Inclusive Teaching Practices in Secondary Schools: Understanding Teachers’ Competence in Using Differentiated Instruction to Support Secondary School Students with Disabilities

Abstract

The use of differentiated instruction practices has proved to be an effective approach to improving student learning in inclusive settings. In 2015, Ghana adopted differentiated instruction (DI) in its policy on inclusive education to address the diverse educational needs of all children. The use of DI hinges on teachers’ capabilities; however, in Ghana, not much is known about high school teachers’ understanding of the concept of DI and their preparedness to use DI strategies to address the diverse learning needs of students. To address these gaps in the literature, this study used an original questionnaire designed based on the conceptual framework of DI. In total, 204 high school teachers were recruited from 10 high schools that were conveniently selected across three regions in Ghana. Differentiation was rated positively by the participants, and a relationship was found between teacher readiness and teaching strategies. The study concludes with a recommendation for targeted training in DI to enhance inclusive teaching practices in classrooms.

1. Introduction

Globally, persons with disabilities continue to face various barriers that hinder their full participation in economic, social, and cultural activities. Although the recent United Nations Disability and Development Report highlights notable progress in inclusive policies, accessibility, and public awareness, challenges persist, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (United Nations et al., 2024). These disparities underscore the ongoing need to strengthen inclusive education practices that promote equitable learning opportunities for all learners, including those with disabilities. Inclusion is vital to all human beings in their efforts to exercise human rights. For instance, our right to equitable, quality, and inclusive education, where all children, youth, and adults can learn together and participate equitably in education, has been described as critical to building an inclusive and successful society (United Nations et al., 2024). A key feature of inclusive education, according to the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), is the inclusion of all students in regular education irrespective of their physical, intellectual, emotional, social, linguistic, or other conditions. It further states that regular education should include learners with disabilities and gifted students, street and working children, children from remote and nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic, or cultural minorities, and children from other disadvantaged or marginalised areas or groups.

These different categories of students bring many essential differences to schools that make them individuals, rendering the global inclusive education policy a significant contributory factor to diversity in today’s classrooms across the globe (UNICEF, 2017). Within an inclusive education system, diverse student populations must be placed at the centre of learning, and their differences in understanding, feelings, and social and perceptual skills must be appreciated (Ashman, 2010). Therefore, teaching and learning within inclusive classrooms will require teachers to adopt more responsive and effective methods to address students’ differences. Teachers need knowledge and skills to change and modify content, approaches, structures, and strategies to meet the diverse needs of students. The curriculum must be flexible enough, and teachers must have greater freedom and flexibility to adjust to individual needs. Thus, teachers must use more interactive and child-centred approaches to ensure access to the curriculum for all learners (UNICEF, 2017). Several studies have established that differentiation of learning environment, curriculum content, learning process, and products based on students’ characteristics is an effective inclusive instructional approach, and it is the main idea of inclusive education (Ashman, 2010). However, not much is known about Ghanaian high school teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge of DI and their preparedness to adopt it.

2. Theoretical Framework

According to Tomlinson (2014), differentiation is governed by a philosophy, a set of principles, and some pivotal instructional practices. Philosophically, it is based on the tenets that diversity is normal and valuable and that students differ in their experiences, cultures, genetic code, gender, and neurological wiring relating to how they learn (Tomlinson & Marcia, 2013). Therefore, learning experiences should be designed and adapted to students’ diversity to facilitate learning (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009). In principle, differentiated instruction (DI) requires teachers to use diagnostic assessment to obtain day-to-day data on students’ readiness for knowledge, interests, and preferred approaches to learning to guide the modification of content, processes, products, or learning environment. These assessment data help teachers become conscious of the status of each student relative to teaching and learning goals so that they can design instructional plans that support their learning steadily towards the learning goals and beyond (Tomlinson, 2014). The key differentiated instructional practices are that teachers proactively plan instructional approaches to address students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles (Tomlinson, 2014).

Students’ readiness describes their proximity to specified learning goals (Tomlinson, 2014). It is students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills in relation to the content the teacher intends to teach. According to Santangelo and Tomlinson (2009), students’ readiness in terms of knowledge, understanding, and skills is shaped by prior learning and life experiences, attitudes about school, and cognitive and metacognitive proficiency. Students’ readiness requires that teachers provide learning experiences that are a good match for students’ readiness and are capable of extending students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills a bit beyond what they can accomplish independently. Thus, a differentiated task is a good match for students’ readiness and pushes them a little beyond their comfort zones. This requires teachers to support students in bridging the gap between the known and the unknown (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009).

Interests describe students’ passion, affinities, and eagerness, which motivate their learning (Tomlinson, 2014). These are topics and/or processes that stimulate interest and inspire passion among students. The differentiation of instruction according to existing students’ interests promotes motivation and engagement and connects students with what is being taught with the things they already know/value (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009; Tomlinson, 2014). The learning profiles of students are their preferred approaches to learning. They are students’ preferences for taking in, exploring, or expressing content. These are influenced by their learning styles, intelligence preferences, gender, and culture. In addition, they are students’ preferred contextual approach to learning and can be independent or in groups, with music or without music (Tomlinson & Marcia, 2013).

Subsequently, teachers use assessment data about students’ readiness, interest, and learning profile to guide the differentiation of content, process, products, or learning environment. The content is the information and ideas teachers present to students to preach their learning goals. The process describes how students take in and make sense of the content. The product is how students demonstrate what they know, understand, and can do (Tomlinson, 2014). The learning environment refers to the routines, procedures, tone, physical arrangements, or climate of the classroom. It also includes the overall mood or tone that exists among and between students and teachers (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012). Teachers need to differentiate content, process, and product in all possible ways in every subject. Therefore, DI is teachers’ proactive response to students’ readiness needs, interests, and preferred learning approaches (Dack, 2019; Tomlinson, 2014). However, studies have shown that very few teachers proactively plan instruction to consistently address student differences in readiness, interest, and learning profile (Tomlinson & Marcia, 2013). The main aim of this study is to explore the usage of DI among high school teachers in Ghana.

3. Teachers’ Usage of Differentiated Instruction

DI has been described as an effective pedagogical approach to creating an inclusive learning environment, promoting academic achievement, and strengthening equal opportunities for all students. This postulation has been bolstered by considerable empirical evidence (Alegria & Kelly-Williams, 2022; Magableh & Abdullah, 2020; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009; Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). Smale-Jacobse et al.’s (2019) extensive systematic review of research evidence from 2006 to 2016 regarding the effectiveness of within-class DI for high school students’ achievement found small-to-moderate positive effects of differentiated instruction on student achievement. This indicates a strong possibility of the efficacy of DI in improving student achievement.

Another study by Alegria and Kelly-Williams (2022), which examined the effectiveness of DI in improving student reading abilities, found that the student participants demonstrated higher reading scores after teachers used DI. The study adopted teacher interviews with pre- and post-test assessments in three areas—phonological awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension—and found that DI is an effective approach to improving students’ reading levels. The participants in the study viewed DI as an approach that is vital for students’ academic success.

Another experimental study by Magableh and Abdullah (2020) found that the experimental group statistically outperformed the control group in reading comprehension attainment. This experimental study followed differentiated instructional strategies of flexible grouping, tiered instruction, and tiered assignments in the areas of content, process, and product to teach the experimental group. The findings showed that differentiated education is effective in addressing the diverse needs of students in inclusive settings. Other quasi-experimental studies that investigated the effectiveness of DI also found that students in classrooms where DI methods were systematically employed made better progress than those in classrooms where DI methods were not employed (Muthomi & Mbugua, 2014; Valiandes, 2015). Muthomi and Mbugua, (2014) found that the largest percentage (89%) of students in the experiment group instructed with DI performed better in the post-test than in the pre-test. The findings of the study by Valiandes (2015) showed that in classrooms where DI methods were systematically employed, students made better progress than those in classrooms where DI methods were not employed. Therefore, the authors emphasised the significance of the systematic usage of DI methods in mixed-ability classrooms to promote equity, optimisation of quality, and effectiveness in teaching.

Empirical studies have yielded mixed results on teachers’ reported use of DI in classrooms (Pozas et al., 2019). In Germany, Pozas et al. (2019) used nationally representative data to explore teachers’ reported use of DI and found that teachers indeed apply DI practices in their class instructions. However, the frequency with which they implement DI practices is less than recommended for successfully dealing with student diversity. Furthermore, the authors found that when teachers occasionally implement DI practices they mostly adhere to tiered assignments and heterogeneous ability groups, which clearly indicates that teachers hold a rather low variance in DI practices. Teachers’ reported use of DI practices differed across different school tracks, with DI practices being implemented in advanced secondary schools less often than in comprehensive schools. A study by Gibbs and Beamish (2021) also found that although all teachers understood many aspects of DI practices and reported using several well-known DI strategies, the experienced teachers reported applying a more well-planned DI approach.

However, several studies have established that teachers find it extremely difficult to implement DI in classrooms due to several challenges (Alegria & Kelly-Williams, 2022; D’Intino & Wang, 2021). Some of the factors that impede teachers’ use of DI have been found to include inadequate training, a lack of time, resources, and support from school leadership (Alegria & Kelly-Williams, 2022; Gibbs & Beamish, 2021). Recent systematic reviews of the literature have also found some challenges that significantly constrain the use of DI strategies. These challenges include high student–teacher ratios in classrooms, classroom management, lack of availability of educational equipment and instruments, classroom layouts not being suitable for DI, and the amount of planning time and effort required for effective differentiation according to interest, readiness, and ability and insufficient preparation in their teacher education course (D’Intino & Wang, 2021; Papanthymou & Darra, 2023; Scarparolo & Subban, 2021; Valiandes & Neophytou, 2018).

Therefore, the necessary conditions and prerequisites for the effective implementation of DI practices have been found to include adequate training, time, availability of supporting resources and equipment, teachers’ knowledge and experience, flexibility in instructional decision-making, and availability of support from school leadership (Alegria & Kelly-Williams, 2022; Dack, 2019; Papanthymou & Darra, 2023). In addition to these school-based factors, Dack (2019) has argued that teachers must possess strong self-efficacy beliefs that DI is useful, possible, and important and must have a strong understanding of how the DI model works to enable them to enact DI in robust and ongoing ways during teaching. Since DI is relatively new to the Ghanaian education system, it is not yet clear how much high school teachers understand DI and are prepared to use its strategies to address the diverse learning needs of students.

4. Implementation of Inclusive Education in Ghana

The education system in Ghana comprises two pedagogical streams: special and regular schools (Deku & Vanderpuye, 2017). However, it is classified as a three-tier education system: 11 years of basic education (early childhood and primary and junior secondary education), 3 years of secondary education, and tertiary education. The cost of education from the basic to the secondary level is free and compulsory for all children of school age. Following the adoption of international documents such as the Salamanca Statement and the worldwide call for the education of people with disabilities, Ghana began to practise inclusive education.

In the 2003–2004 academic year, the Government of Ghana implemented inclusive education, allowing the participation of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. These schools were mandated to provide education for students with disabilities. However, educational provision for students with severe disabilities still occurs in special schools, which are mostly segregated residential institutions designed for those with hearing, visual, and intellectual incapacities (Agbenyega, 2007). In 2015, an inclusive education policy was passed to strengthen and expand the programme to many schools across the country (Deku & Vanderpuye, 2017; Nketsia, 2018). Ghana’s inclusive education policy states that quality inclusive education should be provided to respond to the diverse needs of all learners within the framework of universal design for learning (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 3). To further enhance its implementation, the government set up a specialised agency, the Special Education Division, to promote the education of persons with disabilities and inclusive education.

However, researchers have pointed out that the current status of the implementation of inclusive education does not appear to match this strong policy support. More importantly, a review of the literature has revealed other key factors affecting the implementation of inclusive education and educational opportunities for students with disabilities in Ghana. These include inadequate teacher preparation, limited resources, including funding and materials, and a lack of government commitment to policy implementation (Kuyini et al., 2020; Nketsia et al., 2020, 2024).

5. Study Context and Research Questions

In 2015, Ghana adopted a national policy on inclusive education aimed at addressing the diverse educational needs of all children. This policy stipulates that the learning needs of all Ghanaian schoolchildren enrolled in mainstream schools should be met through DI approaches (Ministry of Education, 2015). Ghana’s education system follows a three- to four-tiered structure comprising basic education (early childhood to grades 1–9), senior high school (grades 10–12), and tertiary education.

In the 2018/2019 academic year, Ghana’s initial teacher education programme was reformed from a three-year diploma in basic education to a four-year Bachelor of Education degree. This transition was supported by the government in collaboration with Transforming Teacher Education and Learning in Ghana, resulting in a new National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework. The reforms aim to produce competent teachers who are sensitive to the needs of vulnerable groups, including girls and students with special educational needs and disabilities, and who are fully prepared to adopt learner-centred pedagogy and inclusive practices (Ministry of Education, 2015).

While these reforms underscore the importance of DI, little is known about senior high school teachers’ understanding of and preparedness to apply DI in addressing the diverse learning needs of their students. Existing research on DI in Ghana has largely focused on pre-service teachers at the colleges of education (Nketsia et al., 2024) or in-service teachers at the basic school level (Ako et al., 2019; Mohammed, 2021), with limited exploration of Tomlinson’s comprehensive model of differentiation in non-Western contexts. This study addresses this gap by investigating the competence of senior high school teachers in implementing DI to support students with disabilities. Based on this aim, the study addresses the following research questions:

• What are secondary school teachers’ levels of readiness to implement DI to support students with disabilities?
• What DI strategies (learning environment, content, process, and product) do secondary school teachers report using to support students with disabilities?
• What is the relationship between teachers’ readiness and their reported use of DI strategies?

6. Methods

Study Participants

The study participants comprised teachers working in secondary schools in Ghana. A total of 204 teachers were recruited from 10 secondary schools across 3 regions. The schools were selected from the Ashanti, Bono East, and Central Regions based on their access and proximity to the researchers. Four schools were selected from the Ashanti Region, while Bono East and Central Regions had three schools each.

The demographic information of the participants is presented in

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.

Characteristic (N = 204)	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	145	71
Female	59	29
Age
29 and below	41	20
30–39	89	44
At least 40 years	74	36
Subject Specialisation
Humanities	115	56
STEM	89	44
Level of Teaching
Year 1	130	64
Year 2	63	31
Year 3	11	5
Highest Qualification
Bachelor	138	68
Masters	52	25
Other	14	7
Teaching Exp.
0–4 years	76	37
5–9 years	56	28
At least 10 years	72	35
Disability in Class
Yes	117	57
No	87	43
Training in differentiated Instruction
Yes	171	84
No	33	16
Training in Inclusive Education
Yes	181	89
No	23	11

Note. N = 204.

. Among the teachers in the present study, 71% were male, while 29% were female. Most of the teachers (44%) were aged between 30 and 39 years, and a majority of them had a bachelor’s degree (68%) as their highest educational certificate (see Table 1).

7. Instrument

The study used two-part instruments for data collection. The first part collected the demographic characteristics of the participants (see Table 1). The second part adopted the original differentiated instruction scale (DIS) developed by Tomlinson (2014). The DIS has been used in the Ghanian context by Nketsia et al. (2024), who reported high internal consistency (α = 0.89). However, their study was limited to pre-service teachers and their tutors in colleges of education in Ghana. The current study extends Nketsia et al.’s (2024) study to in-service teachers working in secondary schools in Ghana.

The DIS is multidimensional and comprises 60 items. The DI scale consists of seven subscales, which have been grouped into two key domains: teacher readiness for DI and teaching strategies. The teacher readiness domain comprises three subscales: readiness (12 items), interests (3 items), and learning profile (6 items). The teaching strategies domain was made up of four subscales: content (15 items), process/product (15 items), learning profile (6 items), and assessment (3 items). However, the assessment subscale was not used in this study because of advice from external reviewers.

The instrument was subjected to face validation, and the researchers recommended the exclusion of those items. All the items on the DIS had responses provided on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The DIS has proven to be reliable when used to examine teachers and students in Portugal (Gaitas & Alves Martins, 2016) and the United States (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012).

7.1. Procedure

The study received approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Western Sydney University (H14956), Australia, and the Ghana Education Service. Approval was also obtained from the regional directors of education and copied to the headmasters of the selected schools. Following this, the study recruited three research assistants (one for each region), who met with the teachers to inform them about the study and gave printed questionnaires to the teachers. A sealed box with the inscription “survey items” was placed in the staff common room for the teachers to put in the survey after completion within two weeks. The survey, which was written in English, had a participant information sheet that explained the study aims, ethical procedures, and guidelines for completion. In this study, implied consent was used, and the teachers were made aware that they could withdraw at any time during data collection without informing the researchers. However, if they withdrew after data collection, their responses could not be retrieved since the survey was anonymous. The teachers received no incentives for participation and were assured of the anonymity of their responses.

7.2. Data Analysis

Preliminary analyses were conducted to eliminate errors and ensure data accuracy. The assumption of the normality test was checked using a histogram, normal Q–Q plots, detrended normal Q–Q plots, and a boxplot to determine the distribution of the data. The results showed that the scores on the subscales appear not to be reasonably distributed, which suggests the presence of outliers and extreme values. It is worth noting that researchers have claimed that when a study sample is large (e.g., 200 or more), violation of the normality assumption does not affect the analyses (see Field, 2018; Pallant, 2020).

To answer Research Question 1, scores were calculated to assess the level of teacher readiness and the teaching strategies used in implementing DI. Additionally, for research question 2, a MANOVA was performed to examine the differences between the participants in terms of teaching strategy and readiness.

For research question 3, a standard multiple hierarchical regression was conducted to determine which teacher demographic variables predicted teaching strategies. The interactive effect of the teacher demographic variables on the relationship between teaching strategies and readiness was then explored. Teaching strategies were operationalised as the dependent variable, while teacher readiness was used as the independent variable. Teacher qualification was used as the moderator.

8. Results

8.1. Reliability

The reliability of all 57 items on the DI scale was tested using Cronbach’s alpha (see

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for the differentiated instruction scale.

DIS and Sub-Scales	No. of Items	Cronbach Alpha
Readiness	12	0.87
Interest	3	0.61
Learning Profile	6	0.78
Overall Readiness	21	0.91
Content	15	0.86
Process	15	0.83
Learning Environment	6	0.84
Overall Teaching Strategies	36	0.90
Total DIS	57	0.91

). In exploratory research, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 is commonly accepted (Field, 2018), and 0.60 is generally considered the minimum acceptable value (Hair et al., 2018). The findings revealed that the subscales and the overall scale showed acceptable reliability.

8.2. Teaching Strategies and Readiness

Table 3. Results Related to Teacher Readiness.

	Items	M	SD
	Readiness
R1	Students in my classes differ significantly in relevant background knowledge	3.93	1.12
R2	There is a strong relationship between students’ background knowledge and their course performance.	3.96	1.06
R3	My understanding of differences in individual students’ background knowledge impacts what/how I teach.	4.16	0.99
R4	Students in my classes differ significantly in basic academic skills (e.g., reading comprehension, written expression, problem solving).	4.16	0.98
R5	There is a strong relationship between students’ academic skills and their subject’s performance.	4.12	0.86
R6	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ basic academic skills impacts what/how I teach	4.24	0.86
R7	Students in my classes differ significantly in their study skills (e.g., note taking, exam preparation, time, and management).	4.11	0.93
R8	There is a strong relationship between students’ study skills and their subject’s performance	4.02	0.94
R9	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ study skills impacts what/how I teach.	4.09	0.91
R10	Students in my classes differ significantly in their attitude/motivation towards subject’s performance	4.05	0.95
R11	There is a strong relationship between students’ attitude/motivation and their course performance	4.03	0.99
R12	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ attitudes/motivations impacts what/how I teach	4.04	0.98
	Interest
I1	Students in my classes differ significantly in their interests with regard to the subject’s content.	3.96	0.94
I2	There is a strong relationship between students’ interests and their subject’s performance.	3.99	0.98
I3	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ interests impacts what/how I teach.	4.11	0.88
	Learning Profile
LP1	Students in my classes differ significantly in their preferred learning modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic; active or passive; Multiple Intelligence, preferences).	3.98	0.87
LP2	There is a strong relationship between students’ learning modalities and their subject’s performance	3.86	1.02
LP3	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ learning modalities impacts what/how I teach	3.94	0.97
LP4	Students in my classes differ significantly in their preferred grouping orientations (e.g., whole class, small group, individual).	3.77	0.99
LP5	There is a strong relationship between students’ grouping orientation and their subject’s performance	3.82	1.02
LP6	My understanding of the differences in individual students’ grouping orientations impacts what/how I teach.	3.96	0.99

shows the items, means, and standard deviations related to teacher readiness (readiness, interests, and learning profile). The mean score for the Readiness subscale was 4.06 (0.62), while the individual item means score ranged from 3.93 to 4.24 (0.86–1.2). The Interest subscale recorded a mean of 4.02 (0.70), with individual item means ranging from 3.96 to 4.11 (0.88–0.94). The results revealed that the Learning Profile subscale had M = 3.89 and SD = 0.67. but individual item means ranged from 3.77 to 3.98 (0.87–1.0).

In addition, the findings (see

Table 4. Results Related to Teaching Strategies.

	Items	M	SD
	Learning Environment
LE1	I create activities/assignments to develop a sense of community among students.	3.98	1.06
LE2	I take deliberate efforts to ensure each student feels known, welcome, and respected.	4.05	1.05
LE3	I take deliberate efforts to make myself approachable/available to students.	4.03	1.07
LE4	I take deliberate efforts to ensure students participate consistently and equitably during class.	4.04	0.98
LE5	I take deliberate efforts to enhance students’ attitude/motivation towards course content	3.86	1.07
LE6	I follow up privately on behaviours or circumstances of concern (e.g., absences, low grades, and the conflict between Students).	3.75	1.12
	Content
C1	I use text materials that represent a variety of formats (e.g., textbooks, journal articles, literature).	3.68	1.19
C2	I use text materials that present content at varying levels of complexity.	3.73	1.13
C3	I allow students to select from multiple text options (e.g., read one of three).	3.81	1.10
C4	I use materials that represent a variety of formats (e.g., text, video, audio, web-based).	3.76	1.12
C5	I use text and/or other materials that present content in a variety of ways (e.g., narrative & graphic, theory to example & example to theory).	3.84	1.11
C6	I use text and/or other materials that reflect students’ interests or experiences.	3.86	1.03
C7	I provide supplemental materials/resources to support Students who have difficulty understanding course content	3.83	1.04
C8	I provide supplemental materials/resources to challenge Students who master course content with minimal effort.	3.93	1.01
C9	I present course content using visual displays or demonstrations.	3.91	1.02
C10	I present subject content using examples that reflect students’ interests or experiences.	4.01	0.92
C11	I use strategies to support comprehension and retention of the content presented in text materials (e.g., chapter outlines, guided reading questions.)	4.03	0.95
C12	I use strategies to support comprehension and retention of the content presented in class (e.g., lecture outlines, end-of-class summaries).	4.11	0.85
C13	I provide supplemental support to students who have difficulty understanding subject content (e.g., conferences during office hours).	4.03	0.94
C14	I create opportunities that are more advanced for students who master subject content with minimal effort.	3.96	1.02
C15	I solicit students’ feedback to help select/adjust the content presented within a given semester/term	4.00	1.04
	Process/Product
PP1	I design activities/assignments that help students understand subject content by interacting with each other	3.91	1.08
PP2	I use a variety of grouping formats during class (e.g., whole class, small group, individual).	3.92	1.08
PP3	I use a variety of grouping formats for assignments completed outside of class (e.g., small group, partners, individual).	3.82	1.14
PP4	I allow each student to select his/her preferred grouping format (e.g., work independently or with a partner).	3.55	1.26
PP5	I purposefully group students based on their levels of readiness (e.g., relevant background knowledge, academic skills).	3.49	1.25
PP6	I purposefully group students based on their interests.	3.43	1.27
PP7	I purposefully group students based on their preferred learning modalities.	3.54	1.28
PP8	I create activities/assignments that offer format options (e.g., write a paper, create a visual, design a web page, or give a presentation).	3.75	1.16
PP9	I create activities/assignments that allow each student to select a topic of personal interest	3.68	1.26
PP10	I adjust assignment deadlines in response to individual students’ needs and/or circumstances	3.86	1.11
PP11	I provide supplemental support to students who have difficulty completing activities/assignments	3.92	1.09
PP12	I create enrichment opportunities for students who complete activities/assignments with minimal effort.	3.93	1.04
PP13	I evaluate each student based on his/her improvement during the semester/term	4.05	0.99
PP14	I use three or more forms of assessment to determine subject grades (e.g., a paper, presentation, participation, final exam).	4.09	0.92
PP15	I solicit students’ feedback to help create/adjust activities/assignments used within a given semester.	4.14	0.89

) revealed the mean scores and standard deviations of items related to teaching strategies (learning environment, content, process, and product). The individual item means for the Learning Environment subscale ranged from 3.75 to 4.05 (0.98–1.07), with its overall mean score showing 3.95 (0.79). The Content subscale had a mean score of 3.90 (0.60), and its individual item means score ranged from 3.68 to 4.11 (0.85–1.19). Teachers’ individual item means on the process and product subscale ranged from 3.49 to 4.14 (0.89–1.28), while the overall mean was 3.81 (0.62).

The mean scores and standard deviations for the combined teacher readiness dimension (readiness interests and learning) subscale were 4.01 (0.56), whereas the teaching strategy dimension (learning profile, content, and process and product) was 3.87 (0.51). The total DIS with 57 items had M = 3.92 and SD = 0.43.

9. Difference Between the Participants on Readiness and Teaching Strategy

The differences between the participants on the combined dependent variables were explored using a MANOVA (see

Table 5. Difference Between the Participants on Teaching Strategy and Readiness.

	Wilks’ Lambda	MAN. F	ANOVA F
			Teach. Strategy	Teach. Readiness
Gender	0.99	0.74	1.32	0.001
Partial eta squared		0.008	0.007	0.001
Age	0.99	0.49	0.17	0.84
Partial eta squared		0.005	0.009	0.002
Subject Specialisation	1.00	0.08	0.01	0.15
Partial eta squared		0.001	0.001	0.001
Level of Teaching	0.97	1.60	3.07	0.63
Partial eta squared		0.02	0.03	0.007
Highest Qualification	0.95	2.78	3.04	1.07
Partial eta squared		0.007	0.03	0.01
Teaching Exp.	0.99	0.68	0.46	1.11
Partial eta squared		0.007	0.01	0.005
Disability in Class	1.00	0.01	0.007	0.01
Partial eta squared		0.001	0.001	0.001
Training in differentiated Instruction	1.00	0.46	0.001	0.81
Partial eta squared		0.005	0.001	0.004
Training in inclusive education	1.00	0.26	0.003	0.48
Partial eta squared		0.003	0.003	0.001

). Differences were found between the participants on highest qualification only, F (2, 189) = 2.78, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.94, p = 0.03, and partial eta squared = 0.03. However, individually, no difference was found between the participants on each of the dependent variables.

9.1. Predictors of Teaching Strategies

Computation of the correlation coefficient showed a significant relation between teaching strategies and teacher readiness, r = 0.31, p = 0.001.

Teacher readiness was regressed on the teaching strategies used to support students with disabilities (see

Table 6. Summary of Multiple Regression.

	Unst. Beta	S. E.	Stand. Beta	t	p-Value
Step 1
Teacher readiness	0.28	0.060	0.31	4.64	0.001 **
Step 2
Teacher readiness	0.29	0.06	0.32	4.76	0.001 **
Gender	0.12	0.08	0.11	1.58	0.12
Age	−0.04	0.05	−0.05	−0.69	0.49
Subject Specialisation	−0.02	0.07	−0.02	−0.28	0.78
Level of Teaching	0.06	0.05	0.09	1.28	0.20
Highest Qualification	−0.14	0.06	−0.17	−2.31	0.02 *
Teaching Exp.	0.001	0.04	0.001	0.01	0.99
Disability in Class	−0.02	0.07	−0.02	−0.23	0.82
Training in differentiated Instruction	0.08	0.14	0.06	0.59	0.56
Training in inclusive education	−0.08	0.16	−0.05	−0.47	0.64

Note: ** p = 0.01; * p = 0.05.

). In Step 1, teacher readiness (b = 0.31, p = 0.001) made a 10% significant contribution to the variance in teaching strategies, F (1, 202) = 21.49, p = 0.001.

In step 2, demographic variables alone (R² change = 4%) did not contribute to the variance in teaching strategies, F (9, 193) = 1.09, p = 0.37. However, the combined demographic and teacher readiness contributed 14% significantly to the variance in teaching strategies, F (10, 193) = 3.14, p = 0.001. Individually, teacher readiness (b = 0.32, p = 0.001) and qualification (b = −0.17, p = 0.02) made significant contributions to the variance in teaching strategies.

9.2. Interaction Effect of Demographics

Following the hierarchical regression, the interactive effect of demographic variables on the relationship between teaching strategies and readiness was explored. Since only teachers’ qualifications made a significant contribution to the variance in teaching strategies, it was considered for this step. Teacher qualification was operationalised as a moderator, readiness was used as an independent variable, and teaching strategies were adopted as a dependent variable. The overall model was significant, F (3, 200) = 12.60, p = 0.001, with a variance of 16%. Individually, both teacher readiness (b = 0.70, t = 4.86, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.42, 0.99]) and teacher qualification (b = 1.20, t = 2.79, p = 0.006, 95% CI [−0.53, −0.12) made significant contributions to the variance in teaching strategies. Teacher qualification moderated significantly (R² square change = 0.04) the relationship between teacher readiness and teaching strategies, b = −0.32, t = −3.10, p = 0.002, 95% CI [−0.53, −0.12]. Individually, when teachers had bachelor’s and master’s degrees, a significant relationship was found between teaching strategies and readiness, b = 0.37, t = 0.06, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.25, 0.51]. However, if teachers indicated other qualifications, no significant relationship was found between teacher readiness and teaching strategies, b = 0.06, t = 0.10, p = 0.59, 95% CI = [−0.13, 0.25]. It is apparent that as qualifications increase, teaching strategies also appreciate in the same direction.

10. Discussion

This study investigated inclusive teaching practices in secondary schools, with a particular focus on evaluating teachers’ competence in applying DI to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how secondary school teachers perceive their readiness and how they implement instructional strategies aimed at supporting diverse learners within inclusive classroom settings. Overall, the results indicate a generally positive perception across both domains, with moderately high mean scores on all subscales.

The findings revealed an overall positive perception of readiness, with the highest ratings found in the readiness subscale. This suggests that teachers feel confident in identifying and responding to students’ varied levels of preparedness. This aligns with Tomlinson’s (2014) conceptual framework, which emphasises readiness as a foundational element of DI. Teachers who can assess and adjust for student readiness are better positioned to provide appropriately challenging learning experiences, particularly for students with disabilities who may require more individualised scaffolding (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2018). The interest subscale also scored highly, indicating teachers’ awareness of the role that student interest plays in learning motivation. This supports the view that instruction that connects to students’ passions and preferences can enhance engagement and academic achievement (Doubet & Hockett, 2015). However, the slightly lower scores on the learning profile subscale suggest an area where teachers may benefit from additional support or professional development. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have found that teachers lack an understanding of student diversity, with negative impacts on teaching and learning processes (Opoku et al., 2021; Naami & Mort, 2023). Understanding and addressing learning profiles, which include factors such as learning styles, gender, culture, and neurological profiles, is more complex and often underemphasised in practice (Gregory & Chapman, 2013).

In terms of teaching strategies, teachers reported moderate use across subscales, with the highest scores in the learning environment domain. This suggests that teachers are successfully creating classroom settings that support differentiation, consistent with recommendations from Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010), who stress the importance of safe, flexible, and inclusive environments for effective DI. Content differentiation also showed relatively high mean scores, indicating that teachers are making efforts to modify what is taught. This is encouraging, as research has shown that adapting content helps ensure that all learners can access the curriculum (Hall et al., 2011). However, the lowest mean was observed in the process and product subscales. This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., Wan, 2016), which report that while teachers may be conceptually prepared to differentiate, they often struggle to implement differentiation in instructional methods and assessment practices due to practical challenges, such as limited time, large class sizes, and insufficient resources. Teacher educators have had to race against time to complete their syllabi and prepare students for external examinations (Nketsia et al., 2016, 2020). This could leave them with little time to ensure that the learning environment and process have been adapted to suit the needs of all students.

The overall score on the DIS (M = 3.92, SD = 0.43) indicates that teachers are implementing differentiated practices at a generally favourable, though moderate, level. The observed difference between teachers’ self-reported readiness (M = 4.01) and their reported use of teaching strategies (M = 3.87) highlights a readiness–implementation gap, a pattern documented in earlier research (Nketsia et al., 2024; Reis et al., 2021). Studies conducted in Ghana also report that while teachers show both willingness and competence in differentiating instructions, their classroom practices do not always align with this perceived readiness. This mismatch is often due to systemic and contextual constraints, such as large class sizes, limited planning time, scarce resources, and curriculum pacing pressures, which can hinder the full implementation of differentiated strategies (Ako et al., 2019; Owusu-Ansah & Apawu, 2022).

The study found that teachers’ highest qualifications significantly influenced the combined outcomes of readiness and teaching strategy use but not the individual subscales. No significant differences were observed for other demographic factors, including gender, age, teaching experience, teaching level, or prior training in DI or inclusive education. These results suggest that while educational attainment may influence the general profile of differentiation practices, its effects on specific readiness or strategy components are more nuanced. For instance, Shareefa (2023) reported that higher academic qualifications were associated with more consistent DI use, whereas Shareefa (2023) found no significant differences across the readiness or strategy subscales. Systematic reviews have also noted that demographic characteristics, while relevant, are often overshadowed by contextual factors such as access to resources, institutional support, and professional development opportunities in influencing DI application (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). Collectively, these studies reinforce the interpretation that qualifications may act as a broad enabler of DI but are not the sole or direct driver of specific instructional behaviours.

The regression analysis further supports this conclusion. Teacher readiness emerged as a significant predictor of teaching strategy use, explaining 10% of the variance in teaching strategies. When combined with demographic variables, the predictive power increased to 14%, with readiness and highest qualification contributing significantly to the model. These findings echo previous research demonstrating that teacher beliefs and preparedness are key determinants of DI implementation (Doubet & Hockett, 2015; Eysink et al., 2017).

Of particular interest is the moderation analysis, which showed that teacher qualification significantly moderated the relationship between readiness and teaching strategies. Specifically, the strength of the relationship between teacher readiness and teaching strategies was more pronounced among teachers with bachelor’s or master’s degrees. In contrast, for those with other (possibly lower or nontraditional) qualifications, no significant relationship was observed. This suggests that higher qualifications may enhance not only teachers’ understanding of DI but also their capacity to translate that understanding into practice. Such a finding is consistent with studies that have emphasised the importance of ongoing formal education in developing pedagogical competence (Tomlinson, 2014).

10.1. Study Limitations

While the findings of this study offer valuable insights into teachers’ readiness and strategy use for DI, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study relied on self-reported data, which may have been affected by social desirability bias. Teachers might have overestimated their competence or strategy use in inclusive settings. Future research should include classroom observations or student performance data to triangulate self-reported results and provide a more objective measure of instructional practices. Second, the sample was confined to a specific institutional context (high schools), which could limit the generalisability of the findings. Future studies should aim for more diverse samples across various regions, school types, and cultural settings to strengthen external validity. Third, the cross-sectional design of the study does not permit causal interpretations of the relationships between readiness, qualifications, and strategy use. Longitudinal research could offer deeper insights into how teachers’ beliefs and practices develop over time and in response to the need for ongoing professional development. Finally, although teacher qualification was identified as a significant moderator, the study did not explore the content or quality of those qualifications (e.g., specialised training in inclusive pedagogy, special education, or differentiation). Future research should examine which specific aspects of teacher education most effectively enhance DI practice.

10.2. Conclusions and Implications for Practice

These results have important implications for teacher education and professional development. First, the quality and depth of teacher preparation programmes appear to be more influential than demographic characteristics alone in fostering effective DI. This reinforces the need to embed differentiation deeply into pre-service and postgraduate teacher training curricula. The integration of DI into teacher education programmes could be achieved by creating new curriculum modules that explicitly focus on inclusive pedagogy, practical workshops on differentiated lesson planning, and teaching practice experiences that incorporate real-world differentiation. Secondary schools could enhance the sustained implementation of DI by providing institutional supports such as continuous professional development, mentoring systems, and school-based communities. Also, secondary schools should strengthen teachers’ motivation and confidence to effectively implement DI by creating school cultures that value inclusion. In terms of policy, the National Teacher Education Curriculum Framework could include DI as a mandatory competence area. In addition, the fact that training in inclusive education and DI did not independently predict teaching strategy use suggests that one-off or isolated training sessions may not be sufficient. Instead, long-term, continuous professional development with opportunities for reflection and application may be more effective (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2009).

Finally, the study confirms a consistent, positive association between teacher readiness and teaching strategy use. This reinforces the theoretical argument that cognitive and attitudinal readiness are critical precursors to differentiated instructional practice (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). However, this relationship is not uniform across teacher groups, highlighting the complex interplay between internal (e.g., teacher beliefs and confidence) and external (e.g., qualifications and institutional support) factors in shaping instructional behaviour. To promote teacher readiness and beliefs, professional development should adopt a reflective and collaborative model, allowing teachers to share experiences, adapt strategies, and receive coaching feedback.