Self-efficacy can be interpreted as individuals’ beliefs about their ability to carry out future tasks (Bandura, 1997). The teacher’s perception that DMI provides benefits for increasing student self-efficacy is in line with Cholsakorn and Piamsai (2022) research. This is possible because the practice of DMI is not only limited to adapted student needs but also has a certain quality (Maulana et al., 2020) and effective learning that seeks to ensure equity and justice in educational practices (Lindner & Schwab, 2020) This quality and effective learning leads to student progress, thus increasing learning motivation. This learning motivation is one aspect that can maintain student self-efficacy (Schunk, 1991).

This research also explored how mathematics teachers’ perspectives relate to the differences between traditional instruction and DMI. G4 explains that in DMI, teachers differentiate learning media and learning evaluations, while in traditional instruction, everything is equalized. The research findings explore that the difference between traditional and DMI can be seen in the methods and learning media and in the fulfillment of student needs based on mapping. Based on these instructions, the teacher’s role as a facilitator is needed. In DMI, the teacher’s role is to identify the characteristics of students in the class and design appropriate instructions as a guide, motivator, and evaluator. The findings of this study are in line with previous research, which explored that in DI, teachers are responsible for every decision made, learning objectives, learning content, didactical strategies, learning media, evaluation, and organization such as grouping and time management (Suprayogi et al., 2017).

3.2. Teachers’ Readiness Implementing DMI

The second theme explored is the teachers’ readiness for implementing DMI in Indonesia. Teacher readiness in this study can be seen from their beliefs about implementing DMI. It is important to explore because the successful implementation of learning in the classes depends on teachers’ beliefs and how students learn effectively (Pak et al., 2020; Way et al., 2020). DMI does not only translate into the implementation of adaptive strategies but rather into a reflected process where teachers have an accurate view of students’ learning needs (Pak et al., 2020). During the interview, teachers were asked about their beliefs to implement DMI on a scale of 1 to 5. The results are then averaged for each participant’s classification (DMI experience) and converted into a percentage of teachers’ beliefs (details are presented in Figure 1). The interview showed that the average teacher’s belief level who has never implemented DMI is the lowest compared to teachers who have implemented it.

Figure 1. Teachers’ Beliefs for Implementing DMI

Figure 1 shows significant differences in beliefs between teachers who have implemented DMI and those who have not. Teacher readiness for implementing DMI can be seen in the teacher’s knowledge about it, starting with mapping, strategic planning, and assessment. Based on interviews, many teachers understand these three aspects, such as the G20. He can describe the three aspects even though he has never implemented DMI. According to the G20, for implementing DMI, teachers need to: (1) map the learning needs based on three aspects: readiness, interests, and learning profiles through interviews, observations, or questionnaires; (2) develop learning plans based on the results of learning strategies, materials, and methods; and (3) evaluate and reflect on the learning process that has been taken.

3.3. DMI Practice

DMI has become an important aspect of teaching practice as part of the education reformation. According to the G7, DMI begins with mapping out learning objectives, and then teachers find out students’ readiness, interests, and learning profiles through diagnosis tests. Diagnostic tests include learning achievement levels, learning interest questionnaires, learning styles, and background profiles of learners. This was conducted through interviews, observations, or surveys using questionnaires. The results of the diagnostic test are used to develop a learning plan and differentiation techniques that will be carried out in the process, content, or product. Needs assessment is based on three aspects: willingness to learn, interest in learning, and learning profile. After reviewing the needs assessment, teachers plan appropriate learning strategies according to students’ needs. One of the strategies teachers can use is to differentiate content, materials, processes, and products. The practice of DMI conducted by participants is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. DMI Flow of Teacher Practice in Indonesia

DMI is different from traditional instructions. G9 explains that DMI learning media are based on student’s needs, while in traditional instructions, only one is used for all students. According to G18, there is no difference in the content, process, or products when using traditional instructions, while in DMI there are differences in the content presented. Furthermore, DMI considers the different characters and needs of students, as well as creating a comfortable class for them. It can build mutual respect as well as create an environment of mutual support and mutual assistance between students. After that, diverse evaluations are also carried out according to the achievements of each student’s abilities.

DMI practice faced several barriers, as experienced by G5, G11, and G12. The problems included classroom management, developing learning materials and media, and the challenge of facilitating each group. In addition, G7 and G8 suggested that teachers must be more creative and work hard. DMI requires extra preparation to create learning tools. Sometimes they need to spend extra energy in the classroom because they have to organize different materials among students. Moreover, DMI needs high costs.

3.3.1. Teachers’ Practice in Content Differentiation

The participants were twenty Indonesian teachers, but only eight teachers had implemented DMI for less than one year and two teachers had implemented DMI for more than two years. Based on interviews, content differentiation refers to the teacher’s strategy for distributing learning content. In this case, content is the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students need to learn based on the curriculum. All teachers who have implemented DMI explain that the form of content differentiation that is often carried out is providing enrichment material (advanced level) for students who have a learning speed that exceeds their peers. However, the teacher has not differentiated regarding the sequence of the material. G17 stated, "I will provide enrichment material that challenges students with above-average abilities. Apart from that, I usually also provide practice on high-order thinking skills (HOTS) questions as an exercise to improve their skills."

Content differentiation is also carried out by teachers when dealing with struggling students with below-average abilities. G3 and G20 provide simpler problems in problem-based learning carried out in class. G3 explained "In the DMI problem-based learning that I have done, I provided three different problems with three levels of difficulty. Students who are below average will be given the simplest problems and students who are above average will be given the most complex problems."

3.3.2. Teachers’ Practice in Process Differentiation

The research also found that teachers differentiated processes in mathematics learning. Learning begins by carrying out cognitive and non-cognitive diagnostic assessments through tests and observations. This diagnostic assessment aims to provide assistance or carry out peer tutoring for students who have learning difficulties. The purpose is to achieve students’ highest learning achievements. The learning process carried out by the teacher adjusts the students’ abilities, or the teacher plans the students’ learning together with colleagues. This is important because each student is unique and has a different level of understanding and struggles with certain knowledge and disciplines (Aziz, 2019).

Some of the differentiation processes practiced by the teacher include compiling student worksheets that can accommodate students according to their learning styles, such as students who are taciturn and students who tend to be kinetically active (implemented by G2). On the other hand, the worksheets developed can be adjusted to suit students’ abilities and interests (implemented by G3). To support the differentiation process, teachers also often use tactical aids (implemented by G2). G2 explained that "I provide tactile media “geometric shape brick” while studying three-dimensional space. Students can make various shapes, take them apart, and put them back together. Students who like tactile activities will be happy to carry out investigations with the existing media. Meanwhile, other students learn by observing pictures or videos provided by the teacher.”

3.3.3. Teachers’ Practice in Product Differentiation

Product differentiation can be facilitated by student projects (Papanthymou & Darra, 2022). This is in line with the statement of G3, G5, G17, and G20, that product differentiation in mathematics learning is mostly done through project-based learning. The majority of teachers stated that students were given the optional final project. G5 explains that in DMI, the teacher gives students project assignments that will make students learn optimally, giving students opportunities to discuss, carry out simulations, and learn through social media. Learning evaluations carried out by teachers can also be used to differentiate learning products. In the learning process, teachers carry out evaluations through observations, tests, and self-assessment (Brevik et al., 2018). Teachers also use self-reflection by conveying what they have learned in the learning process, and teachers also reflect on themselves to see whether their learning objectives have been achieved.

3.3.4. Teachers’ Barriers in DMI Practice

Teachers faced some barriers when implementing DMI, such as difficulties in time management (G3, G14, and G17), difficulties in preparing lesson plans (G15, G17, and G19), and limited examples of DMI application (G4, G10, G15, G19, and G20). Meanwhile, another barrier is that teachers need more energy and are stressed to prepare various learning media (G3, G5, and G17). This finding is in line with previous research, which revealed that using various methods, various media, and facilitating different evaluations for each student makes teachers stressed (Stollman et al., 2019). Other research also reveals that teachers do not implement DMI because it is difficult to facilitate a large number of students, many standards must be met, it is difficult to design different lesson plans, it is time-consuming, and it is expensive (Xiang et al., 2019).

The other problem shown in this research was that only two teachers had received training related to DMI. G2, G3, and G8 explained that access to DMI training is still limited. This condition shows the importance of providing professional training related to DMI. This is in line with previous research, which reveals that teachers need to receive training and implement DI strategies more widely (Whipple, 2012).

Even though DMI faces many barriers, teachers believe that it is beneficial. The various barriers become a challenge for teachers to provide learning opportunities to all students in the class, create educational settings that are suitable for students, design teaching activities, know the most effective methods needed to teach, and apply different teaching approaches in the teaching process (Levy, 2008). DMI practice makes students freer and more active in learning because it is adjusted to their abilities. In addition, students become creative, and learning mathematics becomes more interesting.

4. CONCLUSION

DMI is learning based on individual student differences. This learning is varied and adapted based on students’ abilities and interests. In implementing DMI, teachers have an important role, namely monitoring student progress to identify students’ educational needs and adapting teaching to each student’s needs. The research explores how teachers understand the concept, benefits, and role of DMI. However, there are still many teachers who are not ready, and various barriers have been faced in implementing DMI. Some of the barriers include difficulties in time management, difficulties in preparing lesson plans, and limited examples of DMI that can be adapted. Another barrier is that teachers feel stressed by using various methods and media and facilitating different evaluations for each student. Professional training related to DMI and collaboration between teachers can be pursued as solutions to various barriers.

Based on the research findings, it is reasonable to propose DMI courses through pre-service mathematics teacher education programs. Therefore, Colleges and Universities in Indonesia should prioritize the provision of facilities for the proper application of DMI. Besides that, teachers need access to supplementary materials, like modules or practical guides. Thus, researchers recommend holding professional development activities, for example, workshops or training for teachers on how to implement the DMI strategy. These activities can provide them with supplementary materials and practical models for the application of DMI that are easy to implement.

This research is limited to mathematics teachers in public schools affiliated with the Ministry of Education in Indonesia, where the majority of subjects are women. Therefore, future research is expected to involve more diverse participants, so the findings will be more comprehensive. Besides, interviews served as the only source for data collection in this study. Future studies may adopt a mixed-method design or use triangulation in data collection. The research is also limited to teachers’ perceptions, readiness, and practices in DMI. Further research could explore students’ perceptions regarding DMI. It is important to provide a more comprehensive picture so that DMI can be developed and implemented more optimally. Furthermore, research related to the implementation of DMI also needs to be done. It is important to provide examples for teachers that can be adapted.

5. REFERENCES

Afilin, K. M. (2023). Penerapan Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi Menggunakan Model PJBL untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Matematika Sekolah Dasar Negeri Jetis 3 Sukoharjo [Implementation of Differentiated Instruction Using the Project Based Learning Model to Improve Mathematics Learning Outcomes at Jetis 3 Sukoharjo Elementary School]. Jurnal Dikdas Bantara, 6(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.32585/dikdasbantara.v6i1.2998

Algolaylat, A. S., Alodat, A. M., Muhidat, M. A., & Almakanin, H. A. (2023). Perspectives of Students with Disabilities on Inclusive Education Challenges in Higher Education: A Case Study of a Jordanian University. TEM Journal, 12(1), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM121-50

Aliyeva, A. (2021). Differentiated Instruction, Perceptions and Practices. In Inclusive Education in a Post-Soviet Context. Springer International Publishing, 67–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65543-3_4

Aprima, D., & Sari, S. (2022). Analisis Penerapan Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi dalam Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka pada Pelajaran Matematika SD [Analysis of the Differentiated Instruction in the Merdeka Curriculum in Mathematics Learning at Elementary School]. Cendikia: Media Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 13(1), 95–101. www.iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/Cendikia

Ariso, J., Herwana, E., & Sukirdi. (2023). Penerapan Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi dalam Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas 6 SDN 30 Bengkulu Selatan [Implementation of Differentiated Instruction to Develop Mathematics Learning Outcomes for 6 Grade Students at Elementary School of 30 Bengkulu Selatan]. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Al-Affan, 4(1), 43–52. http://ejournal.stit-alquraniyah.ac.id/index.php/jpia/

Aung, K. T., Razak, R. A., & Nazry, N. N. M. (2021). Establishing Validity and Reliability of Semi-Structured Interview Questionnaire in Developing Risk Communication Module: A Pilot Study. Edunesia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, 2(3), 600–606. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.v2i3.177

Aziz, A. A. (2019). Ts25 School Teachers’ Perceptions of Differentiated Learning in Diverse ESL Classrooms. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335453003

Bahari, S. D. U., Fadillah, S., & Jamilah. (2023). Pengembangan Video Pembelajaran Diferensiasi dalam Materi Perbandingan Trigonometri di Kelas X MA Mathla’Ul Anwar Pontianak [Development of Differentiation Instruction Videos in Trigonometry Material in X Grade MA Mathla’Ul Anwar Pontianak]. Jurnal Prodi Pendidikan Matematika (JPMM), 5(2), 646–653. https://jurnal.mipatek.ikippgriptk.ac.id/index.php/JPPM/article/view/578

Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bi, M., Struyven, K., & Zhu, C. (2023). Variables that Influence Teachers’ Practice of Differentiated Instruction in Chinese Classrooms: A Study from Teachers’ Perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1124259

Bobis, J., Russo, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Sullivan, P. (2021). Instructional moves that increase chances of engaging all students in learning mathematics. Mathematics, 9(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/MATH9060582

Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. (2018). Student Teachers’ Practice and Experience with Differentiated Instruction for Students with Higher Learning Potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003

Chamberlin, M. T. (2011). The Potential of Prospective Teachers Experiencing Differentiated Instruction in a Mathematics Course. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education-IΣJMΣ, 6(3), 134-156. https://www.iejme.com/download/the-potential-of-prospective-teachers-experiencing-differentiated-instruction-in-a-mathematics.pdf

Cholsakorn, P., & Piamsai, C. (2022). The Effects of Differentiated Reading Instruction on Reading Comprehension and Self-Efficacy of Thai Undergraduate Students. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 43(3), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2022.43.3.24

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (3rd Edition). SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Fatimah, A. E., Siagian, M. D., Suwanto, Wahyuni, F., & Purba, A. (2022). Improving Students’ Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability Using Differentiated Instruction Approach. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2468. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0102628

Grecu, Y. V. (2023). Differentiated Instruction: Curriculum and Resources Provide a Roadmap to Help English Teachers Meet Students’ Needs. In Teaching and Teacher Education, 125. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104064

Guay, F., Roy, A., & Valois, P. (2017). Teacher Structure as a Predictor of Students’ Perceived Competence and Autonomous Motivation: The Moderating Role of Differentiated Instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12146

Gusteti, M. U., & Neviyarni. (2022). Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi pada Pembelajaran Matematika di Kurikulum Merdeka [Differentiated Instruction in Mathematics Learning in The Merdeka Curriculum]. Lebesgue: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, Matematika Dan Statistika, 3(3), 636–646. https://doi.org/10.46306/lb.v3i3

Hackenberg, A. J., Creager, M., & Eker, A. (2021). Teaching Practices for Differentiating Mathematics Instruction for Middle School Students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 23(2), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1731656

Hasanah, E., Suyatno, S., Maryani, I., Badar, M. I. Al, Fitria, Y., & Patmasari, L. (2022). Conceptual Model of Differentiated-Instruction (DI) Based on Teachers’ Experiences in Indonesia. Education Sciences, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100650

Herner-Patnode, L., & Lee, H.-J. (2021). Differentiated Instruction to Teach Mathematics: Through the Lens of Responsive Teaching. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(6), 6-25. https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/658

Holzäpfel, L., & Bardy, T. (2019). Preparing In-Service Teachers for The Differentiated Classroom. Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1-8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332817421

Hunter, J., Hunter, R., & Anthony, G. (2020). Shifting Towards Equity: Challenging Teacher Views about Student Capability in Mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00293-y

Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. In Husserl’s Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction. Northwest University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025935

Jamil, N. A., Setiani, A., & Balkist, P. S. (2024). Pengembangan Modul Pembelajaran Matematika Berdiferensiasi untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Siswa [Development of Differentiated Mathematics Instruction Modules to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Abilities]. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 08(01), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v8i1.2669

Kamal, S. (2021). Implementasi Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi dalam Upaya Meningkatkan Aktivitas dan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas XI MIPA SMA Negeri 8 Barabai [Implementation of Differentiated Instruction to Develop Activities and Mathematics Learning Outcomes for XI Grade Students at Senior High School 8 Barabai]. JULAK: Jurnal Pembelajaran & Pendidik, 1(1), 89–100.

Kamarulzaman, M. H., Kamarudin, M. F., Sharif, M. S. A. M., Esrati, M. Z., Saali, M. M. S. N., & Yusof, R. (2022). Impact of Differentiated Instruction on the Mathematical Thinking Processes of Gifted and Talented Students. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 9(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v9i4.4253

Krishan, I. Q., & Al-Rsa’I, M. S. (2023). The Effect of Technology-Oriented Differentiated Instruction on Motivation to learn Science. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16153a

Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.

Lai, C. P., Zhang, W., & Chang, Y. L. (2020). Differentiated Instruction Enhances Sixth-Grade Students’ Mathematics Self-Efficacy, Learning Motives, and Problem-Solving Skills. Social Behavior and Personality, 48(6). https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9094

Letzel, V., Pozas, M., & Schneider, C. (2023). Challenging but Positive! – An Exploration into Teacher Attitude Profiles Towards Differentiated Instruction (DI) in Germany. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12535

Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Students through Differentiated Instruction: Helping Every Child Reach and Exceed Standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/tchs.81.4.161-164

Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and Individualisation in Inclusive Education: a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1813450

Majid, M. A. A., Othman, M., Mohamad, S. F., Lim, S. A. H., & Yusof, A. (2017). Piloting for Interviews in Qualitative Research: Operationalization and Lessons Learnt. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i4/2916

Maulana, R., Smale-Jacobse, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., Chun, S., & Lee, O. (2020). Measuring Differentiated Instruction in The Netherlands and South Korea: Factor Structure Equivalence, Correlates, and Complexity Level. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(4), 881–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00446-4

McDuffie, K. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2008). The Contributions of Qualitative Research to Discussions of Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208321564

Muslimin, Hirza, B., Nery, R. S., Yuliani, R. E., Heru, Supriadi, A., Devitasari, T., & Khairani, N. (2022). Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Melalui Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi dalam Mewujudkan Merdeka Belajar [Improving Student Mathematics Learning Outcomes Through Differentiated Instruction in Realizing Freedom of Learning]. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika RAFA, 8(2), 22–32. https://jurnal.radenfatah.ac.id/index.php/jpmrafa

Onyishi, C. N., & Sefotho, M. M. (2020). Teachers’ Perspectives on The Use of Differentiated Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms: Implication for Teacher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n6p136

Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The Adaptive Challenges of Curriculum Implementation: Insights for Educational Leaders Driving Standards-Based Reform. AERA Open, 6(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828

Papanthymou, A., & Darra, M. (2022). Perceptions of Primary School Teachers Regarding the Implementation of Differentiated Instruction to Students with Learning Difficulties. World Journal of Education, 12(5), 19. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v12n5p19

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2018). Differentiated Instruction in Primary Mathematics: Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Student Achievement. Learning and Instruction, 54, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.009

Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to Address Diverse Learning Needs: Development and Validation of a Differentiated Instruction Scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(11), 1186–1204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.743604

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self Efficacy and Academic Motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(4), 207–231.

Shareefa, M. (2023). Demystifying the Impact of Teachers’ Qualification and Experience on Implementation of Differentiated Instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16122a

Silvana, P. M., Rofi’ah, I., & Kholiq, A. (2023). Implementasi Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi Melalui Model Pembelajaran Problem Based Learning Untuk Meningkatkan Keaktifan Dan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas X di SMA Negeri 1 Jombang [Implementation of Differentiated Instruction Through the Problem-Based Learning Model to Increase the Activeness and Mathematics Learning Outcomes of X Grade Students at SMA Negeri 1 Jombang]. DIDAKTIKA: Jurnal Pemikiran Pendidikan, 29(2), 188. https://doi.org/10.30587/didaktika.v29i2.6503

Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & van Driel, J. (2019). Teachers’ Interactive Cognitions of Differentiated Instruction in a Context of Student Talent Development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.003

Suprayogi, M. N., Valcke, M., & Godwin, R. (2017). Teachers and Their Implementation of Differentiated Instruction in The Classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.020

Syarifuddin, S., & Nurmi, N. (2022). Pembelajaran Berdiferensiasi dalam Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Matematika Siswa Kelas IX Semester Genap SMP Negeri 1 Wera Tahun Pelajaran 2021/2022 [Differentiated Instruction in Improving Mathematics Outcomes for IX Grade Students, Even Semester, SMP Negeri 1 Wera, Academic Year 2021/2022]. JagoMIPA: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika dan IPA, 2(2), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.53299/jagomipa.v2i2.184

Wan, S. W. Y. (2016). Differentiated Instruction: Hong Kong Prospective Teachers Teaching Efficacy and Beliefs. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 148–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

Way, J., Attard, C., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Mcaster, H., & Cartwrigth, K. (2020). Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2016–2019. Springer.

Whipple, K. A. (2012). Differentiated Instruction: A Survey Study of Teacher Understanding and Implementation in a Southeast Massachusetts School District. Dissertation, Northeastern University.

Xiang, J., Wan, Y., & Zhou, J. (2019). Factors Affecting the Learning Effect of Advanced Mathematics among Chinese College Students in Social Science Majors. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/109607

Ziernwald, L., Hillmayr, D., & Holzberger, D. (2022). Promoting High-Achieving Students Through Differentiated Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms—A Systematic Review. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(4), 540–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X221112931