INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 6
Readiness of Graduate School Students on the Implementation of
Differentiated Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms
Aprilyn P. Abellana 1, Honorio C. Añora 2, Reylan G. Capuno 3, Raymond C. Espina 4, Janine Joy L.
Tenerife-Cañete5, Veronica O. Calasang6, Lilibeth C. Pinili 7, Cherenlie G. Apas 8
Cebu Technological University – Main Campus Cebu City, Philippines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.101000002
Received: 12 Oct 2025; Accepted: 18 Oct 2025; Published: 27 October 2025
ABSTRACT
This study assesses the readiness of Master of Arts in Special Education (MAEd SPED) students at Cebu
Technological University–Main Campus in implementing Differentiated Instruction (DI) in inclusive
classrooms for the academic year 2025-2026. Utilizing a quantitative descriptive-correlational design and
complete enumeration sampling, the study involved 41 respondents who were surveyed on their demographic
profiles, perceived readiness for DI, and the challenges they face in its implementation. The findings revealed
that respondents generally felt "Ready" to implement DI, particularly in areas such as defining learner
objectives and creating supportive learning environments. However, several challenges emerged, including
time management, classroom management, and insufficient resources. The most significant barriers included
the logistical demands of DI, particularly in large classrooms, which hindered its full implementation. The
study highlights that while MAEd SPED students are confident in applying DI strategies, structural barriers
such as class sizes and resource limitations impede the effective application of these strategies in real
classroom settings. Based on the findings, the study emphasizes the need for targeted professional
development, systemic support, and adequate resources to enhance DI implementation in inclusive classrooms.
The study's insights aim to contribute to the improvement of teacher preparation programs and the alignment
of educational policies with the principles of inclusive education.
Keywords— Special Education, Differentiated Instruction, Inclusive Classroom, Professional Development
INTRODUCTION
In today’s dynamic and diverse educational landscape, the concept of teacher readiness, referring to the
knowledge, skills, confidence, and attitudes required to effectively respond to learner diversity, has become
increasingly important (Mabanag et al., 2024). As schools strive to embrace inclusion, there is a growing
consensus that every learner, regardless of ability, background, gender, socioeconomic status, or cultural
identity, deserves equal access to quality education (Kimhi & Bar Nir, 2025). Inclusive education is no longer
regarded as a specialized intervention for students with disabilities but as a foundational principle of an
equitable and responsive education system (Dumbuya, 2024). Achieving this vision requires educators who are
prepared to meet diverse learning needs through flexible and intentional instruction (Mabanag et al., 2024). By
fostering classroom environments where all students feel respected, supported, and able to succeed, inclusive
education strengthens both individual outcomes and the broader educational community (Kimhi & Bar Nir,
2025). This global shift reflects a deeper understanding that educational progress is only possible when no
learner is left behind (Dumbuya, 2024).
This paradigm shift is grounded in landmark international frameworks that have redefined the goals of
education in the 21st century. The Salamanca Statement, adopted in 1994, was a turning point in global
educational policy, asserting that schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical,
intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions (Magnússon, 2019). Building on this foundation,
the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 strengthens the call for inclusive and equitable quality
education by setting a global target to ensure that all learners have access to inclusive learning environments
by 2030 (Adipat & Chotikapanich, 2022). These frameworks reinforce the principle that inclusive education is
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 7
both a right and a necessity, one that promotes lifelong learning, reduces inequalities, and fosters social
cohesion. As emphasized by Shaeffer (2019), inclusion is not merely about physical access to classrooms but
about meaningful participation, engagement, and achievement for all learners.
Central to the realization of inclusive education is the recognition of learner diversity within the classroom.
This recognition has led to the development and adoption of pedagogical models that promote flexibility,
responsiveness, and equity, among which Differentiated Instruction (DI) stands out. Defined by Gheyssens et
al. (2022) as a responsive teaching philosophy, DI enables educators to proactively adjust content, processes,
products, and learning environments according to students’ readiness levels, learning profiles, and interests.
More than a strategy, DI represents a mindset that values student- centeredness and diversity as essential
elements of effective teaching.
Recent literature affirms the significant role of DI in fostering inclusive classroom environments. Goyibova et
al. (2025) report that purposeful differentiation enhances engagement and participation, particularly among
neurodiverse learners. Porta (2025) further asserts that teachers who embrace DI are better positioned to
cultivate equitable learning spaces, especially when supported by high self-efficacy and access to flexible
instructional tools. These findings underscore that DI is not simply a pedagogical option; it is a necessary
framework for achieving inclusive education outcomes.
Despite growing recognition of its benefits, the application of DI remains inconsistent. Studies by Manasia et
al. (2019) and Moosa and Shareefa (2019) reveal that a key determinant of successful DI implementation is
teacher readiness, comprising professional knowledge, confidence, and adaptability. However, systemic
barriers such as insufficient training, large class sizes, and limited planning time continue to impede
implementation efforts. The COVID-19 pandemic has further strained educators' capacities, especially in
developing nations, where technological gaps and reduced instructional support have deepened existing
inequities (Khlaif et al., 2021).
These challenges are particularly pronounced in low- and middle-income countries, where structural
constraints hinder the operationalization of inclusive practices. Singh (2024) found that many teachers in
resource-limited schools struggle with DI implementation due to a lack of instructional materials, rigid
curricula, and minimal professional development. Parker et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of context-
sensitive teacher education programs that align DI practices with localized realities and capacities.
In the Philippines, inclusive education is supported by progressive legal frameworks such as Republic Act No.
10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013), Republic Act No. 11650 (Inclusive Education Act of 2022),
and DepEd Order No. 72, s. 2009. These policies affirm the state's commitment to addressing learner diversity
and promoting educational equity. However, the translation of these policies into classroom practice remains a
work in progress. Khaleel (2023) found that while public school teachers are generally supportive of inclusive
principles, many report challenges in applying DI effectively, particularly in rural and overcrowded schools
lacking sufficient training support.
Notably, most Philippine-based research has concentrated on in-service teachers, leaving a critical gap in
understanding the readiness of pre-service and graduate-level educators. This gap is particularly concerning in
the context of Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education (MAEd SPED) programs. Graduate
students in these programs are not only expected to master inclusive teaching strategies but are also positioned
as future instructional leaders tasked with modeling best practices in diverse classroom settings (Da et al.,
2025).
It is within this context that the present study, titled “Assessing the Readiness of Master of Arts in Special
Education Students in Applying Differentiated Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms,” is situated. While these
students receive academic training on inclusive pedagogies, little is known about their actual preparedness to
implement DI across various dimensions of teaching practice.
This study aims to assess the readiness of MAEd SPED students in applying Differentiated Instruction in
inclusive classrooms. Specifically, it will evaluate their understanding of learner variability, clarity of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 8
instructional goals, use of formative assessments, application of DI strategies, planning for individualized
supports, and ability to create equitable classroom environments. In addition, it will analyze whether readiness
levels differ based on demographic variables such as age, gender, teaching experience, and prior exposure to
inclusive education settings.
By identifying strengths and areas for growth, the study seeks to offer evidence-based insights that will inform
curriculum design, teacher preparation programs, and professional development pathways. Ultimately, this
research contributes to closing the gap between inclusive education policy and classroom reality by ensuring
that graduate students in special education are equipped with the competence, mindset, and confidence to meet
the needs of all learners. In doing so, the study aligns with broader national and international goals of fostering
inclusive, equitable, and quality education for every child.
Legal Basis
This study is guided by three key legal frameworks that institutionalize inclusive education and define the
responsibilities of educators in the Philippine context. These policies form the structural and ethical basis for
evaluating teacher readiness in differentiated instruction.
Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act Of 2013). This law reformed the Philippine
educational system by establishing the K–12 curriculum and mandating the use of learner-centered and
inclusive teaching approaches. It emphasizes curriculum flexibility, contextualization, and alignment with
learners’ developmental needs. RA 10533 encourages educators to adopt differentiated and culturally
responsive methods, thereby promoting equity and access to quality education for all. Ji (2024) observes that
while the policy framework is strong, its successful implementation depends on the capacity of teachers to
design instruction that reflects these inclusive values. For MAEd SPED students, this law serves as a directive
to master strategies like DI that directly support curriculum responsiveness and learner diversity.
Republic Act No. 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013) directly connects to the research variables
by establishing the legal mandate for inclusive education and the need for teachers to implement learner-
centered strategies, such as Differentiated Instruction (DI), in their classrooms. This law reinforces the study’s
focus on assessing the readiness of MAEd SPED students to apply DI, as it requires teachers to address the
diverse needs of all students. In the context of this study, RA 10533’s emphasis on curriculum flexibility and
adaptation aligns with the research variable of "readiness," as it evaluates how prepared MAEd SPED students
are to implement such strategies in inclusive settings. Moreover, the law’s focus on contextualizing instruction
based on learners' developmental needs links to the variable of "effective instructional strategies," as it
challenges MAEd SPED students to design and apply instructional practices that are both responsive to
individual student needs and aligned with the principles of inclusive education.
Republic Act No. 11650 (Inclusive Education Act of 2022). As the most recent legislation on inclusive
education in the Philippines, RA 11650 mandates that learners with disabilities be given full access to regular
schools and learning environments, along with appropriate support services. It calls for the professional
development of teachers in inclusive strategies and the use of instructional practices that meet the diverse
needs of all learners. Gonzaga et al. (2024) stress that this law places a high level of accountability on teacher
education institutions to prepare future educators, especially those in SPED, to implement inclusive
pedagogies such as DI. This legal mandate aligns closely with the objectives of this study, which seeks to
determine whether MAEd SPED students are truly prepared to translate inclusive principles into practice.
Republic Act No. 11650 (Inclusive Education Act of 2022) closely links to the research variables by setting a
legal framework that emphasizes the need for teachers to implement inclusive strategies, such as Differentiated
Instruction (DI), to support students with disabilities in regular schools. The law places significant
responsibility on teacher education institutions to ensure that future educators, particularly those specializing
in Special Education (SPED), are equipped with the necessary skills to apply inclusive teaching practices
effectively. In the context of this study, RA 11650 directly relates to the "readiness" variable, as it evaluates
whether MAEd SPED students are adequately prepared to implement the inclusive teaching strategies
mandated by the law. The law’s emphasis on professional development and training aligns with the study’s
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 9
focus on the "professional development" aspect, examining how well MAEd SPED students have internalized
the principles of inclusive education and whether they can apply them in real classroom settings.
Republic Act No. 7277 (Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities). RA 7277, also known as the Magna Carta
for Persons with Disabilities, enshrines the rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to quality and
accessible education. It mandates the removal of barriers that limit participation and learning and supports the
integration of learners with disabilities into mainstream schools. This legal foundation supports the study by
framing differentiated instruction as a means of fulfilling the rights of children with disabilities to fully
participate in learning. For MAEd SPED students, readiness entails not only instructional competence but also
a legal and ethical responsibility to uphold inclusive practices in compliance with this law (Scholl, 2021).
Republic Act No. 7277 (Magna Carta for Persons with Disabilities) is intrinsically linked to the research
variables by establishing a legal and ethical framework that mandates the integration of learners with
disabilities into mainstream education. This law requires teachers to adapt their instructional strategies to
ensure that learners with disabilities can fully participate in the learning process, making Differentiated
Instruction (DI) a key strategy for meeting the diverse needs of these students. In the context of this study, RA
7277 connects to the "readiness" variable by examining whether MAEd SPED students are prepared not only
in terms of instructional competence but also in fulfilling their legal and ethical responsibilities as educators
for students with disabilities. The study evaluates how well MAEd SPED students understand and apply DI
strategies in compliance with RA 7277, ensuring that they are equipped to uphold the rights of learners with
disabilities to receive quality, accessible education. By focusing on the readiness of these students to
implement inclusive practices, the study directly reflects the law’s emphasis on the need for teachers to be
adequately prepared to support the full participation of children with disabilities in the educational system.
DepEd Order No. 72, S. 2009. This policy, titled Inclusive Education as a Strategy for Increasing Participation
Rate of Children, operationalizes inclusive education in public schools. It emphasizes the importance of
adopting varied instructional approaches to accommodate learners with diverse needs, particularly those from
marginalized groups (Baguisa & Ang-Manaig, 2019). The order highlights the necessity of building teacher
competence in differentiated instruction and promoting inclusive school cultures. It also calls for schools and
divisions to institutionalize support systems for teachers, including training and access to instructional
resources. By integrating DI into daily teaching practice, educators help ensure that no child is excluded from
meaningful learning opportunities. This directive reinforces the legal expectation that teachers should be ready
and able to differentiate instruction as part of their commitment to inclusive education.
These theoretical and legal foundations support the central premise of this study: that the readiness of MAEd
SPED students to apply differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms is shaped by a dynamic interplay of
beliefs, competencies, and systemic expectations. The theories provide the cognitive and pedagogical
justification for DI, while the laws establish its necessity as a professional standard and ethical obligation.
Significance of the Study
This section presents the necessity of this research and its potential benefits for various stakeholders. It
provides a rationale for the study’s significance, emphasizing its contribution to the field of special education,
its role in generating new insights on teacher preparedness, and the advantages it offers to different individuals
and groups. The findings of this study will be beneficial to the following: Department of Education (DepEd),
school administrators, teacher educators and curriculum planners, MAEd SPED students, learners with special
educational needs (LSENs), policymakers, researcher, and future researchers.
Objectives of the Study
The action plan aims to achieve the following objectives:
Enhance Time Management and Classroom Management: Provide targeted support in managing time
effectively for differentiated activities and strategies for handling diverse classrooms.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 10
Develop Teacher Competence in Lesson Planning Based on Learner Readiness: Offer training in creating
learner profiles and using them to inform lesson planning.
Increase Confidence in Implementing DI Strategies: Focus on professional development that boosts self-
efficacy in using DI strategies effectively.
Provide Access to Necessary Resources and Tools: Ensure that students have access to instructional materials,
technology, and professional networks to implement DI in the classroom.
Promote Collaborative Learning and Peer Support: Foster mentorship and collaborative learning among
students to share best practices and solve common classroom challenges.
Research Methodology
This section outlines the methodological framework used to ensure the validity and reliability of the study. It
covers the research design, research environment, respondents, instrumentation, data gathering procedure,
statistical treatment, and definition of terms.
Research Design
This study employed a quantitative descriptive-correlational research design to examine the perceived
readiness of Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education (MAEd SPED) students at Cebu
Technological University in implementing differentiated instruction (DI) within inclusive classroom settings.
This design is appropriate for describing variables and determining potential associations among them (Saro et
al., 2023).
The descriptive component of the study focused on summarizing the demographic profiles of the respondents,
such as age, gender, years of service, highest educational attainment, area of specialization, type of school,
professional membership, and relevant trainings attended, as well as their perceived readiness in implementing
DI. The readiness data covered seven domains: student learning characteristics, clarity of learner objectives,
pre-assessment strategies, instructional strategies, individual supports, flexible grouping, and learning
environment.
To address Statement of the Problem No. 4, which pertains to the perceived issues and challenges in
implementing differentiated instruction, the study used Part III of the questionnaire, which was adapted from
the validated 14-item instrument developed by Siam and Al-Natour (2016). This instrument examined
challenges in four key areas: instructional planning, classroom management, availability of training and
resources, and administrative support. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = Not
Challenging and 5 = Extremely Challenging.
The correlational component of the study aimed to determine whether there were significant associations
between the respondents’ demographic characteristics and their level of perceived readiness in implementing
DI (SOP No. 3). This helped identify patterns or factors that may influence instructional preparedness.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were used to analyze data
from Parts I to III of the questionnaire. To analyze SOP No. 3, the Chi-square test for association was used to
determine relationships between demographic factors and readiness levels. For SOP No. 4, item means and
standard deviations were calculated to quantify the level of challenge perceived by respondents in each area of
differentiated instruction
This methodological approach was designed to generate practical, data- driven insights that can inform teacher
preparation, SPED training programs, and inclusive education policies within higher education.
Environment
Cebu Technological University (CTU) – Main Campus is a premier state university located in M.J. Cuenco
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 11
Avenue, Corner R. Palma Street, Cebu City, Philippines. As one of the leading higher education institutions in
the region, CTU operates under the supervision of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)and is
recognized for its commitment to academic excellence, research innovation, and public service. The university
offers a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs across multiple disciplines, including engineering,
education, technology, and the arts.
At the time of the study, the university maintained an active graduate education program, including the Master
of Arts in Education major in Special Education (MAEd SPED), which aims to develop future educators with
advanced knowledge and skills in inclusive and specialized instruction. The program is designed to prepare
graduate students to respond effectively to diverse learner needs through coursework grounded in theoretical
principles and practical application. Courses in differentiated instruction, learner assessment, and inclusive
pedagogies are central components of the program.
The CTU Main Campus was selected as the research environment due to its established reputation in teacher
education and its robust offering of graduate- level programs in special education. The MAEd SPED students
enrolled in the university were deemed suitable respondents for the study as they are being trained to
implement inclusive teaching strategies, including differentiated instruction. Moreover, their diverse academic
and professional backgrounds provided a meaningful context for analyzing perceived readiness in inclusive
classroom settings.
Initial coordination with the College of Education revealed that the university maintains a supportive academic
environment, with faculty members who are experts in special and inclusive education. These conditions made
CTU – Main Campus an appropriate and relevant setting for examining the preparedness of future SPED
professionals in applying differentiated instruction within the framework of inclusive education.
Respondents
The respondents of this study were the Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education (MAEd SPED)
students enrolled at Cebu Technological University – Main Campus for the Academic Year 2025–2026. The
researcher employed complete enumeration sampling to identify the participants, ensuring that all eligible
graduate students currently enrolled in the MAEd SPED program were included in the study.
Complete enumeration, also known as census enumeration, is a method that involves collecting data from the
entire population of interest rather than selecting a sample subset (Encyclohub, 2024). This approach is
particularly effective for studies with a limited and accessible population, as it minimizes sampling errors and
provides a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the phenomena being investigated. In the
context of this study, complete enumeration ensures that the perceptions, levels of readiness, and demographic
profiles of all MAEd SPED students are considered, leading to more valid and generalizable findings within
the university setting.
Table 1 shows the distribution of participants based on the program and campus of origin.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 12
Instrument
This study utilized an adapted questionnaire to assess the perceived readiness of Master of Arts in Education
major in Special Education (MAEd SPED) students in implementing differentiated instruction in inclusive
classrooms. The instrument was structured into three major parts:
Part I: Demographic Profile – This section gathered essential demographic information, including age, gender,
years of service, highest educational attainment, area of specialization, type of school, professional
organization membership, and relevant trainings or seminars attended. These variables were included to
determine possible associations with the respondents’ perceived readiness in implementing differentiated
instruction (DI).
Part II: Perceived Readiness in Implementing Differentiated Instruction (2025 Adaptation) – This section
employed an instrument adapted in 2025 from Stetson & Associates to measure the respondents’ preparedness
in key areas of differentiated instruction. The questionnaire will consist of 44 items, organized into seven
domains: (1) Student Learning Characteristics, (2) Clarity Regarding Learner Objectives, (3) Pre-Assessment
Strategies, (4) Effective Instructional Strategies, (5) Individual Student Supports, (6) Flexible Grouping, and
(7) Learning Environment. Each item will be rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Not Ready) to
5 (Very Ready), with higher scores indicating greater preparedness and confidence in applying differentiated
instruction practices. The adapted tool has been reviewed by experts in the field to ensure its contextual
relevance and validity for use with Filipino graduate students enrolled in special education programs.
Part III: Perceived Issues and Challenges in Implementing Differentiated Instruction – This part was adapted
from the validated 14-item questionnaire developed by Siam and Al-Natour (2016), which examined
implementation challenges faced by teachers in practicing DI. The items covered areas such as instructional
planning, classroom management, availability of training and resources, and administrative support. Each item
was rated using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Not Challenging) to 5 (Extremely Challenging).
Data Gathering Procedure
This section outlines the procedures for data collection, ensuring adherence to ethical standards, the Data
Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173), and proper data handling protocols.
Preliminary Stage. Before initiating data collection, a formal request letter was submitted to the Office of the
Dean of the Graduate School at Cebu Technological University – Main Campus. This letter requested approval
to conduct the study among Master of Arts in Education major in Special Education (MAEd SPED) students.
Upon receiving approval, the researcher coordinated with course instructors or department heads to identify
qualified respondents and arrange the logistics for administering the survey. All respondents were provided
with an Informed Consent Form, which detailed the study’s purpose, voluntary nature, data confidentiality,
and the right to withdraw from participation at any time. An orientation session was conducted to explain the
study objectives, clarify the content of the questionnaire, and provide instructions for completing it.
Data Gathering Stage. The study used complete enumeration sampling, involving all MAEd SPED students
currently enrolled in the program. The adapted questionnaire was administered either in printed format or
through a secure digital platform, depending on the respondents' availability and preference. The questionnaire
consisted of two parts: Part I for demographic profile, and Part II for measuring perceived readiness in
applying differentiated instruction, adapted in 2025 from the instrument by Stetson & Associates. Respondents
were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaire thoughtfully. The researcher remained available
throughout the process to provide clarification, should any questions arise.
Post Data Gathering Stage. After the completion of data collection, the researcher validated and cleaned the
data. This includes checking for missing or incomplete responses, correcting any inconsistencies, and
preparing the data for statistical analysis. The validated responses were encoded into a statistical software
package for processing. Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation) was used
to summarize the demographic profile and readiness levels. Inferential statistics, including independent
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 13
samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, and other appropriate tests, were applied to determine whether significant
differences exist based on demographic variables.
Throughout all phases, strict compliance with ethical guidelines and data privacy regulations was ensured to
protect the identity, rights, and welfare of all participants.
Statistical Treatment
The data was encoded into a Data Matrix, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using appropriate quantitative
methods to ensure accurate and valid interpretation of the results.
Frequency and Percentage – These descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic profile of
the respondents, including age, gender, teaching experience, and experience in inclusive or SPED classrooms.
Frequency referred to the number of respondents in each category, while percentage showed their proportion
relative to the total sample size.
Weighted Mean and Standard Deviation – These were employed to determine the overall level of perceived
readiness of MAEd SPED students in applying differentiated instruction. The weighted mean indicated the
central tendency of responses for each indicator, while the standard deviation showed the variability in the
responses across the seven domains of differentiated instruction.
Independent Samples t-Test and One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) – These inferential statistical tools
were used to test for significant differences in the levels of perceived readiness when the respondents are
grouped according to demographic variables. The t-test applied to variables with two categories (e.g., gender),
and ANOVA were used for those with three or more categories (e.g., age, teaching experience). A significance
level of 0.05 was set as the criterion for determining statistical significance. A p-value less than 0.05 indicated
a significant difference.
Ethical Consideration
To uphold the highest standards of ethical research, this study ensured fairness, transparency, and integrity
throughout its design and implementation. Special care was taken to protect the rights, dignity, and well-being
of all participants. The selection of respondents followed ethical protocols, and all necessary precautions are
implemented to avoid coercion, misrepresentation, data fabrication, and any form of harm.
This research adhered to institutional ethical standards and national policies, including the Data Privacy Act of
2012 (Republic Act No. 10173). Prior to data collection, the research protocol was submitted to and reviewed
by the institution’s Ethics Review Committee to verify its alignment with accepted ethical principles.
Participation in the study was voluntary, and respondents were required to provide informed consent before
completing the questionnaire. The informed consent form clearly outlined the study’s objectives, procedures,
potential risks and benefits, and the participants’ right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. The
ethical considerations observed in this study were outlined as follows:
Conflict of Interest – The researcher declared no conflict of interest. No financial incentives or external
sponsorships were involved that might influence the study’s outcomes or interpretations.
Privacy and Confidentiality – Participants' privacy and confidentiality were safeguarded at all times. No
personally identifiable information was collected, and responses were anonymized. All data were stored
securely and used solely for academic purposes.
Informed Consent Process – All participants were informed verbally and in writing about the purpose, scope,
and voluntary nature of the research. They were encouraged to ask questions and are given ample time to
decide on their participation.
Vulnerability – The study involved graduate students enrolled in the MAEd SPED program at Cebu
Technological University. As professionals pursuing higher education, they were not considered members of a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 14
vulnerable group. Participation was entirely voluntary and without risk to academic or personal standing.
Recruitment Process – The study employed complete enumeration sampling involving all eligible MAEd
SPED students. The recruitment process was fair and inclusive, with no respondent pressured or excluded
unfairly from participation.
Risk Assessment – The study posed minimal to no risk. Participants were asked to complete a self-report
questionnaire designed to assess perceived readiness for differentiated instruction. No physical, psychological,
or legal risks were involved.
Benefits and Rights of Participants – Respondents were assured of their right to withdraw at any time without
facing academic, personal, or professional consequences. Participation in the study contributed to a broader
understanding of teacher preparedness in inclusive education and may help improve future teacher education
programs.
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the study on the readiness of Master of Arts in Education major in Special
Education (MAEd SPED) students at Cebu Technological University in applying differentiated instruction in
inclusive classrooms. The data are organized and presented according to the specific problems raised in the
study. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, means, and standard deviations are used to
summarize the demographic profile and readiness levels of the respondents. The analysis focuses on
interpreting the findings in relation to the seven readiness components: student learning characteristics, clarity
regarding learner objectives, pre-assessment strategies, effective instructional strategies, individual student
supports, flexible grouping, and learning environment. Interpretations are supported with relevant literature to
provide a deeper understanding of the results.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
This section presents the demographic profile of the MAEd SPED students who participated in the study. The
profile includes their age, gender, teaching experience, and inclusive or SPED classroom experience.
Understanding these characteristics provides context for interpreting their perceived readiness to apply
differentiated instruction, as demographic factors may influence their teaching approaches, familiarity with
inclusive practices, and professional preparedness
Age and Gender
Age and gender were examined to identify potential differences in teachers perceived readiness to apply
differentiated instruction, considering how generational experiences, perspectives, and socio-cultural factors
may influence instructional approaches and preparedness.
Table 2 presents the distribution of respondents according to age and gender. Out of the 41 Special Education
teachers surveyed, 40 (97.56%) were female while only 1 (2.44%) was male, indicating a highly female-
dominated teaching population. In terms of age, the largest group of respondents belonged to the 36–40 age
bracket (34.15%), followed by teachers aged 20–25 (17.07%) and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 15
31–35 years old (17.07%). Meanwhile, 21.95% of the participants were 41 years old and above, while the
smallest group, at 9.76%, belonged to the 26–30 age range.
The data suggests that most SPED teachers are in their mid- to late-career stages, particularly in the 36–40 age
group, which may reflect the accumulation of professional experience and stability in the teaching profession.
The predominance of female teachers highlights the continuing gender imbalance in the teaching workforce,
consistent with broader trends in education where teaching, especially in basic education and special
education, is often regarded as a female-dominated profession. The relatively small number of younger
teachers (26–30 years old) may indicate recruitment or retention challenges for early-career professionals in
SPED.
This gender imbalance may have implications for how Differentiated Instruction (DI) is perceived and
implemented. Research has shown that female- dominated professions tend to foster more nurturing and
relational approaches to teaching, which aligns with the principles of DI, such as recognizing individual
learning needs and creating supportive environments. However, the lack of male representation could limit
diverse perspectives on instructional practices. Gender diversity in teaching can promote a broader range of
ideas, pedagogies, and problem-solving approaches, which could enhance the implementation of DI strategies,
particularly in inclusive classrooms. The scarcity of younger teachers also indicates the need for recruitment
strategies that target more early-career professionals, including males, to bring fresh perspectives and further
support the effective application of DI.
These findings resonate with international and local research that shows teaching, particularly in elementary
and special education, remains a highly feminized profession (Kadrnožková & Hájková, 2024). Gender
imbalance in the workforce can affect the application of innovative teaching strategies, such as DI. Studies
have suggested that female teachers may naturally incorporate more collaborative and supportive strategies
that align with DI’s focus on meeting diverse student needs. However, the underrepresentation of male
teachers may limit the variety of instructional approaches and the application of DI methods that appeal to
different learning styles. Furthermore, age and career stage have been found to influence teachers’ openness to
adopting new instructional strategies. Younger teachers are often more adaptable to innovative methods, while
mid- career educators tend to rely on established practices, although they bring valuable stability and
classroom management experience (Gheyssens et al., 2022; Christie, 2019). These demographic trends
underscore the importance of designing professional development programs that address both gender and
generational diversity, fostering an inclusive teaching workforce capable of implementing DI effectively.
Years of Service
Years of service was included to assess whether the length of teaching experience influences readiness, as
more experienced teachers may have developed strategies, skills, and confidence that affect their approach to
differentiated instruction.
Table 3 shows the distribution of respondents according to their years of teaching service. Among the 41
Special Education teachers surveyed, the largest proportion (31.71%) reported having more than 6 years of
teaching experience, while 24.39% had been teaching for 1–3 years. A smaller group (19.51%) had less than 1
year of service, and 7.32% had 4–6 years of experience. Interestingly, 17.07% indicated having no formal
years of service in teaching, which may suggest that they are either newly appointed, substitute teachers, or
transitioning into SPED from other professional fields.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 16
The distribution suggests that while a substantial number of SPED teachers are highly experienced (more than
6 years), there is also a significant portion of early-career teachers who are in the 1–3 years or less than 1 year
range. The presence of teachers with no years of service could point to recent recruitment efforts or the
inclusion of teacher candidates in the study. This diversity in teaching experience may impact readiness for
differentiated instruction since experienced teachers often develop classroom management skills and adaptive
strategies over time, while novice teachers may be more receptive to innovative practices but require
mentoring and support.
The data underscores the need for differentiated professional development programs aligned with teachers’
career stages. For novice and early-career teachers, mentorship, induction programs, and targeted training can
help build confidence and equip them with strategies for implementing differentiated instruction. Meanwhile,
experienced teachers may benefit from advanced workshops that deepen their pedagogical repertoire and
encourage peer coaching. Schools and policymakers should also consider strategies for teacher retention, as
sustaining a balance of experienced and novice educators is critical for fostering a supportive and innovative
SPED environment.
Research has consistently shown that teaching experience influences both confidence and instructional
practices. Shank and Santiague (2022) highlighted that novice teachers often face challenges with classroom
management and instructional adaptation, making structured induction programs essential. Conversely, veteran
teachers tend to rely on accumulated strategies, which can enhance classroom stability but may also create
resistance to pedagogical change if not continuously supported (Sera-Sirven, 2021). Moreover, Smets and
Struyven (2020) emphasized that readiness to apply differentiated instruction is not solely determined by years
of service but also by ongoing professional learning and reflective practice. This suggests that experience must
be coupled with continuous development to optimize instructional effectiveness.
Highest Educational Attainment
Highest educational attainment was evaluated to determine whether academic qualifications and advanced
studies contribute to greater readiness, based on the premise that higher education may enhance instructional
knowledge and pedagogical competence.
Table 4 presents the distribution of respondents according to their highest educational attainment. Out of 41
SPED teachers, the majority (53.66%) reported having earned units in a master’s program, while 39.02% held
a bachelor’s degree as their highest qualification. A smaller proportion (4.88%) had completed a master’s
degree, and only one respondent (2.44%) possessed a doctoral degree. This indicates that while most
respondents have pursued graduate education, only a small percentage have completed advanced degrees.
The findings suggest that a significant number of teachers are actively pursuing higher education, which may
reflect compliance with professional standards or personal motivation for career advancement. The high
percentage of teachers with units in a master’s program implies that many are in transition toward completing
graduate studies. This may also be linked to Department of Education (DepEd) requirements and incentives for
teachers to pursue continuous professional growth under policies such as the Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers (RA 4670).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 17
The results highlight the importance of encouraging teachers to complete graduate programs, as higher
qualifications are often associated with enhanced pedagogical competence, reflective practice, and research-
informed instruction. For SPED teachers, advanced studies may provide deeper knowledge of inclusive
education, differentiated instruction, and specialized interventions for learners with diverse needs. Institutions
should strengthen support mechanisms such as scholarships, study leaves, and in-service training programs to
help teachers complete their graduate education. Additionally, collaboration between higher education
institutions and DepEd may further bridge the gap between theory and practice in SPED instruction.
Several studies have established the link between higher academic qualifications and improved teaching
performance. Khalid et al. (2021) emphasized that advanced education equips teachers with stronger content
knowledge and pedagogical skills, fostering greater instructional readiness. Similarly, Slade et al. (2019) found
that teachers with higher qualifications tend to positively influence student outcomes, partly due to their
enhanced capacity for reflective practice and evidence-based strategies. In the Philippine context, Maguate et
al. (2024) underscored the role of continuous professional development in shaping teachers’ adaptive
expertise, particularly in diverse and inclusive classrooms. This suggests that educational attainment, when
combined with ongoing training, plays a crucial role in shaping teachers’ readiness for differentiated
instruction.
Area of Specialization
Area of specialization was considered to assess whether a teacher’s primary field of expertise is linked to
readiness, as different subject areas or focus fields may require varied approaches to differentiated instruction.
Table 5 shows the distribution of respondents according to their area of specialization. Among the 41 SPED
teachers surveyed, the largest group (41.46%) specialized in Special Education, followed by Secondary
Education (31.71%) and Elementary Education (24.39%). Only one respondent (2.44%) reported Early
Childhood Education as their area of specialization. This distribution indicates that most respondents had
specialized training directly related to SPED, while a significant number entered the field from general
education backgrounds.
The data suggests that while a substantial proportion of teachers have specific training in Special Education,
many come from broader teaching disciplines. Teachers from elementary and secondary backgrounds may not
always have had formal SPED training during their undergraduate programs but may have transitioned to
SPED roles due to demand, reassignment, or professional interest. This aligns with national trends in the
Philippines where there is a shortage of formally trained SPED teachers, leading to general education teachers
being deployed in inclusive or SPED classrooms (Reyes, 2023).
The findings emphasize the need to strengthen SPED-specific teacher preparation and professional
development. While general education teachers bring valuable pedagogical knowledge, they may require
additional training in differentiated instruction, individualized education plans (IEPs), and evidence- based
interventions for learners with disabilities. To address this, DepEd and higher education institutions can
expand SPED programs, provide bridging courses, and integrate inclusive education training across all teacher
education curricula. This ensures that teachers, regardless of specialization, are better prepared for inclusive
practices.
Research highlights that teacher specialization plays a crucial role in instructional readiness. Ismatilloyevna
(2025) argued that specialized training in inclusive pedagogies enables teachers to adopt flexible strategies that
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 18
meet diverse learner needs. Similarly, Mitchell (2024) emphasize that SPED-prepared teachers demonstrate
higher confidence and competence in implementing inclusive practices compared to those without such
training. In the Philippine context, Cruz (2024) points out the persistent gap in SPED-trained teachers,
stressing the importance of continuous professional learning opportunities for those entering the field from
general education.
Type of School Currently Teaching
Type of school was examined to explore whether the educational setting public, private, or specialized affects
readiness, as institutional resources, policies, and student diversity may impact a teacher’s ability to implement
differentiated instruction.
Table 6 presents the distribution of respondents according to the type of school where they currently teach. Out
of 41 respondents, the majority (51.22%) were from public regular schools, followed by private inclusive
schools (17.07%). A smaller proportion reported teaching in public SPED centers (9.76%) and private regular
schools (4.88%). Interestingly, 17.07% of respondents indicated that they were not currently teaching in any
school. This distribution suggests that while public schools, particularly regular schools, remain the main
setting for SPED teachers, a considerable number are engaged in inclusive or specialized institutions.
The high concentration of teachers in public regular schools indicates that inclusive education is largely
implemented in mainstream classrooms rather than in specialized SPED centers. This reflects the Department
of Education’s mandate to mainstream learners with disabilities into regular classes where possible. However,
the smaller representation of teachers in public SPED centers underscores the limited number of specialized
facilities in the Philippines, placing a heavier responsibility on public regular schools to provide inclusive
services, often with fewer specialized resources (Kilag et al., 2025).
The type of school where teachers work can significantly affect their readiness to implement differentiated
instruction. Teachers in inclusive schools may receive more structured support and training, whereas those in
regular schools may face challenges such as large class sizes, limited teaching aides, and insufficient access to
assistive technologies. To strengthen readiness across settings, it is recommended that public and private
institutions alike provide ongoing professional development, ensure access to appropriate instructional
resources, and foster collaborative teaching models. Moreover, expanding the number of SPED centers or
equipping existing schools with specialized support could enhance teachers’ confidence and competence in
addressing diverse learner needs.
Existing literature supports the notion that institutional context influences teacher readiness for inclusive
practices. According to Brussino (2021), schools that embed inclusive policies and provide adequate resources
tend to foster higher levels of teacher preparedness. Similarly, Pozas et al. (2022) found that support structures
within schools significantly impact teachers’ confidence in differentiated instruction. In the Philippine context,
Termes et al. (2020) highlights persistent inequities between public and private schools, with private inclusive
schools often having more resources and smaller class sizes compared to overcrowded public schools. These
findings stress the importance of systemic support across all educational settings to enhance readiness for
differentiated instruction.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 19
Membership in Professional Organization
Membership in a professional organization was assessed to determine whether participation in professional
networks and development activities enhances readiness, given that such affiliations may provide additional
training, resources, and collaborative opportunities.
Table 7 shows the distribution of respondents based on their membership in professional organizations. Of the
41 participants, 43.90% reported being members of the Philippine Association for Teachers and Educators
(PAFTE), while smaller proportions indicated membership in the Philippine Public School Teachers
Association (PPSTA) (12.20%), the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) (2.44%), and the National
Organization of Professional Teachers (NOPT) (2.44%). Notably, 39.02% of the respondents reported having
no membership in any professional organization. This demonstrates that while a significant number of teachers
engage in professional networks, a considerable proportion remains unaffiliated.
The data suggest that PAFTE plays a key role in supporting teacher professional development in the
Philippines, given its significant membership among respondents. Professional organizations such as PAFTE
and PPSTA are known to provide training, seminars, and networking opportunities that may enhance teacher
readiness for differentiated instruction and inclusive education. On the other hand, the relatively large number
of non-members may indicate barriers such as lack of awareness, limited financial resources, or restricted
access to organizational activities, particularly in rural or underfunded areas.
Membership in professional organizations has the potential to strengthen teacher readiness by exposing
educators to innovative pedagogical strategies, policy updates, and collaborative practices. Teachers who are
not affiliated with such groups may have fewer opportunities for continuous professional development, which
could impact their ability to adapt to diverse classroom needs. Thus, encouraging more teachers to join
organizations like PAFTE or PPSTA and ensuring accessibility of these networks across public and private
institutions would be beneficial. Schools and educational leaders can also support non-member teachers by
providing localized professional learning communities that replicate the benefits of formal organizations.
Research consistently highlights the value of professional organizations in enhancing teacher competence and
readiness. According to Zamiri and Esmaeili (2024), professional networks serve as platforms for sharing best
practices and fostering collective learning. Similarly, Cimene (2023) emphasized that continuous professional
development is crucial in improving teaching quality, particularly in inclusive and diverse learning
environments. In the Philippine context, PAFTE underscores its mission to advance teacher education through
training, conferences, and collaborative engagement. These findings affirm that professional membership can
be a significant factor in promoting readiness, although equitable access to these opportunities remains a
challenge.
LEVEL OF PERCEIVED READINESS
The level of perceived readiness of MAEd SPED students in applying differentiated instruction refers to the
extent to which future special education teachers believe they are prepared to implement teaching strategies
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 20
that address diverse learners’ needs. This measure reflects both the knowledge and practical confidence
necessary for delivering equitable and inclusive instruction.
Student Learning Characteristics
This domain was included to measure the teachers’ ability to recognize, assess, and address diverse student
learning which are fundamental to implementing differentiated instruction effectively.
Table 8 presents the respondents’ readiness in addressing student learning characteristics as part of
differentiated instruction. The overall grand mean of 4.02 (SD = 0.97) indicates that teachers are “Ready” to
assess and respond to diverse learning needs. Among the indicators, the highest mean was recorded for “I
select instructional materials suited to students’ readiness, interests, and learning styles” (M = 4.24, SD =
0.94), reflecting strong readiness in aligning resources with learner diversity. The lowest mean was observed
in “I design lesson plans based on students’ readiness and ability levels” (M = 3.78, SD = 1.03), though still
within the “Ready” category.
The results suggest that teachers are particularly confident in adapting instructional materials and using varied
modalities (M = 4.12) to support student learning differences. Likewise, they are ready to incorporate student
interests (M= 4.02) and provide learning choices (M = 4.05), which reflect practices consistent with learner-
centered pedagogy. However, comparatively lower scores in creating class profiles (M = 3.80) and lesson
planning based on readiness (M = 3.78) suggest areas that could be strengthened through more systematic
assessment of learner differences at the planning stage. This gap highlights that while teachers demonstrate
flexibility in practice, the integration of learner data into structured planning may need further development.
The findings imply that teachers value responsiveness to student differences but may benefit from more
training in diagnostic assessment and profiling of learners at the start of the school year. Conducting class
profiles and readiness-based lesson planning are foundational to differentiated instruction because they provide
the data needed to inform teaching strategies (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2023). Therefore, professional development
initiatives should emphasize practical strategies for conducting learner inventories, integrating readiness levels
into lesson planning, and designing tiered activities that systematically address diverse student needs.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 21
Encouraging reflective practice and collaborative sharing among teachers can further enhance their ability to
align planning with actual learner characteristics.
Scholars emphasize that understanding student learning characteristics is critical to effective differentiation.
Goyibova et al. (2025) noted that differentiated instruction is built on assessing students’ readiness, interests,
and learning profiles to tailor instruction appropriately. Similarly, Price et al. (2020) highlighted that
acknowledging learner diversity fosters higher engagement and academic achievement. In the Philippine
context, Bulusan et al. (2025) stressed that culturally responsive teaching and learner-centered instruction are
essential to meeting diverse classroom needs. These findings align with the present study, underscoring that
while teachers are generally ready, further strengthening in learner profiling and readiness-based planning is
necessary to fully optimize differentiated instruction.
Clarity Regarding Learner Objectives
This domain assessed how clearly teachers identify, communicate, and align lesson objectives with curriculum
standards, ensuring that learning goals are transparent and adapted to the needs of diverse learners in
differentiated instruction.
Table 9 presents the results on teachers’ readiness in terms of clarity regarding learner objectives. The overall
grand mean of 4.23 (SD = 0.77) indicates that teachers are generally “Ready” in this domain. Among the
indicators, the highest-rated was “I help students connect new learning to prior knowledge and experiences”
(M = 4.34, SD = 0.73), while the lowest-rated was “I clearly identify and communicate the key concepts in
each lesson” (M = 4.14, SD = 0.82). All items were consistently rated within the Ready range, suggesting
strong but improvable competence in clarifying and aligning learning objectives.
The data highlight that teachers are particularly effective in fostering connections between new content and
learners’ prior experiences, an essential aspect of meaningful learning. However, the slightly lower score in
identifying and communicating key concepts suggests that some teachers may still face challenges in lesson
framing and ensuring that essential learning points are clear and accessible. This reflects a balance between
teachers’ ability to contextualize lessons and their capacity to distill and highlight core instructional goals.
The findings imply that while teachers demonstrate readiness, professional development can further strengthen
their capacity to frame objectives in ways that are both conceptually clear and aligned with standards. Training
workshops on backward design, scaffolding, and explicit lesson framing could help teachers sharpen their
clarity of instruction. Moreover, integrating reflective practices such as peer lesson observations or
instructional coaching may provide opportunities for feedback on how objectives are communicated and
aligned with learner diversity.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 22
Clarity of learner objectives is consistently linked to higher student achievement and engagement. Hall (2019)
identifies teacher clarity as one of the most powerful influences on student learning, while Werner and
Milyavskaya, M. (2019) emphasized that clearly defined goals enhance students’ motivation and self-
regulation. Similarly, Matiyenga and Ajani (2024) stressed that in differentiated instruction, clear
communication of objectives ensures equitable access to curriculum for diverse learners. In addition, Carter
and Andersen (2023) highlighted that connecting new learning to prior knowledge is central to building deeper
understanding. These studies affirm the importance of the observed readiness in this domain while pointing
toward opportunities for refinement.
Pre-Assessment Strategies
This domain focused on the teachers’ use of tools and methods to gauge students’ prior knowledge and skill
levels before instruction, enabling them to design lessons that meet varying learning needs.
Table 10 shows the results on teachers’ readiness in using pre-assessment strategies. The grand mean of 4.06
(SD = 0.82) reveals that teachers are generally “Ready” to employ different tools and methods in assessing
learners’ prior knowledge and skills. The highest-rated indicator was “I modify my lesson design based on the
results of pre-assessments” (M = 4.12, SD = 0.78), while the lowest- rated was “I use pre-assessment strategies
to identify students' prior knowledge and skill levels” (M = 4.02, SD = 0.76). All items were consistently
within the Ready range, showing that teachers possess the capacity to conduct pre-assessments but with room
for enhancement in systematic application.
The results indicate that teachers are more confident in adapting instruction after conducting pre-assessments
than in consistently implementing such assessments at the outset. This suggests that while teachers recognize
the value of tailoring instruction, some may still lack structured approaches or varied techniques to fully
capture learners’ prior knowledge. The relatively modest ratings across all indicators imply that pre-
assessment is practiced but not yet maximized as a central tool for differentiated instruction.
These findings imply a need for greater emphasis on strengthening teachers’ repertoire of pre-assessment
techniques and embedding them systematically into classroom practice. Schools and divisions could provide
training on the effective use of both formal and informal pre-assessment tools (e.g., diagnostic quizzes, think-
pair-share, KWL charts, entrance tickets) and how to interpret results for instructional planning. Encouraging
student involvement in reviewing pre-assessment outcomes may also cultivate ownership of learning and goal-
setting skills. Continuous professional support through mentoring and lesson study can enhance consistency in
applying these strategies.
Research underscores the importance of pre-assessment in differentiated instruction. Wong et al. (2023)
highlighted that understanding students’ readiness levels is the foundation of effective differentiation. Gamage
(2025) further emphasized that assessment for learning, including pre-assessment, provides critical feedback
that informs instructional decisions. Meanwhile, Dubey (2024) points out that involving students in pre-
assessment results fosters self-awareness and motivation toward learning goals. These studies validate the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 23
observed readiness among teachers while reinforcing the need to deepen their expertise in strategically using
pre-assessment to guide instruction.
Effective Instructional Strategies
This domain examined teachers’ ability to apply varied teaching approaches, instructional accommodations,
and content modifications to enhance engagement, accessibility, and success for all learners within a
differentiated instruction framework.
Table 11 presents the results on teachers’ readiness in employing effective instructional strategies. The grand
mean of 4.01 (SD = 0.83) indicates that teachers are generally “Ready” to implement differentiated instruction
through varied teaching approaches, accommodations, and modifications. The highest- rated indicators were “I
use a wide range of teaching strategies to make lessons engaging and effective” (M = 4.15, SD = 0.76) and “I
use varied assessment strategies like portfolios and project-based learning” (M = 4.15, SD = 0.85). Meanwhile,
the lowest-rated item was “I modify curricular goals when required by a student’s Individualized Education
Program (IEP)” (M = 3.63, SD = 1.22), though it still fell within the “Ready” category.
The results suggest that teachers are confident in using diverse instructional and assessment strategies that
enhance classroom engagement. However, the relatively lower rating for modifying curricular goals for IEPs
reflects possible challenges in specialized instructional adjustments. This may indicate either limited training
in addressing individual needs of students with disabilities or systemic barriers, such as insufficient resources
and support for inclusive practices. Overall, teachers are prepared to apply differentiated strategies, but their
readiness is stronger in general classroom strategies than in specialized accommodations.
These findings imply that while teachers are equipped to implement varied teaching and assessment
approaches, professional development should focus more on inclusive education practices, particularly in
supporting students with IEPs. Training in evidence-based strategies such as Universal Design for Learning
(UDL), tiered instruction, and scaffolded learning can strengthen teachers’ competence in adapting lessons for
diverse learners. Furthermore, schools may need to ensure that support systems, including collaboration with
special education teachers and access to instructional resources, are available to sustain differentiated practices
across all learning contexts.
Scholarly literature supports these findings, as Qorib (2024) emphasized that effective differentiation requires
varied instructional strategies to address differences in student readiness, interests, and learning profiles.
Lovett (2021) stressed that individualized accommodations, particularly for students with disabilities, are
crucial to ensuring equity in learning. Similarly, Rao (2021) highlighted the role of UDL in fostering
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 24
accessibility and flexibility in instructional design. These studies reinforce the need to further strengthen
teachers’ application of specialized strategies while building on their demonstrated readiness in general
instructional practices.
Individual Student Supports
This domain evaluated teachers’ capacity to provide targeted interventions, accommodations, and extensions
that address individual students’ needs, ensuring equity and inclusivity in the learning process.
Table 12 presents the results on teachers’ readiness in providing individual student supports. The grand mean
of 4.00 (SD = 0.91) indicates that teachers are generally “Ready” to offer targeted interventions,
accommodations, and extensions to meet diverse learners’ needs. The highest-rated indicator was “I offer
extended learning opportunities for students who need more challenge” (M = 4.17, SD = 0.77), closely
followed by “I provide additional support for students who struggle with content” (M = 4.15, SD = 0.88). The
lowest-rated item was “I appropriately implement accommodations and modifications required by students’
IEPs” (M = 3.73, SD = 1.09), although it still reflected readiness.
The data reveal that teachers are effective in addressing both ends of the learning spectrum, providing remedial
support for struggling students and extended opportunities for advanced learners. However, the relatively
lower mean in implementing IEP-based accommodations indicates an area where teachers may feel less
prepared or encounter challenges. This suggests that while teachers are competent in general differentiation
practices, there remains a gap in delivering individualized supports aligned with formal special education
requirements.
These findings imply a strong foundation for responsive teaching but highlight the need to strengthen
competencies in implementing accommodations for students with disabilities. Targeted professional
development in inclusive education practices, particularly on understanding IEPs and applying individualized
modifications, is essential. Schools may also consider providing collaborative opportunities between general
and special education teachers to enhance confidence in delivering tailored supports. Additionally, allocating
resources such as assistive technologies and instructional aides could further empower teachers to address
individual learning needs effectively.
Research supports these insights, as Passmore (2025) emphasized that individualized supports, particularly
IEP-based accommodations, are critical to ensuring access and equity in inclusive classrooms. Reis et al.
(2021) underscored the importance of providing both remediation and enrichment as core elements of
differentiated instruction. Meanwhile, Shireesha and Jeevan (2024) stressed that teachers’ capacity to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 25
personalize learning for all students is central to inclusive education. These studies affirm that while teachers
are ready to provide general supports, building deeper expertise in individualized accommodations remains
crucial.
Flexible Grouping
This domain measured how effectively teachers form and adjust student groups based on readiness, interests,
or learning styles, fostering collaboration and maximizing learning opportunities in differentiated instruction.
Table 13 shows the results for teachers’ use of flexible grouping in the classroom. The domain obtained a
grand mean of 3.98 (SD = 0.90), interpreted as “Ready.” Among the indicators, the highest mean was “I teach
students how to work effectively in groups, including roles and responsibilities” (M = 4.07, SD = 0.98),
indicating teachers’ strength in preparing students for collaboration. The remaining indicators, forming groups
based on readiness, interests, or choice (M= 3.95, SD = 0.86), changing groupings regularly based on needs
(M = 3.95, SD = 0.97), and assessing both individual and group performance (M = 3.95, SD = 0.80), received
equal ratings, showing consistency in teachers’ readiness across different aspects of flexible grouping.
The findings suggest that teachers demonstrate consistent readiness in applying flexible grouping strategies.
The slightly higher rating for teaching students how to work effectively in groups implies that teachers
prioritize equipping learners with collaboration skills, which can foster productive group dynamics. However,
the uniform mean scores for the other indicators indicate that while teachers apply grouping strategies, they
may not fully maximize the potential of flexible grouping to tailor instruction according to varied student
profiles.
These results imply that while teachers are generally prepared to implement flexible grouping, professional
development can further strengthen their ability to use grouping as a dynamic tool for differentiation. Training
on strategies such as interest-based grouping, tiered tasks, and rotational models could help teachers move
beyond traditional groupings and more effectively match instruction to learner needs. Additionally, schools
may support this practice by providing classroom structures and resources (e.g., space, materials, and time)
that allow for smoother implementation of varied group arrangements.
Scholarly literature supports the importance of flexible grouping as a core principle of differentiated
instruction. Summers and Beers (2019) emphasized that adjusting groups based on readiness, interest, and
learning profiles increases engagement and equity in the classroom. Similarly, Ramos et al. (2021) highlighted
that effective grouping not only enhances collaboration but also provides multiple pathways to learning.
Furthermore, Ruijuan et al. (2023) argue that well-structured group work promotes both academic success and
social interaction, strengthening inclusive practices. These findings affirm that while teachers are ready,
continuous refinement of flexible grouping strategies can elevate its impact on student learning.
Learning Environment
This domain assessed the extent to which teachers create a supportive, organized, and student-centered
classroom environment that encourages active participation, collaboration, and differentiated learning
experiences.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 26
Table 14 presents the results for the domain on Learning Environment. The overall grand mean was 4.06 (SD
= 0.84), which falls under the descriptor “Ready.” The highest-rated indicator was “I work with students to
develop classroom norms for behavior and teamwork” (M = 4.17, SD = 0.83), reflecting strong teacher
readiness in fostering shared responsibility and positive classroom culture. Close behind were arranging
classrooms to promote collaboration and differentiated learning (M = 4.15, SD = 0.85) and teaching process
and study skills appropriate to students’ levels (M = 4.10, SD = 0.92). Other highly rated practices included
displaying student work (M = 4.07, SD = 0.82) and allowing student-directed learning (M = 4.07, SD = 0.79).
Meanwhile, the lowest mean scores were observed in transition strategies to minimize downtime (M = 3.98,
SD = 0.82) and minimizing interruptions to maximize instructional time (M = 3.98, SD = 0.82).
The data indicate that teachers are generally ready to establish positive and effective learning environments.
Their strength lies in creating norms for behavior and collaboration, which sets a foundation for inclusivity and
mutual respect. Moreover, the emphasis on arranging the physical environment and teaching study skills
suggests a balanced approach to both the organizational and academic aspects of classroom management.
However, slightly lower ratings for managing transitions and reducing interruptions may reflect areas where
instructional time could be further optimized, pointing to a need for enhanced time-management strategies.
The findings imply that while teachers are adept at cultivating supportive and student-centered classrooms,
there is room to improve efficiency in the use of class time. To strengthen these areas, professional
development may focus on effective transition routines, time-on-task strategies, and integrating quick
“sponge” activities to maintain student engagement. Schools could also support teachers by implementing
policies that minimize external interruptions and by providing resources that encourage student autonomy. By
addressing these aspects, teachers can maximize instructional time while maintaining the positive,
collaborative environments they have already established.
Research underscores the importance of a supportive and organized classroom environment in promoting
student engagement and differentiated learning. Walker and Graham (2021) argued that strong teacher-student
relationships and clear behavioral expectations significantly influence classroom climate and learning
outcomes. Similarly, Tomlinson (2022) emphasized that physical arrangements and routines tailored to
differentiation create equitable access to learning opportunities. Furthermore, Ibaraki (2024) highlight that
classrooms fostering collaboration and minimizing disruptions enhance both academic performance and
student well-being. These findings support the present results, indicating that teachers are ready to build
effective learning environments, with additional opportunities to refine time management and transition
strategies.
Summary of Teachers’ Readiness in Differentiated Instruction
To provide a holistic view of teachers’ readiness in implementing differentiated instruction, the results from
the seven domains were consolidated into a summary table, presenting the composite means and descriptive
values across key areas.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 27
Table 15 presents the overall summary of teachers’ readiness across the seven domains of differentiated
instruction. The composite means ranged from 3.98 to 4.23, all falling under the descriptor “Ready.” The
highest-rated domain was Clarity Regarding Learner Objectives (M = 4.23, SD = 0.77), suggesting that
teachers consistently ensure that learning goals are communicated and aligned with instruction. Other
relatively strong areas included Pre-Assessment Strategies (M = 4.06, SD = 0.82) and Learning Environment
(M = 4.06, SD = 0.84). Moderate readiness was observed in Student Learning Characteristics (M = 4.02, SD =
0.97) and Effective Instructional Strategies (M = 4.01, SD = 0.83). The lowest means were found in Individual
Student Supports (M = 4.00, SD = 0.91) and Flexible Grouping (M = 3.98, SD = 0.90).
The data reflect that teachers exhibit consistent readiness across domains, with strengths in communicating
objectives and structuring organized environments for learning. This alignment suggests that teachers are
intentional in guiding students toward clear targets. However, the relatively lower means in Individual Student
Supports and Flexible Grouping highlight areas where differentiated instruction could be deepened. While
teachers are generally prepared, their ability to personalize learning through targeted supports and dynamic
grouping strategies may require more systematic development.
The findings imply that professional development efforts should consolidate teachers’ existing strengths while
addressing gaps in differentiation. Training programs may emphasize practical strategies for flexible grouping,
scaffolding, and individualized supports to better accommodate diverse learners. Schools could also provide
structured mentoring and peer collaboration opportunities to help teachers refine these practices. Policymakers
and administrators may consider allocating resources to support teachers with learning materials, technological
tools, and reduced class sizes, factors that can enhance the effective implementation of flexible and
individualized approaches.
Literature emphasizes that readiness in differentiated instruction requires a balance between clarity, structure,
and adaptability. Mogale (2025) underscored that establishing clear learning objectives provides the
foundation for effective differentiation, while flexible grouping and targeted supports ensure equitable access
to learning opportunities. Furthermore, Idowu (2024) noted that while clarity in objectives is a teacher
strength, continuous improvement in personalized supports is necessary for addressing diverse student needs.
A study by Bondie at al. (2019) also affirm that differentiated instruction is most effective when teacher
readiness extends beyond planning toward flexible implementation in the classroom. These insights support
the current findings, showing that teachers are broadly ready but would benefit from enhanced practices in
individualized support and flexible grouping.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Student Learning Characteristics
To examine whether teachers’ demographic characteristics have an influence on their readiness to address
student learning characteristics, a chi- square test of association was conducted. The results are summarized in
Table 16.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 28
The results in Table 16 show that none of the respondents’ demographic variables had a statistically significant
association with student learning characteristics, as all p-values were greater than the 0.05 level of
significance. Specifically, age (p = 0.176), gender (p = 0.767), years of service (p = 0.757), highest educational
attainment (p = 0.711), area of specialization (p = 0.751), type of school (p = 0.232), and membership in a
professional organization (p = 0.965) were all found to be not significant.
This indicates that student learning characteristics, as perceived by the teachers, remain consistent across
varying demographic groups. Teachers’ readiness in understanding learners’ needs does not appear to be
shaped by their age, gender, experience, or academic background. Rather, this uniformity suggests that
teaching practices and readiness to address learning characteristics are guided more by professional
expectations and classroom demands than by personal or demographic attributes.
The absence of significant associations suggests that interventions to strengthen differentiated instruction
should focus less on tailoring programs to teacher demographics and more on providing universal support.
School leaders and policymakers may consider designing inclusive professional development programs that
equip all teachers, regardless of background, with effective strategies for responding to diverse learning needs.
Continuous capacity-building and reflective practice are recommended to sustain and improve this readiness.
These findings align with Zorba’s (2020) assertion that responsiveness to student readiness and learning
preferences is not determined by demographic attributes but is cultivated through deliberate practice and
professional growth. Similarly, Toropova et al. (2019) highlighted that the greatest influence on student
achievement comes from instructional quality rather than teacher characteristics. This reinforces the idea that
fostering strong, evidence-based teaching practices is more impactful than demographic factors in shaping
teachers’ readiness to address student learning characteristics.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Clarity Regarding Learner Objectives
To further examine whether teachers’ demographic characteristics influenced their clarity regarding learner
objectives in differentiated instruction, a chi-square test of independence was conducted. The results are
summarized in Table 17.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 29
The chi-square test results in Table 17 reveal that none of the respondents’ demographic variables had a
statistically significant association with their clarity regarding learner objectives, as all p-values exceeded the
0.05 threshold. Specifically, age (p = 0.513), gender (p = 0.866), years of service (p = 0.428), highest
educational attainment (p = 0.861), area of specialization (p = 0.878), type of school (p = 0.834), and
membership in a professional organization (p = 0.999) showed no meaningful differences.
These results indicate that teachers’ ability to establish and articulate clear learner objectives is consistent
across demographic groups. This suggests that clarity of objectives is less dependent on personal or
professional background factors and may be more strongly influenced by institutional standards, training
programs, or curriculum requirements that provide uniform guidance on setting instructional goals.
Given these findings, schools and policymakers may not need to differentiate training programs on learner
objectives based on demographic characteristics. Instead, emphasis should be placed on providing ongoing
professional development that reinforces the alignment of objectives with differentiated instruction practices.
Ensuring that all teachers, regardless of age, experience, or background, have access to resources and training
on formulating clear objectives can help sustain consistency and quality in instruction.
The consistency of results aligns with studies highlighting that clarity in learner objectives is often guided by
systemic frameworks rather than individual differences (Hoemann et al., 2021). Research underscores that
when objectives are well-communicated, they enhance student engagement and performance regardless of
teacher demographics (Ekal & Mungai, 2024). Similarly, Tomlinson and Imbeau (2023) emphasized that the
articulation of objectives is a foundational element in differentiated instruction, ensuring all learners
understand the purpose and direction of lessons.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Pre-Assessment Strategies
To assess whether teachers’ demographic characteristics had an influence on their use of pre-assessment
strategies in differentiated instruction, a chi-square test of independence was conducted. The results are
presented in Table 18.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 30
Table 18 shows that none of the demographic variables were significantly associated with teachers’ use of pre-
assessment strategies in differentiated instruction. All p-values were
greater than the 0.05 significance level, including age (p = 0.512), gender (p = 0.848), years of service (p =
0.230), highest educational attainment (p = 0.928), area of specialization (p = 0.545), type of school (p =
0.256), and membership in professional organizations (p = 0.829).
These findings suggest that the use of pre-assessment strategies is uniformly practiced by teachers regardless
of their demographic characteristics. This implies that pre-assessment, such as diagnostic tests, questioning, or
informal observations, is likely driven by curricular frameworks and professional expectations, rather than
influenced by differences in age, experience, or academic qualifications.
Since no demographic factors were found to influence the application of pre-assessment strategies,
professional development initiatives should instead focus on enhancing the quality and variety of pre-
assessment tools used by teachers. Training could emphasize practical strategies for collecting and interpreting
student data to inform instruction. Policymakers may also consider integrating pre-assessment practices as a
standard across all grade levels to ensure consistent instructional planning.
This outcome is consistent with Mitchell (2024), who emphasized that pre- assessment is a cornerstone of
differentiated instruction and is essential for understanding student readiness levels. Similarly, Swann et al.
(2020) highlighted that effective pre-assessment practices improve teaching quality by informing decisions
that meet diverse learners’ needs. Research also suggests that systematic pre-assessment, rather than teacher
demographics, plays a more critical role in shaping instructional practices (Sims, 2020).
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Effective Instructional Strategies
To determine whether the respondents’ demographic characteristics have a significant relationship with their
use of effective instructional strategies, a chi- square test of independence was conducted. The results are
shown in Table 19.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 31
The chi-square test results in Table 19 show that none of the respondents’ demographic variables had a
statistically significant association with the use of effective instructional strategies, as all p-values were greater
than 0.05. Specifically, age (p = 0.174), gender (p = 0.767), years of service (p = 0.050), highest educational
attainment (p = 0.851), area of specialization (p = 0.746), type of school (p = 0.499), and membership in a
professional organization (p = 0.972) did not demonstrate significant differences.
Among the variables tested, years of service (χ² = 15.53, p = 0.050) came closest to the significance threshold,
suggesting a potential trend where teaching experience may have some influence on instructional practices.
However, the result was still not statistically significant, which supports the conclusion that teaching strategies
remain largely consistent across all demographics.
These findings imply that effective instructional strategies are widely applied by teachers regardless of age,
gender, education, specialization, or professional affiliations. This uniformity suggests that training,
institutional policies, and shared pedagogical frameworks may be guiding classroom practices more strongly
than personal background. It is recommended that future capacity-building programs focus on deepening and
refining these common strategies while also encouraging teachers to adapt based on contextual student needs
rather than demographic characteristics.
The results resonate with studies showing that instructional strategies are shaped more by pedagogical training
and institutional culture rather than demographic factors (Yu, 2021). Research underscores that teacher
effectiveness is better linked to continuous professional development and reflective practice rather than static
attributes such as age or years of service (Stăncescu et al., 2019). This reinforces the importance of investing in
ongoing teacher development to ensure the consistent use of effective instructional strategies across diverse
teaching contexts. Moreover, Ingersoll et al. (2021) emphasized that professional growth opportunities, rather
than demographic factors, are the primary drivers of instructional improvement. These findings affirm that
strengthening professional learning communities and institutional support systems is essential in sustaining
consistent and effective teaching practices.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Individual Student Supports
To determine whether the respondents’ demographic characteristics have a significant relationship with their
implementation of individual student supports, a chi-square test of independence was conducted. The results
are shown in Table 20.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 32
The chi-square test results in Table 20 reveal that there were no statistically significant associations between
respondents’ demographic profiles and their implementation of individual student supports. All p-values were
above the 0.05 threshold, including age (p = 0.480), gender (p = 0.788), years of service (p = 0.683), highest
educational attainment (p = 0.849), area of specialization (p = 0.644), type of school (p = 0.929), and
membership in professional organizations (p = 0.942).
The absence of significant associations suggests that the provision of individual student supports is practiced
consistently by teachers regardless of demographic background. This uniformity indicates that student-
centered support strategies may be seen as an essential and non-negotiable part of inclusive teaching practices
rather than being influenced by personal or professional characteristics.
These findings imply that schools and education systems have likely instilled a strong culture of prioritizing
learner needs through policies, training, and expectations of inclusive practice. However, while demographic
variables do not appear to drive differences, strengthening professional development focused on differentiated
instruction, counseling, and social-emotional learning may further enhance teachers’ ability to provide tailored
student supports. School leaders should also sustain systems of collaboration, such as peer mentoring and case
conferencing, to ensure that every learner’s needs are systematically addressed.
This result is supported by Griful-Freixenet et al. (2020), who emphasized that differentiation and student
supports are grounded in pedagogy and mindset rather than teacher demographics. Subban et al. (2023)
likewise argued that inclusive education rests on teachers’ shared commitment to “teaching everyone,”
regardless of personal background. Similarly, McChesney and Cross, J. (2023) highlighted that effective
support strategies are linked more closely to school-wide professional learning and institutional culture than to
individual characteristics.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Flexible Grouping
To determine whether the respondents’ demographic characteristics have a significant relationship with their
use of flexible grouping, a chi-square test of independence was conducted. The results are shown in Table 21.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 33
As shown in Table 21, the chi-square test revealed that none of the demographic variables were significantly
associated with the use of flexible grouping. The p-values for age (0.517), gender (0.788), years of service
(0.987), highest educational attainment (0.912), area of specialization (0.948), type of school (0.369), and
membership in a professional organization (0.403) were all greater than the 0.05 significance level. These
findings indicate that teachers’ demographic profiles do not influence their application of flexible grouping
strategies in the classroom.
The absence of significant relationships suggests that flexible grouping has become a common instructional
approach practiced across teachers regardless of their personal or professional background. This uniformity
may be attributed to the fact that grouping students flexibly is an inclusive teaching strategy embedded in
many curricular reforms and professional training sessions. Thus, whether a teacher is experienced or new to
the profession, highly educated or holding basic qualifications, their tendency to implement flexible grouping
does not differ significantly.
These results imply that flexible grouping is already a well-integrated strategy among educators and can be
considered a standard practice for addressing learner diversity. Since demographic factors do not hinder its
adoption, school leaders and administrators should continue reinforcing this approach through professional
development and instructional coaching. Moreover, integrating flexible grouping in collaborative lesson
planning could further strengthen its impact, ensuring that students of varying abilities benefit from peer
support, differentiated activities, and cooperative learning.
The findings align with Rochester’s (2021) assertion that flexible grouping is central to differentiated
instruction, allowing teachers to adjust groupings based on student readiness, interests, and learning profiles
rather than fixed demographic categories. Similarly, Sanguinetti (2024) emphasized that flexible grouping
enhances student engagement and achievement across diverse classrooms, underscoring its universal
applicability. This consistency between the present results and previous studies highlights that flexible
grouping is not limited by teacher characteristics but is instead shaped by instructional philosophy and
curricular demands.
Association Between Respondents’ Profile and Learning Environment
To determine whether the respondents’ demographic characteristics have a significant relationship with their
ability to establish and maintain an effective learning environment, a chi-square test of independence was
conducted. The results are shown in Table 22.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 34
Table 22 shows that none of the demographic variables had a statistically significant association with the
creation of a positive learning environment. The chi- square values yielded p-values greater than the 0.05
threshold, including age (0.082), gender (0.809), years of service (0.516), highest educational attainment
(0.429), area of specialization (0.806), type of school (0.462), and membership in professional organizations
(0.711). These results indicate that the ability to provide a supportive and conducive learning environment is
consistently demonstrated by teachers regardless of their personal or professional characteristics.
The lack of significant differences across demographic categories suggests that fostering a productive learning
environment is a universal practice among educators. This may be due to its emphasis in teacher training
programs, classroom management frameworks, and professional standards that apply equally to all teachers. In
other words, the skills and strategies required to maintain a learning-conducive environment are not exclusive
to teachers of a particular age, gender, or level of experience, but rather form part of the shared professional
identity of educators.
Given these findings, it is recommended that schools and education authorities continue to support teachers in
enhancing their classroom management strategies through ongoing training, peer collaboration, and mentoring.
Since demographic factors do not appear to influence teachers’ ability to establish learning environments,
professional development can focus more on equipping all teachers with innovative techniques such as
restorative practices, culturally responsive pedagogy, and learner-centered classroom designs. Reinforcing
these strategies will ensure equitable learning experiences across diverse school contexts.
This outcome supports Marquez and Oropa’s (2025) view that effective classroom management and the
establishment of a supportive learning environment are essential teacher competencies that transcend
demographic distinctions. Similarly, Williams et al. (2019) emphasized that maintaining a positive learning
climate depends largely on consistent implementation of evidence-based practices rather than individual
teacher characteristics. These perspectives reinforce the current findings, highlighting that the capacity to build
conducive learning environments is a professional responsibility shared across the teaching workforce.
Perceived Challenges in Implementing Differentiated Instruction
Table 23 presents the frequency distribution of responses from 41 respondents, categorizing their perceptions
of the challenges in implementing differentiated instruction. The challenges are rated based on the level of
difficulty experienced, with the following scales: Extremely Challenging (EC), Very Challenging (VC),
Moderately Challenging (MC), Slightly Challenging (SC), and Not Challenging (NC).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 35
Table 23 highlights the perceived challenges faced by teachers in implementing differentiated instruction (DI).
The mean values across various challenges indicate that the most commonly perceived difficulty is managing
the large number of students in the classroom, with a mean of 3.80, falling within the Very Challenging (VC)
range. Additionally, challenges such as the long time required for assessing learners' needs and designing
activities (mean = 3.88) and planning effective lessons (mean = 3.56) are also seen as very challenging. This
suggests that teachers struggle with the logistical demands of DI, particularly in large classrooms where
differentiation becomes more complex.
The data also reveal that teachers feel moderately challenged by shifting from the role of a knowledge-giver to
a learning facilitator, as evidenced by a mean of 3.39. Similarly, selecting the most appropriate strategy for
each lesson and feeling a lack of necessary skills to implement DI effectively were rated as moderately
challenging, with means of 3.66 and 3.39, respectively. These results underscore the importance of teacher
preparedness and the need for targeted professional development in the application of DI strategies.
In terms of administrative support, very challenging concerns were identified, with a mean of 3.63 for the lack
of support when planning DI, and 3.51 for explaining DI to parents. This suggests that systemic barriers, such
as insufficient administrative support and resources, contribute significantly to the difficulties teachers face. It
is important to address these issues by ensuring strong administrative backing and providing teachers with the
necessary resources to implement DI effectively.
The Grand Mean of 3.58 places the overall perception of challenges in the Very Challenging range, reinforcing
the view that while teachers recognize the value of differentiated instruction, they encounter significant
barriers in its implementation. These findings align with previous studies that highlight the importance of
continuous professional development, administrative support, and classroom resource management to address
the challenges of DI (Tomlinson, 2022; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2021). Furthermore, the data suggest that
strategic interventions aimed at reducing class sizes, improving teacher training, and enhancing technological
access could help mitigate these challenges, enabling more effective differentiation in the classroom.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 36
CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the readiness of Master of Arts in Education students specializing in Special Education
(MAEd SPED) at Cebu Technological University–Main Campus for the execution of Differentiated
Instruction (DI) in inclusive classrooms. The findings indicated that the participants were predominantly
prepared in all seven domains of Differentiated Instruction: student learning characteristics, clarity of learner
objectives, pre-assessment processes, instructional strategies, individualized supports, flexible grouping, and
learning environment. The clarity of learning objectives and the creation of supportive learning environments
were acknowledged as strengths, while personalized supports and flexible grouping were identified as areas
requiring further enhancement.
The results indicate that graduate students possess the requisite knowledge and attitudes for inclusive teaching;
yet, institutional constraints, such as limited resources, time, and training opportunities, continue to pose
challenges. These findings highlight the imperative for ongoing institutional support, targeted professional
development, and curricular improvements that integrate both theoretical and practical dimensions of
differentiated education.
Future research and practice should focus on examining the influence of demographic factors—such as
teaching experience, academic background, and prior exposure to inclusive environments—on readiness for
differentiated instruction (DI). It is recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of mentorship, collaborative
learning initiatives, and resource availability in improving instructors' proficiency and assurance in executing
differentiated instruction. Moreover, the integration of technological tools and flexible instructional resources
must be examined as potential enablers of differentiation, particularly in resource-constrained classrooms. By
concentrating on these domains, teacher education programs and policymakers may assist educators in creating
inclusive and equitable classrooms for all kids, irrespective of their needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study's findings and conclusions suggest multiple strategies to enhance future research and increase the
efficacy of Differentiated Instruction (DI) in inclusive classrooms. Future study should examine how
demographic factors, including age, teaching experience, educational qualifications, and prior exposure to
inclusive education, influence educators' preparedness for differentiated instruction. Comprehending these
relationships can yield significant insights for enhancing teacher preparation programs and formulating
targeted professional development initiatives. It is essential to examine how institutional support, resource
accessibility, and mentorship affect instructors' capacity and motivation to implement differentiated instruction
methodologies. Enhancing these support mechanisms will guarantee that educators possess the necessary
abilities, resources, and assistance to perform their duties proficiently.
Moreover, educators should be incentivized to collaborate and mentor one another to share best practices and
address shared challenges in inclusive education. It is advisable to investigate the utilization of technology and
adaptable instructional resources in the classroom. These can enhance course adaptability, maintain student
engagement, and promote differentiation in resource-constrained environments. Ultimately, longitudinal
research must be undertaken to evaluate the extent to which instructors' perceived preparedness translates into
enduring classroom practices. These findings emphasize the significance of diverse instruction in achieving
equitable educational outcomes.
The study's suggestions emphasize the significance of ongoing professional development, institutional
backing, and innovation in inclusive education. By narrowing the disparity between preparation and actual
achievement in the classroom, educators can guarantee that all children, irrespective of ability, background, or
learning style, have equitable and significant learning opportunities.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 37
REFERENCES
1. Adipat, S., & Chotikapanich, R. (2022). Sustainable development goal 4: an education goal to achieve
equitable quality education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(6,174-183). https://
doi.org/10.36941/ajis- 2022-0159
2. Alam, M. A. (2023). From teacher-centered to student-centered learning: The role of constructivism
and connectivism in pedagogical transformation. Journal of Education, 11(2), 154-167. https://
cjoe.naspublishers.com/
3. Baguisa, L. R., & Ang-Manaig, K. (2019). Knowledge, skills and attitudes of teachers on inclusive
education and academic performance of children with special needs. International Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(3), 1409- 1425. https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2019.43.14091425
4. Belus, M. F. (2025). Real-World Resonance: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Online
Humanities Students Through the Lens of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (Doctoral dissertation,
Northeastern University).
5. Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size- fits-all” to
differentiated instruction affect teaching?. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 336-362.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821130
6. Brussino, O. (2021). Building capacity for inclusive teaching: Policies and practices to prepare all
teachers for diversity and inclusion. OECD Education Working Papers, (256),0_1-125. https://doi
.org/10.1787/57fe6a38-en
7. Bulusan, F., CABACANG, K. M. A., Duero, M. G. C., Malate, R. A. L., Mangao, J. F., & Parcon, D.
P. (2025). Emerging Strategies in Imbibing Learner- Centered Education in the 21st Century Language
Classrooms: A Decade Scoping Review in Southeast Asia. International Journal of Linguistics,
Literature and Translation, 8(6), 46-57.
8. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2025.8.6.5
9. Carter, S., & Andersen, C. (2023). Connecting and Activating Prior Knowledge. Wellbeing in
Educational Contexts-Second edition. https://usq.pressbooks.pub/wellbeing/chapter/chapter-1/
10. Christie, A. M. (2019). What Professional Development Practices Do Mid-Career Teachers Need?.
DePaul University.
11. Cimene, F. T. A., Du, E. C., Alonsabe, O. C., Kurangking, J. A., Santander, M. E. D., Alvarez, J. B. G.
C., ... & Uba, M. L. (2023). NAVIGATING THE EDUCATIONAL LANDSCAPE: PHILOSOPHY,
TRENDS, AND ISSUES IN THEPHILIPPINES.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379655243
12. Cruz, J. A. (2024). Implementation of mainstream education in the public schools in Region V: Basis
for policy formulation. International Journal of Education, Business and Economics Research
(IJEBER), 4(3), 292-365. https://doi.org/10.59822/IJEBER.2024.4321
13. Davis, I. C. (2023). Extent of readiness and challenges of teachers of the fast learners in the
implementation of Education 4.0. AIDE Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 6(1), Article 96. https://
doi.org/10.56648/aide-irj.v6i1.96
14. Day, J., Nagro, S. A., & Mason-Williams, L. (2024). The nationwide trends and preparation
requirements of alternative route programs in special education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 47(2), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064231172525
15. Dioso, M. M., Iglesia, A. B., Ramiro, F. M., & Iglesia, N. S. (2022). Readiness for inclusive special
education: A survey among in-service teachers in Zamboanga City, Philippines. AIDE Interdisciplinary
Research Journal,13(3). https://journal.aide-inc.net/index.php/aide-irj/article/view/94
16. Dubey, S. (2024). Impact of self-awareness training on students’ emotional and social wellbeing.
Journal of Integrated Health, 3(2), 206-213. https://doi.org/0.51219/JIH/shivam-dubey/36
17. Dumbuya, M. A. (2024). Enhancing teacher preparedness for inclusive education in low-income
countries. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5022225
18. Ekal, C. S., & Mungai, J. G. (2024). Principals’ communication and decision- making practices’
influence on students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Turkana County, Kenya.
International Academic Journal of Social Sciences and Education (IAJSSE), 2(3), 482-514.
https://iajournals.org/articles/iajsse_v2_i3_482_514.pdf
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 38
19. Encyclohub. (2024, February 23). Sampling Techniques: Complete Enumeration versus Sampling–
Encyclohub.Encyclohubhttps://encyclohub.com/sampling-techniques-complete-enumeration-versus-
sampling/
20. Gamage, C. M. (2025). Impact of Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment in an Introductory Real
Analysis Course. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22479. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.22479
21. Gheyssens, E., Coubergs, C., Griful-Freixenet, J., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2022). Differentiated
instruction: the diversity of teachers’ philosophy and praxis to adapt teaching to students’ interests,
readiness and learning profiles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(14), 1383-1400.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1812739
22. Gonzaga, N. G., Plan, L. D., & Aguipo, M. M. (2024). Readiness and challenges of general education
teachers on the implementation of inclusive education. Russian Law Journal, 12(1), 8-26. https:// doi
.org/ 10.52783/rlj.v12i1.3534
23. Goyibova, N., Muslimov, N., Sabirova, G., Kadirova, N., & Samatova, B. (2025). Differentiation
approach in education: Tailoring instruction for diverse learner needs. MethodsX, 103163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2025.103163
24. Grecu, Y. V. (2022). Overcoming Obstacles to Differentiate Instruction When Implementing Prepared
Curricular Resources in a Diverse Classroom. Anatolian Journal of Education, 7(1), 167-180. https://
doi.org/10.29333/aje.2022.7113a
25. Griful-Freixenet, J., Vantieghem, W., Gheyssens, E., & Struyven, K. (2020). Connecting beliefs,
noticing and differentiated teaching practices: A study among pre-service teachers and teachers.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/ 13603116.2020 .18 62404
26. Hall, M. O. (2019). Teacher clarity strategies of highly effective teachers (Doctoral dissertation,
Walden University).
27. Hoemann, K., Nielson, C., Yuen, A., Gurera, J. W., Quigley, K. S., & Barrett, L. F. (2021). Expertise
in emotion: A scoping review and unifying framework for individual differences in the mental
representation of emotional experience. Psychological bulletin, 147(11), 1159. https://doi.org/10.10
37/bul0000327
28. Ibaraki, A. (2024). Promoting student well-being through classroom interventions. Teaching of
Psychology, 51(1), 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00986283211063582
29. Idowu, E. (2024). Personalized Learning: Tailoring Instruction to Individual Student Needs.
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202411.0863.v1
30. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., Collins, G., & Harrison, B. (2021). The demographic
transformation of the teaching force in the United States. Education Sciences, 11(5), 234. https://
doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci11050234
31. Ismatilloyevna, S. G. (2025, May). Pedagogical strategies for inclusive education. In CONFERENCE
OF MODERN SCIENCE & PEDAGOGY (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 373-377). https:// tijst.org /index.php/
USA/article/view/150
32. Ji, A. (2024). The Study on the Dilemma of Teachers in Inclusive Education in China. Transactions on
Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 5, 340-346.
33. Kadrnožková, M., & Hájková, V. (2024). GENDER SEGREGATION IN CHOOSING THE
PROFESSIONAL PATH OF A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER. In EDULEARN24 Proceedings
(pp. 2142-2150). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2024.0614
34. Khaleel, N., Alhosani, M., & Duyar, I. (2021, April). The role of school principals in promoting
inclusive schools: A teachers’ perspective. In frontiers in education (Vol. 6, p. 603241). Frontiers
Media SA.
35. Khalid, M., Hashmi, A., Javed, Z., & Javed, I. (2021). Effect of teachers’ advance knowledge and
pedagogy skills on students’ academic performance. Elementary Education Online, 20(4), 2009-2014.
https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.04.218
36. Khlaif, Z. N., Salha, S., Affouneh, S., Rashed, H., & ElKimishy, L. A. (2021). The Covid-19 epidemic:
teachers’ responses to school closure in developing countries. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
30(1), 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1851752
37. Kilag, O. K., Torres, J. L., Mira, J. P., Ramas, G. P., & Peranco, R. E. (2025) The State of Special
Education in the Philippines: Challenges and Opportunities for Inclusive Practices. https:// doi.org/ 10.
5281/ZENODO.14841767
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 39
38. Kimhi, O., & Bar Nir, A. (2025). Teacher training in the transition to inclusive education: A case
study in Israel. Frontiers in Education. https:// www.frontiersin.org/ journals/ education/articles/ 10
.3389/feduc.202 5.1510314/full
39. Lovett, B. J. (2021, December). Educational accommodations for students with disabilities: Two
equity-related concerns. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 795266). Frontiers Media SA. https://
doi.org/ 10.3389/feduc.2021.795266
40. Mabanag, D., Castro, L., & Fernandez, J. (2024). Teacher readiness and challenges in inclusive
classrooms. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387078101_Teacher_Readines
s_and_Challenges_in_Inclusive_Classrooms
41. Magnússon, G. (2019). An amalgam of ideals–images of inclusion in the Salamanca Statement.
International journal of inclusive education, 23(7- 8), 677-690. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13603116
.2019.1622805
42. Magtibay, S. M. (2022). Relevance of the Provisions of RA 4670 in the Present Situation of Teachers
in Mulanay District I, Division of Quezon.
43. Maguate, G. S., Ohoylan, J. G. D., Sotto, N. A. B., Moises, R. D., & Alegre, A. B. (2024). Exploring
in-service training programs for teacher development in the Philippines. International Research Journal
of Science, Technology, Education, & Management (IRJSTEM), 4(3). https://doi.org/ 10.5281/ zen
odo.00000000
44. Manasia, L., Ianos, M. G., & Chicioreanu, T. D. (2019). Pre-service teacher preparedness for fostering
education for sustainable development: An empirical analysis of central dimensions of teaching
readiness. Sustainability, 12(1), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010166
45. Marquez, J., & Oropa, J. (2025). Effective Classroom Management for the Modern Learning
Environment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3(6), 60-70. https://doi.org/ 10.69569/ jip.
2025.205
46. Matiyenga, T. C., & Ajani, O. A. (2024). Integrating Differentiated Instruction Into Pre-Service
Teacher Curriculum: In Pursuit Of Equity And Inclusion In English Language Education. Social
Sciences and Education Research Review, 11(1), 285-294.
47. McChesney, K., & Cross, J. (2023). How school culture affects teachers’ classroom implementation of
learning from professional development. Learning Environments Research, 26(3), 785-801.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09454-0
48. Mitchell, B. (2024). PREASSESSMENT DATA AND DIFFERENTIATION IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
MATH CLASSROOMS .https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/3743
49. Mitchell, W. (2024). Exploration of Factors Influencing the Teacher Self-Efficacy in Educators of
Justice-Involved Juveniles in Special Settings: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study. https
://hdl.handle.net/11244/340403
50. Mogale, M. L. (2025). Differentiated Instruction as a Strategy to Support Progressed Learners Within
Inclusive Classrooms. In Global Practices in Inclusive Education Curriculum and Policy (pp. 343-364).
IGI Global.
51. Mohammed, S. H., & Kinyo, L. (2020). The role of constructivism in the enhancement of social studies
education. Journal of critical reviews, 7(7), 249-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.05.01
52. Moosa, V., & Shareefa, M. (2019). The Impact of Teachers' Experience and Qualification on Efficacy,
Knowledge and Implementation of Differentiated Instruction. International Journal of Instruction,
12(2), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12237a
53. Mujahidah, N., & Yusdiana, Y. (2023). Application of Albert Bandura’ s social- cognitive theories
in teaching and learning. Edukasi Islami: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 12(02).
54. Nazilah, A. S. (2024). Diagnostic assessment in differentiated learning: supporting learners' needs for
improved learning achievement. Research Journal on Teacher Professional Development, 2(1), 87-92.
55. Ornelles, C., Ray, A. B., & Wells, J. C. (2019). Designing online courses in teacher education to
enhance adult learner engagement. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Educati
on, 31(3), 547-557. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
56. Parker, M. A., Walser, T. M., & Dighe, S. (2024). Academic program development: a collaborative and
context-sensitive approach. Discover Education, 3(1), 272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00377-
3
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 40
57. Passmore, K. E. (2025). The Fidelity of IEP Implementation in the Secondary Choral Classroom.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/6939
58. Poluektova, O., Kappas, A., & Smith, C. A. (2023). Using Bandura's self-efficacy theory to explain
individual differences in the appraisal of problem-focused coping potential. Emotion Review,
15(4), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739231164367
59. Porta, T. (2025). Strengthening Teacher Self-Efficacy for Differentiated Instruction: A Framework for
Inclusive Pedagogy. Springer Nature.
60. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., Bost, N., & Reichertz, J. (2022, August). Confident, positive, but interested?
Exploring the role of teachers’ interest in their practice of differentiated instruction. In Frontiers in
Education (Vol. 7, p. 964341). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.964341
61. Price, D., Green, D., Memon, N., & Chown, D. (2020). Richness of complexity within diversity:
Educational engagement and achievement of diverse learners through culturally responsive pedagogies.
TheSocial Educator, 38(1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.359349816121963
62. Qorib, M. (2024). Analysis of differentiated instruction as a learning solution in student diversity in
inclusive and moderate education. International Journal Reglement & Society (IJRS), 5(1), 43-55.
63. Ramos, I. M. M., Ramos, D. B., Gadelha, B. F., & de Oliveira, E. H. T. (2021). An approach to group
formation in collaborative learning using learning paths in learning management systems. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14(5), 555-567. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3117916.
64. Rao, K. (2021). Inclusive instructional design: Applying UDL to online learning. The Journal of
Applied Instructional Design, 10(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.59668/223.3753
65. Reis, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Burns, D. E. (2021). Curriculum compacting: A guide to differentiating
curriculum and instruction through enrichment and acceleration. Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781003234036
66. Reyes, C. L. A. (2023). A systematic review on the state of special education in the Philippines:
identifying challenges, gaps, and future directions. Journal of Educational Policy, 27(1), 58-72.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10145772
67. Rochester, N. N. (2021). Differentiated instruction and flexible grouping in elementary grades. Walden
University.
68. Ruijuan, L., Srikhoa, S., & Jantharajit, N. (2023). Blending of Collaborative and Active Learning
Instructional Methods to Improve Academic Performance and Self-Motivation of Vocational Students.
Asian journal of education and training, 9(4), 130-135. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1412957
69. Sabanal, M. J., Delos Reyes, N. R., Cabigon, A. F., & Tenerife-Cañete, J. J. L. (2025). Inclusive
education in Philippine secondary schools: Teachers' readiness and competencies study. Research in
Social Sciences, 8(3), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.53935/26415305.v8i3.369
70. Sanguinetti, H. (2024). Exploring the Implications: The Impact of Universal Design for Learning on
Student Engagement and Motivation in Diverse Classroom Environments. https://digital
commons.georgefox.edu/edd/235
71. Saro, J. M., Apat, J. Q., & Pareja, M. S. (2023). A descriptive-correlational study of the teachers’
motivation, competences, and perceptions in writing action research. J Adv Educ Philos, 7(1), 14-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.36348/jaep. 2023.v07i01.003
72. Scholl, M. (2021). Teachers knowledge of special education law and preparedness to carry out non-
instructional tasks associated with special education law. St. John's University (NewYork). https ://
www.proquest.com/ open view/64821 da6ed2128f9679 e369627 b06 45a/1?pq-orig site= gscholar
&cbl=18750&diss=y
73. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Self-efficacy and human motivation. In Advances in
motivation science (Vol. 8, pp. 153-179). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001
74. Sera-Sirven, J. (2021). Veteran teachers resistance to integrating new technology: A case study.
Northcentral University.
75. Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: a prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific
EducationReview, 20(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09598-w
76. Shank, M. K., & Santiague, L. (2022). Classroom management needs of novice teachers. The Clearing
house: a Journal of eduCaTional sTraTegies, issues and ideas, 95(1), 26-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2023.2195361
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 41
77. Shireesha, M., & Jeevan, J. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Personalized Learning: A
Pathway to Inclusive Education. Library of Progress-Library Science, Information Technology &
Computer, 44(3).
78. Siam, K., & Al-Natour, M. (2016). Teacher’s differentiated instruction practices and implementation
challenges for learning disabilities in Jordan. International Education Studies, 9(12), 167–
181. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p167
79. Sims, D. A. (2020). Factors influencing lecturer assessment practice in diverse southern contexts.
http://hdl.handle.net/11427/33041
80. Singh, R. B. (2024). “Challenges and Coping Strategies of Teaching English in an Under-Resourced
Context: A Narrative Inquiry”. APPROVED B (Doctoral dissertation, Kathmandu University School
of Education). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14301/351
81. Slade, M. L., Burnham, T. J., Catalana, S. M., & Waters, T. (2019). The Impact of Reflective Practice
on Teacher Candidates' Learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
13(2), 15.
82. Smets, W., & Struyven, K. (2020). A teachers’ professional development programme to implement
differentiated instruction in secondary education: How far do teachers reach?. Cogent Education, 7(1),
1742273. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1742273
83. Stăncescu, I., Drăghicescu, L. M., Petrescu, A. M. A., & Gorghiu, G. (2019). Reflective practice in the
context of teachers’ continuous professional development. Pro Edu. International Journal of
Educational Sciences, 1(1), 5-14.
84. Subban, P., Bradford, B., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Avramidis, E., Kullmann, H., ... & Woodcock, S.
(2023). Does it really take a village to raise a child? Reflections on the need for collective responsib
ility in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(2), 291-302.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2022.2059632
85. Summers, T., & Beers, M. (2019). Ready for Equity? A Cross-Cultural Organizational Framework to
Scale Access to Learning-Ready Classrooms That Support Student Success. Journal of Teaching and
Learning with Technology, 8, 76-86. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1307238
86. Swann, N., Boddie, T., Owusu-Sekyere, F., & Moir, H. J. (2020). Pre-assessment support: is it ‘one
size fits all’? Assessment and Feedback in a Post- Pandemic Era: A Time for Learning and Inclusion,
105. http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/6918/
87. Talain, A., & Mercado, F. (2023). Teachers' perspectives on the use of differentiated instruction for
English language teaching. The Normal Lights, 17(2), 113-140. https://po.pnuresearchportal.org/
ejournal/index.php/normallights/article/vi ew/2152
88. Termes, A., Edwards Jr, D. B., & Verger, A. (2020). The development and dynamics of public–private
partnerships in the Philippines’ education: a counterintuitive case of school choice, competition, and
privatization. Educational Policy, 34(1), 91-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819886323
89. Tomlinson, C. A. (2022). Everybody's classroom: differentiating for the shared and unique needs of
diverse students. Teachers College Press.
90. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2023). Leading and managing a differentiated classroom. Ascd.
91. Tomlinson, C. A., & Jarvis, J. M. (2023). Differentiation: Making curriculum work for all students
through responsive planning & instruction. In Systems and models for developing programs for the
gifted and talented (pp. 599-628). Routledge.
92. Toropova, A., Johansson, S., & Myrberg, E. (2019). The role of teacher characteristics for student
achievement in mathematics and student perceptions of instructional quality. Education Inquiry, 10(4),
275-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1591844
93. Vergara, M., Pinili, L., Reyes, N. R. D., Sitoy, R., Espina, R., & Saladaga, L. (2025). Teachers’
preparedness for inclusive education: Analyzing knowledge, confidence, and classroom
management. International Journal of Educational Studies, 8(2), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.53935/
2641533x.v8i2.323
94. Voon, X. P., Wong, L. H., Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2019). Principled practical knowledge in bridging
practical and reflective experiential learning: Case studies of teachers’ professional development. Asia
pacific education review, 20, 641-656.
95. Waldron, J. J. (2021). Institutional strategies to enhance graduate student success through mentoring.
Kinesiology Review, 10(4), 410-415. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0049
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN APPLIED SCIENCE (IJRIAS)
ISSN No. 2454-6194 | DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS |Volume X Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 42
96. Walker, S., & Graham, L. (2021). At risk students and teacher-student relationships: student
characteristics, attitudes to school and classroom climate. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
25(8), 896-913. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1588925
97. Werner, K. M., & Milyavskaya, M. (2019). Motivation and self‐regulation: The role of want‐to
motivation in the processes underlying self‐regulation and self‐ control. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 13(1), e12425.
98. Wibowo, S., Wangid, M. N., & Firdaus, F. M. (2025). The Relevance of Vygotsky's Constructivism
Learning Theory with the Differentiated Learning Primary Schools. Journal of education and learning
(EduLearn), 19(1), 431-440. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i1.21197
99. Williams, N. J., Frank, H. E., Frederick, L., Beidas, R. S., Mandell, D. S., Aarons, G. A., ... & Locke, J.
(2019). Organizational culture and climate profiles: relationships with fidelity to three evidence-based
practices for autism in elementary schools. Implementation Science, 14(1),15. https:// doi.org/ 10.
1186/s13012-019-0863-9
100. Wong, B. S., Chue, K. L., Ali, R. B., & Lee, P. (2023). Differentiated instruction: a comparison of
motivation and perceived competence between students with high and low readiness levels.
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 22(1), 139-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-
09323-2
101. Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self- efficacy and inclusive
education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and teacher
education, 117, 103802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802
102. Yu, I. E. (2021). Institutional identity of pedagogical education: problems and development trends.
Перспективы науки и образования, (2 (50)), 70-87.
103. Zamiri, M., & Esmaeili, A. (2024). Methods and technologies for supporting knowledge sharing within
learning communities: A systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 17.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010017
104. Zorba, M. G. (2020). Personal and professional readiness of in-service teachers of English for
culturally responsive teaching. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(88), 41-66