qualitative research objectives pdf

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples

Published on June 19, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on September 5, 2024.

Qualitative research involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data (e.g., text, video, or audio) to understand concepts, opinions, or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

Qualitative research is the opposite of quantitative research , which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data for statistical analysis.

Qualitative research is commonly used in the humanities and social sciences, in subjects such as anthropology, sociology, education, health sciences, history, etc.

• How does social media shape body image in teenagers?
• How do children and adults interpret healthy eating in the UK?
• What factors influence employee retention in a large organization?
• How is anxiety experienced around the world?
• How can teachers integrate social issues into science curriculums?

Table of contents

Approaches to qualitative research, qualitative research methods, qualitative data analysis, advantages of qualitative research, disadvantages of qualitative research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative research.

Qualitative research is used to understand how people experience the world. While there are many approaches to qualitative research, they tend to be flexible and focus on retaining rich meaning when interpreting data.

Common approaches include grounded theory, ethnography , action research , phenomenological research, and narrative research. They share some similarities, but emphasize different aims and perspectives.

Note that qualitative research is at risk for certain research biases including the Hawthorne effect , observer bias , recall bias , and social desirability bias . While not always totally avoidable, awareness of potential biases as you collect and analyze your data can prevent them from impacting your work too much.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Each of the research approaches involve using one or more data collection methods . These are some of the most common qualitative methods:

• Observations: recording what you have seen, heard, or encountered in detailed field notes.
• Interviews:  personally asking people questions in one-on-one conversations.
• Focus groups: asking questions and generating discussion among a group of people.
• Surveys : distributing questionnaires with open-ended questions.
• Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc.
• You take field notes with observations and reflect on your own experiences of the company culture.
• You distribute open-ended surveys to employees across all the company’s offices by email to find out if the culture varies across locations.
• You conduct in-depth interviews with employees in your office to learn about their experiences and perspectives in greater detail.

Qualitative researchers often consider themselves “instruments” in research because all observations, interpretations and analyses are filtered through their own personal lens.

For this reason, when writing up your methodology for qualitative research, it’s important to reflect on your approach and to thoroughly explain the choices you made in collecting and analyzing the data.

Qualitative data can take the form of texts, photos, videos and audio. For example, you might be working with interview transcripts, survey responses, fieldnotes, or recordings from natural settings.

Most types of qualitative data analysis share the same five steps:

• Prepare and organize your data. This may mean transcribing interviews or typing up fieldnotes.
• Review and explore your data. Examine the data for patterns or repeated ideas that emerge.
• Develop a data coding system. Based on your initial ideas, establish a set of codes that you can apply to categorize your data.
• Assign codes to the data. For example, in qualitative survey analysis, this may mean going through each participant’s responses and tagging them with codes in a spreadsheet. As you go through your data, you can create new codes to add to your system if necessary.
• Identify recurring themes. Link codes together into cohesive, overarching themes.

There are several specific approaches to analyzing qualitative data. Although these methods share similar processes, they emphasize different concepts.

Qualitative research often tries to preserve the voice and perspective of participants and can be adjusted as new research questions arise. Qualitative research is good for:

• Flexibility

The data collection and analysis process can be adapted as new ideas or patterns emerge. They are not rigidly decided beforehand.

• Natural settings

Data collection occurs in real-world contexts or in naturalistic ways.

• Meaningful insights

Detailed descriptions of people’s experiences, feelings and perceptions can be used in designing, testing or improving systems or products.

• Generation of new ideas

Open-ended responses mean that researchers can uncover novel problems or opportunities that they wouldn’t have thought of otherwise.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Researchers must consider practical and theoretical limitations in analyzing and interpreting their data. Qualitative research suffers from:

• Unreliability

The real-world setting often makes qualitative research unreliable because of uncontrolled factors that affect the data.

• Subjectivity

Due to the researcher’s primary role in analyzing and interpreting data, qualitative research cannot be replicated . The researcher decides what is important and what is irrelevant in data analysis, so interpretations of the same data can vary greatly.

• Limited generalizability

Small samples are often used to gather detailed data about specific contexts. Despite rigorous analysis procedures, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions because the data may be biased and unrepresentative of the wider population .

• Labor-intensive

Although software can be used to manage and record large amounts of text, data analysis often has to be checked or performed manually.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square goodness of fit test
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organization to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organize your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, September 05). What Is Qualitative Research? | Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 13, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, qualitative vs. quantitative research | differences, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can J Hosp Pharm
• v.68(3); May-Jun 2015

Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management

Introduction.

In an earlier paper, 1 we presented an introduction to using qualitative research methods in pharmacy practice. In this article, we review some principles of the collection, analysis, and management of qualitative data to help pharmacists interested in doing research in their practice to continue their learning in this area. Qualitative research can help researchers to access the thoughts and feelings of research participants, which can enable development of an understanding of the meaning that people ascribe to their experiences. Whereas quantitative research methods can be used to determine how many people undertake particular behaviours, qualitative methods can help researchers to understand how and why such behaviours take place. Within the context of pharmacy practice research, qualitative approaches have been used to examine a diverse array of topics, including the perceptions of key stakeholders regarding prescribing by pharmacists and the postgraduation employment experiences of young pharmacists (see “Further Reading” section at the end of this article).

In the previous paper, 1 we outlined 3 commonly used methodologies: ethnography 2 , grounded theory 3 , and phenomenology. 4 Briefly, ethnography involves researchers using direct observation to study participants in their “real life” environment, sometimes over extended periods. Grounded theory and its later modified versions (e.g., Strauss and Corbin 5 ) use face-to-face interviews and interactions such as focus groups to explore a particular research phenomenon and may help in clarifying a less-well-understood problem, situation, or context. Phenomenology shares some features with grounded theory (such as an exploration of participants’ behaviour) and uses similar techniques to collect data, but it focuses on understanding how human beings experience their world. It gives researchers the opportunity to put themselves in another person’s shoes and to understand the subjective experiences of participants. 6 Some researchers use qualitative methodologies but adopt a different standpoint, and an example of this appears in the work of Thurston and others, 7 discussed later in this paper.

Qualitative work requires reflection on the part of researchers, both before and during the research process, as a way of providing context and understanding for readers. When being reflexive, researchers should not try to simply ignore or avoid their own biases (as this would likely be impossible); instead, reflexivity requires researchers to reflect upon and clearly articulate their position and subjectivities (world view, perspectives, biases), so that readers can better understand the filters through which questions were asked, data were gathered and analyzed, and findings were reported. From this perspective, bias and subjectivity are not inherently negative but they are unavoidable; as a result, it is best that they be articulated up-front in a manner that is clear and coherent for readers.

THE PARTICIPANT’S VIEWPOINT

What qualitative study seeks to convey is why people have thoughts and feelings that might affect the way they behave. Such study may occur in any number of contexts, but here, we focus on pharmacy practice and the way people behave with regard to medicines use (e.g., to understand patients’ reasons for nonadherence with medication therapy or to explore physicians’ resistance to pharmacists’ clinical suggestions). As we suggested in our earlier article, 1 an important point about qualitative research is that there is no attempt to generalize the findings to a wider population. Qualitative research is used to gain insights into people’s feelings and thoughts, which may provide the basis for a future stand-alone qualitative study or may help researchers to map out survey instruments for use in a quantitative study. It is also possible to use different types of research in the same study, an approach known as “mixed methods” research, and further reading on this topic may be found at the end of this paper.

The role of the researcher in qualitative research is to attempt to access the thoughts and feelings of study participants. This is not an easy task, as it involves asking people to talk about things that may be very personal to them. Sometimes the experiences being explored are fresh in the participant’s mind, whereas on other occasions reliving past experiences may be difficult. However the data are being collected, a primary responsibility of the researcher is to safeguard participants and their data. Mechanisms for such safeguarding must be clearly articulated to participants and must be approved by a relevant research ethics review board before the research begins. Researchers and practitioners new to qualitative research should seek advice from an experienced qualitative researcher before embarking on their project.

DATA COLLECTION

Whatever philosophical standpoint the researcher is taking and whatever the data collection method (e.g., focus group, one-to-one interviews), the process will involve the generation of large amounts of data. In addition to the variety of study methodologies available, there are also different ways of making a record of what is said and done during an interview or focus group, such as taking handwritten notes or video-recording. If the researcher is audio- or video-recording data collection, then the recordings must be transcribed verbatim before data analysis can begin. As a rough guide, it can take an experienced researcher/transcriber 8 hours to transcribe one 45-minute audio-recorded interview, a process than will generate 20–30 pages of written dialogue.

Many researchers will also maintain a folder of “field notes” to complement audio-taped interviews. Field notes allow the researcher to maintain and comment upon impressions, environmental contexts, behaviours, and nonverbal cues that may not be adequately captured through the audio-recording; they are typically handwritten in a small notebook at the same time the interview takes place. Field notes can provide important context to the interpretation of audio-taped data and can help remind the researcher of situational factors that may be important during data analysis. Such notes need not be formal, but they should be maintained and secured in a similar manner to audio tapes and transcripts, as they contain sensitive information and are relevant to the research. For more information about collecting qualitative data, please see the “Further Reading” section at the end of this paper.

DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT

If, as suggested earlier, doing qualitative research is about putting oneself in another person’s shoes and seeing the world from that person’s perspective, the most important part of data analysis and management is to be true to the participants. It is their voices that the researcher is trying to hear, so that they can be interpreted and reported on for others to read and learn from. To illustrate this point, consider the anonymized transcript excerpt presented in Appendix 1 , which is taken from a research interview conducted by one of the authors (J.S.). We refer to this excerpt throughout the remainder of this paper to illustrate how data can be managed, analyzed, and presented.

Interpretation of Data

Interpretation of the data will depend on the theoretical standpoint taken by researchers. For example, the title of the research report by Thurston and others, 7 “Discordant indigenous and provider frames explain challenges in improving access to arthritis care: a qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory,” indicates at least 2 theoretical standpoints. The first is the culture of the indigenous population of Canada and the place of this population in society, and the second is the social constructivist theory used in the constructivist grounded theory method. With regard to the first standpoint, it can be surmised that, to have decided to conduct the research, the researchers must have felt that there was anecdotal evidence of differences in access to arthritis care for patients from indigenous and non-indigenous backgrounds. With regard to the second standpoint, it can be surmised that the researchers used social constructivist theory because it assumes that behaviour is socially constructed; in other words, people do things because of the expectations of those in their personal world or in the wider society in which they live. (Please see the “Further Reading” section for resources providing more information about social constructivist theory and reflexivity.) Thus, these 2 standpoints (and there may have been others relevant to the research of Thurston and others 7 ) will have affected the way in which these researchers interpreted the experiences of the indigenous population participants and those providing their care. Another standpoint is feminist standpoint theory which, among other things, focuses on marginalized groups in society. Such theories are helpful to researchers, as they enable us to think about things from a different perspective. Being aware of the standpoints you are taking in your own research is one of the foundations of qualitative work. Without such awareness, it is easy to slip into interpreting other people’s narratives from your own viewpoint, rather than that of the participants.

To analyze the example in Appendix 1 , we will adopt a phenomenological approach because we want to understand how the participant experienced the illness and we want to try to see the experience from that person’s perspective. It is important for the researcher to reflect upon and articulate his or her starting point for such analysis; for example, in the example, the coder could reflect upon her own experience as a female of a majority ethnocultural group who has lived within middle class and upper middle class settings. This personal history therefore forms the filter through which the data will be examined. This filter does not diminish the quality or significance of the analysis, since every researcher has his or her own filters; however, by explicitly stating and acknowledging what these filters are, the researcher makes it easer for readers to contextualize the work.

Transcribing and Checking

For the purposes of this paper it is assumed that interviews or focus groups have been audio-recorded. As mentioned above, transcribing is an arduous process, even for the most experienced transcribers, but it must be done to convert the spoken word to the written word to facilitate analysis. For anyone new to conducting qualitative research, it is beneficial to transcribe at least one interview and one focus group. It is only by doing this that researchers realize how difficult the task is, and this realization affects their expectations when asking others to transcribe. If the research project has sufficient funding, then a professional transcriber can be hired to do the work. If this is the case, then it is a good idea to sit down with the transcriber, if possible, and talk through the research and what the participants were talking about. This background knowledge for the transcriber is especially important in research in which people are using jargon or medical terms (as in pharmacy practice). Involving your transcriber in this way makes the work both easier and more rewarding, as he or she will feel part of the team. Transcription editing software is also available, but it is expensive. For example, ELAN (more formally known as EUDICO Linguistic Annotator, developed at the Technical University of Berlin) 8 is a tool that can help keep data organized by linking media and data files (particularly valuable if, for example, video-taping of interviews is complemented by transcriptions). It can also be helpful in searching complex data sets. Products such as ELAN do not actually automatically transcribe interviews or complete analyses, and they do require some time and effort to learn; nonetheless, for some research applications, it may be a valuable to consider such software tools.

All audio recordings should be transcribed verbatim, regardless of how intelligible the transcript may be when it is read back. Lines of text should be numbered. Once the transcription is complete, the researcher should read it while listening to the recording and do the following: correct any spelling or other errors; anonymize the transcript so that the participant cannot be identified from anything that is said (e.g., names, places, significant events); insert notations for pauses, laughter, looks of discomfort; insert any punctuation, such as commas and full stops (periods) (see Appendix 1 for examples of inserted punctuation), and include any other contextual information that might have affected the participant (e.g., temperature or comfort of the room).

Dealing with the transcription of a focus group is slightly more difficult, as multiple voices are involved. One way of transcribing such data is to “tag” each voice (e.g., Voice A, Voice B). In addition, the focus group will usually have 2 facilitators, whose respective roles will help in making sense of the data. While one facilitator guides participants through the topic, the other can make notes about context and group dynamics. More information about group dynamics and focus groups can be found in resources listed in the “Further Reading” section.

Reading between the Lines

During the process outlined above, the researcher can begin to get a feel for the participant’s experience of the phenomenon in question and can start to think about things that could be pursued in subsequent interviews or focus groups (if appropriate). In this way, one participant’s narrative informs the next, and the researcher can continue to interview until nothing new is being heard or, as it says in the text books, “saturation is reached”. While continuing with the processes of coding and theming (described in the next 2 sections), it is important to consider not just what the person is saying but also what they are not saying. For example, is a lengthy pause an indication that the participant is finding the subject difficult, or is the person simply deciding what to say? The aim of the whole process from data collection to presentation is to tell the participants’ stories using exemplars from their own narratives, thus grounding the research findings in the participants’ lived experiences.

Smith 9 suggested a qualitative research method known as interpretative phenomenological analysis, which has 2 basic tenets: first, that it is rooted in phenomenology, attempting to understand the meaning that individuals ascribe to their lived experiences, and second, that the researcher must attempt to interpret this meaning in the context of the research. That the researcher has some knowledge and expertise in the subject of the research means that he or she can have considerable scope in interpreting the participant’s experiences. Larkin and others 10 discussed the importance of not just providing a description of what participants say. Rather, interpretative phenomenological analysis is about getting underneath what a person is saying to try to truly understand the world from his or her perspective.

Once all of the research interviews have been transcribed and checked, it is time to begin coding. Field notes compiled during an interview can be a useful complementary source of information to facilitate this process, as the gap in time between an interview, transcribing, and coding can result in memory bias regarding nonverbal or environmental context issues that may affect interpretation of data.

Coding refers to the identification of topics, issues, similarities, and differences that are revealed through the participants’ narratives and interpreted by the researcher. This process enables the researcher to begin to understand the world from each participant’s perspective. Coding can be done by hand on a hard copy of the transcript, by making notes in the margin or by highlighting and naming sections of text. More commonly, researchers use qualitative research software (e.g., NVivo, QSR International Pty Ltd; www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx ) to help manage their transcriptions. It is advised that researchers undertake a formal course in the use of such software or seek supervision from a researcher experienced in these tools.

Returning to Appendix 1 and reading from lines 8–11, a code for this section might be “diagnosis of mental health condition”, but this would just be a description of what the participant is talking about at that point. If we read a little more deeply, we can ask ourselves how the participant might have come to feel that the doctor assumed he or she was aware of the diagnosis or indeed that they had only just been told the diagnosis. There are a number of pauses in the narrative that might suggest the participant is finding it difficult to recall that experience. Later in the text, the participant says “nobody asked me any questions about my life” (line 19). This could be coded simply as “health care professionals’ consultation skills”, but that would not reflect how the participant must have felt never to be asked anything about his or her personal life, about the participant as a human being. At the end of this excerpt, the participant just trails off, recalling that no-one showed any interest, which makes for very moving reading. For practitioners in pharmacy, it might also be pertinent to explore the participant’s experience of akathisia and why this was left untreated for 20 years.

One of the questions that arises about qualitative research relates to the reliability of the interpretation and representation of the participants’ narratives. There are no statistical tests that can be used to check reliability and validity as there are in quantitative research. However, work by Lincoln and Guba 11 suggests that there are other ways to “establish confidence in the ‘truth’ of the findings” (p. 218). They call this confidence “trustworthiness” and suggest that there are 4 criteria of trustworthiness: credibility (confidence in the “truth” of the findings), transferability (showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts), dependability (showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated), and confirmability (the extent to which the findings of a study are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest).

One way of establishing the “credibility” of the coding is to ask another researcher to code the same transcript and then to discuss any similarities and differences in the 2 resulting sets of codes. This simple act can result in revisions to the codes and can help to clarify and confirm the research findings.

Theming refers to the drawing together of codes from one or more transcripts to present the findings of qualitative research in a coherent and meaningful way. For example, there may be examples across participants’ narratives of the way in which they were treated in hospital, such as “not being listened to” or “lack of interest in personal experiences” (see Appendix 1 ). These may be drawn together as a theme running through the narratives that could be named “the patient’s experience of hospital care”. The importance of going through this process is that at its conclusion, it will be possible to present the data from the interviews using quotations from the individual transcripts to illustrate the source of the researchers’ interpretations. Thus, when the findings are organized for presentation, each theme can become the heading of a section in the report or presentation. Underneath each theme will be the codes, examples from the transcripts, and the researcher’s own interpretation of what the themes mean. Implications for real life (e.g., the treatment of people with chronic mental health problems) should also be given.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In this final section of this paper, we describe some ways of drawing together or “synthesizing” research findings to represent, as faithfully as possible, the meaning that participants ascribe to their life experiences. This synthesis is the aim of the final stage of qualitative research. For most readers, the synthesis of data presented by the researcher is of crucial significance—this is usually where “the story” of the participants can be distilled, summarized, and told in a manner that is both respectful to those participants and meaningful to readers. There are a number of ways in which researchers can synthesize and present their findings, but any conclusions drawn by the researchers must be supported by direct quotations from the participants. In this way, it is made clear to the reader that the themes under discussion have emerged from the participants’ interviews and not the mind of the researcher. The work of Latif and others 12 gives an example of how qualitative research findings might be presented.

Planning and Writing the Report

As has been suggested above, if researchers code and theme their material appropriately, they will naturally find the headings for sections of their report. Qualitative researchers tend to report “findings” rather than “results”, as the latter term typically implies that the data have come from a quantitative source. The final presentation of the research will usually be in the form of a report or a paper and so should follow accepted academic guidelines. In particular, the article should begin with an introduction, including a literature review and rationale for the research. There should be a section on the chosen methodology and a brief discussion about why qualitative methodology was most appropriate for the study question and why one particular methodology (e.g., interpretative phenomenological analysis rather than grounded theory) was selected to guide the research. The method itself should then be described, including ethics approval, choice of participants, mode of recruitment, and method of data collection (e.g., semistructured interviews or focus groups), followed by the research findings, which will be the main body of the report or paper. The findings should be written as if a story is being told; as such, it is not necessary to have a lengthy discussion section at the end. This is because much of the discussion will take place around the participants’ quotes, such that all that is needed to close the report or paper is a summary, limitations of the research, and the implications that the research has for practice. As stated earlier, it is not the intention of qualitative research to allow the findings to be generalized, and therefore this is not, in itself, a limitation.

Planning out the way that findings are to be presented is helpful. It is useful to insert the headings of the sections (the themes) and then make a note of the codes that exemplify the thoughts and feelings of your participants. It is generally advisable to put in the quotations that you want to use for each theme, using each quotation only once. After all this is done, the telling of the story can begin as you give your voice to the experiences of the participants, writing around their quotations. Do not be afraid to draw assumptions from the participants’ narratives, as this is necessary to give an in-depth account of the phenomena in question. Discuss these assumptions, drawing on your participants’ words to support you as you move from one code to another and from one theme to the next. Finally, as appropriate, it is possible to include examples from literature or policy documents that add support for your findings. As an exercise, you may wish to code and theme the sample excerpt in Appendix 1 and tell the participant’s story in your own way. Further reading about “doing” qualitative research can be found at the end of this paper.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research can help researchers to access the thoughts and feelings of research participants, which can enable development of an understanding of the meaning that people ascribe to their experiences. It can be used in pharmacy practice research to explore how patients feel about their health and their treatment. Qualitative research has been used by pharmacists to explore a variety of questions and problems (see the “Further Reading” section for examples). An understanding of these issues can help pharmacists and other health care professionals to tailor health care to match the individual needs of patients and to develop a concordant relationship. Doing qualitative research is not easy and may require a complete rethink of how research is conducted, particularly for researchers who are more familiar with quantitative approaches. There are many ways of conducting qualitative research, and this paper has covered some of the practical issues regarding data collection, analysis, and management. Further reading around the subject will be essential to truly understand this method of accessing peoples’ thoughts and feelings to enable researchers to tell participants’ stories.

Appendix 1. Excerpt from a sample transcript

The participant (age late 50s) had suffered from a chronic mental health illness for 30 years. The participant had become a “revolving door patient,” someone who is frequently in and out of hospital. As the participant talked about past experiences, the researcher asked:

• What was treatment like 30 years ago?
• Umm—well it was pretty much they could do what they wanted with you because I was put into the er, the er kind of system er, I was just on
• endless section threes.
• Really…
• But what I didn’t realize until later was that if you haven’t actually posed a threat to someone or yourself they can’t really do that but I didn’t know
• that. So wh-when I first went into hospital they put me on the forensic ward ’cause they said, “We don’t think you’ll stay here we think you’ll just
• run-run away.” So they put me then onto the acute admissions ward and – er – I can remember one of the first things I recall when I got onto that
• ward was sitting down with a er a Dr XXX. He had a book this thick [gestures] and on each page it was like three questions and he went through
• all these questions and I answered all these questions. So we’re there for I don’t maybe two hours doing all that and he asked me he said “well
• when did somebody tell you then that you have schizophrenia” I said “well nobody’s told me that” so he seemed very surprised but nobody had
• actually [pause] whe-when I first went up there under police escort erm the senior kind of consultants people I’d been to where I was staying and
• ermm so er [pause] I . . . the, I can remember the very first night that I was there and given this injection in this muscle here [gestures] and just
• having dreadful side effects the next day I woke up [pause]
• . . . and I suffered that akathesia I swear to you, every minute of every day for about 20 years.
• Oh how awful.
• And that side of it just makes life impossible so the care on the wards [pause] umm I don’t know it’s kind of, it’s kind of hard to put into words
• [pause]. Because I’m not saying they were sort of like not friendly or interested but then nobody ever seemed to want to talk about your life [pause]
• nobody asked me any questions about my life. The only questions that came into was they asked me if I’d be a volunteer for these student exams
• and things and I said “yeah” so all the questions were like “oh what jobs have you done,” er about your relationships and things and er but
• nobody actually sat down and had a talk and showed some interest in you as a person you were just there basically [pause] um labelled and you
• know there was there was [pause] but umm [pause] yeah . . .

This article is the 10th in the CJHP Research Primer Series, an initiative of the CJHP Editorial Board and the CSHP Research Committee. The planned 2-year series is intended to appeal to relatively inexperienced researchers, with the goal of building research capacity among practising pharmacists. The articles, presenting simple but rigorous guidance to encourage and support novice researchers, are being solicited from authors with appropriate expertise.

Previous articles in this series:

Bond CM. The research jigsaw: how to get started. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):28–30.

Tully MP. Research: articulating questions, generating hypotheses, and choosing study designs. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(1):31–4.

Loewen P. Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(2):133–7.

Tsuyuki RT. Designing pharmacy practice research trials. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(3):226–9.

Bresee LC. An introduction to developing surveys for pharmacy practice research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(4):286–91.

Gamble JM. An introduction to the fundamentals of cohort and case–control studies. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(5):366–72.

Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. C an J Hosp Pharm . 2014;67(6):436–40.

Houle S. An introduction to the fundamentals of randomized controlled trials in pharmacy research. Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014; 68(1):28–32.

Charrois TL. Systematic reviews: What do you need to know to get started? Can J Hosp Pharm . 2014;68(2):144–8.

Competing interests: None declared.

Further Reading

Examples of qualitative research in pharmacy practice.

• Farrell B, Pottie K, Woodend K, Yao V, Dolovich L, Kennie N, et al. Shifts in expectations: evaluating physicians’ perceptions as pharmacists integrated into family practice. J Interprof Care. 2010; 24 (1):80–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory P, Austin Z. Postgraduation employment experiences of new pharmacists in Ontario in 2012–2013. Can Pharm J. 2014; 147 (5):290–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marks PZ, Jennnings B, Farrell B, Kennie-Kaulbach N, Jorgenson D, Pearson-Sharpe J, et al. “I gained a skill and a change in attitude”: a case study describing how an online continuing professional education course for pharmacists supported achievement of its transfer to practice outcomes. Can J Univ Contin Educ. 2014; 40 (2):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nair KM, Dolovich L, Brazil K, Raina P. It’s all about relationships: a qualitative study of health researchers’ perspectives on interdisciplinary research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8 :110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pojskic N, MacKeigan L, Boon H, Austin Z. Initial perceptions of key stakeholders in Ontario regarding independent prescriptive authority for pharmacists. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014; 10 (2):341–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Qualitative Research in General

• Breakwell GM, Hammond S, Fife-Schaw C. Research methods in psychology. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Given LM. 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles B, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig C. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham (UK): Open University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]

Group Dynamics in Focus Groups

• Farnsworth J, Boon B. Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qual Res. 2010; 10 (5):605–24. [ Google Scholar ]

Social Constructivism

• Social constructivism. Berkeley (CA): University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley Graduate Division, Graduate Student Instruction Teaching & Resource Center; [cited 2015 June 4]. Available from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-guide-contents/learning-theory-research/social-constructivism/ [ Google Scholar ]

Mixed Methods

• Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]

Collecting Qualitative Data

• Arksey H, Knight P. Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest G, Namey EE, Mitchel ML. Collecting qualitative data: a field manual for applied research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]

Constructivist Grounded Theory

• Charmaz K. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2000. pp. 509–35. [ Google Scholar ]

“Differentiation is Sometimes a Hit and Miss”. Educator Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction in the Higher Education Sector

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Pearl Subban   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-976X 1 ,
• Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi 2 ,
• Melly Preston 2 ,
• Annisa Nanda Liyani 2 &
• Andrea Prita Purnama Ratri 2  

Differentiated instruction is an effective means of addressing student diversity, and is increasingly being adopted by educators within the higher education sector. However, the global pandemic and changes to content delivery have altered the educational landscape. Hybridised delivery has resulted in the need for more innovative and contemporary means of accommodating student diversity, to suit both in-situ and remote learning platforms. Additionally, increasing student diversity in higher education has prompted a rethinking of how to accommodate student variance. This qualitative study sought to gauge the views of four educators, who were faced with hybridisation of content delivery during the global pandemic. Led by an overarching objective of ascertaining educator perceptions, responses and attitudes toward differentiated instruction, the study utilised four in-depth case studies to reflect on the implementation of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector. Results from this qualitative analysis yielded the view that time constraints, the coverage of prescribed content and increasing student diversity continue to act as barriers to authentic differentiation. While all showcased educators embraced the underlying philosophy of differentiating instruction to suit student needs, many were hampered by administrative duties which compromised their time and effort with regard to differentiation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Differentiated Instruction as an Approach to Establish Effective Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms

Differentiated Instruction as a Viable Framework for Meeting the Needs of Diverse Adult Learners in Health Professions Education

Exploring how teachers’ personal characteristics, teaching behaviors and contextual factors are related to differentiated instruction in the classroom: a cross-national perspective, explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is acknowledged to be an effective means of addressing student diversity, and is increasingly being adopted by educators within the higher education sector (Rutter & Mintz, 2016 ; Turner et al., 2017 ). With the global pandemic altering the teaching and learning landscape in higher education, and with increasing hybridisation, educators are looking to more effective and innovative means of accommodating student diversity (Lunsford & Treadwell, 2016 ; Smith & Chestnut, 2021 ). Differentiated instruction refers to a set of strategies or teaching techniques which are positioned within contemporary education as a means of addressing increasing student diversity (Subban, 2006 ). Additionally, increasing student diversity in higher education has prompted a rethinking of how to accommodate student variance (Smith & Chestnut, 2021 ). Currently, most courses in higher education are dominated by the “one size fits all pedagogy, which does not necessarily fit the needs of all students (Turner et al., 2017 ). Being cognisant of the need to accommodate growing student diversity, this study sought to explore how differentiated instruction is being implemented in the higher education sector, and more importantly how educators feel about this implementation.

Significance of the Study

A study focusing on differentiated instruction in higher education in Indonesia is significant for three reasons. Firstly, it addresses the diverse learning needs of a rapidly growing student population. As Indonesian universities experience increasing enrolments, the heterogeneity of student backgrounds, abilities, and learning preferences becomes more pronounced. Secondly, implementing differentiated instruction can enhance educational equity and quality, ensuring that all students receive tailored support to reach their full potential. Thirdly, this study can provide critical insights into effective strategies, identify challenges, and inform policy and practice for both educators and administrators, as we aim to achieve more equitable practice. Ultimately, the goal of this study is to contribute to the development of a more inclusive and responsive higher education system in Indonesia.

Literature Review

Student diversity in higher education is both accepted and expected, since students enter tertiary studies from a range of demographics and life experiences (U.S. Department of Education, 2016 ). Indeed, diversity is now the norm in society, and is viewed as a strength to promote social cohesion and productive social climates (Murrar et al., 2020 ). Acknowledging and celebrating student diversity is now an integral feature of most universities, with faculties and departments rethinking their modus operandi to accommodate student variance (Boelens et al., 2018 ; Naidoo, 2022 ). This study similarly acknowledges and recognises that students within higher education contexts come from all walks of life, and in this context, instructional procedures and methods utilised in classrooms should be more accommodating of this rich diversity. Conventional, traditional and the ubiquitous “one size fits all” approaches are not likely to address the changing needs of students (Lunsford & Treadwell, 2016 ; Smith & Chestnutt, 2021 ; Subban, 2006 ). In more recent studies, student voices echo the view that their accommodation on multiple levels, is fundamental to their success in the classroom (Scarparolo & MacKinnon, 2022 ). Educators in these changing times are bound to consider varying methods, strategies and techniques, encapsulating differentiated instruction, in their classrooms (McCarty et al., 2016 ).

Examining Differentiated Instruction in Higher Education

The concept of differentiated instruction, popularised by Carol Tomlinson ( 1999 ), refers to the use of multiple means to address the range of student needs in the contemporary classroom. Instructional practices, according to the broad principles of differentiated instruction, are therefore relative to the needs of students (Subban, 2006 ; Tomlinson, 1996 , 2001 ). Differentiated instruction, offers educators a means of increasing student success, accommodating their interests while being cognisant of the range of intersecting identities that they bring into the classroom (McCarty et al., 2016 ). Much of the research in this field has been conducted in school classrooms, with only a few studies focusing on higher education (Teig et al., 2022 ). If one has to extrapolate the success of differentiated instruction, it follows that both university and college educators would be looking at methods to suit student learning, and would look beyond the traditional transmissive, lecture-style format (Bok, 2013 ; McCarty et al., 2016 ).

The study of differentiated instruction within the context of specific subjects also echoes the more general positive impact of differentiated instruction. The implementation of differentiated instruction has resulted in significant progress in reading (Firmender et al., 2013 ), higher reading fluency and reading comprehension (Reis et al., 2011 ), and had a positive impact on student literacy (Tobin & McInnes, 2008 ), and on math achievement (Chamberlin & Power, 2010 ; Tieso, 2005 ). Additionally, other research also reported an increase in students’ desire to do well in math and experienced enhanced confidence (Grimes & Stevens, 2009 ). Within the context of higher education, the implementation of differentiated instruction also found interesting results (Boelens et al., 2018 ).

Differentiated instruction impacts positively on student outcome as well as the attitudes and engagement of instructors in the higher education sector (Tulbure, 2011 ). However, large class sizes and the challenges of adapting content and instructional procedures to suit individual student needs has presented difficulties (Chamberlin & Power, 2010 ). While fewer empirical studies have been conducted within the context of post-secondary school sites, Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2009 ) reflected on the fact that instructors and higher education teachers are often confronted with time constraints when considering differentiating instruction. In this self-study, it was pointed out that time and effort were considerable, with the characteristic features of differentiation—content, process, product and learning environment—posing a significant amount of dedication to the task by educators (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009 ). In this regard, scholars have noted that these features of differentiated instruction are usually not covered or appropriately personalised in the higher education settings, due to time barriers (Boelens et al., 2018 ).

Examining Differentiated Instruction in Indonesian Higher Education Contexts

In Indonesia, higher education has experienced substantial growth. As of 2023, Indonesia has nearly 3,000 higher education institutions, including universities, polytechnics, and academies. The total student enrolment in higher education is approximately 8 million, reflecting a significant increase over the past decades (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2023 ; Times Higher Education Rankings, 2024 ). The University of Indonesia (UI), located in Depok, West Java, and Jakarta, is one of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Indonesia (Times Higher Education Rankings, 2024 ). Jakarta, the capital city, is home to several major universities, including the University of Indonesia and BINUS University, making it a central hub for higher education in the country (Times Higher Education—Indonesia, 2024).

The use of differentiated instruction in the Indonesian higher education sector is increasingly being embraced as educators seek to better accommodate the needs of a progressively diverse student population. The systematic literature review based in Indonesia, conducted by Suprayogi et al. ( 2017 ) suggests that the use of differentiated strategies is becoming popular in Indonesian higher education. These researchers note that differentiated instruction creates more inclusive learning environments and are likely to effectively engage students in their own learning. With the educational landscape becoming varied and multicultural in Indonesia, it follows that paradigms like differentiated instruction would become fundamental to teaching in this century. Varied teaching methods, flexible learning options, personalised feedback and flexible grouping have been identified as essential to improve student engagement. Tailored strategies to meet individual student needs are now lauded in higher education, fostering a more supportive and effective learning context. Additionally, digital tools and online learning platforms have further facilitated more personalised learning experiences (Suprayogi et al., 2017 ).

However, the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education institutions in Indonesia is not without challenges. Limited resources and infrastructure may undermine efforts to support diverse learner profiles (Gibbs & McKay, 2021). Additionally, staff require professional development to support their efforts, and programs to assist with utilising the most effective techniques for their student cohorts. The implementation of differentiated instruction in Indonesian higher education is still evolving, but there is a strong push for efforts to address student diversity. Regulation 4 of 2023 passed by the Ministry of Development Planning in Indonesia (BAPPENAS/PPN), forms part of a broader workplan to create inclusive and sustainable economic transformation. These initiatives aim to reduce disparities and ensure equitable development in education (Edelman Global Advisory, 2023 ). It follows therefore that the Indonesian higher education landscape is responding to these calls, and incorporating more inclusive teaching methods in their learning contexts.

Ultimately, the scarcity of research relating to the implementation of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector, suggests that this area requires some thought and consideration. As student diversity in the sector continues to grow, it is imperative that varying means of instruction are sought to address student needs. This study therefore, will explore educator perceptions of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector, specifically drawing on the views of instructors within an Indonesian University as a case study. It is anticipated that the results of this study may address the gaps in the literature relating to the implementation of differentiation at the higher education level.

Conceptual Framework

The current study utilises Ajzen’s ( 1980 , 1991 ) Theory of Planned Behaviour as its starting point, which emphasises that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control are key predictors of intentions and subsequent behaviours. The Theory of Planned Behaviour predicts intentions and behaviours, perceiving it as a product of three elements (Ajzen, 1980 ). Firstly, Ajzen ( 1991 ) posited that an individual’s attitude to a certain behaviour will determine whether that behaviour is enacted or implemented. Behaviour is secondly determined by subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991 ). Subjective norms reference those societal or legal aspects which prompt or drive behaviour. Thirdly, behaviour is often influenced by perceived behaviour control, implying that individuals within any context are likely to behave in a certain way if they believe that they can control some aspects, or that the behaviour will be easy to enact or implement (Ajzen, 1991 ). The Theory of Planned Behaviour hypothesizes that an individual’s attitude towards a specific behaviour, such as differentiated instruction, significantly influences the likelihood of that behaviour being enacted. Therefore, if educators believe that differentiated instruction will positively impact student learning and view this outcome as valuable, they are more likely to engage in this practice. When considering the subjective norm, if educators perceive that their peers and supervisors support and value differentiated practices, they are more likely to adopt such methods in their teaching. This social influence underscores the importance of creating a supportive and collaborative educational environment that promotes innovative teaching practices. Perceived behavioural control, implies that educators need adequate training, resources, and support to feel capable of implementing these strategies effectively. Perceived behavioural control is critical as it directly affects both the intention to engage in the behaviour and the actual implementation of the behaviour. Tomlinson ( 2001 ), who has extensively studied differentiated instruction and its application in diverse classrooms, highlights the necessity for educators to possess positive attitudes towards differentiated instruction, perceive strong support from their institutional environment, and feel confident in their ability to adapt their teaching methods to meet the diverse needs of students. By utilising Ajzen’s TPB, the current study aims to understand how these factors influence educators’ intentions and behaviours regarding differentiated instruction in higher education, thereby providing insights into the mechanisms that can promote or hinder the adoption of such innovative teaching practices.

In alignment with the underlying theoretical framework Ajzen’s ( 1980 , 1991 ) Theory of Planned Behaviour, the following research questions were framed to lead the investigation:

What are the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction in higher education?

How do specific demographic variables impact educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction in higher education?

Methodology

The study adopted a qualitative methodology, focusing on case studies in order to garner the perceptions of educators in higher education, regarding their use of differentiated instruction in their classrooms. Case studies are regarded as an effective means of obtaining in-depth data from participants (Crowe et al., 2011 ; Saldanha & Haen, 2016 ; Yin, 2009 ). Since case studies have the capacity to explore and explain, while drawing links and acknowledging connections, this form of data collection was view as appropriate to this context (Yin, 2009 ). Within the context of the current study, case studies were viewed as appropriate to address the research questions, since they are geared to harness professional attitudes, perceptions toward instructional techniques and explore experiences with the implementation of differentiated instruction (Crowe et al., 2011 ).

In line with guidelines highlighted above, each volunteering participant was contacted by the research team and a mutually agreed time was set up for an interview. Participants were also sent an email with the option to “free list” (Appendix B) some of the strategies and challenges they experienced as part of their implementation of differentiated instruction.

Participants/Sampling

This study focused on the perceptions of higher educators relating to the implementation of differentiated instruction, the research team attempted to draw in educators with the following demographics. In this qualitative case study examining the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education, a convenience sampling technique was employed to select participants. Convenience sampling involves selecting subjects who are readily accessible and willing to participate (Etikan et al., 2016 ). Five university educators who met these criteria were selected. Firstly, they had to be employed and teaching within an Indonesian university. Secondly, they should have received some training in differentiated instruction in the last 12 months. Thirdly, it was anticipated that these selected individuals would be implementing or attempting to implement differentiated instruction in their higher education classrooms. This approach allowed for considered exploration of educators’ experiences and perceptions within a manageable scope. Although convenience sampling may limit generalizability, it is effective for qualitative research focused on gaining detailed insights from a specific group (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Following ethical approval, the sample eventually chosen consisted of 5 participants (3 females and 2 males). These five educators were known to the researchers as individuals who had received comprehensive training and acknowledged that they had attempted and were continuing to utilise differentiated instruction in their classrooms. All five case study participants taught undergraduate cohorts at the time of data collection, reflected generally on all the classes/groups they taught, and were positioned within groups of students of mixed ability and backgrounds.

Data Collection

Data were collected utilising a video conferencing platform in late 2022. The team decided to focus on a group of five educators, since many educators whom we spoke to as part of our convenience sampling did not feel appropriately equipped to undertake the interview. Video-conferencing was the preferred option since we could interview participants across a broad geographical location. The five selected participants met the criteria outlined above, represented a range of disciplines, and identified varying levels of comfort with differentiated instruction in our informal conversations with them. Participant details have been included in Appendix 1. Interviews were led by a set of pre-determined questions and have been included in Appendix 2. This interview schedule was distributed to participants prior to the interviews so that they could be prepared. Interviews lasted for an hour and were recorded on the video conferencing platform. The platform itself generated a transcript—this was checked by the team for accuracy. All interviews were conducted by the lead author and one other team member, in English. Sometimes, for clarity, questions and responses were translated to Bahasa Indonesia. All participants spoke English and were happy to have the interview conducted in English. Once the interviews were transcribed, these were sent to participants for member-checking to ensure that their responses were accurately captured, and to ensure credibility and trustworthiness (Harper & Cole, 2012 ). Participants were also encouraged to share follow up thoughts with the research team following the interviews.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was facilitated using Braun and Clark’s ( 2006 ) guidelines. In order to develop shared meaning and understanding, the team met to initially discuss the developing ideas, using open coding to state (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017 ). Given the small number of participants, manual coding and analysis was preferred (Basit, 2003 ). A spreadsheet was compiled to capture key quotes and concepts and served as a starting point to generate initial codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017 ). Initial codes included: innovative teaching methods, use of online resources, formative assessments, use of choices, student enjoyment and engagement, varied processes and strategies, assessment techniques (product), teacher readiness, teacher support, resources, confidence, and professional development (among others). Once a final list was compiled, the team met to confirm, review, define and label the themes. Theme review considered whether the themes made sense, whether they responded to the initial research objectives, whether a theme had included too much and contained multiple sub-themes, and whether individual themes reported cohesively to the main data set (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). In the final iteration, themes were named and articulated according to emerging ideas.

The Results section presents findings from the study on differentiated instruction in higher education, organized thematically for clarity. Organising the Results into themes allowed for an inclusion relating to insights into educators’ beliefs about the benefits and challenges of differentiated instruction, the influence of peer and administrative support, and their confidence in executing these strategies. The impact of specific demographic variables on educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction, were highlighted across age, experience, and educational background. In the final paragraph in this section, the discourse returns to the research questions, offering a condensed response as a wrap-up.

Using Innovative Methods of Teaching and Engaging Students

One of the key emerging themes from this study is that educators in the research context were keen to utilise innovative methods of teaching and engaging students. This included the use of games, software applications, novel teaching strategies and social media platforms.

Desi acknowledged that she:

“Used the flipped classroom…and split students into groups”.

She added that she:

“Used students as mentors and observers so they engage better. … It ’ s an important skill and competency…important for the student and for ourselves. Games are a good strategy....”

Dede corroborated the view that intuitive teaching strengthened the use of differentiation in the classroom, adding on that:

“My confidence is dependent on how students react. …I adapted some methods to suit higher education. It gave me a wider range of methods that I can use in teaching”.

In this context, Dede acknowledged that the selection of teaching strategies depended on how students responded to the task, and he strengthened his skill with differentiation by being professionally developed.

In relation to the responses to COVID-19, Suci commented that:

“I use the hybrid method—students onsite and students via Zoom. I apply criteria used in the assessment to evaluate. Students enjoy discussions—they are quite open—even if it is a lot of work”.

In this context, student discussions were encouraged to strengthen involvement and engagement, especially in light of remote learning measures, which had the potential to trigger isolation.

Wati’s methods of corralling differentiated instruction involved the use of student feedback to inform and shape the lesson and her planning. She observed that:

“Surveys were used to gather student opinions. Microsoft forms were used regarding motives. Students had access to results of the surveys. Kahoot was used to gather formative information.”

This use of student feedback informs and refines the lesson plan to ensure better student outcomes.

Another participant, Joko, added that:

“I implemented games at the beginning through a Kahoot/Padlet app related to the material review. Then, I try to build discussion and active participation from students when discussing the material…”

This use of external software platforms ensured that student attention was harnessed and maintained during the lesson.

In summary, it was evident that participants incorporated a range of innovative strategies to better engage students and to improve their academic outcomes. Games appear to be a popular choice, alongside survey data which provides compelling support for student involvement.

Differentiation as a Means of Addressing Student Diversity

Generally, participants believed that differentiated instruction was an effective means of addressing student diversity and of facilitating varying teaching methods and strategies to accommodate the unique needs of students. In this regard, Joko commented that:

“I believe that DI is one of the effective learning strategies/methods to facilitate the diversity and needs of students.”

It was evident that individual student needs were paramount to educators who were willing to differentiate instruction in the higher education classroom. Corroborating this view, Wati acknowledged that:

“Students like the formative evaluation…it does not matter that they do not have scores…they do know the results. They directly know the results…they are excited to do the evaluation…”.

Here too, the use of pre-assessment strategies, not necessarily linked to results, allowed educators to obtain a more accurate position of student needs. Evidently, students in this context appreciated the time taken by the educator to not only understand their needs but to evaluate exactly where they would fit into the curriculum. Desi referenced a specific incident when she used breakout rooms on the video conferencing platforms in order to better engage students in groups, during an activity relating to academic reading. These were complemented by other forms of engagement including online quizzes:

“If students enjoyed the activity, I gained more confidence. I have several break out rooms to suit student needs. … I give them choices—I give them an article to read or provide a video if they prefer. It ’ s part of my lesson plan to give students choice. I use engagement tools and quizzes because students love it.”

Suci, referenced the use of flexible grouping, with students being offered a range of activity formats suited to their learning profiles. The use of choice, and an awareness of background experience, cumulatively worked to consolidate learning in the higher education classroom:

“I divide my students into ability groups. In this way, they will be more active. When I set a task, I provide three options—they can utilise a video or a written piece or a video… I post a reflection in the forum but students are sometimes overwhelmed by the number of questions.”

This theme underlines the need for greater inution when implementing differentiated instruction, since aspects like quizzes and flexible grouping engages students more effectively in their learning.

Utilising Varied Means (Strategies) to Engage Students (Student-Oriented)

Student-oriented teaching is fundamental to differentiated instruction. As a consequence, many of our participants revealed that they considered student diversity during the planning stage in order to provide a range of strategies to engage students in their learning. Joko suggested that:

“I have tried various ways of implementing DI by paying attention to the diversity of student abilities when forming groups, namely students with good cognitive modalities combined with those less than optimal.”

In line with this, Wati conceded that students enjoy being given choices, and as a consequence she incorporated this into her lessons to ensure that different levels of difficulty were accommodated as part of the activities offered to the class:

“Choices…we like choices. I give my students lots of choices…they like the choices. Students can choose videos which they want to work on. ”

Likewise, Desi’s use of formative assessment was useful along the way as it allowed her to gauge whether students were enjoying the activities and whether they were useful with regard to reinforcing concepts that were being taught:

“I ask students if they enjoy the activities. When I give an assignment…they can choose to write an article or record it. I give them the freedom to choose how they will report their ideas. Sometimes they find it difficult to offer their ideas in writing.”

In the light of the shift to more hybridized learning, involving both in-situ and remote teaching, Suci noted that the embedding of soft skills especially with regard to interpreting feedback was central to her teaching. She recognized that the implementation of differentiated instruction in a hybridized setting is a challenge, however the use of soft skills through the manipulation of cameras and microphones, allowed students to interact more fully in the classroom:

“I tried to implement embedded soft skills—for example, how to provide feedback. It ’ s to help students to collaborate and provide respectful feedback to one another. The students liked the class overall and liked the discussion. … Class discussions are much better because of the break out rooms.”

A student-oriented focus evidently works more effectively as a means of differentiating instruction to accommodate student diversity. Aspects like choices, formative assessments and the embedding of soft skills, all proved effective when involving students in the learning and teaching process.

Challenges with Implementing Differentiated Instruction

The implementation of differentiated instruction is not without its challenges. In this regard all participants acknowledged a range of aspects that often distract from their need to appropriately cater for their students through differentiated instruction.

Joko observed that the challenge often featured during planning, since so much of the work of a higher education instructor is consumed by other duties including administrative tasks. However, he noted that he often worked past this during the preparation process since he was aware that students preferred lessons that were differentiated:

“However, for me, the challenge that I feel is mainly in preparation for teaching. I see that the success of implementing DI lies in the clarity and readiness of the teacher before the implementation process.”

In the light of this, Wati similarly granted that time constraints impacted on the need to differentiate—especially since the construction of quizzes and group assignments often required more work. Differentiated instruction is often labour intensive and time intensive, especially if individual student needs are being met. Planning therefore consumes a great deal of time:

“Formative evaluation should be used more regularly….because of time and the adaptation to the demands of work. I handle three big classes…and I have not used formative evaluation as regularly as I should be…Feedback takes a great deal of time.”

Likewise, Desi observed that large class sizes often compelled her to question whether to implement differentiated instruction, especially if she was not feeling very confident. This resulted in pressure, and some self-questioning regarding her confidence and capacity to implement differentiated instruction:

“Big classes. Passive students are in certain groups and it ’ s difficult to assist them. I ’ m not confident to implement the DI procedure. I ’ m always questioning myself…do I really implement DI?”.

Dede also admitted that differentiated instruction may not always be suited to every classroom—since some protocols and procedures do not apply to certain aspects of the curriculum.

“Differentiation is sometimes a hit and miss. Some content is difficult to differentiate. The content is sometimes complex and it ’ s difficult to change. Many students do not come from a natural science background so they struggle…it ’ s different from what they expect. ”

Similarly, Suci acknowledged that occasionally the need to differentiate instruction resulted in feelings of anxiety and being overwhelmed by the need two contribute more specifically to student learning. She also noted the huge time responsibility required when differentiating instruction in the higher education classroom:

“I feel overwhelmed with implementing DI, and did not implement it again. The pandemic happened and I went back to the usual curriculum. ”

This theme illustrated a range of challenges commonly ascribed to differentiated instruction. Among these participants reported the time intensive nature of differentiated instruction, amidst the administrative tasks that often consumed teaching at this level. Additionally, the associated pressures of large class sizes and large curricula also presented significant hurdles.

Support to Implement Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction in the higher education context often requires additional support, as educators attempt to accommodate the needs of diverse student profiles. In this regard, Joko noted that:

“I need support, especially on how to design a lesson plan that is suitable for adult learners. It is necessary to obtain concrete examples in the successful implementation of each DI element so that it is hoped that it can get inspiration. ”.

Additionally, Wati responded that she continued to learn about differentiated instruction while she implemented its protocols. She was aware that the site at which she worked provided amply for the implementation of differentiated instruction, especially with the use of particular learning management systems. In this context, students were able to ask questions via forums and lecturers were able to provide feedback:

“I ’ m still learning…I would like to use a variety of applications…and will need help with online use. Gen Z prefer online applications and other technology. They want to learn more interactively.”

Desi concurred that support was necessary especially since an individual’s confidence in differentiated instruction grew on account of professional development. She noted that receiving support with differentiated instruction allowed her to better accommodate student needs since some were quite active in regard to their learning while others adopted a more passive stance.

“For 50 students, they are very different…some are very active and others are very passive. Some prefer to speak and others prefer to write. Online classes are challenging.”

The benefits of working with colleagues in order to better accommodate the needs of students were acknowledged by Dede. This is a fundamental strength of differentiated instruction since input from collaborators often consolidates practice. Dede indicated that:

“I work with colleagues and students to obtain support. Students help with deciding what is appropriate and helpful to them.”

Additionally, Suci reflected on how training had intensified her confidence with regard to differentiated instruction—specific preparation with regard to planning in line with the differentiated instruction protocols, reduced her feelings of stress and anxiety, more so when she felt supported:

“I gained more confidence with the training and I ’ ve become more confident. I do not feel as overwhelmed about implementing DI.”

Under this theme, participants indicated different types of support that would better facilitate the implementation of differentiated instruction. Learning management systems which are used to aid learning are often static and limit the opportunities for differentiation. Additionally, participants found that their colleagues who also differentiated instruction offered support to encourage their efforts, and academic discussions of this nature often egged them forward.

Results from the interviews conducted with the participants revealed firstly that the use of innovative teaching methods were useful with regard to differentiating instruction in the higher education classroom. Secondly, all participants in this study acknowledged that differentiation was an effective means of addressing student diversity and fundamentally ensured that students are engaged in the learning process. Thirdly, participants noted that the use of varied means of presenting information to engage students, allowed for more authentic differentiation.

We close this section by returning to the research questions, which focused firstly on the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction in higher education. We then consider how specific demographic variables impacted on educators’ attitudes, perceived support, and perceived ability to differentiate instruction in higher education. The findings of the study spotlight a few key ideas associated with the attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control factors influencing educators’ intentions to implement differentiated instruction. Educators conveyed a willingness to adopt innovative teaching methods to implement greater differentiation. These included the use of games, software applications, and social media platforms, to engage students. Participants like Desi and Dede expressed the importance of confidence in teaching strategies and the positive impact of student feedback on their instructional methods. Suci’s use of hybrid methods during the global pandemic and Wati’s incorporation of student surveys and feedback tools illustrate the hands-on efforts to customise instruction to accommodate student needs.

With regard to demographic variables, our study revealed that experience and educational background influenced educator attitudes and their perceptions of support. For instance, Joko noted that the diversity of student abilities shaped his grouping strategies. Wati also highlighted a preference to offer choices to accommodate varying student abilities. Several challenges were referenced by the study’s participants such as time constraints, large class sizes, and content complexity, were acknowledged by all participants. However, professional development and support from colleagues were identified as crucial factors in enhancing educators’ confidence and ability to differentiate effectively. These findings underscore the need for continuous training and institutional support to foster an inclusive and adaptive learning environment in higher education.

The objective of this study was to explore the views of teaching staff in higher education, regarding their implementation of differentiated instruction in their classroom. Semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically and yield five overarching themes: the use of innovative methods of teaching to engage students; differentiation as a means of addressing student diversity; utilising varied means (strategies) to engage students (student oriented); challenges while implementing differentiated instruction, and drawing on support structures to implement differentiated instruction more effectively.

Educators were keen to draw on innovative ideas and methods to involve all students in the lesson. These innovative strategies included the use of the flipped classroom, and the use of peer mentoring for support. Differentiated strategies also became prominent during the delivery of content, in the remote classroom. Additionally, educators acknowledged that introducing student feedback into a lesson proved to be highly valuable. Research corroborates this view, reflecting on how the use of differentiated techniques results in better educational outcomes and stronger student engagement (Boelens et al., 2018 ). Other studies confirmed this finding, revealing that the use of differentiated strategies positions students to achieve better academic scores (Goddard et al., 2019 ; Kettler & Taliaferro, 2022 ).

Furthermore, participants in this study believed that differentiated instruction was an effective means of addressing student diversity. Utilising techniques such as formative assessments and regular feedback were seen as fundamental to the effective implementation of differentiated instruction. Additionally, the use of preassessment strategies in order to shape feedback to students was perceived as an effective means of engaging students in both the physical and the online classroom. In this context, the use of scaffolding techniques and flexible grouping, evoked better responses from students, and created better learning environments. Research on differentiated instruction generally agrees that the philosophy is an effective means of addressing student variance in contemporary classrooms (Pozas et al., 2021 ; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ).

Another emerging theme was the need to utilize various strategies to engage students directly into their learning. Offering students choices, based on different levels of difficulty, ensured that students took ownership of their learning, more comprehensively. Furthermore, participants acknowledge that students enjoyed learning activities which gave them the freedom to choose. Feedback, in this context, was utilized in twin ways. Participants observed that students needed to learn a range of soft skills in order to better engage the online classroom—differentiated instruction allowed for this embedding of soft skills into teaching units. Utilising a range of strategies in the higher education classroom has generally proved to be a strength—enhancing the learning environment and engaging students in the process (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ; Tomlinson, 2014 ). Aligning teaching strategies with students’ learning profiles appears to produce stronger overall results (Haelermans, 2022 ).

Participants also acknowledged the challenges associated with differentiating instruction, which they noted may sometimes impact on the appropriate accommodation of students with unique learning needs. Not all lessons were able to be differentiated, with some content-based material in the higher education classroom, requiring more direct instruction. Research confirmed the results revealed that the challenges in implementing differentiating instruction are a very time-consuming of preparation, organization and scheduling the individuals and groups in a large class setting, difficult to cater to individual needs and preferences especially those who prefer to work alone, and the examination culture which has pervaded teacher education institutions seemed to have great impact (Joseph et al., 2013 ; Turner et al., 2017 ).

Finally, most participants acknowledged that differentiated instruction in the higher education context often requires support especially through professional learning. Research aligns with the findings revealed that the teachers find it difficult to develop different ways for students to learn based on what they know and are already able to do, therefore the teachers need to prepared in initial teacher education and supported through professional teacher development agendas (Gaitas & Martins, 2016 ). Other studies also suggest that workshops and training courses for teachers on how to implement the DI strategy are needed, to provide the practical models for the application of DI in school courses (Aldossari, 2018 ).

We close this section by returning the results of the study to the conceptual framework—Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Contextually, educator beliefs about the positive outcomes associated with differentiated instruction, were aligned with enhanced student engagement. These beliefs prompted the use of innovative teaching methods and creative means of addressing student diversity, reinforcing the need for differentiated strategies. The TPB references normative beliefs which relate to perceived expectations of significant others—these are usually aligned with structural supports within institutions. Consequently, the influence of colleagues, professional learning communities and policies that govern learning all act as prompts to encourage the use of differentiated instruction in this context. Control beliefs, which reflect the perceived ease or difficulty associated with performing differentiated instruction in classrooms, resonated with many participants. Time constraints, organizational demands, and the complexity of catering to diverse student needs all impacted on perceived behavioural control underscoring the need for greater support and professional development. These would enhance capacity, improving this perceived control, creating educators who experience greater confidence when implementing differentiated instruction. The TPB also positions “intention” as a precursor to behaviour. This is evident in the acknowledgement by many participants to pre-assess, craft effect formative assessments and group students flexibly. All of these require intentional, former planning. This study draws attention to the motivations and the barriers experienced by educators within the Indonesian context as they implement differentiated instruction. This contributes to a broader understanding of the factors that encourage and drive the adoption of differentiation as a paradigm in higher education. It is evident that targeted interventions to support educators as they cater to the range of student needs in their classrooms, is crucial, especially in the contemporary context.

Implications for Practice

Differentiated instruction in the higher education classroom has sometimes been recorded as time-consuming and challenging (Turner et al., 2017 ). However, the current study through its appreciative focus on the model of differentiated instruction, yielded the following implications for practitioners in higher education in Indonesia. Studies focusing on the implementation of differentiated instruction in higher education are limited, so we offer the following based on the findings of this qualitative study.

Differentiated instruction has the potential to improve the overall learning environment, and subsequently, student outcomes, in the higher education classroom, through innovative learning strategies and efforts by the educator.

In the higher education context, differentiated instruction can present as a challenge, since it may not suit every lesson. Educators may need to be more discerning in their choices of strategies.

Staff who differentiate learning and teaching programs should be supported with appropriate professional development, to enhance their skill and application of differentiated techniques.

See Table 1 .

Appendix 2 Interview protocol: differentiated instruction in higher education

Thank you for participating in today’s interview. Our research team is watching the interview for consistency purposes so that we can replicate this in a different context. We aim to be no longer than 1 h.

Our research examines the use of differentiated education in the higher education sector. Having recently undertaken a professional development program in Differentiated Instruction, we are keen to garner your thoughts and perceptions regarding the viability of implementing differentiated instruction in the higher education sector.

Section A: Please Tell us a Little About Yourself

Years of Experience.

Main discipline.

Class Size.

Previous Experience with DI.

Previous success with DI.

Confidence implementing DI.

Prior Professional Learning in DI.

Section B: Tell us About Your Perceptions of DI in Higher Education

What is your understanding of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector? What does differentiated instruction mean for your teaching?

Tell us about some of the strategies that you use to accommodate students from diverse backgrounds?

Inclusivity is often a team/collaborative effort—how do you encourage the contribution of other staff, educators and support personnel in your inclusive efforts? How do you support collaboration?

Reflective practice is core to successful differentiation—how do you ensure that your practice is evaluated? Are there regular and consistent evaluative measures?

Social media is being increasingly utilised to accommodate changing student needs. Can you tell us a little about how you have incorporated social media platforms into your teaching and learning programs?

Utilising research-based strategies to facilitate differentiated instruction is fundamental to success. Can you tell us about any innovative strategies that you’ve found to have worked within your classroom that was linked to research?

Differentiating instruction may present with challenges. Can you tell us about some of the challenges you have experienced?

Often, educators require additional support and resources to implement differentiated instruction. Tell us about the support and resources that you have required, and your accessibility to these.

Closing Prompt:

We know that you are building your confidence and your skill with regard to differentiated instruction. Is there anything you would like to add to our discussion?

What advice would you provide to other staff who are planning to implement differentiated instruction in their classrooms?

Thank you for your involvement in our research.

Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior . Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar  

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 , 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldossari, A. T. (2018). The challenges of using the differentiated instruction strategy: A case study in the general education stages in Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 11 (4), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n4p74

Basit, T. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data analysis. Educational Research, 45 (2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548

Boelens, R., Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2018). The design of blended learning in response to student diversity in higher education: Instructors’ views and use of differentiated instruction in blended learning. Computers and Education, 120 , 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.009

Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America . Princeton University Press.

BPS-Statistics Indonesia. (2023). Statistics of Education 2023 . Retrieved from BPS-Statistics Indonesia

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chamberlin, M., & Powers, R. (2010). The promise of differentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical understandings of college students. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29 (3), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Edelman Global Advisory. (2023). Overview of the Indonesian Government’s 2024 Work Plan . Retrieved from https://www.edelmanglobaladvisory.com/insights/overview-indonesian-governments-2024-work-plan

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics., 5 , 1.

Firmender, J., Reis, S., & Sweeny, S. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 57 (1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460084

Gaitas, S., & Martins, M. A. (2016). Teacher perceived difficulty in implementing differentiated instructional strategies in primary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1223180

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., Bailes, L. P., & Nichols, R. (2019). From school leadership to differentiated instruction: A pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal, 120 (2), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/705827

Grimes, K., & Stevens, D. (2009). Glass, bug, mud: A self-assessment system enables teachers to differentiate elementary mathematics instruction, which boosts both student learning and students’ sense of themselves as mathematicians. Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (9), 677.

Haelermans, C. (2022). The effects of group differentiation by students’ learning strategies. Instructional Science, 50 (2), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09575-0

Harper, M., & Cole, P. (2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? The Qualitative Report, 17 , 1–8.

Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonetter, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The impact of differentiated instruction in a teacher education settings: Successes and challenges. International Journal of Higher Education, 2 (3), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n3p28

Kettler, T., & Taliaferro, C. (2022). Personalized learning in gifted education: Differentiated instruction that maximizes students’ potential. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237136

Lunsford, H., & Treadwell, G. (2016). Implementing differentiated instruction for online college writing courses: Addressing challenges and developing best practices. Distance Learning, 13 (3), 11–22.

Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J, 1 (3), 3351–33514.

McCarty, W., Crow, S. R., Mims, G. A., Potthoff, D. E., & Harvey, J. S. (2016). Renewing teaching practices: Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching Learning and Leadership in Education, 1 , 5.

Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., & Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (9), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5

Naidoo, R. (2022, March 21). Rekindling passion for equality, diversity and inclusion work. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/rekindling-passion-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-work .

Pozas, M., Letzel, V., Lindner, K.-T., & Schwab, S. (2021). DI (Differentiated Instruction) does matter! The effects of DI on secondary school students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept. Frontiers in Education . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.729027

Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (2), 462–501. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382891

Rutter, M. P., & Mintz, S. (2016). Differentiated instruction in the college classroom. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/differentiated-instruction-college-classroom .

Saldanha, J., & Haen, K. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of case studies in improving student learning in a 200-level anatomy course. CIRTL Reports. 3. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45660048.pdf .

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

Scarparolo, G., & MacKinnon, S. (2022). Student voice as part of differentiated instruction: Students’ perspectives. Educational Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2047617

Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366

Smith, A., & Chestnut, C. (2021). Differentiation for equity. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21 , 232–241.

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

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and their implementation of differentiated instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67 , 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

Teig, N., Scherer, R., & Olsen, R. V. (2022). A systematic review of studies investigating science teaching and learning: Over two decades of TIMSS and PISA. International Journal of Science Education, 44 (12), 2035–2058. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2085024

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29 (1), 60–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320502900104

Times Higher Education. (2024). Study in Indonesia . Retrieved from Times Higher Education

Times Higher Education. (2024). World University Rankings 2024 . Retrieved from Times Higher Education

Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy (Oxford, England), 42 (1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9345.2008.00470.x

Tomlinson, C. A., & Association for Supervision Curriculum Development. (1996).  Differentiating instruction for mixed-ability classrooms . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A. (1999).  Differentiated Classroom . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners . Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tulbure, C. (2011). Differentiating instruction upon learning styles in higher education: A controversial issue. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of BrașOv, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law, 4 , 79–84.

Turner, W., Solis, O., & Kincade, D. (2017). Differentiating instruction for large classes in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29 (3), 490–500.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Advancing diversity and inclusion in higher education . https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/advancing-diversity-inclusion.pdf .

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research, design and method (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Pearl Subban

Department of Psychology, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia

Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi, Melly Preston, Annisa Nanda Liyani & Andrea Prita Purnama Ratri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pearl Subban .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Subban, P., Suprayogi, M.N., Preston, M. et al. “Differentiation is Sometimes a Hit and Miss”. Educator Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction in the Higher Education Sector. Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8

Download citation

Accepted : 19 August 2024

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Differentiated Instruction
• Higher Education
• Student Diversity
• Instructional Strategies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research