Abstract
This questionnaire study (N = 212) investigates Hungarian K-12 (primary and secondary school) English language teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices of differentiated instruction (DI) and technology-enhanced differentiated instruction (TEDI) and the variables impacting these practices. The research addresses emerging expectations for English teachers to meet diverse student needs, an aspect scarcely examined to date on a larger scale in Hungary. Descriptive statistical analysis of the data revealed teachers' recognition of the importance of DI and TEDI and relatively lower DI self-efficacy beliefs. Regarding specific dimensions of DI implementation, teachers indicated a preference for prioritizing learners' readiness- and learning profile-related differences over their interests. Planning is considered the biggest challenge of DI, while access to differentiated materials, digital infrastructure, and cooperation with stakeholders were rated as top enablers. Regression analysis revealed a positive impact of DI self-efficacy beliefs on all dimensions of DI practices, while ICT use and cooperation with stakeholders also emerged as predictors for certain dimensions of implementation. Recommendations include hands-on training to strengthen teachers' DI and TEDI competencies and self-efficacy, further research on TEDI resources and strategies, and reducing the individual burden of planning through intra-institutional sharing of best practices, differentiated materials, and student information.
Introduction
With learner-centredness becoming integral to contemporary foreign language (FL) pedagogy (Benson, 2012), teachers are increasingly expected to use differentiated instruction (DI) to meet diverse student needs in the classroom. Particular attention has been placed recently on the role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in enhancing such practices, giving rise to the term ‘technology-enhanced differentiated instruction’ (TEDI) in professional discourse (e.g., Haymon & Wilson, 2020; Maeng, 2017).
Hungary's National Core Curriculum emphasizes the importance of DI and TEDI in foreign language teaching and DI also serves as a measurement indicator in the quality evaluation system for K-12 (primary and secondary school) teachers. However, recent interviews with Hungarian teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) (Kótay-Nagy, 2023a; Zólyomi, 2022) revealed that, despite recognizing the importance of DI, educators face challenges when putting DI into practice and lack confidence in their ability to do so.
At this stage, a larger-scale investigation of EFL teachers' outlook on DI and TEDI is warranted to better understand the state of these practices in Hungarian public education. This questionnaire study addresses this gap by examining Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices of DI and TEDI and the variables influencing these practices. It is hoped that the results will add to our understanding of teachers' perspectives on these approaches and suggest potential measures to support teachers in their differentiation efforts.
Literature review
Differentiated instruction
Differentiated instruction is a teaching approach grounded in the belief that students construct their understanding in diverse ways, and teachers need to address these differences to ensure meaningful learning for each student (Marks, Woolcott, & Markopoulos, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, DI does not aim to create individualized learning paths, but to shake up “what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn” (Tomlinson, 2017, p. 1).
One of the most established models of DI was developed by Tomlinson (1999). In this framework, teachers can differentiate the content (what is being taught), the process (how students make sense of the material), and the product (how students demonstrate their learning) based on three categories of learner differences: interests (affinities), learning profiles (e.g., learning preferences such as grouping orientation and multiple intelligences [Gardner, 1983], special educational needs, learning and behavioural difficulties, gender, sociocultural background), and readiness (e.g., background knowledge, general study skills, motivation, and, in the context of FL teaching, language learning skills and target language proficiency) (Ortega, Cabrera, & Benalcázar, 2018; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, 1999). More recently, the model has also included the learning environment, referring to the extent that students feel affirmed and empowered to contribute (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). In recent decades, the model has served as a theoretical foundation for numerous empirical studies measuring DI (e.g., Gülşen, 2018; Hustinx et al., 2019; Tzanni, 2018) and was used as the conceptual framework in this study as well.
Challenges and enablers of DI
Although the literature extensively documents the positive effects of DI on students, including improved academic performance, self-confidence, and motivation (e.g., Lewis & Batts, 2005; McAdamis, 2001; McQuarrie & McRae, 2010), DI implementation poses certain challenges for teachers. Firstly, it entails substantial upfront planning, which, as Theisen (2002) argues, “does require some additional time” (p. 6). Furthermore, DI often creates a “workshop-style environment” (Blaz, 2016, p. 160), which might seem unfamiliar or even chaotic for teachers accustomed to frontal, teacher-centred methods (Willard-Holt, 1994) that remain defining components of the methodological culture in contemporary classrooms worldwide, including in Hungary (Einhorn, 2015a; 2015b). Students also need to become familiar with differentiated work, which requires the teacher to set clear expectations, build a sense of community, and teach cooperative skills (Blaz, 2016; Rohony & Hosszu, 2023).
Several factors have been identified that can help alleviate these challenges. Attending subject-specific training and forming partnerships with colleagues (Blaz, 2016; De Neve & Devos, 2016; Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000) may provide teachers with spaces to reflect on their experiences and learn DI strategies. Communicating with parents about the principles of DI is another important enabler (Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson, 1999), as well as school administrators' support of DI endeavours (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006; Lewis & Batts, 2005; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Above all, strengthening teachers' DI self-efficacy beliefs seems to be vital, as several studies have revealed a direct impact of these beliefs on teachers' willingess to use DI (e.g., Suprayogi, Valcke, & Godwin, 2017; Whitley, Gooderham, Duquette, Orders, & Cousins, 2019).
Technology-enhanced differentiated instruction
Besides the above-mentioned enablers, there has been growing focus lately on the role of ICT in supporting DI, particularly its potential to provide customized feedback and practice in line with proficiency levels (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Zeng, 2020), facilitate self-paced learning (Zeng, 2020), and cater for learning styles through multisensory learning (Benjamin, 2005). The concept of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction has already found its place in professional discourse (e.g., Haymon & Wilson, 2020; Maeng, 2017), and there is expanding research on the use of TEDI in the teaching of various subjects, including EFL (e.g., Kótay-Nagy, 2022, 2023b; Rapti, 2018; Vargas-Parra, Rodríguez-Orejuela, & Herrera-Mosquera, 2018).
DI in TEFL: teachers' beliefs and practices
In recent years, a rich body of literature has emerged on EFL teachers' beliefs and practices of DI (e.g., Bourini, 2015; Chien, 2015; Granås, 2019; Gülşen, 2018; Lombarkia & Guerza, 2021; Maruf, 2023; Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tokatlı, 2022; Tzanni, 2018). While these studies vary greatly in terms of research context and methodology, a common finding in this body of research is that EFL teachers recognize the rationale of DI but they use the approach less frequently than their positive beliefs would suggest, which may be attributed to various reasons. Firstly, research suggests that a lack of methodological knowledge presents a barrier for many teachers (Bourini, 2015; Chien, 2015; Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tokatlı, 2022; Tzanni, 2018), as well as the substantial planning time DI demands (Bourini, 2015; Granås, 2019; Gülsen, 2018; Lombarkia & Guerza, 2021; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018). Moreover, some teachers report difficulties in managing simultaneous tasks in a differentiated classroom (Gülşen, 2018) and are concerned that DI could potentially cause discipline problems (Bourini, 2015; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019).
Certain enablers of DI implementation can also be identified based on the conclusions of these studies. Without exception, all authors identified teachers' competence in DI, particularly in addressing their students' varying proficiency levels, as a critical enabler, and, closely related to this aspect, the importance of professional development, as well. Technology was recognized as a potential facilitator of DI practices in some studies, too (Bourini, 2015; Tzanni, 2018), as well as collaboration among teachers (Granås; 2019; Tokatlı, 2022), which, in line with other authors (Blaz, 2016; De Neve & Devos, 2016; Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000), highlights the supportive role of professional communities in facilitating DI practices.
The Hungarian context
The National Core Curriculum (NCC), which serves as a reference document for planning FL teaching in Hungarian public education (Öveges, 2014), positions DI and TEDI as important components of teaching. The document recommends that the content of FL education be continuously planned and developed “in line with the needs of language learners, making use of 21st-century opportunities, with special regard to ICT tools and modern language teaching technologies” (Government of Hungary, 2020, p. 316). Furthermore, DI is a measurement indicator in the teacher career development model, which functions as a quality evaluation and promotion system in Hungarian public education (Bükki, Domján, Köpeczi-Bócz, Kurucz, & Mártonfi, 2016).
While few studies have focused directly on Hungarian EFL teachers' views and practices of DI to date, some recent research with Hungarian public education teachers has included DI-related elements, which shed light on important aspects of teachers' perspectives of DI in this context. One important study in this regard is a nationwide inquiry into the efficiency of FL teaching in Hungarian public education (Öveges & Csizér, 2018). This study, which included questionnaire data from various stakeholders, revealed that both teachers (N = 1,118) (Illés & Csizér, 2018) and education consultants (N = 70) (Kálmán & Tiboldi, 2018) perceive DI practices to be only moderately successful, and suggested placing more emphasis on DI in teacher training and research.
More recently, as part of her questionnaire study on the factors supporting German language teaching, Sebestyén (2023) compared the self-reported teaching practices of secondary school German (n = 43) and English (n = 57) teachers in two Eastern Hungarian counties by years of experience and the language taught. Both German and English teachers reported frequent use of non-frontal teaching but considered large class sizes as a significant barrier to dedicating individual attention to students, with English teachers indicating this concern more strongly. Besides, teachers with over 30 years of experience reported slightly more frequent use of frontal methods than their younger colleagues, although group and pair work was deemed to be important by all age groups.
A questionnaire study of general education teachers (n = 36) and special education teachers (n = 37) conducted by Rohony and Hosszu (2023) examined participants' sources of knowledge about DI and their self-reported DI strategies. The authors found that both groups learned about DI from various sources, but special education teachers reported to have received more pre-service training. As for practices, a significant difference was found only in the assessment subscale of DI strategies, with special education teachers achieving a higher average, which indicates that they use DI in assessment more than general education teachers.
There have been two interview studies (Kótay-Nagy, 2023a; Zólyomi, 2022) conducted in the past years that focused specifically on EFL teachers' DI views and practices in the K-12 context, involving 8 and 28 participants, respectively. Both of these studies found that, despite positive views of DI, EFL teachers have rather low DI self-efficacy beliefs and consider increased planning demands to be the main barriers of DI implementation. In both pieces of research, the participants' DI practices were were found to be focusing primarily on students' readiness levels, while learning profiles and interests appeared as less typical aspects of DI.
These findings suggest that Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers, like their colleagues in other countries, are generally supportive of DI, but specific factors impede the full translation of these beliefs into practice. At this stage, a larger-scale examination of Hungarian EFL teachers' beliefs and practices regarding DI appears warranted to gain a comprehensive understanding of their perspectives, identify the top challenges, and determine the types of support they would find most valuable. Additionally, exploring teachers' outlook on TEDI is necessary, as there is currently limited knowledge about their views and experiences regarding the use of technology for DI.
Research questions
This questionnaire study aimed to investigate Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices of DI and TEDI, as well as the variables influencing the use of these approaches, through the following research questions:
To what extent do Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers consider differentiated instruction and technology-enhanced differentiated instruction to be important in TEFL?
To what extent do Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers believe that they can effectively implement differentiated instruction in their lessons?
To what extent do Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers report implementing differentiated instruction and technology-enhanced differentiated instruction in their lessons?
Which challenges and enablers do Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers perceive as crucial for implementing differentiated instruction?
What variables influence Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers' self-reported implementation of differentiated instruction and technology-enhanced differentiated instruction?
Methods
The instrument
The data collection instrument was an online questionnaire that had been designed and piloted (N = 50) for the purposes of the present study. The questionnaire was organized into three topics: teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices of DI and TEDI, as well as the reported presence of DI enablers. The latter, covering themes such as professional preparedness and cooperation with stakeholders, was included in the measurement to determine if a significant causal relationship exists between the presence of these enablers and the reported practices.
The said topics were examined through the measurement of 11 constructs presented in the form of multi-item scales. Participants were asked to respond to the items, worded as statements, on a 5-point Likert-scale, depending on the extent to which they felt that the items were true for them (1 meaning ‘not true at all’, 5 meaning ‘perfectly true’). Some items were adapted from previous questionnaire studies examining teachers' DI beliefs and practices (Letzel, Pozas, & Schneider, 2020; Melesse, 2015; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tzanni, 2018; Zelalem, Melesse, & Seifu, 2022), while others were developed specifically for this study, based on the themes identified in an interview study conducted by the author (Kótay-Nagy, 2023a). Below is a list of the 11 constructs, each accompanied by an operational definition, while the complete list of the items belonging to each construct is provided in the Appendix.
Beliefs: Importance of DI (5 items): The extent to which participants consider the concept of DI to be important in TEFL.
Beliefs: Importance of TEDI (5 items): The extent to which participants consider the potentials of ICT for DI to be important in TEFL.
Beliefs: DI self-efficacy (4 items): The extent to which EFL teachers believe that they can effectively use DI in their lessons.
Practices: Differentiation of the learning environment (7 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report creating a supportive classroom climate conducive to DI.
Practices: Differentiation by readiness (7 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report adjusting the content, process and product of teaching based on students' readiness levels.
Practices: Differentiation by interest (5 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report adjusting the content, process and product of teaching based on students' individual interests.
Practices: Differentiation by learning profile (6 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report adjusting the content, process and product of teaching based on students' learning profiles (e.g., grouping orientation, learning styles).
Practices: TEDI (8 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report using technology for DI purposes.
Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness (3 items): The extent to which EFL teachers report being prepared for implementing DI.
Presence of enablers: ICT (3 items) The extent to which participants report the presence of ICT in their daily teaching.
Presence of enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders (5 items): The extent to which participants report cooperating with the teaching staff, school administrators, and parents to enhance the successful implementation of DI.
In addition, the questionnaire aimed to understand the importance EFL teachers attach to various learner differences in TEFL, as well as to the challenges and enablers commonly associated with DI. Given that these constructs were specific, narrow in scope (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos, 2009), and factual rather than subjective (Dörnyei, 2007), single-item scales were used instead of multi-item scales, which is considered an acceptable form of measurement in such contexts. Respondents rated the importance of each aspect on a 5-point scale, and they could also mention further aspects in open-ended questions following each of these three topics:1
Learner differences (10 items): Participants rated the importance of attending to various learner differences in TEFL (e.g., interests, English proficiency).
Challenges of DI (6 items): Participants rated the importance of various factors hindering DI (e.g., increased preparation time, multitasking in class).
Enablers of DI (8 items): Participants rated the importance of various factors facilitating DI (e.g., in-service training on DI, access to differentiated materials, ICT tools in the classroom).
The final section of the questionnaire included biographical questions about the participants' background, such as their gender, age, qualifications, years of teaching experience, the type of school they teach at, and the region where their school is located.
Methods of data collection and analysis
The questionnaire was administered online from May to July 2023. The sampling procedure aimed to ensure that the participants reflected the diversity of the Hungarian K-12 EFL teacher population as closely as possible, considering factors such as teaching context (primary and secondary school), years of teaching experience, and geographical location. To achieve this, a combination of non-probability sampling methods (Dörnyei, 2007), specifically convenience and snowball sampling, was used. First, EFL teacher acquaintances of the author, with varying years of teaching experience and working in different cities and towns in Hungary, were invited to participate and to share the questionnaire with their colleagues. Secondly, to ensure representation from all geographical regions of Hungary, the online school database of the Hungarian Educational Authority (Hungarian Educational Authority, n.d.) was used to review the websites of primary and secondary schools in each county and to compile a list of publicly available email addresses of EFL teachers. This process resulted in a database of nearly 1,000 email addresses, to which calls for participation and the questionnaire link were sent. Finally, the link was shared in EFL professional groups on various social media platforms. These steps were taken to ensure that the sample included a broad range of perspectives from different experience levels, school types, and regions in Hungary.
The questionnaire, written in Hungarian, began with a brief introduction inviting participants to share their beliefs and practices of differentiation. It assured anonymity and voluntariness and stressed that there were no right or wrong answers. Participants were informed that by reading the introduction and proceeding, they consented to participate in the study.
Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29. First, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the 11 scales to determine internal consistency, and unrotated principal component analyses (PCA) were performed (Székelyi & Barna, 2002) to check whether the items load onto their designated dimension. With one exception, all scales met or exceeded the minimum acceptable Cronbach's Alpha threshold of 0.6 (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2012). The first round of PCA indicated that seven scales formed a single factor, while four scales required the removal of one or two items to achieve a single dimension. After these items were deleted, a second round of PCA confirmed uni-dimensionality for each scale. The results of the reliability analysis are presented in Table 1, and the list of the questionnaire items, with the deleted items indicated in italics, is provided in the Appendix.
The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients and the results of the first and second round PCA
| Name | Original | Modification | Finalized | ||||
| Item n. | α | Comp. n. | Item n. | α | Comp. n. | ||
| 1. Beliefs: Importance of DI | 5 | 0.89 | 1 | – | 5 | 0.89 | 1 |
| 2. Beliefs: Importance of TEDI | 5 | 0.89 | 1 | – | 5 | 0.89 | 1 |
| 3. Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 4 | 0.81 | 1 | – | 4 | 0.81 | 1 |
| 4. Practices: Differentiation of learning environment | 7 | 0.65 | 2 | 2 items deleted | 5 | 0.61 | 1 |
| 5. Practices: DI by readiness | 7 | 0.77 | 2 | 1 item deleted | 6 | 0.78 | 1 |
| 6. Practices: DI by interest | 5 | 0.74 | 1 | – | 5 | 0.74 | 1 |
| 7. Practices: DI by learning profile | 6 | 0.57 | 2 | 1 item deleted | 5 | 0.61 | 1 |
| 8. Practices: TEDI | 8 | 0.87 | 1 | – | 8 | 0.87 | 1 |
| 9. Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 3 | 0.72 | 1 | – | 3 | 0.72 | 1 |
| 10. Presence of enablers: ICT | 3 | 0.62 | 1 | – | 3 | 0.62 | 1 |
| 11. Presence of enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders | 5 | 0.70 | 2 | 1 item deleted | 4 | 0.72 | 1 |
Numerical data were analysed with statistical procedures, including descriptive statistics and regression analysis, with the level of significance set for p < 0.05. The textual responses to the open-ended questions on the challenges and enablers of DI were analyzed using structural coding, as described by Saldaña (2013). First, each response was examined to identify distinct phrases that pointed to either barriers or supportive factors related to DI. These were then assigned with initial codes that reflected the specific challenges or enablers mentioned by the participants. Through an iterative process, these codes were then reviewed and grouped, with similar or redundant codes merged into larger categories. An overview of the finalised categories identified in the textual responses is presented in Table 2.
An overview of the final categories identified in the participants' answers to the open-ended questions
| Number of participants (N = 212) | % of all participants | |
| Challenges | ||
| Acquainting students with DI | 8 | 3.8% |
| Large class sizes | 7 | 3.3% |
| Substantial teacher workload | 6 | 2.8% |
| Lack of ICT facilities | 6 | 2.8% |
| Small classrooms | 2 | 0.9% |
| Methodological uncertainties | 2 | 0.9% |
| Enablers | ||
| Small class sizes | 6 | 2.8% |
| Reduced workload | 5 | 2.4% |
| In-service training on DI | 2 | 0.9% |
| Preparing students for DI | 2 | 0.9% |
Participants
A total of 212 participants completed the questionnaire, all of whom were Hungarian EFL teachers. Of these participants, 14.2% (n = 30) identified as male and 85.8% (n = 182) as female. They represented various school contexts: 153 of them taught in secondary education, 49 participants taught in primary education, while 10 respondents taught at both levels of education. The teachers' ages ranged from 24 to 67, with a mean value of 48.33 (SD = 8.74).
The average years of teaching experience was 19.55 (SD = 9.90). The least experienced respondent had 8 months of experience, while the most experienced participant had 40 years of teaching practice. One participant did not provide information regarding their years of teaching experience. The participants were put into three groups in order to be able to compare their responses based on their years of teaching experience: group 1 (n = 74) comprised teachers with 15 years of experience or less, group 2 (n = 109) consisted of teachers with experience between 16 and 30 years, and group 3 (n = 28) included teachers with over 30 years of teaching experience.
The geographical distribution of the participants appears balanced, with 88 respondents from Central Hungary (the capital and Pest county, 41.51%), 65 from Eastern Hungary (the Great Plain and Northern Hungary, 30.66%), and 59 from Western Hungary (Transdanubia, 27.83%). For the analysis, responses from these three regions—Central Hungary (n = 88), Eastern Hungary (n = 65), and Western Hungary (n = 59)—were compared.
Results and discussion
Beliefs about DI and TEDI
The descriptive statistics of the scales measuring participants' DI-related beliefs, summarized in Table 3, confirmed that EFL teachers generally acknowledge the importance of DI (M = 4.44, SD = 0.65) and of TEDI (M = 4.06, SD = 0.84) in TEFL. To examine if there were any differences in the participants' answers based on their background variables, ANOVA tests were run with school type, years of teaching experience and region as grouping variables. The tests yielded no significant differences, suggesting that these approaches are viewed positively by Hungarian EFL teachers regardless of their background variables, which indicates a general recognition of the potential benefits of DI and TEDI in catering for students' needs.
Descriptive statistics: Teachers' beliefs about DI and TEDI (N = 212)
| Scale | M | SD |
| Beliefs: Importance of DI | 4.44 | 0.65 |
| Beliefs: Importance of TEDI | 4.06 | 0.84 |
| Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 3.70 | 0.66 |
These results are in line with the findings from other countries, which found a similarly high level of acknowledgement of the concept of DI among EFL teachers (e.g., Chien, 2015; Maruf, 2023; Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018). The outcome confirms Benson's (2012) assertion that “the idea that language teachers should know their students well and be responsive to their needs and preferences in language learning is now part and parcel of every teacher's basic training” (p. 30), and, as part of this trend, the notion of DI is also becoming universally accepted.
On the other hand, a paired sample t-test confirmed that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in DI (M = 3.70, SD = 0.66) were significantly lower than their beliefs about the importance of DI (t(211) = 15.24, p < 0.001) and of TEDI (t(211) = 5.40, p < 0.001). In order to see if there were any differences in the participants' answers based on their background variables, ANOVA tests with school type, years of teaching experience and region were calculated. The tests yielded no significant differences, which may indicate that, irrespective of the type and location of the school they teach at and their years of teaching experience, teachers share a similarly moderate sense of efficacy regarding DI. This pattern corroborates the results of previous studies conducted in the Hungarian context (Kótay-Nagy, 2023a; Zólyomi, 2022), and is also in agreement with findings from international research (e.g., Chien, 2015; Gülşen, 2018; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018). The underlying factors potentially contributing to this outcome are multifaceted; a detailed discussion of these is presented in the section Challenges and enablers of DI.
Self-reported practices of DI and TEDI
The descriptive statistics for the scales measuring teachers' DI practices, summarized in Table 4, reveal three noteworthy patterns. Firstly, and in line with international research (Tzanni, 2018), the differentiation of the learning environment stands out with a particularly high mean value (M = 4.61, SD = 0.39) compared to the other variables measuring DI practices. This may be explained by the fact that this scale measured practices such as creating a safe space for learning and nurturing a sense of community, which all promote differentiation but are not strictly limited to this instructional approach; instead, they encompass broader educational strategies that are associated with a learner-centred approach to teaching (Ben-Yosef & Pinhasi-Vittorio, 2012).
Descriptive statistics: Self-reported practices of DI and TEDI (N = 212)
| Scale | M | SD |
| Practices: Differentiation of the learning environment | 4.61 | 0.39 |
| Practices: Differentiation by readiness | 4.06 | 0.65 |
| Practices: Differentiation by learning profile | 4.06 | 0.57 |
| Practices: TEDI | 3.68 | 0.87 |
| Practices: Differentiation by interest | 3.24 | 0.76 |
Secondly, it is interesting to note that differentiation by readiness followed with the second highest mean value (M = 4.06, SD = 0.65), along with differentiation by learning profile (M = 4.06, SD = 0.57). Differentiation by interest, on the other hand, received a significantly lower mean value (M = 3.24, SD = 0.76) than differentiation by readiness (t(211) = 16.62, p < 0.001) and differentiation by learning profile (t(211) = 17.94, p < 0.001). This pattern, partly in accordance with earlier national research (Zólyomi, 2022), suggests that Hungarian EFL teachers tend to differentiate with their learners' readiness levels and learning profiles in focus. One possible explanation for the heightened emphasis on learners' readiness levels could be that students in Hungarian public education are often placed in groups based on considerations other than proficiency levels (Öveges, 2018), which results in mixed-level classes that put proficiency levels at the forefront of teachers' DI efforts. To fully understand the underlying reasons of these pedagogical choices, however, further exploratory studies are warranted.
Thirdly, the results concerning TEDI practices show that teachers use ICT tools for DI purposes to a moderate extent (M = 3.68, SD = 0.87). This indicates that the integration of ICT in DI practices is less common compared to DI strategies that do not necessarily involve the use of technology; and paired sample t-tests revealed that these differences are significant: (t(211) = 17.064, p < 0.001) for differentiation of the learning environment, (t(211) = 7.101, p < 0.001) for differentiation by readiness, and (t(211) = 7.465, p < 0.001) for differentiation by learning profile. The mean value of self-reported TEDI practices is also significantly lower than that of TEDI beliefs (M = 4.06, SD = 0.84, t(211) = −7.64, p < 0.001), which suggests that, although most teachers recognize the potential benefits of technology for DI, its specific use for DI purposes is not yet widespread.
In order to see if there were any differences in the participants' answers concerning their self-reported practices of DI and TEDI, ANOVA tests with school type, years of teaching experience and region were calculated. Based on this, significant variations were found in terms of the type of institution where participants work. Results suggest that those teachers who teach both in primary and secondary education use readiness-based DI less frequently (M = 3.62, SD = 0.87) than those who teach either exclusively in primary (M = 4.18, SD = 0.57) or in secondary education (M = 4.05, SD = 0.65) (F(2, 209) = 3.23, p = 0.041). One possible explanation for this pattern could be that teachers who teach both at primary and secondary levels may work in contexts where there might be less need for readiness-based DI if students are grouped into relatively homogeneous groups in terms of language proficiency. However, other factors may also contribute to this variation, and a more in-depth exploration of these through qualitative investigations would be needed to understand the phenomenon in its complexity.
Some significant differences between regions were also found. It seems that teachers in central Hungary use readiness-based DI slightly less frequently (M = 3.93, SD = 0.65) compared to their colleagues in the Western (M = 4.2, SD = 0.56) and Eastern (M = 4.1 SD = 0.69) parts of Hungary (F(2, 209) = 3.30, p = 0.039). This may again be explained by the greater heterogeneity of English groups in these regions, which could make readiness-based DI more necessary. However, the differences are relatively small, suggesting that while the geographical location of schools may indicate minor variations in teachers' readiness-based DI practices, these differences are not substantial.
Challenges and enablers of DI
In addition to reporting on their beliefs and practices, teachers were also asked to rate the importance of various challenges and enablers of DI implementation. The results, summarized in Table 5, merit discussion on several points. Firstly, regarding DI challenges, teachers seem to be most preoccupied with planning-related difficulties, namely increased preparation time (M = 4.01, SD = 1.07) and planning in multiple dimensions (M = 3.92, SD = 1.06). These issues may partly stem from the fact that in DI, “the bulk of the work is in the upfront planning” (Blaz, 2016, p. 161). However, responses to the open-ended question on the challenges of DI reveal that these concerns are further intensified by contextual factors within the Hungarian public education system, such as large class sizes (7 mentions) often comprising 20 or more students with varying levels of English, substantial teacher workload (6 mentions) involving 24 or more lessons per week, and a lack of ICT facilities (6 mentions). Participants highlighted that under such circumstances, “DI appears great in theory but remains an elusive dream in practice” (participant A). In these conditions, teachers find it “extremely difficult” to differentiate (participant B), risk “burnout” (participant C), or use DI only on an “ad hoc basis, in fire-extinguishing mode” (participant D). Similar challenges have been identified both in Hungary (Öveges & Csizér, 2018; Sebestény, 2023) and in other countries (Gülşen, 2018; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018), suggesting that these problems are universal concerns needing attention both in educational policy and research.
Descriptive statistics: Challenges and enablers of DI (N = 212)
| M | SD | |
| Challenges | ||
| Lesson planning: Increased preparation time | 4.01 | 1.07 |
| Lesson planning: Planning in multiple dimensions | 3.92 | 1.06 |
| Lesson delivery: Multitasking in class | 3.23 | 1.24 |
| Lesson delivery: Time management | 3.18 | 1.19 |
| Acquainting students with differentiated learning | 3.18 | 1.13 |
| Methodological uncertainties | 3.00 | 1.19 |
| Enablers | ||
| Access to differentiated materials | 4.58 | 0.84 |
| ICT tools in the classrooms | 4.41 | 0.87 |
| Exchange of DI-related tips among staff members | 4.28 | 0.91 |
| Support from school administrators | 4.24 | 0.96 |
| Exchange of student information among staff members | 4.17 | 0.93 |
| In-service training on DI | 4.00 | 1.08 |
| Teaching staff's positive attitude towards DI | 3.86 | 1.06 |
| Regular communication with parents | 3.64 | 1.13 |
Secondly, while the difficulty of acquainting students with DI was rated as only moderately concerning (M = 3.18, SD = 1.13), it emerged as the most prevalent issue in the responses to the open-ended question on the challenges of DI (8 mentions). As some participants put it, many students are accustomed to traditional frontal teaching methods and lack the collaborative skills necessary for differentiated learning, which may result in discipline issues and feelings of exclusion or inferiority among students.
Furthermore, and quite interestingly, out of the challenges listed for participants to rate, methodological uncertainties received the lowest mean value (M = 3.00, SD = 1.19), being significantly lower than the mean values of both the aforementioned two planning-related challenges (t(211) = 10.32, p < 0.001 and t(211) = 10.89, p < 0.001, respectively) and lesson delivery-related challenges, namely multitasking (M = 3.23, SD = 1.24) (t(211) = 2.45, p = 0.015) and time management (M = 3.18, SD = 1.19) (t(211) = 1.99, p = 0.048). As part of the nationwide inquiry into the efficiency of FL teaching in Hungary, Kálmán and Tiboldi (2018) concluded that providing FL teachers with more substantial training on DI may be necessary, but it is also possible that teachers are “very much aware of the necessity of DI, but, for some reason, cannot or do not want to use it in their daily practice” (p. 198). The results of the present study point toward the second interpretation, i.e., that it is not the conceptual side of DI that appears to be most challenging for teachers, but the practical difficulties, especially those related to planning, that come with the daily implementation of the approach.
We can see further support for the above interpretation if we consider that the enabler that teachers rated as most important was access to differentiated materials (M = 4.58, SD = 0.84), a factor that could considerably reduce planning time. Another key enabler was ICT tools in the classrooms (M = 4.41, SD = 0.87), which can also assist teachers in planning by offering readily available differentiated resources. Besides, in their responses to the open-ended question on enablers, teachers emphasized the importance of educational policy measures to create smaller, more homogeneous EFL classes (6 mentions) and to alleviate their workload (5 mentions), which are consistent with the contextual challenges highlighted earlier.
Finally, it is important to note that aspects related to intra-institutional cooperation, such as the exchange of DI-related tips (M = 4.28, SD = 0.91) and student information (M = 4.17, SD = 0.93) among staff members and support from school administrators (M = 4.24, SD = 0.96) also received high mean values. This indicates that teachers value the potential of what has been referred to as cohort groups (Theisen, 2002) or professional learning communities (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Price, 2020) at schools, and they also acknowledge the role of school administrators in facilitating such collaborations (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
Variables influencing the implementation of DI and TEDI
This study also aimed to identify variables influencing teachers' self-reported use of DI and TEDI through stepwise linear multiple regression analyses. Each of the five scales measuring DI practices served as the dependent variables, while the independent variables included measures of teachers' beliefs about DI and TEDI, as well as the reported presence of DI enablers. The inclusion of these variables was motivated by two reasons: to examine whether beliefs can positively influence DI use, as was found in earlier research (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019), and to test whether the presence of certain DI enablers mentioned in the literature positively affects teachers' DI practices.
Before presenting the results of these regression analyses, the descriptive statistics of the scales measuring the reported presence of DI enablers are first given (see Table 6). For data reduction, these enablers were not measured individually but were grouped into broader categories based on themes identified in an interview study conducted by the author (Kótay-Nagy, 2023a): professional preparedness (participation in in-service training, feeling methodologically prepared, availability of differentiated materials), cooperation with stakeholders (teaching staff's positive attitude towards DI, sharing DI tips and student information among staff members, regular communication with parents), and ICT tools (presence of ICT tools, teachers' and students' use of ICT tools). This categorization was validated through Cronbach's Alpha and PCA, which confirmed that these items form unidimensional constructs and thus could be treated together (see Table 1 for the results of the reliability analysis). As shown in Table 6, the descriptive statistics for the three scales indicate a moderate reported presence of the investigated enablers, with professional preparedness receiving the lowest mean value (M = 3.09, SD = 0.98).
Descriptive statistics: Presence of enablers of DI (N = 212)
| Scale | M | SD |
| Presence of enablers: ICT | 3.75 | 0.79 |
| Presence of enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders | 3.26 | 0.85 |
| Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 3.09 | 0.98 |
The outcomes of the regression analyses, summarized in Table 7, warrant discussion on several points. Firstly, it seems that self-efficacy beliefs in DI do not only have a significant positive influence on all four dimensions of DI implementation, but also act as the most influential predictor variable in each of these models (differentiation by readiness: β = 0.28, p < 0.001, differentiation by interest: β = 0.30, p < 0.001, differentiation by learning profile: β = 0.34, p < 0.001, differentiation of the learning environment: β = 0.28, p < 0.001).
Regression analysis: DI and TEDI practices as criterion variables
| Variable | B | SE B | β |
| Criterion: Differentiation by readiness | |||
| Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.28** |
| Presence of enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.20* |
| Beliefs: Importance of TEDI | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.19* |
| Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.18* |
| R2 | 0.37 | ||
| Criterion: Differentiation by interest | |||
| Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 0.34 | 0.08 | 0.30** |
| Presence of enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.24** |
| Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 0.14 | 0.06 | 0.18* |
| R2 | 0.34 | ||
| Criterion: Differentiation by learning profile | |||
| Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.34** |
| Presence of enablers: ICT | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.16* |
| Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.16* |
| R2 | 0.29 | ||
| Criterion: Differentiation of the learning environment | |||
| Beliefs: DI self-efficacy | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.28** |
| Presence of enablers: ICT | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.20* |
| Beliefs: Importance of DI | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.15* |
| R2 | 0.22 | ||
| Criterion: TEDI | |||
| Beliefs: Importance of TEDI | 0.50 | 0.05 | 0.48** |
| Presence of enablers: Professional preparedness | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.23** |
| Presence of enablers: ICT | 0.26 | 0.06 | 0.23** |
| Beliefs: Importance of DI | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.11* |
| R2 | 0.57 | ||
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.
Besides, professional preparedness appears as a significant predictor variable for readiness-based (β = 0.18, p < 0.05), interest-based (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and learning profile-based DI practices (β = 0.16, p < 0.05). The fact that both DI self-efficacy beliefs and perceptions of methodological preparedness are predictor variables of various dimensions of DI practices is in line with what one would expect and is also consistent with the results of Suprayogi et al. (2017) and Whitley et al. (2019), who found that teachers' confidence in their ability to differentiate effectively has an influence on their decision to use the approach in their daily practice.
Moreover, cooperation with stakeholders was identified as a predictor of readiness-based (β = 0.20, p < 0.05) and interest-based DI practices (β = 0.24, p < 0.001). This indicates that sharing DI strategies and student information with colleagues and communicating with parents may contribute to teachers' decision to address students' readiness levels and interests, which reaffirms the importance of knowledge sharing among stakeholders involved in FL teaching as a means to support the effective use of DI (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000).
Interestingly, beliefs in the importance of DI influenced only one aspect, the differentiation of the learning environment, but did not emerge as a predictor for any other DI dimensions. This suggests that while teachers' self-efficacy, methodological preparedness, and cooperation with stakeholders play a role in their use of various DI dimensions, their opinions about DI itself are less influential, a pattern that has been found by other authors, as well (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019).
On the other hand, in the context of TEDI, personal beliefs were identified as significant predictor variables. Beliefs about the importance of TEDI emerged as the most important predictor variable (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), with beliefs about the importance of DI in general (β = 0.11, p < 0.05) also playing a role, as well as contextual factors such as professional preparedness (β = 0.23, p < 0.001), and ICT (β = 0.23, p < 0.001). These findings indicate that beliefs about the importance of TEDI, unlike those regarding DI in general, significantly impact teachers' decisions to implement the approach in practice. In other words, beliefs related to TEDI and its actual implementation seem to be closely linked, which highlights the need for training events designed to raise awareness of the potential of technology for DI.
Conclusion
The examination of Hungarian K-12 EFL teachers' beliefs and self-reported practices of DI and TEDI revealed several findings. Firstly, results indicate that EFL teachers in Hungary recognize the importance of DI and view it as an essential component of teaching. This accords with self-reported data from other countries (e.g., Chien, 2015; Maruf, 2023; Rovai & Pfingsthorn, 2022; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018), which suggests that the concept is increasingly being accepted universally. Besides, teachers not only acknowledge the importance of attending to various learner differences but also report to adapt their instructional approaches to cater for these differences. In their DI efforts, they place particular emphasis on the learning environment and their students' learning profiles and readiness levels, especially their English proficiency. The focus on the latter could be explained by the mixed-level classes prevalent in Hungarian public education (Öveges, 2018). As for TEDI, while teachers generally acknowledge the potential of technology for DI, there seems to be a discrepancy between conceptual acceptance and practical application, which indicates a need for more comprehensive training and better infrastructural support to enhance the use of ICT in DI.
Furthermore, although DI is strongly supported in theory, its practical implementation seems to pose considerable challenges, primarily due to the increased demands in planning and managing differentiated lessons. These challenges are exacerbated by factors such as large class sizes, mixed proficiency levels, and extensive curricular demands, which may also explain the relatively lower levels of DI self-efficacy beliefs among teachers, in line with findings from other studies (e.g., Chien, 2015; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018; Zólyomi, 2022). Given these challenges, it is understandable that teachers identify access to differentiated materials and ICT tools as key enablers of DI, which both have the potential to ease the difficulties associated with planning differentiated lessons. Other enablers, such as collaboration with stakeholders (staff members, parents, school administrators) and in-service training are also deemed important, which suggests that more support in these areas would be highly welcome.
Finally, in line with international findings (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019), teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in DI appear to be the principal factors influencing their implementation of DI, followed by perceptions of professional preparedness, including access to DI resources and training. Cooperation with stakeholders was also identified as a significant enabler of readiness- and interest-based DI, which highlights the importance of knowledge sharing about both DI methodology and the specific needs and interests of individual students. Interestingly, while general beliefs about the importance of DI do not directly influence its implementation, beliefs about the importance of TEDI serve as a significant predictor of teachers' use of technology for DI.
The findings point to implications for teacher training and educational policy. Firstly, since DI self-efficacy appears to be the most critical factor motivating teachers to differentiate, it may be essential to strengthen these beliefs through pre- and in-service training that helps teachers effectively address the most pressing challenges of DI implementation, including the complexities of lesson planning. Training aimed at developing teachers' skills in using ICT for DI appears necessary, too, as does further research into the potential of ICT for DI, with special regard to the exploration of resources and best practices that teachers could use in their daily practice. It would also be important to provide schools with the necessary ICT infrastructure so that the potential of these tools could be fully harnessed. In addition, to mitigate the planning and administrative challenges associated with DI, establishing platforms for intra-institutional collaboration in schools appears warranted. Supported by school administrators, such platforms could facilitate the sharing of best practices, differentiated materials and student information among staff members, thereby reducing the individual burden of planning and preparation.
In interpreting the findings of this study, it is important to acknowledge several limitations. Firstly, the data collection method, which involved an online questionnaire, may have introduced respondent self-selection, potentially leading to an overrepresentation of participants enthusiastic about the topic (Dörnyei, 2007). Besides, with the exception of the regression analysis concerning TEDI practices (R2 = 0.57), the regression models used in this study demonstrated moderate explanatory power. This suggests that other factors may also contribute to the observed variations in teachers' DI practices, which should be explored in future research. Finally, the study primarily focused on quantitative data, and while open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire to obtain qualitative information, additional research, including observations and interviews, would be necessary to further explore EFL teachers' experiences with DI and TEDI and to identify ways of supporting them in their differentiation efforts.
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
About the author
Annamária Kótay-Nagy is an assistant lecturer at the Department of English Language Pedagogy at Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Hungary. She holds an MA in Teaching English and Hungarian as a Foreign Language and an MA in International Relations. Currently, she is a doctoral candidate in the Language Pedagogy PhD programme at ELTE. Her research interests include differentiated instruction in ELT and the role of educational technology in promoting learner-centred classroom practices.
References
Benjamin, A. (2005). Differentiated instruction using technology: A guide for middle & HS teachers. Eye on Education.
Benson, P. (2012). Learner-centered teaching. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 30–37). Cambridge University Press.
Ben-Yosef, E., & Pinhasi-Vittorio, L. (2012). Possibilities inherent in a learning-centred pedagogy: Accessing and leveraging the richness of human capacities. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 25(4), 2–19.
Blaz, D. (2016). Differentiated instruction: A guide for world language teachers (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bourini, A. O. (2015). Differentiated instruction in the mainstream English language classroom in the UAE public secondary schools: Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices. Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai. The British University in Dubai Digital Repository. http://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/792.
Bükki, E., Domján, K., Köpeczi-Bócz, T., Kurucz, O., & Mártonfi, Gy. (2016). Supporting teachers and trainers for successful reforms and quality of vocational education and training: Mapping their professional development in the EU – Hungary. Cedefop ReferNet Thematic Perspectives Series. http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/ReferNet_HU_TT.pdf.
Chien, C. W. (2015). Analysis of Taiwanese elementary school English teachers’ perceptions of, designs of, and knowledge constructed about differentiated instruction in content. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2015.1111040.
De Neve, D., & Devos, G. (2016). How do professional learning communities aid and hamper professional learning of beginning teachers related to differentiated instruction? Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 262–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1206524.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? In A. Mackey, & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 74–94). Wiley-Blackwell.
Educational Authority (n.d.). KIRINT intézménykereső [Institution finder of the public education information system]. https://kirint.kir.hu/IntezmenyKereso/#.
Einhorn, Á (2015a). A pedagógiai modernizáció és az idegennyelv-tanítás [Educational modernization and foreign language teaching]. Miskolci Egyetemi Kiadó.
Einhorn, Á. (2015b). Pedagógiai kultúraváltás – de hogyan? [Shifting the educational culture – but how?]. In I. Knausz, & J. Ugrai (Eds.), A pedagógiai kultúraváltás lehetőségei: Tanulmányok a Miskolci Egyetem Tanárképző Intézetében zajló fejlesztő munkáról (pp. 57–75). Miskolci Egyetemi Kiadó.
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research. Business Administration Review, 69(2), 195–210.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
Government of Hungary (2020). National core curriculum. https://magyarkozlony.hu/dokumentumok/3288b6548a740b9c8daf918a399a0bed1985db0f/letoltes.
Granås, K. (2019). Differentiated instruction in the English subject: A qualitative study of teachers’ approaches to differentiated instruction and the factors that affect their ability to differentiate. Master’s thesis, The Arctic University of Norway. UiT Munin Open Research Archive. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/15669?locale-attribute=en.
Gülşen, E. (2018). A phenomenological study concerning Turkish EFL teachers’ views on differentiated instruction. ELT Research Journal, 7(1), 42–56. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eltrj/issue/40004/475582.
Haymon, C., & Wilson, A. (2020). Differentiated reading instruction with technology for advanced middle school students’ reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5590/jerap.2020.10.1.05.
Hertberg-Davis, H., & Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principals' influence on middle school teachers' responses to differentiation. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-685.
Hustinx, W., Rosius, H., Peoples, M., McCartney, K., Ivanusa Kline, D., Gorissen, P., … Koenraad, T. (2019). Tablio: Realising classroom differentiation and inclusion with tablets. Erasmus+ Key Action 2: Cooperation for Innovation. https://tablio.eu/en/download.
Illés, É., & Csizér, K. (2018). A nyelvtanárok válaszai [The language teachers’ responses]. In E. Öveges, & K. Csizér (Eds.), Vizsgálat a köznevelésben folyó idegennyelv-oktatás kereteiről és hatékonyságáról: Kutatási jelentés (pp. 161–188). Hungarian Educational Authority. https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/sajtoszoba/nyelvoktatas_kutatasi_jelentes_2018.pdf.
Kálmán, Cs., & Tiboldi, T. (2018). A szaktanácsadók válaszai [The consultants’ responses]. In E. Öveges, & K. Csizér (Eds.), Vizsgálat a köznevelésben folyó idegennyelv-oktatás kereteiről és hatékonyságáról: Kutatási jelentés (pp. 189–220). Hungarian Educational Authority. https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/sajtoszoba/nyelvoktatas_kutatasi_jelentes_2018.pdf.
Kótay-Nagy, A. (2022). Primary school EFL teachers’ practices and views of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction: A pilot interview study. Working Papers in Language Pedagogy, 17, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.61425/wplp.2022.17.45.65.
Kótay-Nagy, A. (2023a). Differentiated instruction in the EFL classroom: An interview study on Hungarian primary and secondary school EFL teachers’ views and self-reported practices. Journal of Adult Learning, Knowledge and Innovation, 6(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1556/2059.2023.00076.
Kótay-Nagy, A. (2023b). Primary-school EFL students’ perceptions of technology-enhanced differentiated instruction: A small-scale exploratory study. TESOL Working Paper Series, 21, 24–42.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Letzel, V., Pozas, M., & Schneider, C. (2020). It’s all about the attitudes!’- Introducing a scale to assess teachers’ attitudes towards the practice of differentiated instruction. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1862402.
Lewis, S. G., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction? Adjust, adjust, adjust: North Carolina project begins with encouragement from administrators. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 26–31.
Lombarkia, S., & Guerza, R. (2021). EFL students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards using differentiated instruction in higher education. Journal of Arabic Language Sciences and Literature, 13(1), 1528–1545.
Maeng, J. L. (2017). Using technology to facilitate differentiated high school science instruction. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1075–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9546-6.
Marks, A., Woolcott, G., & Markopoulos, C. (2021). Differentiating instruction: Development of a practice framework for and with secondary mathematics classroom teachers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11198.
Maruf, N. (2023). The interplay of teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and the implementation of differentiated instruction in Indonesian EFL contexts. English Review: Journal of English Education, 11(2), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v11i2.7251.
McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1–5.
McQuarrie, L. M., & McRae, P. (2010). A provincial perspective on differentiated instruction: The Alberta Initiative for School Improvement (AISI). Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 3(4), 1–18.
Melesse, T. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Perceptions, practices and challenges of primary school teachers. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(3), 253. https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v4i3.37.
Ortega, D. P., Cabrera, J. M., & Benalcázar, J. V. (2018). Differentiating instruction in the language learning classroom: Theoretical considerations and practical applications. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(6), 1220–1228. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0906.11.
Öveges, E. (2014). Modern foreign languages in the Hungarian national core curricula. In J. Horváth, & P. Medgyes (Eds.), Studies in honour of Nikolov Marianne (pp. 206–215). Lingua Franca Csoport.
Öveges, E. (2018). Az iskolai nyelvoktatás keretei [The framework of institutional language learning]. In E. Öveges, & K. Csizér (Eds.), Vizsgálat a köznevelésben folyó idegennyelv-oktatás kereteiről és hatékonyságáról: Kutatási jelentés (pp. 14–29). Hungarian Educational Authority. https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/sajtoszoba/nyelvoktatas_kutatasi_jelentes_2018.pdf.
Öveges, E., & Csizér, K. (Eds.) (2018). Vizsgálat a köznevelésben folyó idegennyelv-oktatás kereteiröl és hatékonyságáról: Kutatási jelentés [Investigation of the context and efficiency of foreign language teaching in public education: Research report]. Hungarian Educational Authority. https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/sajtoszoba/nyelvoktatas_kutatasi_jelentes_2018.pdf.
Price, B. (2020). English language teaching professionals’ trajectories within the context of learning organisations. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1556/063.2020.00004.
Rapti, C. (2018). Technology differentiated instruction: A systematic research of EFL Greek learners’ performance on receptive skills. Master’s thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Library. https://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/303823/files/GRI-2019-24039.pdf.
Rohony, N., & Hosszu, T. (2023). Többségi pedagógusok és gyógypedagógusok differenciáló gyakorlatának elemzése [Analyzing the differentiation practices of general and special education teachers]. Módszertani Közlemények, 63(2), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.14232/modszertani.2023.2.15-30.
Rovai, A., & Pfingsthorn, J. (2022). “Good foreign language teachers pay attention to heterogeneity”: Conceptualizations of differentiation and effective teaching practice in inclusive EFL classrooms by German pre-service teachers. Languages, 7(3), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030162.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.717032.
Sebestyén, K. (2023). Kik és miért tanulnak németet az érettségi adó képzésekben? [Who studies German in secondary schools and for what reasons?]. Debreceni Egyetemi Kiadó.
Sougari, A., & Mavroudi, A. (2019). Differentiated instruction in the EFL classroom: Discrepancies between teachers’ self-report questionnaires and actual practices. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.26262/istal.v23i0.7356.
Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020.
Székelyi, M., & Barna, I. (2002). Túlélőkészlet az SPSS-hez: Többváltozós elemzési technikákról társadalomkutatók számára [Survival kit for SPSS: Multivariate analysis techniques for social science researchers]. Typotex Kiadó.
Theisen, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction in the foreign language classroom: Meeting the diverse needs of all learners. The Communiqué, (6), 1–8.
Tokatlı, E. (2022). English language teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction at a foundation school in Turkey: A case study. Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University. OpenMETU. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/101254.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools and classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. (2013). Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tzanni, V. (2018). Exploring differentiated instruction in TESOL: The teachers’ beliefs and practices in Greece. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 149–165.
Vargas-Parra, M. A., Rodríguez-Orejuela, J. A., & Herrera-Mosquera, L. (2018). Promotion of differentiated instruction through a virtual learning environment. Folios, 47(1), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.17227/folios.47-7404.
Whitley, J., Gooderham, S., Duquette, C., Orders, S., & Cousins, J. B. (2019). Implementing differentiated instruction: A mixed-methods exploration of teacher beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching, 25(8), 1043–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1699782.
Willard‐Holt, C. (1994). Strategies for individualizing instruction in regular classrooms. Roeper Review, 17(1), 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553616.
Zólyomi, A. (2022). Exploring Hungarian secondary school English teachers’ beliefs about differentiated instruction. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221114780.
Zelalem, A., Melesse, S., & Seifu, A. (2022). Teacher educators’ self-efficacy and perceived practices of differentiated instruction in Ethiopian primary teacher education programs: Teacher education colleges in Amhara regional state in focus. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2021.2018909.
Zeng, S. (2020). The potential of online technology for language learning. English Language Teaching, 13(10), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n10p23.
Appendix
The English translation of the questionnaire items2
Participants were asked to respond to the items, worded as statements, on a 5-point Likert-scale, depending on the extent to which they felt that the items were true for them (1 meaning ‘not true at all’, 5 meaning ‘perfectly true’). The items were as follows:
1 Beliefs: Importance of DI
I believe it is very important for EFL teachers to be able to differentiate effectively.
I believe it is very important to attend to students' individual needs in the English lessons.
I believe that differentiation is an essential element of learner-centred teaching.
I believe that language teaching can only be effective if it takes students' individual needs into consideration.
I believe that differentiation is a suitable approach for addressing students' individual needs.
2 Beliefs: Importance of TEDI
I believe that ICT tools make differentiation easier for teachers.
I believe that ICT tools facilitate learner-centred language teaching.
I believe that ICT tools facilitate differentiated teaching.
I believe that using ICT tools is indispensable in a personalized approach to language teaching.
I believe that using ICT tools facilitates personalized learning for students.
3 Beliefs: DI self-efficacy
I believe I can effectively cater for my students' individual needs.
I believe that every student in my classes has the opportunity to develop their English.
I believe that I can effectively differentiate in my classes.
I believe that I can effectively attend to my students' individual differences.
4 Practices: Differentiation of the learning environment
I take deliberate efforts to create a welcoming, safe atmosphere in my classes.
I take deliberate efforts to ensure that every student is engaged in my classes.
I take deliberate efforts to make myself approachable and available to my students.
I take deliberate efforts to strengthen my students' motivation towards learning English.
I use activities that develop a sense of community among students.
I follow up privately on conflicts and problems.
I take deliberate efforts to ensure students participate equitably during class.
5 Practices: Differentiation by readiness
I provide supplemental materials to challenge students who master new content with minimal effort.
I provide supplemental materials to support students who have difficulty understanding new content.
I create enrichment opportunities for students who complete activities with minimal effort.
I provide individual support to students who have difficulty completing activities.
I purposefully pair up/group students based on their English language proficiency.
I strive to present new material at diverse levels of complexity to cater for my students' varying English proficiency.
I determine the final grade for each student based on their improvement during the term.
6 Practices: Differentiation by interest
I purposefully pair up/group students based on their interests.
I strive to tailor materials to my students' individual interests.
I allow my students to select from multiple content options (e.g., they can decide which of three texts they would like to read).
I give my students the opportunity to choose from a variety of activities to work on during class.
I discuss with my students the type of product they would be interested in for showcasing what they have learnt.
7 Practices: Differentiation by learning profile
I use various formats (e.g., video, audio, online texts, books) to present new material.
I purposefully group students based on their preferred learning modalities.
I use three or more forms of assessment to determine final grades (e.g., tests, presentation, participation, project).
I purposefully use a variety of grouping formats during class (e.g., whole class, small group, individual).
I allow my students to demonstrate their learning in various ways.
I allow each student to select their preferred grouping format (e.g., work independently or with a partner).
8 Practices: TEDI
I use ICT tools to create differentiated activities.
I use ICT tools to differentiate the content.
I use ICT tools for diagnostic assessment.
I assign digital differentiated activities as homework.
I use ICT tools for gamification purposes.
I use ICT tools for learning management purposes.
I provide digital supplemental materials and activities to challenge students who master the content with minimal effort.
I provide digital supplemental materials and activities to support students who have difficulty understanding the content.
9 Enablers: Professional preparedness
I feel confident about my methodological readiness to apply differentiation in my teaching.
I participate in training events related to DI.
I have access to differentiated materials and activities.
10 Enablers: ICT
I find the classrooms where I teach English to be well-equipped with ICT tools.
I use ICT tools confidently in my teaching.
My students use ICT tools in my classes on a frequent basis.
11 Enablers: Cooperation with stakeholders
Among the teaching staff, we share tips and advice with each other on the methodology of differentiation.
Among the teaching staff, we share information about students that could be relevant for differentiation.
The teaching staff has a positive attitude towards the concept of differentiation.
I maintain regular communication with parents to stay informed about any student information that could be relevant for differentiation.
The administrators of our school are supportive of our differentiation endeavours.
Additionally, participants were asked to rate the importance they attach to various learner differences in TEFL, as well as to certain challenges and enablers in the implementation of DI. The items were as follows:
1 Learner differences
Level of English proficiency
Language learning skills
General study skills (e.g., note taking, time management)
Background knowledge of the material
Special educational needs (SEN, e.g., dyslexia, autism)
Learning and behavioural difficulties
Learning preferences (e.g., grouping orientation, intelligence types)
Sociocultural background
Gender
Interests
2 Challenges of DI
Lesson planning: Increased preparation time
Lesson planning: Planning in multiple dimensions
Lesson delivery: Multitasking in class
Lesson delivery: Time management
Acquainting students with differentiated learning
Methodological uncertainties
3 Enablers of DI
Access to differentiated materials
ICT tools in the classrooms
In-service training on DI
Exchange of DI-related tips among staff members
Exchange of student information among staff members
Teaching staff's positive attitude towards DI
Support from school administrators
Regular communication with parents
Due to space constraints, of these three topics, this paper focuses solely on reporting and analysing the results related to the enablers and challenges of DI.
Italicized items were excluded from the statistical analysis because they did not load onto their designated dimension during the reliability analysis.
