Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Review article

Differentiating instruction: Understanding the key elements for successful

teacher preparation and development
Berber N. Langelaan a, b, *, Lisa Gaikhorst a, Wouter Smets c, Ron J. Oostdam a, b
a
Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
b
Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE), Faculty of Education, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
c
Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Primary and secondary school teachers are expected to adapt their teaching to the diverse educational needs of
Differentiated instruction students through differentiated instruction (DI). This review included 29 peer-reviewed published articles from
Teacher training 2010 to 2020 evaluating the contribution of preservice and in-service teacher programs for DI. We synthesized
Professional teacher development
program components, outcomes and contextual interplay. Results indicate that successful programs incorporate
Review study
active learning, collaboration and reflection and were often longitudinal, comprehensive and addressed atti­
tudes, knowledge and skills. Contextual (school) factors acted as facilitators and impediments to program effi­
cacy. Balancing school ambitions with realistic expectations is a concern. Educational and policy implications are
further discussed.

1. Introduction et al., 2018). Even though the growing body of literature on DI offers
some starting points, there is still no consensus on how to effectively
Diversity in education is indisputable, and differences between stu­ prepare and professionalize teachers for DI (Bondie et al., 2019; Deunk
dents are inherent in classroom contexts (Belfi et al., 2012). This applies et al., 2018; Smets, 2019). The present review study aims to uncover and
even more to urban environments where there is often a heterogeneous describe what the literature tells us about teacher preparation and
student population in terms of sociocultural backgrounds, home envi­ training programs targeted at improving teachers’ competence for
ronments and languages and countless related characteristics that in­ tailoring their education to the diverse learning needs of students.
fluence the quality of life and the dynamics of power and privilege
(Gaikhorst, 2014; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014). This calls on teachers
to optimize the growth of each student by accepting and recognizing 1.1. Differentiated instruction
that students have different ways of learning and responding to in­
struction (Gay, 2018; Tomlinson, 2014). Differentiated instruction (DI) DI is a philosophy and praxis of teaching and learning rooted in the
is a comprehensive teaching approach that intends to maximize the acknowledgment of student differences and aimed at tailoring instruc­
learning outcomes of all students in the classroom and decrease the tion to support each student’s growth and development (Deunk et al.,
achievement gap (Denessen, 2017; Gheyssens et al., 2020; Griful-­ 2018). In the research literature, DI initially focused on teaching for
Freixenet et al., 2020; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). While most teachers gifted students, then evolved into a set of instructional practices aimed
espouse these anticipated benefits of DI in meeting student needs, its at special education inclusion classrooms, and further developed into a
actual adoption in practice by teachers is considered a major challenge mainstream teaching approach for meeting the needs of all learners in
and remains critical (Suprayogi et al., 2017). Teachers often need regular classrooms (Graham et al., 2021; Stradling & Saunders, 1993).
additional preparation and practice to be equipped for implementing DI This widespread adoption of DI has concurrently given rise to a prolif­
in their classrooms (Dixon et al., 2014). For the last decade in particular, eration of concepts and strategies (Bondie et al., 2019). Therefore the
we have seen an increase in efforts aimed at developing and monitoring concept can be characterized by a degree of ambiguity and lack of
programs to effectively prepare and equip teachers for this task (Parsons clear-cut definition (Deunk et al., 2018; Graham et al., 2021; Smets &
Struyven, 2018; Van Geel et al., 2019). Although DI is not precisely

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Wibautstraat 2–4, 1091 GM, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B.N. Langelaan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104464
Received 20 May 2023; Received in revised form 21 November 2023; Accepted 23 December 2023
Available online 4 January 2024
0742-051X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

delineated and unambiguously operationalized in the literature, there is teachers’ expectations, both those they have of themselves to be effec­
an emergent understanding of its comprehensive characteristics. Jager tive teachers and those they have of their pupils (Rubie-Davies, 2010).
et al. (2022) identified both deliberateness and adaptiveness as common These expectations steer and deeply affect the way teachers behave to­
ground when responding to differences between learners in the het­ ward their students, which is subsequently perceived by students and to
erogeneous classroom. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) argued that the which they respond in terms of behavior and school performance
core of DI is the teacher’s adaptation of content, process, product and (Denessen, 2017; Dweck, 2015). Dweck (2015) argued that a growth
affect in response to perceived differences in learners’ readiness, in­ mindset should be developed for teachers to believe that most student
terests, and learning profile. This involves teachers recognizing stu­ learning can be achieved through dedication and hard work. From this
dents’ learning needs, adjusting learning objectives, curriculum content, viewpoint, every student is capable of being successful, which empha­
instructional methods, learning tasks, and ongoing assessment of stu­ sizes and fosters the teacher’s responsibility for the learning of all stu­
dent development (Prast et al., 2015; Van Geel et al., 2019). DI is sup­ dents in the classroom. According to this perspective, teacher attitudes
ported by a positive attitude towards diversity and the recognition of act as a filter for knowledge, influence the formulation of a problem or
students’ diverse backgrounds, encompassing students with varying task, and guide teacher’s intent and actions in the classroom (Fives and
levels of academic readiness, diverse cultural backgrounds, and a range Buehl, 2008). Critically reflecting on one’s own beliefs and how these
of learning abilities (Gay, 2010; Wilkinson & Penney, 2014). To provide beliefs influence their instructional behaviors can challenge and alter
a clear delineation of DI for this review, we define it as a proactive these beliefs, providing an impetus to change teacher behavior (Akiba,
approach that incorporates inclusive strategies to create tailored, 2011; Gay, 2010).
accessible learning experiences that meet the educational needs of all
students within the classroom. 1.2. Teacher development for DI

1.1.1. Research on the impact of DI Implementing DI is a complex matter in which multiple types of
The literature provides indications that DI positively impacts stu­ knowledge, skills and attitudes are intertwined in an integrated way
dents’ learning outcomes. Deunk et al. (2018) identified a modest pos­ (Van Geel et al., 2022). There are numerous indicators that both pre­
itive impact of DI on student performance in primary education. In service and in-service teachers should be guided and supported in the
secondary education, research revealed small to moderate effects of DI effective development of DI competence (Eysink et al., 2017; Fei­
on learning outcomes (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). Steenbergen-Hu man-Nemser, 2001; Gaikhorst, 2014; Matsko et al., 2022; Ruys et al.,
et al. (2016) demonstrated in their second-order meta-analysis, that 2012; Van Geel et al., 2019).
student learning outcomes benefited from within-class ability grouping,
a closely aligned teaching approach. DI can also impacts students’ social 1.2.1. Teacher preparation for DI
and emotional development, as Pozas et al. (2020) indicated. In addition Maulana et al. (2015) stressed the complexity of DI and indicated
to these potential benefits of DI and its substantial premises, it is relevant that effectively developing competencies for DI takes time and that basic
to consider some limitations of research on DI, as pointed out by Sma­ teaching skills are considered a prerequisite. Other studies emphasized
le-Jacobse et al. (2019) and Graham et al. (2021). The diffuse concep­ the importance of paying attention to DI as early as during teacher ed­
tualization of DI, the different processes and procedures used in ucation, because (1) knowledge and skills gained during initial teacher
providing it, and the paucity of details regarding teacher professionali­ education would be key to successful implementation of differentiation,
zation for implementing DI collectively highlight the importance of and (2) it allows DI to be presented as the standard teaching approach,
critically exploring this area and suggest that a study of ways to support rather than introducing it later as an additional and complementary
teachers in learning about and implementing DI is warranted. approach (Brevik et al., 2018; D’Intino & Wang, 2021; Dee, 2010; De
Neve & Devos, 2016; Matsko & Hammerness, 2014; Scarparolo & Sub­
1.1.2. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes for DI ban, 2021; Specht et al., 2016; Van Geel et al., 2022; Wertheim & Leyser,
DI can be understood as a teacher competency, that is, an integrated 2002). Although teacher education programs meet the demands placed
set of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Keuning et al., 2017; Korthagen, on them by addressing DI in their curricula, they often offer only an
2004). This presumes that developing teacher competence for DI ne­ introduction to theory (D’Intino & Wang, 2021). This cursory intro­
cessitates the consideration of teachers’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. duction to differentiation is a start, but may not provide enough depth to
Implementing DI requires from teachers to know when and how to teach support teachers to effectively put DI into practice.
specific content effectively and to have knowledge of approaches that
enable pupils to be taught effectively (Smets, 2019). When teachers 1.2.2. Teacher professional development for DI
integrate knowledge about DI into their existing knowledge frameworks Ongoing professional development throughout in-service teachers’
about teaching and learning, this can strengthen DI implementation careers is considered indispensable for teachers to (learn to) respond
(Van Geel et al., 2022). Since the transfer of knowledge about DI to well to the learning needs of their students (Gheyssens et al., 2020;
practice is often challenging, it is recommended that teacher develop­ Smets, 2019; Van Geel et al., 2019). TPD initiatives encompass processes
ment programs pay explicit attention to the implementation process and activities designed to improve teachers’ classroom practices, with a
(Gheyssens et al., 2020). consequential impact on student learning outcomes (Guskey, 2002; van
Effectiveness of DI primarily hinges on the teacher’s actions, spe­ Veen et al., 2012). The overarching goal is to create a diverse and
cifically, how they deliberately, proactively, and effectively adapt in­ effective teaching force that can adapt to the changing needs of students
struction to meet the diverse learning needs of their students, for and teaching. Professional development opportunities for in-service
example by adapting materials for diverse learners and using appro­ teachers are often provided by educational consultants who have ac­
priate instructional strategies (Tomlinson et al., 2003; Van Geel et al., quired expertise in DI. TPD offerings take many different formats and
2019). The initial step in achieving this is the development of skills. range from a half-day PD to a long term sustained program. Most schools
Practical classroom experience stands out as the most advantageous do not have access to extensive programs, due to limited resources or
factor for DI skill development (Van Geel et al., 2022). Teacher other considerations (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021). Kahmann et al.
self-efficacy positively impacts the implementation of DI and is rein­ (2022) conducted a meta-analysis providing an overview of character­
forced by classroom experience with DI (Dixon et al., 2014). istics and effectiveness of 27 (quasi-) experimental studies focused on DI
Teacher qualities for DI extend beyond teacher knowledge and and revealed a medium effect of such programs on teacher measures.
practical skills, as attitudes also play a crucial role. Teacher attitudes They furthermore exposed a need for more explicit statements about the
toward immigrant and marginalized students have been shown to lessen programs theory of improvement to support effective evaluation and

2
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

enable better-informed program adjustments. inclusion (3) quality assessment, (4) extracting data and (5) analysis.
These steps aim to systematically assess the content and methodology of
1.2.3. Effectiveness of teacher professional development the collected studies and contribute to a well-structured and robust
Over the past two decades, researchers have identified components assessment process.
of teacher professional development (TPD) that may bring about posi­
tive change in teacher attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Borko, 2004; 2.1. Literature search
Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Guskey, 2003; van Veen et al., 2012).
Specifically, Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) reviewed 35 methodolog­ In light of the observation of Parsons et al. (2018) that researchers
ically rigorous studies that demonstrated positive links between TPD turned to professional development in DI as a research topic around the
and teacher practice and identified effective TPD characteristics. Ac­ year 2010, we considered studies focused on the evaluation of preservice
cording to Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) effective TPD is (1) content and in-service teacher programs for DI published between 2010 and
focused, (2) incorporates active learning strategies, (3) supports struc­ 2020.
tured teacher collaboration, (4) makes use of models and modeling of A search syntax (see Fig. 1) was formulated to systematically browse
effective practice, (5) integrates coaching and support of experts, and (6) the three commonly used databases within the field of educational
provides opportunities for feedback and reflection. The (limited) success research (ERIC, PsycINFO and Web of Science). The trial search was
of TPD in DI is often associated with the opportunities and constraints repeatedly checked against already known primary studies that belong
for successful implementation provided by the context of the program in the set (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). The search syntax used was
(Gaitas & Alves Martins, 2017; Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021; Suprayogi composed of terms for DI, e.g.: ‘differentiation’, ‘individualized’,
et al., 2017; Van Geel et al., 2022). Desimone (2009) provided a con­ ‘adaptive’, ‘situated’, ‘culturally responsive’, These were combined
ceptual framework for research on effective TPD that presents core (AND) with terms for ‘teacher education’, ‘preservice teacher educa­
features of effective TPD and incorporates context as an important tion’, ‘teacher training’, ‘professional development’ and ‘professional
mediator and moderator influencing the professional development of learning’. An asterisk (*) was used as a wildcard.
teachers.
2.2. Screening for inclusion and quality assessment
1.3. Present study and research questions
Aiming at systematic reporting, a Prisma flowchart (see Fig. 2) was
The purpose of the current study is to build on previous research and used to depict the flow of information through the different selection
explore the components, ingredients and contextual integration of TPD phases of included studies. (Moher et al., 2009). Initially, 4917 publi­
related to DI. This is further specified in the following research ques­ cations were identified (n = 3698 unique publications after removing
tions: (1) which components do current teacher programs for DI duplicates using Zotero software). Backward reference searching resul­
contain? (2) what are effective ingredients of teacher programs for DI, ted in three more articles. This strategy was used to ensure compre­
and (3) which contextual factors influence the success of teacher pro­ hensive coverage of the relevant literature by identifying relevant
grams for DI? studies that were not included in the databases searched or our search
terms were not present in the title, abstract, or keywords. To narrow our
2. Methodology and methods selection, we uploaded the documents’ abstracts in the Rayyan QCRI
web application which scoped the abstracts of n = 3701 documents.
The objective of this descriptive review is to provide a comprehen­ Rayyan QCRI enables to collaboratively assess a large volume of articles
sive and detailed synthesis of studies on the effects of DI teacher training systematically, enhances efficiency and reduces the risk of human
programs, aimed at providing a deeper understanding of effective key errors.
elements. The reporting is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Table 1 lists the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included studies
Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. By based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) the publication was
analyzing relevant research on DI teacher training programs, we seek to available in the English language; (2) the study was published in peer-
understand the breadth and depth of the existing body of studies and reviewed scholarly journals 2010–2020; (3) the program was aimed at
identify gaps that need to be explored. In doing so, the steps of Xiao and primary or secondary school teachers. Early childhood and kindergarten
Watson (2019) were followed: (1) literature search, (2) screening for were excluded for reasons of comparability; (4) the program targeted

Fig. 1. Search strategies for electronic databases.

3
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Fig. 2. Prisma flow chart (based on Moher et al., 2009).

2.3. Extraction and analysis

Table 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The 29 articles were coded using a qualitative data analysis software
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria program (MAXQDA). Research team consultations led to refinement of
Publications in English language area Outside English language areas the coding structure. The selection of meaningful text passages and in­
Peer-reviewed articles and working papers Conference papers and dissertations terpretations of their meaning were systematically verified for reasons of
2010–2020
accountability. First, for each study, the formal reference was annotated
Primary and secondary school Nontarget f.e. early childhood,
disabled, elderly
(author, journal, country), the target group, the program’s aim(s) and
Preservice, and in-service teachers Outside area of teacher training/ outcome measures: teacher knowledge, skills, attitude or student per­
professionalization formance. If there was a positive effect of a training program (measured
Differentiation, adaptive teaching, Other teaching skills or observed improvement), the results of a study were categorized with a
culturally responsive teaching
‘+’. If there was a partially positive effect (an improvement on certain
aspects but not on others) then the results of a study were categorized
preservice and/or in-service teachers; and (5) the outcome variables with a ‘+/− ’. If no or negative effects were reported after a program, the
reflected DI. We aimed at generic approaches to DI (and approaches that outcomes were categorized with ’-’. It is important to note that quali­
can be deployed as such) and excluded studies focused on specific tative studies often reported different outcome measures, such as
subject-related didactic approaches, for example on language teaching, changes in participants’ perspectives or teachers’ reported experiences.
that do not belong within the focus of this review. The coding of the program components was grounded in a theoret­
The studies (n = 3701) titles, abstracts and subject headings (if ical framework of effective general teacher professionalization by Dar­
available) were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. ling-Hammond et al. (2017), who built on extensive literature. The
Potentially eligible studies (n = 233) were obtained in full text and categories and subcategories presented in Table 2 were developed
evaluated to determine study eligibility. We removed 188 studies, and, through a multi-step process that involved both deductive and inductive
for reasons of reliability, 45 studies were assessed for eligibility by two approaches. We started with this theoretical framework as a foundation
researchers. These researchers conducted independent reviews of the 45 and adapted the initial coding framework to the specific context of our
manuscripts in parallel, reading the full text using the criteria for in­ study. This adaptation involved revising, adding, or combining codes to
clusion. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. After collaborative better align with the findings from the data collected from the primary
deliberation, studies considered outside the scope were excluded from studies. Multiple rounds of reading and re-reading put forward new
the sample. A total of 32 studies were deemed appropriate for quality subcategories and definitions. To enhance the validity and reliability of
assessment. To reassure and refine the credibility and trustworthiness of the coding process, multiple researchers were involved. Discrepancies
the findings, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (2019) were resolved through discussion and consensus-building.
checklist for qualitative research, an appraisal tool that systematically For the coding of the program context, the model of Desimone (2009)
checks the research’s value, was used. Even though not all the studies was used, which makes a distinction between contextual factors that
were of a qualitative nature, this tool was considered useful for all relate to the school (type, physical environment, school culture, lead­
studies to assess the approach in terms of validity, outcomes and rele­ ership, policy, collaboration and support structures) and to the teacher
vance. Full texts were evaluated for quality by the first author. Debat­ (s) (prior knowledge, teacher qualities). When program context was
able cases were rescreened by at least two researchers and discussed in explicitly mentioned as of supposed influence on the program’s success,
the research team, and it was jointly decided which articles to include. it was included in the results section of this study. Contextual factors
The final sample of included outputs consisted of 29 primary studies. were classified as facilitators if it was stated that the contextual factor
positively influenced the program’s effect or success. The studies were

4
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Table 2 Table 3
Classification of program components. Program specifications, descriptions and objectives.
Main category and components Abbv. Brief description Study Geographical Target group Teacher training program
setting description and objectives
Content focus Teacher issues IS Focus on daily issues and
concerns of teachers in the Acquah Finland Preservice Twelve weeks; modeling of
specific context in which they (2020) teachers culturally responsive
operate teaching strategies and
Student learning SL Focus on specific student activities, including line-up
populations with targeted games, group discussions,
strategies to support student critical reflection, writing
achievement autobiographies, and
Active learning Practice in design PD Design of lesson plans or teaching structured field experiences
strategies combined with post-
Simulation-Based PS Engagement with content in role experience reflection
Learning play or otherwise amplified real Achieve transformative
experience learning manifest by re-
Practice in PC Implementation of learning evaluating stereotypes,
Classroom content in actual classrooms with misconceptions and teacher
students beliefs
Classroom IQ Constructing, trying out, and Assaf (2015) United States Preservice Six months; service-
Inquiry reflecting on new teaching teachers learning project and field-
strategies Primary school base TE program
Collaboration Collaboration CP One-on-one or small-group Scaffold prospective
with peers interactions with colleagues or teachers to become
other professionals beyond the culturally responsive in
school their teaching
Collaboration CS Structured collaborative Dack (2018; United States Preservice Fourteen weeks; explicit
with students activities with (prospective) 2019; teachers modeling meetings, whole-
students 2020) Secondary group and small-group
Use of Models Curricular CM Provision of a vision of practice school discussion, and workshops
and modeling Models through, e.g., student work Develop knowledge of and
samples or demonstration lesson attitudes toward
plans (Tomlinson’s model of)
Modeling of MI Provision of a vision of practice differentiated instruction
Instruction by engaging teachers in Duquette Canada Preservice Nine weeks; (preparatory)
demonstration lessons with (2016) teachers SE course, guided reflection
effective instruction Primary school questions on used strategies
Coaching and Coaching CA Guiding and facilitating learning and weekly discussions on
Expert Support in the context of practice possible solutions
Expert EX Sharing of content, evidence- Develop personal and
instruction based practice and expertise practical knowledge about
Feedback and Reflection RF Provision of time and students and refine DI
Reflection opportunity for teachers to think practices
about, receive input on, and Goodnough Canada Preservice Biweekly sessions and a
make changes to teacher practice (2010) teachers three-week learning block.
Feedback FB Redirecting or refocusing Secondary Short readings, content
teachers’ practice to thoughtfully school input and models.
move to expert visions of practice Inquisitive collaborative
work on messy, open-ended
problems concerning DI
classified as barriers if the factor negatively influenced the program’s Explore the principles of DI
effect or success. Quotes from the studies were added to illustrate the and how these principles
could be translated into
results. classroom practice
To enforce systematic and transparent coding, we conducted an Kuehl (2018) United States Preservice Six weeks; simulated
approach where the coding of passages was also performed by another teachers experience of one-on-one
researcher (Miles et al., 2014). Any differences were discussed in the Primary school conferencing while
receiving peer support
research team until consensus was reached and the coding was adjusted
Learn to practice
to reflect the outcome of this discussion. For rigor of the analysis, differentiated instruction
approximately 10% of the final coding of fragments were rated by two LaBelle United States, Preservice Eight weeks; lectures and
raters and the interrater reliability measure (Cohens k) (Moher et al., (2016) the teachers structured reflective
2009) revealed a near perfect interrater agreement in interpretation (k Secondary assignments
school Support the development of
= 0.88). teacher beliefs
Seglem and United States Preservice Structured meetings in a
3. Results Garcia teachers shared virtual space
(2015) Secondary Increase understanding of
school urban students and develop
The programs for DI in the sample targeted both preservice (13) and
teacher beliefs toward
in-service (15) teachers (see Table 3). One study used a combined focus student learning
on both target groups. Most studies focused on secondary education Wan (2015) Hong Kong Preservice Thirteen weeks; sessions
(17), and a smaller number focused on primary education (7) or a teachers providing theories and
combination of (preservice) primary and secondary education (4). The Primary and practical implications,
secondary workshops, professional
final sample of outputs (29) consisted of 18 qualitative, two quantitative school sharing by experts, in-class
and nine mixed methods studies. Twelve studies in the sample can be and online group
regarded as process oriented and intended to describe how DI learning (continued on next page)

5
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Table 3 (continued ) Table 3 (continued )

Study Geographical Target group Teacher training program Study Geographical Target group Teacher training program
setting description and objectives setting description and objectives

discussions, poster culturally and linguistically

presentation, and school diverse students
visits Nazzal (2011) United States In-service One year; PST course for
Support the development of teachers mastery DI students
differentiated instruction Secondary Implementation of DI
West (2016) United States Preservice Eight weeks; coteaching school strategies
teachers course by an English Öztürk (2019) Turkey In-service one year; one shot
Secondary professor and a SE teacher teachers workshops and supported
school Develop skills for teaching Preschool, 50-h in-service training
SE students and for working primary school, Address the educational
effectively together with secondary needs of all students
specialists in public school school including the
contexts disadvantaged such as
Whiteker United States Preservice Two years; master’s disabled and SEN students
(2018) teachers curriculum with emphasis Prast (2018) Netherlands In-service One year; cyclical learning
Primary and on diversity and inclusion, teachers pathway, 10 x 3 h
Secondary e.g., course on culturally Secondary instruction for strategies
school responsive teaching school Develop a better response
methods with emphasis on to the educational needs of
student-generated students and, thus, improve
problem-based learning student performance
methods and differentiated Schipper Netherlands In-service One year; a learning
instruction (2020) teachers pathway consisting of two
Prepare teachers to work Secondary learning cycles
with diverse learners school Acquire knowledge about
Beltramo United States In-service Guided dialogues between and insight into (the
(2017) teachers teachers and students learning of) students and
Secondary Construct and leverage new improve the quality of
school knowledge about students didactical decisions and
and subsequently enact lesson design
more adaptive teaching Sharp (2018) Australia In-service Whole school professional
practices teachers learning approach targeted
Blik et al. Netherlands In-service Sixteen weeks; instruction, Secondary at heads of faculty and
(2015) teachers sample lessons on video, school whole of the staff
Vocational role play, own lesson Change understandings,
school recording (video), attitudes and practices
instructional coaching, related to differentiated
coaching and self- instruction
assessment Smets and Belgium In-service Action research:
Change teacher behavior Struyven teachers Instruction,
from prescriptive to (2020) Secondary implementation in practice,
interactive instruction school collaborative practice and
Bower (2012) Australia In-service Eight weeks; three expert coaching
teachers workshops and a mentoring Scaffold and support
Secondary session implementation of DI
school Improve the ability to Valiandes Cyprus In-service Two years, subject-oriented
differentiate the curriculum (2017) teachers training sessions and
with the use of webtools Secondary workshops, active
and SRS’s school reflective practice,
Brigandi United States In-service Six months; 2-h whole- continuous support
(2019) teachers group sessions, workshops, channels and structured
Primary school and practice to increase collaboration
cross-curricular strategies Improve confidence and
Develop attitudes toward ability to design and apply
and knowledge and skills differentiated instruction
regarding gifted education Yuen (2018) Hong Kong In-service Three-hour lectures, guest
de Graaf Netherlands In-service One year; five 3-h sessions, teachers speakers, interactive
(2019) teachers lesson design cycles with Primary school workshops, active practice,
Secondary increased complexity feedback
school Support the redesign of Enhance professional
lessons according to DI knowledge and confidence
while matching work of teachers in adopting
context, within a limited differentiation strategies,
amount of time and with plan and deliver lessons for
limited resources gifted students
Mellom United States In-service Two years; one week-long Bersh (2018) United States In-service Six weeks; autobiography
(2018) teachers IC training (instructional teachers writing, and guided
Primary school conversation), teacher-led Preservice reflective interview
communication between teachers Provide insight into how
small groups of students, own experiences are
and coaching support intertwined with own
throughout one practice teacher identity and beliefs
year and how this shapes
Meet the needs of language (future) teachership
learners and other

6
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

manifests, for example, Dack (2018) and Smets et al. (2020). Two teacher program Teachers’ Professional Development Program for DI
(quasi)-experimental studies were included (Prast et al., 2018; Schipper (PDD) aimed to develop teacher confidence and ability in designing and
et al., 2020) and five studies used a pre- and posttest design without a applying DI by designing lesson plans and implementing them in the
control group to evaluate the programs (Blik et al., 2015; Nazzal, 2011; classroom (Valiandes & Neophytou, 2017). Practice in simulation was
Valiandes & Neophytou, 2017; Wan, 2015; West & West, 2016). Eleven most frequently found in programs targeted at changing teacher atti­
studies focused on program success in terms of (often qualitative) pro­ tudes, for example, simulation games for exploring cultural frames of
gram evaluation. reference (Acquah & Szelei, 2020). Nine programs made use of forms of
inquiry. These programs present cyclical/research cycles,
problem-based learning (PBL) or professional learning communities.
3.1. Program components Schipper et al. (2020) evaluated a cyclical adaptive teaching program
with teachers who collaboratively identified a research focus, studied
The identified components of the programs in the studies from the the curriculum, designed a lesson, taught the lesson, and observed, and
research sample are described in this section (see Table 4) and categories evaluated in a team. PBL was used as a basis for systematic and inves­
are discussed in terms of frequency of occurrence. In Table 2 a brief tigative learning through small, collaborative teacher groups on messy,
description of (sub)categories of program components has been pro­ open-ended problems concerning DI (Goodnough, 2010).
vided. It should be noted that active learning was the most compre­ Feedback and reflection Twenty-two programs have utilized reflective
hensive category with four subcategories. exercise and feedback, for example, by offering guided reflection ques­
Active learning The data indicate that active learning is considered tions to teachers concerning their teaching approach (LaBelle & Bel­
important for DI learning, as it had a presence in as many as 25 programs knap, 2016) or through writing an autobiographical narrative to elicit
(see Table 4). In our analysis, a distinction was made between practice in teachers’ views on and choices regarding teaching (Assaf & López,
design (found 19 times), simulated-based learning (6), practice in the 2015). Reflection was the most frequently found characteristic in pro­
classroom (18) and classroom inquiry (7). Preservice teachers developed grams that aimed at developing teacher attitudes. This applied both to
differentiated lesson plans with modified instruction based on readiness, studies in which attitudes was trained among other competencies and to
interest, or learning profile (Dack, 2018). The intended instructional studies that exclusively targeted attitudinal change. Assaf and López
innovation can be further clarified and concretized for teachers by (2015) described how teachers shared learning and insights on the walls,
means of practice in simulation. Blik et al. (2015) mentioned teachers with visual representations, quotes, and explanations. Feedback (17)
who prepared short lessons for their colleagues and acted them out as a was also frequently encountered in the sample studies. The use of
role play. Practice in the classroom was a common characteristic in feedback was most frequently found in studies focusing on skill devel­
several programs, for example, teachers redesigning biology lessons in opment (12).
three successive cycles (de Graaf et al., 2019). In preservice programs, Collaboration Fostered teacher collaboration was found in 19
teacher internships were often used to practice DI in the classroom. The

Table 4
Program components and outcomes.
Study Content Active learning Colla- Models Coaching Feedback Outcomes
focus boration Modeling Expert Reflection

IS SL PD PS PC IQ CP CS CM MI CA EX RF FB K S A SP
Acquah (2020) x x x x x x x x + +
Assaf (2015) x x x x x +
Dack (2018; 2019) x x x x x x +/− +
Duquette (2016) x x x x x x +
Goodnough (2010) x x x x x x x x + +
Kuehl (2018) x x x x x x +
LaBelle (2016) x +
Seglem (2015) x x x x x x x x +
Wan (2015) x x x x +
West (2016) x x x +
Whiteker (2018) x x x x x +
Beltramo (2017) x x x x + +
Blik (2015) x x x x x x x x x x +
Bower (2012) x x x x x x + + +
Brigandi (2019) x x x x x + +/− +
de Graaf (2019) x x x x x x x x x +
IS SL PD PS PC IQ CP CS CM MI CA EX RF FB K S A SP
Mellom (2018) x x x x x +/−
Nazzal (2011) x +/−
Öztürk (2019) x x x x x x x +/− +
Prast (2018) x x x x x x x +/− +/−
Schipper (2020) x x x x x x x x x +/− +
Sharp (2018) x x x x x x x x x + +/− +
Smets (2020) x x x x x x x +/−
Smets (2020) x x x x x x x +/−
Valiandes (2017) x x x x x x x x x x + + +
Yuen (2018) x x x x x x + +
Bersh (2018) x +
10 7 18 6 18 9 17 5 13 11 8 7 16 15
IS SL PD PS PC IQ CP CS CM MI CA EX RF FB K S A SP

Note.
If there has been positive growth, improvement, or change following a teacher program, the outcomes are categorized with a "+". If there has been partial growth,
improvement, or change after a program, the outcomes are categorized with "+/− ". For example, there are sub-competencies that show growth, and sub-competencies
that do not show growth. If no growth or negative growth has been measured after a program, the outcomes are categorized with ‘-’.

7
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

programs and was further categorized into collaboration with peers and Table 5
collaboration with students. Collaboration with colleagues was found Overview of study design and measurements.
most often in programs targeted at developing DI skills (16 out of 22). Study Study design Data collection N
The program reported by Valiandes and Neophytou (2017) was aimed at methods
promoting structured collaboration between teachers in the program on Acquah One group, posttest Learner reports 2
the premise that teacher-learning communities enhance teacher DI (2020)
practice. Collaboration with students was also often found in programs Assaf (2015) One group, posttest Interviews; 15
focused on attitudinal change (12 out of 20). Kuehl (2018) discussed a documents; Learner
reports
PBL-based program that supported collaborative learning to critically Dack (2018) One group, posttest Interviews; 15
examine and reflect on teacher beliefs related to learning and diverse observations;
learners in the regular classroom. Four studies described collaborative documents; learner
structures between teachers and students. Kuehl (2018) details a pre­ reports
Dack (2019) One group, posttest Interviews; 18
service teacher project in which teachers and marginalized students
observations;
worked together. They read the same novel and engaged in a discussion documents; learner
via an online dialogue journal to create teacher awareness of the need to reports
approach individual students differently and create more understanding Dack (2020) Multiple case study Interviews; 2
of how to guide them accordingly. observations;
documents
Content focus This category was present in 17 teacher programs and Duquette One group, posttest Interviews; 4
included a connection of teacher learning to teachers’ daily issues (11) (2016) documents
and a focus on student learning (6). Program components within this Goodnough One group, posttest Documents; 32
category were comparatively most frequently found in programs that (2010) interviews; learner
reports
focus on DI skill development (12). De Graaf et al. (2019) report, for
Kuehl (2018) One group, posttest only Documents; learner 22
example, on a program in which teachers’ issues and personal interests reports teachers
were met. The project reported by Seglem and Garcia (2015) was aimed LaBelle One group, posttest only Documents 183
at providing teachers with the opportunity to learn more about how to (2016) teachers
navigate the language of their students’ cultures, assess their students’ Seglem Multiple case study Documents; learner 16
(2015) reports teachers
needs and improve their students’ language use and communication.
Wan (2015) One group only pre- and Questionnaires; 27
Models and modeling The use of models and modeling was evident in posttest interviews; focus teachers
16 programs and was divided into curricular models and modeling of groups
instruction (see Table 4). Curricular models were found in 14 programs, West (2016) One group only pre- and Interviews 3 teachers
posttest
for example, the use of best practices of DI lesson design or examples of
Whiteker Multiple case study Questionnaires; 22
differentiated student assessment. Modeling of instruction was found in (2018) interviews; focus teachers
11 programs. Goodnough (2010) recounted group sessions watching a groups
video of a teachers effectively practicing DI. Acquah and Szelei (2020) Beltramo One group, posttest only Observations; 2 teachers
mentioned teacher educators modeling instructions by employing ac­ (2017) interviews;
documents
tivities and strategies that preservice teachers can use in their own
Blik (2015) One group only pre- and Observations; 13
future work, such as line-up games, group discussions and structured posttest questionnaires; teachers
field experiences. documents
Programs that aimed to enhance DI knowledge all made use of some Bower One group only pre- and Questionnaires; 24
(2012) posttest documents teachers
form of modeling.
Brigandi Single case study Interviews; 1 teacher
Coaching and expert support In 13 of the programs, various forms of (2019) observations; learner
coaching and expert instruction were encountered. Seven evaluated reports
programs made use of experts. Brigandi et al. (2019) mentioned an de Graaf One group, posttest only Documents; 5 teachers
educational researcher that provided whole group sessions about gifted (2019) questionnaires;
learner reports;
education for teachers. Some programs provided classroom support
interviews
through coaching on the job, such as an individual mentoring session Mellom Quasiexperimental pre- Observations; 147
that supported teachers who felt the need for more individualized sup­ (2018) and posttest with documents; learner teachers
port (Blik et al., 2015). treatment and control reports
group
A large proportion of the programs (19) had a duration of three
Nazzal One group only pre- and Observations; 2 teachers
months to one year, and six studies reported learning trajectories that (2011) posttest interviews;
took over a year. Sometimes the actual training phase was cut into two questionnaires
or more parts with an internship or practice in the classroom to deepen Öztürk One group, posttest only Focus groups 27
the learning experience. In-service teachers were proportionally more (2019) teachers
Prast (2018) Quasiexperimental pre- Questionnaires; 182
likely to be offered programs with longer durations than preservice
and posttest documents teachers
teachers. (exp.)
115
3.2. Program effectiveness teachers
(cont.)
3657
In this subsection, the reported general effects in Table 4 are related students
to the research designs and used measurements of the studies (see (exp.)
Table 5). A distinction was made between measurements of knowledge, 1867
attitude, satisfaction and skills. We present an overview of the findings students
(contr.)
related to teacher attitudes, teacher knowledge, teacher satisfaction, Schipper Quasiexperimental pre- Interviews; 37
teacher self-reported skills, and teacher skills observed directly. (2020) and posttest observations teachers
Teacher attitudes Sixteen studies reported programs aimed at devel­ (continued on next page)
oping teacher attitudes toward differentiation. Fifteen (out of 16)

8
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Table 5 (continued ) et al. (2018). They described the application of strategies in practical
Study Study design Data collection N exercises where teachers collaboratively prepared a mathematics lesson,
methods with a specific focus on differentiation. In this program, one teacher
(exp.)
delivered the lesson while recording it on video, after which the group
26 collectively evaluated the lesson. In addition to their active participation
teachers in team meetings, the teachers were also required to review selected
(cont.) literature and apply specific differentiation strategies in their mathe­
Sharp (2018) Multiple case study Questionnaires; 22
matics lessons.
interviews; teachers
observations; learner
reports 3.3. Findings regarding context
Smets (2020) One group, posttest Observations; 10
documents; teachers
The success of the teacher programs in relation to their context was
interviews; focus 38
groups students discussed in 16 of the studies (see Table 6). This section provides an
Smets (2020) One group, posttest Interviews; 20 overview of the contextual factors that are described in the studies as
documents teachers being expected to influence program success. The factors were classified
Valiandes One group, pre- and Observations; 14
as facilitators and barriers if it was reported that the contextual factor
(2017) posttest interviews teachers
Yuen (2018) One group, posttest Questionnaires 67 was (amply) available and positively (facilitators) or negatively (bar­
teachers riers) influenced the program’s effect or success. A single factor could
Bersh (2018) Multiple case study Interviews; 8 teachers function as either a facilitator or a barrier, depending on circumstances.
documents; learner As described in chapter two, the coding structure was broken down into
reports
three contextual categories: school, teacher characteristics and student
characteristics (Desimone, 2009). In this section, the factors that were
studies showed positive outcomes in this respect. The most common most frequently identified as facilitators or barriers are discussed.
characteristics of these attitude-oriented programs were reflection (10), Facilitators A supportive (collaborative) school culture was found in
practice in design (10), collaboration with peers (9) and the use of schools where structured collaboration was stimulated (Kuehl, 2018;
feedback (8). Schipper et al., 2020; Sharp et al., 2018). The premise that changes in
Teacher knowledge We did not find programs solely focused on teacher practice require leadership support at multiple levels formed the
knowledge development. However, in some programs knowledge basis of a school-wide approach as reported by Sharp et al. (2018). In
development preceded skill acquisition (Brigandi et al., 2019; Dack, this program, which was perceived positively, the school curriculum was
2019; Sharp et al., 2018). Dack (2019) explored how the understanding aligned with the philosophy and practices of DI.
of DI evolved among preservice teachers. Programs for preservice stu­ Adequate preparation through training enhanced participants’ prior
dents more often emphasized, among other things, the development of knowledge and was also identified as a facilitator for learning to
knowledge about DI. All programs aimed at increasing DI knowledge differentiate instruction (Dack, 2018, 2019; Duquette & Dabrowski,
report growth in this aspect. 2016). The physical learning environment is a tangible category that
Teacher satisfaction Three studies reported teacher satisfaction with appeared both as barrier and as facilitator. Brigandi et al. (2019)
the program. Yuen et al. (2018) found positive outcomes by measuring
participants’ satisfaction with a lecture, the perceived value of the Table 6
workshop and the perceived effectiveness of the trainer/facilitator. Contextual facilitators and barriers for effectiveness.
Teacher skill - self report Studies that measured the program’s success Context S T Facilitator Barriers
by self-assessment of DI skills (5) showed a predominantly positive
Time x x Valiandes & Bower, 2012; Nazzal,
picture (Bower, 2012; Öztürk, 2019; Prast et al., 2018; Wan, 2015; Yuen Neophytou, 2017 2011; Öztürk, 2019;
et al., 2018). Dack, 2018; Brigandi
Teacher skill - direct observation or student assessment The picture is et al., 2019.
somewhat more diffuse when the success of the programs was measured Suitable physical x Brigandi et al. (2019) Nazzal, 2011; Öztürk,
learning 2019
by observation of teacher behavior in the classroom or student assess­ environment
ment, as was the case in 10 studies. Most of the studies demonstrate skill (Collaborative) x x Kuehl, 2018 Schipper Dack, 2020; Nazzal,
growth, albeit with a caveat. We observed, for example, a short-term school culture et al., 2020; Sharp 2011
increase in skills observed, but only a partial increase in DI skills, et al., 2018
School needs and x Kuehl (2018) Prast et al. (2018)
rather than across all aspects. Some studies indicated that skills only
priorities
increased in some respondents or did not indicate retention. To illus­ School leader x x Sharp et al., 2018; Nazzal, 2011; Dack &
trate, Schipper et al. (2020) reported that teachers perceived various Prast et al., 2018 Triplett, 2020
important changes in their attitudes and teaching skills, but no effects (School and Sharp et al. (2018) Dack & Triplett, 2020;
were found by means of structured observation. Prast et al. (2018) also national) policy Schipper et al., 2020
Nazzal (2011)
measured the effect in terms of student performance and did not find Sense of urgency x x Prast et al. (2018) Prast et al. (2018)
effect. These robust studies that reported (partial) skill growth described Authentic learning x Seglem & Garcia, West et al., 2016
programs primarily focused on practice in classroom (8), in design (7), context 2015
teacher collaboration (6), reflection (6), coaching (6) and the use of Teacher concerns Blik et al., 2015;
Brigandi et al., 2019;
feedback (6). The characteristics that emerged most often in studies that
de Graaf et al., 2019
showed a (partial) increase in skills development were practice in design Prior knowledge x Dack, 2018; Dack, Nazzal (2011)
(13), practice in the classroom (14), teacher collaboration (11), 2019; Duquette, 2016
connection to teacher issues (10) and use of feedback (7). It is also Work experience x Prast et al., 2018; Wan,
noticeable that 12 of the 15 programs reporting (partial) skill develop­ 2015
Personality traits x Brigandi et al. (2019) Brigandi et al. (2019)
ment had characteristics within at least four of the main categories (see
Table 2), providing a broad, comprehensive program. An example of an Note.
extensive comprehensive program can be found in the work of Prast S = school contextual factors that relate to the school.
T = contextual factors that relate to the teacher.

9
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

mentioned that “overall, the climate in the classroom was open and observe each other’s differentiated lessons, give each other feedback,
accepting, complex, with varied student groupings that promoted high and are provided time to prepare together can put into practice what
student mobility” (p. 381). they have learned. An noteworthy addition is that some programs
Barriers In five of the studies the factor time was mentioned as a employed structured collaboration with (future) students. Through
barrier (Bower, 2012; Brigandi et al., 2019; Dack & Triplett, 2020; structured collaboration with students, (preservice) teachers gained
Nazzal, 2011; Öztürk, 2019). Some teachers indicated that they received knowledge about students’ levels of achievement and knowledge of
insufficient time facilitation for the program or otherwise experienced pupils’ pedagogical needs, interests, relationships, motivations, and
time pressure. “I guess I’m just concerned about how much time we have preferred problem-solving strategies which in turn supports effective DI
in the classroom to do some of these things […] I get all the puzzle (Van Geel et al., 2019). In further comparison to the broader TPD
pieces, but I never have time to put the pieces together” (Brigandi et al., literature it is noticeable that there is significant emphasis on attitudinal
2019, p. 383). development in teacher programs for DI. Attitudinal development is
When the school’s curriculum was not in line with the principles and considered underlying and supportive for the development of DI skills
practice of DI, this could inhibit the DI learning process (Dack & Triplett, (Akiba, 2011; Fives & Buehl, 2008), which was reflected in many of the
2020; Nazzal, 2011; Schipper et al., 2020). For example, a school cur­ studies in this review. Reflective exercise enables teachers to gain
riculum characterized by standardization and high-stakes testing self-awareness about their practice and its impact on their students,
compelled teachers to be less inclined to implement DI. “They were which mediates teacher practice. When teachers reflect on and discuss
afraid that if they differentiated too often, for example differentiation of their own beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, and experiences related to DI,
product, they wouldn’t be able to cover the curriculum before the test” they feel more prepared and more confident to work with diverse
(Nazzal, 2011, p. 23). Schipper et al. (2020) described how the national learners (De Neve & Devos, 2016).
school curriculum employs content-focused learning objectives, which
are challenging to align with the underlying principles of DI. The
absence of a supportive school learning culture created barriers to DI 4.2. Effective ingredients
learning and practice, as mentioned by Dack and Triplett (2020) and
Nazzal (2011). Prast et al. (2018) related the postponement of the The results of our analyses showed that there is not easy procedure
teacher program for one year to the unexpected lack of results. where the following steps guarantee effectively trained DI (Frerejean
“Possibly, schools in Cohort 1 were ready and motivated, whereas et al., 2021; Suprayogi et al., 2017). We found, however, that partici­
schools in Cohort 2 had to wait for one year during which motivation or pation in teacher programs can support improvements in knowledge
priorities for PD may have changed” (p. 31). (Beginning) teachers with about, skills for and attitudes toward DI. Program components that we
little work experience sometimes seemed overwhelmed by the vastness discuss within this framework because they were frequently part of
and multiplicity of learning the complex concept of DI (Prast et al., 2018; successful programs are practice in design and classroom, collaboration,
Wan, 2015). reflection, coaching, and the use of feedback A notable difference from
Finally, work experience, physical space, and personal characteris­ more general TPD is that DI is something that is ideally developed
tics were mentioned as barriers to learning differentiation. (Prast et al., through practical exercises in the field. Real-life examples of differen­
2018; Wan, 2015). Nazzal (2011) and Öztürk (2019) mentioned the tiated lesson plans and teacher practice of various learning scenarios
absence of a suitable physical learning space as a barrier for DI learning. helped teachers to recognize patterns and to make better instructional
Brigandi et al. (2019) described how the personality traits of teachers decisions concerning DI. Teacher collaboration was considered valuable
continuously interact with the learning process. “Some of her personal and powerful and contributed to participants’ understanding of their
characteristics or personality traits that get in the way (…) Perfec­ own teaching and student learning. Reflecting on Fogarty and Pete
tionism, organization, and control” (p. 383). (2011), teacher collaboration is grounded in theories that highlight the
social nature of human learning and emphasize collaboration as a key to
4. Discussion increasing teachers’ knowledge and efficacy to develop teacher prac­
tices. Collaborative approaches such as Lesson Study or participation in
Primary and secondary school teachers are expected to adapt their professional learning communities (PLCs) generate opportunities for
teaching to the diverse educational needs of students through DI (OECD, teachers to exchange experiences within a group and engage in collec­
2010, 2018; UNESCO, 2017). An overview of effective elements of tive learning.
teacher programs for DI had not yet been provided. Our literature review Attitudinal change can be considered a prerequisite for effective DI
included 29 peer-reviewed articles, evaluating components, outcomes implementation. Some of the programs in the included studies mainly
and contextual interplay of preservice and in-service teacher programs aimed at fostering a positive attitude toward student learning by criti­
for DI. cally examining teachers’ assumptions, biases and prejudice toward
students. These learning approaches, most often characterized by
4.1. Teacher programs for DI reflective exercise, emerged as useful and relevant and showed positive
outcomes. Coaching and feedback furthermore enabled teachers to gain
General TPD encompasses a wide variety of forms, types, di­ more awareness about their practice and its impact on their students,
mensions, and components. The most prevalent components in teacher which helped them redesign and adapt their classroom practices.
programs targeted at DI we found were practice in design and classroom, In essence, an effective teacher learning program for DI is compre­
teacher collaboration and reflective exercise. Teachers need to be pro­ hensive and complete, moving from lesson design to teaching practice,
vided with opportunities to practice DI strategies to effectively learn DI where feedback and coaching help in critically assessing and enhancing
(Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). The assumption that DI is an integrated one’s own practice. Most programs reporting teacher growth incorpo­
competence would assume that programs offering activities that rated several program characteristics, offering a comprehensive and
coherently focus on attitudes as well as skills and knowledge are the well-rounded program. This makes it difficult to pinpoint which char­
most complete and optimal for DI learning. Therefore, teacher programs acteristics contributed to the programs’ effectiveness, but underlines the
made use of practice in design and classroom to move from theory to importance of overall comprehensiveness, completeness and time span.
planning and, subsequently, to implementing DI activities. When Furthermore, research outcomes without unequivocal positive effects
schools offer social infrastructures that foster collaborative learning were not considered program failures by the authors, who recognized
with colleagues, teachers succeed better in meeting the challenges of a the complexity of learning DI (Prast et al., 2018; Schipper et al., 2020;
diverse classroom (Fogarty & Pete, 2011; Wenger, 1998). Teachers who Smets et al., 2020).

10
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

4.3. Interaction with context 4.5. Conclusion and implications

The efficacy of a teacher program is influenced by the context in In our review study, all programs focused on enhancing preservice
which the program is situated (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Desimone, 2009; and in-service teachers knowledge, skills, and and/or attitudes for DI.
Kerry & Kerry, 1997; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005). We The results indicate that successful DI programs incorporate active
included the programs context to gain a better understanding of this learning, collaboration and reflection. They are longitudinal, compre­
interaction. Several contextual factors acted as facilitators and barriers. hensive and address attitudes, knowledge and skills. While there are
In particular, it appeared that contextual factors at the school level examples in the literature demonstrating effective approaches, these
inhibited and facilitated teacher learning for DI. Teacher and student may not always align with the realities of schools due to the time and
personality traits are difficult to control and in constant interaction with resources they demand, as highlighted by Sims and Fletcher-Wood
the learning process, both helping and hindering DI learning, but (2021). This assumes a precise balance between school ambition and
school-level factors are more amenable to influence and control for realistic expectations for teachers, gradually building up the learning
educators and policy makers. Time and time pressure emerged primarily process while accepting and leaving room for the capriciousness of
as a constraining factor leading to the abandonment of activities that learning (Gaitas & Alves Martins, 2017). When DI is regarded as a
were not considered priorities by teachers (Valiandes & Neophytou, standard approach from teacher training, rather than an additional
2017). This aligns with Gaikhorst (2014) and Roiha (2014) that pro­ method added to the teachers’ toolbox later, this can contribute to a
fessionalization and teacher learning should be prioritized and facili­ successful implementation in education. To secure this longitudinal
tated and should have a clear relationship with the issues teachers learning journey, it is important to sustainably focus on developing DI
grapple with in their daily practice. DI is considered a complex competencies in both preservice teacher training and in-service pro­
competence which takes time and effort to effectively develop (Maulana grams. Preservice teachers should be confronted with their underlying
et al., 2015). When effect and improvement are not immediately beliefs and attitudinal biases from the start (Dell’Angelo & Seaton,
observed, teachers may abandon differentiation for other approaches 2016) to become familiar with DI instructional strategies. In-service
perceived to be less labor-intensive quick fixes (de Graaf et al., 2019; teacher learning should also pay attention to teacher attitudes and
Sherman, 2009). Novice teachers can be overwhelmed by the scope and must provide effective teaching methods to put DI into practice. A
complexity of learning DI (Wan, 2015), which calls for additional facilitative (school) context is considered a prerequisite for the effec­
attention and support. Teachers, both consciously and unconsciously, tiveness of programs. In addition to a shared mutual vision, attention
are influenced by the requirements and standards they (think they) have must be paid to supporting organizational bottlenecks.
to meet by the school, policies, and the curriculum. (Dack & Triplett, DI has been on the policy agenda in many countries for several years
2020; Schipper et al., 2020; Van Hover et al., 2011). Whether or not DI and is part of the supervisory framework of education inspectorates;
aligns with this perceived norm impacts teachers’ willingness to however, there is still not a clear joint vision from all parties involved.
implement DI in their lessons (Dack & Triplett, 2020; Schipper et al., This calls for substantive collaboration between teacher training cour­
2020). ses, schools and, ultimately, all education professionals in the entire
education chain. Learning to apply DI is a valuable and necessary part of
4.4. Limitations and further research the journey for teachers to ensure that all students receive the education
to which they are entitled. Education should draw out the potential from
Some limitations are worth noting regarding the selection of the all students in the classroom; otherwise, it fails not only the students but
studies which cannot represent all the scholarship on this topic. Setting also society as a whole.
the time window to 2010–2020 excluded studies published before 2010
and after 2020. Selecting articles in English and Dutch excluded publi­ CRediT authorship contribution statement
cations in other languages. Focusing on peer-reviewed journal articles
excluded other forms of publications from the review. Research in­ Berber N. Langelaan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investi­
dicates that teachers improved DI practices more when a PD program gation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing -
was offered within a specific subject area (Kahmann et al., 2022). original draft, Writing - review & editing. Lisa Gaikhorst: Conceptu­
Subject-specific didactic approaches are excluded in this review given its alization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
focus on understanding subject-independent professionalization. Wouter Smets: Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
The selected studies present a plethora of instruments, from self- Ron J. Oostdam: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervi­
reports to observation schemes and from perceived difficulty surveys sion, Writing - review & editing.
to student assessment. In line with Van Geel et al. (2019), and given the
complexity and stratification of teacher qualities that are important for Declaration of competing interest
DI, the question is to what extent the diverse knowledge, skills and at­
titudes needed by teachers can be measured reliably and validly. Studies We wish to draw the attention of the Editor to the following facts
measuring program satisfaction showed significant results, but these which may be considered as potential conflicts of interest and to sig­
outcomes do not make claims as to whether the teacher actually shows nificant financial contributions to this work.
growth in DI competence. Direct observations of teacher practice did not We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
consistently demonstrate the application of DI in real classroom settings. associated with this publication and there has been no significant
While we recognize the importance of supporting teachers in translating financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
their new knowledge into classroom practice, This limitation un­ We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all
derscores the need for a more comprehensive approach to evaluating the named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the
effectiveness of DI teacher training programs, allowing us to gain a criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the
better understanding of their efficacy. To address this limitation in order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.
future research, it would be valuable to explore and develop more We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of
nuanced methods for assessing the integration of DI strategies in actual intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no
teaching contexts to provide a more holistic picture of the impact of impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with
teacher training programs on classroom practice. respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have
followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual
property.

11
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for ts/sociale-wetenschappen/pedagogischewetenschappen/onderwijsstudies/denessen
-oratie-universiteit-leiden-2017.pdf.
the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct commu­
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional
nications with the office). He/she is responsible for communicating with development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
approval of proofs. We confirm that we have provided a current, correct Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker, R. J. (2018).
Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies
email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author. on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational
Research Review, 24, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
Data availability D’Intino, J. S., & Wang, L. (2021). Differentiated instruction: A review of teacher
education practices for Canadian pre-service elementary school teachers. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 47(5), 668–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/
No data was used for the research described in the article. 02607476.2021.1951603
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction,
professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the
References Gifted, 37(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042
Duquette, C., & Dabrowski, L. (2016). A study of classroom inquiry and reflection among
Acquah, E. O., & Szelei, N. (2020). The potential of modelling culturally responsive preservice teachers candidates. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de
teaching: Pre-service teachers’ learning experiences. Teaching in Higher Education, 25 l’éducation de McGill, 51(1), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.7202/1037360ar
(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1547275 Dweck, C. S. (2015). Growth [editorial]. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2),
Akiba, M. (2011). Identifying program characteristics for preparing pre-service teachers 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12072
for diversity. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 658–697. Eysink, T. H., Hulsbeek, M., & Gijlers, H. (2017). Supporting primary school teachers in
Assaf, L. C., & López, M. M. (2015). Generative learning in a service-learning project and differentiating in the regular classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66,
field-base teacher education program: Learning to become culturally responsive 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.002
teachers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64(1), 323–338. https:// Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617578 strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
Belfi, B., Goos, M., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2012). The effect of class Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for
composition by gender and ability on secondary school students’ school well-being examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational
and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 7(1), Psychology, 33(2), 134–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001
62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002 Fogarty, R. J., & Pete, B. M. (2011). Supporting differentiated instruction: A professional
Beltramo, J. L. (2017). Developing adaptive teaching practices through participation in learning communities approach. Solution Tree Press.
cogenerative dialogues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 326–337. https://doi. Frerejean, J., van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &
org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.007 Visscher, A. J. (2021). Ten steps to 4C/ID: Training differentiation skills in a
Bersh, L. C. (2018). Writing autobiography to develop culturally responsive competency: professional development program for teachers. Instructional Science, 49(3),
Teachers’ intersections of personal histories, cultural backgrounds and biases. 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09540-x
International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Gaikhorst, L. (2014). Supporting beginning teachers in urban environments. [Doctoral
ijer.2018.01.007 dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.431994.
Blik, H., Naaijer, H., Leeuwen, S. V., & Hoekstra, R. (2015). Docenttraining Interactieve Gaitas, S., & Alves Martins, M. (2017). Teacher perceived difficulty in implementing
Instructie. Verandering van het lesgeven en de zelfstandige taakuitvoering van differentiated instructional strategies in primary school. International Journal of
moeilijk lerenden. Pedagogische Studies, 92(5), 290–307. Inclusive Education, 21(5), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits-all” to 13603116.2016.1223180
differentiated instruction affect teaching? Review of Research in Education, 43(1), Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of
336–362. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130 Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347320
Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain. Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699979. College Press.
Bower, M. (2012). An ability approach to within-class curriculum differentiation using Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020). Good things come to
student response systems and web 2.0 technologies: Analysing teachers’ those who wait: The importance of professional development for the implementation
responsiveness. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 5(2), 5–26. of differentiated instruction. Frontiers in Education, 96(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/
Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and 10.3389/feduc.2020.00096
experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning Goodnough, K. (2010). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ developing
potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. professional knowledge through the lens of differentiated instruction. Research in
tate.2017.12.003 Science Education, 40(2), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9120-6
Brigandi, C. B., Gilson, C. M., & Miller, M. (2019). Professional development and Graham, L. J., Bruin, K. De, Lassig, C., & Spandagou, I. (2021). A scoping review of 20
differentiated instruction in an elementary school pullout program: A gifted years of research on differentiation : Investigating conceptualisation , characteristics
education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(4), 362–395. https:// , and methods used. The Review of Education, 9(1), 161–198. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418 10.1002/rev3.3238
Dack, H. (2018). Structuring teacher candidate learning about differentiated instruction Griful-Freixenet, J., Vantieghem, W., Gheyssens, E., & Struyven, K. (2020). Connecting
through coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 62–74. https://doi.org/ beliefs, noticing and differentiated teaching practices: A study among pre-service
10.1016/j.tate.2017.09.017 teachers and teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–18. https://doi.
Dack, H. (2019). Understanding teacher candidate misconceptions and concerns about org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1862404
differentiated instruction. The Teacher Educator, 54(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/ Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and
10.1080/08878730.2018.1485802 Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Dack, H., & Triplett, N. (2020). Novice social studies teachers’ implementation of 135406002100000512
differentiation: A longitudinal multicase study. Theory & Research in Social Education, Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan,
48(1), 32–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2019.1640149 84(10), 748–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308401007
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional Jager, L., Denessen, E., Cillessen, A., & Meijer, P. C. (2022). Capturing instructional
development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute. differentiation in educational research: Investigating opportunities and challenges.
org/product/teacher-prof-dev. Educational Research, 64(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
De Graaf, A., Westbroek, H., & Janssen, F. (2019). A practical approach to differentiated 00131881.2022.2063751
instruction: How biology teachers redesigned their genetics and ecology lessons. Kahmann, R., Droop, M., & Lazonder, A. W. (2022). Meta-analysis of professional
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/ development programs in differentiated instruction. International Journal of
1046560X.2018.1523646 Educational Research, 116, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102072
De Neve, D., & Devos, G. (2016). The role of environmental factors in beginning teachers’ Kerry, T., & Kerry, C. A. (1997). Differentiation: Teachers’ views of the usefulness of
professional learning related to differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and recommended strategies in helping the more able pupils in primary and secondary
School Improvement, 27(4), 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/ classrooms. Educational Studies, 23(3), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243453.2015.1122637 0305569970230309
Dee, A. L. (2010). Preservice teacher application of differentiated instruction. The Keuning, T., van Geel, M., Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J., Dolmans, D., &
Teacher Educator, 46(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.529987 Visscher, A. J. (2017). Differentiëren bij rekenen: Een cognitieve taakanalyse van het
Dell’Angelo, T., & Seaton, G. (2016). Students and teachers Co-constructing identity. denken en handelen van basisschoolleerkrachten. Pedagogische studiën, 94(3),
Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 12, 124–132. http://jultr.onl 160–181.
ine/index.php/jultr/issue/view/11/16. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature
Denessen, E. (2017). Verantwoord omgaan met verschillen: Sociaal-culturele reviews in software engineering. In EBSE technical report, software engineering group.
achtergronden en differentiatie in het Onderwijs [Dealing responsibly with School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University, Department of
differences: Socio-cultural backgrounds and differentiation in education. Inaugural Computer Science, University of Durham.
address. Leiden University. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/asse

12
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated
holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence.
77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002 Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
Kuehl, R. (2018). Using professional learning communities to advance preservice Smets, W. (2019). Implementing differentiated instruction in secondary education: The nexus
teachers’ understanding of differentiation within writing instruction. Teacher between theory and practice [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit
Educators’ Journal, 11, 70–90. Brussel] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wouter-Smets/publication/3388
LaBelle, J. T., & Belknap, G. (2016). Reflective journaling: Fostering dispositional 55169_Implementing_differentiated_instruction_in_secondary_educationpdf/data
development in preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 17(2), 125–142. https://doi. /5f460c2e458515b729569f0d/Implementing-differentiated-instruction-in-seconda
org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134473 ry-education.pdf?origin=publication_list.
Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher Smets, W., De Neve, D., & Struyven, K. (2020). Responding to students’ learning needs:
education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher How secondary education teachers learn to implement differentiated instruction.
Education, 65(2), 128–144. https://doi:10.1177/0022487113511645. Educational Action Research, 30(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Matsko, K. K., Hammerness, K., & Lee, R. E. (2022). Learning in context and practicing in 09650792.2020.1848604
place: Engaging preservice teachers in urban-focused context specific teacher education. Smets, W., & Struyven, K. (2018). Aligning with complexity: System-theoretical
Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211065188 principles for research on differentiated instruction. Frontline Learning Research, 6(2),
Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & van de Grift, W. (2015). Development and evaluation 66–80. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.340
of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviour: A rasch Smets, W., & Struyven, K. (2020). A teachers’ professional development programme to
modelling approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), 169–194. implement differentiated instruction in secondary education: How far do teachers
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.939198 reach? Cogent Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1742273
Mellom, P. J., Straubhaar, R., Balderas, C., Ariail, M., & Portes, P. R. (2018). “They come Specht, J., Mcghie-richmond, D., Loreman, T., Mirenda, P., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T.,
with nothing:” How professional development in a culturally responsive pedagogy Young, G., Metsala, J., Aylward, L., Katz, J., Lyons, W., Thompson, S., & Cloutier, S.
shapes teacher attitudes towards Latino/a English language learners. Teaching and (2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms : Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice
Teacher Education, 71, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.013 teachers (Vol. 3116). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses.
Preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849–899. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. 44668238.
Nazzal, A. (2011). Differentiation in practice: An exploration of first year teacher Stradling, B., & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice: Responding to the needs
implementation of differentiation strategies as expected outcomes of teacher of all pupils. Educational Research, 35(2), 127–137.
preparation program. Current issues in middle level education, 16(1), 17–27. Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of
OECD. (2010). Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge. OECD. https://doi. differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67,
org/10.1787/9789264079731-en 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020
OECD. (2018). Teaching for the future-effective classroom practices to transform education. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293243-en Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, t. R., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K.,
Öztürk, M. (2019). An evaluation of an innovative in-service teacher training model in Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to
Turkey. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/ student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms:
10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p23 A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145.
Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom.
Pierczynski, M., & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/ UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO. https://
0034654317743198 doi.org/10.54675/MHHZ2237
Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Valiandes, S., & Neophytou, L. (2017). Teachers’ professional development for
Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: Investigating the impact of a
Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471- development program on teachers’ professional learning and on students’
3802.12481 achievement. Teacher Development, 22(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2018). 13664530.2017.1338196
Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frerejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., &
development on student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 22–34. https:// Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.009 Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Prast, E. J., Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2015). Readiness- 09243453.2018.1539013
based differentiation in primary school mathematics: Expert recommendations and Van Geel, M., Keuning, T., & Safar, I. (2022). How teachers develop skills for
teacher self-assessment. Frontline Learning Research, 3(2), 90–116. https://doi.org/ implementing differentiated instruction: Helpful and hindering factors. Teaching and
10.14786/flr.v3i2.163 Teacher Education: Leadership and Professional Development, 1, 1–11. https://doi.org/
Roiha, A. S. (2014). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language 10.1016/j.tatelp.2022.100007
integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Van Hover, S., Hicks, D., & Washington, E. (2011). Multiple paths to testable content?
Education, 28(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.748061 Differentiation in a high-stakes testing context. Social Studies Research & Practice, 6
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: (3), 34–51.
Is there a relationship? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 121–135. Van Veen, K., Zwart, R. C., Meirink, J., & van Veen, K. (2012). What makes teacher
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X466334 professional development effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy (Ed.), Teacher
Ruys, I., Defruyt, S., Rots, I., & Aelterman, A. (2012). Differentiated instruction in teacher learning that matters (pp. 3–21). Routlege.
education: A case study of congruent teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 19(1), 93–107. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744201 gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 211–217.
Scarparolo, G., & Subban, P. (2021). A systematic review of pre-service teachers ’ self- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_5
efficacy beliefs for differentiated instruction. Teachers and Teaching, 27(8), 753–766. Wan, S. W. Y. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.2007371 teaching efficacy and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), 148–176. https://doi.
Schipper, T. M., van der Lans, R. M., de Vries, S., Goei, S. L., & van Veen, K. (2020). org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435
Becoming a more adaptive teacher through collaborating in lesson study? Examining Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker,
the influence of lesson study on teachers’ adaptive teaching practices in mainstream (9), 1–5.
secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 109–120. https://doi.org/ Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and
10.1016/j.tate.2019.102961 differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational
Seglem, R., & Garcia, A. (2015). “So we have to teach them or what?”: Introducing Research, 96(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598791
preservice teachers to the figured worlds of urban youth through digital West, J. A., & West, C. K. (2016). Integrating differentiation in English education
conversation. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1–34, 10.1177% methods courses: Learning from the perceptions and experiences of teacher
2F016146811511700301. candidates. The Teacher Educator, 51(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Sharp, K., Jarvis, J. M., & McMillan, J. M. (2018). Leadership for differentiated 08878730.2016.1151091
instruction: Teachers’ engagement with on-site professional learning at an Australian Whitaker, M. C., & Valtierra, K. M. (2018). Enhancing preservice teachers’ motivation to
secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(8), 901–920. teach diverse learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 171–182. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492639 10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.004
Sherman, S. C. (2009). Haven’t we seen this before? Sustaining a vision in teacher Wilkinson, S. D., & Penney, D. (2014). The effects of setting on classroom teaching and
education for progressive teaching practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), student learning in mainstream mathematics, English and science lessons: A critical
41–60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479283.
Sims, S., & Fletcher-Wood, H. (2021). Identifying the characteristics of effective teacher
professional development: A critical review. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 32(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1772841

13
B.N. Langelaan et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 140 (2024) 104464

review of the literature in ngland. Educational Review, 66(4), 411–427. https://doi. Yuen, M., Chan, S., Chan, C., Fung, D. C., Cheung, W. M., Kwan, T., & Leung, F. K.
org/10.1080/00131911.2013.787971 (2018). Differentiation in key learning areas for gifted students in regular classes: A
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. project for primary school teachers in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International, 34
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/ (1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416649047
0739456X17723971

14