This section includes reviews of scholarly articles about the following themes: EFL students’ needs, differentiated instruction (DI), challenges to implementing differentiated instruction, and theoretical framework (content, process, product, assessment, and learning environment).
Differentiated Instruction: Origins, Develop, and Challenges
According to Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) and Tomlinson (2001, 2004, 2014), DI is a teaching approach that emphasizes individual differences, learning styles, intelligence, and other factors and tries to make the best use of students’ learning potential. This approach can be a viable option for dealing with the issue of diverse needs among students in the same class. In their study, Magableh and Abdullah (2020) revealed that differentiation helps improve students’ learning by promoting motivation, enhancing interaction, and encouraging students to work on their speed and preferences. Therefore, DI allows low-level students to become interested in learning.
Servilio (2009) investigated the impact of DI in motivating students to read in an elementary school in the US. Students were able to choose their preferred reading materials to complete the given tasks; she found, “An average of 83.4% of the students’ grades improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and 4.1% of the grades decreased” (Servilio, 2009, p. 10). Tulbure (2011) researched 94 Romanian teachers of foreign languages and mathematics. The researcher applied DI to the unique learning styles; the results showed a significant difference between the performances of experimental and control groups in terms of academic success.
Hernández-Chérrez et al. (2020) conducted an experimental study in a reading class in Venezuela. Based on their findings, after twelve weeks of treatment, students who were in the experimental group and received differentiation instruction as the method of teaching, scored higher than the control group in the post test; besides, their vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension improved. Similar study was conducted in Iran by Aliakbari and Haghighi (2014); they examined to what extent DI in a reading class would affect students’ reading ability. Their results proved improvement of the experimental group than the control group which received traditional teaching. In another study, Karadag and Yasar (2010) investigated the impact of DI on Turkish students’ attitudes. The sample was 30 Turkish fifth-graders. Before and after the experiment, the researchers conducted an attitude survey to assess the potential for attitudinal changes resulting from applying DI. The researchers highlighted the impact of DI in motivating learners and changing their attitudes about learning.
Another initiative has been taken to learn more about the instructors’ perspectives on using DI; Logan (2011) conducted his research on 141 Georgian teachers. According to the study's findings, most teachers agreed that the basic tenets of DI, such as the need for ongoing modification of content, processes, assessment, and materials, as well as the importance of evaluating students’ readiness and interest levels were beneficial. Alavinia and Farhady (2012) investigated the impact of DI on students’ vocabulary acquisition. In their study, the group in which the learners’ differences were addressed through the adoption of DI outperformed the control group's performance on the post-test. However, the teachers encountered numerous challenges when implementing DI in actual contexts.
Challenges to Implementing Differentiated Instruction
Previous studies provide some hints about the challenges encountered while applying DI; for instance, according to Santangelo and Tomlinson (2009), effective differentiation takes a tremendous amount of instructors’ time and devotion. De Bruin (2018) identified several school characteristics that hampered differentiation implementation. The first was time; arguably, the essential factor for a teacher is to have enough time to prepare lessons that demonstrate excellent differentiation. Another one is the set curriculum constraints. Teachers at schools are all doing the same thing, which is relatively consistent because teachers’ knowledge or experience differ; on the other hand, the criterion for classes to be evaluated through everyday assessment activities is not the same. We know that each classroom is unique; the characteristics of a class, what students know, and what they don’t know are all distinctive; as a result, a set curriculum makes differentiation in the classroom impossible.
Heng and Song (2020) proposed a comparative educational change framework to understand educational changes and transfer. They suggested that difficulties posed by changing technological conditions (class size/space and teacher capacity), as well as sociocultural norms (the emphasis on control, results), and teacher-centered teaching, highlight how perceptions of origin and destination contexts influence DI. Moreover, Zerai et al. (2021) found the positive meaning of DI through the study of 17 Eritrean teachers’ narratives. However, they have listed challenges such as students’ personal challenges, teachers’ sense of helplessness, lack of experienced teachers, or challenging school situations that hinder them from attaining prolific results.
According to Magableh and Abdullah’s (2020) study in Jordan, another challenge is the lack of knowledge of DI techniques among instructors due to a lack of professional development. Their findings indicate that administrators also lack concepts for DI methodologies, which impedes their implementation in Jordanian schools. Furthermore, their research found that planning for differentiation takes too much time since instructors have a severe workload, making it impossible to create differentiated classes. Another finding in their study was that the size of the class had a detrimental impact on DI. According to the researchers, the larger the class, the more we need to differentiate and cope with individual differences (Magableh & Abdullah, 2020).
Another issue, according to Joseph et al. (2013), is a shortage of alternate learning material to address the various needs of students in a differentiated classroom. A differentiated class needs multiple teaching and learning resources since the teacher has to be conversant with each student’s needs and learning style. Individuals who prefer to work alone are another issue teachers in differentiated classrooms face; a differentiated class can be built on group work, collaboration, or cooperation, but if a student is unwilling to do so, the instructor faces a new challenge (Tomlinson, 2014).
Theoretical Framework
Recently, model Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has given a rise to cater to the needs of struggling students in the class and provide them with the required instruction. Conventional curricular models that tightly demand student compliance and provide students little opportunity to present, participate, or express themselves in varied ways are rejected by UDL. In universally designed curriculum, “the curriculum adjusts to the student and to his or her needs” (Firchow, 2016, p.2 The model emphasize the need to consider classroom student diversity and align the teaching methodology accordingly. In addition, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning has impacted the rise of DI. According to this theory, when students receive collaboration from more skilled learners in completing a task, they reach a stage known as the zone of proximal development or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1962; Borja et al., 2015). This zone helps the learners complete a task after developing their capabilities by doing it with a more skilled peer or under the guidance of an adult. Hence, the student-teacher or student-student interaction, responsive instruction, and scaffolding are among the decisive factors to consider in DI (Subban, 2006). More importantly, teachers need to make more informed decisions and realize that the theory of “one size fits all” does not produce effective results anymore. According to Pham (2012), strategies such as “identifying student readiness; making modifications of the instructional content, process, and product; and enhancing collaboration and autonomy in learning” aid in implementing DI which would ultimately result in higher rates of student success. Hence, lesson plans and curriculums should be designed to incorporate the students’ needs, interests, and learning styles in the classrooms. It is also believed that differentiation has “as many faces as it has practitioners and as many outcomes as there are learners” (Pettig 2000, p. 14).
Grounded in the above models and theories, Tomlinson (2001) introduced Differenced Instruction (DI) theory which guides the current study. The DI contains four significant elements: content, process, product, and learning environment (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). The elements are intricately linked and may be tailored to the learner’s readiness, interest, and learning profile (See Fig. 1).
Content
Content is what students are to master or learn from the instruction (Bender, 2012). Taylor (2015) states that differentiating content is when teachers can vary the level of complexity. This means teachers can provide various materials for the same syllabus depending on the students’ specific needs instead of textbooks catering to everyone. The school or district’s standards generally decide the content. It incorporates what the instructor intends students to learn and how they will learn it (Tomlinson, 2014). When differentiating content, the teacher provides what will be taught and what resources will be used strategically. Organizing instructional content allows students to make meaningful relationships between their lives and learning (Hoffman, 2003).
Differentiating content necessitates teachers to provide students with access to the material they want them to acquire. Heacox (2002) believes that allowing students to select a subtopic within a primary theme or unit is one approach for teachers to differentiate the content or curriculum. The entire class learns more about the topic as each student shares information on their sub-topic. In addition, Anderson (2007) states teachers can differentiate the content by employing flexible grouping, in which students can work in pairs or small groups, and by using books, tapes, or the Internet to build comprehension of the topic. Moreover, according to Alavinia and Sadeghi (2013), many language teachers do not differentiate their instruction based on content due to resource scarcity for language instructors. The majority of English teachers, on the other hand, differentiate their instruction to best practices and products, for example, flexible grouping (Yeh et al., 2012) and tiered assignments (Alavinia & Sadeghi, 2013).
Process
The term “process” refers to the activities meant to assist students in making sense of essential information, concepts, and ideas; in other words, it is how the students must complete the learning content (Tomlinson, 2014). The teacher will modify the activities according to the student’s readiness, interest, and learner profile. Tomlinson and Eidson (2003) say that “Learning has to happen in students, not to them” (p. 11). Further, useful activities require students to “grapple with a skill, so they come to own it” and get meaning out of them themselves (p. 10). Teachers can stretch the learning activities based on the students’ readiness, interests, or learning styles, much like content (Tomlinson 2005). Students can learn the same content by doing various activities that can evoke their interests. Hence, the learning process would neither be too boring nor too difficult. Supporting less-abled and advanced students (Tomlinson, 2014) is vital. As a result, multiple levels of support for an activity can be delivered depending on the students’ needs, but Vygotsky (1962) recommends that the teacher remain slightly ahead of the student's actual level of development to stay within the ZPD. In this range, the learner can work independently and where new learning occurs.
According to Anderson (2007), differentiating the process in a lesson means “how the learners come to understand and assimilate facts, concepts, or skills” (p.50). It is crucial to highlight that the process differentiates in terms of how the teacher intends to teach and the strategies teachers encourage students to use thorough exploration of the content taught. Higher-order thinking, open-ended thinking, discovery, reasoning, and investigation may all be used to accomplish this (Bailey & Williams-Black, 2008).
Product
A product is a final project that students complete at the end of a unit to demonstrate what they have learned (Tomlinson, 1999). A great product demands students to “think critically and creatively about what they learned, apply this knowledge, and expand their knowledge and skills” (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). Products assist students in transitioning from knowledge consumers to knowledge producers. The resulting products differ depending on student preparation, interest, and learner profile, but they should be engaging and demanding (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003).
Product differentiation should provide students with alternative options for mastery of shared learning goals. Product differentiation assignments should provide students with explicit and acceptable success criteria, concentrate on real-world relevance and application, and foster creative and critical thinking. Santangelo and Tomlinson (2009) argue that teachers should give enough scaffolding and support to students by offering alternatives for peer and self-evaluation. Bailey and Williams-Black (2008) suggest that differentiating the product enables learners to choose how they want to demonstrate that they have learned the topic. When students select their product, they are more likely to choose a method to help them succeed and match their learning profiles. It is logical to expect that if instructors have a clear grasp of their students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles, they’ll be much more likely to differentiate content, process, and product effectively and appropriately (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009).
Assessment
Idrus et al. (2021) explain DI as a proactive student-centered method for educating diverse learners in a supportive and heterogeneous environment guided by instruction assessment. Differentiated assessment is essential to DI (Chapman & King, 2005). Classroom assessment helps quantify and document learning and encourage it (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005); hence, assessment and instruction are inextricably intertwined (Tomlinson, 2004). According to McTighe and O’Connor (2005), a well-designed assessment and grading system may “provide the kind of specific, personalized, and timely information needed to guide both learning and instruction” (p.11).
There are three types of classroom assessments: pre-assessment, formative, and summative (Levy, 2008; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Moon, 2005). Teachers use pre-assessment to discover what students need to organize lessons. To do so, students are given formal and informal pre-assessments to gather data to define their instructional baselines.
Formative assessment is used to monitor student progress during instruction. It encompasses a wide range of methods for a teacher to identify “what students are getting, and what they are not getting” (p. 18) for teaching and learning (Garesis, 2007). Formative assessment can be used to create student groups, vary the speed of instruction, or change how students are presented with content and materials (Moon, 2005). According to Fisher and Frey (2007), “Oral language, questioning, writing, projects and performances, assessments, and school-wide techniques” are among a range of assessments to evaluate students’ knowledge (p.2).
Summative assessments are used to evaluate instruction and are usually given at the end of a lesson or unit (Moon, 2005). The student mastery level is determined, which may also be used as a pre-assessment for a new unit because it offers information on students’ preparation. Summative data can also be used to provide information to parents, students, or administrators, on the efficiency of instruction, such as grades. Paper examinations, and performance assessments, are examples of summative assessments.
Learning Environment
Instructors who differentiate, value and care for their students, which is evident in the excellent classroom environment favorable to success. The physical aspect of the classroom is the first step in creating such an environment. When the classroom is friendly, students are more responsive to learning and have a sense of community. Teachers, for example, pay attention to the arrangement of the furniture, their level of comfort, the sound volume, the temperature, and the lighting in the class (Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004). In such an environment, all students benefit from the differentiated classroom, and rapport is expected of all students. As a result, students are encouraged to share and ask questions, knowing they will not be criticized (de Anda, 2007). Differentiated teachers also know their students’ ideas, employ positivity and laughter, strive for pleasant learning, and connect themselves with their students (Tomlinson, 2014). Teachers gladly share authority with students in this environment; students may, for instance, engage in developing classroom norms and practices, contribute to developing problem-solving strategies, and assist one another in various ways (Tomlinson, 2001). Such a positive environment improves students’ motivation and autonomy, encouraging them to self-regulate their learning (Young, 2005).
According to Jalaludin and Hashim (2020), the learning environment in a differentiated classroom has a role in creating successful learning. The findings of their study demonstrated that good interactions between students and instructors during sessions, and a suitable classroom environment, contribute to a better learning experience. Vargas-Parra et al. (2018) state that the learning environment influences every student’s learning process in the differentiated classroom. A differentiated classroom environment stimulates students to develop their language proficiency and, as a result, their learning; conversely, when students support one another, they boost their classmates’ learning achievement.
Research Methodology
This study intended to analyze the Afghan students and teachers’ perspectives about DI and the contributing factors to cater to Afghan learners’ needs at the English department of Herat University. The researchers opted for a mixed method to collect the data. The mixed method is regarded as a substantial and pragmatic approach across disciplines, allowing methodological flexibility to integrate with other research approaches for meaningful results (Creswell, 2021). The mixed method allows researchers to address complex research questions, find answers to exploratory and confirmatory questions within a single study, and draw a more comprehensive picture of the problem at hand (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Therefore, a mixed method is utilized for the present study to deduce credible and convincing results.
Context of English Language Teaching in Afghanistan
English language is used as a foreign language in Afghanistan (Alamyar, 2015); therefore, English language learners do not get enough exposure to the language outside the classroom (Barbee, 2013). In developing language proficiency, English language learners in this country enroll in institutions and private classes to improve their language proficiency.
Learning English language has become one of the core-focused points in many countries especially the developing countries like Afghanistan. Many schools and institutions have added this subject as one of the options for studying to improve the students’ communication skills for an international level. In terms of teaching methods, almost in all Afghanistan schools, the traditional method of teaching English or Grammar-Translation method is used (Alamyar, 2015). In this method, the instruction comes with a native version; it means that they teach in native language, not totally in English (Karakas, 2019). Thus, a new teaching method is needed to explore language teaching in this 21st century and enhance the learners’ language skills.
Population Description and Sampling
Convenience sampling was used in the study because of the accessibility and availability of the participants. According to Etikan et al. (2016), convenience sampling “is a type of nonprobability or non-random sampling where members of the target population that meet certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate are included for the purpose of the study” (p.2). Thus, to gather data for the study, two different groups were selected as the participants; English department students and three teachers from the same department. Before completing the questionnaire, the participants were informed of the study’s goals and objectives and asked whether they would be open to participating in the research. They were instructed to read and sign a consent letter, which assured them that their participation was voluntary and that their answers were treated confidentially.
a. English Department Students
English department students served as the participants of the study; both male and female students from first-year students, sophomore, junior, and senior classes participated in the study. Participants of the study have completed at least two semesters at the English department of Herat University; furthermore, they have a minimum of 10 years of English language instruction. Since convenience sampling is used for the present study, a questionnaire was sent to those students who were accessible online; thus, a total of 199 students were approached for the study, and 102 responded to the questionnaire.
Table 1
Survey Respondents’ Demographic Information
| Years of Schooling | Freshmen | 3.9 |
| Sophomore | 26.5 |
| Junior | 43.1 |
| Senior | 26.5 |
| Total | 100% |
| Gender | Male | 35.3 |
| Female | 64.7 |
| Total | 100% |
b. English Department Teachers
Three teachers from the English department participated in the study. All these teachers have Master’s degrees in Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language from reputed universities such as the United States of America and India. However, because of the lack of teachers in the English department, they have simultaneously taught different subjects such as linguistics, teaching methodology, language skills, and research.
Table 2
The Interview Participants’ Demographic Information
| No. | Participants (pseudonyms are used to protect the teachers’ identities) | Gender | Teaching Experience | Degree |
| 1. | Somaya | Female | 1 year | Masters in TESL*, India |
| 2. | Ahmad | Male | 11 years | Masters in TESOL, USA |
| 3. | Sahar | Female | 10 years | Masters in TESL, USA |
| *TESL (Teaching English as Second Language) |
Data Collection
The researchers developed two instruments for data collection; a questionnaire was administered among students, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department teachers. This procedure was approved and observed by the Faculty of Languages and Literature Deanship at the research site (Herat University).
a. Differentiated Instruction Survey Questionnaire
A DI questionnaire was designed to record Afghan EFL learners’ experience of DI tailored to support individual needs in the classroom by their teachers. The DI survey questionnaire was adapted from Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012). The questionnaire was shared with 199 students through google docs. The questionnaire was designed around five categories; the learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. Likert scale (Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5) was utilized to analyze the degree to which the participants believed DI was considered in conducting EFL classes.
Before data collection, the questionnaire was piloted with 51 students from the English department to determine the survey’s reliability. The reliability test was run to assess the internal consistency of 37 items in the questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha for the DI survey was r = 0.951, which is a considerable value indicating that the instrument was reliable. Furthermore, face validity was used to omit irrelevant items in the questionnaire.
b. Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department instructors to include their perspectives on incorporating DI in their classrooms. Two interviews were conducted face-to-face; however, one was conducted online. The open-ended questions designed beforehand guided the conversation and helped the interlocutors to stay on the topic. Moreover, the semi-structured interviews allowed for more in-depth communication about the topic.
Data Analysis
a. Qualitative Data Analysis
Semi-structured interviews were qualitatively analyzed. After the researchers transcribed and coded the data, they applied thematic analysis to analyze the data gathered from semi-structured interviews. According to Kiger and Varpio (2020), thematic analysis “is a method for describing data, but it also involves interpretation in the processes of selecting codes and constructing themes” (p. 1). Therefore, the data were transcribed and coded to find the most repeated patterns to list the themes in the interviews.
The qualitative data was analyzed through thematic analysis, “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). First, the researchers transcribed the recorded interviews verbatim. Then, they read each transcript thoroughly several times to understand the nature of the data in a greater extent, constantly bearing the research questions in mind. They searched for the relevant ideas and codes and took short memos. After creating a list of codes, the researchers constantly compare and contrast them to identify significant relationship between. Subsequently, they categorized codes into various themes. To ensure reliability, the researchers separately analyzed the data to identify codes and themes. Then, they had several joint discussions to reach a consensus and resolved any possible inconsistencies in the findings.
b. Quantitative Data Analysis
The researchers analyzed the questionnaire quantitatively using SPSS software to analyze the data gathered from students’ responses to calculate the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum data.