research paper on differentiated instruction

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Differentiated instruction in secondary education: a systematic review of research evidence.

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

Differentiated instruction is a pedagogical-didactical approach that provides teachers with a starting point for meeting students' diverse learning needs. Although differentiated instruction has gained a lot of attention in practice and research, not much is known about the status of the empirical evidence and its benefits for enhancing student achievement in secondary education. The current review sets out to provide an overview of the theoretical conceptualizations of differentiated instruction as well as prior findings on its effectiveness. Then, by means of a systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2016, empirical evidence on the effects of within-class differentiated instruction for secondary school students' academic achievement is evaluated and summarized. After a rigorous search and selection process, only 14 papers about 12 unique empirical studies on the topic were selected for review. A narrative description of the selected papers shows that differentiated instruction has been operationalized in many different ways. The selection includes studies on generic teacher trainings for differentiated instruction, ability grouping and tiering, individualization, mastery learning, heterogeneous grouping, and remediation in flipped classroom lessons. The majority of the studies show small to moderate positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. Summarized effect sizes across studies range from d = +0.741 to +0.509 (omitting an outlier). These empirical findings give some indication of the possible benefits of differentiated instruction. However, they also point out that there are still severe knowledge gaps. More research is needed before drawing convincing conclusions regarding the effectiveness and value of different approaches to differentiated instruction for secondary school classes.

Introduction

Differentiation is a hot-topic in education nowadays. Policy-makers and researchers urge teachers to embrace diversity and to adapt their instruction to the diverse learning needs of students in their classrooms ( Schleicher, 2016 ; Unesco, 2017 ). Differentiation is a philosophy of teaching rooted in deep respect for students, acknowledgment of their differences, and the drive to help all students thrive. Such ideas imply that teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, or requirements for student products to better meet students' learning needs ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). When teachers deliberately plan such adaptations to facilitate students' learning and execute these adaptations during their lessons we call it differentiated instruction. A number of developments in education have boosted the need for differentiated instruction. First, contemporary classes are becoming relatively heterogeneous because of policies focused on detracking, the inclusion of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and inclusive education in which special education students (SEN) attend classes along with non-SEN students ( Rock et al., 2008 ; Tomlinson, 2015 ). Since early stratification of students may have unintended effects on the educational opportunities of students with varying background characteristics, addressing students' learning needs by teaching adaptively within heterogeneous classrooms has been proposed as the best choice for a fair educational system ( Oakes, 2008 ; Schütz et al., 2008 ; Schofield, 2010 ; OECD, 2012 , 2018 ). In addition, even within relatively homogeneous classrooms, there are considerable differences between students that need attention ( Wilkinson and Penney, 2014 ). Second, the idea that learners have different learning needs and that a one-size-fits-all approach does not suffice, is gaining momentum ( Subban, 2006 ). Policy makers stress that all students should be supported to develop their knowledge and skills at their own level ( Rock et al., 2008 ; Schleicher, 2016 ) and there is the wish to improve equity or equality among students ( Unesco, 2017 ; Kyriakides et al., 2018 ). When the aim is to decrease the gap between low and high achieving students, teachers could invest most in supporting low achieving students. This is called convergent differentiation ( Bosker, 2005 ). Alternatively, teachers may apply divergent differentiation in which they strive for equality by dividing their efforts equally across all students, allowing for variation between students in the learning goals they reach, time they use, and outcomes they produce ( Bosker, 2005 ).

Although the concept of differentiated instruction is quite well-known, teachers find it difficult to grasp how differentiated instruction should be implemented in their classrooms ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). A recent study found that teachers across different countries infrequently adapt their instruction to student characteristics ( Schleicher, 2016 ). Struggling students may work on too difficult tasks or, conversely, high ability students may practice skills they have already mastered ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Clearly, more information about effective practices is needed. A recent review and meta-analysis of differentiated instruction practices in primary education shows that differentiated instruction has some potential for improving student outcomes, when implemented well ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). However, these results may not generalize directly to secondary education, since the situation in which teachers teach multiple classes in secondary education is rather different in nature compared to primary education ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). For secondary education, evidence for the benefits of differentiated instruction is scarce ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). The bulk of studies in secondary education focus on differentiation of students between classes by means of streaming or tracking ( Slavin, 1990a ; Schofield, 2010 ). Alternatively, the current study seeks to scrutinize which empirical evidence there is on the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education, how studies operationalize the approach, and in which contexts the studies were performed.

Theory and Operationalizations

Operationalizing differentiated instruction in the classroom.

Theories of differentiation are bound by several guiding principles. They include a focus on essential ideas and skills in each content area, responsiveness to individual differences, integration of assessment and instruction, and ongoing adjustment of content, process, and products to meet students' learning needs ( Rock et al., 2008 ). Differentiation typically includes pro-active and deliberate adaptations of the content, process, product, learning environment or learning time, based on the assessment of students' readiness or another relevant student characteristic such as learning preference or interest ( Roy et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). In Table 1 , we have schematized the theoretical construct of differentiated instruction in the lesson within the broader definition of within-class differentiation.

Table 1 . Theoretical model of within-class differentiation.

Differentiated instruction in the classroom entails two aspects. First is the pedagogy and didactics of differentiated instruction : which teaching practices and techniques do teachers use and what do they differentiate ( McQuarrie et al., 2008 ; Valiande and Koutselini, 2009 )? Teachers may offer students' adapted content , offer various options in the learning process , use different assessment products , or adapt the learning environment to students' learning needs ( Tomlinson, 2014 ). Teachers may also offer certain students more learning time or conversely, encourage high achievers to speed up their learning process ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). Regarding the process , they may use pre-teaching or extended instruction to cater to the needs of students ( Smets and Struyven, 2018 ), or they could adapt instructions throughout the lesson. Second, the organizational aspect of differentiated instruction entails the structure in which it is embedded. There are different approaches a teacher may choose (see Table 1 ). In macro-adaptive approaches, teachers use some form of homogeneous clustering to organize their differentiated instruction ( Corno, 2008 ), including fixed or flexible grouping of students based on a common characteristic such as readiness or interest. Alternatively, teachers could use heterogeneous grouping to organize their differentiated instruction. Differentiation of the learning process may occur because students divide tasks within the group based on their learning preferences or abilities. Alternatively, a teacher may suggest a division of tasks or support based on assessment of learning needs ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ). When adaptations are taken to the level at which individual students work at their own rate on their level, this is called individualization ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). The learning goals are the same, but learning trajectories are tailored to individuals' needs. Some authors include individualized approaches into the theoretical construct of differentiated instruction ( Smit et al., 2011 ; Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ), whereas others separate it from differentiated instruction ( Bray and McClaskey, 2013 ; Roy et al., 2013 ).

Lastly, there are teaching models or strategies in which differentiated instruction has a central place. One well-known example is group-based mastery learning . In this approach, subject matter is divided into small blocks or units. For each unit, the teacher gives uniform instructions to the whole group of students. Then, a formative assessment informs the teacher which students reach the desired level of mastery of the unit (usually set at 80–90% correct). Students below this criterion receive corrective instruction in small groups, or alternatively, forms of tutoring, peer tutoring or independent practice are also possible to differentiate the learning process ( Slavin, 1987 ). Differentiated instruction may also be embedded in other instructional approaches like peer tutoring, problem-based learning, flipped classroom models etc. ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Altemueller and Lindquist, 2017 ).

Immediate, unplanned adaptations to student needs, so-called “micro-adaptations” ( Corno, 2008 ), are not included in the theoretical model in Table 1 , since differentiated instruction is—by nature—planned and deliberate ( Coubergs et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Keuning et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, we did not include the concept of “personalization” in our model since in personalized approaches students follow their own learning trajectories, pursue their own learning goals, and co-construct the learning trajectory, which makes it notably different from typical operationalizations of differentiated instruction ( Bray and McClaskey, 2013 ; Cavanagh, 2014 ).

Differentiation as a Sum of Its Parts

As noted above, differentiated instruction during the lesson is in fact only one piece of the mosaic ( Tomlinson, 1999 ). There are a lot of other steps that are crucial for successful implementation of differentiated instruction ( Keuning et al., 2017 ; Van Geel et al., 2019 ). Table 1 shows other behaviors that are related to what teachers do in the classroom. First, continuous monitoring and (formative) assessment and differentiated instruction are inseparable ( Hall, 1992 ; Valiande and Koutselini, 2009 ; Roy et al., 2013 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ; Denessen and Douglas, 2015 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). Some teachers may be inclined to use rather one-dimensional, fixed categorizations of students based on their learning needs at some point in time ( Smets and Struyven, 2018 ). Nevertheless, high quality differentiated instruction is based on the frequent assessment of learning needs and flexible adaptations to meet those needs. Prior to the lesson including differentiated instruction, teachers should have clear goals for their students, use some form of pre-assessment , and plan their adaptive instruction ( Prast et al., 2015 ; Keuning et al., 2017 ; Van Geel et al., 2019 ). Then, teachers proceed to the actual differentiated instruction during the lesson . After the lesson, teachers should evaluate students' progress toward their goals.

Besides these steps, more general high-quality teaching behaviors are preconditions to create a good context for differentiated instruction ( Wang et al., 1990 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). For instance, creating a safe and stimulating learning environment in which students feel welcomed and respected is essential ( Tomlinson, 2014 ). In addition, good classroom management may help teachers to implement differentiated instruction in an orderly manner ( Maulana et al., 2015 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). In empirical studies, differentiated instruction has been found to be a separate domain of teaching, while at the same time being strongly interrelated with other high quality teaching behaviors ( Van de Grift et al., 2014 ; Maulana et al., 2015 ; Van der Lans et al., 2017 , 2018 ). In turn, high quality teaching behaviors like questioning, explaining the lesson content, or giving examples can be applied in a differentiated way, stressing that high quality teaching is both a contextual factor as a direct source of input for teachers' differentiated instruction.

Prior Review Studies on Differentiated Instruction

Although studies on within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education are scarce, a number of reviews and meta-analyses have shed some light on the effects on student achievement. Subban (2006) discusses a number of studies showing that adapting content or processes can make learning more engaging for students than one-size-fits-all teaching, and some studies showed positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. The narrative review by Tomlinson et al. (2003) revealed studies showing that students achieve better results in mixed-ability classrooms in which the teacher differentiates instruction than in homogeneous classes were a more single-size approach is used. In a recent narrative research synthesis on adaptive teaching, one study on differentiated instruction was included. The authors found positive results of different types of adaptive teaching on students' academic and non-academic outcomes in primary education ( Parsons et al., 2018 ). In a large-scale meta-analysis by Scheerens (2016) , adaptive teaching was operationalized with some relevant indicators such as using variable teaching methods, orientation toward individual learning processes, and considering students' prerequisites. In this meta-analysis, a very small effect of adaptive teaching on student achievement was found.

A number of reviews report on specific operationalizations of within-class differentiated instruction. One of the most frequently reviewed forms is ability grouping . In within-class ability grouping, teachers cluster students into different homogeneous groups based on their abilities or readiness. In her narrative review, Tieso (2003) summarizes that ability grouping has a potential influence on student achievement when grouping is flexible, and teachers adapt their instruction to the needs of different groups. Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) performed a meta-synthesis including five other meta-analyses of the effects of ability grouping in K-12 education. In their study, within-class grouping was found to have at least a small positive impact on students' academic achievement (Hedges g = + 0.25). In the study of Kulik (1992) , who also combined results from different meta-analyses, a comparable effect size of Glass's Δ = + 0.25 in favor of within-class ability grouping was found. In the meta-analysis of Lou et al. (1996) on grouping in secondary education, within-class grouping was found to have a small positive effect (Cohen's d = + 0.12) on student outcomes. Substantive achievement gains were found in studies in which teachers adapted their teaching to needs of the different ability groups (Cohen's d = + 0.25), but not in studies in which teachers provided the same instruction for the different groups (Cohen's d = + 0.02). In his large meta-analysis of effects of instructional approaches on student outcomes, Hattie (2009) reported a small positive effect of within-class ability grouping on students' academic achievement (Cohen's d = +0.16). Conversely, Slavin (1990a) did not find significant effects of (between and within-class) ability grouping on achievement in secondary education. In a meta-synthesis of multiple meta-analyses on ability grouping—including between-class ability grouping—no overall positive effects of the approach were found ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). Some studies have found that ability grouping effects may differ for subgroups of students. For instance, Lou et al. (1996) found that low-ability students learned significantly more in heterogeneous (mixed-ability) groups, average-ability students benefitted most in homogeneous ability groups, and for high-ability students group composition made no significant difference. In primary education, Deunk et al. (2018) found a negative effect of within-class homogeneous grouping for low achieving pupils. Conversely, Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) concluded that high-, average-, and low-ability students all benefited equally from ability grouping. Thus, the findings on differential effects of ability grouping remain inconclusive.

Another possible approach to differentiated instruction is tiering. Tiering refers to using the same curriculum material for all learners, but adjusting the depth of content, the learning activity process, and/or the type of product developed by the student to students' readiness, interest or learning style ( Pierce and Adams, 2005 ; Richards and Omdal, 2007 ). Teachers design a number of variations or tiers to a learning task, process or product, to which students are assigned based on assessed abilities. To our knowledge, there are no specific reviews of the literature or meta-analyses summarizing the effects of tiering on student achievement, but the approach is often combined with homogeneous (ability) grouping.

Alternatively, turning to heterogeneous grouping as an organizational structure for differentiated instruction, there is evidence that students of varying backgrounds working together may learn from each other's knowledge, from observing each other, and from commenting on each other's errors ( Nokes-Malach et al., 2015 ). However, based on their narrative review about differentiated instruction in secondary schools, Coubergs et al. (2013) concluded that there is little known about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in heterogeneous settings They found that guiding heterogeneous groups is challenging for teachers, and that it is difficult to address the learning needs of all students in these mixed groups.

Reviews of effectiveness of individualized instruction indicate small effects on student outcomes. Hattie (2009) reports a small effect of individualization on student achievement (Cohen's d = +0.23). In addition, in another review a wide range of effects across meta-analyses was found of individualization on academic achievement of students (from −0.07 to +0.40; Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). Currently, mostly ICT-applications are used to individualize instruction. Review studies show that such adaptive ICT applications may considerably improve student achievement ( Ma et al., 2014 ; Van der Kleij et al., 2015 ; Kulik and Fletcher, 2016 ; Shute and Rahimi, 2017 ).

Guskey and Pigott (1988) performed a meta-analysis on the effects of group-based mastery learning on students' academic outcomes from grade one up to college. They reported positive effects on students' academic achievement as a result of the application of group-based mastery learning for, among others, high school students (Hedges g = +0.48). Later on, Kulik et al. (1990) and Hattie (2009) also reported relatively large positive effects of group-based mastery learning on student achievement (ES = +0.59 and Cohen's d = +0.58, respectively). Low ability students were generally found to profit most from the convergent approach ( Guskey and Pigott, 1988 ; Kulik et al., 1990 ). Mastery learning was among the most effective educational approaches in a meta-synthesis of multiple meta-analyses ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). However, mastery learning may be particularly valuable to train specific skills but may yield fewer positive results for more general skills as measured by standardized tests ( Slavin, 1987 , 1990b ). Mastery learning has also been incorporated into broader interventions in secondary education such as the IMPROVE method ( Mevarech and Kramarski, 1997 ).

Overall, from previous review studies we can draw the conclusion that there is some evidence that differentiated instruction has potential power to affect students' academic achievement positively with small to medium effects. However, the evidence is limited and heterogeneous in nature. The effectiveness of some approaches to differentiated instruction, such as ability grouping, has been reviewed extensively, while other approaches have received less attention. Furthermore, most studies were executed some time ago and were executed in the context of primary education, while only few studies focus specifically on secondary education.

Contextual and Personal Factors Influencing Differentiated Instruction

When analyzing the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, it is important to acknowledge that classroom processes do not occur in a vacuum. Both internal and external sources determine whether teachers will succeed in developing complex teaching skills ( Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002 ). In the case of differentiated instruction, teacher-level variables like education, professional development and personal characteristics like knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values and self-efficacy may influence their behavior ( Tomlinson, 1995 ; Tomlinson et al., 2003 ; Kiley, 2011 ; De Jager, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2013 ; Dixon et al., 2014 ; De Neve and Devos, 2016 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Teachers need thorough content knowledge and a broad range of pedagogical and didactic skills to plan and execute differentiated instruction ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). At the classroom level, diversity of the student population ( De Neve and Devos, 2016 ) and class-size ( Blatchford et al., 2011 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Stollman, 2018 ) influence interactions between teachers and their students. Moreover, school characteristics matter. For instance, a school principal's support can influence implementation of differentiated instruction ( Hertberg-Davis and Brighton, 2006 ). Additionally, structural organizational conditions, such as time and resources available for professional development, and cultural organizational conditions such as the learning environment, support from the school board, and a professional culture of collaboration may influence teaching ( Imants and Van Veen, 2010 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Teachers have reported that preparation time is a crucial factor determining the implementation of differentiated instruction ( De Jager, 2013 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Moreover, collaboration is key; a high pedagogical team culture influences both the learning climate and the implementation of differentiated instruction ( Smit and Humpert, 2012 ; Stollman, 2018 ). Lastly, country level requirements and (assessment) policies that stress differentiated instruction may influence implementation ( Mills et al., 2014 ).

Research Questions

Researchers and teachers lack a systematic overview of the current empirical evidence for different approaches to within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education. Therefore, we aim to (1) give an overview of the empirical literature on effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement in secondary education, and (2) consider the degree to which contextual and personal factors inhibit or enhance the effects of within-class differentiated instruction.

Our study is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1. What is the research base regarding the effects of within-class differentiated instruction on students' academic achievement in secondary education?

RQ2. How are the selected approaches to differentiated instruction operationalized?

RQ3. What are the overall effects of differentiated instruction on students' academic achievement?

RQ4. Which contextual and personal factors inhibit or enhance the effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement?

Based on previous research, we hypothesize to find literature on multiple possible approaches to differentiated instruction in the classroom. Probably, there will be more evidence for some operationalizations (like ability grouping) than for others. Overall, we hypothesize that differentiated instruction will have a small to medium positive effect on students' academic achievement. Several contextual and personal factors may affect the implementation. In this review, we will include information about relevant contextual and personal variables—when provided—into the interpretation of the literature.

Study Design

In order to provide a systematic overview of the literature on within-class differentiated instruction, a best evidence synthesis ( Slavin, 1986 , 1995 ; Best Evidence Encyclopedia, n.d.) was applied. This was done by a-priori defining consistent, transparent standards to identify relevant studies about within-class differentiated instruction. Each selected study is discussed in some detail and results are evaluated. In case enough papers are found that are comparable, findings can be pooled across studies. The best-evidence strategy is particularly suitable for topics—such as differentiated instruction—for which the body of literature is expected to be rather small and diverse. In such cases, it is important to learn as much as possible from each study, not just to average quantitative outcomes and study characteristics (compare Slavin and Cheung, 2005 ). In a recent review study on differentiated instruction in primary schools, the best evidence synthesis approach was used as well ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). In this study, the authors mentioned the benefits of selecting studies using strict pre-defined criteria (to avoid a garbage in-garbage-out effect). Moreover, combining a meta-analysis with relatively extended descriptions of the included studies in order to make the information more fine-grained was found to improve the interpretability of the results.

Working Definition of Differentiated Instruction

To select relevant studies for our review, we used the following working definition of differentiated instruction: Differentiated teaching in the classroom consisting of planned adaptations in process, learning time, content, product or learning environment for groups of students or individual students. Adaptations can be based on achievement/readiness or another relevant student characteristic (such as prior knowledge, learning preferences, and interest) with the goal of meeting students' learning needs.

Adaptations that are merely organizational, such as placing students in homogeneous groups without adapting the teaching to relevant inter-learner differences, were excluded. Interventions using approaches like peer tutoring, project-based learning and other types of collaborative leaning were eligible, but only when planned differentiated instruction was applied based on relevant student characteristics (e.g., by assigning specific roles based on students' abilities). Beyond the scope of this review were studies on differentiated instruction outside the classroom such as between-class differentiation (streaming or tracking), tutoring outside the classroom, or stratification of students between schools.

Search Strategy

The studies for our best evidence synthesis were identified in a number of steps. First, we performed a systematic search in the online databases ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (SSCI). Following the guidelines of Petticrew and Roberts (2006) , a set of keywords referring to the intervention (differentiation combined with keywords referring to instruction), the population (secondary education) and the outcomes of interest (academic outcomes) were used. We limited the findings to studies published between 2006 and 2016 that were published in academic journals. Although this first search yielded relevant studies, it failed to identify a number of important studies on differentiated instruction practices known from the literature. This was because search terms like “differentiation” and “adaptive” were not used in all relevant studies. Some authors used more specific terms such as ability grouping, tiered lessons, flexible grouping and mastery learning. Therefore, an additional search was performed in ERIC and PsycINFO with more specific keywords associated with differentiated instruction. We added keywords referring to various homogeneous or heterogeneous clustering approaches, to mastery learning approaches, or to convergent or divergent approaches (see Appendix A for the full search string) 1 .

Additional to this protocol-driven approach, we used more informal approaches to trace relevant studies. We cross-referenced the selected papers and recent review studies on related topics, used personal knowledge about relevant papers, and consulted experts in the field. We only used newly identified papers in case they were from journals indexed in the online databases Ebscohost, Web of Science, or Scopus to avoid selecting predatory journal outputs.

Selection of Papers

The identified papers were screened in pre-designed Excel sheets in two stages. First, two independent coders applied a set of inclusion criteria (criteria 1–8) to all papers based on title, abstract, and keywords. The papers that met the following conditions were reviewed in full text: (1) one or both of the coders judged the paper to be included for full text review based on the inclusion criteria using the title, abstract, and keywords, or (2) the study fulfilled some of the inclusion criteria but not all criteria could be discerned clearly from the title, abstract or keywords. Second, in a full text review, two coders applied the inclusion criteria again after reading the full paper. If a study met the basic criteria 1–8, additional methodological criteria (9–13) were checked in order to make the final selection. To assure the quality of the coding process, full-text coding of both coders was compared. Differences between coders about whether the study met certain inclusion criteria were resolved by discussion and consensus. The dual coding process by two reviewers was used since this substantially increases the chance that eligible studies are rightfully included ( Edwards et al., 2002 ). Only studies that met all 13 inclusion criteria were included in the review.

Inclusion Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were used to select the relevant papers. These criteria were based on a prior review study on differentiated instruction in primary education ( Deunk et al., 2018 ) and the best evidence studies by Slavin and colleagues ( Slavin and Cheung, 2005 ; Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ).

1. Within-class differentiated instruction: The study is about the effect of within-class differentiated instruction, as defined in our study (see section Working Definition of Differentiated Instruction).

2. Practicality : The differentiated instruction approach is practical for teachers ( Janssen et al., 2015 ). Teachers must be able to apply this intervention themselves in a regular classroom. In addition, the intervention is time- and cost-effective, meaning that it should not take excessive training or coaching nor use of external teachers in the classroom to implement the approach. Interventions in which ICT applications are used to support the teachers' instruction and can be controlled by the teacher (e.g., in blended learning environments in which teachers make use of on-line tools or PowerPoint) could be included. However, studies on the effects of fully computerized adaptive programs (e.g., with adaptive feedback or intelligent tutors) or differentiation approaches for which an external teacher (or tutor) is needed (such as pullout interventions) were excluded.

3. Study type: Students in a differentiated instruction intervention condition are compared to those in a control condition in which students are taught using standard practice (“business as usual”), or to an alternative intervention (compare Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). The design could be truly randomized or quasi-experimental or matched (the control condition could be a group of other students in a between-group design, or students could be their own control group in a within-groups design) 2 . Additionally, large-scale survey designs in which within-class differentiated instruction is retrospectively linked to academic outcomes were eligible for inclusion (compare Deunk et al., 2018 ). Surveys have increasingly included been used in reviews of effectiveness, although one must keep in mind that no finding from a survey is definitive ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ).

4. Quantitative empirical study : The study contains quantitative empirical data of at least 15 students per experimental group (compare Slavin et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). Other studies such as qualitative studies, case studies with fewer than 15 students, or theoretical or descriptive studies were excluded.

5. Secondary education: The study was executed in secondary education. For example, in middle schools, high schools, vocational schools, sixth-form schools or comparable levels of education for students from an age of about 11 or 12 years onwards. In some contexts, secondary schools could include grades as low as five, but they usually start with sixth or seventh grades (compare Slavin, 1990a ).

6. Mainstream education : The study was performed in a mainstream school setting (in a regular school, during school hours). Studies that were performed in non-school settings (e.g., in a laboratory or the workplace) or in an alternate school setting (e.g., an on-line course, a summer school, a special needs school) were excluded.

7. Academic achievement : Academic achievement of students is reported as a quantitative dependent variable, such as mathematics skills, language comprehension, or knowledge of history.

8. Language : The paper is written in English or Dutch (all authors master these languages), but the actual studies could be performed in any country.

Additional inclusion criteria used in the full-text review:

9. Differentiated instruction purpose: The study is about differentiated instruction with the aim of addressing cognitive differences (e.g., readiness, achievement level, intelligence) or differences in motivation / interest or learning profiles ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). Studies in which adaptions were made based on other factors such as culture (“culturally responsive teaching”) or physical or mental disabilities are beyond the scope of this review.

10. Implementation : The intervention is (at least partly) implemented. If this was not specifically reported, implementation was assumed.

11. Outcome measurement: The dependent variables/outcome measures include quantitative measures of achievement. Experimenter-made measures were accepted if they were comprehensive and fair to the both groups; no treatment-inherent measures were included ( Slavin and Madden, 2011 ).

12. Effect sizes : The paper provides enough information to calculate or extract effect sizes about the effectiveness of the differentiated instruction approach.

13. Comparability : Pretest information is provided (unless random assignments of at least 30 units was used and there were no indications of initial inequality). Studies with pretest differences of more than 50% of a standard deviation were excluded because—even with analyses of covariance—large pretest differences cannot be adequately adjusted for ( Slavin et al., 2009 ; Slavin, 2013 ; Cheung et al., 2017 ; compare Deunk et al., 2018 ).

Data Extraction

After the final selection of papers based on the criteria above, relevant information was extracted from the papers and coded by two independent reviewers in a pre-designed Excel sheet (see Appendix B ). Discrepancies between the extractions of both reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. Missing information regarding the methodology or results was requested from the authors by e-mail (although only few responses were received). The content coding was used (additional to the full texts) to inform the literature synthesis and to extract data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Data Analysis

We transformed all outcomes on student achievement from the selected papers to Cohen's d , which is the standardized mean difference between groups ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ; Borenstein et al., 2009 ). To do so, the program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2 was used ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). Effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model since we have no reason to assume that the studies are “identical” in the sense that the true effect size is exactly the same in all studies ( Borenstein et al., 2010 ). Methods of calculating effects using different types of data are described in Borenstein et al. (2009) and Lyons (2003) . When outcomes were reported in multiple formats in the paper, we chose the means and standard deviations to come to transparent and comparable outcomes. The effects were standardized using post-score standard deviations for measures where this was needed. For some outcome formats, CMA requires the user to insert a pre-post correlation. Since none of the selected papers provided this number, we assumed a correlation of 0.80 in the analyses since it is reasonable to assume such a pre- post correlation in studies in secondary education ( Swanson and Lussier, 2001 ; Cole et al., 2011 ). This correlation does not affect the Cohen's d statistic but has impact on its variance component. For the papers in which multiple outcome measures were reported, we used the means of the different measures. In case only subgroup means (of subgroups within classes of schools) were reported, we combined the outcomes of the subgroups with study as the unit of analysis to calculate a combined effect ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). For one study in which the intervention was executed in separate schools differing in implementation and findings, we have included the schools in the analyses separately (using schools in which the intervention took place as the unit of analysis).

Search Results

Our search led to 1,365 hits from the online databases ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science and 34 cross-referenced papers. Excluding duplicates, 1,029 papers were reviewed. See Appendix C for a flow-chart of the selection process. In total, 14 papers met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Papers reporting on the same project and outcomes were taken together as one study. The papers by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) report on the same project. The same applies to two other papers as well ( Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 2011 ). Thus, in the end, 12 unique studies were included in our review and meta-analysis leading to 15 effects in total (since for one study the four different schools in which the intervention was executed were taken as the unit of analysis).

Study Characteristics

In Table 2 , the characteristics and individual effects of the studies included in our review are summarized. The selection of studies includes eight quasi-experimental studies in which classes were randomly allocated to a control or experimental condition ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ; Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Huber et al., 2009 ; Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Little et al., 2014 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bhagat et al., 2016 ), three studies in which schools were randomly allocated to conditions ( Wambugu and Changeiywo, 2008 ; Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ), and one survey-study ( Smit and Humpert, 2012 ). These studies covered a wide range of academic subjects, including science, mathematics and reading. In terms of the number of participating students, six studies were small-scale studies ( N < 250) and six were large-scale studies ( N > 250). However, note that all experiments had nested designs. Only the studies of Little et al. (2014) and Vogt and Rogalla (2009) have at least 15 cases in each experimental condition at the level of randomization. Four studies were performed in the United States of America, five in Europe, one in Taiwan, and two in Africa. All studies were performed in secondary education, but the Vogt and Rogalla study represents a combined sample of primary- and secondary education students.

Table 2 . Summary of contents of the selected papers and the effects of the individual studies on student achievement.

Literature Synthesis

To further reflect on the findings from the selected studies in respect to our research questions, we will give a more detailed description of the study designs, implementations and findings here.

Studies on Generic Approaches to Differentiated Instruction

Although adaptive teaching does not necessarily include differentiated instruction, we found two quasi-experimental studies on adaptive teaching that (to some extent) matched our definition of differentiated instruction. In the large-scale study by Vogt and Rogalla (2009) , teachers were trained in adaptive teaching competency to improve their teaching and, in turn, to maximize students' learning. In the project “Adaptive Teaching Competency,” that was also included in the paper of Bruhwiler and Blatchford (2011) , adaptive teaching was characterized as including: sufficient subject knowledge, taking the diverse pre-conditions and learning processes of students into account, using various effective teaching methods for the whole group, differentiating for students' varying learning needs, supporting students in the regulation of learning processes, and using effective classroom management. In the project, teachers learned to focus on both adaptive planning prior to the lesson, as well as making adaptations during the lesson. Teachers of 27 primary school classes and 23 secondary school classes with 623 students were recruited to learn more about adaptive teaching. They participated in a 2-day workshop, received several coaching sessions in the classroom and used the adaptive teaching framework in their classes for eight science lessons. After the intervention, it was measured—among others—whether teachers differentiated to meet students' diverse skills and interests. After the intervention, teachers' competency in planning adaptive lessons significantly increased but their “Adaptive Implementation” did not change much. Unfortunately, in the coaching sessions, teachers often did not discuss about issues of adapting to the diversity of students' skills and their pre-existing knowledge. The results of students in the experimental classes were compared to those of 299 control students. The authors reported that the secondary students in the experimental group outperformed their counterparts in control classrooms on a science achievement test after the intervention. However, since we only had access to the means of the combined sample in primary and secondary education we used the combined sample results. Our calculation based on these means shows a small non-significant intervention effect of d = +0.133 (see Table 2 ). The authors argue that more coaching may be needed to foster the implementation of adaptive teaching in the classroom, although it would decrease the cost-effectiveness of the approach.

In the study by Huber et al. (2009) , teachers learned about adaptive teaching in a workshop, and were asked to incorporate it into their lessons. The intervention was the Prevention through Alternative Learning Styles (PALS) program aimed at prevention of alcohol-, tobacco-, and other drug (AOTD) abuse. Prevention of alcohol-, tobacco-, and other drugs is rather commonplace in secondary schools. For instance, in the US, students typically get into prevention programs more than once in their school career ( Kumar et al., 2013 ) and European schools are also encouraged to take action in promoting students' health ( World Health Organiasation, 2011 ). Teachers attended a 1-day workshop about adaptive teaching by means of: modifying time, increasing or decreasing the number of items to be learned or completed, increasing the level of support, changing the input or the way the material is presented, changing the output, adapting the amount of active participation, changing to alternate goals and expectations, adapting the level of difficulty for each individual, and providing different instruction and materials. In addition, teachers learned about alternative learning styles and disabilities. PALS materials were developed by the research team to match students' specific needs and related abilities. In a quasi-experimental study, four grade 6–8 teachers taught the 10 PALS intervention lessons to their classes and PALS team members taught another 24 classes. School officials suggested a convenient comparison group receiving the traditional prevention program. In reference to the control group, the PALS program had a large significant effect of d = +1.374 on students' knowledge of the effects of ATOD (see Table 2 ). These results were replicated in a second, within-group repeated measures design. Although the findings seem promising, more information is needed about how the approach was implemented; in the paper, it is unclear how teachers applied the information from the training in their instruction. Moreover, replication of the findings in a study in which teachers teach all project lessons may also help clarify whether the effects of the intervention were affected by the fact that project staff taught most lessons in the experimental condition.

We only selected two studies using a generic approach to differentiated instruction and the effects of the studies described above differ considerably regarding their intervention, school subject, and findings. This makes it hard to estimate the overall effectiveness of generic approaches. The study of Huber seems promising, but unfortunately, the study of Vogt and Rogalla did not lead to positive achievement effects for students across the primary and secondary school group. More studies are needed to gain insight in how teachers could effectively and efficiently be supported or coached to master the multifaceted approach of differentiated instruction.

Studies on Differentiated Instruction Using Homogeneous Clustering

A number of selected studies use a macro-adaptive approach to differentiated instruction ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ). Of these studies, the study of Richards and Omdal (2007) has the most robust design. In this study, first year students were randomized over 14 classes and then classes were randomly assigned to conditions. Within the experimental condition, the science content for ability groups was adapted to students' learning needs by means of tiering. To study the effectiveness of the approach, 194 students were randomly assigned to classes in which the teachers used tiered content, while 194 other students were in the control group that worked with the midrange curriculum for 4 weeks. Each teacher was assigned at least one treatment and one control class. After a pretest, students in the experimental condition were assigned to three ability groups: a low background knowledge group (around the lowest scoring 10 percent of all students), a midrange group (about 80 percent), and a high background group (the highest scoring 10 percent). One of the researchers produced the instructional materials for the study. To develop the differentiated materials, first core instructional materials were developed that were aimed at the midrange group. Next, the content was differentiated for the low and high background students. Adaptations were made to the depth of content, the degree of teacher dependence and structuring, the number of steps, the skills, time on task, the product, and the available resources. Students were asked to work together within their tiers. There was an overall small significant effect of the intervention of d = +0.284 in favor of the tiering condition (see Table 2 ). Closer analyses of subgroup results (see Table 2 ) show that this is particularly due to a large effect for the low background learners of d = +1.057. For high-range learners, differences between the control condition and the experimental condition are near to zero ( d = +0.077), although this may be partly due to a ceiling effect on the test. The authors conclude that curriculum differentiation through tiered assignments can be an effective way to address the needs of low achieving students. They recommend, however, that it should be accompanied by professional support and that teachers who design the tiers should have substantial subject matter knowledge and experience with learners with different needs.

In the study by Bikić et al. (2016) , the effectiveness of differentiated instruction of geometry content within a problem-based learning approach is studied. In the quasi-experiment, the authors compare an approach in which students solved mathematics problems on three levels differing in complexity using problem-based learning to a control condition. The study design is not described in detail, but since the authors state “students of the experimental group and control group were not the students from the same school” it seems that schools were allocated to an experimental or control condition to study the effectiveness of the approach. Within the experimental condition, 88 secondary school students were assigned to three groups (low- average-, or high-achievers) based on an initial test, and then worked on adapted levels of geometry problems for 16 lessons before completing a final test. An example of the differentiated materials in the paper shows that the three ability groups all received a different task (which was a variation of the same task differing in complexity). Unfortunately, it is not described how the students exactly processed the content. In the control condition, 77 other students were taught in the usual, traditional manner. Students in the ability grouping condition outperformed the control students with a moderate positive effect of d = +0.539 (see Table 2 ). Subgroup analyses indicate that the approach was most effective for average ability students; students in the high achieving group did not outperform high achieving students in the control group. Do note however that the high achieving groups were small (12 exp. vs. 14 contr. students), hence, these results should be interpreted with caution. More research would be needed to clarify to which extent the differentiated content improved the effectiveness of the problem-based learning approach.

A different grouping approach is one based on preferred learning styles. In the study of Bal (2016) , grade 6 students completed an algebra pre-test as well as filling out a learning style inventory (kinesthetic, visual, affective learning styles). Algebra-learning materials an activities are adapted for two tiers; for low performing students and high performing students, also adapted for different learning styles of students in the experimental group. Despite the fact that there are reasons not to use learning styles as a distinction between students (see e.g., Kirschner et al., 2018 ), the authors did find large positive effects of the tiering approach after 4 weeks of teaching ( d = + 1.085, see Table 2 ). Do note however that ANCOVA results were used to calculate the effects which may lead to some positive bias in this estimate. Based on information from student-interviews presented in the paper, it seems that students experienced success in learning and enjoyed the materials and activities developed for the experimental condition. It is unclear however, how the materials and activities were made more appropriate for students' readiness (and learning style) and how they differed from the approach in the control condition that used traditional teaching. In that sense, it is difficult to judge what caused these positive findings. In another study on mathematics by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) , teachers assessed students' preferred learning modalities by taking a multiple intelligences inventory. The data obtained from the inventory were used to determine the students' project topics, to select the teachers' teaching strategies, and to determine the relevant factors for motivating students. The effectiveness of the approach, which was originally designed for gifted students, was evaluated in a sample of 5 to 7th grade students in Turkey. After pretesting, one class of students was allocated to the experimental condition and one class of the same grade formed the control group. The authors report a very large effect of the intervention after six practices lasting 7 weeks each when compared to classes working with the Purdue model for both grade 6 and grade 7 students ( d = +4.504 across subgroups, see Table 2 ). However, it is difficult to discern what exactly caused this finding. Little information was provided about how exactly the teachers planned and executed the lessons and how students' activities and objectives were matched to their dominant intelligences, nor was there much information about possible confounding factors. In addition, since the researcher who developed the multiple intelligences theory admits that the theory is no longer up to date ( Gardner, 2016 ), one could question whether learning preferences could be better determined based on another distinction.

In summary, from the studies we found on the effectiveness approaches to differentiated instruction using homogeneous clustering, we could infer that overall small to medium sized effects (and in some cases also large effects) of the approach on student achievement can be achieved in beta subjects. The study of Altintas and Özdemir shows a very large effect of this approach and the study of Bal also shows large effects. However, before we can corroborate these findings, more information would be needed. When we look at the operationalizations of differentiated instruction in the two larger studies, we see that teachers used variations of learning tasks that were designed to better match the learning needs of different ability groups. Differential effects for student outcomes are somewhat variable; the results are most profound for the low achieving group in the study by Richards and Omdal (2007) , and for the low and average achieving group in the study of Bikić et al. (2016) . In both studies, effectiveness for the high achieving group seemed negligible.

Studies on Mastery Learning

In two included studies, mastery learning was used to boost student achievement in physics and mathematics. The quasi-experimental studies reporting on mastery learning approaches in secondary education used randomization of schools to conditions and were both performed in African schools ( Wambugu and Changeiywo, 2008 ; Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ). In the papers, the authors describe similar characteristics of mastery learning in their theoretical framework, such as specifying learning goals, breaking down the curriculum into small units, formative assessment, using corrective instruction for students who did not reach mastery, and retesting. This process continues until virtually all the students master the taught material ( Mitee and Obaitan, 2015 ), which emphasizes its aim of convergent differentiation. Mittee and Obaitan report a large effect of the mastery learning approach of d = +1.461 based on an experiment in which about 400 students from four schools were allocated to a mastery learning or a control condition (see Table 2 ). Wambugu and Changeiywo randomly divided four classes from four schools over the mastery learning or the experimental condition. Comparing the results on the physics achievement test of the two experimental classes a two control classes, they found a large effect of mastery learning ( d = +1.322 based on the findings of an ANOVA, see Table 2 ). However, do note that pretests were only available for two out of four classes (one control and one experimental).

Unfortunately, the information on the mastery learning approach in the lessons is rather limited in both papers. Therefore, it is difficult to judge how such large achievement gains can be reached by implementing mastery learning in secondary education. Nevertheless, we can extract a number of recommendations: First, both studies use corrective instruction for helping students gain mastery. Secondly, in both studies the authors refer to some type of collaborative learning in the corrective instruction phase. Lastly, Wambugu and Changeiywo note that the time needed to develop the learning objectives, formative tests, and corrective activities is considerable so teachers may want to work together in teacher teams to achieve these goals. More high-quality research is needed to replicate these findings and to gain insight in how teachers can apply this approach in practice.

Studies on Individualized Differentiated Instruction

The large-scale quasi-experimental study on differentiated reading instruction in middle schools by Little et al. (2014) used individualized adaptations to address students' learning needs. They used a program called the Schoolwide Enrichment Model-Reading Framework (SEM-R) to support students' reading adaptively. The SEM-R approach consists of three phases: (1) short read-alouds by the teacher (“Book Hooks”) and brief discussions about books, (2) students read independently in self-selected, challenging books while the teacher organizes individualized 5- to 7-min conferences with each student once every 1 to 2 weeks, (3) interest-based and more project-oriented activities. Professional development of teachers included workshops as well as classroom support from project staff. The focus of the intervention was on phases 1 and 2. Teachers were expected to implement SEM-R on a daily basis for about 40 to 45 min per day or 3 h per week. In a cluster-randomized design executed in four middle schools with 2,150 students, the effectiveness of the approach was compared to that of traditional teaching. The effects of the approach varied considerably across the different schools. The authors reported that, for the reading fluency outcome, SEM-R students significantly outperformed their control counterparts in two out of four schools. The standardized mean differences ranged from about −0.1 to +0.3 between the schools (see Table 2 ). The authors conclude that the intervention was at least as effective as traditional instruction. However, the wide range of implementations and effects on student outcomes between classes and schools illustrates the difficulty of implementing intensive forms of individualization in practice.

In the survey study of Smit and Humpert (2012) , the authors assessed which teaching practices teachers used to differentiate their teaching. In this sub-study of the project “Schools in Alpine Regions,” teachers from 8 primary schools and 14 secondary schools in the rural Alpine region of Switzerland participated. Teachers responded to a teacher questionnaire about differentiated instruction. They mainly reported to make adaptations at the individual level by, for instance, providing students with individual tasks (tiered assignments), adapting the number of tasks, or providing more time to work on tasks. Teachers often used “learning plans” as well as tasks in which students could take individual learning trajectories varying the content or learning rate. Flexible grouping was less common and alternative assessments were very rare. Peer tutoring occurred frequently, and tiered assignments were very common. On average, 38% of teachers' weekly lessons were differentiated. The authors conclude that teachers in their sample, on average, did not execute very elaborate differentiated instruction. Moreover, no significant relation between differentiated instruction and student achievement was found for neither a standardized language test ( d = −0.092) nor a standardized mathematics test ( d = −0.085, see Table 2 ). Following the survey study, an intervention study was executed with 10 of the schools that were included in the survey-study. In this study (that was not included in our selection since it was not published in an academic journal), teachers participated in workshops and team meetings and logged their learning experiences in portfolios. Teachers barely progressed in their differentiated instruction during the 2.5-year project ( Smit et al., 2011 ). Nevertheless, a high pedagogical team culture in schools was found to have a positive influence teachers' differentiated instruction ( Smit et al., 2011 ; Smit and Humpert, 2012) , and as such may be one of the keys to achieve improvement.

Overall, it seems that it is rather difficult to boost the achievement of the whole class by means of individualized approaches. However, as Little et al. (2014) suggest, individualization may be used as an approach to increase students' engagement with the learning content. A drawback of the approach may be that the requirements for organizing and monitoring learning activities by the teacher in individualized approaches could leave less time for high quality pedagogical interaction. Possibly, future research on individualization supported by digital technology may open up more possibilities for this approach to have high impact on student achievement ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ).

Studies on Differentiated Instruction Using Heterogeneous Clustering

One of the included studies used differentiated instruction within mixed-ability learning settings. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , grade eight students worked on science assignments in groups of two or three. Peer-mediated differentiated instruction and tiering was used to adapt the content to students' learning needs within the groups. The authors developed three tiers of each assignment varying in complexity. Within the peer groups, students could work on activities on their own appropriate level and continue to the next level once proficiency was obtained. All lower ability level students—including students with learning disabilities—were required to begin with the lowest tier. In the experiment, 13 classes with a total of 216 students were assigned to the peer-mediated differentiated content condition or a teacher-led control condition. The researchers divided the classes in such a way that each teacher taught at least one experimental and one control classroom. After about 12 weeks, a small positive effect was found in favor of the peer-mediated condition with tiered content on both the unit test and the high stakes end of year test (respectively d = + 0.466 and d = + 0.306, see Table 2 ). The overall effect of d = +0.386 is comparable to that of the tiering intervention of Richards and Omdal (2007) discussed earlier. The effect is slightly higher, but this may also partly be affected by the use of adjusted means. In any case, more research is needed to disentangle the effects of the peer-learning and the differentiated content.

Studies on Differentiated Instruction in Flipped Classrooms

In flipped classroom instruction, content dissemination (lecture) is moved outside of the classroom, typically by letting students watch instructional videos before the lesson. This opens up more time for active learning inside the classroom ( Leo and Puzio, 2016 ). This format implies differentiation of learning time and pace before the lesson since students may rewind, pause or watch the video's multiple times according to their learning needs. However, whether the activities during the lesson encompass our operationalization of differentiated instruction (see Table 1 ) varies. From a recent meta-analysis on flipping the classroom ( Akçayir and Akçayir, 2018 ), we found one study in secondary education in which remediation in the classroom was mentioned as being part of the intervention. Bhagat et al. (2016) report on a quasi-experiment in which 41 high school students were assigned to a classroom using flipping-the-classroom and 41 students were in the control condition. The experimental group underwent “flipped” lessons on trigonometry for 6 weeks, while the control group followed similar lessons using the conventional learning method. Students in the flipped condition watched videos of 15–20 min before the lesson. During the lesson, students discussed problems collaboratively and, in the meantime, students who needed remediation were provided with extra instruction. After the intervention, students from the flipped classrooms outperformed their counterparts on a mathematics test and were more motivated. The authors report a large effect of the intervention on students' mathematics achievement based on analysis of covariance. However, the combined effect across the subgroup mean differences is modest d = 0.376, see Table 2 ). On average, experimental students of all abilities performed better, except for high achievers who did not significantly outperform the control group. These differential effects should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of students in the subgroups. The pro of this study is that it gives some insights in the benefits of differentiated instruction embedded in an innovative approach to teaching. Yet, the authors did not specify clearly what the remediation and collaborative learning in the classroom consisted of and cannot disentangle effects of different elements of the intervention. More research would be needed to clarify the role and effectiveness of differentiated instruction in flipped settings.

Contextual and Personal Variables

As we discussed in the theoretical framework, many variables may influence teachers' implementation of differentiated instruction. We hoped to find evidence for this assumption in our selection of papers. However, in general, little information was provided about contextual and personal factors such as school, class, or teacher characteristics.

In our sample of studies, differentiated instruction was mostly applied to teaching mathematics and science. Additionally, there were also papers on literacy and social sciences. No clear differences in effectiveness could be observed between the subjects. Students varied in background characteristics across the studies. In the study by Little et al. (2014) , for instance, about 48 to 77 percent of students were from low SES. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , many ethnicities were represented. In the studies by Huber et al. (2009) , students were mostly European-American. Student ages varied from about 11 to 17 years old (see Table 2 ). Teacher characteristics were rarely reported. In the study by Mastropieri et al. (2006) , relatively inexperienced teachers participated with a mean of about 3 years in their current position, and in the studies by Vogt and Rogalla (2009) and Smit and Humpert (2012) , years of teaching experience varied considerably, with an average of about 15 to 17 years.

The only variable that is rather consistent across the studies is that teachers in the included studies relied considerably on external sources of information or support to help them implement differentiated instruction within their classrooms. In most of the selected studies, the research team developed materials for students, and teachers were instructed or coached in implementing the interventions (see Table 2 ). Although we aimed to select practical interventions, little information is provided about whether teachers were able to successfully execute the differentiated instruction practices independently in the long run.

Overall Effects of Differentiated Instruction

Ideally, combining our narrative reflection on the included papers with a meta-analysis of the findings would give us an answer as to how effective within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education may be. However, unfortunately, the number of papers that remained after applying our selection criteria is limited and the studies are heterogeneous in nature so meta-analyses of results should be interpreted with caution. To inform the readers however, we did add a forest plot with an overview of the average effect size of each individual study to the appendix (see Appendix D ). In Table 2 the effects and intermediate calculations for individual studies are described. A summary effect across all studies is also reported ( d = +0.741; 95% CI = 0.397–1.1085; Q = 507.701; df = 14; p < 0.01). The p -value of the Q statistic was significant which may indicate heterogeneity of the papers meaning that the true effects of the interventions may vary. Noticeably, the largest studies in our sample show small positive effects of differentiated instruction. In contrast, the relatively small studies reported on large effects, and the other studies mostly show moderate effects of the approach. A cumulative analysis (see Appendix D ) illustrates that the small study by Altintas and Özdemir (2015a , b) considerably shifts the point estimate of the effect size in the positive direction. Excluding this outlier, the summary effect of differentiated instruction is d = +0.509 (95% CI = 0.215–0.803; see Appendix D ). A funnel plot was made to check for publication bias (see Appendix E ). Using Duval and Tweedie's Trim and Fill method ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ), no adjusted values were estimated. This indicates that there is no evidence of publication bias. These analyses give some information about the range of effects that can be achieved with differentiated instruction interventions ranging. However, unquestionably, more information is needed before drawing a more definitive conclusion about the overall and relative effects of different approaches to differentiated instruction in secondary schools.

Suggestions for Reporting on Differentiated Instruction Interventions

One of the issues we encountered when performing this review, was that interventions and research methodologies were often described rather briefly. In addition, relevant context information was frequently missing. This is problematic, not only from a scientific point of view, but also to judge the transferability of the findings to practice. Therefore, we encourage researchers to diligently report on the methods and analytical techniques they used and to be specific about the outcomes that led to their conclusions (see e.g., Hancock and Mueller, 2010 ). Except for this general suggestion, we would like to provide a number of specific recommendations for reporting on differentiated instruction interventions (see Appendix F ).

Conclusion and discussion

The most important conclusion from our systematic review of the literature is that there are too few high-quality studies on the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education. Only 12 studies from 14 papers were selected after applying strict selection criteria to a large amount of literature on the topic. As expected, we found papers on various operationalizations of differentiated instruction like homogeneous grouping, differentiated instruction in peer-learning, and individualization. However, even within the most well-known approaches like ability grouping, the empirical evidence was limited. High quality teacher-led differentiated instruction studies in secondary education are scarce, although the literature on ICT-applications for differentiated instruction seems to be on the rise. This paucity has not changed much after our search, although there are some recent interesting endeavors for teacher professionalization in differentiated instruction ( Brink and Bartz, 2017 ; Schipper et al., 2017 , 2018 ; Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ) and there have been some recent small-scale studies including aspects of differentiated instruction ( Sezer, 2017 ; Adeniji et al., 2018 ). This paucity is remarkable given the large interest for the topic of differentiated instruction in both the literature as well as in policy and practice. Apparently, the premises of differentiated instruction seems substantial enough for schools and policy makers to move towards implementation before a solid research base has been established. On the one hand, this seems defendable; differentiated instruction matches the ambitions of educationists to be more student-oriented and to improve equity among students. In addition, there is prior research showing benefits of approaches like ability grouping and mastery learning for K-12 students' achievement ( Guskey and Pigott, 1988 ; Kulik et al., 1990 ; Kulik, 1992 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Hattie, 2009 ; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the ideas behind differentiated instruction are in line with approaches which have repeatedly been linked to better learning such as having students work on an appropriate level of moderate challenge according to their “zone of proximal development” and matching learning tasks to students' abilities and interests to create “flow” ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ). On the other hand, more research on different operationalizations of differentiated instruction is needed to help teachers and policy makers to determine which approaches are helpful for students of different characteristics and to gain insight in how these could be implemented successfully. From prior research in primary education, we know that it is likely that not all approaches have comparable effects, and that effects for low- average- and high ability students may vary ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). Our current review shows that there is much work to be done in order to further clarify which approaches work and why within the context of secondary education.

Having said that, the studies that we did find do give us some directions about the expectations we may have about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education. Most well-designed studies in our sample reported small to medium-sized positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. This finding is comparable to the moderate effects found in most differentiated instruction reviews (e.g., Kulik, 1992 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016 ) and other studies on educational interventions ( Sipe and Curlette, 1996 ). The overall effect in our study is a bit higher than in prior reviews, possibly due to the inclusion of various approaches to differentiated instruction, including mastery learning and more holistic approaches. Although we cannot give a conclusive answer about the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in secondary education, most of the included studies do illustrate the possibility of improving student achievement by means of differentiated instruction.

Moreover, the selected papers give insight in the many different ways that differentiated instruction can be operationalized and studied in secondary education. For instance, a number of studies used generic training of teachers in principles of differentiated instruction. Based on the findings, we would suggest that more research is needed to study how teachers can adequately be guided to implement such holistic approaches into their daily teaching (compare practicality theory by Janssen et al., 2015 ). Alternatively, in four of the selected studies homogeneous clustering by means of tiering and ability grouping was used as a structure for differentiated instruction. For the subgroups, learning content was adapted to better fit the needs of the students ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Altintas and Özdemir, 2015a , b ; Bal, 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ). Medium to large positive effects were reported of such an approach, indicating this may be one of the ways teachers may address differentiated instruction. This finding is comparable to findings on ability grouping in the meta-analyses by Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) and Lou et al. (1996) . The effects were somewhat larger compared to those in the studies in primary education discussed by Deunk et al. (2018) and Slavin (1990a) . One possible explanation might be that some of the studies mentioned in those previous reviews may have included grouping without any instructional adaptations, which was excluded from the current review. Also, in our selected papers on homogeneous clustering, researcher-developed outcome measures were used. Researcher-developed measures have previously been associated with larger effects than standardized measures ( Slavin, 1987 ; Lou et al., 1996 ). Turning to another approach, two studies were reviewed on the effectiveness of mastery learning. The authors reported large effects of mastery learning on student achievement. However, since the research methods were not thoroughly described in the papers, we cannot say much about the quality of the intervention nor the implementation. Two other studies focused on individualization. Overall, small and non-significant effects of this approach were found. It could be that teachers grapple with the organizational requirements of individualized instruction ( Education Endowment Foundation, n.d. ). Additionally, a study was found that successfully embedded differentiated instruction in a peer-learning setting by means tiered content matching students' learning needs ( Mastropieri et al., 2006 ). Lastly, one of the studies embedded remediation and collaboration in a flipped-classroom format illustrating how differentiated instruction can be applied within different approaches to teaching ( Bhagat et al., 2016 ).

Unfortunately, in only three studies, authors reported on differential effects for subgroups of students within classes. This makes it difficult to judge which differentiated instruction approach is most suitable for whom. In the studies ( Richards and Omdal, 2007 ; Bhagat et al., 2016 ; Bikić et al., 2016 ) that did report effects for subgroups, the interventions were shown to be most beneficial for low achieving (and in case of Bikić also the average achieving) subgroups of students, even though the learning content was adapted to better match the needs of other students too. However, it remains unclear whether this was caused by the differentiated instruction, by the fact that the teachers directed more attention toward low performing students, or by the fact that the outcome measures did not match the adapted content. In addition, the subgroups were relatively small, limiting the power of the findings. Therefore, more empirical evidence is needed about the implementation and relative effects of differentiated instruction to further inform the “differentiation-dilemma” of how to best divide time over students with different needs ( Denessen, 2017 ).

Regarding the contextual and personal variables across studies, students' age, the school subjects and teaching experience of teachers varied. The fact that positive results have been replicated in several settings with different populations, gives a first indication that the approach may be transferable across different contexts ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ). One consistent finding across the studies is that teachers relied on external support to implement within-class differentiated instruction during the interventions. This is to be expected, since prior reviews found that implementing differentiated instruction is quite complex for teachers and that they may need considerable guidance to get it right ( Tomlinson et al., 2003 ; Subban, 2006 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Previous studies show that teachers receiving more professional development in differentiated instruction perceive higher efficacy and adapt their teaching to students more often ( Dixon et al., 2014 ; Suprayogi et al., 2017 ).

The contribution of the current review to existing knowledge of the effects of differentiated instruction on students' achievement in secondary education is as follows: First, it provides an overview of theoretical concepts and operationalizations of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Next, it shows that a systematic review of the literature leads to a limited body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction in secondary education. This overview of the state of the art within this theme may inform further research initiatives. Additionally, the study addresses some contextual and personal factors that may affect teachers' differentiated instruction.

Limitations

The most salient drawback of the review is the limited number of studies that were included. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that the limited number of selected papers makes it difficult to come to definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of within-class differentiated instruction. On the other hand, the importance of using systematic reviews to identify research gaps to inform further development of the field should not be underestimated ( Petticrew and Roberts, 2006 ). Defining consistent criteria for the selection of the best evidence available—as we have done in this study—may limit the number of selected studies but does help to ensure that the studies that are selected are highly informative ( Slavin, 1995 ). The limited number of studies we found is just about comparable to the number of within-class approaches that were selected in a recent review of between-class and within-class differentiated instruction in primary education ( Deunk et al., 2018 ). We only included studies in which student achievement was reported as an outcome measure. In future research, adding other types of outcomes and other types of study designs could add to the breadth of the research base.

Another limitation has to do with the quality of the selected papers and consequently with our approach to the analyses. First, the fact that we did not locate any truly randomized designs necessitates caution in interpreting the findings. Potential biases are likely to be greater for non-randomized studies compared to randomized trials ( Higgins and Green, 2011 ). Second, the number of participants at the level of randomization (often the classroom level) was mostly low. Furthermore, it was sometimes difficult to determine the quality of the studies due to a lack of information in the papers. We tried to gain insight in the differentiated instruction interventions, but often essential information was omitted. Also, the conversion to Cohen's d could not always be done using an identical approach across the different studies. Must studies reported pre- and/or post-scores on achievement tests that we could use to calculate the effects in a rather straightforward manner, but in a few cases we had to estimate effects based on other types of information (for instance adjusted means or analyses of variance) which may complicate comparability across studies. Another drawback is that authors sometimes provided the outcomes of subgroups (for instance classes or ability groups within classes), sometimes only outcomes of the experimental conditions, or sometimes both. In the case of differentiated teaching, researchers should clearly explain their aims regarding which students they want to support (convergent or divergent). And if the aims differ per subgroup, they should ideally report these separate effects too. To inform future research on the topic, we have suggested some reporting guidelines that may help to clarify the content of future approaches to differentiated instruction and how they were studied in the Appendix.

A final limitation, inherent to a topic that is so multifaceted, is that the choices we have made in how we defined within-class differentiated instruction have influenced our selection of the literature and, thus, should be considered when interpreting the findings. The existing literature is marked by different ways of defining and operationalizing differentiated instruction ( Suprayogi et al., 2017 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). As such, our review may differ from the operationalizations of other authors. In addition, other ways to adapt teaching to students' learning needs are also certainly interesting to consider by teachers who want to better align teaching to students' needs. For example, the use of scaffolding techniques in which instruction is broken up in chunks, and instruction in each chunk is provided contingent to students' level of understanding is a promising instructional technique ( Van de Pol et al., 2010 , 2015 ). In addition, formative assessment is a helpful starting point for differentiated instruction or other types of adaptive teaching ( Kingston and Nash, 2011 ). Furthermore, as discussed in the theoretical framework, differentiated instruction is a broad construct that adds up as a sum of its parts including lesson planning, differentiated instruction, evaluation and general high-quality teaching behaviors. We could not include all these factors into the working definition used to select and synthesize the studies. Therefore, readers should keep in mind that in order to understand differentiated instruction comprehensively and apply it in practice, there is more to it than just executing a differentiated lesson. A thoughtful approach using different steps starting from planning to evaluation including high quality teaching behaviors is key.

Recommendations for Research and Practice

We would like to urge researchers to further study the impact and implementation of differentiated instruction. First, reviews and meta-analyses combining quantitative and qualitative information on the effects of different approaches to differentiated instruction for different outcomes may add further to the current knowledge base ( Dixon-Woods et al., 2005 ). When more quantitative studies are located, this enables more statistical possibilities that can be used to gain insight in differential effects and predictive characteristics of different student outcomes ( Lou et al., 1996 ; Moeyaert et al., 2016 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). And qualitative studies may help us understand how teachers differentiate and how their subjective experiences in the classroom influence their differentiated instruction ( Civitillo et al., 2016 ). In addition, authors may want to add studies on affective student outcomes as well. For example, students may have better attitudes and motivation in differentiated classes in which teaching better matches their learning needs ( Kulik and Kulik, 1982 ; Lou et al., 1996 ; Maulana et al., 2017 ; Van Casteren et al., 2017 ).

Second, future studies on the development and evaluation of differentiated instruction interventions could add to the knowledge base about how to reach differentiated instruction's potential in practice. In order to support teachers, specific coaching on the job by experienced peers or external coaches or other types of professionalization may help to develop awareness and implementation of differentiated instruction ( Latz et al., 2009 ; Smit and Humpert, 2012 ; Parsons et al., 2018 ; Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ). Teachers should learn to reflect upon the decisions they make when adapting their teaching ( Parsons et al., 2018 ). Moreover, teachers need team support and sufficient time to develop their differentiated instruction ( Stollman, 2018 ). Research shows that teachers themselves are quite enthusiastic about bottom-up professionalization approaches like peer-coaching or professional learning communities ( Van Casteren et al., 2017 ). Whatever approach one chooses, there are some characteristics which may facilitate the effectiveness of professionalization including: a focus on both content and pedagogical knowledge, sufficient duration of the intervention, initial training and follow-up sessions, a facilitation of collaboration and communication with colleagues and experts, constant on-site support and help during the implementation- and the development of personal skills for reflection and self-evaluation of teachers ( Valiandes and Neophytou, 2018 ). In addition, teacher educators should be mindful of teacher differences themselves too by providing differentiated professionalization ( Stollman, 2018 ). In this review, we did not include studies on the effectiveness of adaptive ICT applications on students' progress. However, ICT can play a significant role in the creation of student-centered learning environments when used as more than a simple add-on to regular teaching ( Smeets and Mooij, 2001 ; Deunk et al., 2018 ). Some recent studies on adaptive or personalized ICT programs, digital pen technologies, and blended learning show that such interventions can support differentiated instruction and have positive effects on student achievement ( Walkington, 2013 ; Chen et al., 2016 ; Van Halem et al., 2017 ; Ghysels and Haelermans, 2018 ), although more research is needed to assess for whom and for which type of outcomes these approaches are beneficial ( Van Klaveren et al., 2017 ). In the studies in this review, fixed outcome measures were used to assess students' learning. Possibly, adaptive testing will provide more room for assessing differentiated growth trajectories in future studies ( Martin and Lazendic, 2018 ).

Lastly, when aiming to gain further insight in the effectiveness of differentiated instruction, authors may want to reflect on how differentiated instruction is operationalized and measured. In prior research, teacher questionnaires were often used to assess teachers' differentiated instruction practices ( Roy et al., 2013 ; Prast et al., 2015 ). In addition, classroom observations of differentiated instruction or adaptive teaching behavior have been used ( Cassady et al., 2004 ; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2006 ; Van de Grift, 2007 ). Alternatively, in our selection of papers, we found some interesting ways to determine how teachers differentiate. For example, using vignette or video tests ( Vogt and Rogalla, 2009 ; Bruhwiler and Blatchford, 2011 ) or by means of teacher logs or observations ( Little et al., 2014 ). Enriching measures of teacher behavior with information about the match of the behavior with students' needs may be another step forward ( Van Geel et al., 2019 ). We would like to recommend authors to further develop, evaluate and apply measures for differentiated instruction that can be used to gain insight in how differentiated instruction is linked to various student outcomes.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

AS-J set up the methods of the paper, analyzed the theoretical backgrounds and is responsible for the concept of the article, and together with co-authors, extracted data, performed the analyses, and wrote the paper. AM coordinated the selection of studies, worked on data selection and extraction, and contributed to writing the paper. MH-L and RM designed the overarching project, acquired funding for the execution, and contributed to the conceptualization of differentiated instruction and the review process.

This work was supported by the Dutch scientific funding agency (NRO) under Grant number 405-15-732.

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.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Bernie Helms for his contribution to the practical work needed to execute this study. Additionally, we greatly value the consultations regarding the analyses with our colleagues Dr. Hester de Boer and Prof. Dr. Roel Bosker from GION Educational Sciences.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ We did not include search terms specifically referring to heterogeneous approaches in the search string. Although heterogeneous grouping may include differentiation, adaptiveness is often not the focus of these studies.

2. ^ Quasi-experimental studies in which experimental and control groups are well matched, and covariates that correlate strongly with pretests are used to adjust outcomes, can be a valuable source of information usable for meta-analyses ( Slavin et al., 2008 ; Slavin and Smith, 2009 ), although the results of (especially small-scale) quasi-experimental studies should be evaluated with caution ( Cheung and Slavin, 2016 ).

3. ^ References included in the systematic review are marked with an asterisk.

Adeniji, S. M., Ameen, S. K., Dambatta, B. U., and Orilonise, R. (2018). Effect of mastery learning approach on senior school students' academic performance and retention in circle geometry. Int. J. Instruct. 11, 951–962. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11460a

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Akçayir, G., and Akçayir, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: a review of its advantages and challenges. Comput. Educ. 126, 334–345. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021

Altemueller, L., and Lindquist, C. (2017). Flipped classroom instruction for inclusive learning. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 44, 341–358. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12177

* Altintas, E., and Özdemir, A. S. (2015a). The effect of the developed differentiation approach on the achievements of the students. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 61, 199–216. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2015.61.11

* Altintas, E., and Özdemir, A. S. (2015b). Evaluating a newly developed differentiation approach in terms of student achievement and teachers' opinions. Educ. Sci. Theor. Pract. 15, 1103–1118. doi: 10.12738/estp.2015.4.2540

* and Bal, A. P. (2016). The effect of the differentiated teaching approach in the algebraic learning field on students' academic achievements. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 63, 185–204. doi: 10.14689/ejer.2016.63.11

Best Evidence Encyclopedia (n.d.). Review Methods. Criteria for Inclusion in the Best Evidence Encyclopedia . Available online at: http://www.bestevidence.org/methods/criteria.htm

Google Scholar

* Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C., and Chang, C. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19, 134–142. Available online at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-35586-003

* Bikić, N., Maričić, S. M., and Pikula, M. (2016). The effects of differentiation of content in problem-solving in learning geometry in secondary school. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12, 2783–2795. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.02304a

Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., and Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom engagement and teacher-pupil interaction: differences in relation to pupil prior attainment and primary vs. secondary schools. Learn. Instruct. 21, 715–730. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.001

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis . Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. doi: 10.1002/9780470743386

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., and Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods 1, 97–111. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.12

Bosker, R. J. (2005). De Grenzen van Gedifferentiëerd Onderwijs. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen . Available online at: http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14812458/bosker.pdf

Bray, B., and McClaskey, K. (2013). Personalization vs. Differentiation vs. Individualization. (No. version 3) . Available online at: http://www.personalizelearning.com/2012/04/explaining-chart.html

Brink, M., and Bartz, D. E. (2017). Effective use of formative assessment by high school teachers. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 22, 1–10. Available online at: https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=22&n=8

* Bruhwiler, C., and Blatchford, P. (2011). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learn. Instruct. 21, 95–108. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.11.004

Cassady, J. C., Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Cross, T. L., Dixon, F. A., and Pierce, R. L. (2004). The differentiated classroom observation scale. Roeper Rev. 26, 139–146. doi: 10.1080/02783190409554259

Cavanagh, S. (2014). What is personalised learning? Educators seek clarity. Education Week . Available online at: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/22/09pl-overview.h34.html

Chen, C., Tan, C., and Lo, B. (2016). Facilitating English-language learners' oral reading fluency with digital pen technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24, 96–118. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.817442

Cheung, A. C. K., and Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educ. Res. 45, 283–292. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16656615

Cheung, A. C. K., Slavin, R. E., Kim, E., and Lake, C. (2017). Effective secondary science programs: a best-evidence synthesis. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 58–81. doi: 10.1002/tea.21338

Civitillo, S., Denessen, E., and Molenaar, I. (2016). How to see the classroom through the eyes of a teacher: consistency between perceptions on diversity and differentiation practices. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 16, 587–591. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12190

Clarke, D., and Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teach. Teach. Educ. 18, 947–967. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

Cole, R., Haimson, J., Perez-Johnson, I., and May, H. (2011). Variability in Pretest-Posttest Correlation Coefficients by Student Achievement Level. (NCEE Reference Report 2011-4033). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educ. Psychol. 43, 161–173. doi: 10.1080/00461520802178466

Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Engels, N., Cools, W., and De Martelaer, K. (2013). Binnenklas-Differentiatie. Leerkansen Voor Alle Leerlingen . Leuven: Uitgeverij Acco.

De Jager, T. (2013). Guidelines to assist the implementation of differentiated learning activities in south African secondary schools. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 17, 80–94. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2011.580465

De Neve, D., and Devos, G. (2016). The role of environmental factors in beginning teachers' professional learning related to differentiated instruction. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 27, 557–579. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2015.1122637

Denessen, E. J. P. G. (2017). Verantwoord Omgaan met Verschillen: Social-Culturele Achtergronden en Differentiatie in Het Onderwijs. [Soundly Dealing with Differences: Socialcultural Background and Differentiation in Education]. (Inaugural lecture). Leiden: Leiden University . Available online at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.~nl/handle/1887/51574

Denessen, E. J. P. G., and Douglas, A. S. (2015). “Teacher expectations and within-classroom differentiation,” in Routledge International Handbook of Social Psychology of the Classroom , eds C. M. Rubie-Davies, J. M. Stephens, and P. Watson (London: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group, 296–303.

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

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., and Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. J. Educ. Gifted 37, 111–127. doi: 10.1177/0162353214529042

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., and Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 45–53. doi: 10.1177/135581960501000110

Duval, S., and Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455–463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

Education Endowment Foundation (n.d.). Teaching Learning Toolkit An Accessible Summary of the International Evidence on Teaching 5-16 year-Olds . Available online at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/

Edwards, P., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Roberts, I., and Wentz, R. (2002). Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat. Med. 21, 1635–1640. doi: 10.1002/sim.1190

Gardner, H. (2016). “Multiple intelligences: prelude, theory, and aftermath,” in Scientists Making a Difference , eds R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske, and D. J. Foss (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316422250

Ghysels, J., and Haelermans, C. (2018). New evidence on the effect of computerized individualized practice and instruction on language skills. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 34, 440–449. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12248

Guskey, T. R., and Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Res. 81, 197–216. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1988.10885824

Hall, E. F. (1992). Assessment for differentiation. Br. J. Spec. Educ. 19, 20–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.1992.tb00397.x

Hancock, G. R., and Mueller, R. O. (2010). The Reviewer's Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences . New York, NY: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Oxon: Routledge.

Hertberg-Davis, H., and Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: principals' influence on middle school teachers' responses to differentiation. J. Secondary Gifted Educ. 17, 90–102. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2006-685

Higgins, J.P.T., and Green, S., (eds). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration . Available online at: www.handbook.cochrane.org .

* Huber, M. J., Workman, J., Ford, J. A., Moore, D., and Mayer, T. (2009). Evaluating the prevention through alternative learning styles program. J. Drug Educ. 39, 239–259. doi: 10.2190/DE.39.3.b

Imants, J., and Van Veen, K. (2010). “Teacher learning as workplace learning,” in International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edn . eds P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw (Oxford: Elsevier), 569–574. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00657-6

Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., and Doyle, W. (2015). Practicality studies: how to move from what works in principle to what works in practice. J. Learn. Sci. 24, 176–186. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2014.954751

Keuning, T., Van Geel, M., Frèrejean, J., Van Merriënboer, J., Dolmans, D., and Visscher, A. (2017). Differentiëren bij rekenen: Een cognitieve taakanalyse van het denken en handelen van basisschoolleerkrachten [Differentiating in mathematics: a cognitive task analysis of primary school teachers' reflections and practices]. Pedagog. Stud. 94, 160–181. Available online at: http://pedagogischestudien.nl/download?type=document&identifier=640319

Kiley, D. (2011). Differentiated Instruction in the Secondary Classroom: Analysis of the Level of Implementation and Factors that Influence Practice (Partial FULFILLMENT of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education) . Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Kingston, N., and Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: a meta-analysis and a call for research. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 30, 28–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x

Kirschner, P. A., Claessens, L., and Raaijmakers, S. (2018). Op de Schouders van Reuzen. Inspirerende Inzichten uit de Cognitieve Psychologie voor Leerkrachten. [On the Shoulders of Giants. Inspiring Insights from Cognitive Psychology for Teachers] . Meppel: Drukkerij Ten Brink Uitgevers.

Kulik, C. C., and Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: a meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Am. Educ. Res. J. 19, 415–428. doi: 10.3102/00028312019003415

Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., and Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 265–299. doi: 10.3102/00346543060002265

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Research-Based Decision Making Series. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented . Available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=trueanddb=ericandAN=ED350777andsite=ehost-liveandscope=site

Kulik, J. A., and Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 42–78. doi: 10.3102/0034654315581420

Kumar, R., O'malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., and Laetz, V. B. (2013). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use prevention programs in U.S. schools: a descriptive summary. Prev. Sci. 14, 581–592. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0340-z

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., and Charalambous, E. (2018). Equity and Quality Dimensions in Educational Effectiveness. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72066-1

Latz, A. O., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., and Pierce, R. L. (2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: perspectives from project CLUE. Roeper Rev. 31, 27–39. doi: 10.1080/02783190802527356

Leo, J., and Puzio, K. (2016). Flipped instruction in a high school science classroom. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 775–781. doi: 10.1007/s10956-016-9634-4

* Little, C. A., McCoach, D. B., and Reis, S. M. (2014). Effects of differentiated reading instruction on student achievement in middle school. J. Adv. Acad. 25, 384–402. doi: 10.1177/1932202X14549250

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., and d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66, 423–458. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004423

Lyons, L. C. (2003). Meta-Analysis: Methods of Accumulating Results Across Research Domains . Available online at: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons/metaAnalysis/index.cfm

Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., and Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 901–918. doi: 10.1037/a0037123

Martin, A. J., and Lazendic, G. (2018). Computer-adaptive testing: implications for students' achievement, motivation, engagement, and subjective test experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 110, 27–45. doi: 10.1037/edu0000205

* Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. J. Spec. Educ. 40, 130–137. doi: 10.1177/00224669060400030101

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2015). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers' teaching behaviour: a rasch modelling approach. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 26, 169–194. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2014.939198

Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2017). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 23, 471–493. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102

McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., and Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Differentiated Instruction Provincial Research Review. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Initiative for School Improvement.

Mevarech, Z. R., and Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: a multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. Am. Educ. Res. J. 34, 365–394. doi: 10.3102/00028312034002365

Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D., et al. (2014). Differentiated learning: from policy to classroom. Oxford Rev. Educ. 40, 331–348. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2014.911725

* Mitee, T. L., and Obaitan, G. N. (2015). Effect of mastery learning on senior secondary school students' cognitive learning outcome in quantitative chemistry. J. Educ. Pract. 6, 34–38. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083639.pdf

Moeyaert, M., Ugille, M., Beretvas, N., Ferron, J., Bunuan, R., and Van den Noortgate, W. (2016). Methods for dealing with multiple outcomes in meta-analysis: a comparison between averaging effect sizes, robust variance estimation and multilevel meta-analysis. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 20, 559–572. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2016.1252189

Nokes-Malach, T., Richey, J., and Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 645–656. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8

Oakes, J. (2008). Keeping track: structuring equality and inequality in an era of accountability. Teach. College Rec. 110, 700–712. Available online at: https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=14610

OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education. Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264130852-en

OECD (2018). The Resilience of Students with an Immigrant Background. Factors that Shape Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264292093-en

Parsons, S. A., Dodman, S. L., and Cohen Burrowbridge, S. (2013). Broadening the view of differentiated instruction differentiation shouldn't end with planning but should continue as teachers adapt their instruction during lessons. Kappan 95, 38–42. doi: 10.1177/003172171309500107

Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., et al. (2018). Teachers' instructional adaptations: a research synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 88, 205–242. doi: 10.3102/0034654317743198

Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences. A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: USA Blackwell publishing. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887

Pierce, R., and Adams, C. (2005). Using tiered lessons in mathematics. Math. Teach. Middle Sch. 11, 144–149.

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, and Johannes, E. H. (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learn. Res. 3, 90–116. doi: 10.14786/flr.v3i2.163

* Richards, M. R. E., and Omdal, S. N. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic achievement in a secondary science course. J. Adv. Acad. 18, 424–453. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2007-499

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., and Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: a framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Prev. Sch. Fail. 52, 31–47. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.31-47

Roy, A., Guay, F., and Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. Int. J. Inclus. Educ. 17, 1186–1204. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2012.743604

Scheerens, J. (2016). “Meta-analyses of school and instructional effectiveness,” in Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness , ed J. Scheerens (Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media), 175–223. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-7459-8_8

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., and van Veen, K. (2017). Professional growth in adaptive teaching competence as a result of lesson study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 68, 289–303. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.015

Schipper, T., Goei, S. L., de Vries, S., and van Veen, K. (2018). Developing teachers' self-efficacy and adaptive teaching behaviour through lesson study. International Journal of Educational Research , 88, 109–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.011

Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching Excellence Through Professional Learning and Policy Reform: Lessons from Around the World . Paris: International Summit on the Teaching Profession; OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264252059-en

Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary schools. Teach. College Rec. 112, 1492–1528. Available online at: https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15684

Schütz, G., Ursprung, H., and Wößmann, L. (2008). Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity, Vol. 61 (Kyklos: Wiley Blackwell), 279–308.

Sezer, B. (2017). The effectiveness of a technology-enhanced flipped science classroom. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 55, 471–494. doi: 10.1177/0735633116671325

Shute, V. J., and Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 33, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12172

Sipe, T. A., and Curlette, W. L. (1996). A meta-synthesis of factors related to educational achievement: a methodological approach to summarizing and synthesizing meta-analyses. Int. J. Educ. Res. 25, 83–698. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(96)80001-2

Slavin, R., and Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 31, 500–506. doi: 10.3102/0162373709352369

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ. Res. 15, 5–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015009005

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Rev. Educ. Res. 57, 175–214. doi: 10.3102/00346543057002175

Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 471–499. doi: 10.3102/00346543060003471

Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Mastery learning re-reconsidered. Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 300–302. doi: 10.3102/00346543060002300

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Best evidence synthesis. An intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 9–18. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-A

Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effective programmes in reading and mathematics: lessons from the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 24, 383–391. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2013.797913

Slavin, R. E., and Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 247–284. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002247

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., and Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Read. Res. Q. 43, 290–322. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., and Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: a best-evidence synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 79, 839–911. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330968

Slavin, R. E., and Madden, N. A. (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 4, 370–380. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2011.558986

Smeets, E., and Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centred learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: observations in educational practice. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 32, 403. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00210

Smets, W., and Struyven, K. (2018). Realist review of literature on catering for different instructional needs with preteaching and extended instruction. Educ. Sci . 8, 113. doi: 10.3390/educsci8030113

* Smit, R., and Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28, 1152–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.003

Smit, R., Humpert, W., Obertüfer-Gahler, R., Engeli, E., and Breuer-Brodmüller, M. (2011). “Differenzierung als Chance für kleine schulen - empirische befunde im längsschnitt,” in Schule im Alpinen Raum , eds R. Müller, A. Keller, U. Kerle, A. Raggl, and E. Steiner (Innsbruck: Studienverlag), 435–488.

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: findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 849–899. doi: 10.3102/0034654316675417

Stollman, S. H. M. (2018). Differentiated Instruction in Practice: A Teacher Perspective . Leiden: ICLON, Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: a research basis. Int. Educ. J. 7, 935–947. Available online at: http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v7n7/Subban/BEGIN.HTM

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., and Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 291–301. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

Swanson, H. L., and Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Rev. Educ. Res. 71, 321–363. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002321

Tieso, C. L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Rev. 26, 29–36. doi: 10.1080/02783190309554236

Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society 52, 203–209. doi: 10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0

Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: one school's journey. Gifted Child Q. 39, 77–87. doi: 10.1177/001698629503900204

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Pers. Learn. 57, 12–16.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom. Responding to the Needs of All Learrners, 2nd Edn . Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., et al. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: a review of literature. J. Educ. Gifted 27, 119–145. doi: 10.1177/016235320302700203

Unesco (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization . Available online at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254

Valiande, S., and Koutselini, M. I. (2009). (2009). “Application and evaluation of differentiation instruction in mixed ability classrooms,” Paper presented at the 4th Hellenic Observatory PhD Symposium (London: LSE, 25–26.

Valiandes, S., and Neophytou, L. (2018). Teachers' professional development for differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: investigating the impact of a development program on teachers' professional learning and on students' achievement. Teach. Dev. 22, 123–138. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

Van Casteren, W., Bendig-Jacobs, J., Wartenbergh-Cras, F., Van Essen, M., and Kurver, B. (2017). Differentiëren en Differentiatievaardigheden in Het Voortgezet Onderwijs. Nijmegen: ResearchNed.

Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educ. Res. 49, 127–152. doi: 10.1080/00131880701369651

Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., Helms-Lorenz, M., and Maulana, R. (2014). Teaching skills of student teachers: calibration of an evaluation instrument and its value in predicting student academic engagement. Stud. Educ. Eval. 43, 150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.09.003

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., and Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in Teacher–Student interaction: a decade of research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 271–296. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., and Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instruct. Sci. 43, 615–641. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z

Van der Kleij, F., Feskens, R. C. W., and Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students' learning outcomes. Rev. Educ. Res. 85, 475–511. doi: 10.3102/0034654314564881

Van der Lans, R. M., Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., and van Veen, K. (2017). Individual differences in teacher development: an exploration of the applicability of a stage model to assess individual teachers. Learn. Individ. Diff. 58, 46–55. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.007

Van der Lans, R. M., Van de Grift, W. J. C. M., and van Veen, K. (2018). Developing an instrument for teacher feedback: using the rasch model to explore teachers' development of effective teaching strategies and behaviors. J. Exp. Educ. 86, 247–264. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1268086

Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., Van Merriënboer, J., and Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 30, 51–67. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013

Van Halem, N., Van Klaveren, C. P. B. J., and Cornelisz, I. (2017). Oefent een leerling meer door niveaudifferentiatie? Het effect van data-gestuurde differentiatie op leerinspanning en de rol van eerder behaalde cijfers. [Does a learner practice more because of readiness-based differentiation? The effect of data-driven differentiation on learning effort and the role of prior grades]. Pedagog. Stud. 94, 182–195. Available online at: http://pedagogischestudien.nl/download?type=document&identifier=640298

Van Klaveren, C., Vonk, S., and Cornelisz, I. (2017). The effect of adaptive versus static practicing on student learning - evidence from a randomized field experiment. Econ. Educ. Rev. 58, 175–187. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.04.003

Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., and Feng, A. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Rev. 29, 84–92. doi: 10.1080/02783190709554391

* Vogt, F., and Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 25, 1051–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.002

Walkington, C. A. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: the impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 932–945. doi: 10.1037/a0031882

* Wambugu, P. W., and Changeiywo, J. M. (2008). Effects of mastery learning approach on secondary school students' physics achievement. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 4, 293–302. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/75352

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., and Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. J. Educ. Res. 84, 30–43. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1990.10885988

Wilkinson, S. D., and Penney, D. (2014). The effects of setting on classroom teaching and student learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: a critical review of the literature in England. Educ. Rev. 66, 411–427. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2013.787971

World Health Organiasation (2011). European Action Plan to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol 2012–2020. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe . Available online at: https://www.stap.nl/en/home/european-alcohol-policy.html

Keywords: review, differentiation, differentiated instruction, adaptive teaching, ability grouping, secondary education, student performance, effectiveness

Citation: Smale-Jacobse AE, 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

Received: 14 May 2019; Accepted: 04 October 2019; Published: 22 November 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Smale-Jacobse, Meijer, Helms-Lorenz and Maulana. 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: Annemieke E. Smale-Jacobse, a.e.smale-jacobse@rug.nl

Disclaimer: 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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(10); 2023 Oct
• PMC10495708

Effectiveness of differentiated instruction on learning outcomes and learning satisfaction in the evidence‐based nursing course: Empirical research quantitative

Shwu‐ru liou.

1 Chang Gung University of Science and Technology, Puzi, Chiayi Taiwan

2 Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Chiayi Branch, Puzi, Chiayi Taiwan

Ching‐Yu Cheng

Tsui‐ping chu, chia‐hao chang, hsiu‐chen liu, associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Mendeley Data at http://doi.org/10.17632/7fmswnmyft.1 .

Diversified students in higher education and the complexity and difficulty of the evidence‐based nursing course perceived by students challenge nursing educators. Differentiated instruction can provide students with various opportunities to learn and meet the learning needs of students with different academic abilities and strengths, which may be a solution. This study aimed to apply differentiated instruction to design the undergraduate evidence‐based nursing course and evaluate the effects of differentiated instruction on students' learning outcomes and learning satisfaction.

One‐group pretest–posttest pre‐experimental design was applied.

Ninety‐eight undergraduate nursing students enrolled in the evidence‐based nursing course 2020 participated in this study. Students' learning outcomes including preferred learning styles, classroom engagement, collaborative learning, attitudes towards evidence‐based nursing, learning satisfaction and evidence‐based nursing knowledge were measured using validated questionnaires.

The differentiated instruction increased students' learning interests, promoted focused and independent thinking, and enhanced academic achievement. Students' classroom engagement, attitudes towards evidence‐based nursing, evidence‐based nursing knowledge and learning satisfaction were improved after the course. The course designed with differentiated instruction provided a supportive learning environment and furnished a vivid pedagogical way for the unique nursing profession.

Patient or Public Contribution

Positive results of the study support the application of differentiated instruction in the evidence‐based nursing course. The study indicates that the application of differentiated instruction in mixed‐ability classrooms in the evidence‐based nursing course improved students' learning outcomes, attitudes towards evidence‐based nursing, evidence‐based nursing knowledge and learning satisfaction. In clinical settings where nurses are even more diverse in academic education, clinical experiences and learning preferences, differentiated instruction can be a suitable application for in‐service training and education to promote nurses' enthusiasm for professional learning.

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of educating healthcare professionals with competency in providing evidence‐based practice (EBP) to enhance quality and safety care has been declared. The American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet Recognition program stresses hospitals to prepare their nurses with the ability to apply EBP to ensure exemplary professional practice (Nelson‐Brantley et al.,  2020 ). The evidence‐based nursing (EBN) bridges the gap between research and practice by looking at the quality of research methods and findings that help nursing professionals make appropriate and effective decisions for clinical practice. Nursing students, who are future nursing professionals, are naturally expected to have competency in applying the best available evidence and be prepared with the ability of EBP before graduation (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN],  2021 ).

With the increasing emphasis on EBN, nurse educators face two major issues. One is that nursing students regard the EBN course as complicated and difficult for them to understand or apply the knowledge and skills in clinical settings (Tlili et al.,  2022 ). The other is the challenge that students are more diversified in higher education due to their varied educational and life experiences (Trolian & Parker III,  2022 ). Because of the diversified characteristics, students demonstrate varying learning abilities, learning styles and academic levels in classrooms (Ramdani et al.,  2021 ). Tomlinson ( 2001 ) asserts that students learn best when their teachers accommodate the differences in their readiness levels, interests and learning profiles. Unfortunately, traditional and undifferentiated instruction that does not assist knowledge construction for students with various learning capacities causes problems of inequality and inequity in education (Tomlinson,  2001 ).

Student‐centred pedagogies, which place learners at the centre of the learning process, can meet learners' individual learning needs and styles and engage them in the process of learning (An & Mindrila,  2020 ). Examples of student‐centred pedagogies include active learning, which involves students in their own learning process (Nguyen et al.,  2021 ); collaborative learning, which engages students working together towards the attainment of goals (Lumatauw et al.,  2020 ); and problem‐based learning, which provides a learning environment for learners to actively collaborate with others and develop problem‐solving skills (Trullàs et al.,  2022 ). These student‐centred pedagogies focus more on the process of learning during class time. Differentiated instruction is another student‐centred approach (Gheyssens et al.,  2020 ) that emphasizes flexibility in the areas of content, process and product to provide more opportunities for students to choose appropriate content and access to content, learning activities that showcase their individual strengths, and methods that are suitable for them to demonstrate their learning outcomes (Tomlinson,  2000 ).

The Hallmarks of Excellence in nursing education proposed by the National League for Nursing (NLN) provides nursing faculties a guide to design and evaluate their education programme. One of the hallmarks emphasizes that teaching/learning strategies should meet the learning needs of a diverse student population (NLN,  2020 ). Differentiated instruction is teaching strategies that address the diverse learning needs of students (Tomlinson,  2001 ). These teaching strategies can meet the learning needs of students with different academic abilities and strengths and give various opportunities for students to learn (Boelens et al.,  2018 ; Tomlinson,  2001 ). Differentiated instruction has been broadly applied in elementary and high schools internationally, yet, very little evidence is reported in higher education (Turner et al.,  2017 ). Nevertheless, differentiated instruction is supposed to be demanded more in higher education since student populations in higher education systems are more culturally, socially and academically diverse (Boelens et al.,  2018 ).

To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no research empirically testing the effectiveness of applying differentiated instruction in nursing students' learning outcomes in an EBN course. Because of the importance of possessing competency in EBN and the diverse student characteristics, the purpose of this study was to apply differentiated instruction in designing the EBN course to increase undergraduate nursing students' learning interests in and better understanding of the EBN. The study also examined the effects of differentiated instruction on students' learning outcomes and learning satisfaction. Two research questions were set to guide the study:

• What are the effects of differentiated instruction on students' preferred learning styles?
• What are the effects of differentiated instruction on the degree of students' classroom engagement, collaborative learning, attitudes towards EBN, learning satisfaction and EBN knowledge?

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. theoretical background of differentiated instruction.

According to differentiated instruction, teachers proactively remodel curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities and student products to offer a range of learning opportunities that cater to students' individual learning abilities (Tomlinson,  2001 ). Differentiated instruction can be closely associated with several adult learning theories, including Humanism, Self‐Determination Theory, Sociocultural Constructivism and Multiple Intelligences. Humanism places the learner at the centre and emphasizes self‐actualization. It suggests that learning is self‐directed, and adults are capable of taking responsibility for their own learning (Mukhalalati & Taylor,  2019 ). Self‐Determination Theory gives students the responsibility to make choices about their learning, leading to increased motivation and a sense of control in the learning process (Alrabia,  2021 ). Sociocultural Constructivism proposes that individuals construct new knowledge based on their existing skills and knowledge. Learning occurs through active social interactions with peers, teachers and engagement in social activities (Mukhalalati & Taylor,  2019 ). Multiple Intelligences asserts that individuals possess different types of intelligence, and effective learning occurs when instruction is tailored to an individual's strengths and preferences in relation to a specific task (Magableh & Abdullah,  2020 ).

Differentiated instruction aligns with these theories in several ways. Firstly, it empowers students to have control over their learning and cater to their individual needs and preferences. Secondly, it promotes collaborative learning and knowledge construction by creating opportunities for students to engage in meaningful interactions with others. Thirdly, it recognizes and accommodates the diverse strengths and preferences of students, enabling them to engage with content in ways that align with their unique intelligence. These adult learning theories share common characteristics with differentiated instruction, as they emphasize learner‐centredness, autonomy, active engagement and the recognition of individual differences.

2.2. Effects of differentiated instruction

The combing use of differentiated instruction and student‐centred teaching strategies provides opportunities for students to transform their learning behaviour (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ). Studies applying differentiated instruction in mixed‐ability classrooms revealed that students significantly and positively improved their learning achievements (Hapsari & Dahlan,  2018 ).

Although differentiated instruction is proposed to be useful at all levels of education, not many empirical studies reported its application in higher education (Boelens et al.,  2018 ). Published studies that applied differentiated instruction among non‐nursing students reported that students enhanced their learning interests (Sapan & Mede,  2022 ), developed independence and autonomy towards their learning (Chen & Chen,  2018 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ), grew positive attitudes towards the course (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ) and were satisfied with the classes and course design (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). Some studies also reported that differentiated instruction significantly improved students' academic performance (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ) and achievement (Chen & Chen,  2018 ), increased students' cooperation, interaction, classroom engagement (Sapan & Mede,  2022 ), active learning (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ) and learning motivation (Chen & Chen,  2018 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). Educators using differentiated instruction combined with student‐centred learning strategies found positive outcomes of students' successful learning skills and experiences, classroom engagement, learning interests or social interaction (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ).

2.3. Definition of differentiated instruction

Differentiated instruction was first proposed as a teaching practice by Tomlinson in response to the extensive scope of student discrepancies in mixed‐ability classrooms. Tomlinson ( 2000 ) defines differentiated instruction plainly as tailoring instruction to meet students' needs. When teachers vary their teaching in order to fit individuals or small groups for the best experience, they are differentiating.

2.4. Description of the differentiated instruction

Differentiated instruction contains three sections: content and access to content, process and product. It emphasizes a flexible course design that allows curricula for differences in content, process and product sections to provide learners with the excellence of learning and satisfy their unique learning needs (Tomlinson,  2001 ).

2.4.1. First section: Content and access to content

The content refers to topics, concepts or themes. The differentiating content includes what students are to learn and how students access the material taught. It involves providing students with various resources and choices that match their readiness, interests and learning profiles to select and access the materials taught (Tomlinson,  2000 ).

Several ways are proposed for differentiating content. Teachers may use flexible grouping where students can work in small groups or alone to reinforce content; highlight or summarize key portions of content with illustrations or colours; present material in visual, auditory or kinaesthetic ways; provide lecture videotapes; use books, pictures or Internet as a means of developing understanding and knowledge of the topic or concept; use examples that relate to students' experiences or knowledge to practice situations or explain contents (Tomlinson,  2001 ).

2.4.2. Second section: Process

The process refers to how students make sense or understand and assimilate the information, concepts or skills. The differentiating process involves applying varying activities and techniques which can provide more opportunities for students to learn best and display individual strengths (Tomlinson,  2001 ). It concerns not only how teachers teach but also involves strategies that teachers encourage students to use to facilitate exploring the content taught. This can be done by tiering the course content and activities that can make students learn step by step; providing guidelines for every step of learning; using differentiated tactics to increase student interaction, engagement, higher order thinking and critical thinking during class time (Tomlinson,  2000 , 2001 ).

In addition, educators emphasized that differentiated instruction places students in the centre, provides opportunities for higher order thinking and group collaboration to solve problems, and changes students from passive acquisition of knowledge to an active learning process through student‐centred teachings such as teamwork learning, problem‐based learning or project‐based learning (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ). Therefore, in the spirit of this phase, combining the use of student‐centred teaching methods to design classroom activities for the EBN course was considered.

2.4.3. Third section: Product

The differentiating product involves providing various choices of evaluations that permit students to express how much they comprehend and how well they are able to administer their knowledge and skills learned from the content (Tomlinson,  2000 ). The traits of successfully differentiated products contain providing evident and proper guides for success, focusing on real‐world application, advancing creative and critical thinking, requiring analysis or synthesis of information, permitting diverse methods of expression and providing opportunities for peer and self‐evaluation (Tomlinson,  2001 ).

To differentiate product, teachers can encourage students to express what they have learned in varied ways, offer opportunities for student‐derived topics for projects; allow for varied working arrangements—alone or with a group; provide clear guidelines for independent work that matches individual needs; and use a wide variety of assessments or assignments for students (Tomlinson,  2001 ).

3.1. Study design

This study used a one‐group pretest–posttest design to evaluate students' learning outcomes after the implementation of teaching/learning activities designed based on differentiated instruction. The one‐group pretest–posttest design is proposed to be useful for discovering the effectiveness of an intervention in a homogeneous group (Norwood,  2000 ). The research design, therefore, is suitable for this study because participants in the study were nursing students in the same age group and university.

3.2. Participants and setting

The participants were students in a 2‐year Registered Nurse‐to‐Bachelor of Science nursing programme who enrolled in the EBN course at the primary investigator's serving university in southern Taiwan in 2020. All students that enrolled in the EBN course taught by the researcher (a total of 100 students) were invited to participate in this study. Of them, 98 students completed and returned both the pre‐ and post‐test questionnaires with a response rate of 98%.

According to the concept of patient and public engagement and involvement (PPEI), the researched population is actively involved in the research design, is informed of research information and knowledge and participates in the research. The insights provided by these participants contribute to the research design and enhance the researcher's understanding of the condition under investigation.

In this study, although students were not directly involved in the course design, feedback from previous students who had taken the course was taken into consideration during the course design process. Students had the power to choose their preferred methods of learning under the guidance of the instructor. They had the freedom to select their learning mediums and materials, form groups for collaboration, explore research topics and articles of interest and determine their preferred modes of presentation. Moreover, students shared their discussion results throughout the course, presented their final work in class and participated in evaluating both their own and their peers' final presentations.

3.3. Development of the EBN course based on the differentiated instruction

3.3.1. course description.

The EBN course was a required, 2‐credit h undergraduate course for nursing students. The course was designed mainly based on the five steps of EBN: (1) asking an answerable clinical question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the evidence and (5) auditing or evaluating the outcomes of the practice (Melnyk & Fineout‐Overholt,  2019 ). Since nursing students are not currently clinical nurses, the course focused more on the first three steps. The semester lasted 18 weeks. Excluding introduction, holiday, exam and project report weeks, seven programme units in 11 weeks were designed for the course. Table  1 presents the course objectives and teaching strategies derived from differentiated instruction.

Course objectives, sections of differentiated instruction and teaching strategies designed in the study.

The overall learning objectives of the course were first established and proposed for students. Each unit also had unit objectives that guided students to learn from that unit. The overall goal of the course was that nursing students learned how to search health‐related literature with empirical findings based on their answerable questions or topics of interest and assess the quality of evidence from the studies. A pre‐assessment to assist the understanding of individuals' readiness, interests and learning styles was provided to students before the class began.

3.3.2. Strategies for differentiated instruction

According to differentiated instruction, after understanding how students learn best, a course can be developed with differentiating content and access to content, differentiating process and differentiating product. Information from the pre‐assessment guided the instructor to appropriately differentiate the content, process and product of the EBN course throughout the semester.

The first section differentiating content involves providing students with various learning resources and choices to select and access the materials taught (Tomlinson,  2000 ). To differentiate content and access to content, teaching aids were developed as electronic and non‐electronic materials. For non‐electronic materials, books, extra supplemental articles in English and Chinese and reading and assignment guidelines were prepared and used in response to varied learning levels of complexity. When developing textual materials, we highlighted key portions of content in PowerPoint slides for each unit and used vivid illustrations, colours or graphs to help students to understand more about the content and made the contents more attractive to students. Case scenarios related to EBN steps were developed as examples for students to practice and explain contents.

For electronic materials, videos with PowerPoint slides for each unit lecture were made. All these materials were uploaded onto the school's electronic platform for courses, the E‐Campus, to allow students to access and learn the subject in a self‐paced format. The design of these materials can make the conceptual abstraction of the content more concrete and practical to students, provide opportunities for independent study, help and stimulate students to stay focused and clarify the content. In addition, supplemental instruction outside of the scheduled class times was offered for individuals or groups to reinforce contents.

The second section differentiating process encompasses using diverse activities and techniques which can furnish more chances for students to learn best (Tomlinson,  2001 ). To differentiate the process, we first applied flexible grouping for all classroom activities. Students decided the size of the group, such as working alone, in pairs or in small or large groups. Flexible grouping was also applied to the term project, oral presentation and final exam. Arranging appropriate class time proportions for various instructional strategies was then planned based on the unit topic. Combining the use of differentiated instruction and student‐centred teaching strategies which were proposed by researchers to transform students from passive learners to active learners and promote students' learning interests were also administered (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ). In addition, 4 h of the class were arranged as independent study hours. Students could use the 4 h to work with whomever they felt comfortable.

The classroom activities designed for the EBN course included first, a 2‐h laboratory session for literature search was arranged. The school librarian was invited to guide students to use physical and online library resources. Students were asked to specify a topic of interest and turn in one searched research article based on the topic to demonstrate their ability to search for and access publications. Second, two clinical experts were invited to give speeches to share the role and application of the EBN in clinical to foster students' learning interests in EBN. Third, to provide information to the instructor and students about students' understanding of the core concepts and contents taught in the unit, learning sheets were developed and used at the end of each class. The items in the learning sheet were designed in various styles to meet the learning needs of students of varying levels. These item styles included single choice, multiple choice, fill‐in‐the‐blank, connecting the dots, short answer or essay questions that were helpful to cultivate students with different thinking abilities. These learning sheets were also designed with vivid illustrations to attract students' attention and interest.

Fourth, the literature circle activity was applied to help students integrate what they have learned in the module content with real hands‐on practice and to increase students' understanding of the content. The instructor first guided students to read the section in the selected research article in accordance with the course unit for that week. Using flexible grouping, students were then instructed to choose a research article they preferred, read the article and answer the guiding questions based on the chosen article. Finally, students decided on a way to share in class what they have discovered from the article.

The third section differentiating product involves providing various ways of evaluations for learners to exhibit their comprehension of the course and ability to apply the gained knowledge and skills learned from the content (Tomlinson,  2000 ). According to differentiated instruction, the teacher may combine tests with product options so that students have more opportunities to ponder, apply and display what they have learned from the content (Tomlinson,  2001 ). In the EBN course, project‐based learning with a presentation was designed to meet the general goal of the course so that students were able to evaluate the quality of evidence. Students were requested to finish a mini project by following a provided project guideline and a critical appraisal tool. Students were allowed to work on the project alone or in a group with two or more people. In addition, students decided on the topic of the project by themselves. At the end of the semester, students were asked to present their project publicly in ways they preferred. The class instructor and all students were responsible for the presentation evaluation. For the test, an academic article reading test was used. Students first decided to take it alone or in a group and the group size. They were allowed to find a health‐related research article in English or Chinese in accordance with their own interests before the test. Eight short answer questions were developed for students to answer based on the research article they selected. Two hours were scheduled for the test.

3.4. Outcome variables and measurements

Preferred learning style was measured by the Perceptual Learning‐Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) created by Reid ( 1987 , 1995 ). The PLSPQ consists of 30 items with six learning styles (five items for each learning style) including visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, individual and group learning. The scale is rated on a 5‐response Likert scale scoring from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Since individuals may utilize a combination of senses to optimize their learning outcomes while preferring one particular sensor mode, each learning style is categorized into major, minor or negligible (or negative) preference. Major means the learners' preferred learning style; minor indicates learners who do not prefer to learn in such a way but can still function using such learning method, whereas negligible means they may have difficulty learning in that way. The cut‐off points for each of these categories are as follows: 40 or above for major, 25–39 for minor and 24 or less for negligible. The reliability of the original scale was confirmed by the split‐half reliability. In the study, Cronbach's alpha for the six subscales of the PLSPQ were 0.73, 0.66, 0.71, 0.67, 0.89 and 0.89 for visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, individual and group learning respectively.

The Value of Teams (VT) developed by Levine et al. ( 2004 ) was used to measure students' value of collaborative learning. The VT consists of 17 items scored on a 5‐point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicates greater agreement about the value of collaborative learning. The validity of the scale development study was confirmed by a factor analysis that showed two subscales: the value of group work and the value of working with peers. Cronbach's alphas for these two dimensions were 0.79 and 0.81 respectively (Levine et al.,  2004 ). In this study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.85. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the VT explained 48.46% of the variation in the value of collaborative learning. The first factor (value of group work) explained 37.67% of the variation while the second factor (value of working with peers) added another 10.79%.

The Classroom Engagement Survey (CES) developed by O'Malley and colleagues (O'Malley et al.,  2003 ) was used to measure students' level of classroom engagement. The CES is a 9‐item scale with Likert‐type response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score indicates a higher level of agreement in classroom engagement. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha was 0.84) and validity were confirmed by factor analysis in the original study. In this study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.92. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the CES as a single factor explained 41.35% of the variation in classroom engagement.

The short form of Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) developed and validated by the IDEA Center was used to evaluate students' satisfaction with the course learning. The scale, which contains 18 items and uses a 5‐point Likert scale (item score ranges from 1 to 5), has been utilized at a variety of universities in the USA with confirmed reliability and validity (Benton & Li,  2015 ). A higher score indicates a higher level of satisfaction with the designated course. In the study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.90. Parallel analysis resulted in two factors and exploratory factor analysis was done by requesting two factors. Results showed that the IDEA could explain 58.44% of the variation in learning satisfaction. The first factor (12 items), named knowledge and skills gained, explained 47.45% of the variation in learning satisfaction while the second factor (six items), named perceived course quality, added another 10.99%.

The 15‐item Attitudes Towards Evidence‐based Nursing scale (ATEN) was used to rate nursing students' attitudes towards EBN. The ATEN was developed by the researchers based on literature and rated on a 5‐response Likert scale scoring from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the study, Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.85. Parallel analysis resulted in two factors and exploratory factor analysis was done by requesting two factors. Results showed that the ATEN explained 54.83% of the variation in attitudes towards EBN. The first factor (nine items), named importance of EBN, explained 36.49% of the variation in attitudes towards EBN while the second factor (six items), named perceived competence in EBN, added another 18.34%.

The 16‐item Concept Inventory (CI) was developed by the research team to measure students' level of EBN knowledge and was used to assess students' academic performance. The CVI validity of the Concept Inventory was confirmed (CVI = 0.94) in this study.

A demographic sheet was used to understand individual characteristics such as age, grade level, learning experiences and achievement, and educational and career plans. Questions about the role of differentiated instruction in facilitating students' EBN learning were also asked.

3.5. Ethical considerations

We began to conduct the study after obtaining approval from an Institutional Review Board in Taiwan (REDACTED). In the first class, the course syllabus, the purpose and procedures of this study and participants' rights were verbally explained to the students. Participants were assured that they had the right not to fill out the questionnaires or answer any questions that they did not feel comfortable answering and that such a refusal would not influence their academic grades. All participants signed a consent form before data collection. Since the EBN course is a required course, all students in the course were required to participate in all designed activities.

3.6. Procedures

Before the class began, the EBN course syllabus that outlined course objectives, unit contents, classroom activities, project guidelines and methods of performance evaluation, supplementary reading articles, learning sheets, PowerPoint slides and lecture videos of the EBN course were all uploaded to the school's online learning platform, the E‐campus. Students who were willing to participate in the study received a packet containing a cover letter, a set of questionnaires and a set of multiple‐choice test questions at the beginning of the first and last class days. Students could choose to answer the questionnaires at any place they felt comfortable with and send the completed questionnaires back to the research assistant using the prepared envelope.

3.7. Statistical analysis

All data were entered and analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. Demographic information was summarized using descriptive statistics. There are no missing values for measured variables. Before doing inferential statistics, all measured variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Results showed that except for learning style‐visual at the pretest and attitudes towards EBN at the pretest and posttest, all other variables were not normally distributed. Therefore, to test the effects of differentiated instruction, the Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed‐rank test were used to compare differences before and after the differentiated instruction on classroom engagement, collaborative learning, learning satisfaction, preferred learning styles and EBN knowledge. Paired t‐test was used to compare differences before and after the differentiated instruction on attitudes towards EBN. All tests were two‐sided and p ‐values of less than 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

4.1. Descriptive results

The mean age of the participants was 20.81 (SD = 1.06) years and 94.9% were females. As shown in Table  2 , most students expressed that their academic performance was either fair or good at their previous college and current school, and considered their current academic performance improved. More than half of the students planned to obtain a bachelor's as their last academic degree and had a moderate or strong willingness to work as clinical nurses after graduation. Over 70% of the students expressed that they had a great sense or sense of academic accomplishment in the EBN course learning and agreed or strongly agreed that the differentiated instruction was worth applying to other courses.

Demographic information of the participants.

As shown in Table  3 , at posttest, students regarded differentiated instruction played an important role in facilitating their EBN learning, such as increasing learning interests, helping them to think independently and improving concentration on learning and learning aggressively. As a result, their acceptance of the EBN course augmented and they agreed that the EBN course was worth taking. The number of passive learners decreased while active learners increased. More students considered that the nurses with a bachelor's degree need to do EBN; this percentage was higher than the percentage of nurses with a master's or doctoral degree.

Differentiated instruction course design in facilitating students' learning.

4.2. Preferences of learning styles among nursing students

At the pretest, the percentage of students owning more than one major or preferred learning method was: 23.5% for two, 23.5% for three, 20.4% for four, 10.2% for five and 7.1% for six methods. Other 11.2% of the students had only one and 4.1% did not have any major or preferred learning methods. At posttest, the percentage changed to 18.4% for two, 24.5% for three, 30.6% for four, 9.2% for five and 9.2% for six methods. Other 5.1% of the students had only one and 3.1% did not have any major or preferred learning methods. The number of students who had unimodal or no major or preferred learning method decreased from pretest to posttest.

As shown in Table  4 , according to the mean cut‐off points stated by Reid ( 1995 ), at both pretest and posttest, the learning styles of kinaesthetic, tactile, and group fell into the major category of learning styles whereas the visual, auditory and individual learning styles fell into the minor category. At the pretest, the Friedman test showed that scores of visual and individual learning styles were lower than scores of the other learning styles (Chi‐square = 155.64, p  < 0.001). At posttest, the score of the individual learning style was the lowest while the group learning style had a higher score than visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and individual learning (Chi‐square = 240.23, p  < 0.001).

Students' preferred learning styles.

Note : The cut‐off point for major: 40 or above, minor: 25–39 and negligible: 24 or less.

4.3. Effects of differentiated instruction on measured variables

As shown in Table  5 , the scores of group and tactile preferred learning styles increased significantly from pretest to posttest whereas the score of individual learning style decreased ( p  < 0.05). The score for classroom engagement, collaborative learning, learning satisfaction and attitudes towards EBN and EBN knowledge increased significantly from pretest to posttest.

Effects of differentiated instruction on measured variables.

Note : Paired t ‐test was used to compare scores of attitudes towards EBN, whereas Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to analyse all the rest variables at pretest and posttest.

5. DISCUSSION

The purposes of this study are to apply differentiated instruction for an EBN course presented to nursing students in Taiwan and test the effects of differentiated instruction on students' learning outcomes. Although not many studies reported the application of differentiated instruction in higher education, research findings from this study provided meaningful evidence for the contribution of differentiated instruction to undergraduate nursing students' learning in the EBN course. Generally, students demonstrated positive standpoints towards the role of differentiated instruction in facilitating their EBN course learning and gained substantial growth at the end of the semester. Most of the students said that they benefited from the EBN course designed with differentiated instruction and believed that the strategies employed in the three sections of differentiated instruction increased their learning interests, promoted their focused and independent thinking and gave them a sense of academic achievement. In addition, nursing students' acceptance of the EBN course was enhanced. The number of passive learners decreased while active learners increased.

The study's positive results support the use of differentiated instruction in the EBN course. These findings align with the principles of student‐centred pedagogies, emphasizing flexibility, choice, collaboration and active participation in the learning process, all of which are key traits of differentiated instruction (An & Mindrila,  2020 ). Moreover, the study's results are congruent with some adult learning theories such as Self‐Determination Theory (Alrabia,  2021 ) and Sociocultural Constructivism (Mukhalalati & Taylor,  2019 ) that emphasize student autonomy and motivation. Students take responsibility for their own learning and choose how they learn and knowledge is constructed collaboratively by collaborating with others.

Similar to the results of previous studies with non‐university students, differentiated instruction provides students with opportunities to choose learning methods that meet their learning styles and progress their learning at a pace suitable for their needs and abilities (Iqbal et al.,  2020 ). When students are offered meaningful opportunities to select learning methods and demonstrate their abilities, strength, or talents, they relish learning more, become more self‐directed and turn into focused thinkers (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). All the benefits of differentiated learning lead students to positive outcomes including academic achievement, active learning, group interaction and cooperation, self‐confidence and satisfaction with the class (Chen & Chen,  2018 ; Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ; Gheyssens et al.,  2020 ;Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ).

In addition, in this study, nursing students regarded the EBN course designed with differentiated instruction as worth taking and considered differentiated instruction worth applying to other courses. These results are congruent with previous studies that students generally responded favourably to differentiated instruction and preferred to experiment with applying the course design in other classrooms (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). More surprisingly, at the end of the course, more nursing students agreed that nurses with a BSN degree needed to perform EBN when compared to nurses with a master's or doctoral degree. Two reasons might explain this result. One is that while students might not understand the master's and doctoral programmes, they gained learning interests in the subject designed with differentiated instruction. The other might be that healthcare‐related institutions have asserted that healthcare professionals should use the most validated research findings as evidence to make decisions for patient care (AACN,  2021 ). Therefore, students were aware that the EBN is a growing trend and momentum in clinical nursing practice.

The learning styles preferred by students in the study were kinaesthetic, tactile and group learning. These results indicated that nursing students preferred to learn through hands‐on practices, physical and active involvement in classroom, and valued group work and interaction with teammates. These findings were quite different from previous studies with nursing students. Mckenna et al. ( 2018 ) found that students in the Master of Science in Nursing programme preferred kinaesthetic learning to auditory learning, whereas undergraduate nursing students preferred either auditory (Soliman,  2017 ) or visual learning style (Alharbi et al.,  2017 ). Some other studies found that dental students preferred an auditory learning style (Akhlaghi et al.,  2018 ). Different cultural backgrounds might be the reason for this difference.

Researchers proposed that embedded use of differentiated instruction with various teaching strategies could develop opportunities for students to maximize individual growth and success in learning (Gheyssens et al.,  2020 ; Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ; Ramdani et al.,  2021 ). Our study found that the individual learning style score significantly decreased but the group learning style score significantly increased at the end of the semester. The combining use of differentiated instruction and other teaching strategies such as collaborative learning with flexible grouping in this study created a more supportive learning environment for students to meet their multiple learning needs. Collaborative learning constructs a learning environment that offers opportunities for students to work with peers who own different learning styles. This environment enables individuals to experience and learn different learning styles from group members and promote individuals' performance achievement from the newly gained learning styles and from the help of higher achievers in the team (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ). Our study also found that at the end of the semester, the number of preferred learning styles used by students increased.

We found in the study that differentiated instruction had positive effects on students' classroom engagement, and attitudes towards EBN and EBN knowledge. These results were congruent with previous studies that differentiated instruction positively impacted students' learning process and academic performance by improving student engagement and learning attitude towards the lessons (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ; Haelermans,  2022 ; Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ). In other words, the learning environment influences students' learning experiences. A learning environment that provides students with insufficient motivation to learn might lead to students' disengagement with the classroom. The EBN course was developed based on the spirit of differentiated instruction, which has been considered as contributing to the creation of a comfortable learning environment and the formation of positive motivation to learn (Iqbal et al.,  2020 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). In addition, differentiated instruction is a student‐centred approach that has been suggested as conducive to behaviourally, emotionally or cognitively engaging students in learning through participation in classroom activities, and interaction with teachers and classmates (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ). The student‐centred learning environment also offers opportunities for students to transform their learning behaviour from passive to active (Ismail & Allaq,  2019 ).

Nursing students' attitudes towards EBN were significantly more positive at the end of the course. The result is similar to one previous research finding that the differentiated instruction approach had a positive effect on non‐nursing undergraduate students' attitudes towards course learning (Darra & Kanellopoulou,  2019 ). Students' EBN knowledge significantly improved at the end of the semester as well was supported by other studies that used differentiated instruction. These previous studies exhibited results of improvement in academic performances among non‐university students such as greater gains in calculus or mathematical understanding (Chen & Chen,  2018 ), and outperformance in the course examination (Haelermans,  2022 ). Learning satisfaction for the EBN course among nursing students also significantly increased at the end of the course. Differentiated instruction that furnishes students with diverse learning methods to choose from can meet individuals' learning needs and is conducive to students' learning (Iqbal et al.,  2020 ), motivation (Chen & Chen,  2018 ; Sapan & Mede,  2022 ) and performance (Chen & Chen,  2018 ; Haelermans,  2022 ). When students' learning needs are satisfied, naturally, they are satisfied with the course.

6. STUDY LIMITATIONS

Although differentiated instruction exhibits positive effects on nursing students' learning outcomes, the results of differentiated instruction designed for the EBN subject are still preliminary. The study findings are limited because of the incapability to build a substantial, causal relationship test between the effectiveness of differentiated instruction and the learning outcomes. The major limitation of this study is the single‐group research design, which is susceptible to threatening the effectiveness of the intervention. Without a comparison group, it is challenging to confirm whether the intervention can be successfully performed in other contexts. The study is also limited due to the insufficiency of generalizability of its study population, such as few samples and a homogenous cultural background in the study participants. Therefore, further studies are recommended for researchers to include a comparison group to furnish more vigorous experimental evidence for the effectiveness of differentiated instruction. Including more study participants as nursing students in other nursing programmes, such as the regular 4‐year bachelor's degree or 5‐year diploma programme or inviting a variety of other nursing schools, are encouraged to increase the strength of the generalizability of the results.

7. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

Nurses demonstrating competence in providing EBN is emphasized in current clinical practice. Nursing students, the future nurses, need also to have the EBN ability to seamlessly connect to future clinical nursing practice. This study indicates that the application of differentiated instruction in mixed‐ability classrooms in the EBN course improved students' learning outcomes, attitudes towards EBN and EBN knowledge and learning satisfaction. These results are different from the previous findings that students consider the EBN course as complicated and difficult since courses designed with differentiated instruction meet the learning needs of students with different academic abilities and strengthen and give various opportunities for students to learn. In clinical settings where nurses are even more diverse in academic education, clinical experiences and learning preferences, differentiated instruction can be a suitable application for in‐service training and education to promote nurses' enthusiasm for professional learning.

8. CONCLUSION

Differentiated instruction has been popularly applied in elementary and secondary schools internationally. Yet, limited empirical study has been reported about this approach applied in higher education, especially for nursing education. Moreover, there is a paucity of literature reporting the application of this pedagogy, specifically, the outcome evaluations of application in EBN courses. The study designed the EBN course based on differentiated instruction for undergraduate nursing students in order to provide a supportive learning environment and to furnish a vivid pedagogical way for the unique nursing profession. The findings indicate that implementing differentiated instruction in the EBN course improved students' classroom engagement, group learning style, learning satisfaction, attitudes towards EBN and EBN knowledge. The positive results of the study contribute to the existing body of knowledge by providing evidence of the positive effects of differentiated instruction in the EBN course. Differentiated instruction has the potential to be beneficial not only in academia but also in clinical in‐service training and education, by addressing the diverse academic backgrounds, clinical experiences and learning preferences of nurses. Further research in this field can expand upon these findings and establish a stronger foundation for effectively implementing differentiated instruction in nursing education, both in academic and clinical contexts.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: SRL, CYC, CHC and TPC; Data curation: SRL, CYC and CHC; Formal Analysis: CYC and CHC; Funding acquisition: SRL and CYC; Investigation: SRL and HCL; Methodology: SRL, CYC and HCL; Project administration: SRL, CYC, HCL and TPC; Supervision: SRL and CYC; Validation: SRL, CYC and TPC; Writing—original draft: SRL, CYC and TPC; Writing—review and editing: SRL, CYC, CHC, TPC and HCL.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research was funded by the Chang Gung Medical Research Program, grant number CMRPF6K0051 and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 107‐2511‐H‐255‐002‐) in Taiwan.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the investigator’s serving institution. Written consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring confidentiality, anonymity, and the option to participate. The participants were assured that refusal to participate or answer certain questions would not affect their academic grades.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank all funders for financial support and students for their participation.

Liou, S.‐R. , Cheng, C.‐Y. , Chu, T.‐P. , Chang, C.‐H. , & Liu, H.‐C. (2023). Effectiveness of differentiated instruction on learning outcomes and learning satisfaction in the evidence‐based nursing course: Empirical research quantitative . Nursing Open , 10 , 6794–6807. 10.1002/nop2.1926 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Akhlaghi, N. , Mirkazemi, H. , Jafarzade, M. , & Akhlaghi, N. (2018). Does learning style preferences influence academic performance among dental students in Isfahan, Iran? Journal of educational evaluation for health professions , 15 , 8. 10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alharbi, H. A. , Almutairi, A. F. , Alhelih, E. M. , & Alshehry, A. S. (2017). The learning preferences among nursing students in the King Saud University in Saudi Arabia: A cross‐sectional survey . Nursing Research and Practice , 2017 , 3090387. 10.1155/2017/3090387 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alrabia, F. (2021). The influence of autonomy‐supportive teaching on EFL students' classroom autonomy: An experimental intervention . Frontiers in Psychology , 12 ( 728657 ), 1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728657 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association of College Nursing (AACN) . (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education . https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/AcademicNursing/pdf/Essentials‐2021.pdf
• An, Y. , & Mindrila, D. (2020). Strategies and tools used for learner‐centered instruction . International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES) , 4 ( 2 ), 133–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benton, S. L. , & Li, D. (2015). Validity and Reliability of IDEA Teaching Essentials (IDEA Research Rep. No. 8) . The IDEA Center. https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Research%20Reports/Research%20Report%208.pdf
• Boelens, R. , Voet, M. , & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors' views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning . Computers & Education , 120 , 197–212. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, J. H. , & Chen, Y. C. (2018). Differentiated instruction in a calculus curriculum for college students in Taiwan . Journal of Education and Learning , 7 ( 1 ), 88–95. 10.5539/jel.v7n1p88 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darra, M. , & Kanellopoulou, E. M. (2019). The implementation of the differentiated instruction in higher education: A research review . International Journal of Education , 11 ( 3 ), 151–172. 10.5296/ije.v11i3.15307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gheyssens, E. , Struyven, K. , & Griful‐Freixenet, J. (2020). Differentiated instruction as a student‐centered teaching approach in teacher education. In Hoidn S., & Klemenčič M. (Eds.), The international handbook of student‐centered learning and teaching inhigher education (1st ed. pp. 254–268). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429259371 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haelermans, C. (2022). The effects of group differentiation by students' learning strategies . Instructional Science , 50 , 223–250. 10.1007/s11251-021-09575-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hapsari, T. , Darhim, & Dahlan, J. A. (2018). Understanding and responding the students in learning mathematics through the differentiated instruction . Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1013 12136. 10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012136 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iqbal, J. , Khan, A. M. , & Nisar, M. (2020). Impact of differentiated instruction on student learning: Perception of students and teachers . Global Regional Review , V(I) , 364–375. 10.31703/grr.2020(V-I).40 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail, S. A. A. , & Allaq, K. A. (2019). The nature of cooperative learning and differentiated instruction practices in English classes . SAGE Open , 9 , 1–17. 10.1177/2158244019856450 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levine, R. E. , O'Boyle, M. , Haidet, P. , Lynn, D. J. , Stone, M. M. , Wolf, D. V. , & Paniagua, F. A. (2004). Transforming a clinical clerkship with team learning . Teaching and Learning in Medicine , 16 ( 3 ), 270–275. 10.1207/s15328015tlm1603_9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumatauw, L. , Wollah, M. , & Tulangow, R. (2020). Application of student centered learning (SCL) method through discovery strategies in vocational educations . Open Journal of Social Sciences , 8 , 82–90. 10.4236/jss.2020.811008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magableh, I. S. I. , & Abdullah, A. (2020). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhancement of Jordanian students' overall achievement . International Journal of Instruction , 13 ( 2 ), 533–548. 10.29333/iji.2020.13237a [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mckenna, L. , Copnell, B. , Butler, A. E. , & Lau, R. (2018). Learning style preferences of Australian accelerated postgraduate preregistration nursing students: A cross‐sectional survey . Nurse Education in Practice , 28 , 280–284. 10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melnyk, B. M. , & Fineout‐Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence‐based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice . Wolters Kluwer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukhalalati, B. A. , & Taylor, A. (2019). Adult learning theories in context: A quick guide for healthcare professional educators . Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development , 6 , 1–10. 10.1177/2382120519840332 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National League for Nursing (NLN) . (2020). Hallmarks of excellence . https://www.nln.org/docs/default‐source/uploadedfiles/default‐document‐library/hallmarks‐of‐excellence‐2019.pdf?sfvrsn=7d92a60d_0
• Nelson‐Brantley, H. V. , Beckman, D. , Parchment, J. , Smith‐Miller, C. A. , & Weaver, S. H. (2020). Magnet® and pathway to excellence®: Focusing on research and evidence‐based practice . The Journal of Nursing Administration , 50 ( 5 ), 245–247. 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000877 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, K. A. , Borrego, M. , Finelli, C. J. , DeMonbrun, M. , Crockett, C. , Tharayil, S. , Shekhar, P. , Waters, C. , & Rosenberg, R. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: A systematic literature review . International Journal of STEM Education , 8 ( 9 ), 1–18. 10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norwood, S. L. (2000). Research strategies for advanced practice nurses . Prentice‐Hall, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Malley, K. J. , Moran, B. J. , Haidet, P. , Seidel, C. L. , Schneider, V. , Morgan, R. O. , Kelly, P. A. , & Richards, B. (2003). Validation of an observation instrument for measuring student engagement in health professions settings . Evaluation & the Health Professions , 26 ( 1 ), 86–103. 10.1177/0163278702250093 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramdani, Z. , Amri, A. , Hadiana, D. , Warsihna, J. , Anas, Z. , & Susanti, S. (2021). Students diversity and the implementation of adaptive learning and assessment: A systematic literature review . Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research , 639 , 157–161. 10.2991/assehr.k.220203.025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students . TESOL Quarterly , 21 ( 1 ), 87–111. 10.2307/3586356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid, J. M. (1995). Preface. In Reid J. M. (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. viii–xvii). Heinle & Heinle. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapan, M. , & Mede, E. (2022). The effects of differentiated instruction (DI) on achievement, motivation, and autonomy among English learners . Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research , 10 ( 1 ), 127–144. 10.30466/ijltr.2022.121125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soliman, S. M. (2017). Learning style preferences and perceptions of undergraduate nursing students upon applying web‐based learning modules . IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science , 6 ( 2 ), 68–74. 10.9790/1959-0602096874 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tlili, M. A. , Aouicha, W. , Tarchoune, S. , Sahli, J. , Dhiab, M. B. , Chelbi, S. , Mtiraoui, A. , Ajmi, T. , Rejeb, M. B. , & Mallouli, M. (2022). Predictors of evidence‐based practice competency among Tunisian nursing students . BMC Medical Education , 22 ( 421 ), 1–9. 10.1186/s12909-022-03487-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades . ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443572.pdf
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed‐ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trolian, T. L. , & Parker, E. T., III . (2022). Shaping students' attitudes toward diversity: Do faculty practices and interactions with students matter? Research in Higher Education , 63 , 849–870. 10.1007/s11162-021-09668-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trullàs, J. C. , Blay, C. , & Pujol, R. (2022). Effectiveness of problem‐based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: A scoping review . BMC Medical Education , 22 ( 104 ), 1–12. 10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner, W. D. , Solis, O. J. , & Kincade, D. H. (2017). Differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education . International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 29 ( 3 ), 490–500. [ Google Scholar ]

Effective Teaching Around the World pp 677–689 Cite as

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

• 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  
• Open Access
• First Online: 28 June 2023

8229 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.

• Differentiated instruction
• Effective teaching
• Inclusive classrooms

Download chapter PDF

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

Cite 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

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction involves teaching in a way that meets the different needs and interests of students using varied course content, activities, and assessments.

Teaching differently to different students

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is fundamentally the attempt to teach differently to different students, rather than maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction. Other frameworks, such as Universal Design for Learning , enjoin instructors to give students broad choice and agency to meet their diverse needs and interests. DI distinctively emphasizes instructional methods to promote learning for students entering a course with different readiness for, interest in, and ways of engaging with course learning based on their prior learning experiences ( Dosch and Zidon 2014). 

Successful implementation of DI requires ongoing training, assessment, and monitoring (van Geel et al. 2019) and has been shown to be effective in meeting students’ different needs, readiness levels, and interests (Turner et al. 2017). Below, you can find six categories of DI instructional practices that span course design and live teaching.

While some of the strategies are best used together, not all of them are meant to be used at once, as the flexibility inherent to these approaches means that some of them are diverging when used in combination (e.g., constructing homogenous student groups necessitates giving different types of activities and assessments; constructing heterogeneous student groups may pair well with peer tutoring) (Pozas et al. 2020). The learning environment the instructor creates with students has also been shown to be an important part of successful DI implementation (Shareefa et al. 2019). 

Differentiated Assessment

Differentiated assessment is an aspect of Differentiated Instruction that focuses on tailoring the ways in which students can demonstrate their progress to their varied strengths and ways of learning. Instead of testing recall of low-level information, instructors should focus on the use of knowledge and complex reasoning. Differentiation should inform not only the design of instructors’ assessments, but also how they interpret the results and use them to inform their DI practices. 

More Team Project Ideas

Steps to consider

There are generally considered to be six categories of useful differentiated instruction and assessment practices (Pozas & Schneider 2019):

• Making assignments that have tasks and materials that are qualitatively and/or quantitatively varied (according to “challenge level, complexity, outcome, process, product, and/or resources”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) It’s helpful to assess student readiness and interest by collecting data at the beginning of the course, as well as to conduct periodic check-ins throughout the course (Moallemi 2023 & Pham 2011)
• Making student working groups that are intentionally chosen (that are either homogeneous or heterogeneous based on “performance, readiness, interests, etc.”) (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) Examples of how to make different student groups provided by Stanford CTL  (Google Doc)
• Making tutoring systems within the working group where students teach each other (IP Module 2: Integrating Peer-to-Peer Learning) For examples of how to support peer instruction, and the benefits of doing so, see for example Tullis & Goldstone 2020 and Peer Instruction for Active Learning (LSA Technology Services, University of Michigan)
• Making non-verbal learning aids that are staggered to provide support to students in helping them get to the next step in the learning process (only the minimal amount of information that is needed to help them get there is provided, and this step is repeated each time it’s needed) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) Non-verbal cue cards support students’ self-regulation, as they can monitor and control their progress as they work (Pozas & Schneider 2019)
• Making instructional practices that ensure all students meet at least the minimum standards and that more advanced students meet higher standards , which involves monitoring students’ learning process carefully (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible; IP Module 5: Giving Inclusive Assessments) This type of approach to student assessment can be related to specifications grading, where students determine the grade they want and complete the modules that correspond to that grade, offering additional motivation to and reduced stress for students and additional flexibility and time-saving practices to instructors (Hall 2018)
• Making options that support student autonomy in being responsible for their learning process and choosing material to work on (e.g., students can choose tasks, project-based learning, portfolios, and/or station work, etc.) (IP Module 4: Making Success Accessible) This option, as well as the others, fits within a general Universal Design Learning framework , which is designed to improve learning for everyone using scientific insights about human learning

Hall, M (2018). “ What is Specifications Grading and Why Should You Consider Using It? ” The Innovator Instructor blog, John Hopkins University Center for Teaching Excellence and Innovation.

Moallemi, R. (2023). “ The Relationship between Differentiated Instruction and Learner Levels of Engagement at University .” Journal of Research in Integrated Teaching and Learning (ahead of print).

Pham, H. (2011). “ Differentiated Instruction and the Need to Integrate Teaching and Practice .” Journal of College Teaching and Learning , 9(1), 13-20.

Pozas, M. & Schneider, C. (2019). " Shedding light into the convoluted terrain of differentiated instruction (DI): Proposal of a taxonomy of differentiated instruction in the heterogeneous classroom ." Open Education Studies , 1, 73–90.

Pozas, M., Letzel, V. and Schneider, C. (2020). " Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity ." Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 20: 217-230.

Shareefa, M. et al. (2019). “ Differentiated Instruction: Definition and Challenging Factors Perceived by Teachers .” Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Special Education (ICSE 2019). 

Tullis, J.G. & Goldstone, R.L. (2020). “ Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? ”, Cognitive Research 5 .

Turner, W.D., Solis, O.J., and Kincade, D.H. (2017). “ Differentiating Instruction for Large Classes in Higher Education ”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education , 29(3), 490-500.

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher A.J. (2019). “Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 30:1, 51-67, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013