The presumed uncertainty in current education derives from a variety of recent changes and challenges in the educational sector. Therefore, it seems necessary to address these challenges in combination rather than viewing them as separate topics. Two of the current issues contributing to complexity arise from (1) a growing heterogeneity of students and (2) the increasing digitalization of the education system. The aim of this research is to combine these fields by analyzing teachers’ use of learning management systems to differentiate instruction through a mixed methods approach.

With the increasingly diverse student population in schools, the establishment of inclusive classrooms has become a top international policy priority, emphasizing “concepts of efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and inclusion as a means of ensuring quality education for all” (Watkins, 2017, p. 1). In the sense of a broader understanding of inclusion that celebrates the diversity of all learners (ibid.), schools must become “more responsive to children with a diverse range of abilities, cultures, gender, religions, and other situations and issues that present in the classroom” (Loreman, 2017, p. 2). Differentiated instruction (DI) is considered as vehicle to achieve inclusive education that aims to meet students’ individual learning needs by maximizing learning opportunities. DI is defined as the intentional, systematically planned and reflected practices that enable teachers to meet the needs of all learners in heterogeneous classrooms (Letzel et al., 2020). Teachers can implement DI through a variety of instructional activities or didactical strategies such as, tiered assignments, student grouping, tutoring systems, staggered nonverbal material learning aids such as checklists, mastery learning and forms of open education like station-based work, interest-based centers, project-based learning, or portfolios.

Digital technologies, such as learning management systems (LMS), have the potential to improve, facilitate and support teachers in differentiating their instruction to the various learning needs of students (Cha & Ahn, 2014; Edmunds & Hartnett, 2014). LMS serve as digital communication platforms supporting processes of teaching and learning by providing and organizing learning material, offering direct and indirect forms of online communication, allowing for data-based diagnostics and assessment as well as personalized and cooperative learning (Brägger & Koch, 2021). LMS, if used sensibly, can foster an inclusive, effective learning environments and fuel processes of school and classroom. LMS, as a basic educational infrastructure, have a long history and thus a more prevalent use in universities than schools. However, literature on the application of digital technologies and resources for DI in general education settings appear to be on the rise. Considering the potential that LMS can have to support the differentiating of teaching, there has been multiple literature outputs that serve as guidelines or practical examples for teachers (Cha & Ahn, 2014; Palahicky, 2015). Furthermore, empirical studies have also been undertaken to explore how LMS fosters the establishment of student-centered learning environment (Edmunds & Hartnett, 2014) and support the differentiation of instruction (Vargas-Parra et al., 2018). Despite this body of scientific literature, there is still little research that focuses on investigating the specific differentiation practices that teachers use within online learning environments such as LMS (Beck & Beasley, 2021). Against this background, the present study tackles this research gap and aims to examine how distinct DI practices are applied using LMS. The research question guiding this study is: Which DI practices do teachers apply within LMS and how often?  

For the purpose of the study, a mixed-methods concurrent single-phase design, where both quantitative and qualitative data were simultaneously collected, was implemented (Creswell & Zhang, 2009). A total of 223 primary and secondary school teachers (62% female; mean age = 47.46 years; mean teaching experience = 17.10 years) participated in the study. The participants completed a voluntary online survey, which took approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Data were collected from February till April 2023. To quantitatively measure teachers’ differentiated practice using LMS, a questionnaire was developed based on the DI taxonomy by Pozas & Schneider (2019): tiered assignments, intentional composition of student groups, tutoring systems, staggered nonverbal learning aids, mastery learning and open education. The items could be responded by teachers using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = rarely to 4 = frequently). Qualitative data was collected through the following open-ended question: Could you please provide examples of how you have implemented differentiated instruction through the use of LMS? Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS 27, whereas teachers’ (open) responses were analyzed using MAXQDA and following qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz (2018). The tests of within-subject effects showed significant variations within the single use of DI practices in LMS, F(6.84,1217.07) = 14.95, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.08. In detail, teachers use LMS to differentiate their instruction predominantly using open education, tiered assignments (according to the difficulty of complexity level and differences in the task representation) as well as student grouping (e.g. cooperative learning). In contrast, teachers hardly differentiate their instruction by means of tutoring systems within LMS. However, when observing the overall means of the single DI practices, it becomes evident that teachers rarely differentiate their instruction in LMS. Qualitative data analysis was performed by using a category system following a deductive approach based on the six DI categories (Pozas & Schneider, 2019) as well as an inductive approach through data material. A total of 113 content units were coded from the material. After coding 25% by three individual researchers and reflecting upon the categories together, an inter-rater agreement of .88 (Cohen’s Kappa) was achieved. For the category of open education, a total of 72 codes segments were revealed. This category is followed by tiered assignments with 25 codes segments. For the case of tutoring systems, no segments were revealed for this category. Thus, the results from the qualitative analyses appear to confirm the quantitative results.

Evidence from both studies reveal a similar trend, teachers use LMS to mainly differentiate their instruction using open education, tiered assignments and cooperative learning. In detail, the qualitative data shows that through the use of LMS teachers are able to open their instruction by establishing project-based learning, station learning, weekly plans and foster students’ autonomy. Moreover, through LMS, teachers can provide additional material and activities to students or design tasks with different complexity level. However, it is also clear that both studies in combination reveal that teachers hold a rather low variance of DI practices and rarely make use of LMS for differentiation purposes. This becomes even more interesting given the fact that teachers report that LMS provides more flexibilization of teaching and design in a differentiated manner. Results are further consistent with previous research that show that teachers mainly differentiate their instruction by means of tiered assignments (Smit & Humpert, 2012) and open education (Letzel & Otto, 2019) and have a low implementation of DI (Pozas et al., 2020). However, compared to studies were DI is implemented in an analog manner, it is clear there is a big room for improvement in digital learning environments. Given that DI is already a complex teaching task (Van Geel et al., 2019), it could be possible that teachers consider differentiating using LMS as even more challenging (Pozas et al., 2022). Thus, the results from this study not only serve as a basis for understanding teachers’ use of LMS for DI, but it also provides insights into the specific needs for professional development of teachers. In order for digital technologies and resources such as LMS to be able to support the academic outcomes of all students, it is imperative that teachers are able to use it effectively.

Beck, D. & Beasley, J. (2021). Identifying the differentiation practices of virtual school teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 2191–2205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10332-y Brägger, G. & Koch, F. (2021). Potenziale von Lern- und Arbeitsplattformen für die Unterrichtsentwicklung [Potentials of learning and working platforms for teaching development]. In G. Brägger & H.-G. Rolff (Eds.), Pädagogik. Handbuch Lernen mit digitalen Medien [Pedagogy. Handbook on Learning with Digital Media] (p. 130–164). Beltz. Cha, H. J., & Ahn, M. L. (2014). Development of design guidelines for tools to promote differentiated instruction in classroom teaching. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15, 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9337-6 Creswell, J. & Zhang, W. (2009). The application of Mixed Methods Designs to trauma research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(6), 612-621. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20479 Edmunds, B., & Hartnett, M. (2014). Using a learning management system to personalise learning for primary school students. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 11-29. Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4. Auflage). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Letzel, V., & Otto, J. (2019). Differentiated instruction and its concrete implementation in school practice—a qualitative study. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 9, 375-393. Loreman, T. (2017). Pedagogy for Inclusive Education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Palahicky, S. (2015). Utilizing learning management system (LMS) tools to achieve differentiated instruction. In Models for improving and optimizing online and blended learning in higher education (pp. 12-33). IGI Global. Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated instruction: exploring differentiation practices to address student diversity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(3), 217-230. Pozas, M., Letzel-Alt, V. & Schwab, S. (2022). The effects of differentiated instruction on teachers' stress and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103962 Pozas, M. & Schneider, C. (2019). Shedding light into the convoluted terrain of differentiated instruction (DI): Proposal of a taxonomy of differentiated instruction in the heterogeneous classroom. Open Education Studies, (1), p. 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0005 Smit, R., & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and teacher education, 28(8), 1152-1162. van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Frèrejean, J., Dolmans, D., van Merriënboer, J., & Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing the complexity of differentiated instruction. School effectiveness and school improvement, 30(1), 51-67. Vargas-Parra, M. A., Rodríguez-Orejuela, J. A., & Herrera-Mosquera, L. (2018). Promotion of differentiated instruction through a virtual learning environment. Folios, (47), 165-177. Watkins, A. (2017). Inclusive Education and European Educational Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 9 Dec. 2021, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-153.