Integrating Assistive Technology-Based Learning into Differentiated Instruction in Inclusive EFL Classrooms: Insights from Three Schools in Indonesia

Integrating children with special educational needs in ordinary schools has been a central aspect of providing educational rights to every child. Sri Lanka is a country that values education, and the government schools provide free education facilities to every student concerning special educational opportunities for disabled students as well. Children with disabilities in Sri Lanka are educated through inclusion in mainstream or specialized schools. Teachers are the most important persons contributing to achieving the expected outcomes of inclusive education policy. They are the people who take action and implement educational reforms at the school level. A key element in the successful implementation of inclusive education is teachers’ ability to maintain and teach a classroom with an inclusive background. Therefore, the present research inquired about the strategies used by teachers in inclusive classrooms regarding students with special educational needs. The main objectives of the study are to find out the awareness about inclusive education among the teachers who are in inclusive classrooms, to identify the motivational strategies used by the teachers who are in inclusive classrooms, and to find out the teaching methods used by the teachers who are teaching in inclusive classrooms. Qualitative methods were used to collect data with classroom observations and semi structured interviews. A purposive sampling method was used to select the sample, and gathered data were analyzed thematically. Evidently, the teacher’s awareness of inclusive education was insufficient, and they were not provided with proper training regarding teaching in an inclusive classroom. Teachers used motivational strategies like reinforcement methods, assisting the issues of the SEN students, arranging the classroom environment according to the needs, and giving equal opportunities to the students. Most teachers used the lecture method in the classroom. Brainstorming and role-play were also visible. Less use of student-centred methods was visible. Proper awareness and training are needed to uplift the quality of teaching in inclusive classrooms in Sri Lanka.

This study aims to explore The mediating role of Resilience in the relationship between mindfulness and creative teaching self-efficacy among special needs teachers in inclusive classrooms. A correlational design was employed. The relationships between the research variables were analyzed in the form of examining the paths of a structural equation model. The study population included teachers of Special Education and Integration. 200 teachers were selected using the convenience sampling method. The results of structural equation modeling showed that mindfulness directly and positively predicts creative self-efficacy in teachers in inclusive classrooms. The results of structural equation modeling also showed that mindfulness directly and positively predicted resilience in teachers in inclusive classrooms. Another finding showed that resilience directly and positively predicted creative self-efficacy in special needs teachers in inclusive classrooms.

The purpose of this study is to identify perceptions and support needs regarding the roles of behavior intervention specialists, and to derive priority areas. Based on 126 teacher response sheets, analyses were conducted using t-tests, the Borich Needs Assessment, and The Locus for Focus Model with SPSS 22.0 and Excel. First, the results showed that the differences between importance and performance across role domains appeared in the order of ‘consulting role,’ ‘professional development role,’ ‘collaboration system-building role,’ ‘evaluation role,’ and ‘administrative support role,’ and behavior intervention specialists perceived these roles as highly important, but their actual performance levels were found to be low. The differences between importance and performance at the item level for the roles of behavior intervention specialists were identified in the following order: ‘providing behavior intervention training for special education support personnel,’ ‘supporting medical linkage within the local community,’ ‘providing manuals to ensure intervention fidelity,’ ‘consulting on collaboration plans with general education teachers in inclusive classrooms,’ and ‘providing behavior intervention training for general education teachers in inclusive classrooms.’ Second, based on t-tests and Borich priority analysis, when the support roles of behavior intervention specialists were placed in the four quadrants of The Locus for Focus Model, the roles corresponding to Quadrant I (H, H) were identified as top-priority tasks. These roles included ‘providing behavior intervention training for general education teachers in inclusive classrooms,’ ‘providing behavior intervention training for parents of students with disabilities,’ ‘operating a dedicated behavior intervention department,’ ‘providing intervention fidelity manuals,’ ‘providing school-level intervention fidelity consulting,’ ‘providing collaboration consulting for general education teachers in inclusive classrooms,’ ‘supporting medical linkage within the local community,’ and ‘establishing deployment and utilization measures for behavior intervention specialists at the level of the office of education.’ Based on the implications of the research findings, this study presented a comprehensive recommendation that national-level policy efforts are required, as well as five practical suggestions by area.

Despite research on the benefits of implementing Differentiated Instruction (DI) practices within an inclusive classroom, many teachers do not utilize the practice regularly. An instrumental case study that included teachers from 1 middle school in a rural school district in a southeastern state was used as the qualitative research design in this study. The purpose was to explore rural middle school teachers’ experiences and challenges with incorporating the components of DI to support special education students in inclusion classrooms. Tomlinson’s model of DI as it relates to teachers providing responsive instruction to meet the needs of each of their students regardless of their ability was used as the conceptual framework. A purposeful sample of 10 middle school teachers Grades 6–8 from various content areas in the school participated in interviews, observations, and submitted documents for review. Data were coded and thematic relationships and patterns related to the DI framework emerged. Themes included concerns regarding teachers’ lack of knowledge and professional development for fidelity of implementation of DI with special needs students, insufficient resources to support implementation of DI, and concerns with class size and accommodation of DI needs of all students within an inclusion-based classroom. Based on the results, the research may contribute to positive social change by helping middle school teachers use the components of DI in their inclusion-based classes and by providing instructional support to enhance learning and increase academic success for special education students.

Der Beitrag stellt ein videobasiertes Lehrkonzept vor, das in interdisziplinärer Kooperation entwickelt und durchgeführt worden ist. Mit der Lehrveranstaltung wird das Ziel verfolgt, die auf inklusiven Unterricht bezogene professionelle Wahrnehmung von Studierenden zu fördern. Um dies zu erreichen, arbeiten die Studierenden zunächst ihre Subjektiven Theorien über guten inklusiven Unterricht heraus, die potenziell im Widerspruch zu bildungswissenschaftlichem Wissen stehen. Da es nicht nur eine mögliche Perspektive auf guten inklusiven Unterricht gibt, werden im Seminar die Perspektiven der Pädagogischen Psychologie, der Schulpädagogik und der Sonderpädagogik integrativ vermittelt. Die Teilnehmer*innen operationalisieren die Befunde und überführen sie in ein Raster zur Beobachtung von inklusivem Unterricht. Das Raster kommt schließlich bei Videoanalysen und Unterrichtshospitationen zum Einsatz. Das Seminar wurde hinsichtlich verschiedener Variablen wie inklusionsbezogenen Einstellungen und bildungswissenschaftlichem Wissen positiv evaluiert.

This study aims to explore the challenges faced by teachers in pre-school inclusive classrooms in Albania. Through a qualitative methodology, the research investigates the specific difficulties encountered by educators and offers suggestions for adapting teaching practices to effectively meet the needs and abilities of all students, regardless of their conditions and circumstances. The study includes 23 teachers interviewed in 5 schools/kindergartens where they teach in the preschool program classes in the city of Durrës. While the focus group included 26 third-year bachelor students enrolled in Preschool education for the 2022-2023 academic year at the University of Durrës Aleksandër Moisiu. The findings of the study highlight several key factors that can alleviate the challenges faced by teachers in inclusive classrooms. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of providing assistant teachers, particularly specialized educators in the field of special education, to accompany students with disabilities. These professionals can offer dedicated support, expertise, and guidance, enabling a more inclusive learning environment. Additionally, the research emphasizes the significance of reducing the student-to-teacher ratio in these classrooms. By lowering the number of students, teachers can provide more individualized attention and support to each child, catering to their unique requirements. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the need for enhancing teachers' knowledge and skills in adapting teaching methods to accommodate the diverse needs and abilities of students with disabilities. Professional development programs, workshops, and training sessions can empower educators with effective strategies, specialized techniques, and resources necessary for inclusive classroom practices. In conclusion, by addressing these key factors, pre-school inclusive classrooms can meet the requirements of inclusive education. It is anticipated that these efforts will contribute to the alleviation of challenges and promote an inclusive educational environment where all students can thrive.
 
 Received: 29 July 2023 / Accepted: 30 September 2023 / Published: 5 November 2023

This qualitative case study was conducted in one of public junior high school in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The study was aimed to explore the English teachers’ practices in differentiated instruction (DI) and their perception toward the curriculum policy. The data were collected through open-ended questionnaire and interview. The participants were EFL teachers who have implemented DI. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings elucidate English teachers' implementation, revealing three overarching themes: planning, implementation, and evaluation. In the planning phase, identification, curriculum analysis, and preparation emerged as crucial aspects. The implementation stage highlighted variations in teaching materials, guidance provision, and variation in evaluation. Evaluation encompassed assessment processes, learning outcomes, and reflective practices. The second result showed the teachers’ misconception regarding the implementation of DI, namely, chaos class and concern about fairness. The teachers found the challenges in implementing DI, namely determine assessment, class management and need extra time to allocate the DI. However, the implementation of DI gave the advantages in learning English, such as students’ engagement, understanding in learning and building inclusive environment. For the better quality of DI, the teachers need several supports from the policy makers.

Differentiated instruction (DI) is an inclusive method of instruction by which teachers provide multiple possibilities for learning based on students' backgrounds, readiness, interests, and profiles. Acknowledging student diversity in Canadian classrooms, this study explores STEM teacher candidates' (TCs') preparation to implement DI in a STEM curriculum and pedagogy course in a teacher education program. The course is enriched with DI resources and training focused on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). The course efficacy in enhancing TCs' implementation of DI is explored through the following research questions: (1) What is the impact of the course on TCs' implementation of DI, (2) How do TCs develop curricula to be inclusive of DI strategies, and (3) What successes and challenges do TCs encounter when developing DI-focused curricula? The study adopts a mixed-method approach, in which data sources include pre-post questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Participants are 19 TCs enrolled in the second year of the teacher education program at a Canadian university. Findings suggest that the course empowered TCs to integrate DI principles and strategies in their coursework. This success reiterates the importance of opportunities aimed at enhancing teachers' preparation to incorporate DI in their practices. The findings call for adopting similar approaches in pre-service and in-service teachers' training to ensure that DI principles and strategies are deeply rooted in teachers' practices. The study informs teacher educators about integrating EDI in teacher education programs' curriculum and overall planning.

One of the long-term consequences of many genetic and acquired disorders in early brain development is the need for special education support in elementary school and beyond. In the United States, federal law ‘requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs' (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]).1 This is implemented in the form of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which is established and updated yearly for each student in one of 14 federal disability categories. The National Education Association [NEA] (which represents teachers and other educational professionals) supports the IDEA, recognizing that a ‘full continuum of placement options and services’ should be considered for each student’.2 One of the important components of the IDEA is the determination as to whether or not students with special needs should spend most or all of their time in educational classrooms with non-disabled students. The IDEA mandates placement in the least restrictive environment in which the child's needs can be met. The term ‘inclusion’ (a word which does not actually appear in the law itself) is what the IDEA is designed to accomplish, that is the provision of support and resources that enable children with disabilities to belong to and be recognized as members of their educational communities. It is important to keep in mind that the IDEA states a preference for placement in general education and for attendance at the neighborhood school. The IEP team must justify any time the child spends outside of general education, and a child can be removed from general education only if he or she cannot be educated satisfactorily there, even with the provision of supplementary aids/services and programmatic modifications/support. Currently in the United States 75% of children with disabilities spend part or all of their school day in a general education classroom. While this is a remarkable achievement in the drive to optimize opportunities for all children, it may create a number of challenges in the individual classroom. Laws and initiatives are formulated at the national and state levels, while policy decisions are implemented in local school districts and schools, often by superintendents and principals who may differ on interpretation and focus. Therefore, the specifics of inclusion (‘inclusive classroom’) may vary across school districts and schools. More than 6 million children in the United States receive educational services based on the IDEA.2 In an era of diminished financial resources, funding is a reality which cannot be ignored.3 Available funding affects the quality and quantity of educational services for typically developing children as well as those with special needs. Providing services in an inclusive classroom may require less funding than in a special education environment, and with the variability in state and local resources, any opportunity to save money may be embraced. However, inclusive education should not be based on financial considerations. For many teachers who serve as the regular education component of the inclusive classroom there is a no more controversial topic than what the inclusive classroom should look like: who should be included and for what extent of the academic day.4 Parents, teachers, and administrators who ardently support full inclusion believe that it is the best educational model to prepare all children for the real world. On the other side are those who believe that inclusion of children with special needs in a regular education classroom should be made on a student-by-student basis. As both positions are held passionately, at times final decisions in regard to educational placement may not easily be reached. These decisions have important implications for the individual child, his or her classmates, teachers and other school professionals, and those interested in the broader implications for a well-educated society and adult workplace. Current research supports the concept that peer interaction between students with special needs and regular education students is an advantage of inclusion for both populations, and that best teaching practices of differentiation and modification of instruction meet all students' needs more effectively.5 Those who express concerns about inclusion often argue that the extra time required to meet the needs of the disabled students impedes the learning progress of the non-disabled students. Decision-making in regard to inclusion is confounded by the requirements of federal laws such as No Child Left Behind6 and initiatives such as Common Core State Standards,7 a set of national educational benchmarks in language arts and mathematics from kindergarten through 12th grade which most states have adopted. For example, providing the least restrictive environment for children and meeting the achievement requirements of No Child Left Behind can be at odds with each other.8 For example, a child with autism might be placed in a grade school inclusive classroom, with both academic and social goals on the IEP, given recognized abilities at a higher level than students in a classroom solely for children with autism. An autism specialist assigns an instructional assistant to give this student a chip every 3 to 5 minutes for appropriate behavior. As a reward when five chips have been earned, the autism specialist requests that the student be allowed to play with Play-Doh during classroom teaching time. This might be unacceptable to the general education teacher and the special education co-teacher because of the impact on other students and the demands of a stringent academic curriculum dictated by the required standards of learning. In this situation, time given to this playtime is an important social development goal for the child with autism, but can mean time extracted from academic learning. This example highlights the importance of establishing an appropriate reward system in these situations. What I (DWW) have learned, as a regular education teacher who also teaches children with varying and sometimes multiple disabilities, is that the recommendations for inclusion made by the NEA, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) are not always taken into consideration in school models. In conversations with numerous regular education teachers in a well regarded school district, I discovered that few had received any formal professional development training before being assigned to the inclusive classroom; most had the same number of students as the general education classrooms at their grade levels; and very few received extra planning time to coordinate with specialists. Here is an example of an inclusive first grade classroom in a suburban Northern Virginia school district. Of the 21 students in the classroom, three students have an autism spectrum disorder (one of whom also has severe language and emotional delays); one student has emotional disabilities; one has cerebral palsy; one has visual motor integration problems; one student has identified attention-deficit–hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) without medication; and 14 regular education students. All seven of the students with IEPs require speech and language support as well as intervention from special education specialists. Three receive occupational therapy support; and one physical therapy and adaptive physical education support. (By the end of the school year, of the 14 without IEPs, two students were diagnosed on the autism spectrum scale and one student with severe ADHD, bringing the total of special needs students to 10.) While the ideal for the inclusive classroom would be a natural balance of students with and without disabilities, as in this ‘real-world’ situation, this was not the case. In this classroom the students variably read from beginning first grade to ready-for-third-grade levels. There were children adept at working with numbers in the thousands and students who could not count beyond the number 10. Some could work independently or in small groups at learning stations, while others fell on the floor in tantrums or wandered aimlessly without adult guidance. The daunting challenge for the teacher(s) in this classroom was to successfully meet the educational, social, emotional, and physical needs of such a varied group of students while maintaining the intrinsic motivations and rewards of teaching which are the joy and satisfaction of seeing students succeed. From a teacher's perspective, this is when it is imperative to follow the recommendations of educational researchers to ‘remember, with responsible inclusion the responsibility is first and foremost to the student.’9 That means to each student in the classroom – special education and regular education students. All should be making appropriate academic progress for an inclusive classroom to be considered a successful learning environment. Socialization should not be the only consideration for placement. A special education teacher and/or instructional assistants are usually present in the inclusive classroom in order to fulfill the IEP goals of the special needs students. Ideally, the special education teacher and regular education teacher share the responsibility for planning, instruction, and assessment. In order for the inclusive classroom to be successful the class size should be smaller than a regular education class; extra time for planning between all the professionals servicing students should be provided; and regular education teachers in inclusive classrooms should be given extra training. Students with severe disabilities may not be best served in the inclusive classroom because of their high level of need and the impact of this on other students' learning. Guidelines for responsible inclusion programs should examine the following components: students, human and material resources, continuum of services and most effective models, program evaluation, professional development, school philosophy, curriculum, and role definition for general and special education teachers. In the first grade classroom described above, the teacher was not given extra training, was not provided with extra planning time, did not have a smaller class load, and was not consulted when the students were assigned to her class. Several months into the school year and 2 days before this first grade teacher was to receive her student with cerebral palsy, she was told that the child was in a wheelchair and would have a fulltime assistant (nursing-trained but not instructionally trained). The plan was that the physical therapist, occupational therapist, and adaptive Physical Education teacher would meet with the teacher and make recommendations after they had time to work with the child and determine her levels of ability. The teacher immediately began searching the internet for information about cerebral palsy and the consequences it has on children. That was the extent of the teacher training provided to a teacher who would be responsible for her first student with cerebral palsy. The entire classroom had to be rearranged to accommodate a wheelchair and to give this new student access to every learning station, the morning meeting corner, and the classroom library. For this teacher, involving the students in adapting the environment was a very effective way of preparing them for the child's needs. The students followed the lead of the teacher and welcomed the new student with enthusiasm and warmth. As this teacher recognized, ‘It is not what a kid is, but what a kid needs’10 that is most critical to the education process – acknowledging the needs of all children in an inclusive classroom. Every child, with or without an IEP, requires special attention at some point in a school day. In this regard what is learned is more important than where it is learned. As advocates for children, pediatricians are in an excellent position to provide advice and recommendations in regard to inclusion, given their understanding of child/family dynamics as well as biological factors in brain development. Parents often ask whether an inclusive classroom is the right choice for their children. To provide guidance and recommendations, pediatricians need to understand the varied perspectives of students, families, teachers, school personnel, and the local community as well as the specific requirements of underlying legislative and administrative mandates as implemented in individual schools.11 From the pediatric perspective, establishing a family-centered medical home is an important component of care. ‘In a family-centered medical home, the pediatric care team works in partnership with a child and a child's family to ensure that all of the medical and non-medical needs of the patient are met. Through this partnership the pediatric care team can help the family/patient access, coordinate, and understand specialty care, educational services, out-of-home care, family support, and other public and private community services that are important for the overall health of the child and family.’12 Providing advice and recommendations in regard to possible inclusion should be an integral part of the medical home as it is envisioned. When all these factors are considered, pediatricians can play an important role in the placement of their patients in classrooms. They can discuss with parents the importance of the NEA,13 AFT,14 and ASCD15 recommendations for smaller class size, specific teacher training, additional planning time, and the continuum of services that should be available. They can recommend that parents visit schools (specifically the inclusive classroom at their child's grade level) and provide information that can be shared with teachers to further their understanding of the underlying causes of motor, cognitive, and behavioral impairments. Well-informed parents make effective advocates for their children.16 Parents are informed when an IEP is written with mutually defined goals and the child's attainment of each goal is reevaluated at the end of 1 year. Pediatricians can assure parents that any portion of the IEP can be readdressed at any time within that year. Parents may share their child's IEP goals with their pediatrician to determine if they are realistic goals. For example, the above mentioned first grade student with cerebral palsy had an IEP goal, added by the parent, that she learn to write her name using a pencil. The classroom teachers were uncertain that this was a realistic goal. Consultation with the child's pediatrician would have been helpful to provide an opinion in this regard. Pediatricians can also serve both as advocates for children as well as bridges when conflicts arise between school recommendations and parental wishes. Pediatricians can ensure that the parents are well informed about best practices in effective classrooms with inclusion. They can prepare parents to ask such questions as, ‘How will my child be safely removed from the school during fire drills and in case of emergencies?’ ‘How will my child be provided the special bathroom and hygiene requirements dictated by the needs of a child with cerebral palsy?’ ‘Is there playground equipment provided that adapts to the physical needs of my child and allows him to participate with peers at recess?’ For some children the inclusive classroom may not meet their needs effectively. Special education needs classrooms offer a reduced pupil to teacher ratio and teachers with specific training for special needs students. In these situations after all the facts are known, pediatricians should not be afraid to speak up and recommend alternative placement. Finally, there may be differences between the legal mandates of IDEA and the reality ‘on the ground’ in individual schools and classrooms. It should be remembered that it is illegal under the IDEA to make decisions based on the nature or severity of the child's disability, on administrative convenience, or on the configuration of the service delivery system. Parents need to be aware that they have legal recourse if they are not satisfied with their child's educational placement. In conclusion, this opinion is meant to highlight the complexity of this issue, and not to provide a ‘solution’. All stakeholders – parents, teachers, and administrators – should be included in the decision-making of the educational placement of a child with special needs. What all children learn from exposure together must be balanced carefully with the needs of each individual student, to promote long-term success in school in the workplace and more broadly in society. Well-informed pediatricians can have an active voice in promoting educational goals for their patients. We appreciate a number of Kennedy Krieger Institute professionals and others outside the Institute who provided input into this opinion, including Bridget Buttram, Marge Fessler, W. Ben Jackson III, Mark Mahone, Leslie Margolis, Elaine Stashinko, Melissa Tochterman, Fran Tolley, and Steve Wilcox. Denise Wilcox's experience as an educator spans four decades, preceding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, and encompasses the transition from self-contained special education classes through mainstreaming, pull out programs, and inclusion. Her post graduate degree is in Counseling and Development, with concentrations in special education and reading. All of her experience as an educator has been in mostly affluent suburban Washington, DC school systems. She has taught all elementary grades from kindergarten through sixth and has served as the grade level inclusion teacher for 5 years.

The efficacy of placing students with special needs in inclusive classrooms may depend in part on how instructional factors contribute to student outcomes. Differences in frequencies and levels of cognitive engagement of interactions among nine teachers in inclusive elementary classrooms were related to three other variables: teachers' ratings on the Pathognomonic-Interventionist (PATH/INT) Scale, students' designation either as exceptional or at-risk (EX/AR) or as typically achieving (TA), and students' scores on the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. Teachers with PATH beliefs, who attribute learning difficulties to permanent characteristics of the student that are beyond the teacher's mandate, interacted infrequently with their EX/AR students at low levels of cognitive engagement. Teachers with INT beliefs, who see themselves as responsible for the achievement of all their students irrespective of their disabilities, interacted with all students more frequently, and at higher levels of cognitive engagement. In contrast to the PATH teachers, their EX/AR students received more instructional interactions than their TA students. As expected, the EX/AR students in all classrooms had lower Piers Harris Self-Concept Total Scale scores than typically achieving students. However, both TA and EX/AR students had lower Self-Concept Total Scale scores in the classrooms of teachers with PATH beliefs, compared to students in the classrooms of INT teachers. The relationship is discussed between teachers' beliefs, their different patterns of instructional interactions with students with and without disabilities in inclusive classrooms, and the possible impact of instructional interventions on students' self-concept.

As a result of the nature and outcomes of classroom education, questions concerning what constitutes successful teaching persist. This study intends to characterize, from the perspective of primary school teacher candidates, the practices of primary school teachers in terms of effective instruction in inclusive classrooms. Observations of nonparticipants were used to collect qualitative data for this study. The research study group consists of the final-year primary school teaching students and the teachers at the schools where these students do their internships. Students' observations yielded qualitative data that was examined using content analysis. The study revealed that classroom teachers are deficient in their use of teaching tactics, particularly in adjusting instruction, classroom management, and behavior management. The acquired results were reviewed within the context of the issues encountered by classroom teachers in terms of successful teaching in inclusive classrooms and the suitability of undergraduate programs that prepare teachers for general education.

The purpose of this quantitative multivariate correlational study was to determine if there is a significant relationship between a general education teacher’s perception of learner characteristics for Students with Disabilities (SWD) and a teacher’s use of Differentiated Instruction (DI) in the general education classroom, grades 6-12. Since previous studies did not clearly support any significant benefits in utilizing segregated instruction for the teaching of students with exceptionalities, it was vital to identify research-based methods to facilitate the education of all students in the general education classroom. Sustained by research on student achievement, the proper and comprehensive implementation of DI has shown to benefit students of all ability levels. Therefore, the intention of this study was to add to the research concerning the importance of the classroom teacher in the successful implementation of DI. Fifty-two general education teachers from grades 6-12 who work with SWD from a large school district in Southeast Georgia participated in the study and completed a five-point Likert scale survey. A canonical correlation, used to analyze the relationship between the variables in the data, suggested that 10 out of 21 correlations were statistically significant. Of the remaining correlations, ten showed non-significant positive correlations and one showed a non-significant negative correlation between mean assessment and mean interest. Furthermore, the researcher did not find a statistically significant relationship between a teacher’s overall of identification of a student’s learning styles and a teacher’s overall frequency to differentiate instruction in the general education classroom, grades 6-12. Suggestions for future research are included. Keywords: students with disabilities, exceptional students, gifted, differentiated instruction, inclusion, differentiation, general education teachers, IEP, learning profile, learning styles, LRE, multi-ability classroom, RTI, twice-exceptional students

In this article the author provides the reader with 15 key questions, the answers to which are designed to facilitate the development of collaborative and inclusive schools. The questions are organized into three categories: general and philosophical questions pertaining to inclusion, some questions about the basic mechanics of developing inclusion programs, and some questions about the practical implementation of inclusion. Emphasis is placed on the provision of a modified continuum of services via a variety of ways of supporting teachers in inclusive classrooms.

This study assesses the readiness of Master of Arts in Special Education (MAEd SPED) students at Cebu Technological University–Main Campus in implementing Differentiated Instruction (DI) in inclusive classrooms for the academic year 2025-2026. Utilizing a quantitative descriptive-correlational design and complete enumeration sampling, the study involved 41 respondents who were surveyed on their demographic profiles, perceived readiness for DI, and the challenges they face in its implementation. The findings revealed that respondents generally felt "Ready" to implement DI, particularly in areas such as defining learner objectives and creating supportive learning environments. However, several challenges emerged, including time management, classroom management, and insufficient resources. The most significant barriers included the logistical demands of DI, particularly in large classrooms, which hindered its full implementation. The study highlights that while MAEd SPED students are confident in applying DI strategies, structural barriers such as class sizes and resource limitations impede the effective application of these strategies in real classroom settings. Based on the findings, the study emphasizes the need for targeted professional development, systemic support, and adequate resources to enhance DI implementation in inclusive classrooms. The study's insights aim to contribute to the improvement of teacher preparation programs and the alignment of educational policies with the principles of inclusive education.

This study examined the extent of implementation of differentiated instruction (DI) among public elementary school teachers in Tubod District, Surigao del Norte. Using a descriptive–correlational research design, ninety-five (95) teachers from nine public schools participated through total enumeration sampling. A validated researcher-made questionnaire was used to collect data on teacher profiles, DI implementation across content, process, product, and learning environment, and challenges encountered. Data were analyzed using frequency counts, percentages, weighted mean, ANOVA, exploratory factor analysis, and Pearson’s correlation at a 0.05 level of significance. Findings revealed that teachers implemented DI to a moderate extent (overall M = 2.77). Among the four dimensions, content differentiation was most practiced (M = 2.82), while process differentiation was least applied (M = 2.76). Teacher-related variables such as age, sex, years of experience, educational attainment, and grade level taught did not significantly affect DI implementation. However, a significant difference was found in content differentiation when teachers were grouped according to training attended, highlighting the critical role of professional development. Teachers reported moderate challenges, particularly in preparing materials, workload, and lack of resources. Correlation analysis showed that higher challenges were associated with lower levels of DI implementation (r = -0.39, p < 0.05). The study concludes that while DI is practiced in Tubod District, its implementation remains constrained by systemic barriers. Professional development emerged as a decisive factor in enhancing DI, especially in content differentiation. The results imply the need for sustained training, provision of resources, workload management, and supportive school leadership to strengthen DI implementation. Keywords: Differentiated Instruction; Content Differentiation; Process Differentiation; Product Differentiation; Learning Environment; Challenges; Teacher Training; Tubod District; Descriptive–Correlational Research; Professional Development