Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

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

Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the

classroom
Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi a, b, *, Martin Valcke a, Raymond Godwin b
a
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Gent, Belgium
b
Department of Psychology, Bina Nusantara University, Jl. Kemanggisan Ilir III No. 45 Palmerah, Jakarta Barat, Indonesia

h i g h l i g h t s

The growing of student diversity calls for appropriate instructional strategies.

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is presented as key solution but seems challenging.

We examine teacher variables and classroom size related to DI implementation.

Teachers' self-efficacy has a significant contribution to the DI implementation.

Research implication calls to invest teacher professional development programs.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Growing student diversity in today's classrooms calls for appropriate instructional strategies. Differen-
Received 19 September 2016 tiated instruction (DI) is put forward as a key solution but seems challenging. In this study, actual DI
Received in revised form implementation of teachers is linked to a complex set of variables: teachers' DI self-efficacy, teaching
16 June 2017
beliefs, teaching experience, professional development, teacher certification, and classroom size. The
Accepted 22 June 2017
Available online 6 July 2017
findings show that DI implementation seems high, but is still below a critical benchmark. The regression
analysis results indicate 39% of the variation in DI implementation which can significantly linked to DI
self-efficacy beliefs, higher constructivist beliefs and higher classroom size. Research implications are
Keywords:
Differentiated instruction
discussed.
Teachers' self-efficacy © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Teaching beliefs
Teaching strategy
Indonesia

1. Introduction The one-size-fits-all teaching approach builds on the assumption

The demand for coping with student diversity in todays’ class-
rooms seems inevitable (Subban, 2006; Tomlinson et al., 2003).
More and more students reflect varying backgrounds, next to dif-
ferences in e.g., learning style, motivation, ability, need, interest.
School performance is challenged by this student diversity. This
calls for appropriate teaching approaches. The schools and teachers
have the responsibility to adjust to the different developmental
needs and the varying levels of individual learners (George, 2005;
Moore, 2005; Tomlinson et al., 2003).
* Corresponding author. Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, H.
Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Gent, Belgium.
E-mail addresses: muhamadnanang.suprayogi@ugent.be (M.N. Suprayogi),
Martin.Valcke@ugent.be (M. Valcke), rgodwin@binus.edu (R. Godwin).
that all students can be treated in an equal way. This neglects the
diverse needs of students (Fox & Hoffman, 2011; Subban, 2006). In
contrast, the differentiated instruction (DI) teaching approach is
expected to consider differences between students, acknowledge
their strengths and accommodate their limitations (George, 2005;
Heacox, 2012; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson et al., 2003).
Meeting student differences is challenging since these differ-
ences can be related to a large variety of student characteristics,
such as learner interests, learning styles, developmental level,
learning speed, abilities, cultural background, language level, atti-
tudes, regulation approaches, etc. (Moore, 2005; Tomlinson, 2001;
Waldron & Mcleskey, 2001). In the same way, there is a large va-
riety in DI implementations, e.g., the teachers put different learners
in different groups (according to their level or interest), present
different sets of exercises, give more support and feedback to a
struggling reader, provide enrichment materials for a bright

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020
0742-051X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
292 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
student, put forward more or less strict demands as to the attain-
ment of the learning objectives, allocate more of less time, give
more encouragement to certain students, allow a student to work
alone instead of in group settings, choose a different starting point
in the experiential learning cycle (Heacox, 2012; Spencer-
Waterman, 2014; Watts-Taffe, Broach, Marinak, McDonald Con-
nor, & Walker-Dalhouse, 2012). These examples show how DI
might affect every decision the teachers make in view of instruc-
tional activities, learning objectives, learning content, didactical
strategies, media usage, evaluation approach and organizational
variables (grouping, timing, etc.).
Although DI seems promising for both teachers and students, its
actual adoption by teachers remains critical. Many teachers
continue adopting their current teaching style although they
realize the related disadvantages (George, 2005). The study of
Whipple (2012) revealed a disconnection between teachers’ un-
derstanding of DI and their actual DI implementation, showing a
lower rate of DI implementation compared to understanding of DI.
Other studies reported other barriers as to DI implementation; i.e.
being unfamiliar with available tools, the necessary preparation
time and a lack of resources (Rodriguez, 2012), its time-consuming
nature and its difficulty to implement without assistance from
colleagues (Smit & Humpert, 2012). The study of Tomlinson et al.
(2003) also stressed that most teachers are not proactive when
dealing with learner differences.
Regarding the adoption of DI, researchers also refer to the role of
teacher variables such as teacher self-efficacy (Dixon, Yssel,
McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Wan, 2015; Wertheim & Leyser,
2002), teaching beliefs (Hermans, Tondeur, van Braak, & Valcke,
2008; Cross, 2009; He & Levin, 2008; Teo, Chai, Hung, & Lee,
2008), and other variables such as teaching experience, teacher
certification, and classroom characteristics.
In the present study, we first discuss the conceptual and theo-
retical base linking the implementation of DI to teacher self-
efficacy, teaching beliefs, and teacher background characteristics
next to context variable (classroom size). This grounds the research
questions tested in a survey-based study in the Indonesian primary
school context.
2. Conceptual and theoretical framework
2.1. Differentiated instruction
Differentiated instruction is defined as a flexible, equitable, and
intelligent way to approach teaching and learning (Fox & Hoffman,
2011). DI stresses that a single teaching style will not accommodate
every student, especially when this style is not matched with stu-
dent needs (Levine, 2002). DI starts from the premise that learners
are different and learn differently (Fogarty & Pete, 2011; Tomlinson,
1995). DI allows teachers to present varying learning activities and
different content, as well as adopt varying modes of assessment to
meet the needs of each child (Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2007). In
other words, teachers are expected to make explicit choices as to
the nature of the learning content, process, and product for each
learner from prekindergarten to college (Algozzinea & Anderson,
2007).
Differentiated instruction receives very different labels. Fox and
Hoffman (2011) list several alternative concepts; such as ‘differ-
entiated assessment’, ‘inclusion’, ‘student-centered’. Other con-
ceptualizations are ‘individualized instruction’ (Hattie, 2009),
‘adaptive instruction’, ‘personalized learning’ (Waxman, Alford, &
Brown, 2013), ‘response to intervention’ (Dalhouse et al., 2009;
Fox & Hoffman, 2011), and Universal Design of Learning (UDL) as
introduced by Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, (2014). Although DI has
been given diverse labels, those labels share the same ideas, i.e., to
cope with the diversity of students, adopt specific teaching strate-
gies, invoke variety in learning activities, monitor individual stu-
dent needs and pursue optimal learning outcome (Suprayogi and
Valcke, 2016).
The former indicates a shared working definition is required.
Since DI builds on varying differences in learners, the concept is
often presented as a multi-dimensional concept. Different authors
present divergent lists of DI components or DI dimensions. We
summarize this in Table 1 and next present an eclectic definition
integrating the dimensions shared by most authors.
Five dimensions seem shared by most authors and help develop
the following eclectic DI working definition: Differentiated instruc-
tion is an instructional approach that accommodates the diversity of
students by (1) coping with student diversity; (2) adopting specific
teaching strategies; (3) invoking a variety in learning activities; (4)
monitoring individual student needs, and (5) pursuing optimal
learning outcomes. A more detailed elaboration of this working
definition can be found in Suprayogi and Valcke (2016).
DI is currently being embraced by many educational agencies in
many countries. For instance, Korea promotes the SMART education
initiative to address increasing student diversity in classrooms (Cha
& Ahn, 2014). In Canada, the Alberta Initiative for School
Improvement responds to differences linked to increasing immi-
gration and growing population (McQuarrie & McRae, 2010). Other
countries, such as Belgium (EC, 2015), USA (Rodriguez, 2012;
Whipple, 2012), Switzerland and Austria (Smit & Humpert, 2012),
England and Australia (Mills et al., 2014) stress specific teaching
competences (standards) urging teachers to implement DI in their
teaching. Worldwide, ‘response to intervention programs’ presents
a tiered approach to instruction to prevent school failure and
maximize student potential by considering differentiated ap-
proaches to learning and instruction (Preston, Wood, & Stecker,
2016).
Available research shows the positive impact of DI. The imple-
mentation of DI resulted in higher academic scores for the students
(Tulbure, 2011), better overall performance as compared to a
traditional style of teaching (Beloshitskii & Dushkin, 2005), higher
student engagement, interest and satisfaction as well as for the
teachers (Johnsen, 2003), more motivated and enthusiastic learners
(McAdamis, 2001), and helped maximizing student potential
(Wilujeng, 2012). Others linked DI to student persistence
(Tomlinson, 1995), self-confidence and self-directedness, and
metacognitive awareness of learners (McQuarrie & McRae, 2010).
Research - set up in the context of specific school subjects - re-
iterates the more general positive impact of DI. DI resulted in sig-
nificant progress in reading (Firmender, Reis, & Sweeny, 2013),
higher reading fluency and reading comprehension (Reis, McCoach,
Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011), and had a positive impact on
student literacy (Tobin & McInnes, 2008), and on math achieve-
ment (Chamberlin & Power, 2010; Tieso, 2005). Additionally,
Grimes and Stevens (2009) reported an increase in students’ desire
to do well in math and their confidence.
2.2. Modeling a “good” teacher
From a theoretical perspective, developing a more complex
model that brings together a larger set of variables describing and
explaining DI implementation helps to advance the research
domain. In this study, we build on the teacher's Professional
Identity of Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt (2000) and the Onion
Model of Korthagen (2004). We opt for these models because they
are grounded in the specific analysis of a teacher's profession and
have proven to contribute to the discussion of teacher professional
development and how teacher cognitions/characteristics are
closely connected to explain their current and future behavior.
 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
Table 1
Inventory of DI dimensions as reported in the literature and an integrated perspective.
Moore (2005) Tomlinson and Fogarty and Pete (2011)
Imbeau (2010)
Differences in content Differences in Provide choice to learners
learning profiles
Differences in process Differences in Change the content, process and product Differences in
readiness
Differences in product Differences in Challenge the emotions, attention,
content memory of different learners
Differences in learning Differences in
environment process
Differences in affect
Differences in
interests
Differences in
products
Teacher professional identity consists of a combination of the
distinct types of expertise: subject matter, didactical, and peda-
gogical. Beijaard et al. (2000) found how teachers shift from a focus
on subject matter expertise to didactical and pedagogical expertise
during their career. They shift to a focus on nurturing and guiding
students, taking into account student characteristics. Teacher
experience and education can therefore be considered as critical
variables in view of adoption of DI.
Further, the onion model of Korthagen (2004) helps define what
a ‘good teacher’ is and explains the depth of teacher identity for-
mation. The latter is seen as consisting of six layers that interact
with the environment (the class, the students, the school); teacher
behavior (the act of teacher to the environment); teacher compe-
tencies (the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of teacher); teacher
beliefs (convictions and philosophy about teaching and learning);
teacher identity (how teacher defines or sees his/her professional
identity); and teacher mission (the highly personal questions as to
what end he/she wants to do the work). Ideally, a good teacher is a
teacher reflecting a comprehensive ‘‘alignment’’ of those layers. It
means that a teacher's behavior, competencies, beliefs, identity and
mission are consistently linked to the environment. In this study,
we incorporate our research variables with those layers, which
therefore help to build the research design. In the next sections, we
discuss how each layer in the model is reflected in our theoretical
model.
2.3. Teacher self-efficacy and differentiated instruction
As stated earlier, DI implementations seem to lag behind and
this is often e next to other factors e linked to teacher variables,
such as teachers' self-efficacy. Woolfolk (2004) defines self-efficacy
(SE) as an individual's beliefs in his/her ability to handle each sit-
uation. Bandura (1997) stresses the contextualized nature of SE. In
the context of the present study we therefore focus on teachers'
self-efficacy related to a DI implementation. Hence, teacher DI self-
efficacy can be defined as teacher's beliefs in his/her ability to
implement DI in his/her teaching activity.
Higher levels of self-efficacy to implement DI seem related to a
higher probability of actually implementing it (Wertheim & Leyser,
2002). Bandura (1997) stresses how self-efficacy is related to ‘ex-
pectations’ as to the success in carrying out an activity. Gibson and
Dembo (1984) explain how therefore high self-efficacy goes
together with persisting in challenging situations, more focus on
groups versus whole classroom situations and a more flexible
attitude. The latter are critical in view of coping with DI challenges.
Also Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007, p. 945) stress how: ‘self-
efficacy beliefs are related to effort teachers invest in their teaching,
293
Whipple (2012) Smit and Humpert (2012) Integration
Differences in Differences in attitude Coping with student
lesson planning diversity
Differences in content Adopting specific
content teaching strategies
Differences in Differences in process/product Invoking a variety in
processes learning activities
Differences in Differences in communication/ Monitoring individual
student interests collaboration/coaching student needs
Differences in Differences in formative Pursuing optimal
assessment assessment learning outcomes
Differences in
products
the goals they set, their persistence when things do not go
smoothly and their resilience in the face of setbacks.’
Several studies revealed a significant relationship between
teachers' self-efficacy and their behavior in teaching activity. A
higher level of teacher DI self-efficacy is significantly associated
with a higher level of DI implementation (Dixon et al., 2014),
stronger willingness to experiment with DI (Evers, Brouwers, &
Tomic, 2002), a higher intention to adopt DI (Wertheim & Leyser,
2002), a more positive attitude toward DI (Allinder, 1994), and a
larger openness to change teaching behavior to increase classroom
effectiveness (Smylie, 1988). Research by DeNeve, Devos, & Tuytens
(2015) also revealed that teachers’ self-efficacy is a predictor of
beginning teachers reporting changes in their DI practices. Begin-
ning teachers who believe in their ability to address varying
learning needs show they adapt more easily their instructional
methods and persist in finding the right DI approach even when a
differentiated instructional strategy fails for a specific student.
Wrapping up the available evidence, we predict higher DI self-
efficacy levels will be associated with a higher DI implementation
levels. Related to the onion model of Korthagen, DI self-efficacy is
part of the beliefs layer, and the reported DI implementation by
teachers is linked to the behavior layer.
2.4. Teaching beliefs and differentiated instruction
Beliefs refer to psychological understandings, premises or
propositions that are felt to be true (Richardson, 1996). Beliefs
strongly influence perceptions, and individual beliefs strongly
affect related behavior (Pajares, 1992). Since the construct of
educational beliefs is broad and incorporating, therefore as with
more general beliefs, specific beliefs are required (Pajares, 1992).
Hence, this study focuses on the teaching beliefs, which can be
described as the convictions, philosophy, tenets, or opinions about
teaching and learning (Milner, Sondergeld, Demir, Johnson, &
Czerniak, 2012). In this study, we focus the teaching belief on
constructivist teaching (CT) versus traditional teaching beliefs, also
labeled as traditional management (TM), as defined by Wooley,
Benjamin, and Wooley (2004).
Teaching beliefs guide educators’ actions (He & Levin, 2008) and
pedagogical decisions (Cross, 2009). As such it is seen as a signifi-
cant determinant of teaching approaches (Hermans et al., 2008). In
specific school subjects, studies underpin how teaching beliefs are
significantly and positively related to instructional outcomes; i.e.
teaching of grammar (Phipps & Borg, 2009), literacy (Johnson,
1992), science (Hashweh, 1996; Tosun, 2000), and mathematics
(Cross, 2009). Teaching beliefs were also found to be related to the
adoption of educational computer use in classes (Hermans et al.,
294 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
2008), and in technology integration practices (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012).
When it comes to the relationship between constructivist or
traditional beliefs and the adoption of DI we can build on the DI
literature explicitly linking DI to constructivist instructional ap-
proaches, student collaboration, individual differences, personal
meaning development, etc. (Tomlinson et al., 2003). Teaching be-
liefs are crucial in influencing classroom behaviors that affect
teachers' efforts, persistence, and resilience when faced with dif-
ficulties with students (Wu, Wan, & Wong, 2015), and defining the
willingness of teachers to embrace differentiated instruction
(Hertberg & Brighton, 2005). However, the study of Mansour
(2009) stresses this relationship is far from straightforward. Be-
liefs can (a) be contradictory; (b) have indirect but strong effects on
teaching practice, and (c) be often context-dependent, so that they
have differing strengths in differing contexts. Ertmer,
Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2000) also found that teaching beliefs
were not correlated to teaching practice. Moreover, the study of
Fang (1996) indicated that although teachers could articulate their
beliefs, practices were influenced by classroom realities, such as
student needs, student-teacher interactions, the school culture, and
the textbooks. The latter variables stress again that not only factors
within teachers play a role, but also variables and processes in the
instructional environment might play a role. Wan (2015) also found
how other variables interact in this relationship, such as experi-
ence, training, confidence, classroom management and teacher
beliefs about fairness versus equity. The latter influences our overall
model to look at factors influencing DI adoption as will be incor-
porated in the layers of onion model (see below). Teaching beliefs
are part of the beliefs layer in Korthagen's model.
2.5. Teacher DI self-efficacy and teaching beliefs
Pajares (1992) has revealed several specific teachers' beliefs
affecting their educational practices, including teacher self-efficacy
and teaching beliefs which are very crucial. Teacher self-efficacy
refers to teachers' trust in their capability to implement a desired
outcome (Wheatley, 2005), while teaching beliefs act like a filter
through which instructional decisions are made or a lens that de-
termines the way teacher look at instructional processes or vari-
ables (Fang, 1996). In the present study, we focus on teacher self-
efficacy in relation to implementing DI and their e traditional
and constructivist - beliefs towards the way they teach. Those
variables affect teaching practices, especially in relation to DI
implementation. The study of Wan (2015) confirmed the significant
relation of teaching beliefs and teacher self-efficacy in promoting
teacher's positive attitude toward school reform including the
practice of DI. However, the correlation between teacher self-
efficacy and teaching beliefs is not always confirmed. Donnell and
Gettinger (2015) found insignificant associations, while Siwatu
(2007) reported significant linkages. Therefore, in this study we
incorporate teacher self-efficacy and teaching beliefs in relation to
the DI implementation. In the context of the onion model of Kor-
thagen, we implement in our theoretical model the beliefs layer
(teacher self-efficacy and teaching beliefs) and the behavior layer
(reported DI implementation).
2.6. Teaching experience and professional development in view of
DI implementation
Teaching experience is expected to affect DI implementation.
Teachers interpret educational reforms differently depending on
their teaching experience (Hargreaves, 2005). Early-career teachers
(5 or less years of experience) seem more eager to adopt in-
novations. In contrast, the late-career teachers (over 20 years of
experience) are more likely to resist change and criticize the new
instructional practices. Mid-career teachers (6e20 years of expe-
rience) have mixed reactions to educational innovations. These
teachers feel competent and confident, but are cautious about in-
novations that require the development of new competences. In
contrast, Donnell and Gettinger (2015) found no significant relation
between teaching experience and adoption of teaching practices.
They argue this might relate to the disproportional representation
in earlier samples. This emphasizes the need to gather additional
empirical evidence in the context of the present study.
Also teacher professional development (PD) can clearly be
linked to a DI implementation. Many authors link PD to adopting
educational reforms (Barmby, Bolden, Raine, & Thompson, 2013;
Song, 2008), to school improvement (Bubb & Earley, 2013;
Hoque, Alam, & Abdullah, 2011), to teacher professionalism
(Rienties, Brouwer, & Lygo-Baker, 2013) and to self-efficacy and DI
(Dixon et al., 2014). Moreover, Donnell and Gettinger (2015) high-
lighted the importance of PD and stressed the acquisition of a
theoretical foundation and rationale that underpins the skills for
implementation of innovations. They stress that without a solid
understanding of a theoretical rationale, teachers find it difficult to
implement new ideas in the classroom. Luschei and Zubaidah
(2012) add that the content of PD should be matched to the cur-
rent context of a teacher's classroom reality. The former underpins
the idea to consider PD as a variable to be considered when
studying DI implementation by teachers.
Wan (2015) found that aside of teacher self-efficacy and teach-
ing beliefs, the teaching experience, training, confidence, and
classroom management also interact to the teaching practices.
Dixon et al. (2014) also highlighted the importance of PD for self-
efficacy and DI. Therefore, in this study we also consider teaching
experience and PD in our theoretical model. In the context of
Korthagen's onion model, teaching experience and teacher PD are
positioned in the competencies layer.
2.7. Linking teacher DI self-efficacy, teaching beliefs and other
variables to DI implementation
The available literature stresses the individual relationship be-
tween a specific teacher variable and DI implementation. This is
also the case in Korthagen's onion model where the different layers
are interconnected and should be aligned. From both theoretical
and empirical perspectives, this can be investigated. The research of
Wan (2015) already showed how the interplay of different variables
plays a role in the level of DI implementation. She also stresses
teacher experience as well as the classroom reality (e.g., classroom
size).
Korthagen (2004) stresses that the different layers have to be
aligned. This implies that there should already be a ‘fit’ between
layers of, behavior, competence, and beliefs, while coping with the
demands of the instructional environment, and therefore it should
also align to their further layers, the identity and the mission.
Weaker professional development, adherence to teacher-centered
beliefs or weak development of self-efficacy beliefs to tackle
differentiated instruction reflects a misalignment and might pre-
dict a weaker adoption of DI. Therefore, we link our research var-
iables based on the onion model.
To wrap-up in relation to the onion model, the teacher's DI self-
efficacy and teaching beliefs can be linked to the beliefs layer. The
teacher PD and teaching experience can be linked to the compe-
tence layer. The DI implementation is linked to the behavior layer,
and the classroom size is linked to the environment layer. In the
present study, considering the available research variables, we did
not focus on the identity and mission layer that are rather core
variables in a teacher's identity.
 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
Building on this theoretical framework, we put forward the
following model as a base for the present study (Fig. 1).
Most available research mainly links DI implementation to a
limited number of variables. The present study builds on a more
complex model and integrates more variables. The guiding research
question is: To what extent is the reported DI implementation linked
to teacher variables (DI self-efficacy, teaching beliefs, teaching expe-
rience, teacher professional development) and context variables (e.g.,
classroom size)?
Whereas related research is often set up with pre-service-
teachers (Wertheim & Leyser, 2002), the present study involved
in-service teachers, as they are key stakeholders playing an
important role in determining the current educational quality in
Indonesia.
3. Method
3.1. Population and research sample
The present study was set up in Indonesia. The research popu-
lation consists of all teachers registered and working in Grade-A
level accredited schools in the six regions of the Jakarta Province.
School accreditation is granted by the Board of National Accredi-
tation for School and Madrasah (BANSM). According to BANSM
(2014), 1522 schools have obtained a grade-A level accreditation.
Teachers from 145 BANSM schools (about 10% of the schools) were
involved in the present study. Schools were selected randomly from
the list, taking into account the number and size of the schools in
each region, and respecting an equal balance between public and
private schools. All teachers from these schools who were invited
actually participated in the study. Following this sampling pro-
cedure resulted in a sample of 604 teachers. Table 2 summarizes the
sampling framework.
3.2. Research instruments
To study the research question, four research instruments were
administered from the sample: a teacher background question-
naire, a DI implementation Scale (DIIS), a teachers’ DI self-efficacy
scale (TSES), and a teaching beliefs scale (TBS). These four in-
struments help to get data to study the research variables in the
theoretical model (see Fig. 1), and reflect high reliability as checked
on the base of the current administration of the instruments. Both
the DIIS and TSES were developed in the Indonesian language:
Bahasa-Indonesia. The TBS was translated from English.
Fig. 1. The research model.
295
The background questionnaire helped in collecting data on the
teacher variables: years of experience, professional development,
and teachers' certification. The latter focused on the highest
educational development diploma (DeRee, Muralidharan, Pradhan,
& Rogers, 2015). To map the characteristics of the teachers’ envi-
ronment, we asked them to report the number of learners in their
class.
The DIIS consisted of 15 items and reflected the structure of our
DI working definition: three items for each DI dimension. The DIIS
helped to ‘measure’ the extent to which teachers currently adopt
this particular DI element in their classroom on the base of a 10-
point rating scale (0 ¼ not implemented to 10 ¼ highly imple-
mented); item example: ‘I set a different learning activity for different
ability group of my students.’ or ‘I vary my assessment considering the
level of individual learners.’ The reliability of DIIS was found to be
high (Cronbach Alpha ¼ 0.92).
Also the TSES reflected the DI definition developed above and
consisted of 15 items; three items for each DI dimension: coping
with student diversity; adopting specific teaching strategy;
invoking a variety in learning activities; monitoring individual
student needs, and pursuing optimal learning outcomes. Bandura's
guidelines (Bandura, 2006) were followed to construct the self-
efficacy scale. In relation to each scale item, teachers indicated
the extent to which they feel confident adopting this behavior. A
10-point rating scale was used (0 ¼ absolutely not confident to
adopt this DI element to 10 ¼ completely confident; item examples:
‘I can cope with the diversity of students’ ability in the class,’ or ‘I am
able to invoke appropriate learning activity for students according to
their diversity in ability.’ The reliability of the TSES is high (Cronbach
Alpha ¼ 0.96).
As to the TBS, we adopted the instrument of Wooley et al. (2004)
as this scale has been validated in earlier research, reflecting good
reliability. The TBS consisted of 14 items; 7 items focusing on
constructivist teaching (CT), and 7 items on traditional manage-
ment (TM). Teachers rated the scale items on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The reliability of the
scales is medium: CT Cronbach Alpha ¼ 0.62; TM Cronbach
Alpha ¼ 0.60. CT item examples: ‘I prefer to cluster students’ desks or
use tables so they can work together’ or ‘I often create thematic units
based on the student's interests and ideas.’ TM item examples: ‘I
believe students learn best when there is a fixed schedule’ or ‘I decorate
my classroom primarily with posters, pictures, or teaching charts.’ The
Bahasa-Indonesia version of the originally English-language in-
strument was translated following the forward-backward trans-
lation method (Behling & Law, 2000). A pilot version of the
296 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301

Table 2
Research sample (N ¼ 604).

Region Central Jakarta East Jakarta West Jakarta South Jakarta North Jakarta Thousand Islands Total

Number of Schools 20 41 30 28 23 3 145

Number of Teachers 69 178 135 111 95 16 604

instrument was presented to seven teachers from three different
primary schools - not included in the sample - to get their feedback
as to clarity and linkage with the Indonesian school reality. Changes
were made in the wording of the questionnaire to make the text
clearer and more relevant to the Indonesian context.
3.3. Research procedure
In view of the present large-scale study, permission was first
obtained from the Jakarta Province educational authorities. Build-
ing on the sampling procedure, every single school was contacted
by the researcher. In each school, an introductory session was set up
about the focus of the study. Next, teachers - currently present at
school - were invited to fill out the instruments. Each individual
teacher signed an informed consent form.
3.4. Analysis method
All statistical procedures were conducted with SPPS (version
22). Assumptions were checked before proceeding with the anal-
ysis. To answer the research question, we applied regression anal-
ysis; entering DI implementation as dependent variable and the
other variables, i.e. teachers’ DI self-efficacy, teaching belief, teacher
certification, teaching experience, professional development and
classroom size as independent variables. In some preliminary an-
alyses, especially to compare specific subgroups of teachers, i.e.
teacher certification, teaching experience, and professional devel-
opment, t-tests were applied. A significance level of p < 0.05 was
put forward.
4. Results
were significantly correlated with DI implementation. The corre-
lations between the individual independent variables are often
significant, but not to the extent they reflect too high correlations
that might suggest the variables are not sufficiently independent of
one another.
Class size ranged from 5 to 50 students (M ¼ 30, SD ¼ 7.18). As
for their teaching experience, 87% of teachers have been teaching
for more than 5 years. 67% of teachers obtained the required
teacher certificate. This data suggests most of the teachers can rely
on their sufficient teaching experience, and have obtained a good
starting qualification. Most teachers participated in professional
development (73%). But, the data shows most PD was linked to
development of individual skills, such as time management,
adoption of a new teaching strategies and coaching strategies
(25%), in-depth study of a school subject (25%), and curriculum
training (24%). No explicit focus on differentiated instruction was
mentioned. A complete overview of demographic data and its
relation to the DI implementation can be seen in the appendix.
Using t-tests, we examined whether these variables play a role
as to DI implementation. The analysis results showed that teachers
holding a teaching certificate (M ¼ 7.39, SD ¼ 1.12) reported
significantly higher DI implementation levels as compared to
teachers with no certification (M ¼ 7.14, SD ¼ 1.06): t(602) ¼ 2.64,
p ¼ 0.01. Also the degree in teaching experience reflected signifi-
cant differences between teachers with less than 5 years of expe-
rience (M ¼ 6.99, SD ¼ 1.13) compared to teachers with more than 5
years of experience (M ¼ 7.36, SD ¼ 1.10) on DI implementation
t(602) ¼ 2.76, p ¼ 0.01.
4.2. To what extent is the reported DI implementation linked to the
research variables

4.1. Descriptive results
The following table summarizes the descriptive results and
bivariate correlations between research variables (see Table 3).
The data shows that the average level of DI implementation
seemed rather high (M ¼ 7.31, SD ¼ 1.11). Nevertheless this is below
the benchmark of mastery learning which put the level of 80%
(Zimmerman & Dibenedetto, 2008). A one sample t-test indicated
the DI implementation was significantly lower than the benchmark
(t(603) ¼ -1616, p < 0.001). In relation to the correlation analysis, the
results showed teachers’ DI self-efficacy and their teaching beliefs
To study this relationship, a linear regression analysis was car-
ried out entering all the research variables discussed above in the
equation. Table 4 summarizes the analysis results.
A significant association was found [F (7, 596) ¼ 55.39, p < 0.05].
The adjusted R square (aR2) showed how 39% of the variance in DI
implementation could be linked to the model. The following vari-
ables play a significant role: teachers’ DI self-efficacy beliefs,
constructivist teaching beliefs and the classroom size. Building on
the unstandardized regression coefficients, we could state that an
increase of one unit in DI self-efficacy would result in an increase of
0.72 in the level of DI implementation. The contribution of

Table 3
Descriptive results and bivariate correlations between research variables (N ¼ 604).

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 DI-implementation (Max. 10) 7.31 1.11 1.00

2 Teacher DI self-efficacy (Max. 10) 7.84 0.83 0.59* 1.00
3 Teaching beliefs CT (Max. 35) 27.15 3.30 0.33* 0.28* 1.00
4 Teaching beliefs TM (Max. 35) 28.97 3.27 0.17* 0.17* 0.36* 1.00
5 Teacher certification 1.33 0.47 0.11* 0.13* 0.05 0.05 1.00
6 Teaching experience 1.87 0.34 0.11* 0.13* 0.02 0.07 0.45* 1.00
7 Professional development 1.27 0.44 0.06 0.12* 0.04 0.05 0.14* 0.15* 1.00
8 Classroom size 29.77 7.18 0.10* 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.10* 1.00

*p < 0.05.
 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
Table 4
The linear regression analysis between all research variables to DI-implementation
(N ¼ 604).
Variable B SE B
1 Teachers' self-efficacy 0.73 0.05
2 Teaching belief CT 0.06 0.01
3 Teaching belief TM 0.01 0.01
4 Teacher certification 0.061 0.085
5 Teaching experience 0.098 0.119
6 Professional development 0.031 0.082
7 Classroom size 0.015 0.005
R2 ¼ 0.39, *p < 0.05.
constructivist teaching beliefs was e though significant e rather
small, since a one-unit increase will only result in a 0.06 increase in
DI implementation.
5. Discussion
The present study examined the relationship between teachers’
DI self-efficacy, teaching beliefs and teacher background variables
and classroom characteristics and the reported level in DI imple-
mentation in primary schools in Indonesia. Available research
mainly studies individual linkages between these research vari-
ables and DI implementation; whereas in the present study a more
comprehensive approach has been adopted. Research involving in-
service teachers e as in the present study - is rarely found in the
literature. Most studies approach student teachers; thus making it
less feasible to link these variables to actual DI classroom practices
(Wertheim & Leyser, 2002).
5.1. Teacher DI self-efficacy, teaching belief and DI implementation
Firstly, teachers reported a relatively high level of DI imple-
mentation (M ¼ 7.31). Nevertheless, this is still significantly below
the benchmark of mastery learning (80%). Research of Whipple
(2012) in the USA revealed a higher level of DI implementation in
both regular classroom teachers (DI ¼ 85.52), and special education
teachers (DI ¼ 90.78). Considering the critical status of educational
quality in Indonesia, we expected a high DI implementation level.
The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Compe-
tencies (PIAAC) ranks Indonesia 34 out of 34 countries (OECD,
2016); the Learning Curve (TLC) report - developing an index of
cognitive skills and educational attainment - ranks Indonesia 40
out of 40 countries (Pearson, 2014); and the Program for Interna-
tional Student Assessment (PISA) ranks Indonesia 64 out of 65
countries (OECD, 2012). Therefore, DI implementation should be
increasingly adopted by Indonesian in-service teachers, in an
attempt to improve the quality of the educational system. This calls
for central policies to push the professional development in DI of
these teachers.
Next, our results pointed at a significant association between
DI implementation and teachers’ DI self-efficacy and construc-
tivist teaching beliefs. This finding is in line with DeNeve et al.
(2015). It also corroborates the research findings of Cross
(2009); Dixon et al. (2014), Holzberger, Philipp, & Kunter (2014);
Wan (2015). Explanations for these positive results go back to
our theoretical framework. Wertheim and Leyser (2002) and
Donnell and Gettinger (2015) explained how higher self-efficacy
goes together with higher positive perceptions of reforms and
amenability to implement the DI. In this context, Holzberger,
Philip, & Kunter (2013) started an interesting discussion and
stressed a reciprocal relationship. Experiencing the success of DI
297
will also boost teacher self-efficacy for DI.
The findings showed how constructivist teaching beliefs of
teachers are significantly, but less strongly associated with DI. This
b is not in line with a recent study of Shahzad, Valcke, Tondeur, and
0.54* Zulfqar (2016) who discovered a significant linkage between
0.17* teaching beliefs and the adoption of a series of didactical strategies;
0.02 among them DI approaches. But this was in a different country, and
0.026
a different educational system, and hence different teacher quali-
0.030
0.012 fications. But, this weaker association between teaching beliefs and
0.100* DI is coherent with Ertmer et al. (2000) and Fang (1996). In line
with their explanations, we can refer to the nature of the instru-
ment used in the present study. First of all, the reliability of the
instruments was average. Next, these ‘general’ teaching beliefs
scales did not put DI at the centre. This introduces a validity dis-
cussion. In contrast, the DI self-efficacy scale clearly reflected the DI
dimensions in our definition; thus guaranteeing better content
validity. As suggested in relation to professional development, we
can also point at the professional identity of Indonesian teachers.
The ingrained culture of civil service, the value of loyalty, and
obedience, might have restrained teachers to adopt different
teaching beliefs positions that push DI approaches (Raihani, 2007).
Teachers are as such shaped by the institutional culture that does
not always cultivate ambition or diligence. They tend to be reluc-
tant to perform tasks outside their formal job description (Bjork,
2005).
5.2. Professional development and DI implementation
As stated above, many authors point at teacher PD in view of the
successful implementation of educational reform. However, the t-
test and regression analysis results revealed no significant relation
with DI implementation. This is striking. This might be related to
the nature of the PD content, the teachers reported no explicit focus
on DI. Another reason might be related to the lack of PD relevance
for the real classrooms context. This concern was also raised by
Luschei and Zubaidah (2012) who stress the mismatch between PD
in Indonesia and the current teaching classroom reality. Also, we
can link this to the still predominant central policy influences in
Indonesian education. Teachers still rely heavily on the directives of
central authorities and - though teacher and school autonomy is
increasing - hardly make use of local autonomy to implement local
practices and policies (Bjork, 2006).
Based on teachers’ recall of their PD experiences, we see that
there is no explicit content focusing on DI. Moreover, 27% of the
teachers never attend PD programs, and 30% of the teachers work
without teaching certification. This suggests the Ministry of Edu-
cation should pay more attention to initiate and continue teacher
professional development program with an explicit content focus
on DI. The latter is the case in other countries. For instance, in
Flanders (Dutch speaking part of Belgium) the legal framework
defining teacher standards has been changed to put a larger
emphasis on teacher competences that cater for student diversity,
coping with student heterogeneity in urban settings, and problems
related to multilingual and multicultural settings (European
Commission [EC], 2015). Other countries such as Korea (Cha &
Ahn, 2014), Canada (McQuarrie & McRae, 2010), USA (Rodriguez,
2012; Whipple, 2012), Switzerland and Austria (Smit & Humpert,
2012), England and Australia (Mills et al., 2014) also emphasize
new sets of professional standards that cater for DI. These changes
in view of initial teacher education put forward an agenda for the
professional development about DI of the current teachers working
in schools.
298 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
5.3. Teaching experience, teacher certification and DI
implementation
Regarding teaching experiences, the t-test results showed that
teachers with less than 5 years reported significantly lower DI
adoption than teachers with more than 5 years’ experience. These
results are in contrast with Hargreaves (2005) who stressed that
more recently graduated teachers are more inclined to adopt in-
novations in the classroom, such as DI. We can explain this
contradiction by pointing at the implications of the concept of
teacher professional identity (Beijaard et al., 2000). Only after years
of experience, we can expect a shift from teachers as subject ex-
perts to teachers as pedagogical and didactical experts. In addition,
we can question whether initial teacher education in Indonesia
pays sufficient attention to DI as already suggested by Tanang and
Abu (2014).
The regression analysis showed that there was no significant
relationship between teaching experience and DI implementation.
Donnell and Gettinger (2015) also reported no such relationship in
their study. However, the regression analysis showed that teachers’
DI self-efficacy beliefs, constructivist teaching beliefs interact with
each other and with the other independent variables in deter-
mining DI implementation. This finding underpins how the
different layers in the onion model interact with one another.
5.4. Classroom size and DI implementation
In the present study, teachers reported they teach in classes of
varying sizes (M ¼ 30: Min ¼ 5; Max ¼ 50). The regression analysis
revealed the significant relation of classroom size with DI imple-
mentation. This finding means the bigger the classroom, the higher
need to implement the DI to accommodate the student diversity
(Subban, 2006; Tomlinson et al., 2003). This finding is also in line
with Bjork (2005), who revealed that the actual classroom reality is
a strong driver for teachers to adopt innovations, changes, modi-
fications, and helps them to meet these challenges.
5.5. Linking the finding to the teacher professional identity and the
onion model
The overall finding of this study confirms our research model
and can be linked to the concept of teacher professional identity of
Beijaard et al. (2000) which states that teacher professional identity
is a combination of expertise in subject matter, pedagogic and di-
dactic. Expert teachers build on their DI self-efficacy, beliefs and DI
practices when developing e in a reciprocal way - their subject
matter, pedagogic, and didactic expertise. This finding can also be
linked to the onion model of Korthagen (2004) who stressed that in
a ‘good teacher’, there is an alignment between the different layers.
In the present study, the three outer layers, i.e., behavior, compe-
tencies and belief, showed an alignment with DI practices. Future
research could help checking the alignment of all layers including
identity layer and mission layer. This implies to analysing the as-
sociation between levels and/or changes in a specific layer with
other layers in the model.
5.6. Limitations
The present study has some limitations. The first limitation
points at the research design building on survey data. Teachers
‘talk’ about DI and the way they cope with student diversity. The
question is to what extent teachers ‘walk the talk’ and reply in a
socially desirable way? To strengthen the research, future research
should therefore build on observational data about actual teaching
practices. This approach was adopted by e.g., Lucero, Valcke, and
Schellens (2013), who compared ‘reported’ inquiry teaching ap-
proaches and student centered techniques with data resulting from
video analysis of actual classroom teaching. They found conflicting
results between the ‘talk’ and the way the teachers actually carry
out their instruction. However, in the current study, involving a
large number of schools and classes, observational approaches
could not be implemented. This was partly due to the restrictions at
the level of the research clearance procedure of the central
educational authorities.
Next, in this study only teachers were asked about their opinion
about DI. Future studies should complement self-reports with in-
formation from other stakeholders; e.g., students, parents, educa-
tional authorities. For instance, Maulana, Helms-Lorenz, and van de
Grift (2015) involved students as key stakeholders in their analysis
of teaching practices, including DI.
Also, the current study did not develop an inventory of concrete
DI approaches adopted by teachers, and did not analyse teachers’
understanding of student diversity, and did not ask the teachers
specifically about their participation in prior DI. Additionally, we
can move from the teacher level to the school level and study how
schools - as a professional learning community - approach the
challenges of differentiated instruction. School culture, school
professional development and school policies could be considered
in studying DI challenges as is already the case in research and
practices about inclusion and special education (see e.g., Baglieri &
Knopf, 2004).
5.7. Implications and conclusions
Despite these limitations, the results put forward some impli-
cations. The key is the emphasis on teacher professional develop-
ment. The nature of this PD is critical in view of its interaction with
teaching beliefs and DI self-efficacy. Bandura (1997) stresses in this
context the need for building on real experiences and reflection on
these experiences. This is in line with the importance attached to
reflective cycles in PD (Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). Research also
stresses the beneficial impact of collegial consultation (He & Levin,
2008) and collaborative approaches to further develop teaching
practices (Cha & Ahn, 2014). Next, the results also address the need
to boost the professional background of all teachers as to their
certification levels.
To conclude, DI implementation is challenging. As the results of
the present study suggest, DI goes together with the levels of self-
efficacy and particular teaching beliefs, next to an emphasis on
other teacher background characteristics. The results of the present
study can be considered as a benchmark study for the Indonesian
context. Future research could build on the present data set and
check how educational innovations at the teacher, school or class-
room level play a role. The key is to find an adequate fit between
these innovations and the complexity of the particular Indonesian
context.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank to colleagues in Bina Nusantara University
Indonesia for the valuable support in field data collection. This
study was supported by Lotus Erasmus Mundus Action 2 project
European Commission (ref.nr. Agreement Number: 2011-2584/
001-001-EM Action 2-Partnerships).
Appendix. Demographic data and it is relation to DI
implementation (N ¼ 604).
 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301 299

Demographic category Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Classroom size 5 50 29,77 7,18

Demographic category Frequency Percentage Mean SD t-test

Teacher has certification
Yes 402 67% 7.39 1.12 2.64*
No 202 33% 7.14 1.06
Teacher has joined professional development
Ever 443 73% 7.35 1.07 1.38
Never 161 27% 7.21 1.19
Teaching experience
less than 5year 78 13% 6.99 1.13 2.76*
more than 5year 526 87% 7.36 1.10
Themes of professional development
Teacher self-development 207 25%
Subject specific workshop 206 25%
Curriculum 204 24%
Pre service/in service teacher training 96 11%
Effective and exciting teaching 93 11%
School/classroom management 29 3%

*p < 0.05.

References j.tate.2014.12.003.
DeRee, J., Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M., & Rogers, H. (2015). Double for nothing?
Experimental evidence on the impact of an unconditional teacher salary in-
Algozzinea, B., & Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all
crease on student performance in Indonesia. National Bureau of Economic
students. Preventing School Failure, 51(3), 49e54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w21806. w2186.
PSFL.51.3.49-54.
Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. M., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruc-
Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional
tion, professional development, and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of
practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and
the Gifted, 37(2), 111e127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042.
Special Education, 17(2), 86e95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers' acceptability of
088840649401700203.
school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and professional
Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004). Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching.
development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 47e57. http://dx.doi.org/
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 525e529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.003.
00222194040370060701.
EC [European Commision]. (2015). Education and training monitor 2015 Belgium.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/docs/2015/monitor2015-
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, &
belgium_en.pdf.
T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307e337). Connecticut:
Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. (2000). Technology-using teachers:
Information Age Publishing.
Comparing perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Paper pre-
BANSM [Board of National Accrediation for School and Madrasah]. (2014). Schools
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
in Indonesia (data set). Retrieved 1 Feb 2014 from http://www.bansm.or.id/.
tion. Retrieved from https://collaborate.education.purdue.edu/edci/ertmer/
Barmby, P., Bolden, D., Raine, S., & Thompson, L. (2013). Developing the use of
Docs/Conferences/AERA_2000.pdf.
diagrammatic representations in primary mathematics through professional
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
development. Educational Research, 55(3), 263e290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
00131881.2013.825164.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 423e435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research in-
j.compedu.2012.02.001.
struments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986373.
on teachers' belief when implementing an innovative educational system in The
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers' perceptions of profes-
Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 227e243. http://
sional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective.
dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709902158865.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749e764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational
S0742-051X(00)00023-8.
Research, 38(1), 47e65.
Beloshitskii, A. V., & Dushkin, A. V. (2005). An experiment in differentiated in-
Firmender, J. M., Reis, S. M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and
struction in a higher technical education institution. Russian Education and
fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need or differentiated
Society, 47(9), 54e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10609393.2005.11056996.
reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(I), 3e14. http://
Bjork, C. (2005). Indonesian education: Teachers, schools and central bureaucracy.
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460084.
New York: Routledge.
Fogarty, J. R., & Pete, M. B. (2011). Supporting differentiated instruction; A professional
Bjork, C. (2006). Decentralisation in education, institutional culture and teacher
learning communities approach. Bloomington, NJ: Solution Tree Press.
autonomy in Indonesia. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Decentralisation and privatisation in
Fox, J., & Hoffman, W. (2011). The differentiated instruction book of lists. San Fran-
education. The role of the state (pp. 133e150). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2013). The use of training days: Finding time for teachers'
George, P. S. (2005). A rational for differentiating instruction in the regular class-
professional development. Educational Research, 55(3), 236e248. http://
room. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 185e193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.825161.
s15430421tip4403_2.
Cha, H. J., & Ahn, M. L. (2014). Development of design guidelines for tools to pro-
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal
mote differentiated instruction in classroom teaching. Asia Pacific Education
of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569.
Review, 15(4), 511e523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9337-6.
Grimes, K. J., & Stevens, D. D. (2009). Glass, bug, mud. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9),
Chamberlin, M., & Power, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for
677e680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000914.
enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2014). Differentiated instruction and implica-
Mathematic and Its Application, 29(3), 113e139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
tion for UDL implementation. Effective classroom practices report. National
teamat/hrq006.
Center on Accessing The General Curriculum, 1e24. Retrieved from http://aim.
Cross, D. I. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics
cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/DI_UDL_10.6.14_0.docx.
teachers' belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Math
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational
Teacher Education, 12, 325e346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9120-5.
factors in teachers' emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and
Dalhouse, D. W., Risko, V. J., Esworthy, C., Grasley, E., Kaisler, G., McIlvain, D., et al.
Teacher Education, 21(8), 967e983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.007.
(2009). Crossing boundaries and initiating conversation about RTI: Under-
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in
standing and applying differentiated classroom instruction. The Reading Teacher,
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47e63. http://dx.doi.org/
63(1), 84e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.1.9.
10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<47::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-P.
DeNeve, D., Devos, G., & Tuytens, M. (2015). The importance of job resources and
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
self-efficacy for beginning teachers' professional learning in differentiated in-
achievement. New York: Routledge.
struction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30e41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
300 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach
and teach all learners. Golden Valley, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
He, Y., & Levin, B. B. (2008). Match or mismatch? How congruent are the beliefs of
teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university-based teacher educa-
tors? Teacher Education Quarterly, 37e55.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary
school teachers' educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Com-
puters & Education, 51(4), 1499e1509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2008.02.001.
Hertberg, H. L., & Brighton, C. M. (2005). Room to improve: Home improvement
concept helps staff developers lead a variety of personalities to differentiated
instruction in their classrooms. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 42e47.
Holzberger, Philip, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers' self-efficacy is related to
instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 774e786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.
Holzberger, Philip, A., & Kunter, M. (2014). Predicting teachers' instructional be-
haviors: The interplay between self-efficacy and intrinsic needs. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 39(2), 100e111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cedpsych.2014.02.001.
Hoque, K. E., Alam, G. M., & Abdullah, A. G. K. (2011). Impact of teachers' profes-
sional development on school improvement-an analysis at Bangladesh stand-
point. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 337e348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12564-010-9107-z.
Johnsen, S. (2003). Adapting instruction with heterogenous groups. Gifted Child
Today, 26(3), 5e6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107621750302600302.
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices
during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Literacy
Research, 24(1), 83e108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862969209547763.
Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more
holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1),
77e97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002.
Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lucero, M., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and self-reported use
of inquiry in science education in public primary schools. International Journal
of Science Education, 35(8), 1407e1423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2012.704430.
Luschei, T. F., & Zubaidah, I. (2012). Teacher training and transitions in rural Indo-
nesian schools: A case study of Bogor, west Java. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
32(3), 333e350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.711241.
Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers' beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and
research agenda. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education,
4(1), 25e48.
Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & van de Grift, W. (2015). Pupils' perceptions of
teaching behaviour: Evaluation of an instrument and importance for academic
motivation in Indonesian secondary education. International Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 69, 98e112.
McAdamis. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of stu-
dents’needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1e5.
McQuarrie, L. M., & McRae, P. (2010). A provincial perspective on differentiated
instruction: The alberta initiative for school improvement (AISI). Journal of
Applied Research on Learning, 3(4), 1e18.
Mills, M., Monk, s., Keddiea, A., Renshawa, P., Christiec, P., Geelanb, D., et al. (2014).
Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education,
40(3), 331e348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.911725.
Milner, A. R., Sondergeld, T. A., Demir, A., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2012).
Elementary teachers' beliefs about teaching science and classroom practice: An
examination of pre/post NCLB testing in science. Journal of Science Teacher Ed-
ucation, 23(2), 111e132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9230-7.
Moore, K. D. (2005). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice. Cali-
fornia: Sage Publication.
OECD [The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. (2012).
Program for international student assessment (PISA): PISA 2012 result. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm.
OECD [The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development]. (2016).
Program for international assessment of adult competencies (PIAAC): PIAAC 2016
result. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills-Matter-Jakarta-
Indonesia.pdf.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3102/00346543062003307.
Pearson. (2014). The learning Curve (TLC) report 2014. Retrieved from http://
thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar
teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380e390. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002.
Preston, A. I., Wood, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2016). Response to intervention: Where it
came from and where it's going. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 60(3), 173e182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1045988X.2015.1065399.
Raihani. (2007). Education reforms in Indonesia in the twenty-first century. Inter-
national Education Journal, 8(1), 172e183.
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The
effect of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading
achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal,
48(2), 462e501. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In
J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102e119). New
York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). The effects of online professional
development on higher education teachers' beliefs and intentions towards
learning facilitation and technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29,
122e131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.002.
Rodriguez, A. (2012). An analysis of elementary school teachers' knowledge and use of
differentiated instruction (Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation). Illinois: Olivet Naz-
arene University.
Shahzad, A. H., Valcke, M., Tondeur, J., & Zulfqar, A. (2016). Secondary school
teaching in Pakistan: The interrelationship of didactical strategies with peda-
gogical and self-efficacy beliefs. PONTE, 72(4), 1e13.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers' culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7),
1086e1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011.
Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28, 1152e1162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2012.07.003.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organiza-
tional and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American
Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00028312025001001.
Song, K. (2008). The impacts of district policy and school context on teacher pro-
fessional development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(4), 436e447. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03025661.
Spencer-Waterman, S. (2014). Handbook on differentiated instruction for middle &
high school. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Edu-
cation Journal, 7(7), 935e947.
Suprayogi, M. N., & Valcke, M. (2016). Differentiated instruction in primary schools:
Implementation and challenges in Indonesia. PONTE, 72(6), 2e18. http://
dx.doi.org/10.21506/j.ponte.2016.6.1.
Tanang, H., & Abu, B. (2014). Teacher professionalism and professional development
practices in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(2),
25e42.
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., Hung, D., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of
technology among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 36(2), 163e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971641.
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2007). Differentiating instruction: Collab-
orative planning and teaching for universally designed learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Tieso, C. L. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on
achievement. Journal For the Education of the Gifted, 29(I), 60e89. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104.
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differ-
entiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classroom. Literacy, 42(1), 3e9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2008.00470.x.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: One
school's journey. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 77e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001698629503900204.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Differentiated instruction in the regular classroom: What
does it mean? How does it look? Understanding Our Gifted, 14(1), 3e6.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A.,
et al. (2003). Differentiated instruction in response to student readiness, in-
terest, and learning profile in academically diverse classroom: A review of
literature. Journal For the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119e145. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated
classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Tosun, T. (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and
science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 374e379. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb18179.x.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 23(6), 944e956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
Tulbure, C. (2011). Differentiated instruction for pre-service teachers: An experi-
mental investigation. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 448e452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.088.
Waldron, N., & Mcleskey, J. (2001). Helping schools include all learners. Intervention
in School & Clinic, 36(3), 175e181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
105345120103600307.
Wan, S. W.-Y. (2015). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers'
teaching efficacy and beliefs. Teachers and Teaching, 22(2), 148e176. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435.
Watts-Taffe, S., Broach, L., Marinak, B., McDonald Connor, C., & Walker-Dalhouse, D.
(2012). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The
Reading Teacher, 66(4), 303e314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01126.
Waxman, H. C., Alford, B. L., & Brown, D. B. (2013). Individualized instruction. In
J. Hattie, & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement
(pp. 405e407). NY: Routledge.
Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy beliefs, background variables, and
differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 96(1), 54e63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598791.
Wheatley, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research.
 M.N. Suprayogi et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 67 (2017) 291e301
Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747e766.
Whipple, K. A. (2012). Differentiated instruction: A survey study of teacher under-
standing and implementation in a southeast Massachusetts school district (Un-
published Doctoral Theses). Massachusetts: Northeastern University.
Wilujeng, N. C. S. (2012). The differentiated instruction and its implementation for
developing countries: Partnership students learning Indonesian language in
bridging course program. Journal of Education, 5(I), 49e52.
Wooley, S., Benjamin, W. J., & Wooley, A. (2004). Construct validity of a self-report
measure of teacher beliefs related to constructivist and traditional approaches
301
to teaching and learning. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2),
319e331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164403261189.
Woolfolk, A. E. (2004). Educational Psychology (7th ed.). Singapore: Allyn and Bacon.
Wu, C., Wan, S., & Wong, Y. (2015). Exploring Hong Kong secondary school teachers'
teaching beliefs on differentiated instruction. In D. Garbett, & Ovens (Eds.),
Teaching for tomorrow today (pp. 158e167). Auckland, New Zealand: Edify LTD.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment:
Implications for students and teachers in an area of high-stakes testing. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 45(3), 206e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20291.