Investigating the Differentiated Instruction of International EFL Teachers in Chinese Bilingual Primary Schools

Abstract

In the context of globally integrated education, the last decade has seen a significant rise in bilingual primary schools across China. This development has led to the recruitment of an increasingly diverse group of international teachers to deliver English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education. These EFL teachers introduce a wide array of cultural perspectives, educational beliefs and values into the Chinese EFL teaching environment, transforming these schools into multicultural educational settings primarily through the diversity of the teaching staff rather than the students. This qualitative study explores the development and effectiveness of Differentiated Instruction (DI) in such environments, employing semi-structured interviews of teachers from various cultural backgrounds across three bilingual schools in Mainland China. Based on thematic analysis, the findings highlight that collaborative teaching, standards-based assessments, ongoing professional development, and integrated home-school educational strategies are crucial for the effective implementation of DI.

Keywords

differentiated instruction learning station universal access professional development zone of proximal development

Introduction

With students’ academic diversity, teachers nowadays face increasing expectations and challenges to meet the diversified needs of learners and adapt their teaching to their heterogeneous academic abilities, interests, motivations, and backgrounds. In traditional classrooms, teachers deliver highly structured and standardised curricula with little differentiation and/or relevance to students’ diverse learning demands, individual interests, and cultural repertoires (Obidah & Howard, 2005). It has long been acknowledged that teachers’ understanding of diverse learning and behavioural needs and modifying their teaching accordingly (Tomlinson, 2005) are necessary yet exceptionally challenging. Differentiated instruction (DI) was established as a compelling and effectual means to restructure the traditional classroom to include students of different abilities, interests and learning profiles (Subban, 2006, p. 936), but also admitted as a complex teaching task that is mastered only by few teachers’ (van Geel et al., 2019, p. 62). In Chinese bilingual primary schools, the cultural differences and language barriers between international teachers and primary school students bring challenges and uncertainties to implementing DI. Moreover, a significant gap exists in the qualification levels of teachers and English proficiency. Therefore, differentiated instruction is urgently needed, emphasising that teachers develop classroom routines that attend to learner variance instead of taking a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ (Tödtling & Trippl, 2005).

Therefore, this study explores international teachers’ DI-related perceptions, strategies, perceived challenges, the needed support, and the initiatives involved in DI-related practices. It intends to convey differentiation and encourage schools to develop strategies and assignments for various student groups based on student-centred philosophy and identify students’ learning styles in the zone of proximal development where possible under the guidance of teachers (Lui, 2012).

Literature Review

Differentiated Instruction

DI is not just a single teaching method but a philosophy and praxis of teaching (Gheyssens, Coubergs et al., 2020, p. 1), whose underlying proposition is that all learners are entitled to receive moderate challenges and achieve maximum growth (Wan, 2017). According to this philosophy, teachers should proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, and student products to meet the diverse needs of individual and small groups of students (Smit & Humpert, 2012, pp. 1152–1162). To truly implement DI, teachers have to take the ‘readiness, interests, and learning profiles’ of students into consideration (Tomlinson et al., 2003, p. 119).

DI is a multifarious concept. Above all, it can be organised at different levels. At the institutional level, student diversity can be handled organisationally, often by grouping or tracking students based on their readiness or learning profiles. At the classroom level, the diverse needs of students are addressed by individual instructors modifying their curricula and teaching approaches (Boelens et al., 2018). Regarding DI’s goals, a distinction is made between divergent and convergent DI (Deunk et al., 2018; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019; Stollman et al., 2019). The former refers to DI, in which teachers attempt to get as much out of every student as possible and those targeting DI will allow for the variation between students in their learning targets, time and outcomes (Wampold & Brown, 2005), while the latter refers to DI where teachers define minimum goals for every student and subsequently guide them to realise those goals, whose purpose is more about decreasing the gap between low- and high-achieving students.

Previous research on DI primarily focused on the classroom level or within-classes DI, leading to four major components as the objects of differentiation, including content (i.e., curricula, materials, resources and learning tasks/activities), process (i.e., teaching approaches, classroom management strategies and student-teacher interactions), products (i.e., student output and assessment methods), and the learning environment (i.e., grouping, social interactions and conditions in a classroom; Brevik et al., 2018; de Jager, 2017; Gheyssens, Consuegra et al., 2020; Johnsen et al., 2020; Kanevsky, 2011; Levy, 2008; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2020; Wan, 2017; Westwood, 2001). In addition to these four established dimensions, the affections or feelings of students about the classroom environment and instruction are also emphasised in the sense that instructors should ensure that every student feels safe, accepted and valued (Tomlinson, 2001; Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010) and thus can interact and discuss in a constructive way. Despite its variations in conceptualisation, DI has the following core features based on the summary of Kanevsky (2011): being proactive rather than reactive, flexible teaching-learning groups, varied instructional materials, variable pacing, and centring on knowledge and learners.

Framework for DI

DI has been accepted and practised as a powerful concept whose implementation, however, is complex and challenging. As acknowledged by Epstein (2018), the translation of DI from a promising philosophy to routine classroom practices is a profoundly difficult process and complex destination, requiring a common orientation among administrators, teachers, families, students and the community and ‘persistent and sustained leadership and support for this transition’ (p. 135). On this account, ‘professional development, human and material resources and personalised support’ (Johnsen et al., 2020, p. 216) are needed for the DI implementation of and preparation of teachers. In DI, teachers are expected to be mainly responsible for addressing learner variance in their regular classrooms instead of only making organisational arrangements (Tomlinson et al., 2003), indicating the decisive role and predictive power of teachers’ philosophy, perception and attitudes towards the implementation of DI in their daily classrooms (Gheyssens, Coubergs et al., 2020; Pozas et al., 2020; Subban, 2006) and turning the perceptions and beliefs of teachers about DI into a prominent research avenue in literature.

Extant research has indicated that teachers acknowledge the complex and challenging characteristics of differentiation despite tending to support its necessity and significance. Recent studies on primary and secondary teachers from the United States (US; VanTassel-Baska et al., 2020), Switzerland (Smit & Humpert, 2012), and Germany (Pozas et al., 2020) have indicated that teachers are inclined to under-utilise or implement DI only occasionally as add-ons to regular instruction. In addition, teachers seem more likely to implement DI practices requiring less preparation (Maeng & Bell, 2015; Pozas et al., 2020) and only ‘tinker with one-size-fits-all instruction’ (Valiandes & Neophytou, 2018, pp. 123–138), like differentiating goals or tasks, adjusting the time or number of tasks and individualising the learning of students (Smit & Humpert, 2012). These studies suggest that fewer teachers are willing to make robust and meaningful differentiation, like material modification, lesson planning individuals and the change of evaluation procedures.

According to the framework for the Gradual Release of Responsibility Proposed by Fisher and Frey (2013), the whole DI lesson can usually be carried out as the following four significant phases of instruction: (1) Focused instruction; (2) Guided instruction; (3) Collaborative learning; (4) Independent learning (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Gradual release of responsibility instructional framework (Fisher & Frey, 2013, p. 3).

Strategies and Effectiveness of DI

It is acknowledged that DI is ‘not a single strategy, but an approach to instruction’ (Watts-Taffe et al., 2012, p. 304), in which various practices or strategies are often synergistically used in actual implementation. As recommended by Westwood (2001), the most promising and feasible strategy of DI should be to create a classroom environment in which students communicate and collaborate with each other freely and assist one another in striving towards a common goal within a common curriculum. Ismajli and Imami-Morina (2018) carried out a survey on primary school teachers and found that the methods frequently adopted to achieve DI tend to be more interactive in nature, including active learning, class discussion, group work and the issuance of required instructions.

In addition, Westwood (2001) found out that students themselves may prefer to avoid being given easy work or simplified materials, which is an often recommended and commonly practised approach to DI targeting low-achieving students. This discrepancy indicates the need to look at the preferences of students and enhance their engagement in DI, which is in line with DI as a constructive approach (Wan, 2017), emphasising that students are active learners creating their own knowledge through interacting with their environments and other people. However, most of the existing work examines DI from the perspective of teachers or researchers and has directed little attention to the position of students in DI. In this regard, Kanevsky (2011) was one of the few exceptions and proposed the term ‘deferential differentiation’ to describe situations where differentiation defers to the preferred learning ways of students rather than only depending on the judgements of teachers, whose investigation of the DI preferences of students indicated that self-pacing and choice of topics and workmates are the most popular across two groups of students identified to be gifted or ungifted. Besides, Kanevsky (2011) argued that the perspective of students should be incorporated to solve teachers’ pedagogical dilemma of when to control and share (or defer) control over differentiation. Another notable tendency of DI in extant research is that process modifications are relatively more accessible and more likely to be implemented than significant changes to the curriculum content or materials (Ismajli & Imami-Morina, 2018; Westwood, 2001). One plausible explanation is the perceived necessity of covering all points in the guiding curriculum and the pressure from standardised high-stakes tests (Johnsen et al., 2020). Nonetheless, it appears that observations with language arts and literacy education indicate a different story, where modifications in curriculum content or materials are more likely to occur, for example, by giving students wider choices about reading materials and tasks (Baumgartner et al., 2003).

The effectiveness of different learners in different aspects is always a matter of concern to teachers and administrators alike. Richards and Omdal (2007) found that tiered instruction benefits students with lower skills and background knowledge most by comparing its effect on the academic performance of secondary school students with all kinds of prior background knowledge. The examination of Reis et al. (2011) into an enrichment reading approach with DI and less whole-group instruction revealed that this approach is equivalently or more effective than a traditional whole-group basal approach as far as the reading achievement of students is concerned. Compared with the relatively few studies attempting to establish a direct link between the implementation of DI and the academic achievement of students measured in standardised tests, the findings of investigations on DI practices have generated evidence of the positive effects of DI in terms of students’ enhanced motivation and engagement, more positive and active attitudes towards learning, collaboration and self-expression, which can be taken as positive evidence on the effectiveness of DI (Gheyssens, Coubergs et al., 2020; Reis et al., 2011; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009).

Therefore, this study provides an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence and require resources for international bilingual primary school DI practice. The findings not only help to improve the environment and conditions for the better implementation of DI but also facilitate the adaptation and professional development of international teachers, thus contributing to the improved efficiency of EFL teaching at the school level. This research raises the following research questions:

(1) How do international EFL teachers implement differentiated instructions in bilingual primary school English teaching?

(2) In international EFL teachers’ opinion, what are the benefits of implementing differentiated instructions in bilingual primary school English teaching?

(3) In international EFL teachers’ opinion, what are the difficulties of implementing differentiated instructions in bilingual primary school English teaching and what strategies can be employed to overcome these difficulties?

Methodology

This research deeply explored the application of DI in English teaching practice and teachers’ perceptions of DI through qualitative methods. Researchers use semi-structured interviews to obtain research data, as they not only provide faithful and high-quality data through predesigned key questions but also provide space for interviewees to elaborate on other unexpected content in an exploratory manner for richer data (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Dörnyei, 2007, p. 203). The collected data was analysed using thematic analysis to reveal the significance of DI.

To address ethical considerations, the research included several key measures. First, an ethical issue application for this study was submitted to the University ethics committee and was approved. This approval ensured that the research adhered to ethical guidelines and minimised the risk of harm to participants. Additionally, written informed consent was obtained from all interviewees before starting the interviews. This consent process was crucial in ensuring that participants were fully aware of the study’s purpose and their rights, thereby mitigating any potential harm.

Participants

A cohort comprising 18 participants was selected from three distinct bilingual primary educational institutions, as detailed in Table 1. Each of these schools has been consistently implementing DI strategies for a duration of 4 years. Utilising a purposeful sampling strategy as delineated by Patton (2002), participants were meticulously chosen from a diverse cross-section of teachers varying in age, nationality, educational background and teaching experience. All the participants have DI experience and vary in their implementation strategies.

Table 1.

Participant Profiles.

Participants	Gender	Age	Nationality	Qualification	Years of teaching experience	Years of DI experience
T1	Female	31	American	Bachelor	4	2
T2	Female	39	Canadian	Bachelor	8	8
T3	Female	30	American	Bachelor	5.5	2
T4	Male	31	American	Master	6	6
T5	Male	48	South African	Master	13	4
T6	Male	27	American	Bachelor	2	1
T7	Male	32	British	Master	7.5	3
T8	Male	23	American	Bachelor	6	4
T9	Male	29	American	Doctor	2.5	2.5
T10	Male	36	British	Bachelor	10	5
T11	Male	27	American	Bachelor	5	4
T12	Male	28	Australian	Bachelor	6.5	2
T13	Male	43	Canadian	Bachelor	15	3
T14	Female	27	American	Master	3	3
T15	Male	40	Canadian	Bachelor	6	6
T16	Male	29	British	Bachelor	9	4
T17	Male	48	American	Bachelor	23	23
T18	Female	27	South African	Bachelor	5	4

Data Collection

Data for this research was gathered through one-on-one semi-structured interviews conducted with the informed consent of each participant. Each interview, lasting approximately 30 min, was conducted in English and fully recorded by the researchers. The interview process commenced with an exploration of the interviewees’ personal backgrounds. Subsequently, the researchers inquired about the participants’ experiences with DI, the perceived benefits and drawbacks of DI as identified by the teachers, and potential strategies to ameliorate any identified shortcomings.

Data Analysis

The audio recordings of the interviews were first transcribed verbatim and then subjected to thematic text analysis. The thematic analysis is a method to identify, analyse and report the patterns (themes) within data about experiences, meanings and the reality of participants, and the ‘theoretical freedom’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006) allows thematic analysis to potentially ‘provide a rich and detailed yet complex account of data’ and ‘offer an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analyse the qualitative data’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006; O’Brien et al., 2014). This study identified the meaning categories by employing qualitative and inductive thematic analysis, which means that the data was analysed holistically for broad themes and patterns rather than counted and analysed statistically.

Firstly, researchers performed within-case analysis manually to identify patterns, relationships, and themes, leading to the creation of lower-level codes. Subsequently, cross-case analysis was conducted manually using a recursive and comparative method to highlight similarities and differences among participants. Finally, the manually coded results were verified and refined against the dataset, allowing for the identification of critical findings that were consistent among participants and relevant to the research questions (see Appendix 1). To ensure the objectivity of the data, two researchers collaborated on coding and continuously reviewed and modified it during the process, ultimately achieving a high degree of consensus on the coding results to improve the reliability of the research results.

Findings

Ways of Implementing DI in Bilingual Primary School English Teaching

Offering Universal Access Class

All participants mentioned in the interview that apart from regular group English courses, additional universal access classes are also set up every week specifically for better implementation of DI. According to the teachers’ description, the regular implementation of DI can be considered a hallmark of this focal primary school, which regulates two sessions (40 min for each session, 15 min for whole-class teaching and 25 min for DI) of classroom teaching should be weekly organised according to the principles of DI.

The teaching mode of universal access classes follows the GRR framework, gradually releasing responsibility from teachers to students. The first 15 min of each session not only inform students about the teaching objectives but also provide some necessary instructions. The following 25-minute shift from teacher-leading work to student group work and ultimately to student independent work. As described by participants T1 and T16, ‘It is a process of ‘I do, we do, you do together, you do independently’. Moreover, eight teachers admitted in interviews that implementing DI in bilingual primary school English teaching is fundamental, and universal access classes provide an opportunity to improve DI English education. As T15 stated,

Yeah, I think it’s essential. One of the things I really like about teaching at the school is that it’s a priority, and we’re given time to do it. At my last school, we did not really; we just had to figure it out in terms of our normal lessons. There wasn’t a separate lesson for differentiated instruction. I found that a lot more difficult.

Conducting Graded Teaching

All interviewed teachers indicated that it is a common practice across participants to carry out tiered grouping based on students’ English proficiency. In most cases, students are arranged at different levels following their evaluated English proficiency each month. The international headteacher, an international teacher from another parallel class and the Chinese teaching assistant would jointly organise DI-oriented activities for these three different levels respectively. Chinese teacher assistants allocated the weaker groups of students and left high-level groups for the international homeroom teacher and the medium groups for other international support teachers. Three teachers were involved in organising DI-related instructional activities each time (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Standardised differentiated teaching model: small group learning in the classroom.

Moreover, researchers have found that teachers also set learning content and goals for different difficulty levels based on the student’s levels. For example, T7 and T10 said,

Differentiation, for me, would be to make sure that each student has access to different levels of materials and to allow them to obtain benefits. Going into the zone of proximal development and then learn and improve their English. (T7)

In the classroom, all have a list of ‘Must do’ or ‘May do’ for the students. As a result, the low-level students can focus on doing the ‘Must do’, and the excellent students might get extra tasks in the ‘May do’ list to challenge themselves. (T10)

The Benefits of Using DI in Bilingual Primary School English Teaching

Cultivating Better Learners

Through 15 teachers’ interviews, it is not difficult to discover that when using DI in English learning, students can show better performance. Firstly, DI can enhance students’ confidence in English learning. T3 pointed out, ‘When students are working in groups where they’re at the same skill level, they have more confidence, and they’re happier’. And T18 further explained,

Lower-level kids are too shy and not confident enough to speak out in class. However, if you get them all at a little level that they feel comfortable with, and you take them to a side and work with them, they might feel more comfortable and more confident speaking out and learning.

Secondly, DI could stimulate students’ interest in English learning, allow them to interact more actively with teachers and peers in the classroom and immerse themselves more in the study atmosphere. For example,

For my weaker students in the classroom, I find pulling them back into a small group setting and working with them on an individual basis where they’re getting the full attention of the teacher working on something that they can do. They like the process of learning. They like seeing themselves. And they get very excited. (T4)

Thirdly, DI English courses can help students improve their English proficiency. As T12 indicated, ‘DI would be to make sure that each student has access to different levels of material to allow them to benefit and go into the zone of proximal development and then learn and improve their English. Therefore, we can easily see that in the DI teaching mode, students will make progress and become perfect English learners’.

Advancing Educational Equity

All the teachers who participated in the experiment told us that DI can make the needs of each student in the classroom be noticed. It can achieve simultaneous teaching for students of different levels, just as DI understood by T10, ‘It is a way to look at the different levels of students in the class and to help each student to increase their level’. Similarly, T18 shared her perspective:

We like to make it as promising for every student as we possibly can to make sure we meet their individual needs and do not cater to one level and not all of them. Our aim is to let them all go as far as they possibly can.

In addition, compared to the traditional teacher-centred class mode, the DI English classroom is student-centred. Teachers design courses from students’ perspective. This teaching method embodies the concept of individualised teaching. T6 said,

Differentiated teaching or differentiated instruction consists of tailoring your teaching methods to students that vary in level and learning style; it allows you to cater to the students a bit more attentively in the classroom and make sure that each student is progressing in their own, at their own pace and in their own comfort sort of.

In summary, we may infer that DI as a teaching method has great potential in promoting educational equity. Teachers consciously give every student the opportunity to learn knowledge in their own way when implementing DI. As T14 mentioned, ‘We don’t wanna teach just to the middle. We wanna teach both to those who have lower ability, as well as those who challenge higher ability. So, we wanna teach to all of those groups’.

Difficulties of Implementing DI in Bilingual Primary School English Teaching

Challenging Course Planning

In terms of challenges during course planning, the workload of DI is so huge that teachers have to invest a lot of their energy and patience. 11 participants stated that when preparing lessons, they need to think a lot about students’ needs, try to ensure the practicality of the teaching plan. Furthermore, in the classroom, they need to constantly observe the dynamic changes of students in order to make timely adjustments based on the actual situation. As T14 and T4 elaborated:

There are always challenges because students are unique, and they all present uniquely and have a different style of learning or unique challenges to their learning process. So, part of the difficulty is at the beginning of the school year, you’re just trying to teach your students as quickly as possible, learning their styles and challenges. And then be able to meet those needs as best as you can. I think it does require patience. (T14)

Differentiated instruction is very challenging because something new is always being thrown at you. You never know what you expect. You can prepare as much as you can. Then, the student may already know it, or it may be too difficult. So you have to change things on the fly. (T4)

Besides, the issue of time is another element teachers must consider when planning their teaching. Compared to whole-class teaching, DI is much more complex. However, only 25 min were allocated for the implementation of DI. Obviously, for teachers who want to complete DI with high quality, this time is very insufficient. As T5 stated, ‘Often, the lessons do feel a bit rushed. And I would say that’s the biggest challenge, time and management here”’. Thus, teachers are under enormous pressure before and during teaching.

Imperfect Student Grouping

It is not difficult to detect through communication with the interviewees that the mechanism of grouping students solely based on their level of teaching has drawbacks. Students with lower levels may feel uncomfortable in the classroom and may need help to enter a good learning state. T10 and T16 shared their experiences:

I think one of the challenges in carrying out differentiated instruction is definitely with children who may have learning difficulties. Usually, it will put them in a very small group and deliver, sometimes, the same lesson that is being done in the class, but occasionally, actually, take them out of the classroom as well. You can take them away separately, and they will feel a little bit more comfortable. (T10)

I think one of the most difficult challenges is when students are put in groups based on ability; sometimes those in the low groups can feel a little embarrassed, especially in 5th and 6th grade, when they have more of a social understanding of how things work in the classroom. I think these problems are difficult to overcome. (T16)

T3 reminded me that only grouping students according to their skill level may lead to some students needing help to showcase themselves well. She thought that based on different activities, teachers should also make students with different skill levels study in the same group. She explained as follows:

I think one of the big challenges is when you group students based on skill level, you don’t get the kids when they’re doing together. It would help if you had a different range of kids sometimes working together. And sometimes, depending on the skill and the activity, they do need to break apart at a skill level.

Therefore, the current method of grouping students based on their English proficiency is not very satisfactory, and how to better divide students for teaching is also one of the issues worth considering.

Strategies for Overcoming Difficulties of Implementing DI in Bilingual Primary School English Teaching

Organising Teacher Training

All participants reckoned that the school provides them with a lot of training in academic development. Firstly, the school provides onboarding training for new teachers to learn the basic knowledge and teaching methods necessary for DI implementation. T10 denoted, ‘We (all new teachers) went through a full induction program. We also studied the book on the implementation of gradual release of responsibility. And then we have a number of sessions based on that book where we had discussions’.

In addition, all interviewees also mentioned that all in-service teachers participate in career development training organised by the school every Thursday. This training can encourage teachers to reflect on DI and improve the teaching effectiveness of UA courses. Two teachers declared:

Every week, we have organised training from our academic coordinators or expert principals on Thursday afternoons. One of the big topics we talk about is differentiated instruction and meeting the needs of definitely the students most. And how we can help them out. These trainings have really taken me to think about how I’m doing differentiated instruction in the classroom and improving on what I’m doing with students. It definitely taught me to know exactly what grade one is learning and what grade three is learning. (T4)

I think this is one of the best things at the school, and that we have some very highly qualified staff that can give us training every Thursday, and that this has been invaluable in terms of learning how to differentiate and learning how to make that instruction effective. (T16)

To sum up, helping them master and elevate their DI professional skills while also providing a platform for teachers to learn and progress together. Through this training, they can perform DI better.

Consummating Evaluation System

Understanding students is crucial for the implementation of DI because teachers need to adjust their teaching constantly according to the learning situation of students. Therefore, in addition to the summative evaluations set by the school, it is also necessary to apply formative evaluations to help better find out the changes in students’ learning status in time. All the teachers mentioned that they will observe students every week or even every day to obtain data related to improving DI. T4 and T9 said,

Every class, I do a variety of formative assessments where I ask students questions and give them worksheets to check their understanding of the material, as we do. Submit assessments at the school each quarter for speaking, listening, writing, and reading. (T4)

We consider differentiated learning to be an ongoing process, not only once a semester but actually every week; we observe students constantly during the daily dirt learning process. (T9)

Fifteen interviewees brought up that the school has also established other evaluation methods to help teachers obtain feedback about their teaching so that teachers can better improve their curriculum. Teachers need to receive job evaluations from peers or leaders during teaching, and the school also holds meetings to discuss the observation results. As T12 and T10 stated,

There is a lot of help and support from other teachers and grade coordinators, as well as the foreign principal of the school. He might come in and offer suggestions or step inside to see the sort of instruction that we are carrying out inside the classroom. (T12)

We have observed lessons. There are a lot of periodical observations after that. The main observations will have a pre-meeting and then observation, and also a post-meeting to discuss the feedback. (T10)

Enhancing Cooperation Efforts

All participants indicated that cooperation could provide significant support for the implementation of DI. Among them, 12 teachers believed that collaboration among teachers could make curriculum preparation more comprehensive and play an essential role in improving classroom utilisation and teaching consistency. T6 stated, ‘I think support and cooperation are important at every level. When we have weekly collaborative meetings, we kind of all collaborate at a grade level to make sure that we’re teaching the students uniformly across the great level’. T16 provided a specific description of the weekly collaborative meetings:

We always have at least one meeting a week. And we’ll usually talk about what we’re going to be doing through the week and how we’re going to be differentiating. We also have a little plan of who’s going to be working with what group and for how much time so that we can make sure that the differentiated instruction is effective because we have to use our time effectively.

More than that, all teachers believed that home-school cooperation is essential for improving the practical effectiveness of DI. Teachers can obtain more information about each student through communication with parents, and parents will also have a better understanding of how to help their children after class. For example, T10 and T17 said, ‘We have one-on-one teacher-parent meetings each semester. Also, there’s a student support team for some special students. We also have detailed files for each of these kids and also for the kids who have learning disabilities’. T16 further explained part of the home-school cooperation process:

The best thing is that they (parents) can engage, and we need help at home. So we had the ‘SST’ last year, which was a student support team, where we tried to come up with the spoke plans for individual students who were having issues with their studies. We wanted those students to meet us so that we could see and check their progress. We also had to create data files for those students. So, we would compile part of their work so that we could show the parents how the students were doing so that the parents could understand easily what they could do to help their children.

Discussion

Comprehensive Teaching Institution is the Guarantee of DI

Based on the analysis of the interview data, in order to ensure the effective implementation of DI, many institutions established by bilingual schools are crucial for creating a DI teaching environment. Firstly, the results of the first research question indicate that, apart from regular courses, the school also provides separate courses and teaching time to ensure the conduct of DI. Students attend some UA courses every week, and the DI process of these courses is maintained through the GRR teaching framework so that teachers can arrange their time more reasonably and track teaching objectives. This is consistent with Fisher and Frey’s (2013) suggestion that the GRR framework is an essential part of DI.

Secondly, the DI of this school is conducted in a group teaching mode. According to the conclusion of research question two, group teaching can bring significant benefits to students because their needs can be met in a targeted manner, and they can receive personalised teaching and equal attention from teachers (Boelens et al., 2018). At the same time, this teaching method will significantly increase the workload of teachers and put a lot of pressure on the setting of teaching tasks and the teaching time schedule.

In addition, the findings of research question three reveal that the school also provide training for pre-service and in-service teachers. An excellent teaching plan is a prerequisite for high-quality classroom teaching. After systematic learning, teachers can acquire higher levels of professional knowledge and experience, quickly learn how to design and implement teaching activities for the curriculum, and better prepare their teaching plans. This discovery corresponds to the ‘planning and preparation’ requirement in Danielson’s (2013) framework. Therefore, the objective conditions provided by schools are conducive to the professional development of DI and can let teachers improve themselves in order to produce better DI English classes (Boelens et al., 2018; de Jager, 2017; De Neve et al., 2015; Deunk et al., 2018; Westbroek et al., 2020).

Well-Established Evaluation System is the Key to DI

The results of research question three emphasise the central role of assessment, particularly formative assessment, in effectively implementing DI (Maeng & Bell, 2015; Watts-Taffe et al., 2012). Compared to traditional teaching methods, DI requires a more detailed understanding of students’ learning situations to enable teachers to make teaching adjustments as soon as possible. Teachers have stated that although schools provide regular evaluations to assess student’s learning outcomes, in order to understand their learning characteristics and differences better, teachers need to adopt more frequent and comprehensive diagnostic measures to get continuous feedback for teaching and learning (Prast et al., 2018). Multi-dimensional evaluation can help teachers capture students’ dynamic changes and supply their teaching content promptly (Johnsen et al., 2020; Maeng & Bell, 2015; Rubenstein et al., 2015; Tobin & McInnes, 2008).

Besides that, if students’ groups in class are only distinguished based on their English proficiency, some problems may arise, including lower-level students feeling uncomfortable and some students’ strengths being obscured. Thereby, adding ability and skill assessments for students other than performance tests to assist in monitoring learning quality can provide teachers with alternative pathways for grouping students, allowing them to choose appropriate grouping methods based on different classroom situations to solve teaching problems that arise from a single grouping method (Smit & Humpert, 2012; Westbroek et al., 2020).

Moreover, the data of research question three also shows that except for students, teachers also need to undergo evaluations from schools and other teachers. All international teachers are subject to regular teaching observation throughout the year. The teaching quality of teachers is evaluated from aspects such as planning and preparation, classroom context, teaching and class management. Teachers can improve their education based on the evaluation results (Boelens et al., 2018). Teachers will also enter each other’s classrooms to learn from each other and discover problems in the curriculum. They also have the opportunity to receive teaching guidance from international principals or academic coordinators. Through these assessment activities, teachers can receive advice on DI practice and assist them in more effective lesson preparation.

Multi-Party Cooperation is the Prominent Vinculum for DI

Regarding the implementation of DI by international EFL teachers (research question one), it is easy to discover from the statements of the teachers that collaboration runs through the entire DI process and plays a vital role in many aspects of DI. During the lesson preparation stage, the school arranges a fixed time every week for teachers to have collaborative meetings. As acknowledged by some participants, teachers attend meetings by grade and jointly agree on the materials required for weekly classes and DI activities in the classroom. The results of the weekly collaboration meeting include teaching plans, PowerPoint presentations and additional tasks and resources. Collaboration among teachers not only benefits the effectiveness and consistency of DI implementation but also dramatically reduces their workload and lesson preparation burden, addressing some of the challenges they may face when facing curriculum design (Smit & Humpert, 2012). For the issue identified in addressing research question three, DI teaching efficiency under time constraints, coupled with the diverse needs of students, presents a key challenge. Teachers believe that collaborative meetings can help them develop more reasonable teaching plans and improve time utilisation. The collaborative approach allows teachers to design lessons that are not only engaging but also appropriately matched to students’ varying proficiency levels within limited time, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of DI.

In addition to the support of schools and colleagues, parental involvement can also have a significant impact on the effectiveness of DI’s implementation. In response to research question 2, teachers generally believe that parental involvement is a significant benefit of DI implementation. At this bilingual school, international teachers will regularly arrange one-on-one conversations with parents with the help of Chinese teaching assistants. Good communication with parents in this way not only helps teachers better understand students but also allows parents to have a clearer understanding of how they can play a facilitating role in DI outside of the classroom. This finding is consistent with the positive educational effect of parental involvement in proposals; that is, communication and cooperation can create a more positive atmosphere for DI (Beecher & Sweeny, 2008; de Jager, 2017; Westwood, 2001). Thus, the implementation of DI involves multi-party collaboration, and only when schools, teachers, parents, and students are closely connected can the effects of DI be maximised. Such collaborative effort and cooperation also effectively address the challenges within DI identified in research question three, facilitating its successful implementation.

Conclusion and Implications

The present study explored the perceived significance and difficulties of implementing DI in bilingual primary education, as well as provided some strategies and suggestions to better integrate DI with primary school English classes. The interview results further demonstrate that DI can enhance students’ English learning abilities and enable them to learn in a more suitable way. However, the implementation of DI involves the re-conceptualisation of multiple aspects, such as classroom structure, curriculum planning, and evaluation. Teachers not only need to learn more professional knowledge but also need to take on more teaching responsibilities. At the same time, improving training, evaluation, and collaboration systems can also help address potential issues in English teaching.

This research can also supply many implications for the practice of DI in the field of education. English classes with DI can achieve higher teaching quality, and students can also learn in a more excellent teaching and learning environment. Implementing DI more reasonably, it is recommended that schools provide support for teachers in curriculum management and professional learning (Wan, 2017), such as setting up separate DI teaching modules and providing training related to DI knowledge. Schools should also provide more comprehensive evaluation systems. On the one hand, for the evaluation of students, a combination of online and offline methods can be used to test the knowledge learned by students through daily, weekly, and monthly tests, allowing teachers to better understand students’ learning status and adjust teaching content. On the other hand, the evaluation of teachers, including the establishment of school evaluations of teachers and peer evaluations among teachers, can enable teachers to identify problems in DI teaching promptly. In addition, schools can promote the institutionalisation of multi-party cooperation, including standardising the responsibilities of multiple teachers in DI classrooms when teaching, to make DI teaching more efficient. Regular home-school activities can also be set up to facilitate teachers understand students’ learning situation after class and provide more information for DI. Therefore, the implementation of DI requires a large amount of human and material resources, not only external support but also the efforts and contributions of the teacher community. Schools and teachers should also be aware of the various pressures that DI implementation may bring and make timely adjustments to management systems and work content based on actual situations. These findings provide valuable references for education practitioners related to DI and help promote innovations and popularisation of DI in different stages and types of schools.

Despite the insights generated into implementing DI in bilingual primary schools, this study has limitations that must be noted. First, the participants in this study all came from the same bilingual primary school, so the representativeness and universality of the research results need to be further improved. Future research can consider expanding the sample size and interviewing teachers from different regions, types of schools and stages to obtain more comprehensive and objective research results. Second, this study did not consider the potential impact of teachers’ different cultural backgrounds. Although the respondents were all teachers of foreign nationality, their nationalities differed and their understanding of DI may also vary. Therefore, conducting classified interviews with teachers from different cultural backgrounds can help obtain deeper information through comparison. In addition, the DI of this bilingual primary school was not completed solely by foreign teachers, and there were Chinese teachers involved in the teaching process. Thus, the teaching process and methods explored in this article may include the views of Chinese teachers, and it needs to be clarified through other research whether the Chinese cultural background will affect foreign teachers’ perception and implementation of DI. When conducting further research, it is possible to study classes that have changed the nationality structure of DI course teachers, such as classrooms taught only by foreign teachers and classrooms taught only by Chinese teachers, to eliminate cultural background interference and obtain comparative data. Finally, both schools and students play essential roles in DI, so it is also necessary to explore the methods, difficulties, and significance of DI from them. Their suggestions can provide important references for the implementation, development, innovation and popularisation of DI.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Coding Samples.

No.	Code samples	First-layer category	Second-layer category
1	‘universal access’‘25 minutes of GRR’‘twice a week’	Offering Universal Access Class	Implementation of DI
1	‘different levels’‘based on their abilities’‘differentiated small group instruction’‘varying the difficult difficulty’	Conducting Graded Teaching	Implementation of DI
2	‘more confidence’‘get very excited’‘improve their English’	Cultivating Better Learners	Benefits of Using DI
2	‘help each student’‘meet their individual needs’‘at their own pace’‘teach to all of those groups’	Advancing Educational Equity	Benefits of Using DI
3	‘prepare as much as you can’‘require patience’‘feel a bit rushed’	Challenging Course Planning	Difficulties of Implementing DI
3	‘low groups can feel a little embarrassed’‘you don’t get the kids’	Imperfect Student Grouping	Difficulties of Implementing DI
4	‘formative assessments’‘observe students constantly’‘observed lessons’	Consummating Evaluation System	Strategies for overcoming difficulties of Implementing DI
	‘induction program’‘organized training’‘training every Thursday’	Organising Teacher Training
	‘collaborative meetings’‘teacher-parent meetings’	Enhancing Cooperation Efforts

ORCID iD

Bin Zou

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Committee at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University approved our interviews (approval: 20-01-14) on October 8th, 2020. Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before starting interviews.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested and accessed from the authors.

References

Baumgartner

Lipowski

M. B.

Rush

(2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction. Master of Arts Research Project, Saint Xavier University.

Beecher

Sweeny

S. M.

(2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502–530.

Boelens

Voet

De Wever

(2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers & Education, 120, 197–212.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Brevik

L. M.

Gunnulfsen

A. E.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34–45.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Danielson

(2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument, 2013 instructionally focused edition. Charlotte Danielson.

de Jager

(2017). Perspectives of teachers on differentiated teaching in multicultural South African secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 115–121.

De Neve

Devos

Tuytens

(2015). The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30–41.

10.

Deunk

M. I.

Smale-Jacobse

A. E.

de Boer

Doolaard

Bosker

R. J.

(2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation practices in primary education. Educational Research and Reviews, 24, 31–54.

11.

Dörnyei

(2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

12.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.

13.

Fisher

Frey

(2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. ASCD.

14.

Gheyssens

Consuegra

Engels

Struyven

(2020). Creating inclusive classrooms in primary and secondary schools : From noticing to differentiated practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 103210.

15.

Gheyssens

Coubergs

Griful-Freixenet

Engels

Struyven

(2020). Differentiated instruction: The diversity of teachers’ philosophy and praxis to adapt teaching to students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(14), 1383–1400.

16.

Ismajli

Imami-Morina

(2018). Differentiated instruction: Understanding and applying interactive strategies to meet the needs of all the students. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 207–218.

17.

Johnsen

S. K.

Fearon-Drake

Wisely

L. W.

(2020). A formative evaluation of differentiation practices in elementary cluster classrooms. Roeper Review, 42(3), 206–218.

18.

Kanevsky

(2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299.

19.

Levy

H. M.

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

20.

Lui

(2012). Teaching in the zone: An introduction to working within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to drive effective early childhood instruction. Children’s progress, 1–10.

21.

Maeng

J. L.

Bell

R. L.

(2015). Differentiating Science Instruction: Secondary science teachers’ practices. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2065–2090.

22.

Obidah

J. E.

Howard

T. C.

(2005). Preparing teachers for “Monday morning” in the urban school classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 248–255.

23.

O’Brien

B. C.

Harris

I. B.

Beckman

T. J.

Reed

D. A.

Cook

D. A.

(2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251.

24.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3(1), 344–347.

25.

Pozas

Letzel

Schneider

(2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217–230.

26.

Prast

E. J.

Van de Weijer-Bergsma

Kroesbergen

E. H.

Van Luit

J. E. H.

(2018). Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher professional development on student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 22–34.

27.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Little

C. A.

Muller

L. M.

Kaniskan

R. B.

(2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462–501.

28.

Richards

M. R. E.

Omdal

S. N.

(2007). Effects of tiered instruction on academic performance in a secondary science course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 424–453.

29.

Rubenstein

L. D.

Gilson

C. M.

Bruce-Davis

M. N.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2015). Teachers’ reactions to pre-differentiated and enriched mathematics curricula. Journal for the education of the gifted, 38(2), 141–168.

30.

Santangelo

Tomlinson

C. A.

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

31.

Smale-Jacobse

A. E.

Meijer

Helms-Lorenz

Maulana

(2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2366.

32.

Smit

Humpert

(2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1152–1162.

33.

Stollman

Meirink

Westenberg

van Driel

(2019). Teachers’ interactive cognitions of differentiated instruction in a context of student talent development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 138–149.

34.

Subban

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

35.

Tobin

McInnes

(2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3–9.

36.

Tödtling

Trippl

(2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.

37.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

38.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2005). Grading and differentiation. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 262–244.

39.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Brighton

Hertberg

Callahan

C. M.

Moon

T. R.

Brimijoin

Conover

L. A.

Reynolds

(2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the education of the gifted, 27(2), 119–145.

40.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Imbeau

M. B.

(2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. ASCD.

41.

Valiandes

Neophytou

(2018). Teachers’ professional development for differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: Investigating the impact of a development program on teachers’ professional learning and on students’ achievement. Teacher Development, 22(1), 123–138.

42.

van Geel

Keuning

Frèrejean

Dolmans

van Merriënboer

Visscher

A. J.

(2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 51–67.

43.

VanTassel-Baska

Hubbard

G. F.

Robbins

J. I.

(2020). Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. Roeper Review, 42(3), 153–164.

44.

Wan

S. W. Y.

(2017). Differentiated instruction: Are Hong Kong in-service teachers ready? Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 1–311.

45.

Wampold

B. E.

Brown

G. S. J.

(2005). Estimating variability in outcomes attributable to therapists: a naturalistic study of outcomes in managed care. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(5), 914.

46.

Watts-Taffe

(Barbara) Laster

B. P.

Broach

Marinak

McDonald Connor

Walker-Dalhouse

(2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303–314.

47.

Westbroek

H. B.

van Rens

van Den Berg

Janssen

(2020). A practical approach to assessment for learning and differentiated instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 42(6), 955–976.

48.

Westwood

(2001). Differentiation’ as a strategy for inclusive classroom practice: Some difficulties identified. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 5–11.