Good practices for differentiated instruction in vocational education: the combined perspectives of educational researchers and teachers

ABSTRACT

Teachers are increasingly encouraged to meet students’ individual learning needs through differentiated instruction (DI) and the body of literature regarding the teaching practices constituting effective DI continues to grow. Although it could be argued that vocational education has certain characteristics that enhance the importance of DI, the amount of studies exploring this approach in the vocational education context is very limited. The aim of this study was twofold: (1) to identify the perceptions of educational researchers and teachers regarding the extent to which previously identified DI principles inform good practices in vocational education (2) to identify which challenges vocational teachers encounter in the implementation of DI. To this end, we conducted focus group interviews – structured around vignettes – with 15 participants from the Netherlands and Flanders, Belgium. Our findings imply that the principles identified in other contexts are perceived as relevant in vocational education, but that this context requires a somewhat different implementation of these principles and additionally results in specific challenges that teachers need to address. The insights obtained in this study can be used in the (re)design of professional development initiatives targeted at improving the DI practices of vocational teachers.

KEYWORDS:

• Differentiated instruction
• Diversity
• Inclusion
• Vocational education

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS:

• SDG 4: Quality education; SGD 10: Reduced inequalities

1. Introduction

One of the priorities of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (United Nations 2015). This has resulted in an increased urge for education systems worldwide to include all learners and to ensure all learners have equal opportunities to succeed (UNESCO 2017). Whereas educational policy in relation to these matters is indispensable, the success of its implementation largely depends on those most directly involved with learners; the teachers (Letzel, Pozas, and Schneider 2023). Ultimately, it is the teacher who daily faces groups of students that differ in their learning needs.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is a pedagogical-didactical approach that acknowledges diversity among students and supports teachers in meeting students’ individual learning needs (e.g. Pozas, Letzel-Alt, and Schwab 2023; Smale-Jacobse et al. 2019). However, DI is a complex skill that many teachers consider highly challenging (Gaitas and Alves Martins 2017). Prior research has therefore extensively studied aspects such as the effectiveness of DI (e.g. Deunk et al. 2018; Smale-Jacobse et al. 2019), teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards DI (e.g. Coubergs et al. 2017; Gheyssens et al. 2022), DI practices (e.g. Prast et al. 2015; Roy, Guay, and Valois 2013) and the factors fostering and hindering DI implementation (e.g. De Neve, Devos, and Tuytens 2015; Gibbs 2023).

Worldwide, DI has primarily been studied in primary and general secondary education. In vocational education, the heterogeneity among students, the share of disadvantaged and vulnerable students and student dropout tend to be large (Cerda-Navarro, Sureda-Negre, and Comas-Forgas 2017; Glaudé et al. 2011; Unia 2018). So, in this context, it is even more essential that teachers are capable of adjusting their practices to the variety of needs among students (Onderwijsraad 2011). While previous research has explored the theme of inclusive teaching in vocational education, such as teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education (Miesera and Gebhardt 2018) and inclusive assessment practices (Mudau 2018), research focused on the specific approach of DI has – to our knowledge – not yet been conducted in this context. Therefore, this study focuses on researcher and teacher perceptions of DI in vocational education.

1.1. The origin, meaning, principles and potential of differentiated instruction

Global trends such as the increased inclusion of students from various backgrounds and those who used to attend special needs schools enhance the diversity within student groups (Maulana et al. 2023). Differences among students that could influence their learning and learning needs relate – but are not limited – to abilities, background knowledge, interests, learning preferences, native language and personality traits (e.g. Denessen and Douglas 2015; Hall 2002). There used to be the belief that teachers should treat students equally, so that irrespective of their differences, they would get the same opportunities to learn. Nowadays, it is recognised that for the majority of students, a one-size-fits all approach to teaching does not result in optimal learning (Tomlinson et al. 2003). According to Iterbeke (2021), this implies that teachers ought to shift from teaching the average student (an equality point of view) towards addressing students’ individual learning needs (an equity point of view). Differentiated instruction (DI) is a pedagogical-didactical approach that is advocated to enhance equity in learning opportunities.

Although DI is considered essential for providing quality education (Van de Grift 2014), many inconsistencies exist in terms of its definition and operationalisation (Graham et al. 2021). The framework by Tomlinson (2007, 10) states that ‘in a differentiated classroom, the teacher proactively plans and carries out varied approaches to the content, the process, and/or the product in anticipation of or in response to student differences in readiness, interests, and learning needs’. Thus, DI is a student-centred approach in which teachers flexibly modify elements in the learning environment to maximise learning opportunities for all students. Examples are offering variety in the level of complexity (content), the grouping of students (process) and assessment type (product) (Coubergs et al. 2017; Hall 2002).

Although DI is a ‘heterogeneous and multifaceted teaching approach’ (Letzel-Alt and Pozas 2023, 9), previous studies provided insight into the general principles that underlie effective DI. These principles can take different shapes to address context-specific needs. Based on a cognitive task analysis among primary school mathematics teachers, five principles for high-quality DI were identified (Frerejean et al. 2021; Keuning and van Geel 2021). Follow-up research showed that these principles are also valuable in the context of secondary education (Meutstege, van Geel, and Visscher 2023). The first principle, strong goal-orientation, refers to choosing teaching activities that contribute to reaching set goals, whereas continuous monitoring relates to gathering information on the progress of students related to these goals. This progress can be enhanced by challenging students at their own level and by the adapting of instruction and assignments to meet students’ individual learning needs. Finally, stimulating self-regulation refers to encouraging students to take ownership of their own learning, under supervision of the teacher (Frerejean et al. 2021; Keuning and van Geel 2021).

Meta-analyses have started revealing small to moderate effects of DI on student achievement (Deunk et al. 2018; Smale-Jacobse et al. 2019) and DI has also been related to outcomes such as enhanced student engagement, self-confidence and self-directedness (McQuarrie and McRae 2010). Furthermore, student ratings of teachers’ DI practices were shown to correlate with students’ well-being, social inclusion and academic self-concept (Pozas et al. 2021). Nevertheless, it has also been emphasised that the effectiveness of DI depends on how teachers implement this approach. In the words of Tomlinson et al. (2003, 135): ‘there is considerable distance to span before the argument translates into pervasive practice’.

1.2. DI in vocational education

A recent report by the Dutch Inspectorate of Education on DI practices in secondary vocational education revealed that although teachers understand the value of DI, the majority indicate feeling incapable of applying this approach (Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2021). This is concerning since teachers in vocational education tend to face student groups that would expectedly benefit from DI. Besides the heterogeneity among students – in terms of country of birth, household composition and parents’ educational levels, for example – the student population contains a relatively large share of students in disadvantaged and vulnerable positions (Glaudé et al. 2011; Unia 2018). In addition, many students have low motivation and self-confidence (Cents-Boonstra et al. 2019), and the risk of student drop-out is large (Cerda-Navarro, Sureda-Negre, and Comas-Forgas 2017).

Despite the importance of DI in vocational education and evidence indicating ineffective teaching practices (Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2021), research on DI in this context is very limited. While research in other settings examined practices that underlie effective DI – resulting in the principles by Keuning and van Geel (2021), for example – it is not yet clear to what extent these findings could also inform DI in the vocational education context. In addition to its particular student population, vocational education is characterised by its explicit focus on professional competence development (e.g. De Bruijn 2006), which implies that the curriculum contains practical courses and internships or apprenticeships in addition to theoretical courses. Furthermore, a relatively large share of vocational teachers tend to have a less extensive pedagogical and didactical background than teachers in primary education. Thus, DI implementation in vocational education may come with particular challenges.

The above implies that the current body of literature does not provide insight into the teaching practices that contribute to effective DI in vocational education. However, enhanced understanding of how DI could effectively be applied in this setting could inform the (re-)design of teacher education and professional development initiatives so that vocational teachers are better supported to apply DI. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: (1) to identify the perceptions of educational researchers and teachers regarding the extent to which the five DI principles also constitute good practices in this particular context and (2) to identify which challenges vocational teachers encounter in the implementation of DI. This leads to the following research questions:

• What do educational researchers and teachers consider good practices for effective DI in vocational education?

• Which challenges are encountered by vocational teachers in DI implementation?

2. Methodology

This explorative study – in which we operate from a social-constructivist stance – is part of a larger research project on the DI practices of teachers in vocational education. We chose to conduct focus group interviews since these allow gaining insight into the perceptions and experiences from different participants’ points of view.

2.1. Context

This study was conducted in the Netherlands and Flanders, the Dutch-speaking community in Belgium. In the following, we describe the vocational education settings in these regions.

2.1.1. The Netherlands

In the Dutch secondary education system, students follow one out of three tracks. The pre-vocational track gives students access to secondary vocational education schools (MBO) that prepare them for a specific job. MBO contains four sublevels (Entree, MBO2, MBO3 and MBO4). These sublevels reflect assistant training, basic vocational training, professional training and middle-management training, respectively. Programmes last one to four years and students choose between two pathways. In the first, students spend the majority of their study time at school. Programmes are a mix of theoretical and practical courses and it differs between programmes how much time is spent on internships. In the second, students combine school with employment at a company for three or four days a week (i.e. an apprenticeship). Internships and apprenticeships take place in recognised training companies with professional supervisors. The student, supervisor and a teacher or coordinator sign a binding agreement and meet regularly. In this study, we focused on the context of MBO3 and MBO4. Class sizes differ strongly between programmes and schools.

Vocational teachers in the Netherlands have either obtained a teaching qualification by graduating from a part-time or full-time teaching education programme, or by participating in a lateral entry trajectory specific to vocational education. A large share of vocational teachers enter the teaching profession through the latter trajectory, in which they start teaching whilst obtaining their degree. It is typically attended by individuals who initially worked – or still work – in the vocational field and focuses on the development of pedagogical and didactic skills. The large majority of vocational teachers are not teaching in other settings than vocational education. Teachers usually teach either theoretical or practical courses.

2.1.2. Flanders

In Flanders, vocational education is one of the tracks within compulsory secondary education. The curriculum has been undergoing a gradual reform since 2019. In the vocational track (‘BSO’ in the old curriculum and ‘arbeidsmarktgerichte finaliteit’ in the new curriculum), students are prepared for a vocation. The trajectory contains three cycles, each consisting of two years. The third cycle lasts one more year if students aim for a secondary education degree. In this study, we focused on the third cycle, given that these students are of similar age to starting MBO students in the Netherlands. The degree obtained by students graduating from this track corresponds to an MBO4 level degree obtained in the Netherlands. Class size depends on school and programme.

Most students attend the pathway of primarily attending school. Here, the focus lies on practical lessons and internships; the remaining time is spent on theoretical courses (e.g. languages and mathematics). In the alternative pathway, students combine learning in school for two days a week with learning at the workplace in the form of an apprenticeship. As in the Netherlands, schools collaborate with recognised training companies. Agreements are made among students, workplace supervisors and teachers or coordinators relating to students’ learning goals and how these could be met. Regular follow-up is required from all parties involved.

The procedure to become a teacher in vocational education in Flanders is similar to the procedure in the Netherlands. Individuals either follow a teacher education programme that prepares them for teaching in secondary education in general or attend a trajectory that allows them to combine teaching with obtaining pedagogical qualifications. Most vocational teachers in Flanders teach either theoretical or practical courses and usually teach vocational education students only, even if schools offer a combination of educational tracks.

2.2. Participants

To obtain insights from both the theoretical and practical perspective, we invited both educational researchers with expertise on differentiated instruction or vocational education and vocational teachers for the focus groups. We recruited Dutch and Flemish participants and used purposive and convenience sampling. In total, six researchers (three Dutch and three Flemish) and nine teachers (five Dutch and four Flemish) participated. The teacher sample was heterogeneous in terms of gender (44% female), years of teaching experience and the school they were working at. Teachers worked in schools in the region of South Limburg (NL) or Limburg (FL) and in programmes related to health care or agriculture. None were trained as special education needs teachers. Of the six researchers, four were female. Researchers were affiliated with universities or universities of applied sciences throughout the Netherlands and Flanders.

2.3. Data collection

The focus group interviews were held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in January and February 2022. We conducted four focus groups; two with Dutch participants and two with Flemish participants. Each focus group was conducted in Dutch language. Since online settings may hinder active participation of all participants when groups become larger, three to four participants joined each session. In all interviews, at least one educational researcher was present to ensure the sharing of views from different perspectives. BC moderated the interviews, assisted by a second moderator. The moderators debriefed each interview. The interviews lasted between 1.5 and 2 h and were audiotaped.

The focus groups were semi-structured. Participants were first asked to report the types of differences among students they encounter in their research or practice. Then, participants reflected on the competencies they consider essential for DI. The remainder of the interview was structured around vignettes based on the five DI principles by Keuning and van Geel (2021). Vignettes describe fictitious persons in scenarios related to the topic of interest and can be used to explore participants’ views, experiences and norms in a concrete context (Törrönen 2018). We collaborated with two teachers from the target group (not involved as participants) to design the vignettes as we aimed to describe DI challenges that would be recognised by the participants. Separate vignettes were developed for the Dutch and Flemish setting to ensure they fitted the educational context (see Appendix A for examples). After BC introduced the DI principles, participants wrote down their responses to two questions for each vignette. Educational researchers indicated whether and why they believed the scenario was representative for the vocational education context and provided advice on how to handle the challenge based on their theoretical expertise. The teachers discussed to what extent they recognised the challenge in the vignette and what they would do in a similar situation. Both participant groups were encouraged to motivate their responses, to provide examples and to discuss other elements they considered important. One of the moderators summarised the participants’ responses in a scheme in real time. As a form of member checking, all participants received the language-edited schemes within a week after the interview. One participant added comments for clarification and literature suggestions; these were considered in the data analysis.

2.4. Data analysis

The audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Manual data analysis started once all focus groups were conducted. The transcripts were analysed thematically as this type of analysis supports the identification of repeated patterns – such as shared perceptions and experiences – in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006). While the structure of the focus groups (i.e. in accordance with the five DI principles) allowed for deductive analysis we additionally aimed to find themes in the data that did not necessarily relate to these principles.

As mentioned above, participants’ responses to the vignettes were summarised during the focus groups. These schemes helped the research team become familiar with the data. The first phase of the analysis consisted of BC searching for concepts recurring within and between schemes. These concepts were categorised to define preliminary themes. Subsequently, BC, IM and CH analysed the transcripts independently to enhance trustworthiness of our findings. Deductive and inductive analysis were combined to add upon and modify the initial themes. Then, an iterative process of determining the final (sub)themes and discussing the interpretation of themes took place until consensus was reached among all members of the research team.

2.5. Reflexivity

We acknowledge that we as researchers add meaning to the findings of this study. The researchers have different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives on DI as well as teaching in general, which may have influenced how the data was collected, analysed and interpreted. All researchers have been involved in training teachers in vocational and higher education settings. Three have extensive experience as educational researchers and teachers in higher education (BC, DV, DD). BC additionally has prior experience with research on teacher professional development in the Flemish education system, whereas DV and DD have performed a wide range of studies in secondary, vocational and higher education in the Netherlands. Our different backgrounds and perspectives combined with established theoretical concepts guiding this study may benefit the strength and transferability of the findings obtained.

2.6. Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the FHML Research Ethics Committee of Maastricht University (approval number FHML-REC/2021/112). A few days in advance of the focus groups, participants signed an online informed consent form that was accompanied by an information letter outlining the procedure of the data collection, analysis, storage and reporting.

3. Results

3.1. Themes

In total, we identified six themes: (1) shifting role of the teacher, (2) seeing and empowering students, (3) linking school with practice, (4) providing variation and (5) encouraging collaborative learning and (6) DI as team effort. These themes shed light on which aspects are considered essential to effective DI in vocational education. Whereas the first five themes reflect what participants perceive good practices of individual teachers, the final theme demonstrates the belief in the importance of team effort. The following subsections describe these themes and include citations that were representative for the discussions.

3.1.1. Shifting role of the teacher

Participants believe that to address students’ various needs effectively, the role of the teacher needs to change. This implies that teachers may require a different set of competencies. Although subject expertise is still considered essential, teachers should be less involved with transmitting knowledge in a traditional classroom setting but rather become competent in facilitating students’ learning. This is represented by the following quote:

This mainly concerns being able to coach, to listen, of course, being able to plan, observe, engage in conversation, feedback. These types of aspects are competencies that you absolutely need to master. (Teacher 2 – NL2)

The shift towards facilitating students’ learning means that teachers should be approachable and create an open atmosphere. As emphasised in the interviews, this is especially the case as the majority of vocational students have little experience with regulating their learning or asking for help. Thus, it is considered important that teachers collaborate with their students, rather than demonstrate authority. Also, it is beneficial for student learning when teachers and students know each other well and teachers are aware of students’ strengths and difficulties. Additionally, a teacher’s ability and willingness to inspire and enthuse their students was considered to be important:

You need to make them curious. That’s something you should want, as a teacher, creating curiosity. […] Excite. Put different groups to work, experiment with different types of group work, sometimes out-of-the box. (Teacher 1 – NL1)

Some participants indicated that this new role of the teacher needs to be developed over a longer period, implying that novice teachers may experience difficulties in noticing students’ different needs and adjusting one’s support accordingly. Other participants, however, reported that many of the more experienced teachers did not develop this competency during their teaching education or might be resistant to changing the way they teach. This discussion implies that independent of teachers’ experiences, participants acknowledged that it is challenging to adapt the teacher role required for effective DI.

3.1.2. Seeing and empowering students

Throughout the focus groups, the importance of seeing who students really are as well as the empowerment of students was emphasised. Teachers should recognise, value and reward the different types of competencies, qualities and talents students have. This implies looking beyond grades as they provide insufficient information about the student as a whole. Additionally, teachers acknowledge that students who may perform weakly in school, could be very competent in practice. The above is captured in the following quotes:

You must be willing to see it and be able to see it, with a broad view on the types of differences that exist. Again, there is more than ‘that one is clever’, ‘that one is dumb’, ‘that one is Turkish’ and ‘that one is Flemish’. And, roughly speaking, ‘that one has autism’ and ‘that one does not’. These are often the large differences, while typically much more is going on beneath the surface. (Researcher 1 – FL1)

A student with bad grades does not need to be a bad employee. You see very often that they’re unable or unwilling to keep up in certain courses, often because they lack motivation. But in their internships, they’re placed on a pedestal and offered a job, because they are great assets […]. So should we focus on grades? Or on the views of the industry or what makes the student happy? (Teacher 1 – NL2)

The importance of being emphatic and attentive towards students was brought up as well. Teachers should observe students and have conversations about how they are doing and the support they need. It is considered essential to look beyond students’ performance or behaviour; rather than assuming that a student lacks motivation, for example, teachers should analyse why students perform or behave in a certain way. Furthermore, since not all differences among students are equally relevant in each lesson, teachers ought to filter which characteristics are relevant for obtaining the learning objectives.

Participants consider the empowerment of students highly important. A prerequisite is that teachers acknowledge that students may be unable to do something now, but might learn it. A large share of students in this target group – especially those who are underprivileged – have low self-esteem. Hence, it is essential that teachers use positive reinforcement, convey their trust in the students, and reward successes. Students also need to be made aware that it is okay to make mistakes; these contribute to their learning. This relates to the concept of formative evaluation, which was also addressed during the focus groups:

This is something we have learned. In the past we used to give an assignment; if you’re unable to do it, okay, you’re getting a low grade. Now, we often give them an assignment, a moment to practice, and then, let’s do it. Because then you can provide feedback, you’re giving them the opportunity to improve. (Teacher 1 – FL2)

In the Flemish focus groups in particular, some participants felt that there may be limits to what teachers can do to support students. They referred to recent Flemish policy to integrate special needs students in regular education. They have difficulty with the expectation that teachers should keep supporting students with special needs, even when they are unlikely to succeed in school, internships and ultimately, in practice. This results in teachers feeling pressure from parents, care teams and management to ensure that students ‘stay on board’. As one of the participants mentioned:

We have ended up in a culture where it is believed that if it doesn’t work, the school needs to provide support until it does. (Researcher 1 – FL1)

3.1.3. Linking school with practice

Throughout the focus groups, participants emphasised the importance of making explicit relations between what is taught in school and the vocational field. In vocational schools, students generally chose a particular study programme because they find the job that the programme is preparing for appealing, and hence, relating school work to practice helps to motivate them:

Bring the content to the context of the field, align your Dutch, for example, with practice. But also for English and mathematics, let them calculate with concepts that matter in the vocation. Make it job-oriented. Then they also understand … they must apply the same, but then they understand why they are doing this. (Teacher 2 – NL2)

We often see that a teacher in, for example, PAV, Project Algemene Vakken,¹ they discuss mathematics, but they do not align this with practice. And that really is a pity actually, because that’s where such rich contexts are available […], that are also very motivating for our students. And this is happening far too little. (Researcher 1 – FL2)

One approach to achieve this is to organise projects with partners outside of the school and by connecting students to real clients or governmental bodies. Participants also discussed that the collaboration between teachers in the theoretical and practical courses should be intensified. The link with practice could help teachers from theoretical courses make their content more applied while teachers from practical courses can integrate relevant elements from the theoretical courses.

In addition, it was mentioned that in formulating learning objectives and deciding when these are reached, teachers ideally collaborate with professionals in the field to discuss which competencies should be mastered, and how these should be taught in school. Relatedly, the importance of staying in contact with internship supervisors was mentioned; insights from multiple perspectives are needed to generate an image of how a student is performing:

The mentor-school relation is very important. It is the mentor who sees students working each day, who teaches the student. (Teacher 1 – FL2)

3.1.4. Providing variation

The focus groups showed that providing variation is one of the strategies that is considered helpful to address students’ diverse learning needs. Participants reported variation in instruction, assignments and assessment but also expressed concerns regarding the time investment required.

3.1.4.1. Variation in instruction

The following quote describes an approach for varying instruction that is considered valuable:

In my opinion, you do students a big favour with that. To let some students work independently and simultaneously let other students practice some more under your supervision, or to give them some additional explanations. (Researcher 1 – FL2)

3.1.4.2. Variation in assignments

By offering variety in assignments, teachers can adjust assignments to the individual learning needs of students. Additionally, students can choose the variation of the assignment that matches their interests most, which may enhance motivation. Relatedly, the benefits of organising project work were mentioned, as this allows students to take on different roles that suit their learning needs or interests (also see ‘encouraging collaborative learning’).

A dilemma was raised concerning the extent to which teachers need to tailor assignments to the different types of needs and interests that students may have. Several participants remarked that – especially in the context of vocational education where students ought to be prepared to meet the demands of their future workplaces – this also implies preparing students’ for encountering challenges they may encounter in the ‘real world’. In other words, they believe DI does not imply that all learning activities need to be adapted perfectly to each student’s preferences.

3.1.4.3. Variation in assessment

Teachers could also provide students with different options to show that they master certain competencies and hence, provide variation in assessment. For example, allowing students who have difficulty with giving a presentation in front of a large audience, may be allowed to present for a smaller group.

This raised another dilemma: should the level of assessment criteria be similar for all students, or should assessment focus on students’ growth? Furthermore, in the focus groups with Dutch participants, the national requirements for passing the obligatory AVO² courses were perceived as a major challenge. These requirements result in feelings of pressure to ensure that students reach certain requirements while many students experience difficulties in reaching these. One of the researchers elaborated on this issue as follows:

Laws and regulations indeed get in the way, because there is nothing as weird as to still offer Dutch, English and things like that fragmentally, while your whole motive is that you want to apply it to an authentic context. You would like to use Dutch in such a way that you can use it to practise your vocation and not take all kinds of tests. (Researcher 1 – NL2)

3.1.4.4. Time investment for providing variation

Related to the overall practice of variation, a few of the participants emphasised that DI should be perceived as an integrated part of the learning environment, rather than as a ‘bonus’ activity:

I feel you should be proactive. In your planning, you should already consider which levels you expect. What kind of teaching activities fit to those? How do I address those in my lessons? (Researcher 2 – NL 2)

Especially Flemish teachers mentioned that they lack time to approach DI in this way. They feel they already have insufficient hours to cover the basic content with students and the curriculum reform further increased feelings of time pressure. Therefore, they feel they have insufficient room to provide variation in their instruction, assignments and assessment. In response, some of the researchers remarked that teachers do not always have to prepare a series of different materials or learning activities as they can make use of materials that are already available.

3.1.5. Encouraging collaborative learning

Participants agreed that group work can be beneficial to students’ learning. In a heterogeneous pair or group, students who already understand certain concepts or master a certain skill can support those who do not yet master these competencies. In some cases, explanation by a peer resonates better with a student than the explanation of a teacher.

Participants also discussed certain aspects that teachers should take into consideration when it comes to letting students collaborate. First, the composition of pairs or groups should be flexible, rather than remain the same for longer periods. In heterogeneous groups, the risk is that ‘stronger’ students become demotivated, but also that ‘weaker’ students develop low self-esteem:

When it is always the stronger students helping the weaker students, so to speak … it is not nice for the weaker student either, to always need help. While in a group of weaker students, there may be one who progresses sooner, who can then also explain to someone else once. (Teacher 2 – FL1)

Therefore, participants suggested switching between heterogeneous and homogeneous group formations. Additionally, teachers could consider grouping students not only based on cognitive ability, but also on social or creative capabilities, for example.

Second, participants mentioned that group or project work allows students to take on different roles. For example, some may choose to mainly engage in the practical work, whereas others prefer drawing up the report. A potential pitfall is that students tend to choose those tasks or activities that they feel most comfortable with. An important task for teachers, therefore, is ensuring students take on varying roles so that different competencies will be developed.

The third aspect that was highlighted was that not all students are very good collaborators; either because they are unwilling to engage in group work, or because they are not (yet) capable to do so. This may result in some students taking on the majority of work whereas others are ‘freeriding’. The ability to collaborate with others should, however, be perceived as a learning process, especially as it is a skill that is also expected in practice.

3.1.6. DI as team effort

Participants believed that team effort is needed to effectively address differences among students. For DI to become a success, teachers’ practices within a school and/or programme need to be aligned:

What we try to do is to make it from everyone. So that every teacher that a student meets mentions their opportunities, mentions their talents. […] They need to hear it from multiple teachers, multiple times. (Researcher 1 – NL1)

It is considered important to learn from and with colleagues. For example, it was mentioned that teachers should visit and observe each other’s lessons to encourage exchange of practices:

This is something we really miss. […] Go and observe in each other’s lessons, observe the positive aspects that you can take with you in your own lessons […]. I just noticed that when you peek in colleagues’ classrooms, you gather a lot of information that makes you think ‘Yes, actually it can also work like that’. (Teacher 1 – NL2)

Teachers should also be encouraged to collaborate not only with peer teachers, but also with career counsellors and care teams present within the school. As a team, the school can provide the support students need. Finally, as discussed under ‘linking school with practice’, close contact with internship supervisors is considered highly important.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to gain a better understanding of the teacher practices perceived to contribute to effective DI in vocational education and the challenges experienced with DI implementation in this context. In focus group interviews, educational researchers and teachers reflected on the extent to which they feel that DI principles identified in other contexts (Keuning and van Geel 2021) inform good practices in the vocational education context. Our findings appear to imply that the five principles are perceived to indeed benefit DI in vocational education since the majority of themes identified in this study can be mapped to one or several of the principles.

To illustrate; the theme ‘the shifting role of the teacher’ referred to the perception of educational researchers and teachers that for effective DI, teachers should facilitate students’ learning by observing them, talking to them and coaching them to help them reach their goals. These aspects relate to the DI principles of strong goal orientation (since teachers support students in reaching their individual learning goals), continuous monitoring (since teachers closely follow up on their students) and stimulating self-regulation (since coaching encourages students to take ownership of their learning). The theme ‘seeing and empowering students’ seems to most strongly relate with continuous monitoring and challenging students. When teachers pay close attention to their students they gain insight into their competencies, qualities and talents, providing insight into how each student could be challenged at their own level. As will be discussed in the paragraph below, ‘linking school with practice’ is clearly connected with strong goal orientation, continuous monitoring and challenging students. The themes ‘providing variation’ and ‘encouraging collaborative learning’ primarily relate to the principle of adapting instruction and exercises. Varying in instruction, assignments, assessment formats as well as group compositions is a means for teachers to address students’ individual learning needs.

Although participants feel that the DI principles are relevant for vocational education, our study indicated that the specific characteristics of this context may require a context-specific implementation of the principles. Primarily the fact that vocational education prepares students for the demands of their future workplaces has implications for DI practices. This becomes evident when relating the practices described in the theme ‘linking school with practice’ to some of the DI principles. Among others, the focus groups indicated that it is important for teachers to collaborate with professionals in the vocation to determine which competencies should be developed during the programme (strong goal orientation). In addition, close contact with supervisors of internships or apprenticeships is considered necessary to not only monitor students’ progress in school, but also in practice (continuous monitoring). Furthermore, to motivate students to engage in learning activities in school, teachers should make them aware of how these activities are relevant for their careers by continuously drawing links between theory and practice (challenging students).

Our study also revealed certain challenges and dilemmas in DI implementation. Similar to studies conducted in other settings, some teachers felt a lack of time to apply DI (e.g. De Neve, Devos, and Tuytens 2015; Pozas, Letzel-Alt, and Schwab 2023). In line with research pointing to teachers pursuing either equality or equity (Anthonissen et al. 2015), some teachers indicated difficulties in justifying variation in assignments and assessment. Participants also mentioned that although aligned DI approaches within teacher teams are essential, they rarely share their practices with colleagues. This relates to works such as Gibbs (2023), highlighting the importance of support for DI at school level.

Some of the challenges and dilemmas reported are specific to the situatedness of vocational education and were acknowledged by both the educational researchers and teachers. Students ought to be prepared for a vocation in the ‘real world’ and some participants indicated that if learning activities are constantly adjusted to the different needs and preferences of students, this may hinder the development of resilience to handle ‘real world’ challenges. This implies that teachers should find a balance in meeting students’ needs while ensuring they develop the competencies required in their future careers. The characteristics of the student population in vocational education are believed to further enhance the complexity of DI implementation. Related to the study of Jonasson, Mäkitalo, and Nielsen (2015), teachers reported internal struggles with new policies requiring vocational teachers to retain students with special needs – even when they are unlikely to succeed in the workplace. The increasing share of students with special needs also results in feelings of stress as teachers struggle to address all students’ learning needs (Gray, Wilcox, and Nordstokke 2017). In line with earlier research (e.g. Van Houtte, Demanet, and Stevens 2012), it was mentioned in the focus groups that students in vocational education may have low self-esteem and may additionally not be used to asking for help. For teachers, this implies that they should create a safe learning environment as a condition for effective DI.

4.1. Conclusion and implications

The findings of this study imply that according to educational researchers and teachers, the DI principles identified in other contexts can also be considered good practices for teachers in vocational education. However, contextual characteristics such as the practice-oriented approach in vocational education and its particular student population may result in teachers implementing these principles in a different manner and in specific challenges that need to be addressed. Among other DI practices, our study highlighted the importance of vocational teachers continuously linking school with practice and establishing safe learning environments.

These insights are a meaningful contribution to the fields of inclusive education and vocational education; while especially in vocational education it is important that teachers are equipped to address diverse learning needs of students, our study was the first to study perspectives on good DI practices in this particular context.

In addition, the insights obtained in this study are meaningful for the (re)design of professional development targeted at DI practices of vocational teachers. The amount of studies designing and evaluating initiatives is growing rapidly (e.g. Dulfer and McKernan 2021; Frerejean et al. 2021; Smets and Struyven 2020; Valiandes and Neophytou 2018), but none seem to focus on vocational education. As the present study showed that effective DI in vocational education may require a somewhat different implementation of DI principals, this limits the opportunities for relying on earlier developed initiatives. Hence, future studies are encouraged to explore how these specific characteristics of vocational education could be considered in the design of professional development initiatives.

4.2. Limitations

Two limitations of this study concern the body of participants. In addition to their limited number, it is likely that primarily participants with a positive opinion on DI volunteered to participate, which may bias our findings. Furthermore, it might be possible that teachers did not feel comfortable to share their perspectives with educational researchers present. Nevertheless, neither the educational researchers nor the teachers were merely positive; both expressed challenges and concerns. Another limitation is that by asking for participants’ perceptions, we have limited insight into how some of the practices described would look like in practice.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the educational researchers and teachers who participated in our study, as well as to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. In addition, we thank Jeroen van Merriënboer for his advice on the study design and Adriaan Vervoort for his support in moderating the focus group interviews.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was part of the Skills4You project, which was funded by the Interreg Euregio Meuse-Rhine V-A program (project number EMR202) and the regional province.

Notes on contributors

Boukje Compen

Boukje Compen is an assistant professor affiliated with the School of Health Professions Education and the Department of Educational Development and Research of Maastricht University’s Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences. Her work focuses on the design, implementation and evaluation of faculty development supporting teachers in various contexts to establish inclusive learning environments.

Daniëlle Verstegen

Daniëlle Verstegen is associate professor at SHE/FHML, Maastricht University. She has a background in learning psychology, cognitive science and instructional design. Between 2005 and 2008, she worked at RISBO (Erasmus University Rotterdam) in research projects for vocational schools. Her area of research expertise lies in instructional design, student-centered learning and blended/online learning.

Isabelle Maussen

Isabelle Maussen has a background in Health and Social Psychology. Her strong interest in educational science in general, and differentiated instruction in particular, is expressed in her work as a junior researcher at the School of Health Professions Education and the Department of Educational Development and Research, Maastricht University.

Cindy Hülsman

Cindy Hülsman is a PhD candidate and project manager affiliated with SHE/FHML, Maastricht University. Whereas Cindy’s PhD project focusses on the three-dimensional developmental processes of the female reproductive organs in embryos and foetuses, her work as a project manager relates to differentiated instruction in vocational education, interprofessional learning and patient safety.

Diana Dolmans

Diana Dolmans is a full professor in educational sciences affiliated with the School of Health Professions Education and the Department of Educational Development and Research of Maastricht University’s Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences. Her major areas of research are innovative learning arrangements, faculty development and quality enhance.

Notes

1 The course Project Algemene Vakken (PAV) is a combination of multiple disciplines, such as geography, biology, history, mathematics and Dutch. Topicality is an important focus within the course (Onderwijskiezer 2022).

2 AVO is the acronym for Algemeen Vormend Onderwijs. This refers to general courses such as Dutch, English and mathematics for which national passing requirements exist.