Investigating Differentiated Instruction and the Contributing Factors to Cater EFL Students’ Needs at the Collegial Level

Investigating Differentiated Instruction and the Contributing Factors to Cater EFL Students’ Needs at the Collegial Level | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Investigating Differentiated Instruction and the Contributing Factors to Cater EFL Students’ Needs at the Collegial Level Omid Tajik, Shagofah Noor, Jawad Golzar This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Nov, 2024 Read the published version in Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Teaching language has its challenges for many reasons, including learners’ background, learning styles, motivation, and socioeconomic status. However, EFL students can benefit from differentiation across the learning continuum to a large extent. This study aimed to investigate Afghan EFL learners’ perceptions of differentiated instruction and the factors that contributed to cater their needs. This study revolved around five main elements of differentiated instruction: learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. In this mixed-method research study, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to 102 EFL students at Herat University, Afghanistan, to record their perception of differentiated instruction in their classes. Moreover, three teachers of the English department at the same university were also interviewed to understand their experience implementing differentiated instruction and identify their tensions. The study's results suggested that it is practical to implement differentiated instruction in mixed-level, large heterogeneous classrooms. assessment content differentiated instruction learning environment process product Figures Figure 1 Introduction In modern classrooms, technology facilitates learning a fortiori, but there has also been a tremendous number of alterations in the way teaching is approached. As a teacher, it is crucial to tailor one’s instruction to students’ needs to promote a thriving learning environment. In every class, students come from various social, economic, academic, and cultural backgrounds with different learning styles; thus, the instructor needs to consider these factors for attending the class and providing suitable differentiated instruction to meet all learners’ needs. The learner’s needs is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of information about the learner, the instructor, the target language, and the language acquisition environment (Sadeghi et al., 2013). Brown (2007) identified four kinds of needs which are: 1. Any gaps between future students’ language performances and what they can now achieve. 2. Any learning goals beneficial to the stakeholders. 3. Based on students’ information and the learning processes, whatever the students would study next. 4. Any linguistic features or skills that would be problematic if lacking. Students should have a shared understanding of the language goals; additionally, as they assist one another in understanding the material and concepts, teachers are expected to facilitate the learning process and keep students motivated (Arjulayana, 2018; Richards, 2001; Smith, 1983). In addition, students’ successes in the learning and teaching process might be aided by motivation. Motivation is critical in determining whether or not a student will succeed in learning English (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008; Eragamreddy, 2015). Based on previous studies (Karadag & Yasar, 2010; Logan, 2011; Magableh & Abdullah, 2020; Servilio, 2009; Suban, 2006; Tulbure, 2011), one way to cover the needs of students in a multi-level class with a variety of learning styles is using differentiated instruction, but before applying differentiation instruction, teachers should determine “students’ readiness, abilities, and needs.” According to Tomlinson (2005), student readiness pertains to a student’s aptitude, competence, and understanding of a topic. Students’ interest also refers to a student’s desire, wonder, and participation in a topic. A student’s learning profile includes learning styles, culture, gender, learning preferences, and multiple intelligences, an appreciation for expressing, taking in, or exploring content. These preferences impact the learners’ learning competence and performance (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). Differentiated Instruction (DI) is a vital tool that helps in keeping learners engaged and provides for their individual needs (Hall, 2002). It is significant for the learner to feel included and influential in the class. When learners’ strengths, weaknesses, interests, and needs are explored, it is explicit that teachers would consider the class as a whole and the individuality of learners. Therefore, most teachers rely on group activities where learners from similar backgrounds are grouped to facilitate differentiated instruction, especially in larger classes. Moreover, differentiated instruction is paving its way to alter the teaching-learning process and accommodate the students’ needs in language classrooms. In English as Foreign Language (EFL) or English as Second Language (ESL) contexts, the need for implementing differentiated instruction is even more evident since learners come to class with varying proficiency levels, needs, cultures, and language backgrounds. Therefore, this mixed-method study aims to explore and explain differentiated instruction and the contributing factors that cater to EFL students’ needs at the collegial level in Afghanistan. There is a gap in the body of literature regarding Afghan teachers’ and students’ perceptions of DI; moreover, most of the previous literature is either from students’ or teachers’ perspectives in different contexts (Joseph et al., 2013; Karadag & Yasar, 2010; Servilio, 2009; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009; Tulbure, 2011) but this paper examined DI from both teachers and students’ perspectives in the same context. The researchers attempt to fill the gap by further investigating the Afghan EFL learners’ views on DI effectiveness and their readiness to adopt this model at Herat University, Afghanistan. This research is of significant value since it will help learners and teachers to accommodate classroom activities and tasks that would facilitate language learning, considering the learners’ readiness, needs, learning styles, and diverse backgrounds. The following research questions guide this study: To what extent do Afghan EFL students perceive their teachers’ use differentiated instructions? What affordances and challenges Afghan EFL teachers face in implementing differentiated instruction at the university level? Literature Review This section includes reviews of scholarly articles about the following themes: EFL students’ needs, differentiated instruction (DI), challenges to implementing differentiated instruction, and theoretical framework (content, process, product, assessment, and learning environment). Differentiated Instruction: Origins, Develop, and Challenges According to Tomlinson and Imbeau ( 2010 ) and Tomlinson ( 2001 , 2004 , 2014 ), DI is a teaching approach that emphasizes individual differences, learning styles, intelligence, and other factors and tries to make the best use of students’ learning potential. This approach can be a viable option for dealing with the issue of diverse needs among students in the same class. In their study, Magableh and Abdullah ( 2020 ) revealed that differentiation helps improve students’ learning by promoting motivation, enhancing interaction, and encouraging students to work on their speed and preferences. Therefore, DI allows low-level students to become interested in learning. Servilio ( 2009 ) investigated the impact of DI in motivating students to read in an elementary school in the US. Students were able to choose their preferred reading materials to complete the given tasks; she found, “An average of 83.4% of the students’ grades improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and 4.1% of the grades decreased” (Servilio, 2009 , p. 10). Tulbure ( 2011 ) researched 94 Romanian teachers of foreign languages and mathematics. The researcher applied DI to the unique learning styles; the results showed a significant difference between the performances of experimental and control groups in terms of academic success. Hernández-Chérrez et al. (2020) conducted an experimental study in a reading class in Venezuela. Based on their findings, after twelve weeks of treatment, students who were in the experimental group and received differentiation instruction as the method of teaching, scored higher than the control group in the post test; besides, their vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension improved. Similar study was conducted in Iran by Aliakbari and Haghighi ( 2014 ); they examined to what extent DI in a reading class would affect students’ reading ability. Their results proved improvement of the experimental group than the control group which received traditional teaching. In another study, Karadag and Yasar ( 2010 ) investigated the impact of DI on Turkish students’ attitudes. The sample was 30 Turkish fifth-graders. Before and after the experiment, the researchers conducted an attitude survey to assess the potential for attitudinal changes resulting from applying DI. The researchers highlighted the impact of DI in motivating learners and changing their attitudes about learning. Another initiative has been taken to learn more about the instructors’ perspectives on using DI; Logan ( 2011 ) conducted his research on 141 Georgian teachers. According to the study's findings, most teachers agreed that the basic tenets of DI, such as the need for ongoing modification of content, processes, assessment, and materials, as well as the importance of evaluating students’ readiness and interest levels were beneficial. Alavinia and Farhady ( 2012 ) investigated the impact of DI on students’ vocabulary acquisition. In their study, the group in which the learners’ differences were addressed through the adoption of DI outperformed the control group's performance on the post-test. However, the teachers encountered numerous challenges when implementing DI in actual contexts. Challenges to Implementing Differentiated Instruction Previous studies provide some hints about the challenges encountered while applying DI; for instance, according to Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2009 ), effective differentiation takes a tremendous amount of instructors’ time and devotion. De Bruin ( 2018 ) identified several school characteristics that hampered differentiation implementation. The first was time; arguably, the essential factor for a teacher is to have enough time to prepare lessons that demonstrate excellent differentiation. Another one is the set curriculum constraints. Teachers at schools are all doing the same thing, which is relatively consistent because teachers’ knowledge or experience differ; on the other hand, the criterion for classes to be evaluated through everyday assessment activities is not the same. We know that each classroom is unique; the characteristics of a class, what students know, and what they don’t know are all distinctive; as a result, a set curriculum makes differentiation in the classroom impossible. Heng and Song ( 2020 ) proposed a comparative educational change framework to understand educational changes and transfer. They suggested that difficulties posed by changing technological conditions (class size/space and teacher capacity), as well as sociocultural norms (the emphasis on control, results), and teacher-centered teaching, highlight how perceptions of origin and destination contexts influence DI. Moreover, Zerai et al. ( 2021 ) found the positive meaning of DI through the study of 17 Eritrean teachers’ narratives. However, they have listed challenges such as students’ personal challenges, teachers’ sense of helplessness, lack of experienced teachers, or challenging school situations that hinder them from attaining prolific results. According to Magableh and Abdullah’s ( 2020 ) study in Jordan, another challenge is the lack of knowledge of DI techniques among instructors due to a lack of professional development. Their findings indicate that administrators also lack concepts for DI methodologies, which impedes their implementation in Jordanian schools. Furthermore, their research found that planning for differentiation takes too much time since instructors have a severe workload, making it impossible to create differentiated classes. Another finding in their study was that the size of the class had a detrimental impact on DI. According to the researchers, the larger the class, the more we need to differentiate and cope with individual differences (Magableh & Abdullah, 2020 ). Another issue, according to Joseph et al. ( 2013 ), is a shortage of alternate learning material to address the various needs of students in a differentiated classroom. A differentiated class needs multiple teaching and learning resources since the teacher has to be conversant with each student’s needs and learning style. Individuals who prefer to work alone are another issue teachers in differentiated classrooms face; a differentiated class can be built on group work, collaboration, or cooperation, but if a student is unwilling to do so, the instructor faces a new challenge (Tomlinson, 2014 ). Theoretical Framework Recently, model Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has given a rise to cater to the needs of struggling students in the class and provide them with the required instruction. Conventional curricular models that tightly demand student compliance and provide students little opportunity to present, participate, or express themselves in varied ways are rejected by UDL. In universally designed curriculum, “the curriculum adjusts to the student and to his or her needs” (Firchow, 2016, p.2 The model emphasize the need to consider classroom student diversity and align the teaching methodology accordingly. In addition, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning has impacted the rise of DI. According to this theory, when students receive collaboration from more skilled learners in completing a task, they reach a stage known as the zone of proximal development or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1962 ; Borja et al., 2015 ). This zone helps the learners complete a task after developing their capabilities by doing it with a more skilled peer or under the guidance of an adult. Hence, the student-teacher or student-student interaction, responsive instruction, and scaffolding are among the decisive factors to consider in DI (Subban, 2006 ). More importantly, teachers need to make more informed decisions and realize that the theory of “one size fits all” does not produce effective results anymore. According to Pham ( 2012 ), strategies such as “identifying student readiness; making modifications of the instructional content, process, and product; and enhancing collaboration and autonomy in learning” aid in implementing DI which would ultimately result in higher rates of student success. Hence, lesson plans and curriculums should be designed to incorporate the students’ needs, interests, and learning styles in the classrooms. It is also believed that differentiation has “as many faces as it has practitioners and as many outcomes as there are learners” (Pettig 2000 , p. 14). Grounded in the above models and theories, Tomlinson ( 2001 ) introduced Differenced Instruction (DI) theory which guides the current study. The DI contains four significant elements: content, process, product, and learning environment (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010 ). The elements are intricately linked and may be tailored to the learner’s readiness, interest, and learning profile (See Fig. 1 ). Content Content is what students are to master or learn from the instruction (Bender, 2012 ). Taylor ( 2015 ) states that differentiating content is when teachers can vary the level of complexity. This means teachers can provide various materials for the same syllabus depending on the students’ specific needs instead of textbooks catering to everyone. The school or district’s standards generally decide the content. It incorporates what the instructor intends students to learn and how they will learn it (Tomlinson, 2014 ). When differentiating content, the teacher provides what will be taught and what resources will be used strategically. Organizing instructional content allows students to make meaningful relationships between their lives and learning (Hoffman, 2003 ). Differentiating content necessitates teachers to provide students with access to the material they want them to acquire. Heacox ( 2002 ) believes that allowing students to select a subtopic within a primary theme or unit is one approach for teachers to differentiate the content or curriculum. The entire class learns more about the topic as each student shares information on their sub-topic. In addition, Anderson ( 2007 ) states teachers can differentiate the content by employing flexible grouping, in which students can work in pairs or small groups, and by using books, tapes, or the Internet to build comprehension of the topic. Moreover, according to Alavinia and Sadeghi ( 2013 ), many language teachers do not differentiate their instruction based on content due to resource scarcity for language instructors. The majority of English teachers, on the other hand, differentiate their instruction to best practices and products, for example, flexible grouping (Yeh et al., 2012 ) and tiered assignments (Alavinia & Sadeghi, 2013 ). Process The term “process” refers to the activities meant to assist students in making sense of essential information, concepts, and ideas; in other words, it is how the students must complete the learning content (Tomlinson, 2014 ). The teacher will modify the activities according to the student’s readiness, interest, and learner profile. Tomlinson and Eidson ( 2003 ) say that “Learning has to happen in students, not to them” (p. 11). Further, useful activities require students to “grapple with a skill, so they come to own it” and get meaning out of them themselves (p. 10). Teachers can stretch the learning activities based on the students’ readiness, interests, or learning styles, much like content (Tomlinson 2005 ). Students can learn the same content by doing various activities that can evoke their interests. Hence, the learning process would neither be too boring nor too difficult. Supporting less-abled and advanced students (Tomlinson, 2014 ) is vital. As a result, multiple levels of support for an activity can be delivered depending on the students’ needs, but Vygotsky ( 1962 ) recommends that the teacher remain slightly ahead of the student's actual level of development to stay within the ZPD. In this range, the learner can work independently and where new learning occurs. According to Anderson ( 2007 ), differentiating the process in a lesson means “how the learners come to understand and assimilate facts, concepts, or skills” (p.50). It is crucial to highlight that the process differentiates in terms of how the teacher intends to teach and the strategies teachers encourage students to use thorough exploration of the content taught. Higher-order thinking, open-ended thinking, discovery, reasoning, and investigation may all be used to accomplish this (Bailey & Williams-Black, 2008 ). Product A product is a final project that students complete at the end of a unit to demonstrate what they have learned (Tomlinson, 1999 ). A great product demands students to “think critically and creatively about what they learned, apply this knowledge, and expand their knowledge and skills” (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003 ). Products assist students in transitioning from knowledge consumers to knowledge producers. The resulting products differ depending on student preparation, interest, and learner profile, but they should be engaging and demanding (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003 ). Product differentiation should provide students with alternative options for mastery of shared learning goals. Product differentiation assignments should provide students with explicit and acceptable success criteria, concentrate on real-world relevance and application, and foster creative and critical thinking. Santangelo and Tomlinson ( 2009 ) argue that teachers should give enough scaffolding and support to students by offering alternatives for peer and self-evaluation. Bailey and Williams-Black ( 2008 ) suggest that differentiating the product enables learners to choose how they want to demonstrate that they have learned the topic. When students select their product, they are more likely to choose a method to help them succeed and match their learning profiles. It is logical to expect that if instructors have a clear grasp of their students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles, they’ll be much more likely to differentiate content, process, and product effectively and appropriately (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009 ). Assessment Idrus et al. ( 2021 ) explain DI as a proactive student-centered method for educating diverse learners in a supportive and heterogeneous environment guided by instruction assessment. Differentiated assessment is essential to DI (Chapman & King, 2005 ). Classroom assessment helps quantify and document learning and encourage it (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005); hence, assessment and instruction are inextricably intertwined (Tomlinson, 2004 ). According to McTighe and O’Connor (2005), a well-designed assessment and grading system may “provide the kind of specific, personalized, and timely information needed to guide both learning and instruction” (p.11). There are three types of classroom assessments: pre-assessment, formative, and summative (Levy, 2008 ; McTighe & O’Connor, 2005; Moon, 2005 ). Teachers use pre-assessment to discover what students need to organize lessons. To do so, students are given formal and informal pre-assessments to gather data to define their instructional baselines. Formative assessment is used to monitor student progress during instruction. It encompasses a wide range of methods for a teacher to identify “what students are getting, and what they are not getting” (p. 18) for teaching and learning (Garesis, 2007 ). Formative assessment can be used to create student groups, vary the speed of instruction, or change how students are presented with content and materials (Moon, 2005 ). According to Fisher and Frey ( 2007 ), “Oral language, questioning, writing, projects and performances, assessments, and school-wide techniques” are among a range of assessments to evaluate students’ knowledge (p.2). Summative assessments are used to evaluate instruction and are usually given at the end of a lesson or unit (Moon, 2005 ). The student mastery level is determined, which may also be used as a pre-assessment for a new unit because it offers information on students’ preparation. Summative data can also be used to provide information to parents, students, or administrators, on the efficiency of instruction, such as grades. Paper examinations, and performance assessments, are examples of summative assessments. Learning Environment Instructors who differentiate, value and care for their students, which is evident in the excellent classroom environment favorable to success. The physical aspect of the classroom is the first step in creating such an environment. When the classroom is friendly, students are more responsive to learning and have a sense of community. Teachers, for example, pay attention to the arrangement of the furniture, their level of comfort, the sound volume, the temperature, and the lighting in the class (Burke & Burke-Samide, 2004 ). In such an environment, all students benefit from the differentiated classroom, and rapport is expected of all students. As a result, students are encouraged to share and ask questions, knowing they will not be criticized (de Anda, 2007 ). Differentiated teachers also know their students’ ideas, employ positivity and laughter, strive for pleasant learning, and connect themselves with their students (Tomlinson, 2014 ). Teachers gladly share authority with students in this environment; students may, for instance, engage in developing classroom norms and practices, contribute to developing problem-solving strategies, and assist one another in various ways (Tomlinson, 2001 ). Such a positive environment improves students’ motivation and autonomy, encouraging them to self-regulate their learning (Young, 2005 ). According to Jalaludin and Hashim ( 2020 ), the learning environment in a differentiated classroom has a role in creating successful learning. The findings of their study demonstrated that good interactions between students and instructors during sessions, and a suitable classroom environment, contribute to a better learning experience. Vargas-Parra et al. ( 2018 ) state that the learning environment influences every student’s learning process in the differentiated classroom. A differentiated classroom environment stimulates students to develop their language proficiency and, as a result, their learning; conversely, when students support one another, they boost their classmates’ learning achievement. Research Methodology This study intended to analyze the Afghan students and teachers’ perspectives about DI and the contributing factors to cater to Afghan learners’ needs at the English department of Herat University. The researchers opted for a mixed method to collect the data. The mixed method is regarded as a substantial and pragmatic approach across disciplines, allowing methodological flexibility to integrate with other research approaches for meaningful results (Creswell, 2021 ). The mixed method allows researchers to address complex research questions, find answers to exploratory and confirmatory questions within a single study, and draw a more comprehensive picture of the problem at hand (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009 ). Therefore, a mixed method is utilized for the present study to deduce credible and convincing results. Context of English Language Teaching in Afghanistan English language is used as a foreign language in Afghanistan (Alamyar, 2015 ); therefore, English language learners do not get enough exposure to the language outside the classroom (Barbee, 2013 ). In developing language proficiency, English language learners in this country enroll in institutions and private classes to improve their language proficiency. Learning English language has become one of the core-focused points in many countries especially the developing countries like Afghanistan. Many schools and institutions have added this subject as one of the options for studying to improve the students’ communication skills for an international level. In terms of teaching methods, almost in all Afghanistan schools, the traditional method of teaching English or Grammar-Translation method is used (Alamyar, 2015 ). In this method, the instruction comes with a native version; it means that they teach in native language, not totally in English (Karakas, 2019 ). Thus, a new teaching method is needed to explore language teaching in this 21st century and enhance the learners’ language skills. Population Description and Sampling Convenience sampling was used in the study because of the accessibility and availability of the participants. According to Etikan et al. ( 2016 ), convenience sampling “is a type of nonprobability or non-random sampling where members of the target population that meet certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate are included for the purpose of the study” (p.2). Thus, to gather data for the study, two different groups were selected as the participants; English department students and three teachers from the same department. Before completing the questionnaire, the participants were informed of the study’s goals and objectives and asked whether they would be open to participating in the research. They were instructed to read and sign a consent letter, which assured them that their participation was voluntary and that their answers were treated confidentially. a. English Department Students English department students served as the participants of the study; both male and female students from first-year students, sophomore, junior, and senior classes participated in the study. Participants of the study have completed at least two semesters at the English department of Herat University; furthermore, they have a minimum of 10 years of English language instruction. Since convenience sampling is used for the present study, a questionnaire was sent to those students who were accessible online; thus, a total of 199 students were approached for the study, and 102 responded to the questionnaire. Table 1 Survey Respondents’ Demographic Information Years of Schooling Freshmen 3.9 Sophomore 26.5 Junior 43.1 Senior 26.5 Total 100% Gender Male 35.3 Female 64.7 Total 100% b. English Department Teachers Three teachers from the English department participated in the study. All these teachers have Master’s degrees in Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language from reputed universities such as the United States of America and India. However, because of the lack of teachers in the English department, they have simultaneously taught different subjects such as linguistics, teaching methodology, language skills, and research. Table 2 The Interview Participants’ Demographic Information No. Participants (pseudonyms are used to protect the teachers’ identities) Gender Teaching Experience Degree 1. Somaya Female 1 year Masters in TESL*, India 2. Ahmad Male 11 years Masters in TESOL, USA 3. Sahar Female 10 years Masters in TESL, USA *TESL (Teaching English as Second Language) Data Collection The researchers developed two instruments for data collection; a questionnaire was administered among students, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department teachers. This procedure was approved and observed by the Faculty of Languages and Literature Deanship at the research site (Herat University). a. Differentiated Instruction Survey Questionnaire A DI questionnaire was designed to record Afghan EFL learners’ experience of DI tailored to support individual needs in the classroom by their teachers. The DI survey questionnaire was adapted from Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012). The questionnaire was shared with 199 students through google docs. The questionnaire was designed around five categories; the learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. Likert scale (Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5) was utilized to analyze the degree to which the participants believed DI was considered in conducting EFL classes. Before data collection, the questionnaire was piloted with 51 students from the English department to determine the survey’s reliability. The reliability test was run to assess the internal consistency of 37 items in the questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha for the DI survey was r = 0.951, which is a considerable value indicating that the instrument was reliable. Furthermore, face validity was used to omit irrelevant items in the questionnaire. b. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department instructors to include their perspectives on incorporating DI in their classrooms. Two interviews were conducted face-to-face; however, one was conducted online. The open-ended questions designed beforehand guided the conversation and helped the interlocutors to stay on the topic. Moreover, the semi-structured interviews allowed for more in-depth communication about the topic. Data Analysis a. Qualitative Data Analysis Semi-structured interviews were qualitatively analyzed. After the researchers transcribed and coded the data, they applied thematic analysis to analyze the data gathered from semi-structured interviews. According to Kiger and Varpio ( 2020 ), thematic analysis “is a method for describing data, but it also involves interpretation in the processes of selecting codes and constructing themes” (p. 1). Therefore, the data were transcribed and coded to find the most repeated patterns to list the themes in the interviews. The qualitative data was analyzed through thematic analysis, “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). First, the researchers transcribed the recorded interviews verbatim. Then, they read each transcript thoroughly several times to understand the nature of the data in a greater extent, constantly bearing the research questions in mind. They searched for the relevant ideas and codes and took short memos. After creating a list of codes, the researchers constantly compare and contrast them to identify significant relationship between. Subsequently, they categorized codes into various themes. To ensure reliability, the researchers separately analyzed the data to identify codes and themes. Then, they had several joint discussions to reach a consensus and resolved any possible inconsistencies in the findings. b. Quantitative Data Analysis The researchers analyzed the questionnaire quantitatively using SPSS software to analyze the data gathered from students’ responses to calculate the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum data. Results This study aimed to explore DI and the factors that cater to the needs of EFL students. A questionnaire was used in this mixed method study to understand students’ perspectives on DI at the English department of Herat University; moreover, English department instructors were interviewed to capture their attitudes toward adjusting their instruction to accommodate different learners. Questionnaire’s Results Analyzing the quantitative data revealed that some individual variables obtained high mean scores within each DI construct. Regarding the learning environment , the survey participants reported that their teachers have been creating activities to develop a sense of community in the classroom to a high extent (4.17). Considering the conten t, the students also stated that the teachers use multimedia materials (4.16) and tools, including PowerPoint, photos, charts, to present the content (4.41). Besides, they reported that the instructors employ various strategies to improve students’ comprehension of the content, such as chapter and lecture outlines or summary questions (4.01). Regarding process , the students noted that their teachers utilized a variety of grouping arrangements during instruction to a high degree (4.38). In the assessment construct, the participants reported that the instructor could employ various assessment types to decide their course grades, including writing a paper, in-class participation, quizzes, and final exams (4.03). However, some other variables obtained pretty low scores in the designated constructs. Considering the learning environment , the survey participants reported poorly that their instructors met them in person when they encountered low grades and absences (2.48). With content , the students also indicated that their teachers did not provide options for them to select from several texts (3.21). They also did not utilize the content according to their interests and lived experiences (3.19). In addition, the instructors did not provide additional support to a great extent for the students who have difficulty learning course content. For instance, meeting students during office hours (3.15). They also reported that their instructors clarified how to select and fine-tune the course content to a pretty low degree (3.36). Considering the process , the participants reported that grouping arrangements according to their proficiency levels, academic skills, and relevant background knowledge was poor (3.33), interest (3.09), learning preferences (3.09), as well as the teachers’ flexibility in setting deadlines (3.38). In the product construct, the participants indicated that their instructors are less likely to provide challenging opportunities for advanced students who quickly complete the tasks (3.18). Ultimately, the students reported poorly that their teachers assessed their interest in what they plan to do in the future and what they are interested in (3.07). In general, the DI obtained an average score of (3.6). Its constructs’ mean values were almost identical: the learning environment (3.73), content (3.66), process (3.57), product (3.57), and assessment (3.54). See Table 3 . Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Differentiate Instruction Constructs N Mean Std. Deviation Range Mini Max Valid Missing Learning Environment 102 0 3.73 .746 3.33 1.67 5.00 Content 102 0 3.66 .639 3.33 1.50 4.83 Process 102 0 3.57 .723 3.50 1.50 5.00 Product 102 0 3.57 .753 3.83 1.17 5.00 Assessment 102 0 3.54 .838 3.80 1.20 5.00 DI Composite 102 0 3.61 .656 3.39 1.47 4.86 Interview Results Interview data were analyzed considering the essential elements of DI: learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. Table 4 presents the major themes and ideas from the lecturers’ interviews. Table 4 Emerging Ideas from Lecturers’ Interviews Topic Major Ideas Learning environment • Creating a safe learning environment • Different socioeconomic backgrounds • Large heterogeneous, multi-level classes • Students’ background • Students’ proficiency level • Students’ motivation level Content • Learning objectives • Availability and accessibility of resources • Content that addresses learning objectives • Learners’ role in content selection • Supplementing practice activities • Limited Resources Process • Different learning styles • No needs analysis conducted • Lack of trained instructors Product • Students’ interest • The pressure of covering pre-designed content Assessment • Lack of providing feedback and washback • Learning outcomes The most important aspects of classroom design should focus on students’ needs, background, language proficiency, interests, and motivation for learning the content. According to the interview data, learners come from various backgrounds and values. However, it is expected to face challenges when implementing DI. The findings of the interview data suggest that lack of resources, lack of needs analysis, and lack of providing individual feedback were some of the major concerns. Sahar, one of the interviewed participants, believes that students from all backgrounds offer diversity to the classroom, which enhances the learning environment. Moreover, according to Ahmad, an interviewee, it is crucial to tailor instruction to the needs of students to create a productive learning environment. Sahar also believes that when learners’ needs are addressed in the classroom, they feel motivated and included. She further adds that the content, the teaching method, the assessment, and the class activities are all affected by students’ proficiency levels. Sahar states that “when teaching the course, I consider those objectives and try to align my instruction, teaching material, tasks and activities, and class assignments with the predefined goals and objectives of the course.” In addition, Somaya stated that when students find that their interests are valued, the course outcomes and students’ motivation toward the course will be positive. According to Ahmad, it is important to keep learners motivated in the EFL classroom. He added that when learners are encouraged, they will make rapid progress and attain their goals in the course. Furthermore, Sahar and Somaya also emphasize keeping students motivated to ensure positive outcomes. Learners must have a voice in deciding the content of the course. According to Ahmad: As a teacher, I try to be flexible, I plan, but if the plan doesn’t go as I wanted it to go because students need different things I try to be flexible and bring changes. I try to be aware of what is happening in the learning environment so that awareness is based on student needs. I try to inspire students to continue to improve and I believe students feel that their progress is important to the teacher and they work hard. That encouragement could act as incentive and result in their improvement and further engagement. Moreover, All the interviewed participants agreed that learners feel empowered, valued, and engaged when their input is contributary in content selection. Supplementary materials are added for further practice when the content gets confusing and challenging. Participants of the study stressed the importance of adding activities for both in-class and out-of-class practice. Ahmad mentioned that he suggests activities and materials for highly advanced learners to practice outside the class to overcome his guilt for not addressing students’ needs when considering the majority during the content selection process. According to Ahmad, an interviewed participant: Teachers need to keep their students in mind and then they design the lessons. But sometimes it is difficult to apply, for example in Afghanistan, where we have students from different backgrounds then the teacher’s job is difficult to address all the needs because we have multi-level, large, heterogeneous classes, then in such scenarios, applying differentiated learning would be difficult. So, a suitable environment for learning is an environment where students are encouraged, are valued, their interests background are considered, they are motivated, and their progress, their achievement is checked regularly, and they are being told that yes, you are improving. Challenges of Implementing Differentiated Instruction In implementing DI, facing challenges is inevitable. Some of the challenges that participants highlighted include large heterogeneous classes, multi-level classrooms, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different learning styles of learners, and more. Somaya added: I consider my students’ background and learning styles. Then, I determine my content and language objectives; I connect the content with students’ background knowledge. I also check if the content I am going to teach is useful because students value only subject matters that are related to their experiences. Ahmad mentioned that applying DI in large classes creates challenges, such as the number of students and limited time to teach, practice, and produce content in the course. He further addressed the issues that arise as a result of students’ diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. According to him, students from low-income families are bound to make numerous compromises during the learning process. They are limited in many areas, including internet access, supplementary materials, and course-related technology gadgets and applications. According to Ahmad: Students come from different socio-economic backgrounds, when you choose content that your students don’t have access to the internet, then you are limited, you cannot implement a lot of activities which require technology or go beyond the classroom asking students to play a specific application these things. I remember, I was encouraging student to memorize words on ‘Memrise’, the application on mobile, I noticed that any of my students don’t have smartphones, then I had to give them the soft copy of the words that those they don’t have that the print it and study on their own. Moreover, according to Somaya, every student in a classroom has a unique learning style, and not all have the opportunity to learn or grasp the subject equally. Here, DI helps; however, implementing adjusted instruction based on the learners’ learning styles is challenging for the instructor. All the interviewed participants acknowledged that when designing course content, they confront challenges such as limited resources and high material costs. Somaya said “usually students are not involved in content selection; sometimes even teachers are not directly involved in content selection; they only have to follow what is already decided by the Ministry of Higher Education and the English department.” Moreover, teacher participants also added that it is unfortunate that a thorough needs analysis in the English department is not conducted to select the content based on the learners’ needs, interests, and language proficiency levels. Moreover, the limited resources in Afghanistan, the high prices, and the lack of trained instructors pose challenges in implementing DI. Ahmad also mentioned that another challenge is the lack of experienced instructors to conduct needs analysis or design material for teaching in the English department. According to him, there is no legit and credible proficiency test to determine the level of students when they enrol in the English department. Besides limited class time and the pressure the teachers feel to cover the pre-designed content, a significant problem arises when the learners are not provided with feedback and washback. According to Ahmad: Another challenge is the problem of washback, we have assessment and the students never hear back why their scores are reduced? What was their problem? And as long as they get a passing grade and they move on, they go to the next level. Ahmad stressed the importance of giving feedback in developing learners’ language skills and keeping them aware of their mistakes and problems. According to him, when learners are not provided with proper feedback, they become reluctant toward their assignments and projects. Sahar added that the teaching load and large class size hinder teachers from providing individualized feedback for their assignments. Moreover, Ahmad states that institutional policies, rules, and regulations forbid washback after exams and tests, prohibiting learners from knowing their problems and weaknesses. Discussion Data gathered from the interviews and the questionnaire highlights the elements of DI, the learning environment, the content, the process, the product, and the assessment. Students presented their understanding of the use of DI in their context through a questionnaire; however, the teacher participants reflected on their use of DI and the factors that cater to the needs of the learners in the EFL context at university level. The data obtained from the questionnaire suggest that students have a positive perception of the DI in the English department. Moreover, the interviewed teachers suggest that though implementing DI in the Afghan context comes with challenges, but it is not impractical. Students’ Understanding of the Use of DI The results obtained from the questionnaire show that students were provided with DI in specific areas with different content in various ways to demonstrate their understanding of the content. Furthermore, the students’ questionnaire also suggested that learners’ interests and backgrounds should be considered as the items with mean values above 4 (My teachers arrange me in the groups according to my proficiency levels, academic skills, and relevant background knowledge; My teachers use materials according to my interests or lived experiences; My teachers use real-life examples according to my interests or experiences to present the content; My teachers are flexible in setting deadlines according to my needs or a circumstance I face) suggest the importance of these themes. In delivering a successful DI curriculum, planning well in advance and dealing with the anticipated challenges that might arise in the process is essential. Differentiating the Learning Environment Based on the study results, when learners feel comfortable in the learning environment, the outcome of the class is fruitful. According to the study’s teacher participants, it is important to tailor one’s instruction to students’ needs to generate a productive learning environment; when students’ needs are considered, they feel motivated and valued. Moreover, a positive outcome is expected in any classroom setting when learners can forge a link between the material and their background. The study's findings suggest that learners come from different backgrounds, contributing to class diversity and enriching the learning environment. According to Tomlinson ( 2014 ), students feel confident and free to take on challenges when instructors build a positive classroom environment and forego the typical authoritarian position in favor of fostering a positive environment. It will also encourage progress in their language learning. The major challenges highlighted in this study are heterogeneous classes, different socioeconomic backgrounds, and learners’ learning styles. In such circumstances, the teacher has to design a plan to cover all the students with drastically diverse needs. Teachers should provide enough support, especially to meet the needs of the weaker learners (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009 ). The teacher and the learners make adjustments primarily because of their poor socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, the larger the class, the more we must differentiate and cope with individual differences (Magableh & Abdullah, 2020 ). According to the findings, every student in a classroom has a distinct learning style, and not all have the chance to learn the subject equally; here, DI helps. Tailoring the Content to Meet Students’ Individual Needs When designing a course, the content has to address all learners’ needs. To allow diverse learners to have a voice in the content selection process, the teacher has to consider individual differences. Heacox ( 2002 ) believes that teachers can differentiate the content by allowing students to select a subtopic within a primary theme. By doing this, students feel empowered and motivated. The study’s data points to four major characteristics of the content selection process. These characteristics include accessibility and availability of the content, content that addresses the learning objectives, the role learners play in content selection, and the need to practice activities to meet the learners’ needs. According to Alavinia and Sadeghi ( 2013 ), many language teachers do not differentiate their content due to a lack of resources. Conversely, Anderson ( 2007 ) states that teachers can differentiate the content by dividing students into groups, where they tend to rely on each other, resulting in less pressure on the instructor and more peer-to-peer interaction. Therefore, learners can discuss their problems in groups and devise a solution if the content is challenging. However, content selection is not a very easy task. According to Magableh and Abdullah ( 2020 ), due to a lack of professional development, the absence of DI techniques among instructors is one of the major challenges of content selection in DI. Novice teachers tend to follow the content that previous teachers selected since they do not have the skills to conduct a needs assessment for the targeted course. Additionally, this study also found that resource limitations and high prices are among the other challenges of content selection. Joseph et al. ( 2013 ) argue that another problem is the lack of alternative learning resources to meet the students’ varying needs in a differentiated class; therefore, teachers only rely on sources that are not up to date and relevant to students’ needs, interests, and proficiency levels. Differentiating the Process to Cater to Learners’ Needs The data obtained from interviews with teachers suggest that the teacher has to evaluate the difficulty of the tasks, deadlines, students’ proficiency level, and the flexibility they need to demonstrate in handling the tasks. Moreover, the teacher should consider the learners’ background, interests, and needs for attending a course. According to Tomlinson and Imbeau ( 2010 ), a student’s learning profile, which encompasses learning styles, culture, gender, learning preferences, and multiple intelligences, includes expressing, taking in, or exploring content. If not sorted beforehand, different learners with diverse cultural backgrounds and learning styles can pose problems for the instruction process. Many other challenges also prohibit the teacher from utilizing DI. The participants of this study raised concerns about issues such as lack of time to provide feedback. Tomlinson ( 2014 ) believes that DI takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and dedication on the instructor’s part. In reality, time is most often the factor that works against instructors. Most teachers have a variety of classes every day, and designing a differentiated class for every session is difficult (De Bruin, 2018 ). In addition, the pressure to cover the content limits the teacher in providing DI in their course. Differentiating Assessments to Identify Learning Gaps The findings suggest that teachers heavily rely on formative assessment that can be used to put students into groups, vary the speed of instruction, or change how content and materials are presented to students (Moon, 2005 ). Teacher participants of the study stated that formative assessment provides a better grasp of their student's progress, allowing them to identify and tackle students' problems during the semester. The other two techniques the teacher participants used are observation and student reports to assess students’ learning. “Ungraded quizzes, oral questioning, teacher observations, draft work, think aloud, student-constructed concept maps, learning logs, and portfolio reviews” are all forms of formative assessment (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005, p. 12). When observing learners, based on this study data, it is critical to pay attention to the learners’ facial expressions, body language, and comfort level, primarily when learners work in groups. Moreover, the teacher participants claimed that quizzes and exams are important tools for assessing students’ progress and the areas teachers need to emphasize. However, remember that effective assessment guides instruction, which increases teaching time, forms instruction, and facilitates learning for all students” (Heng & Song, 2020 ). Therefore, teachers should assess students to receive feedback on what is working and what needs to be changed. Conclusion This study aimed to explore and explain DI in the Afghan context and analyze the key factors that cater to the students’ needs. According to Afghan teachers and students, implementing DI has both challenges and benefits. As parts of DI, the learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment were carefully investigated. DI allows students to have their voice in content selection, teaching process, product development, and assessment processes. According to the teacher participants of the current study, learners’ individual needs, interests, unique backgrounds, and learning styles should be considered when planning the course. The findings of the interviews from the teacher participants imply that when learners are included in decision-making processes and have the opportunity to offer feedback, they feel motivated, valued, and engaged, which leads to enhancing and easing the learning process. Besides, teachers can create a learning environment where students are comfortable and part of the process. This increases the students’ motivation and highlights that their different characteristics have been considered in designing the learning objectives. Pedagogical Implementations The study's results revealed several challenges in implementing DI, such as lack of trained professionals, lack of needs assessment, and lack of individual attention to struggling learners. Teachers are constantly under pressure to meet the institution’s requirements. The institution ignores students’ needs due to a lack of resources and not having enough instructors. This means that higher education administrators have to make decisions, try to provide updated resources, and add in the number of educators to overcome the challenges mentioned earlier. In addition, heterogeneous classes create another obstacle for teachers in applying DI; therefore, teachers’ leading role would be as supportive as possible to engulf all learners. Based on the study results, Afghan teachers suffer from a lack of resources which creates problems in differentiating the content; higher education administrators should tackle this so the teachers can implement content differentiation in their classes based on their students’ needs. This paper also suggests that DI needs teachers’ dedication and time more than other approaches since it aims to include all learners regarding their particular characteristics. Teachers should design DI classes based on the learners’ needs and objectives; in the future, they may use the same activities and assignments for other classes where they see the same variety in their learners; hence, they can save time. Hence, the findings of this mixed method study suggest that both students and teachers affirm that interview data illuminate the patterns arising from the survey findings. Future Research Directions This paper aimed to examine DI from teachers’ and students’ perspectives in the same context, which was missing in the previous literature. The researchers suggest future studies focus on implementing DI on specific language skills such as grammar, writing, and reading, on seeing the flexibility of this approach and challenges that might emerge. Moreover, an experimental design could yield different results and give a better understanding of the DI’s outcomes on the learners’ learning process. Researchers should also work on the DI challenges in different learning contexts based on socioeconomic backgrounds or how using DI differs in identical learning environments, including first-world, third-world, and conflict-affected countries. Limitations of the Study To contextualize this study’s findings, pedagogical implications, and generalizations, the authors find it crucial to identify its limitations. This study was conducted at the English department of Herat university, where the resources are scarce, and the number of faculty members is limited. To get a more profound insight into the impacts of DI, it would be ideal to recruit more teacher participants in the study. Future studies can add the voices of students, teachers with extensive DI experience, and policymakers to provide a more holistic picture of the impact of DI on the learning process of EFL students. Eventually, this study is considered a novel of its kind at Herat university, yet it opens the ground for further research on the outcomes of DI. Declarations Ethical Approval The research procedure for this paper was approved and observed by the Faculty of Languages and Literature Deanship at the research site (Herat University). Consent to Participate All the participants of this study completed a consent form to ensure their voluntary participation. Consent to Publish All the authors of this study declare their consent for the publication of this paper. Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interest. Authors’ Contributions Omid Tajik worked on the introduction, literature review, conclusion, and references; Shagofah Noor did the methodology, instruments, data collection, data analysis, and result; Jawad Golzar worked on the discussion section Funding The authors did not receive any grant or funding for conducting or publishing this paper. Availability of Data and Materials The authors can provide the data and the materials on request. References Alamyar, Z. (2015). Teaching English as a foreign language in Afghanistan. Cheragh-e-Hekmat Quaterly Academic and Research Journal of Parwan University , 1(1), 1–12. Alavinia, P., & Farhady, S. (2012). Teaching vocabulary through differentiated instruction: Insights from multiple intelligences and learning styles. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 2 (4), 73-90. https://mjltm.org/browse.php?a_id=42&sid=1&slc_lang=en&ftxt=1#page=73 Alavinia, P., & Sadeghi, T. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Task-Based Instruction via Heeding Learning Styles on EFL Learners’ Feasible Proficiency Gains. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19 (1), 75-91. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/6142/1/1773-5055-1-PB%5B1%5D.pdf Aliakbari, M., & Haghighi, J. (2014). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhancement of Iranian learners reading comprehension in separate gender education. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences , 98, 182–189. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.405 Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51 (3), 49-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54 Arjulayana (2018). Non-English Learners’ Needs in Learning English as a Foreign Language. Asian EFL Journal. 20 (4). 121-128. https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/AEFLJ-Volume-20-Issue-4-April-2018-2.pdf Bailey, J. P., & Williams-Black, T. H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Three teachers’ perspectives. College Reading Association Yearbook (29), 133-151. Barbee, M. (2013). Extracurricular L2 input in a Japanese EFL context: Exposure, attitudes, and motivation. University of Hawai’i Second Language Studies Paper 32 (1). Bender, W.N. (2012). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: New best practices for general and special educators (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowin. Brown, D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching . NY: Pearson Education. Borja, L. A., Soto, S. T., & Sanchez, T. X. (2015). Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science , 5 (81), 30-36. https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_8_1_August_2015/5.pdf Burke, K., & Burke-Samide, B. (2004). Required changes in the classroom environment: It is a matter of design. The Clearing House, 77 (6), 236-239. Chapman, C., & King, R. (2005). Differentiated assessment strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Creswell, J. (2021). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research . New York: Pearson. De Anda, D. (2007). Reflections on introducing students to multicultural populations and diversity content. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 16 (3/4), 143-158. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J051v16n03_12 De Bruin, K. (2018). Differentiation in the Classroom: Engaging Diverse Learners through Universal Design for Learning. https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/264002785/255280204_oa.pdf Eragamreddy, N. (2015). Motivating learners to learn: Libyan ESL teachers’ strategies and perspectives. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 3(2).42-54. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.34367 Etikan, I., Musa, A. S., & Alkassim, S. R. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 5 (1). 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11 Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Firchow, N. (2002). Universal design for learning: Improved access for all. Retrieved December , 30 , 2007. Garesis, C. R. (2007). Reclaiming an important teacher competency: The lost art of formative assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation and Education, 20 , 17-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9044-5 Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom‐oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL quarterly , 42 (1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207 Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated Instruction. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, CAST, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. http://www.cast.org/ncac/classroompractice/cpractice02.doc Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12 . Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing. Heng, T. T., & Song, L. (2020). A proposed framework for understanding educational change and transfer: Insights from Singapore teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction. Journal of Educational Change , 21 (4), 595-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09377-0 Hernandez-Cherrez, E. A., Galora-Moya, P. N., & Hidalgo-Camacho, S. C. (2020). Differentiated instruction on reading skill at higher education level. CIENCIAMATRIA. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Humanidades, Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología. 6 (10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35381/cm.v6i10.114 Hoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18 (1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540309595019 Idrus, F., Asri, N. A. Z. & Baharom, N. N. (2021). Has Differentiated Instruction Gone Awry in Online Teaching and Learning? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12 , 3, 501-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1203.21 Jalaludin, A. M., & Hashim, H. (2020). Effective Learning in Differentiated ESL Classrooms: Teachers’ and Pupils’ Perceptions. Journal Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Malaysia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346962010_EFFECTIVE_LEARNING_IN_DIFFERENTIATED_ESL_CLASSROOMS_TEACHERS'_AND_PUPILS'_PERCEPTIONS Joseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., & Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n3p28 Karadag, R. & Yasar, S. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students’ attitudes towards Turkish courses: an action research. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 9 , 1394-1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.340 Karakas, A. (2019). An analysis of the high school English curriculum in Turkey from an Elf perspective. I -Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching , 9(2), 1. Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical teacher , 42 (8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030 Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81 (4), 161- 164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30189983 Logan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. Research in Higher Education Journal . Vol. 13 , 1-14. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11888.pdf Magableh, I., & Abdullah., A. (2020). The Effect of Differentiated Instruction on EFL Learners: Teachers’ Perspective. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10 (5), 626–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i5/7235 McTighe, J., & Brown, J. L. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is détente possible? Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8 Moon, T. R. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_7 Pham, H. L. (2012). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC) , 9 (1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6710 Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice. Educational Leadership. 58, (1), 14-18.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234737205_On_the_Road_to_Differentiated_Practice Richards, J, C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching . United States of America. Cambridge university press. Sadeghi, B., Hassani, M. T., & Hessari, A. D. (2013). On the Relationship Between Learners’ Needs and Their Use of Language Learning Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 136 (2014) 255 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.324 Santangelo, T. & Tomlinson, C. A (2009). The Application of Differentiated Instruction in Postsecondary Environments: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (3), 307-323. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE366.pdf Servilio, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5 (5) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967752.pdf Smith, F. (1983). E ssays into literacy: Selected papers and some afterthoughts . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7 (7), 935-947. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf Taylor, B. K. (2015). Content, process, and product: Modeling differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51 (1), 13-17. doi:10.1080/00228958.2015.988559. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Sage, London Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. (2004). Differentiation in diverse settings. School Administrator, 61 (7), 28-35. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from EBSCO host . Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff development. J. Staff Dev ., 26, (4), 8-12. http://differentiationworkshop.pbworks.com/f/Traveling+the+Road.pdf Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum grades K-5. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tulbure, C. (2011). Differentiated instruction for pre-service teachers: An experimental investigation. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 30, 448-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.088 Vargas-Parra, M. A., Rodriguez-Orejuela, J. A., & Herrera-Mosquera, L. (2018). Promotion of Differentiated Instruction Through a Virtual Learning Environment. FOLIOS, 47 , 165-177. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/folios/n47/0123-4870-folios-47-00165.pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Yeh, Y.c., Yeh, Y.l. & Chen, Y.H. (2012). From Knowledge Sharing to Knowledge Creation: A Blended Knowledge-Management Model for Improving University Students’ Creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 245-257. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/89082/. Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27 (1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273346 Zerai, D., Eskelä-Haapanen, S., Posti-Ahokas, H., & Vehkakoski, T. (2021). The meanings of differentiated instruction in the narratives of Eritrean teachers. Pedagogy, Culture & Society , 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1914712 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 01 Nov, 2024 Read the published version in Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 15 Mar, 2024 Reviews received at journal 05 Mar, 2024 Reviews received at journal 18 Feb, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jan, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Nov, 2023 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Nov, 2023 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Nov, 2023 Editor assigned by journal 31 Oct, 2023 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Oct, 2023 First submitted to journal 30 Oct, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3513269","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":244409149,"identity":"9e704ef2-5366-4a48-a9b8-1f5728406e4c","order_by":0,"name":"Omid Tajik","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Herat University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Omid","middleName":"","lastName":"Tajik","suffix":""},{"id":244409150,"identity":"23d50156-6397-4cc5-87f1-231fb4099dab","order_by":1,"name":"Shagofah Noor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Herat University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shagofah","middleName":"","lastName":"Noor","suffix":""},{"id":244409151,"identity":"128c9df9-426c-4180-a9ff-5e7ff6078e7d","order_by":2,"name":"Jawad Golzar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Herat University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jawad","middleName":"","lastName":"Golzar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-10-30 15:44:58","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00299-5","type":"published","date":"2024-11-01T15:57:22+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":45687381,"identity":"9a3b2231-5c15-493a-a0bf-41b68c42ea66","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-11-01 20:49:35","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87667,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDifferentiated instruction (Tomlinson \u0026amp; Imbeau, 2010)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3513269/v1/7d123a73e67418b493595c6b.png"},{"id":68206920,"identity":"8d402b91-beef-4076-aeb8-0d92b2dd632a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-04 16:33:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":866810,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3513269/v1/c3da3b6c-dbb9-4f59-b7a1-069bade7c123.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestigating Differentiated Instruction and the Contributing Factors to Cater EFL Students’ Needs at the Collegial Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn modern classrooms, technology facilitates learning a fortiori, but there has also been a tremendous number of alterations in the way teaching is approached. As a teacher, it is crucial to tailor one\u0026rsquo;s instruction to students\u0026rsquo; needs to promote a thriving learning environment. In every class, students come from various social, economic, academic, and cultural backgrounds with different learning styles; thus, the instructor needs to consider these factors for attending the class and providing suitable differentiated instruction to meet all learners\u0026rsquo; needs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe learner\u0026rsquo;s needs is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of information about the learner, the instructor, the target\u0026nbsp;language, and the language acquisition environment (Sadeghi et al., 2013). Brown (2007) identified four kinds of needs which are:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Any gaps between future students\u0026rsquo; language performances and what they can now achieve.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Any learning goals beneficial to the stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Based on students\u0026rsquo; information and the learning processes, whatever the students would\u0026nbsp;study next.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Any linguistic features or skills that would be problematic if lacking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudents should have a shared understanding of the language goals; additionally, as they assist one another in understanding the material and concepts, teachers are expected to facilitate the learning process and keep students motivated (Arjulayana, 2018; Richards, 2001; Smith, 1983). In addition, students\u0026rsquo; successes in the learning and teaching process might be aided by motivation. Motivation is critical in determining whether or not a student will succeed in learning English (Guilloteaux \u0026amp; D\u0026ouml;rnyei, 2008; Eragamreddy, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on previous studies (Karadag \u0026amp; Yasar, 2010; Logan, 2011; Magableh \u0026amp; Abdullah, 2020; Servilio, 2009; Suban, 2006; Tulbure, 2011), one way to cover the needs of students in a multi-level class with a variety of learning styles is using differentiated instruction, but before applying differentiation instruction, teachers should determine \u0026ldquo;students\u0026rsquo; readiness, abilities, and needs.\u0026rdquo; According to Tomlinson (2005), student readiness pertains to a student\u0026rsquo;s aptitude, competence, and understanding of a topic. Students\u0026rsquo; interest also refers to a student\u0026rsquo;s desire, wonder, and participation in a topic. A student\u0026rsquo;s learning profile includes learning styles, culture, gender, learning preferences, and multiple intelligences, an appreciation for expressing, taking in, or exploring content. These preferences impact the learners\u0026rsquo; learning competence and performance (Tomlinson \u0026amp; Imbeau, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferentiated Instruction (DI) is a vital tool that helps in keeping learners engaged and provides for their individual needs (Hall, 2002). It is significant for the learner to feel included and influential in the class. When learners\u0026rsquo; strengths, weaknesses, interests, and needs are explored, it is explicit that teachers would consider the class as a whole and the individuality of learners. Therefore, most teachers rely on group activities where learners from similar backgrounds are grouped to facilitate differentiated instruction, especially in larger classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, differentiated instruction is paving its way to alter the teaching-learning process and accommodate the students\u0026rsquo; needs in language classrooms. In English as Foreign Language (EFL) or English as Second Language (ESL) contexts, the need for implementing differentiated instruction is even more evident since learners come to class with varying proficiency levels, needs, cultures, and language backgrounds. Therefore, this mixed-method study aims to explore and explain differentiated instruction and the contributing factors that cater to EFL students\u0026rsquo; needs at the collegial level in Afghanistan. There is a gap in the body of literature regarding Afghan teachers\u0026rsquo; and students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of DI; moreover, most of the previous literature is either from students\u0026rsquo; or teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives in different contexts (Joseph et al., 2013; Karadag \u0026amp; Yasar, 2010; Servilio, 2009; Santangelo \u0026amp; Tomlinson, 2009; Tulbure, 2011) but this paper examined DI from both teachers and students\u0026rsquo; perspectives in the same context. The researchers attempt to fill the gap by further investigating the Afghan EFL learners\u0026rsquo; views on DI effectiveness and their readiness to adopt this model at Herat University, Afghanistan. This research is of significant value since it will help learners and teachers to accommodate classroom activities and tasks that would facilitate language learning, considering the learners\u0026rsquo; readiness, needs, learning styles, and diverse backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following research questions guide this study:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo what extent do Afghan EFL students perceive their teachers\u0026rsquo; use differentiated instructions?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat affordances and challenges Afghan EFL teachers face in implementing differentiated instruction at the university level?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section includes reviews of scholarly articles about the following themes: EFL students\u0026rsquo; needs, differentiated instruction (DI), challenges to implementing differentiated instruction, and theoretical framework (content, process, product, assessment, and learning environment).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferentiated Instruction: Origins, Develop, and Challenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Tomlinson and Imbeau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) and Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), DI is a teaching approach that emphasizes individual differences, learning styles, intelligence, and other factors and tries to make the best use of students\u0026rsquo; learning potential. This approach can be a viable option for dealing with the issue of diverse needs among students in the same class. In their study, Magableh and Abdullah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that differentiation helps improve students\u0026rsquo; learning by promoting motivation, enhancing interaction, and encouraging students to work on their speed and preferences. Therefore, DI allows low-level students to become interested in learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eServilio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the impact of DI in motivating students to read in an elementary school in the US. Students were able to choose their preferred reading materials to complete the given tasks; she found, \u0026ldquo;An average of 83.4% of the students\u0026rsquo; grades improved in reading, 12.5% remained the same, and 4.1% of the grades decreased\u0026rdquo; (Servilio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, p. 10). Tulbure (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) researched 94 Romanian teachers of foreign languages and mathematics. The researcher applied DI to the unique learning styles; the results showed a significant difference between the performances of experimental and control groups in terms of academic success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez-Ch\u0026eacute;rrez et al. (2020) conducted an experimental study in a reading class in Venezuela. Based on their findings, after twelve weeks of treatment, students who were in the experimental group and received differentiation instruction as the method of teaching, scored higher than the control group in the post test; besides, their vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension improved. Similar study was conducted in Iran by Aliakbari and Haghighi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e); they examined to what extent DI in a reading class would affect students\u0026rsquo; reading ability. Their results proved improvement of the experimental group than the control group which received traditional teaching. In another study, Karadag and Yasar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the impact of DI on Turkish students\u0026rsquo; attitudes. The sample was 30 Turkish fifth-graders. Before and after the experiment, the researchers conducted an attitude survey to assess the potential for attitudinal changes resulting from applying DI. The researchers highlighted the impact of DI in motivating learners and changing their attitudes about learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother initiative has been taken to learn more about the instructors\u0026rsquo; perspectives on using DI; Logan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) conducted his research on 141 Georgian teachers. According to the study's findings, most teachers agreed that the basic tenets of DI, such as the need for ongoing modification of content, processes, assessment, and materials, as well as the importance of evaluating students\u0026rsquo; readiness and interest levels were beneficial. Alavinia and Farhady (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the impact of DI on students\u0026rsquo; vocabulary acquisition. In their study, the group in which the learners\u0026rsquo; differences were addressed through the adoption of DI outperformed the control group's performance on the post-test. However, the teachers encountered numerous challenges when implementing DI in actual contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChallenges to Implementing Differentiated Instruction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies provide some hints about the challenges encountered while applying DI; for instance, according to Santangelo and Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), effective differentiation takes a tremendous amount of instructors\u0026rsquo; time and devotion. De Bruin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) identified several school characteristics that hampered differentiation implementation. The first was time; arguably, the essential factor for a teacher is to have enough time to prepare lessons that demonstrate excellent differentiation. Another one is the set curriculum constraints. Teachers at schools are all doing the same thing, which is relatively consistent because teachers\u0026rsquo; knowledge or experience differ; on the other hand, the criterion for classes to be evaluated through everyday assessment activities is not the same. We know that each classroom is unique; the characteristics of a class, what students know, and what they don\u0026rsquo;t know are all distinctive; as a result, a set curriculum makes differentiation in the classroom impossible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHeng and Song (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) proposed a comparative educational change framework to understand educational changes and transfer. They suggested that difficulties posed by changing technological conditions (class size/space and teacher capacity), as well as sociocultural norms (the emphasis on control, results), and teacher-centered teaching, highlight how perceptions of origin and destination contexts influence DI. Moreover, Zerai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found the positive meaning of DI through the study of 17 Eritrean teachers\u0026rsquo; narratives. However, they have listed challenges such as students\u0026rsquo; personal challenges, teachers\u0026rsquo; sense of helplessness, lack of experienced teachers, or challenging school situations that hinder them from attaining prolific results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Magableh and Abdullah\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) study in Jordan, another challenge is the lack of knowledge of DI techniques among instructors due to a lack of professional development. Their findings indicate that administrators also lack concepts for DI methodologies, which impedes their implementation in Jordanian schools. Furthermore, their research found that planning for differentiation takes too much time since instructors have a severe workload, making it impossible to create differentiated classes. Another finding in their study was that the size of the class had a detrimental impact on DI. According to the researchers, the larger the class, the more we need to differentiate and cope with individual differences (Magableh \u0026amp; Abdullah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother issue, according to Joseph et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), is a shortage of alternate learning material to address the various needs of students in a differentiated classroom. A differentiated class needs multiple teaching and learning resources since the teacher has to be conversant with each student\u0026rsquo;s needs and learning style. Individuals who prefer to work alone are another issue teachers in differentiated classrooms face; a differentiated class can be built on group work, collaboration, or cooperation, but if a student is unwilling to do so, the instructor faces a new challenge (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecently, model Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has given a rise to cater to the needs of struggling students in the class and provide them with the required instruction. Conventional curricular models that tightly demand student compliance and provide students little opportunity to present, participate, or express themselves in varied ways are rejected by UDL. In universally designed curriculum, \u0026ldquo;the curriculum adjusts to the student and to his or her needs\u0026rdquo; (Firchow, 2016, p.2 The model emphasize the need to consider classroom student diversity and align the teaching methodology accordingly. In addition, Vygotsky\u0026rsquo;s sociocultural theory of learning has impacted the rise of DI. According to this theory, when students receive collaboration from more skilled learners in completing a task, they reach a stage known as the zone of proximal development or ZPD (Vygotsky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e; Borja et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This zone helps the learners complete a task after developing their capabilities by doing it with a more skilled peer or under the guidance of an adult. Hence, the student-teacher or student-student interaction, responsive instruction, and scaffolding are among the decisive factors to consider in DI (Subban, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). More importantly, teachers need to make more informed decisions and realize that the theory of \u0026ldquo;one size fits all\u0026rdquo; does not produce effective results anymore. According to Pham (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), strategies such as \u0026ldquo;identifying student readiness; making modifications of the instructional content, process, and product; and enhancing collaboration and autonomy in learning\u0026rdquo; aid in implementing DI which would ultimately result in higher rates of student success. Hence, lesson plans and curriculums should be designed to incorporate the students\u0026rsquo; needs, interests, and learning styles in the classrooms. It is also believed that differentiation has \u0026ldquo;as many faces as it has practitioners and as many outcomes as there are learners\u0026rdquo; (Pettig \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e, p. 14).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrounded in the above models and theories, Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) introduced Differenced Instruction (DI) theory which guides the current study. The DI contains four significant elements: content, process, product, and learning environment (Tomlinson \u0026amp; Imbeau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The elements are intricately linked and may be tailored to the learner\u0026rsquo;s readiness, interest, and learning profile (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContent\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent is what students are to master or learn from the instruction (Bender, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Taylor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) states that differentiating content is when teachers can vary the level of complexity. This means teachers can provide various materials for the same syllabus depending on the students\u0026rsquo; specific needs instead of textbooks catering to everyone. The school or district\u0026rsquo;s standards generally decide the content. It incorporates what the instructor intends students to learn and how they will learn it (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). When differentiating content, the teacher provides what will be taught and what resources will be used strategically. Organizing instructional content allows students to make meaningful relationships between their lives and learning (Hoffman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferentiating content necessitates teachers to provide students with access to the material they want them to acquire. Heacox (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) believes that allowing students to select a subtopic within a primary theme or unit is one approach for teachers to differentiate the content or curriculum. The entire class learns more about the topic as each student shares information on their sub-topic. In addition, Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) states teachers can differentiate the content by employing flexible grouping, in which students can work in pairs or small groups, and by using books, tapes, or the Internet to build comprehension of the topic. Moreover, according to Alavinia and Sadeghi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), many language teachers do not differentiate their instruction based on content due to resource scarcity for language instructors. The majority of English teachers, on the other hand, differentiate their instruction to best practices and products, for example, flexible grouping (Yeh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) and tiered assignments (Alavinia \u0026amp; Sadeghi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProcess\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe term \u0026ldquo;process\u0026rdquo; refers to the activities meant to assist students in making sense of essential information, concepts, and ideas; in other words, it is how the students must complete the learning content (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The teacher will modify the activities according to the student\u0026rsquo;s readiness, interest, and learner profile. Tomlinson and Eidson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) say that \u0026ldquo;Learning has to happen \u003cem\u003ein\u003c/em\u003e students, not \u003cem\u003eto\u003c/em\u003e them\u0026rdquo; (p. 11). Further, useful activities require students to \u0026ldquo;grapple with a skill, so they come to own it\u0026rdquo; and get meaning out of them themselves (p. 10). Teachers can stretch the learning activities based on the students\u0026rsquo; readiness, interests, or learning styles, much like content (Tomlinson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Students can learn the same content by doing various activities that can evoke their interests. Hence, the learning process would neither be too boring nor too difficult. Supporting less-abled and advanced students (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) is vital. As a result, multiple levels of support for an activity can be delivered depending on the students\u0026rsquo; needs, but Vygotsky (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e) recommends that the teacher remain slightly ahead of the student's actual level of development to stay within the ZPD. In this range, the learner can work independently and where new learning occurs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), differentiating the process in a lesson means \u0026ldquo;how the learners come to understand and assimilate facts, concepts, or skills\u0026rdquo; (p.50). It is crucial to highlight that the process differentiates in terms of how the teacher intends to teach and the strategies teachers encourage students to use thorough exploration of the content taught. Higher-order thinking, open-ended thinking, discovery, reasoning, and investigation may all be used to accomplish this (Bailey \u0026amp; Williams-Black, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProduct\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA product is a final project that students complete at the end of a unit to demonstrate what they have learned (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). A great product demands students to \u0026ldquo;think critically and creatively about what they learned, apply this knowledge, and expand their knowledge and skills\u0026rdquo; (Tomlinson \u0026amp; Eidson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Products assist students in transitioning from knowledge consumers to knowledge producers. The resulting products differ depending on student preparation, interest, and learner profile, but they should be engaging and demanding (Tomlinson \u0026amp; Eidson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduct differentiation should provide students with alternative options for mastery of shared learning goals. Product differentiation assignments should provide students with explicit and acceptable success criteria, concentrate on real-world relevance and application, and foster creative and critical thinking. Santangelo and Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) argue that teachers should give enough scaffolding and support to students by offering alternatives for peer and self-evaluation. Bailey and Williams-Black (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that differentiating the product enables learners to choose how they want to demonstrate that they have learned the topic. When students select their product, they are more likely to choose a method to help them succeed and match their learning profiles. It is logical to expect that if instructors have a clear grasp of their students\u0026rsquo; readiness, interests, and learning profiles, they\u0026rsquo;ll be much more likely to differentiate content, process, and product effectively and appropriately (Santangelo \u0026amp; Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAssessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdrus et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) explain DI as a proactive student-centered method for educating diverse learners in a supportive and heterogeneous environment guided by instruction assessment. Differentiated assessment is essential to DI (Chapman \u0026amp; King, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Classroom assessment helps quantify and document learning and encourage it (McTighe \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Connor, 2005); hence, assessment and instruction are inextricably intertwined (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). According to McTighe and O\u0026rsquo;Connor (2005), a well-designed assessment and grading system may \u0026ldquo;provide the kind of specific, personalized, and timely information needed to guide both learning and instruction\u0026rdquo; (p.11).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are three types of classroom assessments: pre-assessment, formative, and summative (Levy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; McTighe \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Connor, 2005; Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers use pre-assessment to discover what students need to organize lessons. To do so, students are given formal and informal pre-assessments to gather data to define their instructional baselines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormative assessment is used to monitor student progress during instruction. It encompasses a wide range of methods for a teacher to identify \u0026ldquo;what students are getting, and what they are not getting\u0026rdquo; (p. 18) for teaching and learning (Garesis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Formative assessment can be used to create student groups, vary the speed of instruction, or change how students are presented with content and materials (Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). According to Fisher and Frey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026ldquo;Oral language, questioning, writing, projects and performances, assessments, and school-wide techniques\u0026rdquo; are among a range of assessments to evaluate students\u0026rsquo; knowledge (p.2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummative assessments are used to evaluate instruction and are usually given at the end of a lesson or unit (Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). The student mastery level is determined, which may also be used as a pre-assessment for a new unit because it offers information on students\u0026rsquo; preparation. Summative data can also be used to provide information to parents, students, or administrators, on the efficiency of instruction, such as grades. Paper examinations, and performance assessments, are examples of summative assessments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLearning Environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructors who differentiate, value and care for their students, which is evident in the excellent classroom environment favorable to success. The physical aspect of the classroom is the first step in creating such an environment. When the classroom is friendly, students are more responsive to learning and have a sense of community. Teachers, for example, pay attention to the arrangement of the furniture, their level of comfort, the sound volume, the temperature, and the lighting in the class (Burke \u0026amp; Burke-Samide, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). In such an environment, all students benefit from the differentiated classroom, and rapport is expected of all students. As a result, students are encouraged to share and ask questions, knowing they will not be criticized (de Anda, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Differentiated teachers also know their students\u0026rsquo; ideas, employ positivity and laughter, strive for pleasant learning, and connect themselves with their students (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers gladly share authority with students in this environment; students may, for instance, engage in developing classroom norms and practices, contribute to developing problem-solving strategies, and assist one another in various ways (Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Such a positive environment improves students\u0026rsquo; motivation and autonomy, encouraging them to self-regulate their learning (Young, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Jalaludin and Hashim (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the learning environment in a differentiated classroom has a role in creating successful learning. The findings of their study demonstrated that good interactions between students and instructors during sessions, and a suitable classroom environment, contribute to a better learning experience. Vargas-Parra et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) state that the learning environment influences every student\u0026rsquo;s learning process in the differentiated classroom. A differentiated classroom environment stimulates students to develop their language proficiency and, as a result, their learning; conversely, when students support one another, they boost their classmates\u0026rsquo; learning achievement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Methodology\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study intended to analyze the Afghan students and teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives about DI and the contributing factors to cater to Afghan learners\u0026rsquo; needs at the English department of Herat University. The researchers opted for a mixed method to collect the data. The mixed method is regarded as a substantial and pragmatic approach across disciplines, allowing methodological flexibility to integrate with other research approaches for meaningful results (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The mixed method allows researchers to address complex research questions, find answers to exploratory and confirmatory questions within a single study, and draw a more comprehensive picture of the problem at hand (Teddlie \u0026amp; Tashakkori, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, a mixed method is utilized for the present study to deduce credible and convincing results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eContext of English Language Teaching in Afghanistan\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish language is used as a foreign language in Afghanistan (Alamyar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e); therefore, English language learners do not get enough exposure to the language outside the classroom (Barbee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). In developing language proficiency, English language learners in this country enroll in institutions and private classes to improve their language proficiency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning English language has become one of the core-focused points in many countries especially the developing countries like Afghanistan. Many schools and institutions have added this subject as one of the options for studying to improve the students\u0026rsquo; communication skills for an international level. In terms of teaching methods, almost in all Afghanistan schools, the traditional method of teaching English or Grammar-Translation method is used (Alamyar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In this method, the instruction comes with a native version; it means that they teach in native language, not totally in English (Karakas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, a new teaching method is needed to explore language teaching in this 21st century and enhance the learners\u0026rsquo; language skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePopulation Description and Sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConvenience sampling was used in the study because of the accessibility and availability of the participants. According to Etikan et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), convenience sampling \u0026ldquo;is a type of nonprobability or non-random sampling where members of the target population that meet certain practical criteria, such as easy accessibility, geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or the willingness to participate are included for the purpose of the study\u0026rdquo; (p.2). Thus, to gather data for the study, two different groups were selected as the participants; English department students and three teachers from the same department. Before completing the questionnaire, the participants were informed of the study\u0026rsquo;s goals and objectives and asked whether they would be open to participating in the research. They were instructed to read and sign a consent letter, which assured them that their participation was voluntary and that their answers were treated confidentially.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ea. English Department Students\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnglish department students served as the participants of the study; both male and female students from first-year students, sophomore, junior, and senior classes participated in the study. Participants of the study have completed at least two semesters at the English department of Herat University; furthermore, they have a minimum of 10 years of English language instruction. Since convenience sampling is used for the present study, a questionnaire was sent to those students who were accessible online; thus, a total of 199 students were approached for the study, and 102 responded to the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSurvey Respondents\u0026rsquo; Demographic Information\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYears of Schooling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreshmen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSophomore\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJunior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSenior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eb. English Department Teachers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree teachers from the English department participated in the study. All these teachers have Master\u0026rsquo;s degrees in Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language from reputed universities such as the United States of America and India. However, because of the lack of teachers in the English department, they have simultaneously taught different subjects such as linguistics, teaching methodology, language skills, and research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Interview Participants\u0026rsquo; Demographic Information\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants (pseudonyms are used to protect the teachers\u0026rsquo; identities)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeaching Experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSomaya\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMasters in TESL*, India\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAhmad\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMasters in TESOL, USA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSahar\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 years\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMasters in TESL, USA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e*TESL (Teaching English as Second Language)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researchers developed two instruments for data collection; a questionnaire was administered among students, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department teachers. This procedure was approved and observed by the Faculty of Languages and Literature Deanship at the research site (Herat University).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ea. Differentiated Instruction Survey Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA DI questionnaire was designed to record Afghan EFL learners\u0026rsquo; experience of DI tailored to support individual needs in the classroom by their teachers. The DI survey questionnaire was adapted from Santangelo and Tomlinson (2012). The questionnaire was shared with 199 students through google docs. The questionnaire was designed around five categories; the learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. Likert scale (Strongly Disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, Disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, Neutral\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, Agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, Strongly Agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) was utilized to analyze the degree to which the participants believed DI was considered in conducting EFL classes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore data collection, the questionnaire was piloted with 51 students from the English department to determine the survey\u0026rsquo;s reliability. The reliability test was run to assess the internal consistency of 37 items in the questionnaire; Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for the DI survey was r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.951, which is a considerable value indicating that the instrument was reliable. Furthermore, face validity was used to omit irrelevant items in the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eb. Semi-Structured Interviews\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were conducted with three English department instructors to include their perspectives on incorporating DI in their classrooms. Two interviews were conducted face-to-face; however, one was conducted online. The open-ended questions designed beforehand guided the conversation and helped the interlocutors to stay on the topic. Moreover, the semi-structured interviews allowed for more in-depth communication about the topic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eData Analysis\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ea. Qualitative Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were qualitatively analyzed. After the researchers transcribed and coded the data, they applied thematic analysis to analyze the data gathered from semi-structured interviews. According to Kiger and Varpio (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), thematic analysis \u0026ldquo;is a method for describing data, but it also involves interpretation in the processes of selecting codes and constructing themes\u0026rdquo; (p. 1). Therefore, the data were transcribed and coded to find the most repeated patterns to list the themes in the interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe qualitative data was analyzed through thematic analysis, \u0026ldquo;a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within data\u0026rdquo; (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, 2006, p. 79). First, the researchers transcribed the recorded interviews verbatim. Then, they read each transcript thoroughly several times to understand the nature of the data in a greater extent, constantly bearing the research questions in mind. They searched for the relevant ideas and codes and took short memos. After creating a list of codes, the researchers constantly compare and contrast them to identify significant relationship between. Subsequently, they categorized codes into various themes. To ensure reliability, the researchers separately analyzed the data to identify codes and themes. Then, they had several joint discussions to reach a consensus and resolved any possible inconsistencies in the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eb. Quantitative Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researchers analyzed the questionnaire quantitatively using SPSS software to analyze the data gathered from students\u0026rsquo; responses to calculate the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore DI and the factors that cater to the needs of EFL students. A questionnaire was used in this mixed method study to understand students\u0026rsquo; perspectives on DI at the English department of Herat University; moreover, English department instructors were interviewed to capture their attitudes toward adjusting their instruction to accommodate different learners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuestionnaire\u0026rsquo;s Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyzing the quantitative data revealed that some individual variables obtained high mean scores within each DI construct. Regarding the \u003cem\u003elearning environment\u003c/em\u003e, the survey participants reported that their teachers have been creating activities to develop a sense of community in the classroom to a high extent (4.17). Considering the \u003cem\u003econten\u003c/em\u003et, the students also stated that the teachers use multimedia materials (4.16) and tools, including PowerPoint, photos, charts, to present the content (4.41). Besides, they reported that the instructors employ various strategies to improve students\u0026rsquo; comprehension of the content, such as chapter and lecture outlines or summary questions (4.01). Regarding \u003cem\u003eprocess\u003c/em\u003e, the students noted that their teachers utilized a variety of grouping arrangements during instruction to a high degree (4.38). In the \u003cem\u003eassessment\u003c/em\u003e construct, the participants reported that the instructor could employ various assessment types to decide their course grades, including writing a paper, in-class participation, quizzes, and final exams (4.03).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, some other variables obtained pretty low scores in the designated constructs. Considering the \u003cem\u003elearning environment\u003c/em\u003e, the survey participants reported poorly that their instructors met them in person when they encountered low grades and absences (2.48). With \u003cem\u003econtent\u003c/em\u003e, the students also indicated that their teachers did not provide options for them to select from several texts (3.21). They also did not utilize the content according to their interests and lived experiences (3.19). In addition, the instructors did not provide additional support to a great extent for the students who have difficulty learning course content. For instance, meeting students during office hours (3.15). They also reported that their instructors clarified how to select and fine-tune the course content to a pretty low degree (3.36). Considering the \u003cem\u003eprocess\u003c/em\u003e, the participants reported that grouping arrangements according to their proficiency levels, academic skills, and relevant background knowledge was poor (3.33), interest (3.09), learning preferences (3.09), as well as the teachers\u0026rsquo; flexibility in setting deadlines (3.38). In the \u003cem\u003eproduct\u003c/em\u003e construct, the participants indicated that their instructors are less likely to provide challenging opportunities for advanced students who quickly complete the tasks (3.18). Ultimately, the students reported poorly that their teachers assessed their interest in what they plan to do in the future and what they are interested in (3.07).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn general, the DI obtained an average score of (3.6). Its constructs\u0026rsquo; mean values were almost identical: the learning environment (3.73), content (3.66), process (3.57), product (3.57), and assessment (3.54). See Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics for Differentiate Instruction Constructs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMini\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMax\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMissing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning Environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.746\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.639\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcess\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.723\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.753\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDI Composite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.656\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInterview Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview data were analyzed considering the essential elements of DI: learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the major themes and ideas from the lecturers\u0026rsquo; interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmerging Ideas from Lecturers\u0026rsquo; Interviews\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTopic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor Ideas\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLearning environment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Creating a safe learning environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Different socioeconomic backgrounds\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Large heterogeneous, multi-level classes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Students\u0026rsquo; background\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Students\u0026rsquo; proficiency level\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Students\u0026rsquo; motivation level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContent\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Learning objectives\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Availability and accessibility of resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Content that addresses learning objectives\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Learners\u0026rsquo; role in content selection\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Supplementing practice activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Limited Resources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProcess\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Different learning styles\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; No needs analysis conducted\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Lack of trained instructors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProduct\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Students\u0026rsquo; interest\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The pressure of covering pre-designed content\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAssessment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Lack of providing feedback and washback\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Learning outcomes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important aspects of classroom design should focus on students\u0026rsquo; needs, background, language proficiency, interests, and motivation for learning the content. According to the interview data, learners come from various backgrounds and values. However, it is expected to face challenges when implementing DI. The findings of the interview data suggest that lack of resources, lack of needs analysis, and lack of providing individual feedback were some of the major concerns. Sahar, one of the interviewed participants, believes that students from all backgrounds offer diversity to the classroom, which enhances the learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, according to Ahmad, an interviewee, it is crucial to tailor instruction to the needs of students to create a productive learning environment. Sahar also believes that when learners\u0026rsquo; needs are addressed in the classroom, they feel motivated and included. She further adds that the content, the teaching method, the assessment, and the class activities are all affected by students\u0026rsquo; proficiency levels. Sahar states that \u0026ldquo;when teaching the course, I consider those objectives and try to align my instruction, teaching material, tasks and activities, and class assignments with the predefined goals and objectives of the course.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, Somaya stated that when students find that their interests are valued, the course outcomes and students\u0026rsquo; motivation toward the course will be positive. According to Ahmad, it is important to keep learners motivated in the EFL classroom. He added that when learners are encouraged, they will make rapid progress and attain their goals in the course. Furthermore, Sahar and Somaya also emphasize keeping students motivated to ensure positive outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearners must have a voice in deciding the content of the course. According to Ahmad:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAs a teacher, I try to be flexible, I plan, but if the plan doesn\u0026rsquo;t go as I wanted it to go because students need different things I try to be flexible and bring changes. I try to be aware of what is happening in the learning environment so that awareness is based on student needs. I try to inspire students to continue to improve and I believe students feel that their progress is important to the teacher and they work hard. That encouragement could act as incentive and result in their improvement and further engagement.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, All the interviewed participants agreed that learners feel empowered, valued, and engaged when their input is contributary in content selection. Supplementary materials are added for further practice when the content gets confusing and challenging. Participants of the study stressed the importance of adding activities for both in-class and out-of-class practice. Ahmad mentioned that he suggests activities and materials for highly advanced learners to practice outside the class to overcome his guilt for not addressing students\u0026rsquo; needs when considering the majority during the content selection process. According to Ahmad, an interviewed participant:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eTeachers need to keep their students in mind and then they design the lessons. But sometimes it is difficult to apply, for example in Afghanistan, where we have students from different backgrounds then the teacher\u0026rsquo;s job is difficult to address all the needs because we have multi-level, large, heterogeneous classes, then in such scenarios, applying differentiated learning would be difficult. So, a suitable environment for learning is an environment where students are encouraged, are valued, their interests background are considered, they are motivated, and their progress, their achievement is checked regularly, and they are being told that yes, you are improving.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChallenges of Implementing Differentiated Instruction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn implementing DI, facing challenges is inevitable. Some of the challenges that participants highlighted include large heterogeneous classes, multi-level classrooms, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different learning styles of learners, and more. Somaya added:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI consider my students\u0026rsquo; background and learning styles. Then, I determine my content and language objectives; I connect the content with students\u0026rsquo; background knowledge. I also check if the content I am going to teach is useful because students value only subject matters that are related to their experiences.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAhmad mentioned that applying DI in large classes creates challenges, such as the number of students and limited time to teach, practice, and produce content in the course. He further addressed the issues that arise as a result of students\u0026rsquo; diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. According to him, students from low-income families are bound to make numerous compromises during the learning process. They are limited in many areas, including internet access, supplementary materials, and course-related technology gadgets and applications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Ahmad:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents come from different socio-economic backgrounds, when you choose content that your students don\u0026rsquo;t have access to the internet, then you are limited, you cannot implement a lot of activities which require technology or go beyond the classroom asking students to play a specific application these things. I remember, I was encouraging student to memorize words on \u0026lsquo;Memrise\u0026rsquo;, the application on mobile, I noticed that any of my students don\u0026rsquo;t have smartphones, then I had to give them the soft copy of the words that those they don\u0026rsquo;t have that the print it and study on their own.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, according to Somaya, every student in a classroom has a unique learning style, and not all have the opportunity to learn or grasp the subject equally. Here, DI helps; however, implementing adjusted instruction based on the learners\u0026rsquo; learning styles is challenging for the instructor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll the interviewed participants acknowledged that when designing course content, they confront challenges such as limited resources and high material costs. Somaya said \u0026ldquo;usually students are not involved in content selection; sometimes even teachers are not directly involved in content selection; they only have to follow what is already decided by the Ministry of Higher Education and the English department.\u0026rdquo; Moreover, teacher participants also added that it is unfortunate that a thorough needs analysis in the English department is not conducted to select the content based on the learners\u0026rsquo; needs, interests, and language proficiency levels. Moreover, the limited resources in Afghanistan, the high prices, and the lack of trained instructors pose challenges in implementing DI. Ahmad also mentioned that another challenge is the lack of experienced instructors to conduct needs analysis or design material for teaching in the English department. According to him, there is no legit and credible proficiency test to determine the level of students when they enrol in the English department.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBesides limited class time and the pressure the teachers feel to cover the pre-designed content, a significant problem arises when the learners are not provided with feedback and washback. According to Ahmad:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAnother challenge is the problem of washback, we have assessment and the students never hear back why their scores are reduced? What was their problem? And as long as they get a passing grade and they move on, they go to the next level.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAhmad stressed the importance of giving feedback in developing learners\u0026rsquo; language skills and keeping them aware of their mistakes and problems. According to him, when learners are not provided with proper feedback, they become reluctant toward their assignments and projects. Sahar added that the teaching load and large class size hinder teachers from providing individualized feedback for their assignments. Moreover, Ahmad states that institutional policies, rules, and regulations forbid washback after exams and tests, prohibiting learners from knowing their problems and weaknesses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eData gathered from the interviews and the questionnaire highlights the elements of DI, the learning environment, the content, the process, the product, and the assessment. Students presented their understanding of the use of DI in their context through a questionnaire; however, the teacher participants reflected on their use of DI and the factors that cater to the needs of the learners in the EFL context at university level. The data obtained from the questionnaire suggest that students have a positive perception of the DI in the English department. Moreover, the interviewed teachers suggest that though implementing DI in the Afghan context comes with challenges, but it is not impractical.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudents’ Understanding of the Use of DI\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results obtained from the questionnaire show that students were provided with DI in specific areas with different content in various ways to demonstrate their understanding of the content. Furthermore, the students\u0026rsquo; questionnaire also suggested that learners\u0026rsquo; interests and backgrounds should be considered as the items with mean values above 4 (My teachers arrange me in the groups according to my proficiency levels, academic skills, and relevant background knowledge; My teachers use materials according to my interests or lived experiences; My teachers use real-life examples according to my interests or experiences to present the content; My teachers are flexible in setting deadlines according to my needs or a circumstance I face) suggest the importance of these themes. In delivering a successful DI curriculum, planning well in advance and dealing with the anticipated challenges that might arise in the process is essential.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferentiating the Learning Environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the study results, when learners feel comfortable in the learning environment, the outcome of the class is fruitful. According to the study\u0026rsquo;s teacher participants, it is important to tailor one\u0026rsquo;s instruction to students\u0026rsquo; needs to generate a productive learning environment; when students\u0026rsquo; needs are considered, they feel motivated and valued. Moreover, a positive outcome is expected in any classroom setting when learners can forge a link between the material and their background. The study's findings suggest that learners come from different backgrounds, contributing to class diversity and enriching the learning environment. According to Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), students feel confident and free to take on challenges when instructors build a positive classroom environment and forego the typical authoritarian position in favor of fostering a positive environment. It will also encourage progress in their language learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe major challenges highlighted in this study are heterogeneous classes, different socioeconomic backgrounds, and learners\u0026rsquo; learning styles. In such circumstances, the teacher has to design a plan to cover all the students with drastically diverse needs. Teachers should provide enough support, especially to meet the needs of the weaker learners (Santangelo \u0026amp; Tomlinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The teacher and the learners make adjustments primarily because of their poor socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, the larger the class, the more we must differentiate and cope with individual differences (Magableh \u0026amp; Abdullah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). According to the findings, every student in a classroom has a distinct learning style, and not all have the chance to learn the subject equally; here, DI helps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTailoring the Content to Meet Students\u0026rsquo; Individual Needs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen designing a course, the content has to address all learners\u0026rsquo; needs. To allow diverse learners to have a voice in the content selection process, the teacher has to consider individual differences. Heacox (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) believes that teachers can differentiate the content by allowing students to select a subtopic within a primary theme. By doing this, students feel empowered and motivated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s data points to four major characteristics of the content selection process. These characteristics include accessibility and availability of the content, content that addresses the learning objectives, the role learners play in content selection, and the need to practice activities to meet the learners\u0026rsquo; needs. According to Alavinia and Sadeghi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), many language teachers do not differentiate their content due to a lack of resources. Conversely, Anderson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) states that teachers can differentiate the content by dividing students into groups, where they tend to rely on each other, resulting in less pressure on the instructor and more peer-to-peer interaction. Therefore, learners can discuss their problems in groups and devise a solution if the content is challenging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, content selection is not a very easy task. According to Magableh and Abdullah (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), due to a lack of professional development, the absence of DI techniques among instructors is one of the major challenges of content selection in DI. Novice teachers tend to follow the content that previous teachers selected since they do not have the skills to conduct a needs assessment for the targeted course. Additionally, this study also found that resource limitations and high prices are among the other challenges of content selection. Joseph et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) argue that another problem is the lack of alternative learning resources to meet the students\u0026rsquo; varying needs in a differentiated class; therefore, teachers only rely on sources that are not up to date and relevant to students\u0026rsquo; needs, interests, and proficiency levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferentiating the Process to Cater to Learners\u0026rsquo; Needs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data obtained from interviews with teachers suggest that the teacher has to evaluate the difficulty of the tasks, deadlines, students\u0026rsquo; proficiency level, and the flexibility they need to demonstrate in handling the tasks. Moreover, the teacher should consider the learners\u0026rsquo; background, interests, and needs for attending a course. According to Tomlinson and Imbeau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), a student\u0026rsquo;s learning profile, which encompasses learning styles, culture, gender, learning preferences, and multiple intelligences, includes expressing, taking in, or exploring content. If not sorted beforehand, different learners with diverse cultural backgrounds and learning styles can pose problems for the instruction process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany other challenges also prohibit the teacher from utilizing DI. The participants of this study raised concerns about issues such as lack of time to provide feedback. Tomlinson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) believes that DI takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and dedication on the instructor\u0026rsquo;s part. In reality, time is most often the factor that works against instructors. Most teachers have a variety of classes every day, and designing a differentiated class for every session is difficult (De Bruin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the pressure to cover the content limits the teacher in providing DI in their course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferentiating Assessments to Identify Learning Gaps\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that teachers heavily rely on formative assessment that can be used to put students into groups, vary the speed of instruction, or change how content and materials are presented to students (Moon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Teacher participants of the study stated that formative assessment provides a better grasp of their student's progress, allowing them to identify and tackle students' problems during the semester.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe other two techniques the teacher participants used are observation and student reports to assess students\u0026rsquo; learning. \u0026ldquo;Ungraded quizzes, oral questioning, teacher observations, draft work, think aloud, student-constructed concept maps, learning logs, and portfolio reviews\u0026rdquo; are all forms of formative assessment (McTighe \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Connor, 2005, p. 12). When observing learners, based on this study data, it is critical to pay attention to the learners\u0026rsquo; facial expressions, body language, and comfort level, primarily when learners work in groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the teacher participants claimed that quizzes and exams are important tools for assessing students\u0026rsquo; progress and the areas teachers need to emphasize. However, remember that effective assessment guides instruction, which increases teaching time, forms instruction, and facilitates learning for all students\u0026rdquo; (Heng \u0026amp; Song, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, teachers should assess students to receive feedback on what is working and what needs to be changed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore and explain DI in the Afghan context and analyze the key factors that cater to the students\u0026rsquo; needs. According to Afghan teachers and students, implementing DI has both challenges and benefits. As parts of DI, the learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment were carefully investigated. DI allows students to have their voice in content selection, teaching process, product development, and assessment processes. According to the teacher participants of the current study, learners\u0026rsquo; individual needs, interests, unique backgrounds, and learning styles should be considered when planning the course. The findings of the interviews from the teacher participants imply that when learners are included in decision-making processes and have the opportunity to offer feedback, they feel motivated, valued, and engaged, which leads to enhancing and easing the learning process. Besides, teachers can create a learning environment where students are comfortable and part of the process. This increases the students\u0026rsquo; motivation and highlights that their different characteristics have been considered in designing the learning objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePedagogical Implementations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study's results revealed several challenges in implementing DI, such as lack of trained professionals, lack of needs assessment, and lack of individual attention to struggling learners. Teachers are constantly under pressure to meet the institution\u0026rsquo;s requirements. The institution ignores students\u0026rsquo; needs due to a lack of resources and not having enough instructors. This means that higher education administrators have to make decisions, try to provide updated resources, and add in the number of educators to overcome the challenges mentioned earlier. In addition, heterogeneous classes create another obstacle for teachers in applying DI; therefore, teachers\u0026rsquo; leading role would be as supportive as possible to engulf all learners. Based on the study results, Afghan teachers suffer from a lack of resources which creates problems in differentiating the content; higher education administrators should tackle this so the teachers can implement content differentiation in their classes based on their students\u0026rsquo; needs. This paper also suggests that DI needs teachers\u0026rsquo; dedication and time more than other approaches since it aims to include all learners regarding their particular characteristics. Teachers should design DI classes based on the learners\u0026rsquo; needs and objectives; in the future, they may use the same activities and assignments for other classes where they see the same variety in their learners; hence, they can save time. Hence, the findings of this mixed method study suggest that both students and teachers affirm that interview data illuminate the patterns arising from the survey findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFuture Research Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper aimed to examine DI from teachers\u0026rsquo; and students\u0026rsquo; perspectives in the same context, which was missing in the previous literature. The researchers suggest future studies focus on implementing DI on specific language skills such as grammar, writing, and reading, on seeing the flexibility of this approach and challenges that might emerge. Moreover, an experimental design could yield different results and give a better understanding of the DI\u0026rsquo;s outcomes on the learners\u0026rsquo; learning process. Researchers should also work on the DI challenges in different learning contexts based on socioeconomic backgrounds or how using DI differs in identical learning environments, including first-world, third-world, and conflict-affected countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo contextualize this study\u0026rsquo;s findings, pedagogical implications, and generalizations, the authors find it crucial to identify its limitations. This study was conducted at the English department of Herat university, where the resources are scarce, and the number of faculty members is limited. To get a more profound insight into the impacts of DI, it would be ideal to recruit more teacher participants in the study. Future studies can add the voices of students, teachers with extensive DI experience, and policymakers to provide a more holistic picture of the impact of DI on the learning process of EFL students. Eventually, this study is considered a novel of its kind at Herat university, yet it opens the ground for further research on the outcomes of DI.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research procedure for this paper was approved and observed by the Faculty of Languages and Literature Deanship at the research site (Herat University).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the participants of this study completed a consent form to ensure their voluntary participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the authors of this study declare their consent for the publication of this paper.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interest.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOmid Tajik worked on the introduction, literature review, conclusion, and references; Shagofah Noor did the methodology, instruments, data collection, data analysis, and result; Jawad Golzar worked on the discussion section\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors did not receive any grant or funding for conducting or publishing this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors can provide the data and the materials on request. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlamyar, Z. (2015). Teaching English as a foreign language in Afghanistan. \u003cem\u003eCheragh-e-Hekmat Quaterly Academic and Research Journal of Parwan University\u003c/em\u003e, 1(1), 1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlavinia, P., \u0026amp; Farhady, S. (2012). Teaching vocabulary through differentiated instruction: Insights from multiple intelligences and learning styles. \u003cem\u003eModern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM), 2\u003c/em\u003e (4), 73-90. https://mjltm.org/browse.php?a_id=42\u0026amp;sid=1\u0026amp;slc_lang=en\u0026amp;ftxt=1#page=73\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlavinia, P., \u0026amp; Sadeghi, T. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Task-Based Instruction via Heeding Learning Styles on EFL Learners\u0026rsquo; Feasible Proficiency Gains. \u003cem\u003eThe Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 75-91. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/6142/1/1773-5055-1-PB%5B1%5D.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAliakbari, M., \u0026amp; Haghighi, J. (2014). On the effectiveness of differentiated instruction in the enhancement of Iranian learners reading comprehension in separate gender education. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 98, 182\u0026ndash;189. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 49-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArjulayana (2018). Non-English Learners\u0026rsquo; Needs in Learning English as a Foreign Language. \u003cem\u003eAsian EFL Journal. 20\u003c/em\u003e (4). 121-128. https://www.asian-efl-journal.com/wp-content/uploads/AEFLJ-Volume-20-Issue-4-April-2018-2.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBailey, J. P., \u0026amp; Williams-Black, T. H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Three teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. College Reading Association Yearbook (29), 133-151.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarbee, M. (2013). Extracurricular L2 input in a Japanese EFL context: Exposure, attitudes, and motivation. University of Hawai\u0026rsquo;i Second Language Studies Paper 32 (1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBender, W.N. (2012). \u003cem\u003eDifferentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: New best practices for general and special educators\u003c/em\u003e (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowin.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, D. (2007). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples of Language Learning and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e. NY: Pearson Education.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorja, L. A., Soto, S. T., \u0026amp; Sanchez, T. X. (2015). Differentiating instruction for EFL learners. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Humanities and Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(81), 30-36. https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_8_1_August_2015/5.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurke, K., \u0026amp; Burke-Samide, B. (2004). Required changes in the classroom environment: It is a matter of design. \u003cem\u003eThe Clearing House, 77\u003c/em\u003e(6), 236-239.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChapman, C., \u0026amp; King, R. (2005). \u003cem\u003eDifferentiated assessment strategies. \u003c/em\u003eThousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. (2021). \u003cem\u003eEducational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e. New York: Pearson.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Anda, D. (2007). Reflections on introducing students to multicultural populations and diversity content. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic \u0026amp; Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 16\u003c/em\u003e(3/4), 143-158. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J051v16n03_12\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Bruin, K. (2018). Differentiation in the Classroom: Engaging Diverse Learners through Universal Design for Learning. https://researchmgt.monash.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/264002785/255280204_oa.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEragamreddy, N. (2015). Motivating learners to learn: Libyan ESL teachers\u0026rsquo; strategies and perspectives. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of English Language \u0026amp; Translation \u003c/em\u003eStudies. 3(2).42-54. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.34367\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEtikan, I., Musa, A. S., \u0026amp; Alkassim, S. R. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 5\u003c/em\u003e(1). 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher, D., \u0026amp; Frey, N. (2007). \u003cem\u003eChecking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. \u003c/em\u003eAlexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFirchow, N. (2002). Universal design for learning: Improved access for all. \u003cem\u003eRetrieved December\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 2007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaresis, C. R. (2007). Reclaiming an important teacher competency: The lost art of formative assessment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personnel Evaluation and Education, 20\u003c/em\u003e, 17-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9044-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuilloteaux, M. J., \u0026amp; D\u0026ouml;rnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom‐oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. \u003cem\u003eTESOL quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall, T. (2002). Differentiated Instruction. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, CAST, U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. http://www.cast.org/ncac/classroompractice/cpractice02.doc\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeacox, D. (2002). \u003cem\u003eDifferentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12\u003c/em\u003e. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeng, T. T., \u0026amp; Song, L. (2020). A proposed framework for understanding educational change and transfer: Insights from Singapore teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of differentiated instruction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(4), 595-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09377-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHernandez-Cherrez, E. A., Galora-Moya, P. N., \u0026amp; Hidalgo-Camacho, S. C. (2020). Differentiated instruction on reading skill at higher education level. \u003cem\u003eCIENCIAMATRIA. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Humanidades, Educaci\u0026oacute;n, Ciencia y Tecnolog\u0026iacute;a. 6\u003c/em\u003e(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.35381/cm.v6i10.114\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoffman, J. (2003). Multiage teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs and practices. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Childhood Education, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540309595019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdrus, F., Asri, N. A. Z. \u0026amp; Baharom, N. N. (2021). Has Differentiated Instruction Gone Awry in Online Teaching and Learning? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language Teaching and Research, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 3, 501-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1203.21\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJalaludin, A. M., \u0026amp; Hashim, H. (2020). Effective Learning in Differentiated ESL Classrooms: Teachers\u0026rsquo; and Pupils\u0026rsquo; Perceptions. Journal Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Malaysia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346962010_EFFECTIVE_LEARNING_IN_DIFFERENTIATED_ESL_CLASSROOMS_TEACHERS\u0026apos;_AND_PUPILS\u0026apos;_PERCEPTIONS\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoseph, S., Thomas, M., Simonette, G., \u0026amp; Ramsook, L. (2013). The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting: Successes and Challenges. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Higher Education,\u003c/em\u003e 2(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n3p28 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaradag, R. \u0026amp; Yasar, S. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students\u0026rsquo; attitudes towards Turkish courses: an action research. \u003cem\u003eProcedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 9\u003c/em\u003e, 1394-1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.340\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarakas, A. (2019). An analysis of the high school English curriculum in Turkey from an Elf perspective. I\u003cem\u003e-Manager\u0026apos;s Journal on English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, 9(2), 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiger, M. E., \u0026amp; Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. \u003cem\u003eMedical teacher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(8), 846-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. \u003cem\u003eThe Clearing House, 81\u003c/em\u003e(4), 161- 164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30189983\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLogan, B. (2011). Examining differentiated instruction: Teachers respond. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Higher Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eVol. 13\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14. http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11888.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagableh, I., \u0026amp; Abdullah., A. (2020). The Effect of Differentiated Instruction on EFL Learners: Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perspective. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10\u003c/em\u003e(5), 626\u0026ndash;641. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i5/7235\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcTighe, J., \u0026amp; Brown, J. L. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is d\u0026eacute;tente possible? \u003cem\u003eTheory into Practice, 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoon, T. R. (2005). The role of assessment in differentiation. \u003cem\u003eTheory into Practice, 44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 226-233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePham, H. L. (2012). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of College Teaching \u0026amp; Learning (TLC)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i1.6710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice. \u003cem\u003eEducational Leadership. 58,\u003c/em\u003e (1), 14-18.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234737205_On_the_Road_to_Differentiated_Practice\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichards, J, C. (2001). \u003cem\u003eCurriculum development in language teaching\u003c/em\u003e. United States of America. Cambridge university press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSadeghi, B., Hassani, M. T., \u0026amp; Hessari, A. D. (2013). On the Relationship Between Learners\u0026rsquo; Needs and Their Use of Language Learning Strategies. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 136 \u003c/em\u003e(2014) 255 \u0026ndash; 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.324\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantangelo, T. \u0026amp; Tomlinson, C. A (2009). The Application of Differentiated Instruction in Postsecondary Environments: Benefits, Challenges, and Future Directions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 307-323. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE366.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eServilio, K. L. (2009). You get to choose! Motivating students to read through differentiated instruction. \u003cem\u003eTEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 5\u003c/em\u003e(5) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967752.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, F. (1983). E\u003cem\u003essays into literacy: Selected papers and some afterthoughts\u003c/em\u003e. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSubban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Education Journal, 7\u003c/em\u003e (7), 935-947. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854351.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, B. K. (2015). Content, process, and product: Modeling differentiated instruction. \u003cem\u003eKappa Delta Pi Record, 51\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13-17. doi:10.1080/00228958.2015.988559.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009). \u003cem\u003eFoundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Sage, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A. (1999). \u003cem\u003eThe differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. \u003c/em\u003eAlexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A. (2001). \u003cem\u003eHow to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms \u003c/em\u003e(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. (2004). Differentiation in diverse settings. \u003cem\u003eSchool Administrator, 61\u003c/em\u003e(7), 28-35. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from EBSCO\u003cem\u003ehost\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A. (2005). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff development. \u003cem\u003eJ. Staff Dev\u003c/em\u003e., \u003cem\u003e26,\u003c/em\u003e (4), 8-12. http://differentiationworkshop.pbworks.com/f/Traveling+the+Road.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eThe differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A., \u0026amp; Eidson, C. C. (2003). \u003cem\u003eDifferentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum grades K-5. \u003c/em\u003eAlexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTomlinson, C. A., \u0026amp; Imbeau, M. B. (2010). \u003cem\u003eLeading and managing a differentiated classroom\u003c/em\u003e. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTulbure, C. (2011). Differentiated instruction for pre-service teachers: An experimental investigation. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 30, \u003c/em\u003e448-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.088\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVargas-Parra, M. A., Rodriguez-Orejuela, J. A., \u0026amp; Herrera-Mosquera, L. (2018). Promotion of Differentiated Instruction Through a Virtual Learning Environment. \u003cem\u003eFOLIOS, 47\u003c/em\u003e, 165-177. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/folios/n47/0123-4870-folios-47-00165.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. (1962). \u003cem\u003eThought and language. \u003c/em\u003eCambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYeh, Y.c., Yeh, Y.l. \u0026amp; Chen, Y.H. (2012). From Knowledge Sharing to Knowledge Creation: A Blended Knowledge-Management Model for Improving University Students\u0026rsquo; Creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 245-257. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/89082/.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoung, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Education, 27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475304273346\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZerai, D., Eskel\u0026auml;-Haapanen, S., Posti-Ahokas, H., \u0026amp; Vehkakoski, T. (2021). The meanings of differentiated instruction in the narratives of Eritrean teachers. \u003cem\u003ePedagogy, Culture \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1914712\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"assessment, content, differentiated instruction, learning environment, process, product","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTeaching language has its challenges for many reasons, including learners\u0026rsquo; background, learning styles, motivation, and socioeconomic status. However, EFL students can benefit from differentiation across the learning continuum to a large extent. This study aimed to investigate Afghan EFL learners\u0026rsquo; perceptions of differentiated instruction and the factors that contributed to cater their needs. This study revolved around five main elements of differentiated instruction: learning environment, content, process, product, and assessment. In this mixed-method research study, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to 102 EFL students at Herat University, Afghanistan, to record their perception of differentiated instruction in their classes. Moreover, three teachers of the English department at the same university were also interviewed to understand their experience implementing differentiated instruction and identify their tensions. The study's results suggested that it is practical to implement differentiated instruction in mixed-level, large heterogeneous classrooms.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Investigating Differentiated Instruction and the Contributing Factors to Cater EFL Students’ Needs at the Collegial Level","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-11-01 20:49:30","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3513269/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-03-15T08:54:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-03-06T02:52:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-02-18T18:12:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"bcc4a2cd-4311-4196-ad2f-a92b313561e0","date":"2024-01-26T13:17:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"78354e7f-8faf-4934-8578-ff3a37089d50","date":"2023-11-09T05:55:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"019cfd69-de74-46fa-97d3-9034739237ab","date":"2023-11-08T19:22:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2023-11-08T07:42:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2023-10-31T11:07:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2023-10-31T11:07:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","date":"2023-10-30T15:42:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7998d55e-e798-42ba-ae82-718152462261","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 1st, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-11-04T16:24:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3513269","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00299-5","journal":{"identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education"},"publishedOn":"2024-11-01 15:57:22","publishedOnDateReadable":"November 1st, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2023-11-01 20:49:30","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40862-024-00299-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00299-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3513269","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3513269","identity":"rs-3513269","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"cBFmMYwuxLRRLfASyISRj","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}