As for TEDI, the interviews revealed varied attitudes toward the approach. Some of the teachers saw the advantages of ICT in enabling content differentiation, promoting self-regulated learning, and managing a workshop-style classroom environment, which are benefits mentioned in the literature, as well (e.g., Benjamin, 2014; Smith & Throne, 2007). While the enthusiasm observed among these participants suggests a recognition of the potential of ICT in personalising learning, other interviewees, especially those being more advanced in their careers, demonstrated reluctance towards the notion of TEDI. While in some cases these negative attitudes could be traced back to a lack of technological proficiency (Cintia) or scepticism about DI in general (Gréta), concerns about the over-digitalisation of learning environments was also mentioned (Zsuzsanna).

The results of the questionnaire showed more positive attitudes towards TEDI, as the scale measuring teachers’ acknowledgment of the importance of TEDI had a mean value of 4.06 (SD = 0.84). It is also important to mention that while in Study 1 age and years of teaching experience appeared as a defining factor in how teachers approached the concept of TEDI, the ANOVA tests performed in Study 2 revealed no significant differences between the mean values of younger, less experienced and older, more senior teachers.

One cautious conclusion that could be drawn from the above is that the perceived value of TEDI among teachers may not be as closely tied to age or years of teaching experience as it is to individual differences in technological proficiency and general pedagogical beliefs. As Benjamin (2014) contends, “When it comes to DI, we don’t want to put kids on computers just to keep them occupied while we work with other groups. We want computers to enhance instruction, not just parallel it” (p. 4). An important step towards dispelling misconceptions about the feasibility of DI could be to raise teachers’ awareness of the potential of technology for DI, with practical examples of how this can be realised in the EFL classroom.

 

Another important pattern regarding the understanding of learner differences, found both in the interviews and in the open-ended answers given to the questionnaire, was that many teachers seem to look upon learner differences as ever-changing characteristics rather than as fixed traits. Phrases such as “how a specific student is feeling on a specific day” (Study 1), “current”, “on a given day” or “on a given week” (Study 2) suggest that many teachers acknowledge the importance of empathising with “how we are all different and can also be individually different from day-to-day or moment-to-moment” (Tennant, 2017, p. 6), a principle that in fact serves as a building block of DI, and accords with a growth mindset (Tomlinson, 2017).

It is important to note, however, that among these differences, students’ English proficiency levels, a defining aspect of readiness, stood out as by far the most important factor for teachers, both in Studies 1 and 2. Most of the strategies the interviewees mentioned were concerned with how they cater for different levels of English, such as assigning supplementary tasks to fast finishers, providing personalised feedback and using flexible grouping to pair students with different levels of English. This finding was further confirmed in the questionnaire study, which revealed that Hungarian EFL teachers find readiness-related learner differences more important to be addressed in DI than learners’ interests and learning profiles. While they rated English proficiency levels as the most important learner difference to address (M = 4.45, SD = 0.78) (for the results of the paired-samples t tests comparing the mean value of this learner difference with those of the other learner differences, refer to Section 4.1.2.1), and general study skills (M = 4.15, SD = 0.83), special educational needs (M = 4.37, SD = 0.83) and learning and behavioural difficulties (M = 4.27, SD = 0.86), which are all related to the concept of readiness, also received high mean values, students’ interests (M = 3.95, SD = 0.91) and learning profiles (M = 3.91, SD = 0.83) had significantly lower mean values (t(211) = 6.78, p < .001 and t(211) = 8.44, p < .001 when compared with English proficiency levels).

This outcome is consistent with earlier national research that revealed foreign language teachers’ preoccupation with learners’ diverse readiness levels and the need for training that equips them with the knowledge and skills to effectively do so (Öveges & Csizér, 2018; Zólyomi, 2022). One reason for the increased importance attached to readiness, particularly English proficiency, may be that teachers do not view learning profiles and interests as core DI components to the same extent as readiness. However, teachers’ heightened focus on their students’ readiness levels, and especially on their students’ English language proficiency, could also be explained by certain contextual constraints. Although using placement tests is the most typical way of grouping students into language groups in Hungary’s public education system, findings suggest that in many cases students are assigned to groups based on considerations other than their levels of proficiency (Öveges, 2018). This often results in rather mixed-level compositions, which places proficiency levels at the forefront of teachers’ DI endeavours, and thus may explain why Hungarian EFL teachers tend to prioritise students’ readiness levels over their interests and learning profiles. Comments from the interviewees such as “within the same group, there can be both beginners and advanced learners, with some students speaking English better than their teachers” (Cecília) were echoed in the participants’ answers to the open-ended question in the questionnaire study as well. These remarks highlight teachers’ concerns about this issue and call for training programmes that equip them with practical knowledge and skills to address their students’ varied proficiency levels.

 

Secondly, when it comes to teachers’ practices of learning profile-based DI, and especially learning styles, the interview data suggest that teachers do not rely on formal testing for such purposes. Instead, they seem to base their decisions on observations accumulated over the period they have been teaching their students, such as noticing patterns in students’ behaviour, preferences in tasks, and responses to different instructional methods. For instance, Cintia and Gellért in Study 1 mentioned adapting their instruction based on whether students seemed to perform well in individual tasks or group work, or whether they showed a preference for visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic activities. These findings indicate that the participants tend to approach the identification of learning styles in an informal and flexible manner, which is in line with Tomlinson’s (2017) perspective. As she argues, rather than surveying students “with the goal of determining ‘what type of learning style’ a student has and to label a student as a particular type of learner who needs to primarily learn in a particular way” (p. 112), “it would be wiser to encourage students to learn in more ways rather than steering them toward one mode or another,” since “nearly all people learn in a variety of ways, depending on task and context” (p. 111).

Thirdly, certain hallmarks of DI, such as flexible grouping (Anett, Cintia, Gellért, Patrik) and the involvement of students in decision-making (Cecília, Gellért, Patrik) appear to be used by some of the teachers. This may be seen as a favourable outcome as earlier studies conducted in other contexts found these aspects of DI to be only scarcely practiced (e.g., Tzanni, 2018; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019).

On the other hand, most of the strategies reported on by the interviewees seem to be intuitive rather than planned. Assigning extra tasks to fast finishers, providing on-the-spot explanations for struggling learners, offering personalised oral and written feedback and giving room for students to converse about or present on topics of their interests were the most popular strategies used by novice and more experienced teachers alike, while offering tiered activities in the form of learning centres or choice boards, a DI strategy traditionally cited in the literature (Blaz, 2016; Theisen, 2002), was mentioned only sporadically. Terms used by the participants such as “spontaneous” (Anett), “instinctive” (Cintia) and “improvisational” (Bella) also indicate a primarily intuitive approach to DI. This corresponds with earlier findings, which showed that teachers tend to address their learners’ differences “reactively” rather than “proactively” (Tzanni, 2018, p. 162), and that they do not necessarily recognise their DI practices as part of a larger DI framework (Whitley et al., 2019).

The results of the questionnaire study revealed a relatively higher degree of DI practices, although the levels of use varied with regard to the different dimensions of DI. The differentiation of the learning environment, in line with some international findings (Tzanni, 2018), was identified as the most typical dimension of DI use among the participants, with a particularly high mean value (M = 4.61, SD = 0.39) (for the results of the paired-samples t tests comparing the mean value of differentiation of the learning environment with those of the other DI dimensions, see Section 4.1.2.2). This may be explained by the fact that this scale measured practices such as creating a safe space for learning and nurturing a sense of community (for the complete list of items associated with this scale, refer to Appendix F), which all promote differentiation but are in fact not strictly limited to this specific instructional approach; instead, they encompass broader educational strategies that are associated with a learner-centred approach to teaching (Ben-Yosef & Pinhasi-Vittorio, 2012).

Furthermore, consistent with previous findings from the Hungarian context (Zólyomi, 2022), readiness-based differentiation practices were also reported to be used often (M = 4.06, SD = 0.65), as was learning profile-based DI (M = 4.06, SD = 0.57), while interest-based DI received lower mean values (M = 3.24, SD = 0.76) (t(211) = 16.62, p < .001 when compared with readiness-based DI and t(211) = 17.94, p < .001 when compared with learning profile-based DI). This pattern may indicate that Hungarian EFL teachers do not only consider readiness to be the most critical learner difference to address but they also report to use DI with this particular difference in mind, likely motivated by the contextual factors previously discussed. As for learning profile-based DI, while in Study 1 this dimension of DI was reported to be used less frequently than readiness-based DI, the questionnaire study revealed that these two practices are given almost equal attention. The preference for applying readiness-based DI practices may be explained by the factors discussed in Section 4.1.3.1, while learning-profile based DI practices may be used by teachers partly because they find this learner difference to be important to attend to (M = 3.91, SD = 0.83), and partly because institutional resources are available for them to facilitate these strategies. However, additional studies are needed to explore the reasons underlying these phenomena.

In terms of TEDI, the interview data revealed varied uses of ICT for DI. While some participants use ICT tools to cater for different learning objectives (e.g., in Cecília’s class some students practise Matura exam tasks while others work on Quizlet), others use ICT to differentiate according to students’ readiness levels (e.g., by creating a selection of tasks for students on LearningApps with different complexity levels to choose from, as was mentioned by Gellért). Assigning digital supplementary tasks (for example on Google Classroom or on Quiz4U) to fast finishers was also mentioned. It is important to note, however, that not all of the interviewees reported on using ICT for DI. As was mentioned earlier, while Cintia doesn’t feel prepared to use ICT for DI purposes, in Gréta’s and Zsuzsanna’s case, scepticism towards the notions of DI and TEDI and fears of technology overuse were the root causes of the lack of TEDI implementation.

The questionnaire results are in accordance with the qualitative findings as they also showed a moderate overall use of ICT in DI (M = 3.68, SD = 0.87), with the mean value of self-reported TEDI practices being significantly lower than the mean value of TEDI beliefs (M = 4.06, SD = 0.84, t(211) = –7.64, p < .001). The numbers reveal a discrepancy between teachers’ acknowledgment of the importance of TEDI and their actual application of it in their daily teaching. This suggests that although most teachers recognise the potential benefits of technology for DI, it is not yet common to use it specifically for DI purposes. While a lack of adequate ICT tools at schools might be one explanation for this, it is important to note that the participants in this study reported relatively common access to ICT in their schools (M = 3.75, SD = 0.79), which indicates that infrastructure may not fully explain the discrepancy between TEDI beliefs and practices. Another interpretation could be that teachers may not possess the knowledge and skills for using technology for DI purposes, which, if that is the case, points toward the need for research on TEDI in TEFL and for professional training events that disseminate the findings of such research.

 

The questionnaire study revealed that out of these challenges, planning-related difficulties, i.e., increased preparation time (M = 4.01, SD = 1.07) and planning in multiple dimensions (M = 3.92, SD = 1.06), were the top challenges (for the results of the paired-samples t tests comparing the mean values of these two planning-related challenges with those of the other challenges, see Section 4.1.2.2). This accords with studies from other countries that identified planning-related difficulties as the primary challenges in implementing DI (Bourini, 2015; Granås, 2019; Gülsen, 2018; Lombarkia & Guerza, 2021; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018). The results also resonate with Szabó’s (2008) mixed-methods study on the planning practices of Hungarian primary and secondary school EFL teachers, which found that, while most teachers usually plan their lessons mentally with the support of brief notes, detailed written plans become essential when preparing for multi-level or mixed-ability groups.

What may strike the reader as interesting is that while uncertainties around DI methodology did emerge in the interviews as an important challenge, yet in the questionnaire study these were deemed the least problematic aspect (M = 3.00, SD = 1.19) (for the results of the paired-samples t tests comparing the mean value of methodological uncertainties with those of the other challenges, see Section 4.1.2.2). This suggests that, based on teachers’ self-reports, the biggest challenges of DI do not lie in them lacking the necessary knowledge on how to differentiate, but rather in the demands of planning and managing differentiated lessons. These difficulties are further exacerbated by contextual constraints within the Hungarian public education system such as large class sizes, mixed proficiency levels, and heavy teaching workloads, which, taken together, make the implementation of DI “an elusive dream”, as one participant responded to the open-ended question on challenges in the questionnaire.

As part of the nationwide inquiry into the efficiency of foreign language teaching in Hungary, Kálmán and Tiboldi (2018) concluded that providing FL teachers with more substantial training on DI may be necessary, but it is also possible that teachers are “very much aware of the necessity of DI, but, for some reason, cannot or do not want to use it in their daily practice” (p. 198). The results of the present study point toward the second interpretation, i.e., that it is not the conceptual side of DI that appears to be most challenging for teachers, but the practical difficulties, especially those related to planning, that come with the daily implementation of DI. This interpretation would also provide tentative explanation for why teachers in Illés and Csizér’s (2018) report saw their capability to resonate with their students’ individual needs relatively positively but still perceived their differentiation practices to be only moderately effective.

The interview study identified several themes that teachers perceive as enablers of DI, in line with what has been proposed in the literature (e.g., Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Whitley et al., 2019). The most apparent enabler pertained to professional preparedness, with almost all teachers expressing their interest in attending training sessions on DI and having access to differentiated teaching materials. Cooperation with stakeholders, including the exchange of best practices with colleagues, regular communication with parents and support from school administration was deemed important too, as these could help teachers receive essential information about students and experiment with DI in a supportive environment. Classrooms being equipped with ICT tools also emerged as an important enabler.

The questionnaire study revealed, that out of these enablers, access to differentiated materials (M = 4.58, SD = 0.84) and the use of ICT tools (M = 4.41, SD = 0.87) were the most important factors (for the results of the paired-samples t tests comparing the mean values of these enablers with those of the other enablers, see Section 4.1.2.2), which is understandable, considering the potential of these tools in alleviating the difficulties that teachers face when planning differentiated lessons. These results are consistent with some previous findings, too: Sougari and Mavroudi (2019) emphasised the role of differentiated materials in eliminating “teachers’ preoccupation with materials design” (p. 411), while the role attached to technology confirm earlier views on the possible affordances of technology for DI (Stanford et al., 2010; Zeng, 2020).

It is important to note, however, that all the other enablers identified in the interview study received mean values higher than moderate in the questionnaire study. This indicates that teachers consider several aspects as enablers of DI practices: they value the supportive power of what has been referred to as cohort groups (Theisen, 2002), study groups (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000, p. 81) or professional learning communities (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Price, 2020) at schools, and they also seem to be of the opinion that the role of school administrators in facilitating such collaborations is, as Tomlinson & Allan (2000) point out, a “nonnegotiable item for systemic change” (p. 59).

 

Cooperation with stakeholders (colleagues, parents) was identified as a significant enabler of readiness-based and interest-based DI practices, which reaffirms the importance of communication and knowledge sharing among the stakeholders involved in FL teaching and learning for effective DI implementation (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Granås, 2019; Theisen, 2002; Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). It is worth re-quoting Cintia, one of the participants of the interview study, whose thoughts were corroborated by the results of the regression analysis of the questionnaire study:

Finally, as was pointed out in Section 4.1.2.2, it is interesting to note that beliefs in the importance of DI do not seem to have a significant impact on DI practices. This suggests that while teachers’ confidence in their ability to implement DI, as well as methodological preparedness, cooperation with stakeholders and the use of ICT tools play a significant role in their decision to use various dimensions of DI, their opinions about the approach itself has a less decisive influence, a pattern that has been found by other authors, as well (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019). A possible explanation for this could be that while teachers acknowledge and value the theoretical importance of DI, practical constraints significantly hinder their ability to implement it effectively. The comments from the interviewees, including Bella’s observation that “it is a nice concept, but it is really difficult to implement in practice”, along with Cecília’s remark, “teachers would practice it, but they simply don’t have the time and the means to do so”, coupled with responses to the open-ended question in the questionnaire such as “differentiation appears great in theory, but remains to be an elusive dream in practice” can all be interpreted as reflections of this issue. It seems, therefore, that teachers’ beliefs in their own capabilities to effectively use DI, together with external factors, play a more decisive role in their decision to use DI than their personal beliefs about the approach. This also sheds light on the importance of strengthening teachers’ self-efficacy through professional development and intra-institutional support, as well as by providing adequate technological infrastructure at schools.

On the other hand, in the context of TEDI, personal beliefs were identified as significant predictor variables. Beliefs in the importance of TEDI were found to be the most important predictor variable, with beliefs in the importance of DI in general also playing a role, together with contextual factors such as professional preparedness and the use of ICT tools. The relationship between TEDI-related beliefs and TEDI practices was identified in the interview study, too, especially in the cases of Gréta and Zsuzsanna, who admittedly do not think of ICT as a potential facilitator of DI and consequently do not use such tools for DI purposes either. These results suggest that teachers’ perceptions of the role of technology in differentiation may be an important determinant of whether they integrate it into their instructional strategies. In other words, beliefs related to TEDI and its actual implementation appear to be closely linked, which sheds light on the importance of awareness-raising about the potential of technology for DI.

However, beyond personal beliefs, class objectives may also affect the implementation of TEDI. The interview data suggest that teachers who viewed TEDI as beneficial often integrated it in ways that were in line with their instructional goals. For instance, Anett and Cecília used ICT to support student interests and personal academic plans, while Gellért, Bella, and Lilla implemented it primarily for readiness-based differentiation. In contrast, those who were reluctant to use TEDI, such as Zsuzsanna and Gréta, might have seen it as irrelevant or even mismatched with their educational priorities. Future research should examine whether teachers’ hesitation toward TEDI stems from scepticism about technology in general or from a belief that traditional teaching methods better serve their class objectives.

In any case, since beliefs in the importance of TEDI were found to strongly predict its use, awareness-raising efforts that demonstrate how technology can support different instructional goals could be effective in encouraging its adoption. Professional development programmes of this kind could also address personal beliefs to help teachers conceptualise their perceptions of technology and link them to its use for DI.

 

Firstly, results indicate that EFL teachers in Hungary recognise the importance of DI and consider it as an important component of teaching that can enhance student engagement, motivation, and self-confidence. This is corroborated by both the qualitative and quantitative data from Studies 1 and 2 and is in line with findings on EFL teachers’ beliefs about DI in other countries, as well (e.g., Bourini, 2015; Chien, 2015; Maruf, 2023; Rovai & Pfingstorm, 2022; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018), which suggests that the concept is increasingly being accepted universally.

Moreover, teachers not only acknowledge various learner differences, but they also report to adapt their instructional approaches to cater for these differences, with students’ readiness levels, especially their English proficiency, being in the focus of their DI endeavours. This can probably be explained by the fact that teachers work with highly mixed-level classes, where addressing these differences inadvertently becomes their top priority, and thus differentiating along learning profiles and interests receives less attention in their daily practice.

Thirdly, despite the strong theoretical support for DI, the practical implementation of the approach appears to pose considerable challenges, which are primarily related to the increased demands of planning and managing differentiated lessons. The results of the interview study suggest that the actual application of DI strategies often happens more reactively than proactively and relies on spontaneous adjustments rather than systematic planning. This indicates a gap between the practices outlined in the DI literature and their actual classroom application, hindered by factors such as large class sizes, mixed proficiency levels, and extensive curricular demands. Understandably, and in line with international findings (e.g., Bourini, 2015; Chien, 2015; Sougari & Mavroudi, 2019; Tzanni, 2018; Zólyomi, 2022), these constraints may also lower teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in DI.

Fourth, in light of the challenges described previously, it is understandable that teachers identify access to differentiated materials and the use of ICT tools as important enablers of DI, as these tools can considerably ease the difficulties associated with planning and managing differentiated lessons. However, it is important to note that other enablers identified in these two studies, such as in-service training and collaboration with stakeholders (including staff, parents, and school administrators), are also considered important by the teachers, which indicates a clear need for support in these areas.

Another conclusion emerging from the findings is that teachers have different perceptions about TEDI. Some recognise its potential to enhance DI, while others remain sceptical about its relevance and effectiveness. Furthermore, the studies highlight that even among those who acknowledge the importance of TEDI, there is a discrepancy between conceptual acceptance and practical application. This suggests a need for more comprehensive training and support in using ICT tools effectively for DI purposes.

Finally, consistent with international findings (Kalinowski et al., 2024; Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019), the results suggest that teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in DI are the principal factors influencing their reported use of DI, followed by perceptions of professional preparedness, which include access to DI resources and training. Cooperation with stakeholders, such as colleagues and parents, was also identified as a significant enabler of readiness- and interest-based DI, which sheds light on the importance of sharing information about students’ readiness levels and interests. It is interesting to note that while general beliefs about the importance of DI do not seem to directly influence its implementation, beliefs regarding the importance of TEDI have a decisive role in motivating teachers to adopt TEDI practices. This direct causal relationship between beliefs and practices of TEDI suggests a rationale for designing training events specifically aimed at enhancing awareness of the affordances of technology for DI.

The findings may have implications for both teacher training and educational policy. Firstly, as DI self-efficacy was identified as the most important factor motivating teachers to differentiate, it would be important to strengthen these beliefs through pre- and in-service training which focus on effectively handling the challenges of DI, especially in terms of planning. Such training could equip teachers with practical ideas for preparing for differentiated lessons in a multidimensional yet time-efficient manner. Besides, there seems to be need for training that includes DI strategies that address all types of learner differences—not only readiness but also interests and learning profiles. Training aimed at developing teachers’ skills in using ICT for DI is also warranted, as is further research into the potential of ICT for DI, with special regard to the exploration of resources and best practices that teachers could use in their daily practice.

In addition, establishing platforms for intra-institutional collaboration in schools also appears to be important in mitigating the planning and administrative challenges associated with DI. Such platforms could facilitate the sharing of best practices, differentiated materials, and student information among staff, and thus help reduce the individual burden of planning and preparation. Regular meetings and workshops within these cohort groups (Theisen, 2002) or professional learning communities (De Neve & Devos, 2016; Price, 2020) could further enhance teachers’ competence in DI by providing opportunities for continuous professional development.