Secondly, as highlighted in Sections 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2, there is a significant gap in the empirical research on TEDI in the TEFL context. Although some insightful studies of the past years investigated how certain applications can support DI in the EFL class, the scholarly merits of which in identifying innovative TEDI practices are beyond dispute, the majority of these studies tend to focus on the testing of isolated tools in limited settings rather than offering a comprehensive analysis of TEDI implementation. Exploratory research projects of a more complex nature, aiming to identify instructional patterns through the triangulation of data from multiple perspectives, using various research methods (interviews, observations, and questionnaires) and at multiple research sites, have scarcely been carried out to date. Such studies could help explore teachers’ and students’ experiences with TEDI in various classroom contexts to understand not only what tools are used for the differentiation of the content, process, product, and learning environment (Tomlinson, 1999), but also how technology, through its affordances (see Section 2.2.2), is meaningfully integrated into the differentiation process—beyond its use as a mere alternative to paper-based DI—to support learner-centred teaching. In pursuing such research, closely examining the participants’ perspectives is of utmost importance; as Wright (2012) argues, to better understand the effects of innovation in language pedagogy, “research in and on classrooms” needs to focus more on “change and innovation as they are experienced in the classroom itself” (p. 66). Identifying themes that unite practitioners of TEDI through an examination of their practices as well as perspectives on the affordances and challenges of using this approach could help provide a more in-depth understanding of how technology may be used meaningfully for DI purposes, the results of which could also help map out a transferable framework for those looking to use TEDI in the EFL classroom.

A third, closely related niche concerns the interplay between TEDI and student motivation, language learning experience, and self-efficacy—factors that TEDI is expected to foster. Although both theoretical considerations (see Section 2.2.2) and some empirical evidence (see Section 2.2.3.1) suggest that TEDI can have a positive impact on these factors, there is still limited understanding of whether students perceive TEDI as responsive to their learning needs (readiness, interests, learning profiles), and how such perceptions relate to their motivation, language learning experience, and self-efficacy. As these variables are considered predictors of success in FL learning (Csizér et al., 2021; Khoadad & Kaur, 2016; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Piniel & Csizér, 2013), it would be important to examine how students’ perceptions of TEDI relate to them.

While each of these gaps has been addressed to some extent in previous research, studies that examine them in an integrated manner in the Hungarian context remain scarce. In line with these gaps, the present research project sought to answer the following research questions and sub-questions (RQs) (for a summary table outlining how the reviewed topics, identified research gaps, and the research questions correspond, see Appendix A):

 

RQ 2 and its sub-questions investigate how Hungarian primary and secondary school EFL teachers describe their practices of DI and TEDI, with special regard to the challenges and enablers of implementation. Besides, along the lines of Borg’s (2001) definition mentioned above, the study aims to explore possible connections between beliefs and practices of DI and TEDI, as teacher beliefs have been shown to influence instructional decisions (Borg, 1998, 2003; Farrell & Lim, 2005).

It is important to explain why certain sub-questions of these two main research questions focus exclusively on DI, while others explicitly address both DI and TEDI (RQs 1.1, 2.1, and 2.3). This distinction reflects the dual aim of these questions: to explore teachers’ broader conceptualisations of DI, including the learner differences they address (RQ 1.2), their self-efficacy beliefs regarding DI (RQ 1.3), and the perceived challenges and enablers of DI implementation (RQ 2.2). At the same time, when investigating the importance teachers attach to DI and the extent to which they report using it, TEDI is also examined as an area of interest (RQs 1.1, 2.1, and 2.3). In other words, while the primary aim of RQ 1 and RQ 2 is to map teachers’ overall beliefs and practices related to DI, TEDI is also examined as a more specific dimension of DI, which also serves as orientation for the third research question of the research project.

RQ 3 aims to gain insight into how some practitioners of TEDI use technology for DI in their lessons and, ultimately, to identify common patterns of TEDI in the primary and secondary school EFL class. While this question is of an exploratory nature, and not intended to yield generalisable results but rather to gain an in-depth understanding of TEDI, it is hoped that the practices identified could potentially be transferable to other teaching contexts, and thus prove useful to teachers wishing to use technology for differentiation purposes.