Teacher Development

An international journal of teachers' professional development

ISSN: 1366-4530 (Print) 1747-5120 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

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

Stavroula Valiandes & Lefkios Neophytou

To cite this article: Stavroula Valiandes & Lefkios 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, DOI: 10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

Published online: 03 Jul 2017. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 724 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtde20
Teacher Development, 2018
VOL. 22, NO. 1, 123–138
https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

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
Stavroula Valiandes and Lefkios Neophytou
Department of Education, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present article reports the results of a study performed to Received 8 September 2015
investigate and examine the characteristics of a teachers’ professional Accepted 17 October 2016
development program (Teachers’ Professional Development Program
KEYWORDS
for Differentiated Instruction [PDD]) specially designed to support Differentiation of instruction;
teachers in the design and application of differentiated instruction. teachers’ professional
Considering the characteristics of high-quality professional develop- development program;
ment programs (i.e. active learning, collective participation, closely instructional effectiveness
related to the curriculum and the existing teaching realities, sufficient
duration and continuance), the PDD aimed to facilitate change in
both attitudes and practices of the participants. The study provides
evidence of the success of the program, both in terms of teacher
professional development and student achievement, and discusses
the elements that made this program successful.

1. Introduction
As many scholars argue (i.e. Birnie 2015; Koutselini 2006, 2008; Tomlinson 2015) differenti-
ation is among the optimum pedagogical approaches since it transforms instruction into a
dynamic, pleasant, satisfying, self-regulated, and effective process based on students’ needs
and characteristics. Even though differentiation appears to be very promising, one must be
aware of its complexity and the challenges that teachers are up against while struggling to
apply it into their everyday practice: limited preparation time, large class size, heavy w
­ orkload,
lack of resources, and teachers’ lack of skills and motivation to differentiate (Chan et al. 2002;
Scott, Vitale, and Masten 1998). Moreover, studies indicate that teachers not only find it
­difficult to apply differentiation but also fail to sustain its use over time (e.g. Schumm and
Vaughn 1991; Simpson and Ure 1994; Westwood 2001; Ysseldyke et al. 1990). Although
teachers recognize the need to differentiate, they believe that it is difficult and time
­consuming while they often admit that they really don’t know how to translate the theory
of differentiation into practice.

CONTACT  Lefkios Neophytou  [email protected]

© 2017 Teacher Development
124   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

This paper illuminates and discusses the procedures, content, and methods carried out by
the Professional Development Program for Differentiated instruction (PDD)1 and documents
the changes made in teachers’ knowledge, skills, and instructional practices. The study pre-
sented in this article illustrates the particular aspects of the PDD that were deemed effective
in alleviating teachers’ concerns, facilitating change and improving teachers’ knowledge, skills,
and attitudes toward differentiation. In addition, evidence is provided documenting that
differentiation of instruction can indeed help students advance, provided that teachers are
properly trained and supported. In this sense, this study establishes links between teachers’
training and students’ achievement, empirically validating the hypothesis that teachers’
­training can, indeed, account for substantial variance in students’ performance.

2.  Differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: theoretical

background
Academic diversity typifies classrooms today, more than ever before. Embracing diversity,
differentiation of instruction is a call for teachers to adjust curriculum, materials, and student
support to ensure that students have equal opportunities in accessing high-quality instruc-
tion and consequently advance academically, socially, and emotionally. However, in order
to overcome barriers and move beyond wishful thinking, we need to acknowledge that
‘equality of opportunity’ (Mosteller and Moynihan 1972; Schütz, Ursprung, and Wößmann
2008) becomes a reality only when students receive instruction suited to their varied read-
iness levels, interests, and learning preferences, thus enabling them to maximize the oppor-
tunity for growth (McLaughlin and Talbert 1993). Hence, differentiation is inextricably linked
with educational effectiveness.
The call for education effectiveness in mixed-ability classrooms raises the need for instruc-
tional approaches which can accommodate learning for all. Accordingly, the theory and
practice of differentiation, emerging from the needs of diverse student populations in
mixed-ability classrooms, not only takes into account the variance in student ability but also
considers a wide array of differences constituting each individual student’s uniqueness.
Hence, differentiation may be considered as a response to the criticism of the technocratic
and positivist tradition, proposing a change and adoption of teaching practices that will
affect and shape dynamically the learning process, based on teaching routines that corre-
spond to the diversity of the student population, found in each and every mixed-ability
classroom (Tomlinson 1999, 2001). Differentiation, as an instructive approach, aims to max-
imize the learning opportunities for every student (Bearne 1996).
The teacher is a determining factor in terms of linking differentiation and effectiveness.
Yet, adopting differentiation in everyday practice is not an easy task. Teachers struggling to
differentiate their instruction face many challenges and have to deal with many obstacles
and barriers. While difficulties reported by teachers often focus on various institutional
restrictions (such as time, lack of resources, heavy loaded curricula), the major challenge for
the effective application of differentiation may be rooted in teachers’ mentality. ‘Teaching
to the norm’ has been a common practice for too many years in too many schools (Tomlinson
2004) and has therefore throughout the years shaped a ‘modus operandi’ that is not easily
reversible. What teachers know and what they believe about differentiation (in terms of its
feasibility and its effectiveness) shapes their attitudes and their actions that in turn formulates
their reactions: applying it or not, keeping it or discarding it after a brief trial or enduring
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   125

and persisting to use it even when facing numerous difficulties. The latter approach is asso-
ciated with a sustainable and resilient mindset: Teachers ‘keep calm and continue to differ-
entiate’ because they know, believe in, and embrace differentiation. Accordingly, we need
to acknowledge that we cannot deal with the effectiveness of differentiation without taking
into account teachers’ knowledge and skills but, most importantly, their beliefs and attitudes
about the notion (Fullan 1999; Hall et al. 1987; Neophytou, Koutselini, and Kyriakides 2011;
Nicolae 2014).
Scholars seem to agree that teacher education has little effect on altering teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes (Weinstein 1990). Previous experience as pupils, apprenticeship, observation,
and schools’ organization and culture have more influence than teachers’ training in shaping
the way teachers teach (Lortie 1975; Sugrue 1997; Tillema 2000). Nevertheless, beliefs can
change, given that the process of change is participatory, experiential, and related to teach-
ers’ practice. This research examined the impact that a professional development program
for differentiated instruction had on teachers’ professional knowledge and beliefs concerning
effective instructional practices. As we will argue, resistance and resilience of beliefs can be
tackled, and change can actually occur when training programs challenge the established
hierarchy between the scholar and the practitioner and emphasize participation and col-
laborative meaning making. Teacher training can effectively facilitate belief change when
norms of discourse are embedded in the programs, allowing teachers not just to consume
knowledge developed by the ‘experts’ but empower them to take control of their own learn-
ing. To this end, effective programs are those providing cohesiveness of purpose and facil-
itating constructive dialog about teaching and learning within and across learning
communities (Florio-Ruane and Lensmire 1990; Koutselini 2008; Neophytou, Koutselini, and
Kyriakides 2011; Tatto 1998).

3.  Teachers’ professional development – an overview

Teachers’ professional development is realized in terms of ‘learning, development, socialization,
growth, improvement, implementation of something new or different, cognitive and affective
change, and self-study’ (Richardson and Placier 2001, 905). According to Darling-Hammond
and McLaughlin (1995) professional development is an ongoing process of teachers’ training,
aiming to support teachers’ efforts to understand and form their teaching practices. Teachers’
professional development is not, however, consumed within the professional clan. As teachers
become better, their instructional practices improve and accordingly they become more effec-
tive in helping their students advance. Research conducted during the past two decades has
identified the key role of teachers’ professional development in improving the quality of instruc-
tion and student achievement (Ball and Cohen 1999; Borko 2004; Cohen and Hill 1998; Corcoran,
Shields, and Zucker 1998; Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995; Desimone, Smith, and
Ueno 2006; Knight and Wiseman 2005; Teemant, Wink, and Tyra 2011).
Acknowledging the fact that traditional top-down, one-shot, lecture-approach seminars
are unable to convince their participants to embrace and sustain the proposed instructional
changes, the emphasis is now placed on the creation of high-quality professional develop-
ment programs, characterized by active learning, collective participation, a focus on content
knowledge and instructional methods, closely related to the curriculum and the existing
teaching realities, and, last but not least, having sufficient duration and continuance (Adsit
2004; Brandt 2003; Bransford and Schwartz 1999; Desimone, Smith, and Ueno 2006; Garet
126   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

et al. 2001; Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis 2005; Karagiorgi and Symeou 2006; Mundry 2005;
Yoon et al. 2007).
Successful programs are those developed according to teachers’ needs (Duncombe and
Armour 2004) and provide ongoing support and feedback by experts or mentors for sustainable
change. Furthermore, effective teacher development is not limited only to instructional skills
but further aims to develop teachers’ research and inquiry skills empowering them to become
reflective practitioners (Tracey, Hutchinson, and Grzebyk 2014). The importance of professional
development programs is currently recognized throughout the globe, thus, in many countries
there is a tendency toward in-service programs that are, in many cases, mandatory (i.e. CIEB
2015; Heritage 2010). However, as Jacob and Lefgren (2004) argue, modest investments in staff
development may not be sufficient to increase the achievement: marginal increases in in-service
training have no statistically or academically significant effect on student achievement.
Investments in professional development programs are based on the assumption that
teachers’ training can account for substantial variance in students’ performance. Nevertheless,
research documenting the effects of the various structural and procedural features of profes-
sional development programs on student outcomes is quite limited (Borko2004; Desimone
et al. 2002; Fishman et al. 2003; Garet et al. 2001; Richter et al. 2011, 2014). As Harris and Sass
(2009) point out, research has not yet been able to establish coherent links between teachers’
training and students’ achievement. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate how
various factors (i.e. content, duration, and participant satisfaction) associated with the success
of professional development programs influence student achievement. These parameters
have been taken into consideration in the Professional Development for Differentiated
Instruction (PDD), implemented in the current study.

4.  Teachers’ Professional Development Program for Differentiated

Instruction (PDD): an overview of its rationale and main characteristics
International literature on professional development supports that although traditional
approaches of professional development (conferences and short workshops) can help
teachers to develop their knowledge and skills, these types of professional development
programs are not sufficient enough when it comes to promoting sustainable changes in
instructional practices (Boyle, Lamprianou, and Boyle 2005; Hanushek et al. 2005; Koellner
and Jacobs 2015; Lieberman and Miller 1992). One could therefore argue that professional
development programs are not fulfilling their prime target of developing teachers in a
way that their instruction may have a positive impact on students’ achievement. To this
end, Timperley (2011) proposes a shift from professional development to professional
learning, arguing that ‘professional development usually refers to the activities that develop
professional skills, knowledge and expertise, while “professional learning” refers to the
changes in the capacity for practice and/or changes in actual practice’ (4). Within the
framework of professional learning, teachers, as reflective practitioners, become able to
evaluate whether changes in their practice have the desired effect. Traditional courses
focused on ‘showing and ‘telling’ should give way to approaches that engage teachers in
the identification of the effectiveness of their practices. Teachers are, therefore, becoming
both learners and teachers (Darling-Hammond 1996), and in these mutually supported
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   127

roles they are induced to find a way to translate knowledge into instructional practices
that are both qualitative and effective.
Teachers’ Professional Development for Differentiated Instruction (PDD) was seen as the
stepping stone for the effective application of differentiation into everyday instructional
practices. Taking into account the main obstacles teachers encountered in their attempts to
differentiate their lessons, along with the basic characteristics of effective professional devel-
opment programs outlined earlier, the PDD was tailored to the teacher’s needs, expanded
over a period of two semesters, and included constant channels of support (i.e. special
website, online discussion forum, on-site visits, telephone and email communications) that
facilitated communication, collaboration, and exchange of ideas between the participants
and the researchers. Notably, the PDD program included training seminars/workshops before
and during the intervention, in addition to support provided to teachers while applying
differentiation in their everyday practices in the context of the intervention.
As research on teacher professional development programs suggests, duration is a key
feature of success since it usually determines the degree of change in teachers’ practices
(Borko and Putnam 1995; Parsad, Lewis, and Farris 2001). Thus, time and continuity were
identified as crucial factors for the success of the PDD program. In order to prepare teachers
for the implementation of differentiated instruction, it was essential that teachers gained
professional knowledge on the theoretical background of differentiation. Furthermore, as
the PDD program was also subject-oriented, it was vital for teachers to realize how differen-
tiated instruction can be utilized in the Greek language instruction. Thus, introductory train-
ing seminars and workshops took place in the school year before the intervention and
consisted of seven three-hour sessions held in teachers’ free time. The aim of this first part
of the training was twofold. Primarily, the seminars aimed to provide teachers with knowl-
edge on the theory and the practice of differentiation and, secondly, to engage them actively
in the preparation of the differentiated lesson guides that were used in the second phase
of the study, the implementation of differentiated instruction.
Training and support continued throughout the second phase, with monthly sessions and
personal meetings with the researchers who visited teachers at their schools. Support was
provided in the form of feedback following lesson observation, or, in the form of collaborative
lesson planning or co-teaching, if required. The researchers observed lessons using an obser-
vation protocol specially developed and validated within the context of this study (Valiandes
2010). After each lesson, the teacher and the researchers had the opportunity to discuss, reflect,
and decide on the future course of action. To this end, continuous reflection was one of the key
axes pertaining to the PDD. Reflective practice is an essential part of professional development,
since it enables teachers to gain self-awareness about their practice and its impact on their
students,’ determining simultaneously their needs for more extensive and particularly focused
professional development (Osterman and Kottkamp 2004). In this context, teachers’ develop-
ment moved from conceptualizing to planning, and from planning to applying differentiated
activities, constantly employing assessment that led to redesign and adaptation of their
practices.
In addition to the support provided to the participants by the researchers, the PDD aimed
to enhance communication and collaboration between teachers and therefore craft a ‘learn-
ing community of practice’ (DuFour 2004; Eraut 2002; Skerrett 2010; Wenger 1998, 2011).
Research shows that teacher learning communities enhance teacher quality, and that teacher
quality is the most important factor in enhancing student achievement. Much of the time
128   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

spent in the professional development sessions was dedicated to discussing and addressing
the concerns of the participants. While they acknowledged that differentiated instruction
was a very effective pedagogical tool and ‘means to an end’ (the end being the maximization
of learning), they acknowledged that they did not attempt, or did not try hard enough, to
modify their instruction toward more differentiated practices (Valiandes 2010). Within this
context, the participants expressed the need for a training and support program that will
enable them to transit from traditional teaching to more differentiated practices. Hence, the
PDD focused on the provision of ‘down to earth’ suggestions that emerged from the actual
needs and experiences of the participants. Hence, a sense of ownership was developed,
making the participants feel that the program was developed ‘for them,’ and, in many cases
‘by them,’ thus enabling them to interchangeably assume the role of the trainer and the
trainee. Teachers in effective professional development programs are both learners and
teachers (Darling-Hammond 1996), and in these mutually supported roles they are induced
to find a way to translate knowledge into teaching practices. The program designed and
implemented in this study is based on the idea that professional development of teachers
can, and must, lead to professional learning that will allow the teacher, as a professional, to
make any necessary changes and adaptations in his/her teaching practices, which will have
an impact on students’ achievement.
Taking all these into consideration, during the training sessions teachers presented the
course of their work with emphasis on practices that were found to be effective in dealing
with problems or obstacles faced in everyday situations. Furthermore, teachers had the
opportunity to observe lessons of other teachers as well as lessons delivered by the research-
ers. Lesson observations took place at schools or were made possible through video record-
ings. Collaboration between teachers was further enhanced through a specially developed
website that enabled participants to have online discussions with the researchers and other
participants, exchange ideas, and jointly develop lessons. Collaboration and professional
development between teachers wasn’t limited only to teachers who participated in the PDD
program. Participants had the opportunity to work and cooperate with other colleagues
from their school, or even neighboring schools. The positive impact of collaborative profes-
sional development guided the design and implementation of the PDD taking into consid-
eration that the participation of teachers in activities in the context of learning communities
can lead to the effective utilization of the time spent on professional development (Bryk,
Lee, and Holland 1993; Louis and Marks 1998): when teachers work together to address
issues that collectively affect them they can indeed solve problems through shared knowl-
edge and expertise (Cordingley et al. 2005; Fullan 1993; Guskey 2000; Little 1993).
It is important to point out that the PDD aimed not only to enhance teacher professional
learning but also to provide links between optimum teaching training practices and student
learning. Therefore, this study examined the progress made by both teachers and students,
as a result of the PDD. Thus, the study seeks to provide insights concerning the notion of
quality in teacher training and illuminate the particular factors that deemed this teacher
training program to be successful, both in terms of student performance as well as in terms
of teacher professional learning
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   129

5. Method
5.1.  Aims and objectives
The main objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of a successful teacher
professional development program that aimed to help teachers become more confident
and able in designing and applying differentiation in their lessons. For the purposes of this
study, success is defined as the ability of the teacher training program to bring improvements
in teachers’ practices and in student learning2 (working definition).
More specifically, the study aimed to identify, examine, and evaluate the changes that
the PDD program caused:

(a) to the instructional practices of the participants;

(b) to students’ achievement;
(c) to teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward differentiated instruction.
In addition, the study aimed to
(d) examine teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the program.

5.2.  Participants and data collection methods

Teachers (N = 14) that participated in the PDD were volunteers from the educational district
of Nicosia, teaching Greek language in the fourth grade of the elementary school. Their
ability to differentiate their instruction and the changes made in their instructional profile
were assessed using lesson observation protocols, specially developed and evaluated in this
study. Interviews were also used to collect data about the participants’ initial perceptions
and attitudes about differentiation and the changes in these perceptions and attitudes after
their participation in the PDD. All the tools used in this study along with details about their
content and validity will be elaborated in the following sections of this article.

6.  Research results

6.1.  Changes in the instructional profile of the participants
In order to assess the effectiveness of the PDD in terms of change made in the instructional
profile of the participants, an observation protocol was created. This protocol was used to
evaluate the lessons performed by the 14 teachers that participated in the PDD, before and
after their participation. The observation protocol was based on the main characteristics of
differentiated instruction (Koutselini 2006) and consisted of 18 criteria on a five-point Likert
scale. For the validation of the observation protocol, initial values for each criterion were
equated through a Rasch model and specifically the ‘Rating Scale’ model (Andrich 1978), in
order to equate the degree of difficulty for the implementation of the criteria between the
first and second observation, thus determining the degree of difficulty. The values of the
model, mean infit, mean square, and mean outfit were very close to 1 and values for infit
and outfit ranged from –0.08 to 0.08, thus giving validity and reliability to the observation
protocol. A comparison of the initial mean value (−0.12) and final mean value (0.18) of the
observation key with a constant mean of 0 indicates that teachers were able to change their
instruction techniques, increasing the mean value of their scores, on the observation key,
130   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

Table 1. Fit indices that emerged by using the Rasch model to analyze the data of the observation key
for differentiated teaching.
Parameters Initial values Final values
Mean Criteria 0 0
Teachers −0.12 0.18
Standard deviation Criteria 0.94 0.93
Teachers 0.89 0.79
Reliability Criteria 0.82 0.81
Teachers 0.88 0.85
Mean infit mean square Criteria 1.03 1.04
Teachers 1.02 1.03
Mean outfit mean square Criteria 0.98 1.01
Teachers 1.06 1.05
Infit t Criteria 0.04 0.03
Teachers −0.02 0.06
Outfit t Criteria 0.08 0.07
Teachers −0.05 −0.08

Table 2. Changes made in teaching practices based on characteristics of differentiated instruction after
the participation in the PDD program (codings and estimates).
Codings Estimates (in logits)
Time the teacher uses for comments on students’ general behavior and way of working during −2.13
teaching
Time the teacher uses for more explanations and examples during teaching −1.77
Time the teacher uses for direct teaching or asking questions during teaching −1.27
Degree of activities variation during teaching −1.02
Extent to which the teacher provides students with personalized support and help during −0.89
teaching
Time the teacher uses to provide students with guidelines for their work during teaching −0.21
Extent to which opportunities are given to students from all readiness levels to participate in 0.58
the learning process
Degree of opportunities given to students to restore basic knowledge and skills during 0.60
teaching
Degree of opportunity given to students to recover prerequisite knowledge during teaching 0.82
Extent to which lesson activities are prioritized 1.05
Degree of control over the accomplishment of the lessons’ objective during teaching 1.29
Extent to which the individual work of students varies based on their interests and talents 1.18
Extent to which the teacher differentiates students’ homework 1.89

up to 0.30 logits. Fit indices that emerged by using the Rasch model to analyze the data of
the observation key for differentiated teaching are presented in Table 1.
Further analysis was conducted for the initial and final values of the observations based
on two variables: the key criteria for differentiated instruction and the data gathered from
lesson observations of teachers. The statistical values of the analysis of the differentiated
instruction observation key using the Rasch model are presented in Table 2. Out of the 18
criteria on the observation protocol, only 13 criteria were able to be equated. The estimates
in logits for the 13 are shown in Table 2 and refer to the characteristics of differentiated
instruction that could be applied by teachers frequently and without any difficulties (0–(−3))
and to those that appear less frequently and with some difficulty regarding their implemen-
tation (0–3). The Rasch scales for both the initial and final tests for teachers’ differentiated
instruction based on the observation protocol are illustrated in Table 2. The comparison of
the two scales reveals that teachers moved toward applying more advanced differentiated
instruction techniques. Observing the post-measurement scale, it is evident that teachers’
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   131

Change in quality Classroom

of teaching
.18 (.02)

.25 (.05)
Students’ initial
Students’ final
achievement
achievement
on literacy test
on literacy test
.61 (.07)

.22 (.04)

Students’ socioeconomic
status Student

Figure 1. Multilevel model analysis (multilevel SEM) indicating the effect of variables at class level and
the level of student performance in general literacy tests.

scores fall within a narrower range when compared to initial scores. Specifically, this finding
suggests that teachers who initially were less able or reluctant to employ differentiated
instruction techniques managed in the end to progress and apply more advanced
techniques.

6.2.  The effect of the change in the quality of instruction on students’ achievement
A theoretical model (Figure 1), illustrating the effect that quality of instruction had on
­students’ achievement, was created and validated using a multilevel structural equation
model. The results of the analysis confirm the hypothesis that the PDD caused changes in
teaching practices and these changes had an effect on students’ final achievement. Effect
values and statistical error (in brackets) of the variables included in the model are presented
in Figure 1.
The effect of the change in teachers’ instruction on students’ final achievement was cal-
culated at 0.18. Similarly, the influence of the class’s initial performance (0.25) on its final
performance indicates that the improvement of the mean achievement score of the class-
room is related to the classroom’s initial achievement mean score. Students’ socioeconomic
status moderately affected their initial achievement (0.22). Furthermore, each student’s initial
achievement level, as it appears on the student level of the multilevel SEM, had a great
impact on students’ final achievement (0.61). According to the results presented above, a
qualitative professional development program can help toward the modification and
improvement of teachers’ instruction methods and bring similar improvement in students’
achievement levels; the smaller the change in teachers’ instruction, the smaller is the effect
132   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

Difficulties and problems encountered

Effects of the PDD program on the
by teachers in implementing
implementation and effectiveness of
differentiated instruction
differentiated instruction

Effects of theory and practice of Change in students’ attitudes

differentiation in effective differentiated toward the language lesson
instruction by the teachers

Impact of differentiated instruction on Teachers’ attitudes toward the

students’ knowledge and skills implementation of differentiated instruction in
language or other subjects

Diagram 1. Factors deriving from the content analysis of the teachers’ interviews and the interrelations
between these factors.

on students’ achievement and progress. Even though the effect of differentiated instruction
on students’ achievement is relatively small, we may argue that this does not alter differen-
tiation’s efficacy as an effective teaching practice when one considers the conditions under
which the instructional intervention took place. The intervention was limited to six months
and teachers were still learning how to differentiate their instruction since this was just their
first attempt. It is important to underline that the above findings provide evidence for the
effectiveness of the PDD program provided to teachers in order to prepare them and support
the implementation of differentiation.

6.3.  Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward differentiated instruction and the
PDD program
Teachers’ interviews revealed their initial perceptions and attitudes about differentiation
and the changes made in these perceptions and attitudes after their participation in the
PDD. Interviews provided additional insights concerning the effectiveness of the PDD itself,
in terms of helping teachers become more able and confident in differentiating their
lessons.
Content analysis performed on the data from teachers’ interviews suggests the existence
of five factors (categories), related to the effects of differentiated instruction (squares) or
related to the implementation process of differentiation (oval). As shown in Diagram 1, the
effects of the PDD program were perceived by the teachers to be associated with the effective
implementation of differentiated instruction that consequently affected students’ achieve-
ment. There is no linear process to the association between the factors since effects on one
of the factors can produce a reflex effect back to the cause of the main effect. Such a relation
exists, however, between effective differentiated practice and students’ achievement.
Teachers differentiated their instruction, and, since their efforts to be more effective resulted
in positive results for their students, it motivated them to work more intensively and develop
the quality of their instruction.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   133

EFFECTS OF PDD
Effects of training and cooperation with the trainers

Effects of training in Help and support through training

understanding the theory and for the effective implementation of
practice of differentiation differentiation

Gain understanding of the theory Cooperation with colleagues to

of differentiation and how it develop differentiated lesson guides
translates into practice
Solving problems encountered in
In-depth understanding of the differentiated instruction through
praxis of differentiation through discussion during teachers’ meetings
lesson observations
Solving problems in applying
differentiation via the support of the
researcher

Diagram 2.  Effects of training and cooperation with the researcher on the implementation and
effectiveness of differentiation.

The positive impact on students’ achievement (according to teachers’ perceptions)

appears to have influenced teachers’ attitudes toward the continuation of differentiated
instruction (not only in language instruction but in the instruction of other subjects as well)
and have changed students’ attitudes toward the teaching and learning process. However,
teachers’ effort and perseverance were substantially reduced in cases where they encoun-
tered difficulties.
Regarding the training, support, and cooperation with the researchers, teachers argued
that both the initial training and the ongoing support contributed to the effective differen-
tiation of their instruction (Diagram 2). Teachers stated that the PDD program gave them
the opportunity to gain new knowledge but at the same time enabled them to implement
this new knowledge in their everyday teaching practice (Diagram 2). In particular, teachers
explicitly referred to the quality of the initial training sessions, saying that this had helped
them understand the theory of differentiation and the way theory could be translated into
practice. In addition, they stated that this training provided opportunities to develop the
necessary skills for the design of differentiated lessons along with the abilities needed to
collaborate with their colleagues in the development of differentiated lesson guides and
individual daily lesson plans. Furthermore, the participants pointed out that the observation
of various lessons gave them the opportunity to see differentiation in authentic classroom
settings, while the observation of their own teaching by the researcher and the discussion
that followed (despite the stress that this might have caused) helped them improve the
quality of their teaching.
134   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

7.  Concluding discussion

Differentiated instruction was achieved by teachers that participated in a well-planned and
systematic program that connected theory with everyday practice, thus, resulting in effec-
tive instruction (Blank, de las Alas, and Smith 2007). Teachers’ testimonies were used to
investigate the overall effectiveness of the PDD and provide evidence on several charac-
teristics or activities of the program that may be useful in designing future professional
development programs. Teachers strongly believed that PDD was effective in providing
them with knowledge, skills, and support to accomplish differentiated instruction.
Furthermore, teachers felt that by differentiating their instruction they were able to actively
implicate all students in the learning process and were more effective for all (Valiandes
2010). Difficulties and obstacles that teachers experienced were transcended through col-
legial cooperation and the support from the experts. Meaningful discussions and commu-
nication in a warm and friendly environment during group meetings enabled teachers to
interact critically, as they were working for a common goal (Borko 2004). To sum up, the
main characteristics of the PDD program that were found to be effective are: (a) the response
to teachers’ needs by providing a program focused on both content and pedagogical knowl-
edge, (b) the duration of the program, (c) the initial training and the follow-up training
sessions, (d) the collaboration and communication with colleagues and experts, (e) the
constant, on-site support and help during the implementation and (f ) the development of
personal skills for reflection and self-evaluation of teachers. Considering all these, we may
argue that the overall success of the PDD program provides additional support in the theory
regarding the characteristics of effective teacher professional development/learning pro-
grams (Knight et al. 2014; Loughran 2014).
Contrary to Harris and Sass’s (2009) argument, that research has not yet been able to
establish coherent links between teachers’ training and students’ achievement, this study
demonstrated that teacher participation in a well-designed professional development pro-
grams can have a significant impact upon student achievement gains. To this end, these
results help to establish the importance of effective professional development programs
and outline their characteristics, drawing implications for educational policy. The findings
of this study provide a comprehensive proposal that can be used for the improvement of
both quality and effectiveness of education, bridging teacher professional development
toward optimum, grounded methods that appear to work in terms of boosting student
achievement.
Notably, differentiation is not the easy way out of the traditional ‘one size fits all’
approaches, but it can most definitely contribute toward the improvement of instructional
effectiveness and the growth of all students in mixed-ability classrooms. Apparently, research
still has a long way to go in order to determine through longitudinal studies the effectiveness
of differentiation over time, for all students, in different educational levels (primary, second-
ary) and across all subjects. Improving school effectiveness has been correlated with improv-
ing teacher effectiveness and similarly teacher effectiveness can indeed be improved by a
quality program of teachers’ professional development and learning. The PDD program used
in this study revealed that knowledge and skills for differentiating instruction in mixed-ability
classrooms can be learned, established, and developed by teachers through a well-structured
training program that can subsequently effect positively students’ outcomes.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   135

Notes
1. 
Teachers Professional Development Program for Differentiated Instruction (PDD).
2. 
In terms of student learning, the program is considered to be successful since, according the
findings of Valiandes (2015), students of the teachers that participated in the PDD demonstrated
positive changes in their learning. Utilizing a quasi-experimental research, Valiandes compared
the progress made by students in classrooms whose teachers took part in the PDD (experimental
group) with the progress made by students whose teachers didn’t have any training or support
in differentiation (control group). As the results indicated, the student experimental group’s
achievement was greater than the achievement of the control group, suggesting that progress
in the experimental group was significantly higher than the progress of the control group, even
though the control group’s achievement in the pre-test was lower than that of the experimental
group.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Stavroula Valiandes is an adjunct lecturer at the University of Nicosia. She holds a PhD in Curriculum
and Instruction, in which she studied differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. She has
a strong interest in teacher-initiated projects dealing with the promotion of effective teaching via
differentiated instruction.
Lefkios Neophytou (BA in Educational Sciences, 1999; MA in Educational Administration and Curriculum
Development, 2004; PhD in Curriculum and Instruction, 2009) is an adjunct assistant professor at the
University of Nicosia. His research focuses on curriculum development and curriculum theory, instruc-
tional methodology, and teacher training.

References
Adsit, J. N. 2004. Technology-mediated Professional Development Programs for Teachers and School
Leaders. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Andrich, D. 1978. “Scaling Attitude Items Constructed and Scored in the Likert Tradition.” Educational
and Psychological Measurement 38 (3): 665–680.
Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. 1999. “Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-
based Theory of Professional Education.” Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy
and Practice 1: 3–22.
Bearne, E., ed. 1996. Differentiation and Diversity in the Primary Curriculum. London: Routledge
Birnie, B. F. 2015. “Making the Case for Differentiation.” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas 88 (2): 62–65.
Blank, R. K., N. de las Alas, and C. Smith. 2007. Analysis of the Quality of Professional Development
Programs for Mathematics and Science Teachers: Findings from a Crossstate Study. Washington, DC:
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Borko, H. 2004. “Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.” Educational
Researcher 33 (8): 3–15.
Borko, H., and R. T. Putnam. 1995. “Expanding a Teacher’s Knowledge Base: A Cognitive Psychological
Perspective on Professional Development.” In Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms
and Practices, edited by T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman, 35–66. New York: Teachers College Press.
Boyle, B., I. Lamprianou, and T. Boyle. 2005. “A Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change: What Makes
Professional Development Effective? Report of the Second Year of the Study.” School Effectiveness
and School Improvement 16 (1): 1–27.
136   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

Brandt, D. 2003. “Changing Literacy.” Teachers College Record 105 (2): 245–260.
Bransford, J. D., and D. L. Schwartz. 1999. “Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with
Multiple Implications.” Review of Research in Education 24 (1): 61–100.
Bryk, A. S., V. E. Lee, and P. B. Holland. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Center on International Education Benchmarking (US) (CIEB). 2015. Keys to a Successful Vocational
Education and Training System. Washington, DC: CIEB.
Chan, C., R. Chang, P. S. Westwood, and M. T. Yuen 2002. “Teaching Adaptively: How Easy Is Differentation
in Practice? A Perspective from Hong Kong.” Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 11: 27–58.
Cohen, D. K., and H. C. Hill. 1998. “Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics
Reform in California.” CPRE Research Reports. Accessed May 6, 2017. http://repository.upenn.edu/
cpre_researchreports/4
Corcoran, T. B., P. M. Shields, and A. A. Zucker. 1998. Evaluation of NSF’s Statewide Systemic Initiatives
(SSI) Program: The SSIs and Professional Development for Teachers. Arlington, VT: National Science
Foundation.
Cordingley, P., M. Bell, S. Thomason, and A. Firth. 2005. The Impact of Collaborative Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) on Classroom Teaching and Learning. Review: How Do Collaborative and Sustained
CPD and Sustained but Not Collaborative CPD Affect Teaching and Learning? In Research Evidence
in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Darling-Hammond, L. 1996. “The Quiet Revolution: Rethinking Teacher Development.” Educational
Leadership 53 (6): 4–10.
Darling-Hammond, L., and M. W. McLaughlin. 1995. “Policies That Support Professional Development
in an Era of Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 76 (8): 597–604.
Desimone, L. M., A. C. Porter, M. S. Garet, K. S. Yoon, and B. F. Birman. 2002. “Effects of Professional
Development on Teachers’ Instruction: Results from a Three-year Longitudinal Study.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24 (2): 81–112.
Desimone, L. M., T. M. Smith, and K. Ueno. 2006. “Are Teachers Who Need Sustained, Content-focused
Professional Development Getting It? An Administrator’s Dilemma.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 42 (2): 179–215.
DuFour, R. 2004. “What is a ‘Professional Learning Community’?” Educational Leadership 61 (8): 6–11.
Duncombe, R., and K. M. Armour. 2004. “Collaborative Professional Learning: From Theory to Practice.”
Journal of In-Service Education 30 (1): 141–166.
Eraut, M. 2002. “Conceptual Analysis and Research Questions: Do the Concepts of ‘Learning Community’
and ‘Community of Practice’ Provide Added Value?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 1–5.
Fishman, B. J., R. W. Marx, S. Best, and R. T. Tal. 2003. “Linking Teacher and Student Learning to Improve
Professional Development in Systemic Reform.” Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (6): 643–658.
Florio-Ruane, S., and T. J. Lensmire. 1990. “Transforming Future Teachers’ Ideas about Writing Instruction.”
Journal of Curriculum Studies 22 (3): 277–289.
Fullan, M. G. 1993. “Why Teachers Must Become Change Agents.” Educational Leadership 50: 12–12.
Fullan, M. G. 1999. Change Forces: The Sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. “What Makes Professional
Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research
Journal 38 (4): 915–945.
Guskey, T. R. 2000. Evaluating Professional Development. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hall, G. E., S. M. Hord, L. Huling-Austin, and W. L. Rutherford. 1987. Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hanushek, E. A., J. F. Kain, D. M. O’Brien, and S. G. Rivkin 2005. The Market for Teacher Quality
(No. w11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Harris, D. N., and T. R. Sass. 2009. “The Effects of NBPTS-certified Teachers on Student Achievement.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28 (1): 55–80.
Heritage, M. 2010. Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems: Are We Losing an
Opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
 TEACHER DEVELOPMENT   137

Ingvarson, L., M. Meiers, and A. Beavis 2005. “Factors Affecting the Impact of Professional Development
Programs on Teachers’ Knowledge, Practice, Student Outcomes & Efficacy.” Accessed May 6, 2017.
http://research.acer.edu.au/professional_dev/1
Jacob, B. A., and L. Lefgren. 2004. “The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: Quasi-
experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago.” Journal of Human Resources 39 (1):
50–79.
Karagiorgi, Y., and L. Symeou. 2006. “Teacher Professional Development in Cyprus: Reflections on
Current Trends and Challenges in Policy and Practices.” Journal of In-service Education 32 (1): 47–61.
Knight, S. L., G. M. Lloyd, F. Arbaugh, D. Gamson, S. P. McDonald, and J. Nolan. 2014. “Professional
Development and Practices of Teacher Educators.” Journal of Teacher Education 65 (4): 268–270.
Knight, S. L., and D. L. Wiseman. 2005. “Professional Development for Teachers of Diverse Students: A
Summary of the Research.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) 10 (4): 387–405.
Koellner, K., and J. Jacobs. 2015. “Distinguishing Models of Professional Development.” Journal of Teacher
Education 66 (1): 51–67.
Koutselini, M. 2006. Diaforopoiisi Didaskalias se taxis Miktis Ikanotitas [Differentiation of Teaching and
Learning in Mixed-ability Classrooms]. Nicosia.
Koutselini, M. 2008. “Listening to Students’ Voices for Teaching in Mixed Ability Classrooms:
Presuppositions and Considerations for Differentiated Instruction.” Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 17–30.
Liebermann, A., and L. Miller. 1992. “Professional Development of Teachers”. In Encyclopedia of
Educational Research, 1045–1053. New York: McMillan Publishing Company.
Little, J. W. 1993. “Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform.” Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15 (2): 129–151.
Lortie, D. 1975. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Loughran, J. 2014. “Professionally Developing as a Teacher Educator.” Journal of Teacher Education 65
(4): 271–283.
Louis, K. S., and H. M. Marks. 1998. “Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom? Teachers’ Work
and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools.” American Journal of Education 106 (4): 532–575.
McLaughlin, M. W., and J. E. Talbert 1993. Contexts That Matter for Teaching and Learning: Strategic
Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Educational Goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the
Context of Teaching, Stanford University.
Mosteller, F., and D. P. Moynihan. 1972. On Equality of Educational Opportunity. New York: Random House.
Mundry, S. 2005. “Changing perspectives in professional development.” Science Educator 14 (1): 9.
Neophytou, L., M. Koutselini, and L. Kyriakides. 2011. “The Effect of Teachers’ Personal Beliefs and
Emotional Intelligence on Quality and Effectiveness of Teaching.” In Navigating in Educational
Contexts. Identities and Cultures in Dialogue, edited by A. Lauriala, R. Rajala, H. Ruokamo, and
O. Ylitapio-Mäntylä, 207–224. Rotterdam: Sense.
Nicolae, M. 2014. “Teachers’ Beliefs as the Differentiated Instruction Starting Point: Research Basis.”
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 128: 426–431. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.182.
Osterman, K. F., and R. B. Kottkamp. 2004. Reflective Practice for Educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Parsad, B., L. Lewis, and E. Farris. 2001. “Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 2000.”
Education Statistics Quarterly 3 (3): 33.
Richardson, V., and P. Placier 2001. “Teacher Change.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching. 4th ed.,
edited by V. Richardson, 905–950. Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
Richter, D., M. Kunter, U. Klusmann, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2011. “Professional Development across
the Teaching Career: Teachers’ Uptake of Formal and Informal Learning Opportunities.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 27 (1): 116–126.
Richter, D., M. Kunter, U. Klusmann, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2014. “Professional Development across
the Teaching Career.” In Teachers’ Professional Development, edited by S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock,
M. Böhmer, 97–121. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Schumm, J. S., and S. Vaughn. 1991. “Making Adaptations for Mainstreamed Students: General
Classroom Teachers' Perspectives.” Remedial and Special Education 12 (4): 18–27.
Schütz, G., H. W. Ursprung, and L. Wößmann. 2008. “Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity.”
Kyklos 61 (2): 279–308.
138   S. VALIANDES AND L. NEOPHYTOU

Scott, B. J., M. R. Vitale, and W. G. Masten. 1998. “Implementing Instructional Adaptations for Students
with Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: A Literature Review.” Journal for Special Educators 19 (2):
106–119.
Simpson, M., and J. Ure. 1994. Studies of Differentiation Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools.
Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education Department, Research and Intelligence Unit.
Skerrett, A. 2010. “‘There’s Going to Be Community. There’s Going to Be Knowledge’: Designs for
Learning in a Standardised Age.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (3): 648–655.
Sugrue, C. 1997. “Student Teachers’ Lay Theories and Teaching Identities: Their Implications for
Professional Development.” European Journal of Teacher Education 20 (3): 213–225.
Tatto, M. T. 1998. “The Influence of Teacher Education on Teachers’ Beliefs about Purposes of Education,
Roles, and Practice.” Journal of Teacher Education 49 (1): 66–77.
Teemant, A., J. Wink, and S. Tyra. 2011. “Effects of Coaching on Teacher Use of Sociocultural Instructional
Practices.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (4): 683–693.
Tillema, H. H. 2000. “Belief Change towards Self-directed Learning in Student Teachers: Immersion in
Practice or Reflection on Action.” Teaching and Teacher Education 16 (5): 575–591.
Timperley, H. 2011. Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Tomlinson, C. 1999. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. 2001. How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-ability Classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. 2004. “Point/Counterpoint: Sharing Responsibility for Differentiating Instruction.”
Roeper Review 26 (4): 188–189.
Tomlinson, C. A. 2015. “Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms.” Society 52 (3):
203–209.
Tracey, M. W., A. Hutchinson, and T. Q. Grzebyk. 2014. “Instructional Designers as Reflective Practitioners:
Developing Professional Identity through Reflection.” Educational Technology Research and
Development 62 (3): 315–334.
Valiandes, S. 2010. “Diaforopiisi Didaskaslias Se Taxis Miktis Inkanotitas / Mathidsiakes Diadikasies Kai
Apotelesmatikotita” [Differentiated Teaching in Mixed Ability Classrooms / Learning Processes and
Effectiveness]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Valiandes, S. 2015. “Evaluating the Impact of Differentiated Instruction on Literacy and Reading in
Mixed Ability Classrooms: Quality and Equity Dimensions of Education Effectiveness.” Studies in
Educational Evaluation 45: 17–26.
Weinstein, C. S. 1990. “Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching: Implications for Teacher
Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 6 (3): 279–290.
Wenger, E. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System.” Systems Thinker 9 (5): 2–3.
Wenger, E. 2011. “Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction.” Accessed April 10, 2015. http://hdl.
handle.net/1794/11736
Westwood, P. 2001. “Differentiation’ as a Strategy for Inclusive Classroom Practice: Some Difficulties
Identified.” Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities 6 (1): 5–11.
Yoon, K. S., T. Duncan, S. W.-Y. Lee, B. Scarloss, and K. Shapley. 2007. Reviewing the Evidence on How
Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No.
033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Accessed May 3, 2017. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Ysseldyke, J. E., M. L. Thurlow, J. W. Wotruba, and P. A. Nania. 1990. “Instructional Arrangements:
Perceptions from General Education.” Teaching Exceptional Children 22 (4): 4–8.