differentiated instruction research paper

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, di (differentiated instruction) does matter the effects of di on secondary school students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept.

• 1 Professional School of Education, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
• 2 School of Psychology, University of Monterrey, Monterrey, Mexico
• 3 Section for Teacher Education and Research, University of Trier, Trier, Germany
• 4 Center for Teacher Education, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 5 Research Focus Area Optentia, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

In consideration of the substantial increase in students’ learning demands, teachers are urged to address student heterogeneity in their daily teaching practice by means of differentiated instruction (DI). The practice of DI, as a vehicle to achieve inclusive education, not only aims to support all students’ academic learning but also foster their social and emotional development. However, current research in the field of DI has mostly been limited to an examination of its effects on students’ achievement outcomes. Consequently, the potential impact of DI on students’ socio-emotional outcomes has, till now, received very little attention. In order to address this gap in the research, the current researchers seek to investigate the effects of DI on school students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Survey participants in this study included 379 students from 23 inclusive and regular classes in secondary schools in Austria. Following multilevel analyses, the results have indicated that students’ rating of their teachers’ DI practice is positively associated with their school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. However, a t -test for dependent samples demonstrated that students perceive their teachers’ DI practice to be infrequent. Implications of the results along with further lines of research are also presented in this paper.

Introduction

From the perspective of pedagogical professionalism, teachers are responsible for providing students with equal access to learning situations and enabling them to participate in academic as well as socio-emotional interactions. As teachers have a significant role to play in the creation of educational contexts, the requested access and participation of every student greatly depends on the implementation of teaching practices and strategies and the accompanying educational offers ( Decristan et al., 2017 ; Pit-ten Cate et al., 2018 ). Given the fact that a heterogeneous class composition forms the pedagogical work base for teaching and learning processes, teachers are inevitably confronted with the professional demand to implement adequately adapted teaching practices that are tailored to their students’ needs ( Vaughn et al., 2007b ; Pozas et al., 2020 ; Kärner et al., 2021 ). Diverse student characteristics as well as their various educational needs necessitate suitable pedagogical reactions which are free of discrimination and exclusion and guarantee learning for every student ( McMurray and Thompson, 2016 ; Petersen, 2016 ; Ainscow and Messiou, 2018 ). In this context, inclusive teaching practices are often discussed as a pedagogical solution to avoid learning barriers for students who are likely to be disadvantaged in educational settings [e.g., due to individual characteristics such as a diagnosis of having special education needs (SEN)] ( Lindner and Schwab, 2020 ; Schwab et al., 2020 ; UNESCO, 2020 ).

DI to Students’ Diversity

Given the highly heterogeneous study population (Dijkstra et al., 2016; Maulana et al., 2020 ; Watkins, 2017), the concept of inclusion has been shifted from the inclusion of students with SEN to the participation to all students ( European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education, 2017 ; Schwab 2020 ). As a result, policymakers urge teachers to make use of inclusive teaching strategies to provide valuable learning for all students within a learning group ( UNESCO, 2020 ). One inclusive approach that is often discussed as a possible strategy to react adequately to students’ diversity is DI ( Tomlinson, 2014 ; Bondie et al., 2019 ). DI is considered to be an inclusive instructional practice that can be defined as the intentional, systematically planned and reflected practices that enable teachers to meet the needs of all learners in heterogeneous classrooms (Graham et al., 2020; Pozas and Letzel, 2020 ).

In order to differentiate their instruction, teachers must consider students’ individual characteristics and educational needs by regarding five fundamental dimensions: 1) coping with student diversity; 2) adopting specific teaching strategy; 3) introducing a variety in learning activity; 4) monitoring individual student needs; and 5) pursuing optimal learning outcomes ( Suprayogi and Valcke, 2016 ). Thus, the heterogeneity of class composition is a pivotal basic assumption with regard to teachers’ creation of teaching and learning situations. Based on the acknowledged diversity of the students in a class, specific teaching practices must be chosen in order to include multifaceted activities that promote learning for every student. For instance, teachers can implement DI through a variety of instruction behaviours such as tiered assignments, homogeneous or heterogeneous subgroups based on learners’ performance or interests, tutoring systems, open education practices, and variants of mastery learning strategies (Coubergs et al., 2017; Darnon et al., 2012; Hachfeld and Lazarides, 2020; Lawrence-Brown, 2004; Maulana et al., 2020 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). Overall, the goal of teachers’ implementation of DI is the achievement of students’ optimal learning outcomes ( Suprayogi and Valcke, 2016 ).

Effects of DI on Student Outcomes

Given that DI can be often described as a collection of instructional strategies which enable teachers to ensure that all students, regardless of their individual characteristics, have positive and successful learning situations, its effectiveness is often associated with optimal learning outcomes at the level of academic performance and achievement ( Loreman, 2017 ). However, up to know there are still diverging definitions of the instructional approach make it a challenge to compare results from different studies on the effects of DI, thereby leading to investigations of different outlines of DI (Jennek et al., 2019; Lindner and Schwab, 2020 ; Prast et al., 2015 ; Roy et al., 2015 ). Taking this into account, Deunk et al. (2018) undertook a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of DI on the cognitive competences of primary students. Overall, the examination of 21 studies showed a small positive effect of DI on students’ academic achievement ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, when DI was operationalized solely through grouping strategies, no significant overall effect was found. The results of a meta-meta-analysis of Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) showed no significant effects of DI in the context of grouping practices on students’ performance. The results of Nusser and Gehrer (2020) drew a similar picture. Within the context of a longitudinal study, a positive development of secondary students’ German competence was investigated, but it could not be explained as an effect of teachers’ use of DI on reading competence development ( Nusser and Gehrer, 2020 ).

By investigating DI in the sense of an overall inclusive school culture, the results of ( Goddard et al., 2015) showed that DI-related school norms and teaching practices had significantly positive effects on students’ academic achievement in mathematics and reading ( Goddard et al., 2015 ). In a study of ( Valiandes, 2015) , teachers’ implementation of DI was investigated by conducting observations, in the course of which the intensity of the use of DI was rated. The results showed a positive effect of differentiated teaching approaches on students’ academic progress ( Valiandes, 2015 ). However, it is noticeable in the context of studies investigating the effectiveness of DI that the predominant focus is placed on its effect on students’ academic achievement rather than non-academic student outcomes ( Smit and Humpert, 2012 ; Little et al., 2014 ; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ).

In addition to exploring the effects of inclusion on students’ achievement outcomes, supporting every students’ emotional and social development can also be considered as key objectives of inclusive education. Students’ socio-emotional development has been considered an important issue within policy debate ( Zurbriggen et al., 2018 ), and thus seems important to explore the potential effect that DI can have on students’ non-achievement outcomes ( Pozas and Schneider, 2019 ). In this context, three important student outcome variables that have been extensively explored in research and literature are students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept ( Venetz et al., 2015 ; DeVries et al., 2018 ; Venetz et al., 2019 ). These three student outcome variables have been long investigated because of their relation to students’ academic learning and performance as well as their general satisfaction and development (Gilman et al., 2014; Schwab et al., 2020 ). Additionally, assessing students’ subjective well-being, social inclusion, and academic self-concept are variables that can reflect educational quality (Guillemot and Hessels, 2021). The results of a quantitative study by Alnahdi et al. (2021) indicate that students’ perception of their teachers’ use of DI strongly predicted students’ perceived emotional and social inclusion as well as their academic self-concept. Such results highlight the relation between the implementation of DI and students’ non-academic outcomes ( Alnahdi et al., 2021 ). Roy et al. (2015) showed that teachers’ implementation of DI buffered the negative Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect (BFLPE) (i.e., the idea that high-achieving students feel motivated by their advantage over their lower-achieving peers, which can negatively affect low-achieving students’ academic self-concept). As a possible explanation, the authors assume that DI can function as a motivator for all students, as the educational offers are prepared in a way that every student can be involved in learning situations rather than comparing their own performance to that of others ( Roy et al., 2015 ). A more recent study by Kulakow (2020) , which compared two learning environments, revealed that students following a competency-based DI learning approach reported higher levels of academic self-concept over students engaged with the traditional learning approach.

Further Predictors of Students’ Well-Being, Social Inclusion and Academic Self-Concept

Students’ outcomes (in this case, students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept) can be influenced not only by variables on teachers’ level (teachers’ use of DI, as discussed beforehand) but also those on students’ level. One of the most investigated student-specific predictors in previous studies was students’ gender. For school well-being, previous literature results showed a positive effect on females ( Schneekloth and Anderesen, 2013 ; Walsen, 2013 ; Venetz et al., 2019 ). Similarly, based on the past research, girls felt higher levels of social inclusion compared to boys ( Ato et al., 2014 ; Krull et al., 2018 ). For students’ academic self-concept, however, it’s the opposite: girls showed lower levels of academic self-concept than boys ( Venetz et al., 2019 ).

Next to gender, having special education needs (SEN) was also discussed as a possible predictor of students’ outcomes. Results showed that students with SEN are more likely to be socially excluded than students without SEN ( Koster et al., 2010 ; Schwab, 2015 ; Avramidis et al., 2017 ; Avramidis et al., 2018 ). Quite clearly, students with SEN showed much lower levels of academic self-concept compared to their peers without SEN labels ( Bear et al., 2002 ; Cambra and Silvestre, 2003 ; Zeleke, 2004 ). For school well-being, however, the results were more unclear. Some study outcomes indicated lower levels of school well-being for students with SEN ( McCoy and Banks, 2012 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2016 ), while others did not investigate any group differences ( Venetz et al., 2019 ; Zurbriggen et al., 2018 ).

In addition to students’ level, context variables have been considered by previous studies, especially the school setting (e.g., special schools compared to regular schools). For instance, previous research identified that students with SEN who attend special schools have a more positive academic self-concept compared to students with SEN who attend regular schools ( Bear et al., 2002 ; Marsh et al., 2006 ; Knickenberg et al., 2019 ). For social inclusion and school well-being, Knickenberg et al. (2019) did not find any group differences between students with SEN attending special and those attending regular schools.

The Importance of Students’ Perspectives

In implementing an inclusive teaching practice, teachers plan and design learning situations to meet students’ educational needs. Therefore, they can be conceived as recipients of teachers’ pedagogical decisions and interventions. Against the background of this assumption, it seems inevitable that students’ perspectives be taken into account while investigating teaching and learning processes as well as their effectiveness, as the effects are consequences of measures aimed at satisfying students’ diverse educational needs ( Montuoro and Lewis, 2015 ). By highlighting students’ voices in the context of educational research, a distortion of the inclusive reality in classrooms can be prevented, as there is a risk of self-serving over-reporting strategies when it comes to the investigation of classroom phenomena by focusing of teacher samples ( Wallace et al., 2016 ; Faddar et al., 2018 ; Göllner et al., 2018 ).

Purpose and Research Question

Most research that explores the effectiveness of DI has mainly focused on investigating its impact on students’ achievement. Research which analyzes the impact of DI on students’ non-achievement outcomes are relatively limited ( Schwab and Alnahdi, 2020 ). As variables such as students’ school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept are also central objectives of inclusive education and education in general ( Schwab et al., 2020 ), it is necessary to address this research gap.

In this context, the aim of this study is to identify determinants of students’ school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept based on their teachers’ DI practice. With this background, the research question guiding this study is as follows:

Is teachers’ DI practice positively associated with students’ school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept?

Based on the existing research discussed in this paper, and as seen from Figure 1 , it is hypothesized that students’ perception of their teachers’ use of DI will predict their perceived school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept ( Alnahdi et al., 2021 ; Kulakow, 2020 ; Roy et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, it is assumed that female participants perceive a higher level of school well-being and social inclusion but a lower academic self-concept when in comparison with their male participants ( Schneekloth and Anderesen, 2013 ; Walsen, 2013 ; Venetz et al., 2019 ). In contrast, students with SEN perceive lower levels of school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Finally, it is expected that the class setting plays an important role on students’ socioemotional variables. Thus, it is hypothesized that participants in inclusive classes perceive higher levels of socioemotional well-being and academic self-concept ( Schwab et al., 2015a ; Hascher, 2017 ).

FIGURE 1 . Study’s research model.

Sampling and Sample

The analyses of this study were conducted using data from the ATIS-SI study (Attitudes towards Inclusion of Students with Disabilities related to Social Inclusion; Schwab, 2015 ). The ATIS-SI study is a longitudinal study with three measurement points and the main objective was to explore the relationships between attitudes SEN and social inclusion in primary and secondary education. Informed consent was obtained from participants and their parents, and the research was approved by the Styrian Regional School Authority. Depending on the class, the time required for filling out the paper-and-pencil questionnaire took approximately 40–50 min. Members from the research team supported students with difficulties (especially those with SEN) in order to ensure that all students understood the instructions. The third series of measurements (on which this study is based) took place at the end of the eight-school grade (May to June 2015) and which included within its instrumentation, scales that explore students’ academic self-concept.

A total of 32 eight grade secondary school classes across three Austrian states (Styria, Lower Austria and Burgenland) were contacted by telephone and asked whether they would be willing to take part in the study. From the 32 secondary school classes contacted, only 23 accepted to participate in the study. The current sample consisted of 379 eight grade (age = 13–15 years) students (49% male, 51% female). Here, 46% of the students were educated in inclusive classes, whereas 54% attended regular classes. Out of this sample, 36 students (n M = 23; n F = 13) were diagnosed as having SEN.

In Austria, students with SEN need an official label by the local educational authority in order to be eligible for additional resources ( Schwab et al., 2015b ). Thus, class teachers were asked to list all children in their class that were officially labelled as having SEN. In the current study, no subgroups were distinguished because of the low number of students with SEN types other than learning disabilities (e.g., behavioral disorders). Furthermore, given that neither school achievement or intelligence was assessed within this study, it was not possible to differentiate between levels of severity of SEN. This means that SEN in this study mostly refers to SEN regarding learning disabilities but also includes a small number of students with other disabilities.

Instruments

Students’ school well-being and social inclusion.

Students’ school well-being and social inclusion were measured using two subscales from the FEESS [Fragebogen zur Erhebung sozialer und emotionaler Schulerfahrungen/questionnaire for recording social and emotional school experiences] questionnaire by Rauer and Schuck (2003) . The original scale of “school well-being” consists of 14 items based on a 4-point-Likert scale (1 = not true at all to 4 = completely true ). However, for the current study, only 6 of the 14 items were used. Nonetheless, the reliability of the scale was high for the current sample (α = 0.91). The original scale of “social inclusion” consists of 11 items based on a 4-point-Likert scale (1 = not true at all to 4 = completely true). Nonetheless, for the present study, only six items were used (α = 0.83 for the current sample). Please refer to Table 1 to find the list of the items of each of the subscales selected for this study. It is important to highlight that earlier research using the FEESS subscales of school well-being and social inclusion have been found that the psychometric properties are suitable for students with and without special education needs in primary (e.g. Huber and Wilbert, 2012 ; Schwab et al., 2015c ; Heyder et al., 2020 ) as well as secondary grades (Frankenberg et al., 2016).

TABLE 1 . FEESS ( Rauer and Schuck, 2003 ): items selected for the current study.

Students’ Academic Self-Concept

Students’ academic self-concept was measuring using the general academic self-concept subscale from the SESSKO [Skalen zur Erfassung schulischen Selbstkonzepts/scales for recording the academic self-concept] questionnaire by Schöne, Dickhäuser, Spinath, and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2002) . The subscale consists of five items based on a 5-point-Likert scale (e.g., “I am”, 1 = not intelligent to 5 = intelligent ) (α = 0.88 for the current sample).

Students’ Ratings of their Teachers’ Use of DI

In order to measure students’ ratings of their teachers’ DI practice, the differentiated teaching scale by Gebhardt et al. (2014) (please refer to Table 2 ), which stems from previous work developed by Feyerer (1998) , was utilized. The scale consists of seven items and is based on a 5-point-Likert scale (e.g., “Higher achieving students get more difficult exercises”, 1 = never to 5 = always ) (α = 0.76 for the current sample).

TABLE 2 . English translation of the Differentiated Teaching Scale by Gebhardt et al. (2014) .

The nested structure of the data (students nested within classrooms) was considered by multilevel regression analyses (Level 2: classes, Level 1: individual student). As suggested by Ryu (2015) , all metric variables at Level 1, such as students’ ratings of their teachers’ DI practice and students’ school well-being, school inclusion and academic self-concept, were centered at the grand mean. Three different models were calculated for each outcome variable (school well-being, school inclusion and academic self-concept). For each of these three models, first, a model where no predictors were entered (model without any independent variables) was calculated to estimate the variance at Level 2. Following this, a model with predictors at the student level (gender, SEN, ratings of DI) and predictors at the class level (school setting) was calculated.

In relation to students’ reports of their teachers use of DI, the scale mean for the whole sample was 3.01 ( SD = 0.73). A t -test for dependent samples revealed that students’ ratings for their teachers’ use of DI did not significantly differ from the theoretical mean of the scale (M = 3, as the scale ranges from 1 to 5). This indicates that teachers make use of DI in the teaching practice rather occasionally.

For students’ social-emotional variables, t-tests for dependent samples indicated that students’ ratings of their school well-being [ t (377) = 9.02, p <.001], social inclusion [ t (377) = 36.85, p <.001] and academic self-concept [ t (375) = 16.79, p < 0.001] were significantly higher than the theoretical mean of the scale (M = 2.5 for well-being and social inclusion and M = 3 for academic self-concept). Such results imply that students experience higher school well-being, perceive higher values of social inclusion and have a greater academic self-concept.

Table 3 presents an overview of the means, standard deviations and the inter-correlations of all the variables. For dummy-coded variables, i.e., gender and school setting, point biserial correlation coefficients were calculated. However, for metric variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. Results show that students’ school well-being and social inclusion is higher in girls than in boys. Furthermore, classrooms with more differentiated instruction differentiated instruction correlates positively with students’ school well-being, social inclusion and global self-concept. Moreover, the correlation analysis indicates that students with SEN have significantly lower academic self-concepts. However, the school setting did not appear to be related to students’ school well-being, social inclusion or to their academic self-concept.

TABLE 3 . Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all scales.

For the subscale of “school well-being” (see Table 4 ), the model, without any predictor, showed that 13.5% of the variance (Wald z = 2.44, p < 0.05) is explained at the class level. In the following model with all predictors, students’ gender ( β = 0.30, SE = 0.08, t (352.91) = 3.66, p < 0.01) as well as ratings of teachers’ use of DI ( β = 0.26, SE = 0.06, t (347.98) = 4.40, p < 0.01) showed a significant influence on students’ individual level and explained a variance of around 52%. The results indicated that being female and rating the instruction as more differentiated is related to greater school well-being. However, students’ SEN status and school settings did not predict students’ school well-being.

TABLE 4 . Estimates of the multilevel regression analyses to predict attitudes towards school, social integration, and school concept (Model 2 with predictors).

For of the subscale of “social inclusion,” the first model without predictors showed that only 5.2% of the variance (Wald z = 1.61, n.s. ) is explained at the class level. This indicated that there is no significant variance at the class level. When entering all the predictors into Model 2, the analyses revealed that students’ gender ( β = 0.23, SE = 0.05, t (308.70) = 2.34, p <.05) and ratings of DI [ β = 0.14, SE = 0.04, t (223.12) = 3.81, p < 0.01] were significant predictors at Level 1 (see Table 4 ) and explained a variance of around 24%. In detail, being female and rating teachers’ instruction as more differentiated appeared to be associated with more positive social inclusion among students in a classroom.

Finally, in relation to the subscale of “academic self-concept,” the first model without any predictors did not explain any variance at all, indicating that there was no significant variance at the class level. The second model, introducing all the predictors, revealed that the predictors of students’ SEN status [ β = −0.41, SE = 0.14, t (352) = −2.96, p < 0.01) and ratings of DI [ β = 0.18, SE = 0.06, t (352) = 3.19, p < 0.01) had a significant influence at students’ individual level and explained a variance of around 55%. Not having a SEN and rating the instruction as more differentiated seemed to be related to a higher academic self-concept (see Table 4 ). All other predictors were not significant.

Inclusive education aims to support every student’s achievement outcome as well as non-achievement outcome (e.g., social-emotional outcome, social development) (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017; Zurbriggen et al., 2021 ). However, at present, empirical evidence supporting the impact of DI on students’ non-achievement outcomes is scarce ( Schwab et al., 2020 ). The present study has analyzed predictors of students’ school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept by looking at students’ individual characteristics (gender, SEN status, ratings of their teachers’ DI practice) and classroom factors (school setting) in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the predictors of students’ non-achievement outcomes.

As a result, seventh-grade students from Austria perceive that their teachers infrequently implement DI. Although there appears to be intercountry differences regarding teachers’ DI implementation ( van de Grift et al., 2017 ; Maulana et al., 2020 ), this result is consistent with previous international studies, which have indicated that, in general, teachers rarely differentiate their instruction ( De Neve et al., 2015 ; Schleicher, 2016 ; Pozas and Schneider, 2019 ; van Geel et al., 2019 ). This result is not surprising given the fact that the literature has highlighted the practice of DI as a relatively demanding and challenging approach ( Gaitas and Alves Martins, 2016 ; van Geel et al., 2019 ). Bearing in mind that DI has been conceptualized as a domain of teaching quality ( Maulana et al., 2020 ) and that empirical evidence has revealed it to be a typical teaching behavior of highly effective teachers ( van de Grift et al., 2017 ), it is important to focus on strategies to guide and coach teachers to develop and improve their DI practice.

In line with previous research, descriptive results further indicated that students reported relatively high ratings of school-wellbeing, social inclusion and academic self-concept ( Alnahdi and Schwab, 2020 ; Schwab and Alnahdi, 2020 ; Zubriggen et al., 2021 ). However, high mean scores do not automatically imply that all students are reaching satisfying levels in their socio-emotional well-being. In detail, within the present sample, a total of 12% of the students would be considered to be at risk. Therefore, students’ social-emotional well-being should also be an important point of focus for at-risk students, and appropriate prevention and intervention strategies are necessary to be implemented.

The effects of student and classroom variables as determinants of students’ school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept constitute the research goal of this specific study, as they were focused on less often in other studies. The results of the multilevel analyses showed that only the subscale of “school well-being” had a significant variance at the class level. Both literature and research have emphasized that school well-being is an outcome of inclusion ( Schwab, 2015 ; Hascher, 2017 ). According to Hascher and Lobsang (2004) , students’ school well-being is strongly determined by the social relationships among students. Hence, the results emphasize the argument that both the individual and the contextual (classrooms) are decisive for the development and fostering of students’ well-being ( Rossetti, 2012 ; Garotte, 2016 ; Hascher, 2017 ). For the other two subscales, the results from the multilevel analyses lead to the conclusion that social inclusion and academic self-concept are determined by variables at the individual students’ level. In particular, for students’ academic self-concept, such a result seems to be in line with the outcome from ( Roy et al., 2015 ) study. However, this result is very surprising, as effects, such as Effect (BFLPE; Marsh et al., 2008 ; Seaton et al., 2010 ) would rather suggest a strong influence of the context.

While focusing on the predictors at the individual level, variables that were noted to significantly contribute to predicting students’ school well-being and social inclusion were gender and DI. In detail, the findings are in line with previous studies, which revealed that girls hold higher levels of school well-being ( Schneekloth and Anderesen, 2013 ; Walsen, 2013 ) and more positive experiences of social inclusion ( Ato et al., 2014 ; Krull et al., 2018 ). Surprisingly, students’ SEN status did not have affect their school-wellbeing and social inclusion. Additionally, and interestingly, students’ ratings of their teachers’ DI implementation were found to be a significant predictor. A possible explanation for this result might be the fact that students feel more appreciated and included in the social, emotional and academic classroom setting when they perceive their teachers’ ambition to provide adequate teaching and learning stimuli for them ( Lindner et al., 2019 ). Hence, it can be assumed that teachers’ didactic adaption of teaching and learning processes to the individual needs of students in a class directly affects their school-wellbeing, social inclusion and academic self-concept in a positive way. As a significant part of DI includes organizational aspects, such as using elaborated practices to group students ( Vaughn et al., 2007a ), more positive contact experiences between peers might result due to the implementation of this practice. Theoretically underpinned within the inter-group contact theory ( Allport, 1954 ; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2000 ), it can be assumed that positive contact between peers leads to higher levels of social inclusion. Further, students’ school well-being is strongly determined by social relationships among students ( Hascher and Lobsang, 2004 ), which might moderate the effect between school well-being and DI. A possible explanation may be that as DI seeks to match teaching to students’ individual abilities ( Roy et al., 2015 ), guided by their needs and interests ( Nusser and Gehrer, 2020 ), and pertains to cooperative practices as well as the choice regarding whom to work in a group with ( Juvonen et al., 2019 ; Zurbriggen et al., 2021 ), such a teaching approach could foster positive attitudes and social interaction and facilitate caring and supporting interactions among classmates.

With regard to academic self-concept, multilevel analyses revealed that, unsurprisingly, students’ SEN status and their ratings on their ratings of their teachers’ DI practice contributed significantly as predictors. Consistent with previous research, the findings from this study indicate that students with SEN have a lower academic self-concept compared to their classmates without SEN ( Venetz et al., 2015 ; DeVries et al., 2018 ; Knickenberg et al., 2019 ; Alnahdi and Schwab, 2020 ). A practical need addressed with this finding might be the great importance of using an individual reference standard orientation while providing feedback to students with SEN in inclusive classes. According to the BFLPE, students are referring to their own perception of their achievement with the mean achievement of their peers. Certainly, having SEN usually indicates lower achievement compared to peers. Therefore, it is important for such students to also realize their individual improvement of competencies and not be solely compared with their peers. An important result is the fact that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ DI implementation significantly predict academic self-concept. A previous study by Kulakow (2020) , which explored differentiated learning activities by means of competence-based learning, indicated that students following such an approach reported higher levels of academic self-concept. Thus, taken together, all these findings indicate that differentiated practices matching students’ abilities are significant in decreasing peer comparisons and foster self-assessments of ability ( Roy et al., 2015 ). However, in a study by Roy et al. (2015) , this effect was revealed to be significant only for low-achieving students. Comparing the present results with the results of ( Roy et al., 2015) , it is not possible to state whether low-achieving students benefit from the practice of DI, mainly due to the fact that the data did not permit the attainment of such differentiated results. At the very least, it can be assumed that for students with SEN, providing DI may not be enough to reduce social comparison and offset the BFLPE. More longitudinal research is required in order to explore this notion in greater depth.

While interpreting the present results, one has to keep in mind that this study has several limitations. First, the present study is based solely on cross-sectional results. Consequently, causality of the results cannot be determined. Further studies with a longitudinal design are required to investigate the causal influences of DI on students’ school-wellbeing, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Additionally, it is also recommended that the variable of students’ performance be included as a control variable in such longitudinal studies. Following such a design, it would be possible to explore the casual relationships between teachers’ DI practice and students’ achievement and non-achievement outcomes. A second limitation concerns the assessment of teachers’ DI practices by means of student reports. Although surveys addressing students’ perspectives are economical, recommended in research and possess validity ( Butler, 2012 ), it is possible that students might incorrectly assess their teachers’ differentiation practice, given their lack of didactical knowledge. In this context, Fauth et al., (2014) argued that different dimensions of instructional practices cannot be observed in the same way. However, based on the study results, Schwab and Alnahdi (2020) argued that solely using teachers’ ratings or judgements as a substitution of students’ own perceptions would be inappropriate. Thus, it is strongly suggested that future studies integrate all stakeholders’ perspectives, i.e., the perspectives of students and teachers. Moreover, in order to gain more in-depth data, it would be prudent to use a combined research methodology, for example, quantitative data (e.g., questionnaires) and qualitative data (e.g., interviews, classroom observations). In particular, teacher interviews could shed light on how the teachers plan and design a differentiated lesson. This might provide deeper insights into teachers’ purposes or intentions behind using particular DI practices. On the other hand, to obtain a broader picture of students’ perceptions and how they are influenced by DI, research could use the experience sampling method and assess students’ emotional experiences. A third limitation is the small sample size of students with SEN. This limited the opportunity to obtain differentiated results between students with different kinds of SEN.

Outcomes of inclusive schooling are not limited to students’ academic achievement but are also relevant to their well-being at school, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Moreover, several researchers have emphasized that in order to understand students’ needs, it is of upmost importance to listen to students’ own perspectives. However, till now, studies that use students’ own voices and those which empirically explore the link between DI and their school well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept have been quite limited. The present study addressed such issues in the existing literature and provided evidence on the significant role that teachers’ practice of DI can have on fostering students’ socio-emotional outcomes. With this background, the findings from this study urge for more research to be conducted into the topic in order to secure a detailed depiction of how the practice of DI influences students’ outcomes. This, in return, will serve as empirical evidence and solidify the effectiveness and usefulness of DI.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data contains information that could compromise research participant privacy and/or consent. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Susanne Schwab.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Regional school authorities of Styria, Lower Austria, and Burgenland. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

The research concern as well as the interpretation and discussion were developed in a joint involvement of all the authors. MP focused on the development of ideas and was significantly involved in the data analysis and drafting of the results. VL dealt with the evaluation of the data and their interpretation and discussion. MP and VL together established a draft of the discussion sections. K-TL was responsible for the literature research, the consolidation of all ideas and the writing of the introduction and theoretical background. SS supported the research of literature and was responsible for data collection and development of the aim, focus and discussion section of the paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Svenja Hoffmann for her valuable contribution and support.

Ainscow, M., and Messiou, K. (2018). Engaging with the Views of Students to Promote Inclusion in Education. J. Educ. Change 19 (1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10833017-9312-110.1007/s10833-017-9312-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice . New York: Doubleday Anchor Books .

Google Scholar

Alnahdi, G. H., and Schwab., S. (2020). Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of the Behavioral Intention to Interact with Peers with Intellectual Disability Scale. Front. Psychol. 11, 1212. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01212

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alnahdi, G. H., Lindner, K.-T., Elhadi, A., and Schwab, S. (2021). Students’ Perception of Inclusion and Inclusive Teaching Practices in Saudi Arabia .

Ato, E., Galián, M. D., and Fernández-Vilar, M. A. (2014). Gender as predictor of social rejection: the mediating/moderating role of effortful control and parenting. [El género como predictor de rechazo social: el papel mediador/moderador del control con esfuerzo y crianza de los hijos]. analesps 30 (3), 1069–1078. doi:10.6018/analesps.30.3.193171

Avramidis, E., Avgeri, G., and Strogilos, V. (2018). Social Participation and friendship Quality of Students with Special Educational Needs in Regular Greek Primary Schools. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 33 (2), 221–234. doi:10.1080/08856257.2018.1424779

Avramidis, E., Strogilos, V., Aroni, K., and Kantaraki, C. T. (2017). Using Sociometric Techniques to Assess the Social Impacts of Inclusion: Some Methodological Considerations. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 68–80. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.004

Bear, G. G., Minke, K. M., and Manning, M. A. (2002). Self-Concept of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 31 (3), 405–427. doi:10.1080/02796015.2002.12086165

Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., and Zusho, A. (2019). How Does Changing "One-Size-Fits-All" to Differentiated Instruction Affect Teaching? Rev. Res. Edu. 43 (1), 336–362. doi:10.3102/0091732X18821130

Butler, R. (2012). Striving to Connect: Extending an Achievement Goal Approach to Teacher Motivation to Include Relational Goals for Teaching. J. Educ. Psychol. 104 (3), 726–742. doi:10.1037/a0028613

Cambra, C., and Silvestre, N. (2003). Students with Special Educational Needs in the Inclusive Classroom: Social Integration and Self-Concept. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 18 (2), 197–208. doi:10.1080/0885625032000078989

De Neve, D., Devos, G., and Tuytens, M. (2015). The Importance of Job Resources and Self-Efficacy for Beginning Teachers' Professional Learning in Differentiated Instruction. Teach. Teach. Edu. 47, 30–41. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.003

Decristan, J., Fauth, B., Kunter, M., Büttner, G., and Klieme, E. (2017). The Interplay between Class Heterogeneity and Teaching Quality in Primary School. Int. J. Educ. Res. 86, 109–121. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.004

Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., and Bosker, R. J. (2018). Effective Differentiation Practices:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies on the Cognitive Effects of Differentiation Practices in Primary Education. Educ. Res. Rev. 24, 31–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002

DeVries, J. M., Voß, S., and Gebhardt, M. (2018). Do Learners with Special Education Needs Really Feel Included? Evidence from the Perception of Inclusion Questionnaire and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Res. Dev. Disabil. 83, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.007

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017). European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education: 2014 Dataset Cross-Country Report.” Unpublished Manuscript. Available at: https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/european-agency-statistics-inclusive-education-2014-dataset-cross-country (last modified January 06, 2020).

Faddar, J., Vanhoof, J., and de Maeyer, S. (2018). School Self-Evaluation: Self-Perception or Self-Deception? the Impact of Motivation and Socially Desirable Responding on Self-Evaluation Results. Sch. effectiveness Sch. improvement 29 (1), 660–678. doi:10.1080/09243453.2018.1504802

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., and Büttner, G. (2014). Grundschulunterricht aus Schüler-, Lehrer- und Beobachterperspektive: Zusammenhänge und Vorhersage von Lernerfolg*. Z. für Pädagogische Psychol. 28 (3), 127–137. doi:10.1024/1010-0652/a000129

Feyerer, E. (1998). Behindern Behinderte? Integrativer Unterricht Auf Der Sekundarstufe I. Innsbruck . Innsbruck, Austria: Studien-Verlag .

Gaitas, S., and Alves Martins, M. (2016). Teacher Perceived Difficulty in Implementing Differentiated Instructional Strategies in Primary School. Int. J. Inclusive Edu. 21 (5), 544–556. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1223180

Garotte, A. (2016). Soziale Teilhabe Von Kindern in Inklusiven Klassen. Empirische Pädagogik 30 (1), 67–80.

Gebhardt, M., Schwab, S., Krammer, M., Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., and Sälzer, C. (2014). Erfassung von individualisiertem Unterricht in der Sekundarstufe I Eine Quantitative Überprüfung der Skala „Individualisierter Unterricht" in zwei Schuluntersuchungen in der Steiermark. Z. F Bildungsforsch 4 (3), 303–316. doi:10.1007/s35834-014-0095-7

Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., and Kim, M. (2015). School Instructional Climate and Student Achievement: An Examination of Group Norms for Differentiated Instruction. Am. J. Edu. 122 (1), 111–131. doi:10.1086/683293

Göllner, R., Wagner, W., Eccles, J. S., and Trautwein, U. (2018). Students’ Idiosyncratic Perceptions of Teaching Quality in Mathematics: A Result of Rater Tendency Alone or an Expression of Dyadic Effects between Students and Teachers? J. Educ. Psychol. 110 (5), 709–725. doi:10.1037/edu00

Hascher, T. (2017). “Die Bedeutung Von Wohlbefinden Und Sozialklima Für Inklusion,” in Profile Für Die Schul- Und Unterrichtsentwicklung in Deutschland, Österreich Und Der Schweiz . Editors B. Lütje-Klose, S. Miller, S. Schwab, and B. Streese (Münster: Waxmann ), 69–79.

Hascher, T., and Lobsang, K. (2004). “Das Wohlbefinden Von SchülerInnen - Faktoren, Die Es Stärken Und Solche, Die Es Schwächen,” in Schule Positiv Erleben: Erkenntnisse Und Ergebnisse Zum Wohlbefinden Von Schülerinnen Und Schülern . Editor T. Hascher (Bern: Haupt ), 203–228.

Heyder, A., Südkamp, A., and Steinmayr, R. (2020). How Are Teachers' Attitudes toward Inclusion Related to the Social-Emotional School Experiences of Students with and without Special Educational Needs? Learn. Individual Differences 77, 101776. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101776

Huber, C., and Wilbert, J. (2012). Soziale Ausgrenzung von Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf und niedrigen Schulleistungen im gemeinsamen Unterricht [Social exclusion of students with special educational needs and low academic achievement placed in general education classrooms]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik 4 (2), 147–165.

Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., and Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings: Challenges and Opportunities. Educ. Psychol. 54 (4), 250–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2019.1655645

Kärner, T., Warwas, J., Krannich, M., and Weichsler, N. (2021). How Does Information Consistency Influence Prospective Teachers' Decisions about Task Difficulty Assignments? A Within-Subject experiment to Explain Data-Based Decision-Making in Heterogeneous Classes. Learn. Instruction 74 (3), 101440. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101440

Knickenberg, M., L. A. Zurbriggen, C., Venetz, M., Schwab, S., and Gebhardt, M. (2019). Assessing Dimensions of Inclusion from Students' Perspective - Measurement Invariance across Students with Learning Disabilities in Different Educational Settings. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 35 (3), 287–302. doi:10.1080/08856257.2019.1646958

Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., and Van Houten, E. (2010). Social Participation of Students with Special Needs in Regular Primary Education in the Netherlands. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Edu. 57 (1), 59–75. doi:10.1080/10349120903537905

Krull, J., Wilbert, J., and Hennemann, T. (2018). Does Social Exclusion by Classmates Lead to Behaviour Problems and Learning Difficulties or Vice Versa? A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 33 (2), 235–253. doi:10.1080/08856257.2018.1424780

Kulakow, S. (2020). Academic Self-Concept and Achievement Motivation Among Adolescent Students in Different Learning Environments: Does Competence-Support Matter? Learn. Motiv. 70 (3), 101632. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101632

Lindner, K.-H., Alnahdi, G. H., Wahl, S., and Schwab, S. (2019). Perceived Differentiation and Personalization Teaching Approaches in Inclusive Classrooms: Perspectives of Students and Teachers. Front. Edu. 4. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00058

Lindner, K.-T., and Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and Individualisation in Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. Int. J. Inclusive Edu. , 1–21. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450

Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., and Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of Differentiated Reading Instruction on Student Achievement in Middle School. J. Adv. Academics 25 (4), 384–402. doi:10.1177/1932202X14549250

Loreman, T. (2017). Pedagogy for Inclusive Education . Oxford: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education .

Marsh, H. W., Tracey, D. K., and Craven, R. G. (2006). Multidimensional Self-Concept Structure for Preadolescents with Mild Intellectual Disabilities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66 (5), 795–818. doi:10.1177/0013164405285910

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., and Köller, O. (2008). Social Comparison and Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effects on Self-Concept and Other Self-Belief Constructs: Role of Generalized and Specific Others. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 510–524. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.510

Maulana, R., Smale-Jacobse, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., Chun, S., and Lee, O. (2020). Measuring Differentiated Instruction in the Netherlands and South Korea: Factor Structure Equivalence, Correlates, and Complexity Level. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 35 (4), 881–909. doi:10.1007/s10212-019-00446-4

McCoy, S., and Banks, J. (2012). Simply Academic? Why Children with Special Educational Needs Don't like School. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 27 (1), 81–97. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.640487

McMurray, S., and Thompson, R. (2016). Inclusion, Curriculum and the Rights of the Child. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 16 (S1), 634–638. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.119510.1111/1471-3802.12195

Montuoro, P., and Lewis, R. (2015). “Student Perceptions of Misbehavior and Classroom Management,” in Handbook of Classroom Management . Editors E. T. Emmer, and E. J. Sabornie (New York: Routledge ), 344–62.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Nusser, L., and Gehrer, K. (2020). Addressing Heterogeneity in Secondary Education: Who Benefits from Differentiated Instruction in German Classes? Int. J. Inclusive Edu. , 1–18. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.1862407

Petersen, A. (2016). Perspectives of Special Education Teachers on General Education Curriculum Access. Res. Pract. Persons Severe Disabilities 41, 19–35. doi:10.1177/1540796915604835

Pettigrew, T. F., and Tropp, L. R. (2000). “Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice: Recent Meta-Analytic Findings,” in The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology" Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination . Editor S. Oskamp ( Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers ), 93–114.

Pit-ten Cate, I. M., Markova, M., Krischler, M., and Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2018). Promoting Inclusive Education: The Role of Teachers' Competence and Attitudes. Insights into Learn. Disabilites 15 (1), 49–63.

Pozas, M., and Letzel, V. (2019). 'I Think They Need to Rethink Their Concept!': Examining Teachers' Sense of Preparedness to deal with Student Heterogeneity. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 35 (3), 366–381. doi:10.1080/08856257.2019.1689717

Pozas, M., Letzel, V., and Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and Differentiated Instruction: Exploring Differentiation Practices to Address Student Diversity. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 20 (3), 217–230. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12481

Pozas, M., and Schneider, C. (2019). Shedding Light into the Convoluted Terrain of Differentiated Instruction: Proposal of a Taxonomy of Within-Class Differentiation in the Heterogeneous Classroom. Open Edu. Stud.

Prast, Emilie. J., Eva van de Weijer-Bergsmaa, , Kroesbergena, Evelyn. H., Van Luit, J., and Johannes, E. H. (2015). Readiness-Based Differentiation in Primary School Mathematics: Expert Recommendations and Teacher Self-Assessment. Frontline Learn. Res. 3 (2), 90–116. doi:10.14786/flr.v3i2.163

Rauer, W., and Schuck, K. D. (2003). Fragebogen Zur Erfassung Emotionaler Und Sozialer Schulerfahrungen Von Grundschulkindern Erster Und Zweiter Klassen . Göttingen: Beltz .

Rossetti, Z. S. (2012). Helping or Hindering: The Role of Secondary Educators in Facilitating Friendship Opportunities Among Students with and without Autism or Developmental Disability. Int. J. Inclusive Edu. 16 (12), 1259–1272. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.557448

Roy, A., Guay, F., and Valois, P. (2015). The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect on Academic Self-Concept: The Moderating Role of Differentiated Instruction and Individual Achievement. Learn. Individual Differences 42 (2), 110–116. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.009

Ryu, E. (2015). Multiple-Group Analysis Approach to Testing Group Difference in Indirect Effects. Behav. Res. Methods 47 (2), 484–493. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0485-8

Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching Excellence Trough Professional Learning and Policy Reform: Lessons from Around the World, International Summit on the Teaching Professions . Paris: OECD Publishing .

Schneekloth, U., and Andersen, S. (2013). “Was Fair Und Was Unfair Ist: Die Verschiedenen Gesichter Von Gerechtigkeit,” in Kinder in Deutschland 2013: 3. World Vision Kinderstudie (Weinheim: Beltz ), 48–78. World Vision Deutschland

Schöne, C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., and Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2002). Skalen Zur Erfassung Des Schulischen Selbstkonzepts - SESSKO . Göttingen: Hogrefe .

Schwab, S., Rossmann, P., Tanzer, N., Hagn, J., Oitzinger, S., Thurner, V., et al. (2015b). School Well-Being of Students with and without Special Educational Needs-Aa Comparison of Students in Inclusive and Regular Classes. Z. Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother 43, 265–274. doi:10.1024/1422-4917/a000363

Schwab, S., Zurbriggen, C. L. A., Venetz, M., and Martin, Venetz. (2020). Agreement Among Student, Parent and Teacher Ratings of School Inclusion: A Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis. J. Sch. Psychol. 82, 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2020.07.003

Schwab, S., and Alnahdi, G. (2020). Do they Practise what They Preach? Factors Associated with Teachers' Use of Inclusive Teaching Practices Among In‐service Teachers. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 20 (4), 321–330. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12492

Schwab, S., Hessels, M. G. P., Obendrauf, T., Polanig, M. C., and Wölflingseder, L. (2015a). Assessing Special Educational Needs in Austria: Description of Labeling Practices and Their Evolution from 1996 to 2013. J. Cogn. Educ. Psych 14 (3), 329–342. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.14.3.329

Schwab, S., Holzinger, A., Krammer, M., Gebhardt, M., and Hessels, M. G. P. (2015c). Teaching Practices and Beliefs about In-Clusion of General and Special Needs Teachers in Austria. A Contemp. J. 13, 237–254.

Schwab, S. (2020). Inclusive and Special Education in Europe . Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education Oxford University Press . doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1230Inclusive and Special Education in Europe

Schwab, S. (2015). Social Dimensions of Inclusion in Education of 4th and 7th Grade Pupils in Inclusive and Regular Classes: Outcomes from Austria. Res. Dev. Disabilities 43-44, 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.06.005

Seaton, M., Marsh, H. W., and Craven, R. G. (2010). Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect. Am. Educ. Res. J. 47, 390–433. doi:10.3102/0002831209350493

Skrzypiec, G., Askell-Williams, H., Slee, P., and Rudzinski, A. (2016). Students with Self-Identified Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Si-SEND): Flourishing or Languishing!. Int. J. Disabil. Dev. Edu. 63 (1), 7–26. doi:10.1080/1034912x.2015.1111301

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated Instruction in Secondary Education: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence. Front. Psychol. 10, 2366. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Smit, R., and Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated Instruction in Small Schools. Teach. Teach. Edu. 28 (8), 1152–1162. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.003

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., and Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says about the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K-12 Students' Academic Achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 849–899. doi:10.3102/0034654316675417

Suprayogi, M. N., and Valcke, M. (2016). Differentiated Instruction in Primary Schools: Implementation and Challenges in Indonesia. Ponte 72 (6), 2–18. doi:10.21506/j.ponte.2016.6.1

Tomlinson, C. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners , 2. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD . Auflage.

UNESCO (2020). “Global Education.” Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education: All Means All .

Valiandes, S. (2015). Evaluating the Impact of Differentiated Instruction on Literacy and reading in Mixed Ability Classrooms: Quality and Equity Dimensions of Education Effectiveness. Stud. Educ. Eval. 45, 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.005

van de Grift, W. J. C. M., Chun, S., Maulana, R., Lee, O., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Helms-Lorenz, Michelle. (2017). Measuring Teaching Quality and Student Engagement in South Korea and the Netherlands. Sch. effectiveness Sch. improvement 28 (3), 337–349. doi:10.1080/09243453.2016.1263215

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., and Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the Complexity of Differentiated Instruction. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 30, 51–67. doi:10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., and Linan-Thompson, S. (2007a). “Prevention and Early Identification of Students with Reading Disabilities,” in Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention . Editors D. Haager, J. Klinger, and S. Vaughn (Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing ), 11–28.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., and Denton, C. A. (2007b). “"Teaching Elementary Students Who Experience Difficulties in Learning,” in The SAGE Handbook of Special Education . Editor L. Florian (Trowbridge: The Cromwell Press Ltd ), 360–377.

Venetz, M., Zurbriggen, C. L. A., and Schwab, S. (2019). What Do Teachers Think about Their Students' Inclusion? Consistency of Students' Self-Reports and Teacher Ratings. Front. Psychol. 10, 1637. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01637

Venetz, M., Carmen, L. A., Eckhart, Z. M., Schwab, S., and Hessels, M. G. P. (2015). The Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ). Available at: https://piqinfo.ch/ (Accessed June 17, 2021).

Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., and Ruzek, E. (2016). What Can Student Perception Surveys Tell Us about Teaching? Empirically Testing the Underlying Structure of the Tripod Student Perception Survey. Am. Educ. Res. J. 53 (6), 1834–1868. doi:10.3102/0002831216671864

Walsen, J. C. (2013). Das Wohlbefinden Von Grundschulkindern: Soziale Und Emotionale Schulerfahrung in Der Primarstufe . Oldenburg: Universität Oldenburg .

Zeleke *, S. (2004). Self‐concepts of Students with Learning Disabilities and Their Normally Achieving Peers: a Review. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 19 (2), 145–170. doi:10.1080/08856250410001678469

Zurbriggen, C. L. A., Hofmann, V., Lehofer, M., and Schwab, S. (2021). Social Classroom Climate and Personalised Instruction as Predictors of Students' Social Participation. Int. J. Inclusive Edu. 30 (1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/13603116.2021.1882590

Zurbriggen, C. L. A., Venetz, M., and Hinni., C. (2018). The Quality of Experience of Students with and without Special Educational Needs in Everyday Life and when Relating to Peers. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Edu. 33 (2), 205–220. doi:10.1080/08856257.2018.1424777

Keywords: inclusive education, differentiated instruction (DI), students’ perception, school well-being, social inclusion, academic self-concept

Citation: Pozas M, Letzel V, Lindner K-T and Schwab S (2021) DI (Differentiated Instruction) Does Matter! The Effects of DI on Secondary School Students’ Well-Being, Social Inclusion and Academic Self-Concept. Front. Educ. 6:729027. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.729027

Received: 22 June 2021; Accepted: 16 November 2021; Published: 10 December 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Pozas, Letzel, Lindner and Schwab. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Katharina-Theresa Lindner, [email protected] ; Susanne Schwab, [email protected]

Differentiated Instruction as an Approach to Establish Effective Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

• Open Access
• First Online: 28 June 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Esther Gheyssens   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4871-6780 4 , 5 ,
• Júlia Griful-Freixenet   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-9617 5 , 6 &
• Katrien Struyven   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6562-2172 5 , 7  

11k Accesses

2 Citations

Differentiated Instruction has been promoted as a model to create more inclusive classrooms by addressing individual learning needs and maximizing learning opportunities. Whilst differentiated instruction was originally interpreted as a set of teaching practices, theories now consider differentiated instruction rather a pedagogical model with philosophical and practical components than the simple act of differentiating. However, do teachers also consider differentiated instruction as a model of teaching? This chapter is based on a doctoral thesis that adopted differentiated instruction as an approach to establish effective teaching in inclusive classrooms. The first objective of the dissertation focused on how differentiated instruction is perceived by teachers and resulted in the DI-Quest model. This model, based on a validated questionnaire towards differentiated instruction, pinpoints different factors that explain differences in the adoption of differentiated instruction. The second objective focused on how differentiated instruction is implemented. This research consisted of four empirical studies using two samples of teachers and mixed method. The results of four empirical studies of this dissertation are discussed and put next to other studies and literature about differentiation. The conclusions highlight the importance of teachers’ philosophy when it comes to implementing differentiated instruction, the importance of perceiving and implementing differentiated instruction as a pedagogical model and the importance and complexity of professional development with regard to differentiated instruction.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Differentiated Instruction, Perceptions and Practices

Measuring differentiated instruction in The Netherlands and South Korea: factor structure equivalence, correlates, and complexity level

Defining differentiation in cyber schools: what online teachers say.

• Differentiated instruction
• Effective teaching
• Inclusive classrooms

1 Introduction

Differentiated Instruction (DI) has been promoted as a model to facilitate more inclusive classrooms by addressing individual learning needs and maximizing learning opportunities (Gheyssens et al., 2020c ). DI aims to establish maximal learning opportunities by differentiating the instruction in terms of content, process, and product in accordance with students their readiness, interests and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2017 ). This chapter is based on a doctoral thesis that adopted DI as an approach to establish effective teaching in inclusive classrooms. This doctoral dissertation consisted of four empirical studies towards the conceptualisation and implementation of DI (Gheyssens, 2020 ). This chapter summarizes the most important results of this dissertation and includes three parts. First the conceptualisation of DI is discussed. Second, we discuss literature findings regarding the effectiveness of DI. Third, the results of the studies about the implementation of DI are discussed. Finally, based on the previous parts some recommendations for implementation are presented.

2 Conceptualisation of Differentiated Instruction

2.1 defining differentiated instruction.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an approach that aims to meet the learning needs of all students in mixed ability classrooms by establishing maximal learning and differentiating instruction with regard to content, process and product in accordance with student needs in terms of their readiness (i.e., student’s proximity to specified learning goal), interests (i.e., passions, affinities that motivate learning) and learning profiles (i.e., preferred approaches to learning) (Tomlinson, 2014 ). Whilst DI was originally interpreted as a set of teaching practices or simplified as the act of differentiating (e.g. van Kraayenoord, 2007 ; Tobin, 2006 ), it is evolved towards a pedagogical model with philosophical and practical components (Gheyssens, 2020 ). This model is rooted in the belief that diversity is present in every classroom and that teachers should adjust their education accordingly (Tomlinson, 1999 ). Tomlinson ( 2017 ) states that DI is an approach where teachers are proactive and focus on common goals for each student by providing them with multiple options in anticipation of and in response to differences in readiness, interest, and learning needs (Tomlinson, 2017 ). From this perspective, differentiation refers to an educational process where students are made accountable for their abilities, talents, learning pace, and personal interests (Op ‘t Eynde, 2004 ). This means that teachers proactively plan varied activities addressing what students need to learn, how they will learn it, and how they show what they have learned. This increases the likelihood that each student will learn as much as he or she can as efficiently as possible (Tomlinson, 2005 ). Moreover, DI emphasizes the needs of both advanced and struggling learners in mixed-ability classroom. In more detail, Bearne ( 2006 ) and Tomlinson ( 1999 ) consider differentiation as an approach to teaching in which teachers proactively adjust curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and student product so that various student’s needs are satisfied (individuals or small groups) and every student is provided with maximum learning opportunities (in Tomlinson et al., 2003 ).

2.2 The DI-Quest Model

Considering DI as a pedagogical model rather than as a set of teaching strategies became also clear in the validity study of Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) when they tried to measure DI empirically. Their research resulted in the so-called ‘DI-Quest model’, based on the DI-questionnaire the researchers developed for investigating DI. This model pinpoints different factors that explain differences in the adoption of differentiated instruction (Coubergs et al., 2017 ). It was inspired by the differentiated instruction model developed by Tomlinson ( 2014 ), which presents a step by step process demonstrating how a teacher moves from thinking about DI toward implementing it in the classroom. According to this model, the teacher can differentiate content, process, product, and environments to respond to different needs in learning based on students’ readiness, learning profiles, and interests. Tomlinson ( 2014 ) also stipulates that, to respond adequately to students’ learning needs, teachers should apply general classroom principles such as respectful tasks, flexible grouping, and ongoing assessment and adjustment. In contrast with Tomlinson’s well-known DI model, which also contains concepts relating to good teaching, the DI-Quest model distinguishes teachers who use DI less often from those who use it more often (Gheyssens et al., 2020c ). The DI-Quest model comprises five factors. The five factors are presented in three categories. The key factor, similar to Tomlinson’s ( 2014 ) model, is adapting teaching to students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles. This is the main factor because it represents the ‘core business’ of differentiating: the teachers adapt his/her teaching to three essential differences in learning. The second and third factors represent DI as a philosophy. The fourth and fifth factor represent differentiated strategies in the classroom (Fig. 30.1 ). Below the figure the different factors are discussed on detail.

The DI-Quest model

2.2.1 Adaptive Teaching

Adaptive teaching illustrates that the teacher provides various options to enable students to acquire information, digest, and express their understanding in accordance with their readiness, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2001 ). Differences in learning profiles are described by Tomlinson and colleagues ( 2003 , p. 129) as “a student’s preferred mode of learning that can be affected by a number of factors, including learning style, intelligence preference and culture.” Applying different learning profiles positively influences the effectiveness of learning because students get the opportunity to lean the way they learn best. Responding to student interests also appears to be related to more positive learning experiences, both in the short and long term (Woolfolk, 2010 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Ryan and Deci ( 2000 ) claimed that understanding what motivates students will help develop interest, joy, and perseverance during the learning process. Thus, investing in differences in interests increases learning motivation among students. Taking account of students’ readiness can also lead to higher academic achievement. Readiness focuses on differences arising from a student’s learning position relative to the learning goals that are to be attained (Woolfolk, 2010 ). When taking students’ readiness into account enables every student to attain the learning objectives in accordance with their learning pace and position (Gheyssens et al., 2021 ).

2.2.2 Philosophy of DI

The first philosophical factor to consider is the ‘growth mindset’. Tomlinson ( 2001 ) addressed the concept of mindset in her DI model by stating that a teacher’s mindset can affect the successful implementation of differentiated instruction (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2011 ). Teachers with a growth mindset set high goals for their students and believe that every student is able to achieve success when they show commitment and engagement (Dweck, 2006 ). The second philosophical factor is the ‘ethical compass’. This envisions the use of curriculum, textbooks, and other external influences as a compass for teaching rather than observations of the student (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). An ethical compass that focuses on the student embodies the development of meaningful learning outcomes, devises assessments in line with these, and creates engaging lesson plans designed to enhance students’ proficiency in achieving their learning goals (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). Research on self-reported practices demonstrated that teachers with an overly rigid adherence to a curriculum that does not take students’ needs into account, report to adopt less adaptive teaching practices (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Gheyssens et al., 2020c ).

2.2.3 Differentiated Classroom Practices

The next factor is the differentiated practice to be explained is ‘flexible grouping’. Switching between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups helps students to progress based on their abilities (when in homogeneous groups) and facilitates learning through interaction (when in heterogeneous groups) (Whitburn, 2001 ). Given that the aim of differentiated instruction is to provide maximal learning opportunities for all students, variation between homogeneous and heterogeneous teaching methods is essential. Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) found that combining different forms of flexible grouping positively predicts the self-reported use of adaptive teaching in accordance with differences in learning. The final factor in the DI-Quest model is the differentiated practice ‘Output = input.’ This factor represents the importance of using output from students (such as information from conversations, tasks, evaluation, and classroom behaviour) as a source of information. This output of students is input for the learning process of the students themselves by providing them with feedback. But this output is also crucial input for the teacher in terms of information about how students react to his/her teaching (Hattie, 2009 ). Assessment and feedback are not the final steps in the process of teaching, but they are an essential part of the process of teaching and learning (Gijbels et al., 2005 ). In this regard, Coubergs et al. ( 2017 ) state that including feedback as an essential aspect of learning positively predicts the self-reported use of adaptive teaching.

3 Effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction

Several studies dealing with the effectiveness of DI have demonstrated a positive impact on student achievement (e.g. Beecher & Sweeny, 2008 ; Endal et al., 2013 ; Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Reis et al., 2011 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ; Valiandes, 2015 ). However, while recent theories plead for a more holistic interpretation of DI, being a philosophy and a practice of teaching, empirical studies on the impact on student learning are often limited to one aspect of DI, e.g. ability grouping, tiering, heterogenous grouping, individualized instruction, mastery learning or another specific operationalization of DI (e.g. Bade & Bult, 1981 ; Tomlinson, 1999 ; Vanderhoeven, 2004 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Often studies on DI are also fragmented in studies on ability grouping, tiering, heterogenous grouping, individualized instruction, mastery learning or another specific operationalization of DI (Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Although effectiveness can be found for most of these operationalisations, overall the evidence is limited and sometimes even inconclusive (e.g. evidence of the benefits on ability grouping). Indeed research indicates that DI has the power to benefit students’ learning. However, this might not always be the case for all students. For example Reis and colleagues demonstrated that at-risk students are most likely to benefit from DI (e.g. Reis et al., 2011 ). By contrast, experimental research on DI by Valiandes ( 2015 ) showed that although the socioeconomic status of students correlated with their initial performance, it had no effect on their progress. This confirmed that DI can maximize learning outcomes for all students regardless of their socioeconomic background. It also depends on how DI is implemented, for example the effects of ability grouping may differ for subgroups of students (Coubergs et al., 2013 ). A recent review on DI concluded that studies of effectiveness of DI overall report small to medium-sized positive effects of DI on student achievement. However, the authors of this study plead for more empirical studies towards the effectiveness of DI on both academic achievement and affective students’ outcomes, such as attitudes and motivation (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ).

4 Implementation of Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction is often presented in a fragmented fashion in studies. For example, it can be defined as a specific set of strategies (Bade & Bult, 1981 ; Woolfolk, 2010 ) or studies with regard to the effectiveness of DI often focus on specific differentiated classroom actions, rather than on DI as a whole-classroom approach (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Moreover, DI is not only in studies fragmented defined and investigated, DI is also perceived by teachers in a fragmented way (Gheyssens, 2020 ). For example, using mixed methods, this study explored to what degree differentiated practices are implemented by primary school teachers in Flanders (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ). Data were gathered by means of three different methods, which are compared: teachers’ self-reported questionnaires (N = 513), observed classroom practices and recall interviews (N = 14 teachers). The results reveal that there is not always congruence between the observed and self-reported practices. Moreover, the study seeks to understand what encourages or discourages teachers to implement DI practices. It turns out that concerns about the impact on students and school policy are referred to by teachers as impediments when it comes to adopting differentiated practices in classrooms. On teacher level, some teachers expressed a feeling of powerlessness towards their teaching and have doubts if their efforts are good enough. On school level, a development plan was often missing which gave teachers the feeling that they are standing alone (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ). Other studies confirm that when beliefs about teaching and learning are different among various actors involved in a school, this can limit DI implementation (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008 ). However, we know form the DI-Quest model how important a teachers’ mindset is when it comes to implementing DI. In this specific study teachers were asked about both hindrances and encouragements to implement DI. Teachers only responded with hindrances. In addition, flexible grouping, which in theory is an ideal teaching format when it comes to differentiation, occurs often randomly in the classroom without the intention to differentiate. The researchers of this study concluded that teachers do not succeed in implementing DI to the fullest because their mindset about DI is not as advanced as their abilities to implement differentiated practices. These practices, such as flexible grouping for example, are often part of the curriculum. Moreover, also in teacher education programmes pre-service teachers are trained to use differentiated strategies. However, teacher education programmes approach DI mostly again as a set of teaching practices. Teaching a mindset is much more difficult and complicated. This focus on DI as only a practice and as a pedagogical model, like the DI-Quest model demonstrates, leads to partial implementation of DI. DI is then perceived as something teachers can do “sometimes” in their classrooms, rather than a pedagogical model that is embedded in the daily teaching and learning process (Gheyssens et al., 2020a ).

In other words, one aspect of DI is often implemented, one specific teaching format is applied, or one strategy is adopted to deal with one specific difference between learning. As a consequence, some aspects will be improved or some students will benefit from this approach, but the desired positive effects on the total learning process of all the students that theories about DI promise, will remain unforthcoming. Below some recommendations are listed to implement DI more as a pedagogical model and less fragmented.

4.1 Importance of the Teachers’ Philosophy

Review studies which investigated the effectiveness and implementation of specific operationalizations of DI (for example grouping) report small to medium effects on student achievement (Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Although theories recommend approaching DI as a holistic concept, the effectiveness of such a holistic approach on student learning has, to our knowledge, not yet been investigated. We emphasize the importance of presenting and perceiving DI as a pedagogical model that is regarded as a philosophy of teaching and a collection of teaching practices (Tomlinson, 2017 ). Thus, DI is considered a pedagogical model that is influenced by teachers’ mindset and one which encourages teachers to be proactive, involves modifying curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and student products in anticipation of, and response to, student differences in readiness, interests and learning profiles, in order to maximize learning opportunities for every student in the classroom (Coubergs et al., 2017 ; Tomlinson, 2017 ). In this regard we would also like to emphasize that these modifications do not necessary involve new teaching strategies and extra workload for teachers, but require that teachers shift their mindset and start acting more pro-actively, planned better and be more positive. In a study that investigated the effectiveness of a professional development programme about inclusive education on teachers’ implementation of differentiated instruction, teachers stated that after participating in the programme they did not necessarily adopt more differentiated practices, but they did the ones they used more thoroughly (Gheyssens et al., 2020b ). As demonstrated in the DI-Quest model, in order to implement DI as a pedagogical model, it is essential to start with the teachers’ philosophy. However, changing a philosophy does not come about overnight, but rather demands time and patience (Gheyssens, 2020 ).

4.2 Importance and Complexity of Professional Development

When DI becomes a pedagogical model that consists of both philosophy and practice components, and furthermore demands that teachers have a positive mindset towards DI in order to implement DI effectively, professional development for some teachers is necessary to strengthen their competences and to support them in embedding DI in their classrooms. Depending on the current mindset of the teacher, some will need more support, while for other teachers differentiating comes naturally. However, if we want teachers to implement DI as a pedagogical model and not just as fragmented practices, teachers need to be prepared and supported. Professional development is essential for teachers to respond adequately to the changing needs of students during their careers (Keay & Lloyd, 2011 ; EADSNE, 2012 ). However, professional development is also complex. The final study in the dissertation of Gheyssens ( 2020 ) investigated the effectiveness of a professional development programme (PDP) aimed at strengthening the DI competences of teachers. A quasi-experimental design consisting of a pre-test, post-test, and control group was used to study the impact of the programme on teachers’ self-reported differentiated philosophies and practices. Questionnaires were collected from the experimental group (n = 284) and control group (n = 80) and pre- and post-test results were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA. Additionally, interviews with a purposive sample of teachers (n = 8) were conducted to explore teachers’ experiences of the PDP. The results show that the PDP was not effective in changing teachers’ DI competences. Multiple explanations are presented for the lack of improvement such as treatment fidelity, the limitations of instruments, and the necessary time investment (Gheyssens et al., 2020b ).

We found similar information in other studies. For example Brighton et al. ( 2005 ) stated that the biggest challenge for most teachers is that DI questions their previous beliefs. This ties in with our emphasis on teachers’ mindset. To participate in professional development, teachers need to have/keep an open mind in order to respond to new forms of diversity and new opportunities for collaborating with colleagues. Although continued professional development is necessary and important for teachers, it is a complex process. We refer to the work of Merchie et al. ( 2016 ) who identified nine characteristics of effective professional development, with one of them being that the supervisor is of high quality and is competent when it comes to giving and receiving constructive feedback and imparting other coaching skills (Merchie et al., 2016 ). Literature states that professional development is only successful if teachers are active participants, if they have a voice in what and how they learn things, and if the PDP is tailored to the specific context (Merchie et al., 2016 ). However, PDP often works towards a specific goal which is not always very flexible. A suitable coach is able to find a balance between these two extremes. Or, specifically within inquiry-based learning as an example, the coach needs to find the fragile balance between telling the teachers what to do, and letting them find their own answers. Finding such a balance and guiding teachers towards looking for and finding the answers they need is important if we wish to establish the desired improvement we want to see in teachers’ professional development. In this regard, Willegems et al. ( 2016 ) plead for the role of a broker as a bridge-maker in professional development trajectories, in addition to the role of coach (Willegems et al., 2016 ).

4.3 Importance of Collaboration

In addition, collaboration is indeed essential for effective professionalisation (Merchie et al., 2016 ) and beneficial for DI implementation (De Neve et al., 2015 ; Latz & Adams, 2011 ). In a professional development study where inquiry-based learning was applied to teams of teachers at schools, teachers reported positive experiences in discussing their individual learning activities, and during the programme became aware of the need to work together on the collective development of knowledge in the school. They all agreed that to implement DI they needed to collaborate more. A common school vision and policy is necessary for the implementation of specific differentiated measures, as these currently differ between teachers and grades, and can be confusing for students. This is consistent with previous research that states that collaboration is crucial for creating inclusive classrooms (Hunt et al., 2002 ; Mortier et al., 2010 ; EADSNE, 2012 ; Claasen et al., 2009 ; Mitchel, 2014 ). A first step in this process is realising that collaboration is beneficial for both teachers and students (EADSNE, 2012 ).

5 Conclusion

The chapter summarizes a doctoral dissertation that started with the assumption from theory that differentiated instruction can be adopted to create more inclusive classrooms. Theories describe DI as both a teaching practice and a philosophy, but the concept is rarely measured as such. Empirical evidence about the effectiveness and operationalisation of differentiating is limited. The general aim of this research was to gain a more in-depth understanding of the concept of DI. This main aim was subdivided into two objectives. The first objective focused on how DI is perceived by teachers and resulted in the DI-Quest model. The second objective focused on how DI is implemented. Four empirical studies were conducted to address these objectives. Two different samples spread over three years were adopted (1302 teachers in study 1 and 1522 teachers in studies 2, 3 and 4) and mixed methods were applied to investigate these research goals. In this chapter the results of these studies were put next to other studies and literature about differentiation. The conclusions highlight the importance of teachers’ philosophy when it comes to implementing DI, the importance of perceiving and implementing DI as a pedagogical model and the importance and complexity of professional development with regard to DI. Overall, the authors of this dissertation conclude that DI can be as promising as theories say when it comes to creating inclusive classrooms, but at the same time their research illustrated that the reality of DI in classrooms, is far more complex than the theories suggest.

Bade, J., & Bult, H. (1981). De praktijk van interne differentiatie. Handboek voor de leraar . Uitgeverij Intro Nijkerk.

Google Scholar  

Bearne, E. (2006). Differentiation and diversity in the primary school . Routledge.

Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academica, 19 (3), 502–530.

Article   Google Scholar  

Claasen, W., de Bruïne, E., Schuman, H., Siemons, H. & van Velthooven, B. (2009). Inclusief bekwaam. Generiek competentieprofiel inclusief onderwijs - LEOZ Deelproject 4 . Garant.

Brighton, C. M., Hertberg, H. L., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end learning in a diverse middle school . National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Engels, N., Cools, W., & De Martelaer, K. (2013). Binnenklasdifferentiatie. Leerkansen voor alle leerlingen . Acco.

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2017). Measuring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53 , 41–54.

De Neve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47 , 30–41.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success . Random House.

EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education). (2012). Lerarenopleiding en inclusie. Profiel van inclusieve leraren . European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Endal, G., Padmadewi, N., & Ratminingsih, M. (2013). The effect of differentiated instruction and achievement motivation on students’ writing competency. Journal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris , 1 .

Gheyssens, E. (2020). Adopting differentiated instruction to create inclusive classrooms . Crazy Copy Center Productions.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Vanslambrouck, S., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020a). Differentiated instruction in practice: Do teachers walk the talk? Pedagogische Studieën, 97 , 163–186.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020b). Good things come to those who wait: The importance of professional development for the implementation of differentiated instruction. Frontiers in Education, 5 , 96.

Gheyssens, E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet, J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020c). Differentiated instruction: The diversity of teachers’ philosophy and practice to adapt teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 , 1383.

Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2021). Creating inclusive classrooms in primary and secondary schools: From noticing to differentiated practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100 , 103210.

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75 (1), 27–61.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement . Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Müller, E., & Goetz, L. (2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18 (1), 20–35.

Keay, J. K., & Lloyd, C. M. (2011). Developing inclusive approaches to learning and teaching. In J. K. Keay & C. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Linking children’s learning with professional learning. Impact, evidence and inclusive practice (pp. 31–44). Sense Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Latz, A. O., & Adams, C. M. (2011). Critical differentiation and the twice oppressed: Social class and giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34 (5), 773–789.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., & Connors, N. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. The Journal of Special Education, 40 (3), 130–137.

Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Evaluating teachers’ professional development initiatives: Towards an extended evaluative framework. Research Papers in Education, 33 , 1–26.

Mitchel, D. (2014). What really works in special and inclusive education. Using evidence-based teaching strategies (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mortier, K., Van Hove, G., & De Schauwer, E. (2010). Supports for children with disabilities in regular education classrooms: An account of different perspectives in Flanders. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14 (6), 543–561.

Op ‘t Eynde. (2004). Leren doe je nooit alleen: differentiatie als een sociaal gebeuren. Impuls, 35 (1), 4–13.

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (2), 462–501.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and Well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68.

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 2366.

Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner – Friendly classroom . Solution Tree Press.

Tobin, R. (2006). Five ways to facilitate the teacher assistant’s work in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2 (6), n6.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory Into Practice, 44 (3), 262–269.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom . ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of the literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27 (2/3), 119–145.

Valiandes, S. (2015). Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 45 , 17–26.

van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education, 83 (6), 390–394.

Vanderhoeven, J. L. (2004). Positief omgaan met verschillen in de leeromgeving. Een visie op differentiatie en gelijke kansen in authentieke middenscholen . Uitgeverij Antwerpen.

Whitburn, J. (2001). Effective classroom organisation in primary schools: Mathematics. Oxford Review of Education, 27 (3), 411–428.

Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K., & Engels, N. (2016). How to become a broker: The role of teacher educators in developing collaborative teacher research teams. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22 (3–4), 173–193.

Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology . The Ohio State University: Pearson Education International.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Esther Gheyssens

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Aalst, Belgium

Esther Gheyssens, Júlia Griful-Freixenet & Katrien Struyven

Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Júlia Griful-Freixenet

Universiteit Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium

Katrien Struyven

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esther Gheyssens .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Ridwan Maulana

Michelle Helms-Lorenz

Department of Education, University of York, York, UK

Robert M. Klassen

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Gheyssens, E., Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K. (2023). Differentiated Instruction as an Approach to Establish Effective Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms. In: Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Klassen, R.M. (eds) Effective Teaching Around the World . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_30

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4_30

Published : 28 June 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-31677-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-31678-4

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Help & FAQ

Differentiated instruction: a research basis

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

Other files and links

• RM sElocation

T1 - Differentiated instruction

T2 - a research basis

AU - Subban, Pearl Karen

N2 - With contemporary classrooms becoming increasingly diverse, educational authorities, teachers and school administrators are looking to teaching and learning strategies that cater for a variety of learning profiles. A paradigm that is gaining ground in many educational circles is differentiated instruction. This model proposes a rethinking of the structure, management and content of the classroom, inviting participants within the learning context to become engaged in the process, to the benefit of all. While the model has been accepted and set to work, there remains room for theoretical support to give it momentum. A recent, comprehensive analysis of the literature in this area examines this model, within the context of increasing academic diversity. This paper therefore seeks to synthesise the research supporting a shift to a new exemplar for modern education, and in so doing shed light on the rationale supporting differentiated instruction.

AB - With contemporary classrooms becoming increasingly diverse, educational authorities, teachers and school administrators are looking to teaching and learning strategies that cater for a variety of learning profiles. A paradigm that is gaining ground in many educational circles is differentiated instruction. This model proposes a rethinking of the structure, management and content of the classroom, inviting participants within the learning context to become engaged in the process, to the benefit of all. While the model has been accepted and set to work, there remains room for theoretical support to give it momentum. A recent, comprehensive analysis of the literature in this area examines this model, within the context of increasing academic diversity. This paper therefore seeks to synthesise the research supporting a shift to a new exemplar for modern education, and in so doing shed light on the rationale supporting differentiated instruction.

UR - http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf

M3 - Article

SN - 1443-1475

JO - International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives

JF - International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives

• Resources/Recursos
• WIDA Secure Portal
• MODEL Online
• Unsure? Go to the Login page

• WIDA Assessments
• ACCESS for ELLs Online
• ACCESS for ELLs Paper
• Kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs
• ACCESS Test Practice and Sample Items
• ACCESS for ELLs Scores and Reports
• Alternate ACCESS Sample Items
• Alternate ACCESS Scores and Reports
• WIDA Screener Online
• WIDA Screener Paper Score Calculator
• WIDA Screener for Kindergarten Score Calculator
• WIDA MODEL Online
• WIDA MODEL Paper
• WIDA MODEL for Kindergarten
• WIDA MODEL Score Calculator
• Accessibility and Accommodations
• Building a WIDA Assessment
• Assessment Training

23-24 Alternate ACCESS score reports are coming this fall.

• Family Engagement
• Creating a Welcoming Classroom
• Can Do Descriptors
• Language for Learning
• Teaching in PreK-3
• The 2020 Edition
• Standards in Action
• Featured Educator

Marco DALE is the new WIDA Spanish language development standards framework.

• Scheduled Workshops and Webinars
• Supplemental Assessment Workshops and Webinars
• Workshops for Schools and Districts
• ELD Standards Framework Professional Development
• WIDA Español Webinars and Workshops
• WIDA Webinars
• WIDA Annual Conference
• WIDA at Conferences
• WIDA School Improvement System

2024 WIDA Annual Conference October 15-18, Pittsburgh, PA

• Research Areas
• Current Grants and Projects
• Research Publications
• Federal Law and Policy Foundations
• Staff Directory
• WIDA Consortium Membership Benefits
• WIDA Fellows
• WIDA Español
• Why Work at WIDA?
• Dassler Internship
• WIDA Summer Research Internship

Expert educators of multilingual learners share their tips with WIDA Founder and Director Tim Boals.

• Action Research: A catalyst for comprehensive teaching and learning in multilingual contexts

This WIDA Snapshot introduces classroom action research – when researchers and educators work together to address classroom challenges – by encouraging teachers to use their researcher voices to make meaningful contributions to the field, whether through collaborative or independent approaches.

Action research is dynamic and participatory and has become a cornerstone of education research. It enables teachers understanding, analysis, and reflection to address classroom challenges, while building comprehensive and robust classroom teaching practices at the same time.

For example, scholars continually work with teachers on research initiatives that inform educational theoretical approaches. Beyond this, however, there is something inherently important about giving practitioners a voice in education research (Alrichter, 1993) and especially in language learning (Edwards & Burns, 2015).

What does action research look like for teachers who work with multilingual learners? Embracing multilingualism in the classroom requires awareness and understanding of students’ cross-cultural, social, cognitive, and economic benefits (Martinez, 2018). It also relies on practitioners making informed, evidence-based decisions to influence education for multilingual language development. The voices of practitioners are key to the development of education methods; hence scholars have provided multiple avenues to engage teachers in action research (Sagor, 2000; Burns, 2009).

WIDA’s work in language development has always focused on impact at the classroom level. To this end, practitioners can lay important groundwork to identify and implement strategies that are evidence-based. These practices also include systematically collecting and analyzing data and introducing practices to let teachers as practitioners engage in reflective processes. Letting practitioners gain insights on their work effectiveness and make the needed changes and adaptations is a win-win approach. Through its Marco DALE , Marco ALE and ELD Standards Framework , WIDA is offering not only resources that meet the diverse needs of bilingual learners in the classroom, but also themes that can be explored through action research. The results can then be used to inform changes and updates to instruction.

By pairing frameworks and classroom realities with action research, teachers can promote a student- and learning-centered approach, where we can directly address distinct types of challenges, including language barriers, various levels of language proficiency, diverse cultural backgrounds, and the task of building a more inclusive language learning experience. By providing a nuanced understanding of language development, we can empower our teachers to explore the complexities of language and spark curiosity related to concepts like translanguaging, transculturalism, multiliteracies, equity, and interaction into the curriculum to provide the needed learning supports.

A concrete example of action research has been my experience mentoring teachers in Croatia and Algeria, where we experimented with integrating technology (AI) and differentiated instruction to help us make decisions on levels of engagement, increasing motivation, making learning relatable and building a professional development approach through research to support teachers and learners. The framework we developed builds on achieving evidence-based, and culturally responsive teaching practices that are essential for shaping the new citizens of the world.

As a practitioner and now dedicated to research, I have seen the benefits that action research can have on simple things, including giving instructions, promoting engagement, and developing reflective practices among learners. Because of my background and 30-year career in education, I have seen firsthand how action research stands as a transformative tool for educators building empowerment and bridging theory and practice from those who know best: the teachers.

Action Research Plan

Want to get started? Keep in mind these ideas:

• Action research is not a linear process
• Focus on one specific classroom issue at a time
• Develop a research question (or questions)
• It helps to read the literature, talk to experts, or listen to others discuss the topic
• Plan how to collect and analyze data
• Create a potential roadmap and reflect on it frequently
• Evaluate and readjust as necessary
• Build a network of peer action researchers within your school or district

Remember: you will not only be contributing to addressing challenges in your classroom, but your work is a contribution to the field of language development and education in general.

About the Author

As researcher for WIDA Español, Grazzia Maria Mendoza facilitates research processes and the design of professional development resources through innovation, contextualization during implementation, and the promotion of complex, consistent and quality research.

Altrichter, H. (1993). The concept of quality in action research: Giving practitioners a voice in educational research. Qualitative Voices in Educational Research. Routledge.

Burns, A (2009). Doing Action Research in Language Teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863466 

Edwards, E. & Burns, A. (2015). Language teacher action research: achieving sustainability. ELT Journal, 70(1), 6-15 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv060

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x

Martínez, R. A. (2018). Beyond the English learner label: Recognizing the richness of bi/multilingual students’ linguistic repertoires. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 515-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1679

Miller, I. K., Cunha, M. I. A., & Allwright, D. (2021). Teachers as practitioners of learning: the lens of exploratory practice. Educational Action Research, 29(3), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1842780

Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. ASCD.

About WIDA Snapshots

WIDA Snapshots introduce topics of interest to educators and families of multilingual learners from Pre-K through grade 12.

List All Snapshots

• Our Mission

4 Strategies for Developing Confident Student Speakers

Consistent support and low-stakes opportunities to practice go a long way to help students overcome the challenges of speaking in front of a group.

I belted out the opening line to Marc Antony’s funeral speech from The Tragedy of Julius Caesar , leaping up the stairs to the stage in my school’s auditorium. Thirteen ninth-grade students dressed in togas sat in the front rows, mouths agape, as they witnessed their goofy teacher unexpectedly launch into the 35-line monologue they had all just beautifully performed. 

Confession: I was nervous walking onto that stage—I sometimes get uncomfortable in the (literal) spotlight. To normalize feelings of anxiety during a performance, I revealed those emotions to my class afterward. 

Public speaking is hard, and it can be extremely daunting for our most introverted students ; however, with modeling and practice, I believe that teachers can cultivate confident speakers.

Strategy 1: Provide Direct Instruction

A poster inspired by Erik Palmer’s work on public speaking ( PVLEGS : Poise, Voice, Life, Eye Contact, Gestures, Speed) hangs in the back of my classroom. Well before we launch into a study of the funeral orations from Caesar , I explicitly teach those skills. I demonstrate for students appropriate eye contact—the speaker locks eyes briefly with individual audience members and scans the room as she speaks, establishing a connection with her audience. The speaker might also speed up his voice for a certain effect or raise his arms to command the attention of his audience.

Strategy 2: Provide Public Speaking Models

After we spend a class closely reading and analyzing the two funeral orations by Marc Antony and Brutus, I play clips of the speeches from the two film adaptations. We watch the performances and think about PVLEGS: Which speaking moves does each actor utilize in his performance? Which actor delivers the stronger performance and why? After we watch and students share their observations with partners, we discuss and debate the merits of each performance. 

When my classes work on memorizing and performing the monologues, I ask them to study the models and even borrow some of the actors’ techniques. They consider: Do I want to take an angrier approach to the Antony speech like Marlon Brando? Should I adopt a regretful tone like Jason Robards’ Brutus? This type of close viewing could be applied to any speaking performance. On a related note, I also hope that I serve as a public speaking model for my students as I stand in front of my English classes daily.

Strategy 3: Acknowledge and Coach through Anxiety

I remember stumbling through my senior research presentation in high school, well before the advent of interactive whiteboards and Google Slides. I’m vulnerable with my students about my former public speaking struggles. I want them to know that they’re not alone, and through practice and repetition, their self-doubt and fear can transform from an eardrum-rupturing siren into a quiet background hum.

I give a few bits of advice to nervous speakers as they prepare for any public speaking activity. First, I urge them to “practice, practice, practice!” If they know their stuff, they’ll be much more confident on game day. I also find that most students who report feeling very nervous while speaking don’t always appear nervous to others. Sharing this anecdotal evidence with them helps students tune out their inner critics and feel more calm. I also find lots of opportunities to confer with reluctant speakers and give them plenty of encouragement. This fosters stronger connections with my students and boosts their confidence. 

Strategy 4: Provide Lots of Low-Stakes Speaking Opportunities 

My Caesar unit usually takes place in the second semester, when students have had plenty of low-stakes speaking opportunities. In almost every class, I ask students to turn and talk to their partners to share a sentence from a quickwrite or to check in on their current drafts. Earlier in the year, I coach them on how to effectively talk to their partners, and the process quickly becomes routine. An effective technique to get all students speaking, even if it’s a quick response, is the whip-around. Teacher Marcus Luther asks a question with a short, one-word answer. He then goes around the room and has each student answer aloud, followed by a debrief with partners or groups. 

My favorite low-stakes speaking activity is the Pop-Up Debate , which teacher Dave Stuart Jr. invented and has been writing about for years. In this activity, the class is presented with a question, and they spend 10 minutes writing an answer to it. After that, the debate begins, and students simply “pop-up” at their desks to enter into the conversation. In my experience, this activity can transform a usually quiet class into an engaged one. Secondary students love to argue, even about literature! 

Flexibility, Support, and Incentives Develop Strong Speakers 

In many ways, the memorized funeral oration is the most high-stakes speaking task my ninth-grade honors students participate in throughout the year. I give a grade for this assessment, but to take the focus off of grades and to place that focus on improvement instead, I provide students with a few crutches to lean on. 

First, if students forget a line, a friend acts as a prompter in the pit with the text ready. Students can also revise the performance if they choose to. I tell students that they can redo the performance if it doesn’t go as planned. At the end of the class, if time allows, a handful of students always choose to give it another shot. I find that this also takes the pressure off. I think of it like a writing assignment; students can always revise a paper to improve it. Finally, I give them extra credit for wearing togas, which adds to the fun of the special day.

In a recent article in The Atlantic , “ End the Phone-Based Childhood Now ,” author Jonathan Haidt reports that Gen Z students are more anxious, shy, and risk-averse than the children of the past, which he attributes to social media and the introduction of the smartphone. Risk-taking, Haidt argues, “promote[s] competence, maturity, and mental health.” Public speaking, a type of risk-taking, can be very frightening for some of our students, but if teachers provide them with speaking opportunities each day, month, and school year, perhaps we can help mold them into confident, healthy young adults who venture into the world as strong public speakers. 

Thank you to my former department chair, Janet Matthews, for the Julius Caesar performance activity.