Teacher educators’ self-efficacy and perceived practices of differentiated instruction in Ethiopian primary teacher education programs: Teacher education colleges in amhara regional state in focus

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine teacher educators’ self-efficacy and perceived practices of differentiated instruction in Ethiopian primary teacher education programs. To this end, a mixed research approach was employed. As research participant, 400 instructors who had been teaching in teacher education colleges of Amhara regional state were selected through stratified random sampling for the quantitative phase and 15 of them were selected purposively for the qualitative phase. The data gathered through questionnaires and semi-structured interview were analyzed using percentage, one sample t-test and thematic analysis. The findings revealed that most of the teacher educators have not had any training on differentiated instruction and are less efficacious to implement differentiated instruction. It was also found that implementation of differentiated instruction in the study area was at a very low level. Thus, it is suggested that college officials should organize training that will provide instructors with sufficient opportunities to learn how to differentiate instruction and to strengthen their DI self-efficacy.

Keywords:

• Differentiated instruction
• self-efficacy
• learners diversity

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

As multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-lingual country, today’s Ethiopian student population is rapidly becoming more diverse. To address and satisfy the needs of these learners, several researchers recommend the implementation of differentiated instruction. However, Ethiopian teachers’ engagement in a traditional teacher-centered approach has remained largely unchanged and they hardly ever use differentiated instruction to customize their lesson to the needs of students. The root causes of such a problem lie in the failure of teacher training institutions to expose trainee teachers to differentiated instruction through classroom teaching and modeling. It is from this background that the researchers tried to investigate teacher educators’ self-efficacy beliefs and perceived practices of differentiated instruction in Ethiopian primary teacher education programs. The findings revealed that most of the teacher educators have not had any training on differentiated instruction and are less efficacious to implement differentiated instruction. It was also found that implementation of differentiated instruction in the study area was at a very low level.

1. Introduction

Today’s student population is rapidly becoming more diverse (Celik, 2019; Harper-Hogans, 2017; Tanjung & Ashadi, 2019; Tomlinson, 2014). It is a common knowledge that students arrive at classrooms with a variety of mixed abilities, different readiness levels, diverse cultural backgrounds, varied experiences, interests, needs, learning styles, levels of motivation, self-regulatory competencies and other features (Moosa & Sahreefa, 2019; Pozas et al., 2020; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012).

As multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-lingual country (Adamu, 2014; Belay, 2016; Egne, 2015), Ethiopian classrooms are also characterized by a super-diverse student population.

Since the student population in all educational arenas has become progressively diverse (Tomlinson, 2015), “no longer does one teaching method or one type of homework seem to fit the bill for the variety of students entering schools today” (White, 2015 p. 1). This poses new challenges for educators and necessitates new and effective instructional approach that can meet the needs of all learners (Benjamin, 2020; Moosa & Sahreefa, 2019; Pozas & Schneider, 2019).

Several researchers (e.g., Roy et al., 2013; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, 2015; Valiandes et al., 2018) recommend the implementation of differentiated instruction as a key solution to meet the needs of these diverse students.

Tomlinson (1999), a prominent scholar well known for her extensive work on differentiation, defines differentiated instruction as an approach that provides students with multiple options to receive and process information to make learning happen considering where and how they are, which one-size-fits-all settings cannot.

Differentiation is a philosophy of teaching rooted in deep respect for students, acknowledgment of their differences, and the drive to help all students thrive (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). As Tomlinson (1999) point out, differentiation is an organized, yet flexible way of proactively adjusting teaching and learning to meet diverse students where they are and to help them achieve maximum growth as learners. This pedagogical framework calls upon teachers to adjust curricular contents, resources, instructional methods, learning activities, modes of assessment and aspects of learning environment in light of students’ differences (Kovtiuh, 2017; Valiande & Koutselini, 2009).

As it recognizes the spectrum of differences among students and enables teachers to attend to the specific learning styles of each student by adjusting what they teach and how they teach it (Koutselini, 2016; Tomlinson, 2015; Subban, 2006), the need to differentiate instruction becomes eminent and seems a good fit for the current realities of diverse classrooms (De Neve & Geert, 2015; Gaitas & Martins, 2017; Pozas et al., 2020). It is, therefore, imperative that teachers should be prepared to implement appropriate differentiation in their daily lesson.

Cognizant of this, Ethiopia’s Ministry of Education has issued policy provisions (e.g., MoE, 2015, 2017, 2015) focusing on differentiation. Despite these provisions and some practical endeavors that urge teachers at all levels to use differentiated instruction (Tamiru, 2019), Ethiopian teachers engagement in a traditional teacher-centered approach has remained largely unchanged (Agegnehu, 2017; Begna, 2017; Serbessa, 2006) and they hardly ever use differentiated instruction to customize their lesson to the needs of students (Gonne, 2020; Mengistie, 2020; Merawi, 2020; Tamiru, 2019).

During the in-service training that the researchers provided at different times to several primary and secondary school teachers in the Amhara regional state, they also observed that teachers appeared to be confused about what differentiation is and how it should be implemented in the classroom. These teachers felt ill-prepared and expressed worries about their lack of knowledge and abilities in implementing differentiated instruction in inclusive classroom context.

The root causes of such a problem lie in the failure of teacher training institutions to expose trainee teachers to differentiated instruction through classroom teaching and modeling (Holloway, 2000; Joseph et al., 2013; Melesse, 2015; Pozas & Schneider, 2019; Tomlinson, 2014; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). According to Nepal (2021), teachers’ reluctance to implement differentiated teaching in the classroom is due to a lack of confidence and insufficient professional development.

This elicited the questions of how prospective teachers in the Ethiopian primary teacher education colleges are being taught today, as well as to what extent teacher educator themselves are knowledgeable, skillful and confident in modeling differentiated instruction to prospective teachers. This study, therefore, explored teacher educators’ differentiated instruction self-efficacy beliefs and perceived practices in the Ethiopian primary teacher education programs. In order to address this purpose, the researchers considered the following research questions: What is the self-efficacy belief of teacher educators towards the implementation of differentiated instruction? To what extent do teacher educators implement differentiated instruction in teacher education colleges of the Amhara regional state? What are the major factors that affect the implementation of differentiated instruction in teacher education colleges of the Amhara regional state?

2. Literature review

2.1. Concept of differentiated instruction

Differentiated instruction is a term that has been in use for many years and its practice has been valued greatly by educators worldwide (Avgousti, 2017). Tomlinson (2014), a prominent expert on the area define differentiated instruction as a philosophy of teaching that is based on the premise that students learn best when their teachers accommodate the differences in their readiness levels, interests and learning profiles. It is a philosophy of teaching that enables teachers “to reach out effectively to students who span the spectrum of learning readiness, personal interests, and culturally shaped way of seeing and speaking about and experiencing the world” (p. 1). To Ramli and Yusoff (2020), differentiated instruction is a model of teaching that requires teachers to practice flexible approaches in their delivery of instruction by adjusting the curriculum and instruction to suit students. It is an approach to teaching in which teachers proactively modify curricula, teaching methods, resources, learning activities, and student products to address a broad range of learners’ needs to help them achieve maximum growth as learners (Dixon et al., 2014; Gaitas & Martins, 2017). According to Tomlinson (2001) differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquiring content, to processing or making sense of ideas, and to developing products so that each student can learn. This approach, therefore, requires teachers to provide multiple learning pathways so that students can have access to the most appropriate learning opportunities commensurate with their capacity to learn (Tobin & Tippett, 2014).

2.2. Elements of differentiated instruction

According to Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012), there are four curricular elements that can be modified in the differentiated instruction approach: the content being taught, the process in which the content is being presented, the products that are being created by the students, and atmosphere of the learning environment. These modifications are made according to students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2014). Hence, It is essential to assess each child’s readiness level (where they are in relation to a particular understanding or skill), interest (their curiosity or passion for a particular topic or skill) and learning profile (how students learn as influenced by intelligence, preferences, gender, culture or learning style) before modifying content, process, and products. The assumption is that once teachers have a good understanding of students’ level of readiness, interests and learning profiles, they will be more likely to engage in effective and appropriate content, process, and product differentiation (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012).

2.2.1. Content differentiation

Content comprises the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students need to learn based on the curriculum. Differentiating content requires teachers to either modify or adapt to how they give students access to the material they want the students to learn (Joseph et al., 2013) As stated by Heacox (2002) content can be differentiated by providing students choices to explore topics more intensely, and by providing students with resources that are concerning their knowledge level. Differentiating content may include using various delivery formats such as video, readings, lectures, or audio; provide supplementary materials at varied reading levels; use examples and illustrations based on student interests; present material in visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modes and the like.

2.2.2. Process differentiation

Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) define the process as “how students come to understand and make sense of the content” (p. 15). It refers how the curriculum content is delivered to students or approaches to activities that help students to make sense or master the content. Differentiating the process involves providing students with a variety of activities catered to students’ learning styles and preferences in order to help students make sense of what they are to learn (Tomlinson, 2001).

Some of the strategies for effective process differentiation are: using tiered activities (activities at different levels of difficulty, but focused on the same key learning goals); making task directions more detailed and specific for some learners and more open for others; providing resource materials at varied levels of readability and sophistication; vary the pacing of student work; encouraging students to work together or independently.

2.2.3. Product differentiation

Products are essentially what the student produces at the end of the lesson to demonstrate the mastery of the content (Thakur, 2014). They are the end results of learning (Heacox, 2002). Product differentiation is the “output” through which the students show how students demonstrate what they have come to know, understand, and are able to do after an extended period of time (Tomlinson, 2010). Product differentiation consists of the alternative ways that students can demonstrate mastery of the concepts (C. A. Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003) and the different ways of application and presentation of knowledge learned by students through their final result (Tomlinson, 2006).

As differentiating the product requires allowing students to demonstrate what they have learned in a variety of ways (Wan, 2015), teachers can offer students with multiple ways like, presentation, quiz, projects, models, etc. to demonstrate what they have learnt (Tomlinson, 2001; Wan, 2015).

2.2.4. Environment differentiation

Classroom learning environment refers to the setting where learning takes place and facilitates an effective working relationship between teacher and students (C. A. Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). As the learning environment is the way in which the classroom operates and feels (Tomlinson, 2001), it consists of the routines, procedures, and physical arrangements of the classroom, as well as the overall tone or mood that exists among and between the students and teacher. Hence, classroom learning environment has to be safe and stimulating for students (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012). When differentiating the learning environment, the teacher considers the students’ “environmental” preferences. For example, some students need lots of work space, some need a quiet area, some like to engage in discussions, some like to work alone.

Strategies teachers mostly used to create a positive environment include: arranging the classroom to promote collaboration and cooperation; ensuring the availability of resources that reflect students’ diverse backgrounds, interests, and readiness; sharing responsibility for teaching and learning; providing students with individualized attention; adjusting their affect to meet individual student needs; communicating respect and concern for each learner; demonstrating cultural competence; and reflecting upon students’ feedback about their classroom experiences (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012).

2.3. Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance attainments (Bandura, 1997). In the context of the present study, teacher educators differentiated instruction self-efficacy can be defined as teacher educator’s beliefs in his/her ability to implement DI in his/her teaching activity. It is the degree of confidence teacher educators have that they can perform successfully in the task of differentiation.

Existing literature suggests that higher levels of self-efficacy to implement differentiated instruction appear to be linked to a higher probability of actually implementing it (Suprayogi, 2017; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). According to Dixon, Yssel, McConnel and Hardin (2014) implementing differentiated instruction begins with a teachers’ high self-efficacy about teaching. Individuals who have high self-efficacy put in sufficient effort that may produce successful outcomes, whereas those who have low self-efficacy are likely to have higher levels of stress, give up prematurely and fail on task and are more likely to burn out and leave the profession (Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). Teachers may not adopt new strategies if they have doubts about their abilities for successful implementation and they question their role in shaping students outcome (Ibid)

Bandura (1993) has shown that individuals who are high in self-efficacy are more achievement and mastery-oriented, view failures as due to insufficient effort, and work to change strategies and to perform better to get a more positive outcome. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy attribute failure to inherent low ability and give up rather than trying other venues or learning from mistakes. High self-efficacy is also linked with better goal setting, trying to meet challenges, and experiencing less anxiety when faced with a barrier, as there is trust in one’s abilities to overcome obstacles. That is, people with high self-efficacy who believe they can perform well are more likely to view difficult tasks as something to be mastered rather than something to be avoided. High self-efficacy is a predictor of increased motivation to achieve goals and feeling more comfortable in coping with unfavorable environments (Bandura, 1997).

3. Methodology

3.1. Research design

In this study, sequential explanatory mixed design was used. In the quantitative phase, survey questionnaires were used to quantify teacher educators’ self-efficacy beliefs to implement differentiated instruction, and perceived practices of differentiated instruction. In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were employed to identify the major challenges that hinder teacher educators to implement differentiated instruction.

3.2. Participants

Teacher educators teaching in teacher education colleges of the Amhara regional state were the population of the study. To date, there are about 10 teacher education colleges in the Amhara regional state, namely, Gondar, Debre Birhan, Debre Markos, Kemisie, Injibara, Finote Selam, Sekota, Woldia, Dessie and Begemdir teacher training colleges. Of these 10 teacher education colleges, five of them were selected through simple random sampling technique. In the first phase, from the total teacher educators who were teaching in these five colleges, 400 of them were selected as sample using proportionate stratified random sampling technique.

For the purpose of the second phase, qualitative phase of the study, purposive sampling technique was used. Using this sampling technique, three informants (teacher educators) from each of the five colleges were selected for an interview.

3.3. Methods of data collection and analysis

3.3.1. Instruments for quantitative data collection

In the first phase of this sequential explanatory mixed-method study, cross-sectional survey questionnaires for teacher educators were employed. The survey questionnaires were prepared by adapting previously validated tools that were employed in previous researches, including those of Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012), Casey and Gable (2012), Wan (2015), and Crowder (2011), Whipple (2012) and Suprayogi (2017).

All of the survey questionnaire items were taken from previous studies in which the researchers reported on the items’ and the scales’ validity and reliability. Since, these items were reported to have content and construct validity; the procedures for doing so were not repeated. However, the scales were assessed for reliability in the context of the study where Cronbach alpha for the self-efficacy and perceived practice were .853, and .922, respectively.

3.3.2. Method of data analysis for the Quantitative Strand

In the quantitative phase of this study, the collected data were analyzed by means of descriptive and inferential statistics that includes frequencies, percentages, and one sample t-test.

3.3.3. Instruments for qualitative data collection

The second, the qualitative phase, focused on further explaining the results of the statistical tests that were obtained in the first, the quantitative phase. In this phase, interview was used.

3.3.4. Methods of Data analysis for the qualitative strand

The analysis of the qualitative data was made thematically case by case. Hence, it involved the reduction of the raw data into themes and categories along with each case. This was carried out continually by reorganizing and reviewing the data until common patterns were emerged. Hence, the data captured through audio records were transcribed verbatim for repeated readings. By reading the transcriptions repeatedly, it was coded, and then the codes were grouped into categories and were organized under major themes.

4. Results and discussion

Consistent with a sequential mixed-method design, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered in a sequential manner from different sources at different times and the analysis and interpretation of data is carried out in two phases.

4.1. The quantitative findings

This Section presents the results of the quantitative findings based on the analysis that was carried out on the data obtained through questionnaire.

4.1.1. Teacher educators’ training on differentiated instruction

Though teachers’ professional development training on differentiated instruction is the stepping stone towards its effective implementation in everyday instructional practices (Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Valiandes et al., 2018; Wan, 2015), majority of the teacher educators surveyed in the Amhara regional state teacher education colleges had received no training on how to best meet the needs of diverse students using differentiated instruction. The qualitative data obtained through interview also corroborated this finding. Majority of the interviewed teacher educators reported that they did not take any courses at any level regarding DI and other diversity management strategies(Table 1). They voiced concerns over lack of training as roadblock to successfully address the diverse needs of their students.

Table 1. Summary of teacher educators training on differentiated instruction

	Items	Responses
		Frequency	Percent
	Training on DI Having training on DI No training on DI	80 304	20.8 79.2

Different researchers (Fullerton et al., 2011; Merawi, 2020; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, 2004) hold the view that successful implementation of differentiated education would be practically impossible without fundamental understanding and skills of differentiation. Hence, teacher training has proven to be a key to the successful implementation of differentiated instruction and the root of teacher educators’ failure to differentiate teaching (Brevik et al., 2018; Chu & Myers, 2015).

4.1.2. Teacher educators’ self-efficacy to implement differentiated instruction

As most researchers in the field agreed (e.g., Dixon et al., 2014; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002), teachers’ self-efficacy is crucial in the implementation of differentiated instruction. With this in mind, one of the focuses of this research was on the investigation of teacher educators’ self-efficacy beliefs in differentiating their instruction. As shown in Table 2, teacher educators in teacher education colleges are less efficacious to implement DI, with the computed mean score (2.8717, SD = 0.51) being considerably lower than the expected mean (3) (t (383) = −4.956, p 0.05). This result is inconsistent with research findings of Sela-Shayovitz & Finkelstein (2020). In the research they conducted in one academic college in Israel, they found that lecturers in academia have high levels of efficacy in teaching students having diversity.

Table 2. One-sample t-test for teacher educators’ self-efficacy to differentiate instruction

Variable	N	Expected mean	Observed mean	SD	Mean difference	df	T	P
Teacher educators’ Self-efficacy to differentiate	384	3	2.8717	.50742	−.12833	383	−4.956	.000

*p < .05

Several studies (e.g., Donnell & Gettinger, 2015; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) revealed a significant relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and their actual behavior in a teaching setting. A higher level of teacher DI self-efficacy is significantly associated with a higher level of DI implementation (Dixon et al., 2014; De Neve et al., 2015). That is, when the teachers are less efficacious, they are reluctant and less confident to implement differentiated instruction.

As majority of teacher educators surveyed in this study had no training on differentiated instruction, they may lack adequate knowledge and skills that enable them to effectively implement DI. This might be one possible explanation for their low efficacy belief to differentiate.

4.1.3. Status of teacher educators’ practices of differentiated instruction

In order to examine the extent of teacher educators’ perceived practices of differentiated instruction, the observed mean was tested for its difference from the expected mean value (3.00) in a five-point likert scale. The result of the one sample t-test statistics has been presented in the following Table 3

Table 3. The extent of teacher educators’ practices of differentiated instruction

Variable	N	Expected mean	Observed mean	SD	Mean difference	df	T	P
Teacher educators’ practices of DI	384	3	2.4163	.35752	−.58365	383	−31.990	.000

*p < .05

As depicted in Table 3, the observed mean score of teacher educators’ overall perceived practice of differentiated instruction (2.42, SD = 0.36) is significantly lower than the expected mean (3.00) (t (383) = −31.990, p < 0.05).

There are a number of empirical evidences that are in accord with the current findings (see, Dosch & Zidon, 2014; Joseph et al., 2013; Ruys et al., 2013; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson, 1999; Tulbure, 2011; Waldron, 2020). These previous studies found that implementation of differentiated instruction are not as such successful in college classrooms.

Since most of teacher educators have no training on DI, lack of knowledge and skills in the area may be one of the possible reasons for their failure to effectively implement it. On the other hand, instructors’ failure to effectively implement differentiated instruction in teacher education programs implies that teacher-education programs are not in the state of preparing tomorrow’s teachers for the inevitable increasing diversity of students in primary schools in Ethiopia.

4.2. Qualitative findings

5. Challenges of the implementation of differentiated instruction

Despite the fact that differentiated instruction is widely recognized as one of the most beneficial strategies for teaching mixed-ability classes (Tomlinson, 2014), many teachers face various challenges in implementing it. The major challenges identified in this study are:

5.1. Teacher educators’ lack of competence

Teacher educators must have adequate knowledge and skills to integrate DI into their classroom experiences. As Van Casteren et al. cited in Lavania & Mohamed Nor (2021), contend, teachers need thorough content knowledge and a broad range of pedagogical and didactic skills to plan and execute differentiated instruction. Hence, it is teacher training that has proven to be a key to successfully equip teachers with the required knowledge and skills of differentiated instruction (C. A. Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Dee, 2011; Richards-Usher, 2013; Valiande & Koutselini, 2009).

The result obtained from the interview, however, revealed that most of the teacher educators in the study area did not have adequate preparation on differentiated instruction. Most of them felt that they were not well equipped with knowledge and skills that enable them to successfully implement DI. According to the reports of these teacher educators, they sorely lack necessary knowledge and pedagogical skills that enable them to effectively handle diversity in their classroom. One of the interviewee (TE12) for instance, said: “I didn’t take any course on differentiated instruction in either undergraduate or graduate degree. My academic preparation in this regard, therefore, could not help me to effectively implement DI and address students’ diversity”.

They further confirmed that absence of required knowledge and skills on differentiated instruction is one of the reasons behind their failure to differentiate instruction in teacher education classrooms. This result is consistent with the findings of early researchers in the area (Chien, 2015; C. A. Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Joseph et al., 2013; Merawi, 2020; Siam & Al-Natour, 2016; Tomlinson, 2014).

According to Korthagen et al. (2006), teacher education is charged with preparing teachers for the complexities of the classroom. Though teacher educators are in the business of teaching how to teach, those teachers with a second degree in any subject area but no pedagogical training that qualify them to become teacher educator were assigned to teach prospective teachers. As a result, they were unable to serve as positive role models for student teachers.

5.2. Large class size

Large class size is one of the most significant obstacles in addressing learner diversity. Teacher educators interviewed in the current study reported that overcrowded classrooms of teacher education colleges make the process of applying differentiated education an impossible task. They believe that having so many students in the college classroom prevents them from preparing diversity-focused courses, as well as assessing and providing feedback to students.

Many previous studies (e.g., Aldossari, 2018; Kyeremeh et al., 2021; Moosa & Shareefa, 2019; Suprayogi, 2017; Wan, 2015) found that because of the increasing diversity of learners in the classroom, as well as the diverse needs, learning styles, and backgrounds that students have, implementation of differentiated instruction in large class size was more difficult for teachers.

5.3. Excessive workload

As the interview data revealed, college teachers felt pressured by the necessity to cover a wide range of content in a short period of time. Besides, they felt as they are loaded with other professional responsibilities such as conducting research and providing community services, which may restrict them from spending time for lesson preparation.

One of the interviewees (TE3) had this to say:

Since we are expected to teach multiple courses in multiple sections that have large class size and to be engaged in research and community services, we are faced with huge workloads that take up a substantial portion of our time and effort. With this condition, it is very challenging to implement differentiated instruction.

TE7 also reported

Since we are teaching different courses to a wide number of students in different sections, implementation and modeling DI to prospective teachers is hardly possible. The minimal contact hour we have with students in courses did not allow us to know our students very well. Most of the time, we finish a course before we even know the names of the students.

As the interviewees report revealed, teacher educators are burdened with too much teaching workload and other responsibilities that needs a lot of time and effort, yet the limited number of contact hours allotted for courses and the large class size make it difficult to get familiar with and address the diverse needs of students by using differentiated instruction.

In the current study, all interviewees identified excessive workload as a barrier to effectively implement differentiated instruction in the college classrooms. This result is consistent with the findings of early researchers in the area (Leballo et al., 2021; Merawi; 2018;; Lavania & Mohamad Nor, 2021; Siam & Al-Natour, 2016; Tomlinson, 2014)

5.4. The nature of the curriculum

Another obstacle teachers face in the implementation of differentiated instruction is the nature of the curriculum. As interviewees affirmed, the rigid and content loaded teacher education curriculum which leaves little room for differentiation found to be a barrier for the implementation of differentiated lessons. Regarding this, one of the interviewees (TE7) said

Teacher education curricula (the curricula we are implementing in the college classroom) are highly rigid and we often lack the ability to adapt the curriculum to meet the demands of students having diversified needs. As a result, we are using the same content, same instructional methods and same assessment tools for all students and it is a traditional one-size-fits-all, teacher-centered approach to instruction which is widely seen in the college classrooms.

A common view amongst interviewees was that the teacher education curricula they are implementing are not flexible enough to allow differentiation. They reported that they usually rushed to cover content-laden courses of the teacher education programs in the stipulated time. Onyishi and Sefotho’s (2020), Aldossari’s (2018), and Chien’s (2015), and Bourini (2015) findings are in accord with the current study. They found lack of curricular flexibility as a key roadblock to the effective implementation of differentiated instruction.

5.5. Teacher educators’ low motivation and commitment

Effective differentiation requires a considerable amount of time, effort, and commitment from the side of teacher educators (Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2009). According to the reports of the interviewee, since teaching is the low privileged (low status), less paid profession, teacher educators’ motivation and commitment to implement highly demanding instructional strategies like DI is low. This result is consistent with the findings of previous studies (e.g., Chamberlin & Powers, 2010; Merawi, 2020; Nicolae, 2014; Tomlinson, 2010). They found that teachers’ low motivation and low commitment towards their profession is one of the major factors that hinders the effective implementation of differentiated instruction.

6. Conclusion

Although teacher training has proven to be a key to the successful implementation of differentiated instruction, majority of the teacher educators surveyed in the Amhara regional state teacher education colleges have received no training on how to best meet the needs of diverse students using differentiated instruction. As a result, teacher educators are less efficacious to implement differentiated instruction and the practice of DI in the Amhara regional state teacher education colleges was at a very low level. Most teacher educators hardly implement differentiated instruction strategies in teaching prospective teachers. Hence, the Amhara regional state’s elementary teacher education colleges do not sufficiently educate student teachers to differentiate their instruction. As the qualitative data revealed that poor knowledge and skills on DI, time constraints, teacher educators’ low motivation and commitment to implement DI, lack of resources and appropriate learning environment, excessive work load, large class size, shortage of time and rigidity in the school curriculum were all impediments to effective DI implementation by teacher educators.

7. Recommendation

As result of the quantitative as well as the qualitative data indicated, teacher educators’ competence and self-efficacy beliefs to implement differentiated instruction was very low. Thus, the responsible bodies in the regional education bureau and college officials should organize professional development training that will provide instructors with sufficient opportunities to learn how to differentiate instruction and improve their DI self-efficacy. In addition, as teacher education curricula are highly inflexible and content laden which leaves little room for differentiated activities, teacher education colleges should examine and restructure their curriculum (components of teacher preparation courses) to allow teacher educators to use differentiated instruction.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Abrham Zelalem

Abrham Zelalem is a teacher educator with pedagogical sciences and curriculum & instruction background. He has been serving since 2004 in Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia in teaching advising, and in researching in the area of Education. He has been teaching different education courses such as general methods of teaching, curriculum development and Evaluation, multicultural education, comparative & international education, History & philosophy of Education, Instructional media & technology.

Abraham is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction Program at Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. His research interests include, primary and secondary teacher education, multicultural education, teachers’ involvement in conducting action research, and gender responsive pedagogy.

Appendix A

Teacher Educators’ Perceived Practice of Differentiated Instruction

Direction: Read each statement below. Circle the response that most closely describes the extent to which you implement each differentiated instruction practice in teacher education courses. Please use the following scale to describe how often you use these strategies in your teaching.

1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always

Table

No.	Items	Scale
A1.	I pre-assess each student’s level of readiness (relevant background knowledge, academic skills, and attitude).	1	2	3	4	5
A2.	I pre-assess each student’s interest (future plans, area of talent/ passion).	1	2	3	4	5
A3.	I pre-assess each student’s learning profile characteristics(preferred learning modality, grouping modality)	1	2	3	4	5
A4.	I use results of pre-assessment to adjust lesson.	1	2	3	4	5
A5	I use assessments Which allow students to demonstrate what they have learnt and their progress in multiple ways	1	2	3	4	5
C1.	I use text and/or other materials that represent a variety of formats	1	2	3	4	5
C2.	I use materials that present content at varying levels of complexity	1	2	3	4	5
C3.	I use text and/or other materials that present content in a variety of ways	1	2	3	4	5
C4.	I differentiate major concepts of the contents based on students understanding and needs.	1	2	3	4	5
C5.	I use text and/or other materials that reflect students’ interests or experiences.	1	2	3	4	5
C6	I provide supplemental materials/ resources to support candidates who have difficulty understanding course content.	1	2	3	4	5
C7.	I provide supplemental materials/ resources to challenge students who master course content with minimal effort.	1	2	3	4	5
C8.	I provide supplemental support to students who have difficulty understanding course content.	1	2	3	4	5
C9	I create more advanced opportunities for students who master course content with minimal effort.	1	2	3	4	5
P1.	I use a variety of grouping formats during class(e.g., whole class, small group, individual)	1	2	3	4	5
P2.	I allow each student to select his/her preferred grouping format (work independently or with a partner)	1	2	3	4	5
P3.	I purposefully group students based on their levels of readiness.	1	2	3	4	5
P4.	I purposefully group students based on their interests.	1	2	3	4	5
P5.	I purposefully group students based on their preferred learning modalities	1	2	3	4	5
P6.	I create activities/assignments that allow each students to select a topic of personal interest	1	2	3	4	5
P7	I create activities/ assignments that offer format option (e,g. write a paper, create a visual or give a presentation)	1	2	3	4	5
P8.	I adjust Assignment deadlines in response to individual students’ needs and /or circumstance.	1	2	3	4	5
P9.	I plan different assignments to match students’ abilities.	1	2	3	4	5
P10.	I vary the complexity of assignments to match students’ abilities.	1	2	3	4	5
P11.	I adjust the amount of work required in accordance with students’ capabilities	1	2	3	4	5
P12.	I modify goals and expectation for students with difficulty.	1	2	3	4	5
P13	I use my students’ prior knowledge to help them make sense of new information	1	2	3	4	5
P14	I use my students’ cultural background to help make learning meaningful	1	2	3	4	5
P15	I explain new concepts using examples that are taken from my students’ everyday lives.	1	2	3	4	5
LE1	I take deliberate efforts to ensure each student feels known, welcome, and respected	1	2	3	4	5
LE2	I take deliberate efforts to make myself approachable/ available to students	1	2	3	4	5
LE3	I take deliberate efforts to ensure students participate consistently and equitably during class	1	2	3	4	5
LE4	I take deliberately efforts to enhance students’ attitude/ motivation towards course content	1	2	3	4	5
LE5	I help students to develop positive relationships with their classmate	1	2	3	4	5
PR1	I support students to present their learning products individually and in groups	1	2	3	4	5
PR2	I work with individual students to determine what form the product will take	1	2	3	4	5
Pr3	I allow students to describe using product alternatives (e.g., oral, written, practical, etc	1	2	3	4	5
PR4	I allow for a wide range of product alternatives (allowing different ways for students to demonstrate mastery of topics)	1	2	3	4	5
Pr5	I use differentiated quality rubrics for assessment of products	1	2	3	4	5
PR6	I use three or more forms of assessment to determine course grades	1	2	3	4	5

Appendix B

Teacher Educators’ Self-efficacy to use differentiated instruction

Directions: Please read each of the statements provided below and indicate your response by putting a tick mark (✓). Use the following scale to rate each item:\

1. Very low 2) low 3) Average 4) high 5) very high

   Table

   No.	How certain are you that you can:	Scale
   	Explain central themes in your subjects so that even the low-achieving students understand.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Provide good guidance and instruction to all students regardless of their level of ability	1	2	3	4	5
   	Organize schoolwork to adapt instruction and assignments to individual needs.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Adapt instruction to the needs of low-ability students while you also attend to the needs of other students in class.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Organize classroom work so that both low- and high-ability students work with tasks that are adapted to their abilities.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Get all students in class to work hard with their schoolwork.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Wake the desire to learn even among the lowest achieving students.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork.	1	2	3	4	5
   	Provide early finishers with extra activities	1	2	3	4	5
   	Adapt instruction to meet the needs of all students	1	2	3	4	5
   	Design instruction that matches students developmental needs	1	2	3	4	5
   	Assist some students to learn with the use of carefully prepared prompts	1	2	3	4	5
   	Use the interest of your students to make learning meaningful for them	1	2	3	4	5
   	Use tiered activities (i.e. offering parallel tasks at varied levels of complexity, depth and abstractness with various degree of scaffolding, support or direction according to students readiness or learning style)	1	2	3	4	5
   	Vary academic task by learner interest	1	2	3	4	5
   	Vary task by learning profile(i.e. by learning style, grouping of environmental preferences	1	2	3	4	5
   	Get through the most difficult student	1	2	3	4	5
   	Help your students think critically	1	2	3	4	5
   	Motivate students who show low interest in academic work	1	2	3	4	5
   	Help your students value learning	1	2	3	4	5
   	Use a variety of assessment strategies?	1	2	3	4	5
   	Provide an alternative explanation or examples when students are confused	1	2	3	4	5
   	Adjust instructional strategies based on ongoing assessment of your students	1	2	3	4	5
   	Adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students	1	2	3	4	5
   	Provide appropriate challenges for very capable students	1	2	3	4	5

Appendix C

Interview Protocol: Teacher Educators Practices of Differentiated Instruction in Teacher Training Colleges of Amhara Regional State

Time of Interview: ________________

Date of Interview: ______________________

Interviewer: ______________________

Interviewee: ______________________

Location of Interviewee:

Questions:

1. How do you address diversity in your classroom instruction? What are some of the ways you use to address diversity in your course work? please explain

2. What professional development have you had that has been beneficial for differentiating instruction for diverse learners? Have you participated in any differentiated instructional professional development training for teaching students with diverse background, interest, learning profiles … .?

3. Did your own academic education prepare you to teach about diversity and teaching diverse learners?

4. How well trained do you feel in implementing DI? Do you feel like you were prepared to teach using DI?

What are the challenges that hinder you to implement differentiated instruction?