Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access September 18, 2019

Shedding Light on the Convoluted Terrain of Differentiated Instruction (DI): Proposal of a DI Taxonomy for the Heterogeneous Classroom

  • Marcela Pozas EMAIL logo and Christoph Schneider
From the journal Open Education Studies


Student heterogeneity is not limited to performance, but encompasses cultural background, language competence, learning styles, and motivation. Thus, heterogeneity inherently changes the demands placed on teachers and requires them to practice differentiated instruction (DI). However, existing DI frameworks tend to describe single exemplary DI practices and widely lack an empirical view. Thus, these frameworks may provide little help to classroom teachers when it comes to the question of how or by which instructional arrangements they can address student heterogeneity in their everyday classroom teaching. In an attempt to bridge the gap between educational theory and everyday instructional practice, this theoretical paper focusing on differentiation within secondary school education proposes a comprehensive taxonomy of the DI practices known in the literature and practice. Outlines for future research on DI are discussed.


Altricher, H., Trautmann, M., Wischer, B., Sommerauer, S., & Doppler, B. (2009). Unterrichten in heterogenen Gruppen, Das Qualitätspotenzial von Individualisierung, Differenzierung und Klassenschülerzahl [Teaching in heterogeneous groups, the quality potential of individualisation, differentiation, and class size]. In Specht, W. (Ed.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2009: 2. Fokussierte Analysen bildungspolitischer Schwerpunktthemen (pp. 341-360). Graz: Leykam.Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, M., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. (2014). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, S., Chard, J., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75, 263–281.10.1177/001440290907500303Search in Google Scholar

Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction (Dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC (ED 479 203).Search in Google Scholar

Becker, G. E. (2008). Unterricht durchführen [Teaching Class] (9., vollst. überarb. Aufl). Weinheim [u.a.]: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment: An optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 161–177. in Google Scholar

Bloom, B.S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Topical Papers and Reprint, 1(2). Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Blossfeld, H.-P., Roßbach, H.-G, & von Maurice, J. (Eds.) (2011). Education as a Lifelong Process – The German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). [Special Issue] Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: 14. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH.Search in Google Scholar

Blumberg, E., Möller, K., & Hardy, I. (2004). Erreichen motivationaler und selbstbezogener Zielsetzungen in einem schülerorientierten naturwissenschaftsbezogenen Sachunterricht: Bestehen Unterschiede in Abhängigkeit von der Leistungsstärke [Achieving motivational and self-referential objectives in a student-oriented science lessons: Do differences depend on the achievement level?] In W. Bos, E.-M. Lankes, N. Plaßmeier, & K. Schwippert (Eds.), Heterogenität: Eine Herausforderung an die empirische Bildungsforschung (pp. 41–55). Münster, New York, München, Berlin: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Bohl, T., Batzel, A., & Richey, P. (2012). Öffnung – Differenzierung - Individualisierung – Adaptivität: Charakteristika, didaktische Implikationen und Forschungsbefunde verwandter Unterrichtskonzepte zum Umgang mit Heterogenität [Opening – Differentiating – Individualizing – Adapting: Characteristics, didactic implications, and research findings of related teaching concepts for dealing with heterogeneity]. In T. Bohl, M. Bönsch, M. Trautmann, & B. Wischer (Eds.), Binnendifferenzierung: Teil 1: Didaktische Grundlagen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Binnendifferenzierung im Unterricht (pp. 40–69). Immenhausen bei Kassel: Prolog-Verl.Search in Google Scholar

Bruder, R., & Reibold, J. (2010). Weil jeder anders lernt. Ein alltagstaugliches Konzept zur Binnendifferenzierung [Everyone learns in a different way: A concept for within-class differentiation]. Mathematik lehren, (162), 2–9. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Carolan, J., & Guinn, A. (2007). Differentiation: Lessons from master teachers. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 44–47. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

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. in Google Scholar

Clarke, J. (1994). Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods (pp. 34–50). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cimino, A. (1980). Mastery Learning in your Classroom: A Handbook for an Approach to an Alternative Learning Strategy. New York: New York City Teacher Centers Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

Coffey, S. (2011). Differentiation in theory and practice. In J. Dillon, & M. Maguire (Eds.), Becoming a Teacher: Issues in Secondary Education (4th ed.) (pp. 197–209). Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. R. (2015). Using cue cards in inclusive middle school classrooms. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(5), 155–160. in Google Scholar

Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. DOI: 10.1080/0046152080217846610.1080/00461520802178466Search in Google Scholar

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

Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.Search in Google Scholar

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(10), 1–15. in Google Scholar

de Graaf, A., Westbroek, H., & Janssen, F. (2018). A practical approach to differentiated instruction: How biology teachers redesigned their genetics and ecology lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 6-23. DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.152364610.1080/1046560X.2018.1523646Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. in Google Scholar

Dupriez, V., Dumay, X., & Vause, A. (2008). How do school systems manage pupils’ heterogeneity? Comparative Education Review, 52(2), 245–273. Retrieved from’_Heterogeneity/links/00b7d53a963b1ed72f000000.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Dweck, C.S. (2007). Mindset the New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.Search in Google Scholar

Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26–29. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Ehlers, K. & Montgomery, D. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of curriculum modification for students who are gifted. Conference proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). Albuquerque, New Mexico.Search in Google Scholar

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol 2: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors (pp. 471–499). Washington: American Psychological Association. in Google Scholar

Giaconia, R. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1982). Identifying features of effective open education. Review of Educational Research, 52(4), 579–602. in Google Scholar

Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Guskey, T. R. (2010). Lessons of Mastery Learning. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 52–57. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Guskey, T. & Gates, S. (1986). Synthesis of research on the effects of Mastery Learning in elementary and secondary classrooms. Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology Faculty Publications, 23. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Gutshall, C. A. (2013). Teacher’s Mindsets for students with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 1073–1083. in Google Scholar

Haagen-Schützenhöfer, C. (2012). Lernaufgaben im Naturwissenschaften Unterricht: Warum? Wofür? Und vor allem – Wie? [Learning tasks in science education: Why? For what? And for whom?] In Rath (Ed.), Kompetenzen und Standards in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften (pp.14-16). Klagenfurt: IUS Klagenfurt.Search in Google Scholar

Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Harris, K., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful Writing Strategies for all Students. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Search in Google Scholar

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses relating to Achievement. London, New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., Hughes, C., Berry, L., & McGuire, S. (2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(4), 300–318. in Google Scholar

Hänze, M., Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Stäudel, L. (2010). Gestufte Lernhilfen [Tiered learning aids]. In S. Boller & R. Lau (Eds.), Innere Differenzierung in der Sekundarstufe II: Ein Praxishandbuch für Lehrer/innen (pp. 63–73). Weinheim: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Helmke, A. (2014). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Teaching quality and teacher professionalit: Diagnose, evaluation, and improvment of teaching] (5th ed.). Unterricht verbessern Schule entwicklen. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmeyer.Search in Google Scholar

Hepp, R. (2006). Kooperatives Üben mit gestuften Hilfen: Eine Möglichkeit zur inneren Differenzierung [Cooperative tasks using staggered learning aids: A suggestion for within-class differentiation]. Mathematik Lehren, 38(139).Search in Google Scholar

Herrmann, U. (2010). „Freilich thut es dis auf seine Art.“: Innere Differenzierung im Lichte reformpädagogischer Erfahrungen und neurowissenschaftlicher Bestätigungen [„Of course it works on its own way.” Within-class differentiation in the light of reform pedagogical experiences and neuroscientific confirmations]. In S. Boller & R. Lau (Eds.), Innere Differenzierung in der Sekundarstufe II: Ein Praxishandbuch für Lehrer/innen (pp. 148–157). Weinheim: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Hetmanek, A., Wecker, C., Kiesewetter, J., Templer, K., Fischer, M. R., Gräsel, C., & Fischer, F. (2015). Wozu nutzen Lehrkräfte welche Ressourcen? Eine Interviewstudie zur Schnittstelle zwischen bildungswissenschaftlicher Forschung und professionellem Handeln [For what do teachers use which kind or resources? An interview study on the interface between research and professional practice in education]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 43(3), 193–208.Search in Google Scholar

Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the “Open Classroom”. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 71–85. in Google Scholar

Hunt, C., & Cotton, K. (1992). Improving student performance through Mastery Learning. School Improvement Research Series (23), 1–6. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Jennek, J., Gronostaj, A. & Vock, M. (2019). Wie Lehrkräfte im Englischunterricht differenzieren. Eine Re-Analyse der DESI-Videos. [How do English teachers differentiate their instruction. A reanalysis of the DESI-Videos]. Unterrichtswissenschaft. Retrieved from: in Google Scholar

Klippert, H. (2016). Heterogenität im Klassenzimmer. Wie Lehrkräfte effektiv und zeitsparend damit umgehen können. [Heterogeneity in the classroom. How can teachers deal effectively with heterogeneity]. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Koutselini, M. (2008). Listening to students’ voices for teaching in mixed ability classrooms: Presuppositions and considerations for differentiated instruction. Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 17–30. Retrieved from’_voices_for_teaching_in_mixed_ability_classrooms_Presuppositions_and_considerations_for_differentiated_instruction/links/5774feb608aeb9427e257e43/Listening-to-students-voices-for-teaching-in-mixed-ability-classrooms-Presuppositions-and-considerations-for-differentiated-instruction.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77. in Google Scholar

Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of Mastery Learning Programs: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299. in Google Scholar

Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standard-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education. (3), 34–64. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

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

Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 18(1), 6–17. in Google Scholar

Leisen, J. (2014). Wie soll ich meinen Unterricht planen? – Lehr-Lern-Prozesse planen am Beispiel Elektrizitätslehre in Physik. [How should I plan my lesson? – The teaching-learning-process plan following an example from electricity in physics education]. In Maier (Ed.), Lehr-Lernprozesse in der Schule: Referendariat: Praxiswissen für den Vorbereitungsdienst (pp. 102–117). Stuttgart: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Letzel, V. & Otto, J. (2019). Binnendifferenzierung und deren konkrete Umsetzung in der Schulpraxis – Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Status Quo. [Within-class differentiation and its concrete implementation in school practice – an inventory of the status quo]. Manuscript submitted.Search in Google Scholar

Leuders, T., & Prediger, S. (2016). Flexibel differenzieren und fokussiert fördern im Mathematikunterricht. Sekundarstufe I + II [Flexible differentiation in secondary mathematics]. Berlin: Cornelsen.Search in Google Scholar

Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 81(4), 161–164. in Google Scholar

Lewis, R. (1986). What is open learning? Open Learning: the Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 1(2), 5–10. in Google Scholar

Lou, Y. (2013). Within-class grouping: Arguments, practices, and research evidence. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 167–169). New York, NY: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & Spence, J. C. (2000). Effects of within-class grouping on student achievement: An exploratory model. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 101–112. in Google Scholar

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458. in Google Scholar

Madamba, S. (1980). Meta-analysis on the effects of open and traditional schooling on the teaching-learning of reading (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor: University Macrofilms International.Search in Google Scholar

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94–112. in Google Scholar

Marshall, H. H. (1972). Criteria for an open classroom. Young Children, 28(1), 13–19. in Google Scholar

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, L., Snyder, K., Sukhram, D., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA+PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth grade students. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 69–89. in Google Scholar

Maxwell, L. (1995). Integrating open learning and distance education. Educational Technology Publications, 35(6), 43–48.Search in Google Scholar

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

McTighe, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is Détente possible? Theory intro Practice, 44(3), 234–244. in Google Scholar

Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. in Google Scholar

Murphy, S. & Korinek, L. (2009). It’s in the cards: A classroom management system to promote student success. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(5), 300–306. in Google Scholar

Niggli, A. (2013). Didaktische Inszenierung binnendifferenzierter Lernumgebungen: Theorie - Empirie - Konzepte – Praxis [Didactical staging of learning environments: Theory-Empiricism-Concepts-Practice]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Search in Google Scholar

Nielsen, S. E., & Yezierski, E. J. (2016). Beyond academic tracking: Using cluster analysis and self-organizing maps to investigate secondary students’ chemistry self-concept. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 711–722. in Google Scholar

Oddo, M., Barnett, D., Hawkins, R., & Musti-Rao, S. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading: Increasing practicality using student groups. Psychology in Schools, 47(8), 842–858. in Google Scholar

OECD (2014), “Indicator D4: How much time do teachers spend teaching?”, in Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. in Google Scholar

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. in Google Scholar

Peterson, P. L. (1979). Direct instruction: Effective for what and for whom? Educational Leadership, 37(1), 46–48. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Pierce, R. L., & Adams, C. M. (2004). Tiered lessons: One way to differentiate mathematics instruction. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 58–65. in Google Scholar

Pilonieta, P., & Medina, A.L. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: “We can do it, too!” The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120–129. in Google Scholar

Praetorius, A.-K., Lipowsky, F., & Karst, K. (2012). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Aktueller Forschungsstand, unterrichtspraktische Umsetzbarkeit und Bedeutung für den Unterricht [Teacher’s diagnostic competence: Current state of research, practical applicability, and significance for teaching]. In R. Lazarides & A. Ittel (Eds.), Differenzierung im mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht: Implikationen für Theorie und Praxis (pp. 115–146). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.Search in Google Scholar

Prast, E., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E., & Van Luit, J. (2015). Readiness-based differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 90–116. in Google Scholar

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) (2016). Teacher Questionnaire. Publisher: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Search in Google Scholar

Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. in Google Scholar

Ramm, G., Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehrmann, R., Leutner, D., Schiefele, U. (Eds.). (2006). PISA 2003: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2003: Documentation and Questionnaires]. Münster: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Reis, S., Burns, D., & Renzulli, J. (1992). Curriculum Compacting: The Complete Guide to Modifying the Regular Curriculum for High Ability Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Search in Google Scholar

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. in Google Scholar

Richards, M. R. E., & Omdal, S. N. (2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic performance effects of tiered effects of tiered instruction on academic performance in a secondary science course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 424–453.10.4219/jaa-2007-499Search in Google Scholar

Ritzema, E., Deunk, M., & Bosker, R. (2016). Differentiation practices in grade 2 and 3: variations in teacher behavior in mathematics and reading comprehension lessons. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 51(2), 50–72. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies. Educational Leadership, 49(7), 26–33. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Rosman, T. & Merk, S. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ epistemic trust in educational scientists: A ‘smart but evil’ stereotype. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference, Aachen, Germany.Search in Google Scholar

Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a Differentiated Instruction Scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(11), 1186–1204. in Google Scholar

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. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Saleh, M., Lazoder, A. W., & Jong, T. de. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interactions, achievement, and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119. DOI 10.1007/s11251-004-6405-z10.1007/s11251-004-6405-zSearch in Google Scholar

Scharenberg, K. (2012). Leistungsheterogenität und Kompetenzentwicklung: Zur Relevanz klassenbezogener Kompositionsmerkmale im Rahmen der KESS-Studie [Perfomance heterogenity and development of competences: The relevance of classroom-related composition characteristics within the KESS-Study]. (1. Aufl.). Empirische Erziehungswissenschaft: Vol. 36. Münster: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar

Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 12(4), 18–27. in Google Scholar

Silver, H., Moirao, D., & Jackson, J. (2011). Task Rotation: Strategies for Differentiating Activities and Assessments by Learning Style. A Strategic Teacher PLC Guide. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Slavin, E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336. in Google Scholar

Smets, W. (2017). High quality differentiated instruction - a checklist for teacher professional development on handling differences in the general education classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(11), 2074–2080. in Google Scholar

Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1152–1162. in Google Scholar

Snow, R. (1989). Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. Ackerman, R.J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (ed.), Learning and Individual Differences. New York: W.H. Freeman.Search in Google Scholar

Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly Classroom. Bloomington, Ind: Solution Tree Press. Retrieved from in Google Scholar

Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 344–355. in Google Scholar

Strickland, C. (2009). Exploring Differentiated Instruction. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Swann, W. B., & Snyder, M. (1980). On translating beliefs into action: Theories of ability and their application in an instructional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 879–888. in Google Scholar

Suprayogi, M., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teacher and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301. in Google Scholar

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60–89. in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools for Responsive Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2005a). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2005b). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diverse Classrooms (3rd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

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

Tomlinson, C. & Cunningham, C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice Grades 5-9: A Resource Guide for Differentiating Curriculum. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. & Demirsky, A. (2000). Leadership for Differentiating Schools & Classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C. & Murphy, M. (2015). Leading for Differentiation: Growing Teachers Who grow kids. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Search in Google Scholar

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (2015). Teacher Questionnaire Mathematics. Publisher: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Search in Google Scholar

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

Valiandes, S., & Koutselini, M. I. (2009). Application and evaluation of differentiation instruction in mixed ability classrooms. 4th Hellenic Observatory PhD Symposium, 25–26.Search in Google Scholar

Von der Groeben, A. (2013). Verschiedenheit nutzen: Aufgabendifferenzierung und Unterrichtsplannung [Using diverstiy: differentiating tasks and planning lessons]. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.Search in Google Scholar

Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/psychological knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 952–969. in Google Scholar

Walker, J. (1994). Open Learning: The answer to the government’s equity problems? A report of a study on the potential impact of the Open Learning initiative on people with disabilities. Distance Education, 15(1), 94–111. in Google Scholar

Wenning, N. (2007). Heterogenität als Dilemma für Bildungseinrichtungen [Heterogeneity as a dilemma for educational institutions]. In S. Boller, E. Rosowski, & T. Stroot (Eds.), Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht: Handlungsansätze zum pädagogischen Umgang mit Vielfalt (1st ed., pp. 21–31). Weinheim: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar

Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76–97. in Google Scholar

Wentzel, K. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105–115. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.102110.1006/ceps.1999.1021Search in Google Scholar

Wischer, B., & Trautmann, M. (2012). Innere Differenzierung als reformerischer Hoffnungsträger: Eine einführende Problemskizze zu Leerstellen und ungelösten Fragen [Within-class differentiation as a hope bearer of reform: An introductory problem description concerning gaps and unsolved issues]. In T. Bohl, M. Bönsch, M. Trautmann, & B. Wischer (Eds.), Binnendifferenzierung: Teil 1: Didaktische Grundlagen und Forschungsergebnisse zur Binnendifferenzierung im Unterricht (pp. 24–39). Immenhausen bei Kassel: Prolog-Verl.Search in Google Scholar

Wray, D. (2001, July). Developing factual writing: An approach through scaffolding. Paper presented at the European Reading Conference, Dublin, Ireland.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, B. J., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206–216. in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-02-15
Accepted: 2019-08-24
Published Online: 2019-09-18

© 2019 Marcela Pozas et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Downloaded on 27.3.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow