Two main themes emerged with respect to RQ 3. Firstly, results suggest that technology can be used comprehensively across the curricular elements and learner differences of the DI matrix (Tomlinson, 1999). The examined practices all meet the definition of TEDI, i.e., they are examples of the principled use of “hardware, software and web resources that support […] teaching and learning while meeting the learning needs and styles of individual students” (Primary Professional Development Service, n.d., p. 19). This suggests that TEDI can be implemented in TEFL settings in various ways, with a plethora of ICT tools available for EFL teachers to differentiate the content, the process, and the product along their learners’ readiness levels, interests and learning styles, as well as to create a learning environment conducive to differentiated learning. These practices seem to be well-received and appreciated by the students, too, which is a notable outcome, especially considering that, as Blaz (2016) argues, it is important for students to come to a class “that they know has been designed for them” (p. 26). The relatively high mean values of the scales measuring students’ perceptions of the various dimensions of TEDI indicate that they see evidence of this and feel that the TEDI practices resonate with their interests, learning profiles and readiness levels, and are thus personally meaningful for them.

Secondly, the outcomes of Phase 2 suggest that technology not only provides a viable digital alternative to non-digital DI, but it can actually enhance differentiation in certain respects. 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). There were four areas identified in the examined practices where technology seemed to be particularly useful in enhancing DI: self-paced learning, student choice, privacy, and student involvement.

Based on the results of the interviews and observations, there are various ICT tools (e.g., LearningApps, EduCandy, Quizlet) that facilitate self-paced learning through immediate feedback and adaptive practice, which supports student autonomy (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Renandya et al., 2023; Zeng, 2020). Besides, some ICT tools provide choice regarding the complexity of the content (e.g., BOOKR, Kids A–Z), the activities through which students make sense of the content (e.g., Quizlet, interactive activity sets) or the ways in which students demonstrate their learning (e.g., with content creation tools such as Canva or Flip), which all facilitate self-differentiation (Tennant, 2017). Furthermore, technology can address privacy concerns, as there are several apps that give students automatic feedback and thus make it possible for them to monitor their progress without being compared to their peers. Finally, the examined TEDI practices showed positive impact on students’ language learning experience, motivated learning behaviour, and self-efficacy, which is especially noteworthy considering that these ID variables play an important role in the success of foreign language learning (Csizér et al., 2021; Khoadad & Kaur, 2016; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Piniel & Csizér, 2013).

The common patterns identified in the examined contexts confirm the hypothesised affordances of technology for DI (Anderson, 2008; Benjamin, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards, 2015; Smith & Throne, 2007; Stanford et al., 2010; Zeng, 2020), and suggest that, as Blaz (2016) argues, technology may indeed have the potential to “change the face of differentiation” (p. 1), with implications for pedagogical practice and policy alike.

As for the pedagogical implications, it seems that ICT tools could significantly decrease the workload associated with DI, from planning through classroom management to assessment. There are several apps (e.g., BOOKR, Quizlet) that provide readily available resources and activities, which saves planning time. In terms of classroom management, the self-paced learning opportunities offered by these tools help students remain on task, which is a common concern of teachers experimenting with DI (Blaz, 2016). Assessment, the “foundation of successful instructional planning” (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013, p. 17), is enhanced by apps that offer detailed reports on student performance, which facilitates quicker and more precise diagnosis and feedback. Taken together, these uses of technology can make it possible for teachers to “think and work ‘smarter’ … rather than trying to work harder” when catering for individual needs (Stanford et al., 2010, p. 2), and, as a result, “free up class time for creativity and problem-solving” (Ferreira, 2013, p. 2), i.e., for domains where the human factor is indispensable.

However, it is important to recognise that these benefits may not be universally experienced by all teachers. While the participants in this study found that TEDI alleviates their workload, some teachers in Studies 1 and 2 of Phase 1 of this research expressed concerns that DI and TEDI require excessive preparation and may feel burdensome. This apparent contradiction may stem from several factors. First, learning how to use ICT tools for DI purposes could be a significant challenge. While these tools may ultimately save time, the initial adaptation phase can make TEDI feel more like an additional burden than a workload-reducing tool. Second, the school context and available support are likely to influence teachers’ perceptions. Those working in well-resourced schools with strong technical infrastructure and professional development opportunities, such as the ones examined in Phase 2, may find TEDI easier to use. In contrast, teachers with limited institutional support, outdated technology, or insufficient training may struggle with its implementation and perceive it as a demanding effort rather than a benefit.

In line with the above considerations, there are implications for educational policy, too. In light of the potential that technology holds for DI, it would be important to provide schools with the required ICT infrastructure. Besides, as the interview study revealed, teachers often support each other by sharing useful resources and teaching tips, which sheds light on the importance of intra-institutional cooperation and the role of school administrators in facilitating these practices. Such knowledge sharing could help teachers gain confidence in using ICT and make sure that, as Benjamin (2014) argues, they do not have to “go it alone” but can work together in “clusters of like-minded teachers” (p. 5) when integrating technology into their DI practices. Steps in these directions could help teachers experience the workload-reducing benefits of TEDI and, ultimately, make differentiation more feasible and sustainable in the long run.