Differentiated Instruction (DI) is widely promoted as a central pedagogical strategy for addressing learner heterogeneity and advancing equity in inclusive classrooms (Gheyssens et al., 2020; Lindner & Schwab, 2020). In Switzerland, this expectation is codified in the curriculum (Lehrplan 21), which requires teachers to adapt instruction to pupils’ prior knowledge, performance levels, and learning needs (D-EDK, 2016). In recent years, the implementation of this requirement has increasingly been accompanied by digitally enhanced teaching materials, learning platforms, and adaptive educational technologies that promise more efficient, objective and scalable forms of differentiation (Bernacki et al., 2021). Numerous educational applications, learning videos, self-assessment tools, and data-driven platforms claim to personalise learning trajectories and support teachers in dealing with - heterogeneity in their classrooms. These developments are embedded in a broader transformations of educational knowledge production. In this light, differentiation is not only a pedagogical practice but also a technological project, shaped by assumptions about what counts as relevant knowledge, how learning is measured, and who is authorised to interpret pupils’ needs. 

Empirical research points to a first significant gap between the pedagogical potential attributed to educational technologies and their actual use in schools. Although a wide range of educational technologies promises to support differentiated instruction, research suggests that teachers often use apps, learning videos and platforms in limited or pragmatic ways that do not fully exploit their pedagogical potential for differentiation  (Hangartner et al., 2024; Selwyn et al., 2017). Many applications remain aligned with standardised curricula and narrow conceptions of achievement. Teachers report both opportunities and constraints, emphasising that digital tools rarely replace pedagogical judgement but instead require ongoing interpretation and contextualization (Divanji et al., 2023). 

A second, even less explored gap concerns pupils’ perspectives. Although differentiated instruction and educational technologies explicitly target pupils as their primary beneficiaries, pupils’ experiences and interpretations remain marginal in much of the research literature. Studies foregrounding student voice show ambivalent experiences. On the one hand, pupils value choice, flexibility and perceived fairness. On the other hand, they also report uncertainty, misalignment with their learning level, and feelings of exclusion when instructional adaptations are insufficiently responsive (Scarparolo & MacKinnon, 2022). 

This paper presents a participatory research project that places pupils’ centre stage. Adopting a participatory approach, the study positions pupils as epistemic agents and co-researchers (Unger, 2014; Zahnd & Oberholzer, 2022, 2024) rather than passive recipients of differentiated instruction or digital learning tools. Drawing on participatory data, the study shows that pupils articulate a distinguished and critical understanding of digital tools. For example, pupils describe learning videos as frequently monotonous, poorly aligned with their questions, and unpredictable in quality, making it a matter of chance whether a video supports understanding or leads to disengagement. Learning apps are reported to produce rigid or incorrect feedback, for example by marking mathematically correct solutions as wrong due to formal criteria such as spacing or formatting. Such experiences undermine pupils’ confidence and sense of competence.

Across data, pupils consistently emphasise that digital tools are only conditionally helpful and become meaningful learning resources when teachers actively accompany their use. Teacher presence is described as crucial for interpreting tasks and addressing misunderstandings. From the pupils’ perspective, digitally supported differentiation does not replace relational pedagogical work. By foregrounding pupils’ situated knowledge, the paper contributes empirically grounded insights into the conditions and limits of educational technologies in inclusive schooling.

This paper presents results from the Swiss research project DEEP Differentiated Instruction, which investigates practices and effects of differentiated instruction in primary school classrooms, with a particular focus on equity and the role of digital tools. The results presented are conducted using a participatory and ethnographic approach aimed at foregrounding pupils’ perspectives on differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms. Data collection takes place in five primary school classes representing different organisational and instructional settings. In each class, five to six pupils are recruited as co-researchers. Selection aims to ensure diversity with regard to academic performance, gender and special educational needs. Rather than positioning pupils as interview partners, they are actively involved in the data collection and analysis (Zahnd & Oberholzer, 2024). Pupils document their experiences using complementary methods. They have the opportunity to use a research diary in which they record observations, questions, and reflections related to what helps and what hinders their learning process. On the other hand they get a smartphone with an app called “picvoice” with which they can collect photovoices (Wöhrer, 2017) to visually capture learning arrangements, materials, or moments they perceive as significant, including the use of apps, learning videos, and digital platforms. With these datasets they meet up with the academic researcher for meetings in which pupils discuss and interpret their materials together with peers and the researcher. These collective sessions are a key methodological element. They enable pupils to articulate their perspectives, negotiate meanings and reflect on their learning experiences in the classroom. In order to merge findings from all participating classes, all data sources, transcripts of the reflection meetings and researcher field notes are triangulated and analysed using grounded theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1996).

This paper demonstrates that researching differentiated instruction and the use of digital tools in inclusive classrooms requires both empirical and methodological reorientation. By positioning pupils as co-researchers, the study shifts the focus of knowledge production toward those most affected by differentiated instruction and digital learning technologies. The findings extend critical perspectives on educational technologies that caution against technocratic and data-driven conceptions of differentiation (Selwyn et al., 2017). While educational technologies are often presented as adaptive and individualised solutions, pupils’ perspectives on it reveal that digitally supported differentiation is experienced as meaningful only under specific pedagogical conditions. In line with research showing that the educational impact of digital tools depends less on their technical design than on how they are pedagogically appropriated in classroom practice (Hangartner et al., 2024; Selwyn et al., 2017), pupils describe apps and learning videos as frequently misaligned with their learning needs when used without sustained teacher support. Importantly, pupils emphasise relational and pedagogical dimensions such as teacher presence, dialogue, responsiveness, and recognition – dimensions that are central to inclusive education but often marginalised in data-driven approaches to differentiation (Gheyssens et al., 2020; Lindner & Schwab, 2020). Learning videos and apps are perceived as supportive only when teachers are familiar with their content and actively guide their use. Without such support, pupils report boredom, uncertainty, and experiences of misrecognition, for example when rigid app feedback incorrectly evaluates their work. Overall, the study argues that digitally supported differentiated instruction cannot be understood as a technical solution alone. Instead, it remains a fundamentally relational practice that depends on pedagogical knowledge and teacher-pupil interaction. By integrating pupils’ perspectives, the paper highlights the limits of educational technologies and underscores the importance of participatory research for developing a more inclusive and empirically grounded understanding of differentiation instruction in digitally enriched classrooms.

Bernacki, M. L., Greene, M. J., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). A Systematic Review of Research on Personalized Learning: Personalized by Whom, to What, How, and for What Purpose(s)? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1675–1715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09615-8 D-EDK. (2016). Lehrplan 21. Divanji, R. A., Bindman, S., Tung, A., Chen, K., Castaneda, L., & Scanlon, M. (2023). A one stop shop? Perspectives on the value of adaptive learning technologies in K-12 education. Computers and Education Open, 5, 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100157 Gheyssens, E., Consuegra, E., Engels, N., & Struyven, K. (2020). Good Things Come to Those Who Wait: The Importance of Professional Development for the Implementation of Differentiated Instruction. Frontiers in Education, 5, 96. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00096 Hangartner, J., Hürzeler, D., & Aebli, N. (2024). Everyday approaches to platform-mediated personalized learning in secondary schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 50(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2024.2367051 Lindner, K.-T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450 Scarparolo, G., & MacKinnon, S. (2022). Student voice as part of differentiated instruction: Students’ perspectives. Educational Review, 76(4), 774–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2047617 Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of one-to-one classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047 Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grounded theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung (S. Niewiarra, Übers.; Unveränderter Nachdruck der letzten Auflage). Beltz, PsychologieVerlagsUnion. Unger, H. von. (2014). Partizipative Forschung: Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Springer VS. Wöhrer, V. (2017). Partizipative Aktionsforschung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen: Von Schulsprachen, Liebesorten und anderen Forschungsdingen. Springer VS. Zahnd, R., & Oberholzer, F. (2022). Stolpersteine und Wegweiser auf dem Weg zu inklusiven Lernarrangements. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, (28(12)), 16–23. Zahnd, R., & Oberholzer, F. (2024). Was können Schüler*innen zur inklusiven Unterrichtsentwicklung beitragen? Zeitschrift für Inklusion, (19(1)), 42–61.