what is research interview pdf

“Differentiation is Sometimes a Hit and Miss”. Educator Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction in the Higher Education Sector

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Pearl Subban   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-976X 1 ,
• Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi 2 ,
• Melly Preston 2 ,
• Annisa Nanda Liyani 2 &
• Andrea Prita Purnama Ratri 2  

Differentiated instruction is an effective means of addressing student diversity, and is increasingly being adopted by educators within the higher education sector. However, the global pandemic and changes to content delivery have altered the educational landscape. Hybridised delivery has resulted in the need for more innovative and contemporary means of accommodating student diversity, to suit both in-situ and remote learning platforms. Additionally, increasing student diversity in higher education has prompted a rethinking of how to accommodate student variance. This qualitative study sought to gauge the views of four educators, who were faced with hybridisation of content delivery during the global pandemic. Led by an overarching objective of ascertaining educator perceptions, responses and attitudes toward differentiated instruction, the study utilised four in-depth case studies to reflect on the implementation of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector. Results from this qualitative analysis yielded the view that time constraints, the coverage of prescribed content and increasing student diversity continue to act as barriers to authentic differentiation. While all showcased educators embraced the underlying philosophy of differentiating instruction to suit student needs, many were hampered by administrative duties which compromised their time and effort with regard to differentiation.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is acknowledged to be an effective means of addressing student diversity, and is increasingly being adopted by educators within the higher education sector (Rutter & Mintz, 2016 ; Turner et al., 2017 ). With the global pandemic altering the teaching and learning landscape in higher education, and with increasing hybridisation, educators are looking to more effective and innovative means of accommodating student diversity (Lunsford & Treadwell, 2016 ; Smith & Chestnut, 2021 ). Differentiated instruction refers to a set of strategies or teaching techniques which are positioned within contemporary education as a means of addressing increasing student diversity (Subban, 2006 ). Additionally, increasing student diversity in higher education has prompted a rethinking of how to accommodate student variance (Smith & Chestnut, 2021 ). Currently, most courses in higher education are dominated by the “one size fits all pedagogy, which does not necessarily fit the needs of all students (Turner et al., 2017 ). Being cognisant of the need to accommodate growing student diversity, this study sought to explore how differentiated instruction is being implemented in the higher education sector, and more importantly how educators feel about this implementation.

Significance of the Study

A study focusing on differentiated instruction in higher education in Indonesia is significant for three reasons. Firstly, it addresses the diverse learning needs of a rapidly growing student population. As Indonesian universities experience increasing enrolments, the heterogeneity of student backgrounds, abilities, and learning preferences becomes more pronounced. Secondly, implementing differentiated instruction can enhance educational equity and quality, ensuring that all students receive tailored support to reach their full potential. Thirdly, this study can provide critical insights into effective strategies, identify challenges, and inform policy and practice for both educators and administrators, as we aim to achieve more equitable practice. Ultimately, the goal of this study is to contribute to the development of a more inclusive and responsive higher education system in Indonesia.

Literature Review

Student diversity in higher education is both accepted and expected, since students enter tertiary studies from a range of demographics and life experiences (U.S. Department of Education, 2016 ). Indeed, diversity is now the norm in society, and is viewed as a strength to promote social cohesion and productive social climates (Murrar et al., 2020 ). Acknowledging and celebrating student diversity is now an integral feature of most universities, with faculties and departments rethinking their modus operandi to accommodate student variance (Boelens et al., 2018 ; Naidoo, 2022 ). This study similarly acknowledges and recognises that students within higher education contexts come from all walks of life, and in this context, instructional procedures and methods utilised in classrooms should be more accommodating of this rich diversity. Conventional, traditional and the ubiquitous “one size fits all” approaches are not likely to address the changing needs of students (Lunsford & Treadwell, 2016 ; Smith & Chestnutt, 2021 ; Subban, 2006 ). In more recent studies, student voices echo the view that their accommodation on multiple levels, is fundamental to their success in the classroom (Scarparolo & MacKinnon, 2022 ). Educators in these changing times are bound to consider varying methods, strategies and techniques, encapsulating differentiated instruction, in their classrooms (McCarty et al., 2016 ).

Examining Differentiated Instruction in Higher Education

The concept of differentiated instruction, popularised by Carol Tomlinson ( 1999 ), refers to the use of multiple means to address the range of student needs in the contemporary classroom. Instructional practices, according to the broad principles of differentiated instruction, are therefore relative to the needs of students (Subban, 2006 ; Tomlinson, 1996 , 2001 ). Differentiated instruction, offers educators a means of increasing student success, accommodating their interests while being cognisant of the range of intersecting identities that they bring into the classroom (McCarty et al., 2016 ). Much of the research in this field has been conducted in school classrooms, with only a few studies focusing on higher education (Teig et al., 2022 ). If one has to extrapolate the success of differentiated instruction, it follows that both university and college educators would be looking at methods to suit student learning, and would look beyond the traditional transmissive, lecture-style format (Bok, 2013 ; McCarty et al., 2016 ).

The study of differentiated instruction within the context of specific subjects also echoes the more general positive impact of differentiated instruction. The implementation of differentiated instruction has resulted in significant progress in reading (Firmender et al., 2013 ), higher reading fluency and reading comprehension (Reis et al., 2011 ), and had a positive impact on student literacy (Tobin & McInnes, 2008 ), and on math achievement (Chamberlin & Power, 2010 ; Tieso, 2005 ). Additionally, other research also reported an increase in students’ desire to do well in math and experienced enhanced confidence (Grimes & Stevens, 2009 ). Within the context of higher education, the implementation of differentiated instruction also found interesting results (Boelens et al., 2018 ).

Differentiated instruction impacts positively on student outcome as well as the attitudes and engagement of instructors in the higher education sector (Tulbure, 2011 ). However, large class sizes and the challenges of adapting content and instructional procedures to suit individual student needs has presented difficulties (Chamberlin & Power, 2010 ). While fewer empirical studies have been conducted within the context of post-secondary school sites, Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2009 ) reflected on the fact that instructors and higher education teachers are often confronted with time constraints when considering differentiating instruction. In this self-study, it was pointed out that time and effort were considerable, with the characteristic features of differentiation—content, process, product and learning environment—posing a significant amount of dedication to the task by educators (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009 ). In this regard, scholars have noted that these features of differentiated instruction are usually not covered or appropriately personalised in the higher education settings, due to time barriers (Boelens et al., 2018 ).

Examining Differentiated Instruction in Indonesian Higher Education Contexts

In Indonesia, higher education has experienced substantial growth. As of 2023, Indonesia has nearly 3,000 higher education institutions, including universities, polytechnics, and academies. The total student enrolment in higher education is approximately 8 million, reflecting a significant increase over the past decades (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2023 ; Times Higher Education Rankings, 2024 ). The University of Indonesia (UI), located in Depok, West Java, and Jakarta, is one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Indonesia (Times Higher Education Rankings, 2024 ). Jakarta, the capital city, is home to several major universities, including the University of Indonesia and BINUS University, making it a central hub for higher education in the country (Times Higher Education—Indonesia, 2024).

The use of differentiated instruction in the Indonesian higher education sector is increasingly being embraced as educators seek to better accommodate the needs of a progressively diverse student population. The systematic literature review based in Indonesia, conducted by Suprayogi et al. ( 2017 ) suggests that the use of differentiated strategies is becoming popular in Indonesian higher education. These researchers note that differentiated instruction creates more inclusive learning environments and are likely to effectively engage students in their own learning. With the educational landscape becoming varied and multicultural in Indonesia, it follows that paradigms like differentiated instruction would become fundamental to teaching in this century. Varied teaching methods, flexible learning options, personalised feedback and flexible grouping have been identified as essential to improve student engagement. Tailored strategies to meet individual student needs are now lauded in higher education, fostering a more supportive and effective learning context. Additionally, digital tools and online learning platforms have further facilitated more personalised learning experiences (Suprayogi et al., 2017 ).

However, the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education institutions in Indonesia is not without challenges. Limited resources and infrastructure may undermine efforts to support diverse learner profiles (Gibbs & McKay, 2021). Additionally, staff require professional development to support their efforts, and programs to assist with utilising the most effective techniques for their student cohorts. The implementation of differentiated instruction in Indonesian higher education is still evolving, but there is a strong push for efforts to address student diversity. Regulation 4 of 2023 passed by the Ministry of Development Planning in Indonesia (BAPPENAS/PPN), forms part of a broader workplan to create inclusive and sustainable economic transformation. These initiatives aim to reduce disparities and ensure equitable development in education (Edelman Global Advisory, 2023 ). It follows therefore that the Indonesian higher education landscape is responding to these calls, and incorporating more inclusive teaching methods in their learning contexts.

Ultimately, the scarcity of research relating to the implementation of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector, suggests that this area requires some thought and consideration. As student diversity in the sector continues to grow, it is imperative that varying means of instruction are sought to address student needs. This study therefore, will explore educator perceptions of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector, specifically drawing on the views of instructors within an Indonesian University as a case study. It is anticipated that the results of this study may address the gaps in the literature relating to the implementation of differentiation at the higher education level.

Conceptual Framework

The current study utilises Ajzen’s ( 1980 , 1991 ) Theory of Planned Behaviour as its starting point, which emphasises that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control are key predictors of intentions and subsequent behaviours. The Theory of Planned Behaviour predicts intentions and behaviours, perceiving it as a product of three elements (Ajzen, 1980 ). Firstly, Ajzen ( 1991 ) posited that an individual’s attitude to a certain behaviour will determine whether that behaviour is enacted or implemented. Behaviour is secondly determined by subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991 ). Subjective norms reference those societal or legal aspects which prompt or drive behaviour. Thirdly, behaviour is often influenced by perceived behaviour control, implying that individuals within any context are likely to behave in a certain way if they believe that they can control some aspects, or that the behaviour will be easy to enact or implement (Ajzen, 1991 ). The Theory of Planned Behaviour hypothesizes that an individual’s attitude towards a specific behaviour, such as differentiated instruction, significantly influences the likelihood of that behaviour being enacted. Therefore, if educators believe that differentiated instruction will positively impact student learning and view this outcome as valuable, they are more likely to engage in this practice. When considering the subjective norm, if educators perceive that their peers and supervisors support and value differentiated practices, they are more likely to adopt such methods in their teaching. This social influence underscores the importance of creating a supportive and collaborative educational environment that promotes innovative teaching practices. Perceived behavioural control, implies that educators need adequate training, resources, and support to feel capable of implementing these strategies effectively. Perceived behavioural control is critical as it directly affects both the intention to engage in the behaviour and the actual implementation of the behaviour. Tomlinson ( 2001 ), who has extensively studied differentiated instruction and its application in diverse classrooms, highlights the necessity for educators to possess positive attitudes towards differentiated instruction, perceive strong support from their institutional environment, and feel confident in their ability to adapt their teaching methods to meet the diverse needs of students. By utilising Ajzen’s TPB, the current study aims to understand how these factors influence educators’ intentions and behaviours regarding differentiated instruction in higher education, thereby providing insights into the mechanisms that can promote or hinder the adoption of such innovative teaching practices.

In alignment with the underlying theoretical framework Ajzen’s ( 1980 , 1991 ) Theory of Planned Behaviour, the following research questions were framed to lead the investigation:

What are the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction in higher education?

How do specific demographic variables impact educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction in higher education?

Methodology

The study adopted a qualitative methodology, focusing on case studies in order to garner the perceptions of educators in higher education, regarding their use of differentiated instruction in their classrooms. Case studies are regarded as an effective means of obtaining in-depth data from participants (Crowe et al., 2011 ; Saldanha & Haen, 2016 ; Yin, 2009 ). Since case studies have the capacity to explore and explain, while drawing links and acknowledging connections, this form of data collection was view as appropriate to this context (Yin, 2009 ). Within the context of the current study, case studies were viewed as appropriate to address the research questions, since they are geared to harness professional attitudes, perceptions toward instructional techniques and explore experiences with the implementation of differentiated instruction (Crowe et al., 2011 ).

In line with guidelines highlighted above, each volunteering participant was contacted by the research team and a mutually agreed time was set up for an interview. Participants were also sent an email with the option to “free list” (Appendix B) some of the strategies and challenges they experienced as part of their implementation of differentiated instruction.

Participants/Sampling

This study focused on the perceptions of higher educators relating to the implementation of differentiated instruction, the research team attempted to draw in educators with the following demographics. In this qualitative case study examining the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education, a convenience sampling technique was employed to select participants. Convenience sampling involves selecting subjects who are readily accessible and willing to participate (Etikan et al., 2016 ). Five university educators who met these criteria were selected. Firstly, they had to be employed and teaching within an Indonesian university. Secondly, they should have received some training in differentiated instruction in the last 12 months. Thirdly, it was anticipated that these selected individuals would be implementing or attempting to implement differentiated instruction in their higher education classrooms. This approach allowed for considered exploration of educators’ experiences and perceptions within a manageable scope. Although convenience sampling may limit generalizability, it is effective for qualitative research focused on gaining detailed insights from a specific group (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Following ethical approval, the sample eventually chosen consisted of 5 participants (3 females and 2 males). These five educators were known to the researchers as individuals who had received comprehensive training and acknowledged that they had attempted and were continuing to utilise differentiated instruction in their classrooms. All five case study participants taught undergraduate cohorts at the time of data collection, reflected generally on all the classes/groups they taught, and were positioned within groups of students of mixed ability and backgrounds.

Data Collection

Data were collected utilising a video conferencing platform in late 2022. The team decided to focus on a group of five educators, since many educators whom we spoke to as part of our convenience sampling did not feel appropriately equipped to undertake the interview. Video-conferencing was the preferred option since we could interview participants across a broad geographical location. The five selected participants met the criteria outlined above, represented a range of disciplines, and identified varying levels of comfort with differentiated instruction in our informal conversations with them. Participant details have been included in Appendix 1. Interviews were led by a set of pre-determined questions and have been included in Appendix 2. This interview schedule was distributed to participants prior to the interviews so that they could be prepared. Interviews lasted for an hour and were recorded on the video conferencing platform. The platform itself generated a transcript—this was checked by the team for accuracy. All interviews were conducted by the lead author and one other team member, in English. Sometimes, for clarity, questions and responses were translated to Bahasa Indonesia. All participants spoke English and were happy to have the interview conducted in English. Once the interviews were transcribed, these were sent to participants for member-checking to ensure that their responses were accurately captured, and to ensure credibility and trustworthiness (Harper & Cole, 2012 ). Participants were also encouraged to share follow up thoughts with the research team following the interviews.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was facilitated using Braun and Clark’s ( 2006 ) guidelines. In order to develop shared meaning and understanding, the team met to initially discuss the developing ideas, using open coding to state (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017 ). Given the small number of participants, manual coding and analysis was preferred (Basit, 2003 ). A spreadsheet was compiled to capture key quotes and concepts and served as a starting point to generate initial codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017 ). Initial codes included: innovative teaching methods, use of online resources, formative assessments, use of choices, student enjoyment and engagement, varied processes and strategies, assessment techniques (product), teacher readiness, teacher support, resources, confidence, and professional development (among others). Once a final list was compiled, the team met to confirm, review, define and label the themes. Theme review considered whether the themes made sense, whether they responded to the initial research objectives, whether a theme had included too much and contained multiple sub-themes, and whether individual themes reported cohesively to the main data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). In the final iteration, themes were named and articulated according to emerging ideas.

The Results section presents findings from the study on differentiated instruction in higher education, organized thematically for clarity. Organising the Results into themes allowed for an inclusion relating to insights into educators’ beliefs about the benefits and challenges of differentiated instruction, the influence of peer and administrative support, and their confidence in executing these strategies. The impact of specific demographic variables on educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction, were highlighted across age, experience, and educational background. In the final paragraph in this section, the discourse returns to the research questions, offering a condensed response as a wrap-up.

Using Innovative Methods of Teaching and Engaging Students

One of the key emerging themes from this study is that educators in the research context were keen to utilise innovative methods of teaching and engaging students. This included the use of games, software applications, novel teaching strategies and social media platforms.

Desi acknowledged that she:

“Used the flipped classroom…and split students into groups”.

She added that she:

“Used students as mentors and observers so they engage better. … It ’ s an important skill and competency…important for the student and for ourselves. Games are a good strategy....”

Dede corroborated the view that intuitive teaching strengthened the use of differentiation in the classroom, adding on that:

“My confidence is dependent on how students react. …I adapted some methods to suit higher education. It gave me a wider range of methods that I can use in teaching”.

In this context, Dede acknowledged that the selection of teaching strategies depended on how students responded to the task, and he strengthened his skill with differentiation by being professionally developed.

In relation to the responses to COVID-19, Suci commented that:

“I use the hybrid method—students onsite and students via Zoom. I apply criteria used in the assessment to evaluate. Students enjoy discussions—they are quite open—even if it is a lot of work”.

In this context, student discussions were encouraged to strengthen involvement and engagement, especially in light of remote learning measures, which had the potential to trigger isolation.

Wati’s methods of corralling differentiated instruction involved the use of student feedback to inform and shape the lesson and her planning. She observed that:

“Surveys were used to gather student opinions. Microsoft forms were used regarding motives. Students had access to results of the surveys. Kahoot was used to gather formative information.”

This use of student feedback informs and refines the lesson plan to ensure better student outcomes.

Another participant, Joko, added that:

“I implemented games at the beginning through a Kahoot/Padlet app related to the material review. Then, I try to build discussion and active participation from students when discussing the material…”

This use of external software platforms ensured that student attention was harnessed and maintained during the lesson.

In summary, it was evident that participants incorporated a range of innovative strategies to better engage students and to improve their academic outcomes. Games appear to be a popular choice, alongside survey data which provides compelling support for student involvement.

Differentiation as a Means of Addressing Student Diversity

Generally, participants believed that differentiated instruction was an effective means of addressing student diversity and of facilitating varying teaching methods and strategies to accommodate the unique needs of students. In this regard, Joko commented that:

“I believe that DI is one of the effective learning strategies/methods to facilitate the diversity and needs of students.”

It was evident that individual student needs were paramount to educators who were willing to differentiate instruction in the higher education classroom. Corroborating this view, Wati acknowledged that:

“Students like the formative evaluation…it does not matter that they do not have scores…they do know the results. They directly know the results…they are excited to do the evaluation…”.

Here too, the use of pre-assessment strategies, not necessarily linked to results, allowed educators to obtain a more accurate position of student needs. Evidently, students in this context appreciated the time taken by the educator to not only understand their needs but to evaluate exactly where they would fit into the curriculum. Desi referenced a specific incident when she used breakout rooms on the video conferencing platforms in order to better engage students in groups, during an activity relating to academic reading. These were complemented by other forms of engagement including online quizzes:

“If students enjoyed the activity, I gained more confidence. I have several break out rooms to suit student needs. … I give them choices—I give them an article to read or provide a video if they prefer. It ’ s part of my lesson plan to give students choice. I use engagement tools and quizzes because students love it.”

Suci, referenced the use of flexible grouping, with students being offered a range of activity formats suited to their learning profiles. The use of choice, and an awareness of background experience, cumulatively worked to consolidate learning in the higher education classroom:

“I divide my students into ability groups. In this way, they will be more active. When I set a task, I provide three options—they can utilise a video or a written piece or a video… I post a reflection in the forum but students are sometimes overwhelmed by the number of questions.”

This theme underlines the need for greater inution when implementing differentiated instruction, since aspects like quizzes and flexible grouping engages students more effectively in their learning.

Utilising Varied Means (Strategies) to Engage Students (Student-Oriented)

Student-oriented teaching is fundamental to differentiated instruction. As a consequence, many of our participants revealed that they considered student diversity during the planning stage in order to provide a range of strategies to engage students in their learning. Joko suggested that:

“I have tried various ways of implementing DI by paying attention to the diversity of student abilities when forming groups, namely students with good cognitive modalities combined with those less than optimal.”

In line with this, Wati conceded that students enjoy being given choices, and as a consequence she incorporated this into her lessons to ensure that different levels of difficulty were accommodated as part of the activities offered to the class:

“Choices…we like choices. I give my students lots of choices…they like the choices. Students can choose videos which they want to work on. ”

Likewise, Desi’s use of formative assessment was useful along the way as it allowed her to gauge whether students were enjoying the activities and whether they were useful with regard to reinforcing concepts that were being taught:

“I ask students if they enjoy the activities. When I give an assignment…they can choose to write an article or record it. I give them the freedom to choose how they will report their ideas. Sometimes they find it difficult to offer their ideas in writing.”

In the light of the shift to more hybridized learning, involving both in-situ and remote teaching, Suci noted that the embedding of soft skills especially with regard to interpreting feedback was central to her teaching. She recognized that the implementation of differentiated instruction in a hybridized setting is a challenge, however the use of soft skills through the manipulation of cameras and microphones, allowed students to interact more fully in the classroom:

“I tried to implement embedded soft skills—for example, how to provide feedback. It ’ s to help students to collaborate and provide respectful feedback to one another. The students liked the class overall and liked the discussion. … Class discussions are much better because of the break out rooms.”

A student-oriented focus evidently works more effectively as a means of differentiating instruction to accommodate student diversity. Aspects like choices, formative assessments and the embedding of soft skills, all proved effective when involving students in the learning and teaching process.

Challenges with Implementing Differentiated Instruction

The implementation of differentiated instruction is not without its challenges. In this regard all participants acknowledged a range of aspects that often distract from their need to appropriately cater for their students through differentiated instruction.

Joko observed that the challenge often featured during planning, since so much of the work of a higher education instructor is consumed by other duties including administrative tasks. However, he noted that he often worked past this during the preparation process since he was aware that students preferred lessons that were differentiated:

“However, for me, the challenge that I feel is mainly in preparation for teaching. I see that the success of implementing DI lies in the clarity and readiness of the teacher before the implementation process.”

In the light of this, Wati similarly granted that time constraints impacted on the need to differentiate—especially since the construction of quizzes and group assignments often required more work. Differentiated instruction is often labour intensive and time intensive, especially if individual student needs are being met. Planning therefore consumes a great deal of time:

“Formative evaluation should be used more regularly….because of time and the adaptation to the demands of work. I handle three big classes…and I have not used formative evaluation as regularly as I should be…Feedback takes a great deal of time.”

Likewise, Desi observed that large class sizes often compelled her to question whether to implement differentiated instruction, especially if she was not feeling very confident. This resulted in pressure, and some self-questioning regarding her confidence and capacity to implement differentiated instruction:

“Big classes. Passive students are in certain groups and it ’ s difficult to assist them. I ’ m not confident to implement the DI procedure. I ’ m always questioning myself…do I really implement DI?”.

Dede also admitted that differentiated instruction may not always be suited to every classroom—since some protocols and procedures do not apply to certain aspects of the curriculum.

“Differentiation is sometimes a hit and miss. Some content is difficult to differentiate. The content is sometimes complex and it ’ s difficult to change. Many students do not come from a natural science background so they struggle…it ’ s different from what they expect. ”

Similarly, Suci acknowledged that occasionally the need to differentiate instruction resulted in feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed by the need two contribute more specifically to student learning. She also noted the huge time responsibility required when differentiating instruction in the higher education classroom:

“I feel overwhelmed with implementing DI, and did not implement it again. The pandemic happened and I went back to the usual curriculum. ”

This theme illustrated a range of challenges commonly ascribed to differentiated instruction. Among these participants reported the time intensive nature of differentiated instruction, amidst the administrative tasks that often consumed teaching at this level. Additionally, the associated pressures of large class sizes and large curricula also presented significant hurdles.

Support to Implement Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction in the higher education context often requires additional support, as educators attempt to accommodate the needs of diverse student profiles. In this regard, Joko noted that:

“I need support, especially on how to design a lesson plan that is suitable for adult learners. It is necessary to obtain concrete examples in the successful implementation of each DI element so that it is hoped that it can get inspiration. ”.

Additionally, Wati responded that she continued to learn about differentiated instruction while she implemented its protocols. She was aware that the site at which she worked provided amply for the implementation of differentiated instruction, especially with the use of particular learning management systems. In this context, students were able to ask questions via forums and lecturers were able to provide feedback:

“I ’ m still learning…I would like to use a variety of applications…and will need help with online use. Gen Z prefer online applications and other technology. They want to learn more interactively.”

Desi concurred that support was necessary especially since an individual’s confidence in differentiated instruction grew on account of professional development. She noted that receiving support with differentiated instruction allowed her to better accommodate student needs since some were quite active in regard to their learning while others adopted a more passive stance.

“For 50 students, they are very different…some are very active and others are very passive. Some prefer to speak and others prefer to write. Online classes are challenging.”

The benefits of working with colleagues in order to better accommodate the needs of students were acknowledged by Dede. This is a fundamental strength of differentiated instruction since input from collaborators often consolidates practice. Dede indicated that:

“I work with colleagues and students to obtain support. Students help with deciding what is appropriate and helpful to them.”

Additionally, Suci reflected on how training had intensified her confidence with regard to differentiated instruction—specific preparation with regard to planning in line with the differentiated instruction protocols, reduced her feelings of stress and anxiety, more so when she felt supported:

“I gained more confidence with the training and I ’ ve become more confident. I do not feel as overwhelmed about implementing DI.”

Under this theme, participants indicated different types of support that would better facilitate the implementation of differentiated instruction. Learning management systems which are used to aid learning are often static and limit the opportunities for differentiation. Additionally, participants found that their colleagues who also differentiated instruction offered support to encourage their efforts, and academic discussions of this nature often egged them forward.

Results from the interviews conducted with the participants revealed firstly that the use of innovative teaching methods were useful with regard to differentiating instruction in the higher education classroom. Secondly, all participants in this study acknowledged that differentiation was an effective means of addressing student diversity and fundamentally ensured that students are engaged in the learning process. Thirdly, participants noted that the use of varied means of presenting information to engage students, allowed for more authentic differentiation.

We close this section by returning to the research questions, which focused firstly on the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction in higher education. We then consider how specific demographic variables impacted on educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction in higher education. The findings of the study spotlight a few key ideas associated with the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction. Educators conveyed a willingness to adopt innovative teaching methods to implement greater differentiation. These included the use of games, software applications, and social media platforms, to engage students. Participants like Desi and Dede expressed the importance of confidence in teaching strategies and the positive impact of student feedback on their instructional methods. Suci’s use of hybrid methods during the global pandemic and Wati’s incorporation of student surveys and feedback tools illustrate the hands-on efforts to customise instruction to accommodate student needs.

With regard to demographic variables, our study revealed that experience and educational background influenced educator attitudes and their perceptions of support. For instance, Joko noted that the diversity of student abilities shaped his grouping strategies. Wati also highlighted a preference to offer choices to accommodate varying student abilities. Several challenges were referenced by the study’s participants such as time constraints, large class sizes, and content complexity, were acknowledged by all participants. However, professional development and support from colleagues were identified as crucial factors in enhancing educators’ confidence and ability to differentiate effectively. These findings underscore the need for continuous training and institutional support to foster an inclusive and adaptive learning environment in higher education.

The objective of this study was to explore the views of teaching staff in higher education, regarding their implementation of differentiated instruction in their classroom. Semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically and yield five overarching themes: the use of innovative methods of teaching to engage students; differentiation as a means of addressing student diversity; utilising varied means (strategies) to engage students (student oriented); challenges while implementing differentiated instruction, and drawing on support structures to implement differentiated instruction more effectively.

Educators were keen to draw on innovative ideas and methods to involve all students in the lesson. These innovative strategies included the use of the flipped classroom, and the use of peer mentoring for support. Differentiated strategies also became prominent during the delivery of content, in the remote classroom. Additionally, educators acknowledged that introducing student feedback into a lesson proved to be highly valuable. Research corroborates this view, reflecting on how the use of differentiated techniques results in better educational outcomes and stronger student engagement (Boelens et al., 2018 ). Other studies confirmed this finding, revealing that the use of differentiated strategies positions students to achieve better academic scores (Goddard et al., 2019 ; Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022 ).

Furthermore, participants in this study believed that differentiated instruction was an effective means of addressing student diversity. Utilising techniques such as formative assessments and regular feedback were seen as fundamental to the effective implementation of differentiated instruction. Additionally, the use of preassessment strategies in order to shape feedback to students was perceived as an effective means of engaging students in both the physical and the online classroom. In this context, the use of scaffolding techniques and flexible grouping, evoked better responses from students, and created better learning environments. Research on differentiated instruction generally agrees that the philosophy is an effective means of addressing student variance in contemporary classrooms (Pozas et al., 2021 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ).

Another emerging theme was the need to utilize various strategies to engage students directly into their learning. Offering students choices, based on different levels of difficulty, ensured that students took ownership of their learning, more comprehensively. Furthermore, participants acknowledge that students enjoyed learning activities which gave them the freedom to choose. Feedback, in this context, was utilized in twin ways. Participants observed that students needed to learn a range of soft skills in order to better engage the online classroom—differentiated instruction allowed for this embedding of soft skills into teaching units. Utilising a range of strategies in the higher education classroom has generally proved to be a strength—enhancing the learning environment and engaging students in the process (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). Aligning teaching strategies with students’ learning profiles appears to produce stronger overall results (Haelermans, 2022 ).

Participants also acknowledged the challenges associated with differentiating instruction, which they noted may sometimes impact on the appropriate accommodation of students with unique learning needs. Not all lessons were able to be differentiated, with some content-based material in the higher education classroom, requiring more direct instruction. Research confirmed the results revealed that the challenges in implementing differentiating instruction are a very time-consuming of preparation, organization and scheduling the individuals and groups in a large class setting, difficult to cater to individual needs and preferences especially those who prefer to work alone, and the examination culture which has pervaded teacher education institutions seemed to have great impact (Joseph et al., 2013 ; Turner et al., 2017 ).

Finally, most participants acknowledged that differentiated instruction in the higher education context often requires support especially through professional learning. Research aligns with the findings revealed that the teachers find it difficult to develop different ways for students to learn based on what they know and are already able to do, therefore the teachers need to prepared in initial teacher education and supported through professional teacher development agendas (Gaitas & Martins, 2016 ). Other studies also suggest that workshops and training courses for teachers on how to implement the DI strategy are needed, to provide the practical models for the application of DI in school courses (Aldossari, 2018 ).

We close this section by returning the results of the study to the conceptual framework—Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Contextually, educator beliefs about the positive outcomes associated with differentiated instruction, were aligned with enhanced student engagement. These beliefs prompted the use of innovative teaching methods and creative means of addressing student diversity, reinforcing the need for differentiated strategies. The TPB references normative beliefs which relate to perceived expectations of significant others—these are usually aligned with structural supports within institutions. Consequently, the influence of colleagues, professional learning communities and policies that govern learning all act as prompts to encourage the use of differentiated instruction in this context. Control beliefs, which reflect the perceived ease or difficulty associated with performing differentiated instruction in classrooms, resonated with many participants. Time constraints, organizational demands, and the complexity of catering to diverse student needs all impacted on perceived behavioural control underscoring the need for greater support and professional development. These would enhance capacity, improving this perceived control, creating educators who experience greater confidence when implementing differentiated instruction. The TPB also positions “intention” as a precursor to behaviour. This is evident in the acknowledgement by many participants to pre-assess, craft effect formative assessments and group students flexibly. All of these require intentional, former planning. This study draws attention to the motivations and the barriers experienced by educators within the Indonesian context as they implement differentiated instruction. This contributes to a broader understanding of the factors that encourage and drive the adoption of differentiation as a paradigm in higher education. It is evident that targeted interventions to support educators as they cater to the range of student needs in their classrooms, is crucial, especially in the contemporary context.

Implications for Practice

Differentiated instruction in the higher education classroom has sometimes been recorded as time-consuming and challenging (Turner et al., 2017 ). However, the current study through its appreciative focus on the model of differentiated instruction, yielded the following implications for practitioners in higher education in Indonesia. Studies focusing on the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education are limited, so we offer the following based on the findings of this qualitative study.

Differentiated instruction has the potential to improve the overall learning environment, and subsequently, student outcomes, in the higher education classroom, through innovative learning strategies and efforts by the educator.

In the higher education context, differentiated instruction can present as a challenge, since it may not suit every lesson. Educators may need to be more discerning in their choices of strategies.

Staff who differentiate learning and teaching programs should be supported with appropriate professional development, to enhance their skill and application of differentiated techniques.

See Table 1 .

Appendix 2 Interview protocol: differentiated instruction in higher education

Thank you for participating in today’s interview. Our research team is watching the interview for consistency purposes so that we can replicate this in a different context. We aim to be no longer than 1 h.

Our research examines the use of differentiated education in the higher education sector. Having recently undertaken a professional development program in Differentiated Instruction, we are keen to garner your thoughts and perceptions regarding the viability of implementing differentiated instruction in the higher education sector.

Section A: Please Tell us a Little About Yourself

Years of Experience.

Main discipline.

Class Size.

Previous Experience with DI.

Previous success with DI.

Confidence implementing DI.

Prior Professional Learning in DI.

Section B: Tell us About Your Perceptions of DI in Higher Education

What is your understanding of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector? What does differentiated instruction mean for your teaching?

Tell us about some of the strategies that you use to accommodate students from diverse backgrounds?

Inclusivity is often a team/collaborative effort—how do you encourage the contribution of other staff, educators and support personnel in your inclusive efforts? How do you support collaboration?

Reflective practice is core to successful differentiation—how do you ensure that your practice is evaluated? Are there regular and consistent evaluative measures?

Social media is being increasingly utilised to accommodate changing student needs. Can you tell us a little about how you have incorporated social media platforms into your teaching and learning programs?

Utilising research-based strategies to facilitate differentiated instruction is fundamental to success. Can you tell us about any innovative strategies that you’ve found to have worked within your classroom that was linked to research?

Differentiating instruction may present with challenges. Can you tell us about some of the challenges you have experienced?

Often, educators require additional support and resources to implement differentiated instruction. Tell us about the support and resources that you have required, and your accessibility to these.

Closing Prompt:

We know that you are building your confidence and your skill with regard to differentiated instruction. Is there anything you would like to add to our discussion?

What advice would you provide to other staff who are planning to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms?

Thank you for your involvement in our research.

Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior . Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 , 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldossari, A. T. (2018). The challenges of using the differentiated instruction strategy: A case study in the general education stages in Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 11 (4), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n4p74

Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45 (2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548

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 and Education, 120 , 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009

Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America . Princeton University Press.

BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2023). Statistics of Education 2023 . Retrieved from BPS-Statistics Indonesia

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chamberlin, M., & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29 (3), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Edelman Global Advisory. (2023). Overview of the Indonesian Government’s 2024 Work Plan . Retrieved from https://www.edelmanglobaladvisory.com/insights/overview-indonesian-governments-2024-work-plan

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics., 5 , 1.

Firmender, J., Reis, S., & Sweeny, S. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 57 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460084

Gaitas, S., & Martins, M. A. (2016). Teacher perceived difficulty in implementing differentiated instructional strategies in primary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1223180

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., Bailes, L. P., & Nichols, R. (2019). From school leadership to differentiated instruction: A pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal, 120 (2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/705827

Grimes, K., & Stevens, D. (2009). Glass, bug, mud: A self-assessment system enables teachers to differentiate elementary mathematics instruction, which boosts both student learning and students’ sense of themselves as mathematicians. Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (9), 677.

Haelermans, C. (2022). The effects of group differentiation by students’ learning strategies. Instructional Science, 50 (2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09575-0

Harper, M., & Cole, P. (2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? The Qualitative Report, 17 , 1–8.

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonetter, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The impact of differentiated instruction in a teacher education settings: Successes and challenges. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (3), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n3p28

Kettler, T., & Taliaferro, C. (2022). Personalized learning in gifted education: Differentiated instruction that maximizes students’ potential. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237136

Lunsford, H., & Treadwell, G. (2016). Implementing differentiated instruction for online college writing courses: Addressing challenges and developing best practices. Distance Learning, 13 (3), 11–22.

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J, 1 (3), 3351–33514.

McCarty, W., Crow, S. R., Mims, G. A., Potthoff, D. E., & Harvey, J. S. (2016). Renewing teaching practices: Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching Learning and Leadership in Education, 1 , 5.

Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., & Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (9), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5

Naidoo, R. (2022, March 21). Rekindling passion for equality, diversity and inclusion work. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/rekindling-passion-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-work .

Pozas, M., Letzel, V., Lindner, K.-T., & Schwab, S. (2021). DI (Differentiated Instruction) does matter! The effects of DI on secondary school students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.729027

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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891

Rutter, M. P., & Mintz, S. (2016). Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/differentiated-instruction-college-classroom .

Saldanha, J., & Haen, K. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of case studies in improving student learning in a 200-level anatomy course. CIRTL Reports. 3. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45660048.pdf .

Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments: Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 307–323.

Scarparolo, G., & MacKinnon, S. (2022). Student voice as part of differentiated instruction: Students’ perspectives. Educational Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2047617

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 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Smith, A., & Chestnut, C. (2021). Differentiation for equity. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21 , 232–241.

Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7 (7), 935–947.

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

Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Olsen, R. V. (2022). A systematic review of studies investigating science teaching and learning: Over two decades of TIMSS and PISA. International Journal of Science Education, 44 (12), 2035–2058. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2085024

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29 (1), 60–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104

Times Higher Education. (2024). Study in Indonesia . Retrieved from Times Higher Education

Times Higher Education. (2024). World University Rankings 2024 . Retrieved from Times Higher Education

Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy (Oxford, England), 42 (1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2008.00470.x

Tomlinson, C. A., & Association for Supervision Curriculum Development. (1996).  Differentiating instruction for mixed-ability classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1999).  Differentiated Classroom . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

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

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tulbure, C. (2011). Differentiating instruction upon learning styles in higher education: A controversial issue. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of BrașOv, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 4 , 79–84.

Turner, W., Solis, O., & Kincade, D. (2017). Differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29 (3), 490–500.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education . https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf .

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and method (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Pearl Subban

Department of Psychology, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia

Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi, Melly Preston, Annisa Nanda Liyani & Andrea Prita Purnama Ratri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pearl Subban .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Subban, P., Suprayogi, M.N., Preston, M. et al. “Differentiation is Sometimes a Hit and Miss”. Educator Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction in the Higher Education Sector. Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8

Download citation

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8

Share this article

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

• Differentiated Instruction
• Higher Education
• Student Diversity
• Instructional Strategies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Definition 'Interview'

• January 2023

• Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up