexibility is appropriate and where specificity is required.

Lev Vygotsky (Applied to Differentiation): Scaffolding Across the ZPD

Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (described more fully in the Early Childhood Education article) has direct and powerful applications to differentiated instruction across all grades:

ZPD as the Diagnostic Target for Differentiation: Tomlinson's readiness differentiation is essentially applied Vygotsky: the goal is to identify each student's current level of independent competence and design instruction that is slightly ahead of that level (in the ZPD), with appropriate scaffolding that enables the student to accomplish work that they could not accomplish independently. The Equalizer dimension "more structured → more open" captures the scaffolding dimension directly: students with lower readiness need more scaffold; students with higher readiness can work more independently.

Scaffolding Designs for Differentiation: Different students need different types and amounts of scaffolding for the same content:

• Advance organizers and graphic organizers that pre-structure difficult concepts
• Annotated texts with vocabulary supports embedded
• Worked examples alongside practice problems
• Sentence stems for discussion and writing
• Chunking of complex tasks into explicit sequential steps
• Peer scaffolding through structured collaborative learning
• Teacher conferring as individualized scaffold during independent work

The Gradual Release of Responsibility: The "I Do, We Do, You Do" model (based on Pearson and Gallagher's gradual release of responsibility, 1983, itself drawing on Vygotskian principles) describes the scaffold arc: teacher models first (I do); teacher and students practice together with teacher guiding (we do); students practice with peer support (y'all do); students practice independently (you do). Differentiation within this framework means different students moving through the stages at different rates and with different amounts of time at each stage.

Benjamin Bloom: Taxonomy for Tiered Task Design

Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy — the classification of educational objectives into hierarchical cognitive levels (Knowledge/Remember; Comprehension/Understand; Application/Apply; Analysis/Analyze; Synthesis/Evaluate; Evaluation/Create in the revised Anderson and Krathwohl version: Remember; Understand; Apply; Analyze; Evaluate; Create) — provides the most widely used framework for designing tiered tasks that differentiate by complexity:

Tiered Tasks Designed with the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy: For any content concept, tasks can be designed at different cognitive complexity levels, aligned to students' current readiness:

• Tier 1 (foundational): Remember and Understand tasks — define, identify, describe, summarize. Example for a science unit on ecosystems: 'Create a chart that defines the four main components of an ecosystem and provides one example of each.'
• Tier 2 (grade-level): Apply and Analyze tasks — compare, classify, explain relationships, use in new situations. Example: 'Explain why removing a single predator species from an ecosystem could cause changes to all other species in the ecosystem. Use evidence from the reading to support your explanation.'
• Tier 3 (extending): Evaluate and Create tasks — judge, critique, design, develop alternative solutions. Example: 'Design a plan for restoring a local wetland ecosystem that has been degraded by human activity. Justify your choices by explaining how each element of your plan addresses specific ecosystem imbalances.'

Critical Principles for Bloom's-Based Tiering: All three tiers should address the same essential concept (ecosystem interdependence); none should be trivial or busywork; higher tiers should not simply be "more work" but qualitatively more cognitively demanding; and students should be able to move between tiers as readiness changes. The tiers are tools for responsive teaching, not ability tracks.

Howard Gardner: Multiple Intelligences and Interest-Based Differentiation

Howard Gardner (Harvard Graduate School of Education), in Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) and subsequent revisions, proposed that human intelligence is not a single general factor but a family of relatively independent intelligences: Linguistic; Logical-Mathematical; Musical; Spatial; Bodily-Kinesthetic; Interpersonal; Intrapersonal; Naturalistic (and tentatively Existential).

MI in Differentiated Instruction: Tomlinson uses Gardner's multiple intelligences as a framework for learning profile differentiation — designing instructional options that allow students to engage with and demonstrate understanding through their different intellectual strengths. A multiple intelligences choice menu for a unit on the Civil Rights Movement might include: write an essay analyzing the rhetorical strategies of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches (Linguistic); create a timeline with data visualizations showing the relationship between civil rights events and economic conditions (Logical-Mathematical); compose a song or piece of music that captures the emotional experience of the movement (Musical); design a museum exhibit about the movement (Spatial); choreograph a movement piece that represents the experience of nonviolent protest (Bodily-Kinesthetic); interview a family member or community member about their experience of or knowledge of the civil rights era (Interpersonal); write a personal reflection on what you would have done if you had been a student your age during the civil rights movement (Intrapersonal); research how environmental conditions and geography shaped the civil rights movement in different regions (Naturalistic).

The MI Research Context: Gardner's theory has been both widely applied and critiqued in education. The critique that matters most is the lack of direct evidence for discrete neural systems corresponding to each intelligence. The educationally useful claim — that students have genuine differences in their intellectual strengths and that instruction should offer multiple modalities — is well-supported by cognitive diversity research even if the specific MI taxonomy is contested.

Diana Heacox: Practical Differentiation Systems

Diana Heacox, in Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom (2002/2012) and Make-Ahead Centers and Stations (2014), developed some of the most practically useful differentiation tools and systems for classroom implementation:

Differentiation in Practice — Practical Systems: Heacox's contribution is particularly strong on practical implementation: how do you actually manage a differentiated classroom when you are one teacher with thirty students and forty-three minutes? Her systems include:

• Flexible grouping schedules: specific protocols for how to form, assign, work in, and transition between different group configurations within a single lesson
• Anchor activities: meaningful work that students do independently while the teacher works with other groups — essential for enabling differentiated small-group instruction without the rest of the class being idle or off-task
• Management structures: physical organization of the classroom; student self-management protocols; procedures for getting help and checking work that enable teacher freedom to circulate and confer
• Tiered lesson planning templates: structured formats for designing parallel activities at different complexity levels

AI Applications in Differentiated Instruction and UDL

Tiered Assignment Design

"Design a complete tiered assignment system for a Grade 7 social studies unit on the causes of World War I — 'Why Did the World Go to War in 1914? Understanding a Complex Causal Web' — with three tiers differentiated by cognitive complexity and scaffolding level, all three tiers addressing the same essential understanding: 'The outbreak of World War I resulted from a complex interaction of long-term structural causes and short-term triggering events; understanding this causal web requires analyzing multiple types of evidence and perspectives.' Essential Question (same for all tiers): 'Why is it too simple to say that World War I started because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated? What else needs to be part of the explanation?' Tier 1 — Supported Understanding (for students who are building foundational knowledge of the content and need concrete scaffolding): Pre-organized graphic organizer with the four main long-term causes of WWI (MAIN: Militarism, Alliance System, Imperialism, Nationalism) already labeled in four quadrants. Task: For each cause, read the provided short excerpt (200-300 words, with key vocabulary defined in margin glossary); write two to three sentences explaining what this cause means; find one specific example of this cause from the text or from provided image sources; explain in one sentence how this cause might have contributed to war. Final connection task: 'Using your completed graphic organizer, explain in 3-4 sentences why the assassination of Franz Ferdinand alone wasn't enough to cause WWI — what had to already be in place for the assassination to trigger a world war?' Tier 2 — Developing Analysis (for students at grade-level readiness who can work with primary and secondary sources with guidance): Set of six primary and secondary source documents (short excerpts 300-600 words each; including perspectives from Germany, Britain, France, and Austria-Hungary). Annotation guide with three specific tasks per document: identify the source's perspective and purpose; find evidence of one or more of the long-term causes; note what this source reveals that other sources don't. Causal analysis task: Create your own graphic organizer showing the connections between long-term causes, specific events from 1905-1914, and the immediate trigger of the assassination. Written analysis (400-500 words): explain the relationship between long-term and short-term causes, using specific evidence from at least three of the sources. Peer discussion prompt: compare your causal analysis with a partner's — what differences did you find, and why might two people reading the same sources reach different conclusions? Tier 3 — Extended Critical Analysis (for students who have already developed solid understanding of WWI causes and are ready for historiographical complexity): The same six primary/secondary sources plus three additional sources representing different historical interpretations (including: A.J.P. Taylor's controversial thesis that Germany is primarily responsible; Christopher Clark's 'sleepwalkers' thesis distributing responsibility more broadly; revisionist perspectives that include colonial dimensions). Historical thinking task: Compare how different historians have distributed responsibility for WWI. What evidence does each historian emphasize? What do they de-emphasize? What does this reveal about how historical interpretation works? Extended analytical essay (600-800 words): develop and support your own interpretive position on the question of causation in WWI, acknowledging the strongest competing interpretation and explaining why you find your interpretation more persuasive. Optional extension: Research one specific WWI topic of your choice (a specific battle, a specific leader's decision, the experience of a specific country or group) and write a brief addition (200-250 words) to your essay explaining how your additional research reinforces, complicates, or changes your argument. Management note: All three tiers begin with the same hook activity and essential question; same closing discussion with all tiers sharing one key insight (structured so all students can contribute); different tasks run concurrently with teacher available for conferring and guided questioning."

"Design a complete UDL lesson transformation for a Grade 4 mathematics lesson on multi-digit multiplication — transforming a conventional lesson (teacher models algorithm; students practice algorithm on worksheets) into a fully UDL-compliant lesson that provides multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement while maintaining rigorous grade-level content goals. Original Lesson (Conventional Version): Learning objective: Students will multiply two-digit numbers by two-digit numbers using the standard algorithm. Teacher instruction: model standard algorithm on board (10 minutes). Independent practice: 20 multiplication problems on worksheet (20 minutes). Check work. UDL-Transformed Lesson: Learning Objective (same): Students will multiply two-digit numbers by two-digit numbers, explaining WHY the algorithm works using a conceptual model. [Note: UDL transformation also upgrades the learning goal from procedural to conceptual — essential, not peripheral.] Multiple Means of Representation: (1) Introduce multiplication conceptually before algorithmically: 'We need to find out how many tiles it would take to cover this rectangular floor that is 23 tiles wide and 17 tiles long. What strategies could we use?' Students share strategies. (2) Show the area model (partial products) using a physical grid drawn on a large paper: 23 x 17 broken into (20 x 17) + (3 x 17) = 340 + 51 = 391. Show how the area model and the standard algorithm are doing the same mathematics in different visual formats. (3) Provide visual supports: color-coded algorithm showing which part of the area model each step corresponds to; printed worked examples with each step labeled. (4) Provide the same problem in multiple contexts: tiles for the floor (spatial); bookstore ordering 23 boxes of 17 books (contextual); purely numerical (abstract). Multiple Means of Action and Expression: Practice options (students choose): Option A — Grid drawing: students draw and label the area model grid for each problem, then calculate using partial products. Option B — Area model plus algorithm: students solve using both methods and connect them by drawing arrows showing where each partial product appears in the algorithm. Option C — Algorithm only with written justification: students solve using the standard algorithm and write one sentence per step explaining what that step means mathematically. Option D — Digital tool: students use a digital multiplication tool that shows the area model alongside the algorithm, working through 10 problems with immediate visual feedback. Multiple Means of Engagement: (1) Student choice in practice format above. (2) Choice of context: students who find the tile/floor context engaging can make up their own real-world multiplication scenarios; students who prefer pure numbers can work without context. (3) Graduated challenge: set of 15 problems arranged from simpler (two-digit x one-digit) to more complex (three-digit x two-digit), with instruction to begin where feels challenging but manageable. (4) Collaborative option: a pair-work protocol (one student explains each step while the other checks with the area model) available as an alternative to independent practice. Assessment of the same essential learning goal through students' chosen method — all options enable the teacher to assess whether students understand WHY the algorithm works, not just whether they can execute it mechanically. Full UDL lesson plan with: barrier analysis of the original lesson; UDL design decisions and rationale; materials list for all options; differentiation notes for students who may need additional support or extension; formative assessment checkpoints."

Flexible Grouping and Responsive Teaching Design

"Design a complete flexible grouping management system for a Grade 6 English Language Arts classroom of 28 students with a range of readiness levels (including 4 students reading significantly below grade level, 16 students at or near grade level, and 8 students reading significantly above grade level), 3 English Language Learners at different proficiency levels, and 2 students with IEPs for learning disabilities affecting reading. Semester plan for flexible grouping: Unit 1 (Weeks 1-3): Whole-class text study using text complexity scaffolding. All students read the same anchor text; differentiation through: annotation layers (students at different readiness levels use different annotation guides with different levels of cognitive demand); discussion structures (structured academic conversation protocols that provide sentence stems for ELL students and students who are building discussion skills, while offering more open-ended discussion for students ready for it); writing scaffolds (tiered writing prompts with the same essential task but different levels of scaffold). Unit 2 (Weeks 4-6): Literature circle model with self-selected texts at appropriate complexity levels. Book sets: three to four different books on the same theme (e.g., courage and moral choice) at different text complexity levels; all books are genuinely high-quality literature (not dumbed-down texts); students self-select from brief book talks but teacher uses pre-assessment data to ensure students are in their approximate ZPD. Literature circle roles rotate weekly; same discussion protocols for all groups. Teacher observation schedule: teacher spends 15 minutes with each group per week, observing, conferring, and adjusting. Unit 3 (Weeks 7-9): Skills-based flexible grouping (readiness groups that shift). Specific identified skill gap (e.g., writing complex sentences; identifying theme; using evidence in argument). Pre-assessment: brief diagnostic task that reveals students' current skill level. Groups formed based on pre-assessment data: students who have already mastered the skill work in extension projects; students who are developing the skill receive targeted small-group instruction from the teacher (10-12 minutes, 3x per week); students who need foundational support receive more intensive small-group instruction with higher scaffold. Groups expected to shift within 2-3 weeks as students develop skills. Anchor activity system (enabling teacher to pull small groups): ongoing independent reading in self-selected books with weekly reading response; vocabulary building activities in digital platform; independent writing projects (personal choice of genre and topic); peer conferring pairs (structured protocol for giving feedback on each other's writing). Management protocols: assignment chart displayed; student direction cards for what to do when stuck; quiet signal for transitions; student self-assessment exit ticket (daily, 2 minutes). IEP and ELL integration: IEP accommodations integrated into all grouping structures (not separate instruction unless specified in IEP); ELL scaffolds available to all students (sentence frames; vocabulary previews; content-area glossaries) as UDL supports."

Classroom Scenario: An Inclusive Classroom in Guyana

Say you teach Grade 5 at a primary school in Georgetown, Guyana — the capital city of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, located on the northern coast of South America. Guyana is the only English-speaking country in South America (a legacy of British colonial rule, which ended in 1966) and is culturally and ethnically highly diverse: the population includes East Indian Guyanese (approximately 40%), Afro-Guyanese (approximately 29%), mixed ethnicity (approximately 20%), and Indigenous Amerindian peoples (approximately 11%), along with smaller Chinese and other communities. This diversity reflects Guyana's complex history of Indigenous peoples, European colonization, enslaved African labor, and indentured labor from India following emancipation. Guyana's recent discovery of enormous offshore oil reserves (beginning commercial production in 2019) has dramatically altered the country's economic trajectory, and the education system is undergoing rapid investment and development.

Guyana's Educational Context: Guyanese classrooms are among the most diverse in the Caribbean and South America — reflecting the country's ethnic, linguistic, and cultural complexity, as well as significant regional diversity (children in coastal Georgetown have different educational backgrounds and resource access than children in interior Amazonian communities). A Grade 5 classroom of twenty-nine students in this context might include children from East Indian, Afro-Guyanese, mixed, and Amerindian backgrounds; two students whose home language is Arawakan (an Indigenous language); several students whose home register is Guyanese Creole rather than Standard English; and a significant range of academic readiness driven by the uneven quality of primary education in the feeder schools and the home backgrounds students bring.

A Differentiated Approach: You might come to differentiated instruction through necessity — a classroom this diverse makes the "teach to the middle and hope for the best" approach obviously inadequate. Over time, you could build an evolving flexible grouping system: pre-assessments at the beginning of every unit; flexible reading groups that shift every two weeks; a set of anchor activities that enable you to pull small groups for targeted instruction; and a choice menu system for unit projects that allows students to demonstrate understanding through multiple formats. A school's move toward Universal Design for Learning can help systematize the accessibility features a teacher is already providing informally.

EduGenius for Differentiation: You could use EduGenius (edugenius.app) to generate tiered task designs for specific content topics (a Grade 5 social studies unit on Guyana's history might call for three distinct readiness tiers); UDL lesson transformation frameworks to apply to existing lessons; flexible grouping management protocols; and formative assessment designs that generate the readiness data differentiation depends on. Access to professionally designed differentiation tools through EduGenius is designed to reduce the planning time that is often the biggest barrier to differentiated teaching.

Internal Resources

• Best AI for Assessment and Grading Innovation
• Best AI for Early Childhood Education
• Best AI for Special Education and Inclusive Learning
• Best AI for Mathematics Conceptual Understanding
• Best AI for Project-Based Learning