INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
ASystematic Literature Review on Differentiated Instruction Practices in  
English Classrooms (2020–2025)  
*Norhayati Husin, Wan Najmiyyah Wan Md. Adnan  
Academy of Language Studies, University Technology MARA, Cawangan Terengganu, Kampus  
Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000710  
Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 21 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
In the multifaceted reality of today's English language teaching (ELT) classrooms, a single curriculum is  
insufficient to meet the needs of all learners, making a flexible and responsive approach essential. Teachers  
face the challenge of addressing variations in students’ proficiency levels, learning preferences, and  
motivational backgrounds. Differentiated Instruction (DI) has emerged as a key pedagogical framework to  
support inclusion and learner engagement. However, research on DI in ELT remains fragmented, with limited  
synthesis of its implementation patterns, pedagogical outcomes, and contextual challenges. Accordingly, this  
review aims to consolidate recent research to identify trends, thematic patterns, and pedagogical implications  
of DI in ELT. Sixteen peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 and indexed in Scopus and Web  
of Science were analyzed using a thematic synthesis approach guided by the PRISMA framework, and  
relevance-based selection ensured analytical consistency. Findings confirm DI’s potential to enhance learner  
engagement, motivation, and autonomy. From the analysis, five major thematic clusters were identified,  
encompassing teachers’ beliefs, pedagogical implementation, effectiveness, professional readiness, and  
research trends. Despite its benefits, DI implementation remains inconsistent due to limited teacher  
preparation, time constraints, and contextual barriers. The review concludes that sustained institutional  
support, targeted professional development, and context-sensitive frameworks are essential to translating DI  
from theory into consistent classroom practice.  
Keywords-Differentiated Instruction (DI); English Language Teaching (ELT); Inclusive Education; Systematic  
Literature Review; Pedagogical Implementation; Learner Engagement  
INTRODUCTION  
The landscape of the English language classroom is increasingly characterized by diversity, marked by  
significant variations in learner proficiency, cognitive styles, and motivational drives. While diversity enriches  
learning environments, these differences pose a dilemma for teachers on how to design instruction that is  
equally accessible, effective, and capable of ensuring learning outcomes are met. Conventional one-size-fits-  
all teaching approaches often fail to accommodate such variations, leading to inequitable learning  
opportunities and disengagement among students (Tomlinson, 2017; Hall, 2021). These challenges are  
pronounced in ELT, given that language acquisition is fundamentally dependent on tailored interaction,  
scaffolding, and comprehensible input.  
Differentiated Instruction (DI) is an approach that recognises the diversity of learners and empowers teachers  
to modify content, methods, and assessments to address individual learning needs. Teachers need to have  
flexible approaches in their instruction to create meaningful learning experiences for all students, regardless of  
their starting point. This involves adapting the curriculum and instruction to meet the learners’ diverse needs,  
rather than expecting them to adjust themselves for the curriculum (Hall, 2002). In doing so, the teacher takes  
on the role of a responsive facilitator, continuously assessing and modifying instructions to optimise learning.  
Page 8719  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Such pedagogical orientation allows teachers to boost students’ progress and achievement by aligning  
instructions according to individual needs and providing targeted support throughout the learning process.  
In the context of ELT, DI is particularly relevant because language classrooms are typically composed of  
learners from heterogeneous backgrounds. The variety of background differences are characterized by a  
diversity in linguistic, proficiency levels, and cultural experiences. Customizing teaching methods to these  
differences will lead to successful second language acquisition by supporting the language input, scaffolding,  
and interaction. This method leads to greater learner autonomy, engagement, and motivation (Valiandes, 2020;  
Pham, 2023). Consequently, it will cultivate inclusive practices, ensuring that diverse student needs and  
learning styles are actively valued and met.  
Despite the increasing volume of research on differentiated instruction over recent years, the literature remains  
fragmented, with limited high-quality empirical studies and inconsistent operationalisation of DI practices  
(Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). This gap is particularly pressing, since effective language acquisition requires  
teaching that continuously adapts to learners’ varying proficiencies and needs. As a result, there is an  
increasing demand for a comprehensive conceptual framework that contextualizes DI within language learning  
classrooms.  
This review addresses the gap by systematically examining peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and  
2025. It aims to consolidate recent research to identify trends, thematic patterns, and pedagogical implications  
of DI in ELT. The findings can serve as foundation efforts in making English language classrooms more  
equitable, effective, and responsive to learners’ diverse needs. This review also establishes a foundation for  
future research by focusing efforts on differentiated instruction that is both sustainable and responsive to  
specific contexts.  
Hence, the main objectives of the review are:  
1. to identify relevant literature on studies that examine trends, thematic patterns, and pedagogical  
implications of DI in ELT; and  
2. to synthesis findings from the reviewed literature by highlighting their strengths and limitations.  
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY  
The systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews  
and Meta-Analyses) framework, which comprises four phases, including identification, screening, eligibility  
evaluation, and final inclusion Moher et. al., (2009). This guideline ensures a transparent, rigorous, and  
reproducible methodology. The process comprised five key phases: identification, screening, eligibility  
evaluation, data extraction, and synthesis of findings. Each stage was critical for selecting relevant studies that  
met the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, thereby guaranteeing the review's reliability and  
comprehensiveness. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of the proposed searching study for this  
systematic literature review.  
Figure 1: PRISMA Flow diagram of the proposed searching study  
Page 8720  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Identification  
The first phase of the PRISMA systematic review involves the identification of keywords and the searching for  
related terms using resources such as thesaurus, encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and prior research. Once the  
appropriate keywords were determined, search queries were generated on the Scopus and WoS databases (see  
Table 1). During the initial phase of the systematic review procedure, a total number 171 articles were initially  
identified from two major databases, namely Scopus (71) and Web of Science (100).  
Table 1: The Search Strings  
Scopus  
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "differentiated instruction" AND English LANGUAGE teaching ) AND  
PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2026 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( OA , "all" ) ) AND (  
LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , "ar" ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , "English" ) )  
WOS  
https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/3df658a3-fcda-4939-a921-  
a53a7fb84b94-017e0198b6/b32aa15d-b1f1-4a4f-ae72-d72bca007f05-  
017e0194cf/relevance/1  
"Differentiated Instruction" in English classroom * (Topic) and 2025 or 2023 or 2022 or  
2020 (Publication Years) and Article (Document Types) and English (Languages)*  
Screening  
The second phase of PRISMA is the screening process (the initial exclusion criteria). The objective of  
this phase is to evaluate the identified studies against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure that  
the review is comprehensive, relevant, and high-quality. The selection criteria (See Table 2) were applied to  
determine the relevance of each study.  
Table 2: The Selection Criteria  
Criterion  
Inclusion  
English  
Exclusion  
Non-English  
< 2019  
Language  
2020 – 2025  
Journal (Article)  
Final  
Timeline  
Conference, Book, Review  
In Press  
Literature type  
Publication Stage  
Subject Area  
Social Sciences and Arts and  
Humanities  
Other than Social Sciences and Arts and  
Humanities  
As mentioned in Table 2, the review only considered English articles to ensure uniformity and accessibility.  
Articles published between 2020 and 2025 were included to ensure that the review covered recent studies.  
Only journal articles were selected since they typically undergo rigorous peer review, ensuring higher quality.  
To ensure completeness, the articles must also be in their final publication stage, excluding those that were in  
press. Finally, the review concentrated on educational studies that explored differentiated instruction within  
language learning environments to maintain pedagogical relevance. As a result of this step, a total number of  
107 articles were excluded (40 from Scopus and 24 articles for Web of Science were, leaving 107 articles for  
further review (31 from Scopus and 76 from WoS).  
No formal quality appraisal tool was used in this review. Instead, the selection of studies was guided by  
relevance-based criteria as mentioned above, which aligns with the study objectives. This decision was made  
because the main objective of this review was to map the scope of available literature than to focus on the  
methodological evaluations. Employing relevance-focused screening would ensure efficiency and consistency  
Page 8721  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
in the selection process. The emphasis on relevance safeguarded the systematic review against the inclusion of  
studies that were crucial to the main research questions.  
Eligibility  
The third part of the PRISMA process is eligibility evaluation, which illustrates how articles were screened for  
final inclusion. For this step, a total 107 were reviewed and 90 articles were excluded because their abstracts  
did not relate to the study’s objectives were deemed insignificant. From this number, 10 articles were from  
Scopus and 7 were from WoS. Apart from that, 1 redundant article was also eliminated from the dataset.  
Final Inclusion  
Following these rigorous screening, 16 articles were identified for the final inclusion. The study first extracts  
the data in which essential information was gathered from each selected article. This includes the authors, the  
title of the article, the year of publication, and the journal in which it was published. Any comparisons made  
between different approaches or notable findings from each study were documented. This information was  
crucial in synthesising evidence and determining the trends, thematic patterns, and pedagogical implications of  
DI in ELT. Lastly, the synthesis of findings was conducted, and it involved analysing the data extracted from  
the previously selected articles.  
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION  
The synthesis of findings involved analysing the data extracted from the previously selected articles.  
This synthesis sought to provide clear insights and best practices for educators and researchers, emphasising on  
the trends, thematic patterns, pedagogical implications, and gaps for future research in the field of DI in ELT.  
Based on16 major studies published between 2020 and 2025, differentiated instruction has proven to provide  
wide-ranging impacts in English language teaching. These studies show that while teachers generally see DI as  
a helpful way to address student diversity, putting it into practice is often challenging due to high workloads,  
insufficient institutional support, and limited training (Al-Breiki et al., 2025; Mansoor et al., 2025). Research  
by Magableh & Abdullah (2020) and Sapan & Mede (2022) consistently point to improvements in learner  
motivation, engagement, and achievement when DI is used. However, results vary widely between settings,  
highlighting ongoing inconsistencies and a fragmented evidence base for DI in ELT (Smale-Jacobse et al.,  
2019)  
Furthermore, the findings highlight the critical influence of teacher readiness and professional development on  
the successful enactment of DI. Studies from Asia and Africa (Hidayat et al., 2024; Osae & Papadopoulos,  
2024) emphasize that contextualized support, curriculum flexibility, and collaborative learning communities  
are prerequisites for effective differentiation. However, most DI research still focuses on small-scale,  
descriptive studies, indicating a need for more robust, longitudinal, and intervention-based investigations.  
Overall, the evidence indicates that while DI holds strong potential for inclusive language teaching, its  
consistent and scalable practice depends on systemic support, empirical depth, and continuous professional  
capacity-building.  
From an organizational perspective, the viability of differentiated instruction depends more on the institutional  
and systemic conditions than by individual teacher effort (Sofiana et al., 2024; Osae & Papadopoulos,  
2024). Factors like sufficient time allocation, curriculum flexibility, administrative support, and sustained  
professional mentoring would enable teachers to translate DI frameworks to authentic classroom practices  
(Liang & Zou, 2025; Hidayat, et.al., 2024; Whitley, et. al., 2021). Nevertheless, even within these systemic  
constraints, teachers proactively develop strategies like flexible grouping, learner profiling, and formative  
assessment, to foster equitable and engaging learning (Tomlinson, 2017; Umar & Abdul Aziz, 2024). In  
summary, while systemic reforms are essential for consistency, teacher-driven innovation remains central to  
meaningful differentiation in diverse English language classrooms.  
Page 8722  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Despite its promise, there are studies point to persistent barriers in actual DI implementation, such as  
inconsistent teacher training, resource limitations, and gaps between teacher beliefs and classroom practices  
(Sapkota, 2025; Nejad, 2024). Besides, some research highlights the challenges of managing diverse  
classrooms, complex lesson planning, and the lack of support from institutions (Oktoma, 2025; Mansoor et al.,  
2025; Sofiana, et. al., 2024). Some weaknesses are evident in the methodologies, such as small or localized  
samples, reliance on self-reported data, which limits the generalizability of the research. These findings  
underscore a significant shift toward more differentiated and inclusive teaching methods in English language  
education, while also emphasizing the urgent need for focused professional development and strengthened  
educational infrastructure to effectively translate DI theory into effective English classroom practice  
(Bhandari, 2025; Oktoma, 2025).  
Table 3: Synthesis by Thematic Clusters  
Theme Cluster  
Representative Papers  
Common Ground  
Clashes / Divergent Views  
Differences in readiness:  
DI is recognized to be  
Western teachers (e.g., Nejad)  
pedagogically valuable and show stronger relational and  
Al-Breiki et al., (2025);  
Mansoor et al. (2025); Al engagement. Teachers  
Siyabi & Al Shekaili  
(2021); Zólyomi (2022);  
Nejad (2024)  
improves student  
metalinguistic awareness, while  
Asian and Middle East and  
North Africa (MENA) teachers  
highlight resource and workload  
barriers. Some studies (e.g.,  
Zólyomi) note low confidence,  
others (Nejad) report confident  
relational practices.  
1. Teachers’  
Beliefs &  
Perceptions  
across regions  
acknowledge DI requires  
advanced teaching skills,  
continuous effort, and  
reflective practice.  
Divergence in creativity  
Hidayat et al. (2024);  
Tajik et al. (2024);  
Sarzhanova et al. (2023); and collaboration are core  
Osae & Papadopoulos  
(2024); Al-Breiki et al.  
(2025); Liang & Zou  
(2025)  
expression: Hidayat et al. stress  
internal (teacher-driven)  
creativity, while Liang & Zou  
argue collaborative/structural  
factors are more decisive. Some  
contexts (Kazakhstan, Oman)  
emphasize competencies over  
creativity.  
Agreement that creativity  
2. Pedagogical  
Implementation  
& Creativity  
to successful DI, and that  
professional development  
fosters innovation.  
Effect size inconsistency;  
Magableh & Abdullah show  
advantages mainly for higher  
achievers, while Sapan & Mede  
found benefits across all  
proficiency levels. Elyas et al.  
caution that cognitive diversity  
complicates DI outcomes.  
All show positive student  
outcomes (achievement,  
motivation, autonomy)  
when DI applied  
Magableh & Abdullah  
(2020); Sapan & Mede  
(2022); Elyas et al.  
(2020)  
3. DI  
Effectiveness &  
Learning  
Outcomes  
systematically.  
Contextual contrasts: Rwanda  
and China emphasize  
institutional PD models;  
Indonesia stresses national  
curriculum alignment (Merdeka  
curriculum). Varying degrees of  
readiness and systemic support.  
Sofiana et al. (2024);  
Osae & Papadopoulos  
(2024); Liang & Zou  
(2025)  
All highlight the same  
structural needs of time,  
resources, clear guidelines,  
and mentoring.  
4. Professional  
Development &  
Readiness  
Page 8723  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Emphasizes a research  
imbalance, with Western  
Confirms global interest  
contexts dominating descriptive  
and emerging diversity of  
5. Research  
Trends / Meta-  
Perspective  
Asriadi et al. (2023)  
investigations, while applied  
and experimental studies from  
Asian and African regions  
remain comparatively scarce.  
DI topics (inclusion, online  
learning, motivation).  
Table 3 shows the synthesis across five thematic clusters which uncovers significant global patterns and  
differences on DI within ELT between 2020 and 2025. The findings shows that teachers perceive DI as a  
valuable pedagogical approach that enhances engagement and accommodates learner diversity (Al-Breiki et  
al., 2025; Mansoor et al., 2025; Nejad, 2024). However, varying levels of readiness persist. While educators in  
Western contexts tend to show higher relational and metalinguistic awareness, those working in Asian and  
MENA regions cite persistent obstacles like limited resources, heavy workloads, and institutional constraints  
(Zólyomi, 2022). These differences reaffirm earlier observations that while teacher beliefs toward DI are  
positive, systemic conditions play a decisive role (Whitley et al., 2021).  
The analysis also shows that maintaining effective DI over time depends on structural and institutional factors,  
including adequate time, mentoring, and curriculum alignment (Sofiana et al., 2024; Osae & Papadopoulos,  
2024). National approaches differ, with Rwanda and China emphasizing institutional PD systems, while  
Indonesia advances DI through national policy initiative under the Merdeka Curriculum. The bibliometric  
review by Asriadi et al. (2023) further highlights a global expansion of DI studies, though a persistent  
imbalance exists, with dominance of Western descriptive studies and a shortage of applied or experimental  
work from Asia and Africa. These findings highlight the need for continuous, locally relevant teacher learning  
and a rigorous, evidence-based approach, ensuring DI to be reliably implemented and assessed as an inclusive  
framework in English language education.  
Regional disparities in the effectiveness of differentiated instruction are influenced by the structural  
characteristics of educational systems. In Western contexts, flexible institutional policies foster teacher  
autonomy and individualized pedagogy, allowing educators to adapt instruction to meet diverse student needs  
(Yılmaz & Çolak, 2023; Keddie et al., 2023; Narayanan, et. al., 2024). Conversely, many Asian and African  
systems maintain standardized curricula that restrict pedagogical choices and limit opportunities for  
instructional differentiation (Bi, et.al., 2023; Strogilos, et. al., 2021; Ledwaba, 2024;). The viability of  
Differentiated Instruction in the multilingual, multi-proficiency ELT classroom is fundamentally shaped by  
systemic support. Without institutional provisions like adequate planning time, scaffolded materials, and  
flexible assessment, teachers' efforts to meet diverse English language learner needs are often constrained  
(Gibbs, 2023; Suprayogi, et. al., 2024; Tajik, et.al., 2024b).  
Research on DI implementation highlights creativity and collaboration as key determinants of effective  
differentiation, though their interpretations vary across contexts. Teacher-driven innovation and flexibility are  
highlighted in some studies (Hidayat et al., 2024; Tajik et al., 2024a), while others underscore institutional  
collaboration and structured support as the foundation of sustainable practice (Liang & Zou, 2025; Osae &  
Papadopoulos, 2024). Regardless of context, professional development is deemed essential for fostering  
pedagogical creative and adaptive teaching of English in the classroom. In terms of learning outcomes, DI  
consistently enhances student achievement, motivation, and autonomy when systematically applied (Magableh  
& Abdullah, 2020); Sapan & Mede, 2022). However, the magnitude of the impact of this varies. Some studies  
report stronger effects for high achievers, while others identify benefits across proficiency levels, suggesting  
DI’s success is closely linked to classroom context and learner variation (Elyas et al., 2020; Smale-Jacobse et  
al., 2019).  
Research shows that the successful implementation of differentiated instruction in English language teaching  
also depends largely on the broader institutional environment. Key factors such as sufficient time for lesson  
planning, equitable access to teaching resources, and flexible assessment systems play a critical role in  
enabling or constraining differentiated practices, rather than teachers’ individual efforts alone (Gibbs, 2023;  
Suprayogi, et.al., 2024; Tajik, et. al., 2024b). Therefore, sustainable differentiation in ELT is not merely a  
Page 8724  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
pedagogical skill to be mastered by teachers, but a systemic capacity to be built by all parties, especially the  
institutions.  
IMPLICATIONS  
Based on the results and discussions, this systematic literature review highlights key implications for  
enhancing differentiated instruction in English language teaching. These implications address practical,  
institutional, and research aspects needed to strengthen DI implementation. Figure 2 presents the main  
implications of the study.  
Figure 2: Implications of the study  
For Teachers  
For Professional Development Courses  
For Institutions and Policy makers  
• Adapt lessons to suit students’ different  
levels and learning styles.  
• Include DI principles and practice in teacher  
education programs.  
• Offer time, resources, and flexibility for  
teachers to implement DI.  
• Use flexible grouping and varied tasks to  
• Provide hands-on training on DI.  
• Build professional learning communities for  
sharing DI strategies.  
• Focus on closing the gap between DI theory  
and classroom practice.  
• Integrate DI into curriculum standards and  
boost engagement.  
school policies.  
• Reflect and adjust teaching regularly.  
• Support mentoring and peer collaboration  
among teachers.  
• Promote DI as part of inclusive education  
goals.  
The findings of this review highlight the significance of differentiated instruction (DI) as a powerful strategy to  
meet the varied needs of learners English language classrooms. Teachers should adopt flexible strategies that  
cater to learners’ diverse proficiency levels, learning preferences, and interests. By tailoring content, process,  
and assessment methods, teachers can create more inclusive learning environments that foster engagement and  
equity among learners. Such practices help create an equitable learning environment where every learner can  
have equal chance to thrive.  
For teacher education and professional development, the results highlight the need to embed DI principles  
within training programs and workshops. Trainings should focus on work of integrating DI concepts into the  
curriculum content and provide practical opportunities for implementation. Collaboration, mentoring, and  
reflective teaching can enhance teachers’ confidence and competence in applying DI. Continuous professional  
learning and mentoring can help bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and classroom  
implementation of DI.  
At the institutional and policy level, continuous support is vital to embed differentiated instruction as an  
integral part of English language teaching. This includes providing and offering adequate time, sufficient  
resources, and flexibility to enable teachers to implement DI effectively. Inclusive policies that promote and  
recognize learner diversity can further strengthen DI’s roles within language education. In addition, future  
research should be encouraged to examine how institutional support and contextual factors influence the long-  
term effectiveness of DI across diverse educational settings.  
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH  
This review provides a thorough overview of differentiated instruction practices in English language teaching  
but is subject to several limitations. Firstly, analysis was confined to peer-reviewed, English-language articles  
indexed in Scopus and Web of Science from 2020 to 2025, which excluded non-English and grey literature that  
may reflect alternative or region-specific perspectives. Secondly, while the PRISMA approach supported  
procedural transparency, the absence of a formal quality appraisal tool such as CASP or MMAT limited the  
methodological rigor of the review. Thirdly, majority of included studies were small-scale and descriptive,  
restricting the generalizability of the conclusions and offering limited evidence on the causal effects of DI on  
learner outcomes. To advance research in this area, future studies should adopt broader methodological  
approaches, enhance contextual representation, and deepen empirical analysis. Table 4 summarizes major  
avenues for future research and practice.  
Page 8725  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Table 4: Recommended Directions for Future Research on Differentiated Instruction in ELT  
Focus Area  
Research Needs  
Suggested Approach / Rationale  
Look into diverse pedagogical and  
cultural perspectives currently  
underrepresented in DI research  
Include non-English and regional studies  
beyond Scopus and WoS  
Broader Data Sources  
Employ systematic evaluation tools such  
as CASP or MMAT  
To enhance methodological rigor and  
transparency in study selection  
Quality Appraisal  
Empirical Rigor  
Utilize longitudinal, experimental, or  
quasi-experimental studies to assess  
measurable outcomes  
Move beyond perception-based or  
descriptive designs  
Investigate DI implementation across  
Comparative Contexts different educational systems and policy  
frameworks  
To reveal how institutional structures  
and national policies shape scalability  
and sustainability  
To reflect the growing influence of  
technology on adaptive instruction post-  
pandemic  
Technology  
Integration  
Examine DI within digital, blended, and  
hybrid learning settings  
To identify professional learning  
pathways that sustain long-term  
differentiation practices  
Teacher Development Explore links between teacher training,  
Models  
mentoring systems, and DI enactment  
Assess DI’s impact on motivation,  
engagement, and learner autonomy using  
mixed methods  
To strengthen evidence for DI’s  
contribution to inclusive and equitable  
learning outcomes  
Learner-Centered  
Outcomes  
CONCLUSION  
This review summarizes recent research on differentiated instruction in English language teaching between  
2020 and 2025, revealing its significance as a core element of inclusive and responsive pedagogy. With  
sufficient institutional resources, adaptable curriculum policies, and ongoing professional development,  
differentiated instruction increases student engagement, motivation, and independence. This approach supports  
learners in becoming more actively involved, self-driven, and autonomous in their educational experiences.  
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of its implementation remains uneven across contexts, largely due to disparities  
in teacher training and preparation, resources, and support from the educational system.  
The effectiveness of differentiated instruction depends more on institutional commitment than on individual  
teacher effort. Such commitment is in term of continuous professional learning, review of adaptable  
curriculum design, structured mentoring, and supportive policy frameworks. Strengthening these structural  
supports is essential if DI is to evolve from an aspirational model into a consistent feature of English language  
education.  
To strengthen the theoretical and practical foundations of this field, future research should examine ways to  
combine differentiated instruction with educational technologies and learner analytics, enabling more precise  
and data informed support for students. By combining differentiated pedagogy with innovation and reflective  
practice, English language teaching can continue to evolve toward greater inclusivity, relevance, and learner  
empowerment in the 21st century.  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Terengganu  
Kampus Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia, for its support and enabling this research project. The authors would  
Page 8726  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
also like to express gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback which has contributed to  
improving the overall quality of this paper.  
REFERENCES  
1. Al-Breiki, S. M., Al-Mekhlafi, A. M., & Smaoui, C. (2025). EFL Teachers‘Beliefs on and Practices of  
Differentiated Instruction in Oman. World Journal of English Language, 15(4), 128–143.  
https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n4p128  
2. Al Siyabi, H., & Al Shekaili, S. (2021). Exploring EFL teachers’ readiness for differentiated instruction  
in Oman. International Journal of Instruction, 14(4), 77–92.  
3. Asriadi, A., Rahim, R., & Yunus, M. (2023). Mapping global research trends on differentiated  
instruction: A bibliometric review (2018–2023). Indonesian Journal of Language Education, 7(3), 220–  
237.  
4. Bhandari, V. (2025). English language teachers' practices of differentiated instruction: A case from  
Nepal. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 12(1), 88–104.  
5. Bi, M., Struyven, K., & Zhu, C. (2023). Variables that influence teachers’ practice of differentiated  
instruction in Chinese classrooms: A study from teachers’ perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 14,  
1124259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124259  
6. Elyas, T., Mahboob, A., & Alghamdi, A. (2020). Differentiated instruction and learner diversity in  
Saudi EFL classrooms. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 340–359.  
7. Gibbs, K. (2023). Voices in practice: Challenges to implementing differentiated instruction by teachers  
and school leaders in an Australian mainstream secondary school. The Australian Educational  
Researcher, 50, 1217-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00551-2  
8. Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.  
http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html  
9. Hall, T. (2021). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective differentiated instruction (7th ed.).  
Pearson.  
10. Hidayat, M., Utami, I., & Setiawan, R. (2024). Teacher creativity in implementing differentiated  
instruction in Indonesian EFL contexts. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 55–70.  
11. Keddie, A., MacDonald, K., Blackmore, J., & Gobby, B. (2023). Teacher professional autonomy in an  
atypical government school: matters of relationality and context. Oxford Review of Education, 50(3),  
434–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2236941.  
12. Liang, J. C., & Zou, B. (2025). Institutional readiness and teacher collaboration in differentiated  
instruction for Chinese EFL contexts. TESOL International Journal, 20(1), 18–33.  
13. Magableh, I., & Abdullah, M. (2020). The impact of differentiated instruction on students’ motivation  
and achievement in UAE English classrooms. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 14(2),  
221–239.  
14. Mansoor, A., Rehman, S., & Ali, N. (2025). Pakistani EFL teachers’ perceptions of differentiated  
instruction and inclusive teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 27(1), 112–130.  
15. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic  
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097  
16. Narayanan, M., Shields, A. L., & Delhagen, T. J. (2024). Autonomy in the spaces: teacher autonomy,  
scripted lessons, and the changing role of teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 56(1), 17–34.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2297229  
17. Nejad, A. (2024). Understanding teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction in U.S. ESL  
programs. Journal of Language and Education, 10(1), 35–49.  
18. Oktoma, R. (2025). Differentiated Learning in Teaching English Subject of The Elementary School in  
Indonesia. International Journal of Research in Education, 5(1), 13-26.  
19. Osae, D., & Papadopoulos, I. (2024). Institutional support and teacher preparedness for differentiated  
instruction in Rwandan ESL classrooms. African Journal of Educational Studies, 14(2), 78–95.  
20. Pham, H. (2023). Differentiating instruction in the language classroom: A conceptual framework and a  
qualitative case study. TESOL Journal, 14(2), e712. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.712  
Page 8727  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
21. Sapan, H., & Mede, E. (2022). The effects of differentiated instruction on EFL learners’ academic  
achievement and motivation in Turkey. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(3), 450–  
466002E  
22. Sapkota, H. P. (2025). Differentiated instruction in EFL classrooms: A systematic review. Journal of  
Natural Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 201–208.  
23. Sarzhanova, A., Zhubanova, S., & Nurmakhanova, G. (2023). Differentiated instruction in Kazakhstani  
EFL classrooms: Teachers’ strategies and challenges. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2),  
180–197.  
24. Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction  
in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,  
2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366  
25. Sofiana, N., Widodo, H., & Susanto, D. (2024). Teacher professional development and curriculum  
alignment for differentiated instruction under the Merdeka curriculum in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal  
of Educational Studies, 28(1), 90–108.  
26. Strogilos, V., Lim, L., & Buhari, N. B. M. (2021). Differentiated instruction for students with SEN in  
mainstream classrooms: Contextual features and types of curriculum modifications. Asia Pacific  
Journal of Education, 42(4), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1984873  
27. Suprayogi, S., de Lange, J., & Mavondo, F. (2024). “Differentiation is sometimes a hit and miss”:  
Educator perceptions of differentiated instruction in the higher education sector. The Asia-Pacific  
Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00904-8  
28. Tajik, O., Noor, S., & Golzar, J. (2024b). Investigating differentiated instruction and the contributing  
factors to cater EFL students’ needs at the collegial level. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign  
Language Education, 9, Article 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00299-5  
29. Tajik, M., Rahmani, A., & Naimi, S. (2024a). Implementing differentiated instruction in Afghan EFL  
classrooms: Teachers’ practices and constraints. International Journal of English Language Teaching,  
12(2), 67–84.  
30. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.).  
ASCD.  
31. Umar, N. H. B., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2024). Differentiated instruction in ESL classrooms: Insights from  
ESL primary school teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan, 49(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2024-  
49.01-07  
32. Valiandes, S. (2020). Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in  
mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness. Studies in  
Educational Evaluation, 65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100849  
33. Whitley, J., Beauchamp, M. H., & Brown, C. (2021). Inclusive pedagogy and differentiated instruction:  
A collaborative response to diversity in education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103–224.  
34. Zólyomi, D. (2022). Hungarian teachers’ conceptions of differentiated instruction in foreign language  
education. Hungarian Educational Research Journal, 12(3), 250–266.  
Page 8728  
www.rsisinternational.org