South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 1

Art. #1938, 15 pages, https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n4a1938

Differentiating instruction for learners’ mathematics self-efficacy in inclusive

classrooms: Can learners with dyscalculia also benefit?

Charity N. Onyishi and Maximus M. Sefotho

Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
msefotho@uj.ac.za

Poor mathematics self-efficacy (MSE) has been recorded among learners at all levels in Nigeria. The study reported on here
sought to establish the efficacy of differentiated instruction (DI) in raising learners’ MSE in inclusive settings. We also
explored the differential effects of DI on the MSE of learners with dyscalculia, as well as on high- and low-achieving learners.
We adopted a control group quasi-experimental research design involving 1 experimental and 1 control group. A total of 4
mathematics teachers and 158 Senior Secondary II (SSII) learners in 4 regular classes participated in the study. Mathematics
teachers participated in a one week DI training workshop to equip them with DI skills for whole-term mathematics instruction.
The Students’ Mathematics Self-efficacy Scale (SMSES) was used for data collection at pre- and post-intervention evaluations.
Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The major findings reveal
that using DI led to significant improvements in learners’ MSE. Prior achievement (PA) had a significant influence on MSE;
however, DI was effective in reducing the negative effects of poor PA on the self-efficacy of low-achieving learners and
learners with dyscalculia. It was concluded that DI offers teachers the impetus to help all learners to improve their self-efficacy
in mathematics.

Keywords: differentiated instruction; dyscalculia; flexible grouping; inclusion; mastery; mathematics; ongoing assessment;
prior achievement; problem solving; self-efficacy

Introduction
Since the Salamanca Education for all Statement (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization [UNESCO], 1994), inclusive education has stood to be widely adopted in education policies and
practice across the world. Inclusive education, therefore, qualifies as a global education policy (Verger, Novelli
& Altinyelken, 2012). Learners with all kinds of learning limitations and strengths are currently enrolled in
mainstream education settings. The inclusion of learners with diverse learning abilities has increasingly posed
difficulties in teaching-learning processes worldwide. For instance, teaching in inclusive education has some
implications including creating and maintaining a supportive classroom, accepting diversity, and respect for
diversity. Equally, making fundamental changes in curriculum implementation to accommodate heterogeneity of
classrooms through cooperative learning approaches is always sought, while preparing and encouraging teachers
to use interactive teaching techniques based on learners’ needs, involving parents and learners in the planning
process (Rachmawati, Nu’man, Widiasmara & Wibisono, 2016). Rather than placement of some learners who
have additional needs in a regular classroom, inclusion entails addressing obstacles to participation of all learners
(Engelbrecht, Oswald & Forlin, 2006). Although some developed countries are increasingly at ease with the
implementation of inclusive education, African countries still lag behind in terms of implementation (Adetoro,
2014; Charema, 2010; Srivastava, De Boer & Pijl, 2015).
African countries present elevated challenges for both the school systems and the teachers with respect to
meeting the needs of all learners irrespective of their personal limitations in learning (Mupa & Chinooneka, 2015).
This is because of some culturally-based assumptions about capabilities of persons with disabilities and a lack of
competence on the part of the teachers (Charema, 2010; Srivastava et al., 2015). Teaching and learning are
persistently following the old teacher-centred pedagogies (Schweisfurth, 2011; Spratt & Florian, 2013; Srivastava
et al., 2015) which rarely meet the needs of learners with special needs. In Nigeria, it has been identified through
research that teachers in mainstream schools are poorly equipped to implement inclusive education pedagogies
and lack the skills necessary to optimise learning across learners’ abilities/disabilities (Agunloye, Pollingue,
Davou & Osagie, 2011). They are also incompetent in evaluative services for learners with disabilities (Agunloye
et al., 2011). This is especially problematic, given the diversity in learners’ abilities, readiness levels and learning
profiles in regular classrooms, and following inclusion (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Landrum & McDuffie,
2010; Rachmawati et al., 2016; Thakur, 2014). Teachers are faced with the challenge of helping all learners benefit
or cope effectively with learning experiences apposite for their grade level through developing skills for self-
regulation (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Gillespie Rouse & Kiuhara, 2017; Lingo, Barton-Arwood &
Jolivette, 2011; Nel, Nel & Hugo, 2013). Yet, the majority of teachers tend to teach to the middle (a one-size-fits-
all approach) and then fail to capture learners’ different learning needs. Teachers may also display poor disposition
to facilitating access and participation for all their learners (Walton, 2011). As a result, a good number of learners
are either being over-challenged or under-challenged (Berman, Schultz & Weber, 2012; Hornby, 2011; Schmitt
& Goebel, 2015). It has been recorded that 67% of learners’ poor performance in mathematics in Nigeria was
mainly due to poor pedagogical approaches used by teachers (Bot & Caleb, 2014) who rarely attend to learners’
needs, but have high expectations for them (Du Toit-Brits, 2019). This has implications for learning processes, in
2 Onyishi, Sefotho

that learners whose learning needs are thwarted or To address these issues, teachers need to assist
not met are likely to under-perform, develop poor learners – specifically at their individual levels of
attitudes, and demonstrate a lack of trust in their knowledge, interests, and learning styles (Florian &
abilities (Okafor & Anaduaka, 2013; Walton, 2011). Black-Hawkins, 2011; Gökdağ Baltaoğlu & Güven,
Learners’ doubts about their abilities (poor self- 2019). Regrettably, research shows that the majority
efficacy) have been found to be part of the of the teachers in Nigeria teach the whole class using
explanatory factors contributing to mathematics a conventional approach which is largely a lecture
phobia, anxiety, and poor performances (Bonne & method (Agwagah, 2013). The conventional lecture
Lawes, 2016; Mutodi & Ngirande, 2014; Pagtulon- approach has been found wanting in teaching all
an & Tan, 2018; Spaniol, 2017). learners the same way, at the same level and using
In addition, the procedural nature of the same materials irrespective of the diversity of the
mathematics (Ghazali & Zakaria, 2011; Rittle- learners (Achuonye, 2015; Agwagah, 2013). Such
Johnson & Schneider, 2015) demands that learners’ methods have been proven inadequate for teaching
individual needs be met at each teaching scenario. mathematics in inclusive classrooms (where
The reason for this is that once a learner lacks the differences in abilities, learning styles and choices
prerequisite knowledge and resources for given identify individual learners) (Agwagah, 2013). In
content, it will be difficult for the same learner to order to raise learners’ MSE, there is a need to adopt
progress with others in the class as the levels of the a pedagogical methodology that attends to learners’
tasks increase in difficulty. Failure to progress in this diverse needs and builds on their previous
respect could make the learner develop poor maths knowledge (Kay & Kibble, 2016; Kee, 2013) so that
self-efficacy, a situation where learners doubt their they can progress optimally.
abilities to succeed in learning mathematics DI (Tomlinson, CA 1999) is a learning
(Ogunmakin & Akomolafe, 2013). For learners’ approach aimed at creating a flexible yet organised
mastery in mathematics, the high self-efficacy of classroom environment for meeting learners’ needs
both the learners and the teacher is fundamental and enabling all learners to build competence in
(Gökdağ Baltaoğlu & Güven, 2019). Learners who inclusive education settings, where diversity
have low self-efficacy in mathematics often find it accommodates the teaching-learning process
difficult to persist in learning the subject and so (Landrum & McDuffie, 2010; Walton, 2017). In DI,
cannot achieve success. teachers proactively adjust teaching and learning
On the other hand, self-efficacy is anchored on methods to accommodate each learner’s learning
prior experiences of success or failure. Bandura needs and preferences in order to achieve his or her
(1986) found that self-efficacy is a product of four optimum growth as a learner (Landrum &
sources including previous performances, vicarious McDuffie, 2010; Thakur, 2014; Tomlinson, C 2005;
experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological Tomlinson, CA 1999, 2001; Walton, 2017). A major
states. This indicates that PA in mathematics could strength of DI, in relation to self-efficacy
inform the learners’ beliefs in themselves when it development, is that through ongoing assessment, it
comes to mathematics. Thus, in heterogeneous taps into individual learner’s knowledge levels,
classrooms, a good number of learners may develop interests, and preferences (Landrum & McDuffie,
poor self-efficacy in mathematics due to past 2010; Thakur, 2014;Tomlinson, C 2005; Walton,
experiences of poor achievements (Prabawanto, 2017). The positive effects of DI on achievement
2018). The negative influences of these get more have been established across learner populations and
severe as learners progress to higher grades and their subject areas – especially in inclusive learning
learning experiences get more difficult. By the time settings where the learner enrolment is not strictly
they get to high school, those who have not informed by abilities (Abbas & Abdurrahman, 2015;
developed high MSE find it difficult to learn Chamberlin & Powers, 2010; Flaherty & Hackler,
complex mathematics topics. This could explain 2010; Kreitzer, 2016; Meyad, Roslan, Abdullah &
why the majority of topics that learners in Nigeria HajiMaming, 2014; Thakur, 2014). Florian and
fail in the West African Examination Council Black-Hawkins (2011) identified that DI was an
(WAEC) examinations come from the SSII effective inclusive pedagogy for attending the needs
curriculum (WAEC, 2013, 2014). In this study we of special education children in inclusive
covered some of those topics included in the SSII classrooms. However, it is not clear whether DI
curriculum, such as geometry and trigonometry, impacts directly on learners’ sense of confidence
algebraic processes (quadratic equations) and (self-efficacy) in that it enables them to set and
numeration. Getting learners to understand these achieve goals in mathematics.
topics puts greater demands on SSII mathematics Furthermore, there is a gap in the literature
teachers, not only to teach the content but also to regarding whether DI could moderate the impact of
make efforts to address issues around learners PA on the self-efficacy of learners who consistently
developing a strong sense of competence in perform poorly in mathematics. Existing evidence
mathematics/MSE. suggests that the level of PA (high or low) can have
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 3

a lasting influence on the learners’ self-efficacy mathematics problems) and maths literacy (ability to
(Bandura, 1986; De Fátima Goulão, 2014; McCoach use mathematics knowledge in solving daily
& Siegle, 2001; Schöber, Schütte, Köller, McElvany problems) (Cheema, 2018; Liu & Koirala, 2009).
& Gebauer, 2018; Siegle, 2014; Tosun, 2009; Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura,
Woolfolk, 2011). It could also bring about disparity 1986) asserts that self-efficacy differences underlie
in how learners benefit from a given teaching individual differences in beliefs, assumptions,
method (Fakayode, 2000; Mbam, 2010). If these are implicit theories, and worldview in relation to
implied, meeting the needs of learners who present oneself. Self-efficacy is both a domain-general
with consistent failure or poor performance in (global) (Schöber et al., 2018) and/or
mathematics, such as learners with dyscalculia (a domain-specific construct (McConney & Perry,
learning disability that impedes an individual’s 2010) that has been identified as core to learning
ability to represent and process numerical traits such as persistence (Woolfolk, 2011),
magnitude at an appropriate age level) may be more motivation (Bandura, 1986; Skaalvik, Federici &
critical. Evidence-based studies acknowledge that Klassen, 2015), attitude (Azar & Mahmoudi, 2014;
children with dyscalculia constitute about 5 to 14% Han, Liou-Mark, Yu & Zeng, 2015), problem
of the learner population (Fuchs, Fuchs & Compton, solving (Gökdağ Baltaoğlu & Güven, 2019; Pajares
2012; Kaufmann & Von Aster, 2012; Plerou, 2014). & Miller, 1997), and career decision-making (Betz
These ones are in a vicious circle of poor MSE and & Hackett, 1983). Self-efficacy has been found to be
poor achievement in mathematics and need special a very important tool for learning, given its
approaches to raise their MSE so that they can reciprocal relationship with achievement (Gökdağ
progress with others in mathematics learning. Baltaoğlu & Güven, 2019). Hence, learners who
With this intervention we sought to determine have low MSE are vulnerable to under-performance
whether DI would improve the MSE of learners in a in mathematics, notwithstanding their abilities
mixed-ability classroom and whether DI moderates (Bandura, 1986; Schöber et al., 2018).
the negative effects of poor PA on the MSE of
learners with dyscalculia and low and high achievers Dyscalculia
in mathematics. The hypothesis held at Developmental dyscalculia (DD) is one of the
commencement of the process was that after the learning problems that challenge learners of
implementation of DI in mathematics teaching and mathematics (Monei & Pedro, 2017; Williams, A
learning for a whole term, learner’s would improve 2013). It is a condition where learners have issues
significantly and those with dyscalculia would also developing mathematics-related and arithmetical
have significant gains in MSE. skills (Gillum, 2012; Rajkumar & Hema, 2017).
Dyscalculia is a spectrum of difficulties in learning
Literature Review maths, because of the heterogeneity of learners and
Mathematics self-efficacy the constellation of skills that mathematics requires
Self-efficacy belief can be defined as a personal of those learners (Zhou & Cheng, 2015). The
judgment of one’s capabilities to organise and learners may also have poor number sense and not
execute courses of action to attain designated goals understand maths concepts like “greater than” and
(Bandura, 1986; Gökdağ Baltaoğlu & Güven, 2019; “less than.” They may also struggle with
Woolfolk, 2011). These predictions go a long way remembering phone numbers or keeping track of
in determining the degree of one’s success or failure scores when they are playing sports. DD has been
in mathematics. An individual’s expectations for referred to as number blindness, mathematical
success or failure at a particular task are influenced disability, arithmetic learning disability, number
by such individual’s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986; fact disorder and psychological difficulties in
Woolfolk, 2011). Hence, ones’ self-efficacy in a mathematics (Doyle, 2010; Gupta, 2014).
given task or area represents one’s conviction that Apart from poor performances in mathematics,
one can successfully execute behaviour required to dyscalculia is symptomised in counting out
produce the desired outcomes in such a domain or mathematics solutions with fingers when it is not
endeavour (Rosen, Carrier & Cheever, 2010). A age-appropriate; inability to recall basic
mathematics learner is said to have high mathematics facts; inability to link numbers and
self-efficacy in mathematics when such a learner has symbols to quantities and directions; and difficulties
the conviction that they can set goals and recognising patterns and sequencing numbers at an
accomplish them in the course of learning early school age (Doyle, 2010). In secondary school,
mathematics (Gökdağ Baltaoğlu & Güven, 2019; DD severely impedes academic progress or daily
Woolfolk, 2011). On the other hand, low living. At this stage it may manifest in difficulties
self-efficacy is indicated when learners do not recognising, reading, writing or conceptualising
believe that they can succeed in mathematics tasks numbers, understanding numerical or mathematical
because of a lack of ability. MSE affects concepts and their interrelationships (Doyle, 2010;
mathematics performance, including mathematics Gupta, 2014). Difficulty with numerical operations,
achievement (ability to do well in solving difficulties with understanding the systems that rely
4 Onyishi, Sefotho

on this fundamental understanding, such as time, the teacher to tap into learners’ ZPD and
money, direction, and more abstract mathematical, characteristic preferences. To differentiate
symbolic, and graphical representations could also instruction, the teacher flexibly adjusts the content,
depict DD at secondary school age (Doyle, 2010; process, product and learning environment to suit
Gupta, 2014). Other complex disabilities may individual learner’s prior knowledge, interests, and
include poor language of mathematics, and poor learning styles (Gentry, Sallie & Sanders, 2013;
understanding of relationships between numbers Tomlinson, CA 2001). In order to differentiate
(Butterworth, 2009). DD, like other learning through content, teachers design activities for
disabilities, is based on malfunctioning of the brain, diverse groups of learners in a hierarchy of
poor teaching, and environmental deprivation complexities (Algozzine & Anderson, 2007;
(Butterworth, 2009; Doyle, 2010). Nunley, 2003) so that learners build on their
Irrespective of the source of DD, learners different mastery/readiness levels.
affected by such struggle with maths performance Through the differentiating process, the
(Henderson, 2012; Nfon, 2016) informs their maths teacher offers diverse ways in which learners can
identities (Heyd-Metzuyanim, 2013). These access the curriculum (Thakur, 2014; Walton,
challenges keep the learners in a cycle of consistent 2017). For instance, at the point of introducing a
poor achievement in mathematics, which can make topic in a classroom, some learners may be
learners with dyscalculia feel anxious about having unfamiliar with the concepts of the lesson, some
to do maths-related tasks (Nfon, 2016; Rajkumar & may have partial mastery of the content or display
Hema, 2017). They are more vulnerable to poor mistaken ideas about the content, and others may
MSE leading to high mathematics anxiety (Nfon, show mastery of the content before the lesson. A
2016; Rubinsten & Tannock, 2010), and meeting teacher who differentiates instruction targets all
their needs in a whole-class maths instruction learners in groups. To differentiate through the
situation could be quite challenging (Henderson, process, the teacher diversifies presentation of the
2012; Heyd-Metzuyanim, 2013). content in a way that will appeal to diverse learners’
Poor achievement has a psychological impact learning styles. For instance, some learners may
on learners with dyscalculia, which accounts for prefer to read about the topic while others may
their low academic self-concept, low self-efficacy, require practise in reading. Some learners may
low self-motivation, low goal-valuation and a more prefer to listen while others may need practise in
negative attitude towards school and the teacher than listening and others may acquire knowledge by
the high achievers (Siegle, 2014). High achievers manipulating objects associated with the content
and low achievers differ in both their motivational (tactile) (Nunley, 2003).
patterns and their academic self-perceptions and Differentiating by-product involves offering
sometimes cognitive development (Siegle, 2014). the learners various ways to demonstrate what they
Consequently, studies have outlined the need for have learned from the lesson unit (Algozzine &
effective school-based interventions for individuals Anderson, 2007). According to Algozzine and
with dyscalculia (Gifford & Rockliffe, 2012; Monei Anderson, tests, projects, assignments and all kinds
& Pedro, 2017). The transactional relationship of evaluations can be given, provided they fall under
between poor PA and the self-efficacy of learners the learners’ level of educational standard in respect
with and without dyscalculia is shown in Figure 1. of the curriculum. All these can be put in place using
menu unit sheets, choice boards or open-ended lists
Differentiated instruction of final product options (Nunley, 2003). Finally, the
According to CA Tomlinson (2001), during DI the learning environment can be differentiated by taking
teacher can challenge all the learners, irrespective of into consideration learners’ specific characteristics
their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) or and learning styles in physical classroom
multiple intelligences, by providing materials and arrangements (Gentry et al., 2013). Based on that,
tasks on the standard at varying degrees of the teacher provides varieties of sitting
scaffolding through multiple instructional groups, arrangements and learning materials for the learners
and with time variation. Tomlinson’s work was to learn according to their different styles. DI is
based on the idea of Gardner (1983) and Vygotsky diversity-friendly, peculiarity-oriented and interest-
(1978). Vygotsky (1978) believes that learners learn sensitive as well as content-driven and activity-
more when they are provided with tasks that are based.
slightly beyond their current point of mastery, In a mathematics DI lesson plan, the major
known as the ZPD. On the other hand, Gardner steps in differentiation, as itemised by Good (2006),
(1983) believes that intelligence varies from person are built into mathematics instruction. These
to person and that eight types of intelligence exists: include: conducting pre-assessment on the learners
visual/spacial, verbal/linguistic, interpersonal, to determine their level of readiness, interest, and
intrapersonal, logical/mathematic, musical, bodily learning styles; using the result of the pre-
kinaesthetic and naturalistic intelligences. CA assessment to group the learners according to the
Tomlinson (2001) built a framework that enabled level of guidance and scaffolding needed, their
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 5

learning styles and preferences; anchor learning and found positive effects of DI on learners’
experiences for the whole group through achievement. Abbas and Abdurrahman (2015)
whole-group instruction; providing each group with found DI fit for understanding middle school science
appropriate learning experiences which they engage concepts. Chamberlin and Powers (2010) also found
in based on their needs and prior knowledge, and that DI enhances understanding of mathematics
giving them the time to work in their groups (Florian among college students. Many other empirical
& Black-Hawkins, 2011; Walton, 2017). works have demonstrated the effectiveness of DI in
Sometimes, according to their preferences, revise teaching in inclusive classrooms (Chamberlin &
learning experiences for the whole group using Powers, 2010; Thakur, 2014; Tomlinson, C 2005;
works from those groups that exemplify an Tomlinson, CA 1999, 2001; Westwood, 2001).
understanding of the topic and finally conduct When mathematics instruction is differentiated, it is
assessment based on the same major concepts. likely that the learners will understand more, and
The efficacy of DI has been extensively achieve more (Chamberlin & Powers, 2010;
documented in literature. For instance, Meyad et al. Flaherty & Hackler, 2010; Meyad et al., 2014). The
(2014) explored the effects of differentiated learning conceptual representation of the effect of DI on the
methods on learners’ achievement in writing skills self-efficacy of learners with and without
in learning Arabic as a foreign language in Malaysia dyscalculia is shown in Figure 1.
Differentiated instruction
Teacher builds on each learner’s
level of readiness, interests, and
learning profile by adapting the
content, process, product, and
learning environment

Self-efficacy in mathematics Inclusivity Prior achievement

The more success is experienced, High achievers, low achievers Present success and pleasure
the more self-efficacy increases. and those with dyscalculia could weaken the
Each learner is given a maximum can learn based on their prior psychological impact of poor
opportunity to identify and build knowledge and Zone of prior achievement and
on their strengths, thus building a Proximal Development. strengthen endeavour by
sense of efficacy. building a sense of efficacy.

Figure 1 The conceptual framework

Method survey were subjected to descriptive statistics in

Ethical Considerations order to identify the schools with learners of the
The teachers in the study gave written consent lowest level of self-efficacy. Regrettably, 84.2% (16
declaring their interest in participating in the study. schools) had low mean scores, showing a general
Learners were assured of the anonymous analysis low MSE among learners in the area. However, four
and presentation of the findings. Identifying schools with the lowest mean scores were
learners’ PA levels was accomplished by giving purposively included in the study. The four schools
them identification numbers based on their serial selected were assigned to experimental and control
numbers in the school records. Learners were thus conditions using a simple random sampling
not labelled based on their achievement level. technique. In each of the four schools, one intact
Teachers in the control group (CG) were given DI class was randomly selected for the study. However,
training after the study. the teachers were not restricted from differentiating
instruction for other classes.
Participants
Participants in the study included 158 (67 male and Measures
91 female) SSII learners and four SSII maths The Mathematics Self-efficacy Scale (MSES) was
teachers (three males and one female) drawn from used to measure learners’ self-efficacy in
four coeducational secondary schools in the Nsukka mathematics before and after the DI intervention.
Education Zone, Enugu State, Nigeria. The authors MSES consists of 18 items which the researchers
conducted a pre-survey screening on SSII learners in adapted from the standardised self-efficacy scale
all 19 mixed secondary schools in the area, using developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (2010).
learners’ MSE scale. Data collected in the pre-
6 Onyishi, Sefotho

Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s (2010) self-efficacy Day 2: Elements of DI were discussed, including
scale consists of 49 items of a four-point scale differentiating by content (what the learners learn),
measuring general self-efficacy with a reliability process (different ways to approach learning),
coefficient of 0.72. Eighteen out of the 49 items of product (how the learners show what they have
the instrument were adapted by selecting the learnt) and environment (classroom condition).
appropriate items and recasting them to reflect Explicit discussions were held on specific practices
self-efficacy in mathematics. The items were made associated with each element. Bases for DI were also
up of a four-point response scale of Strongly Agreed discussed, including readiness, interest, and learning
(SA), Agreed (A), Disagreed (D) and Strongly styles.
Disagreed (SD). This included both positively and Day 3: DI strategies were discussed, such as jigsaw,
negatively worded items. Positively worded items goal-setting, ongoing and formative assessment,
were marked as follows: SA = 4 points, A = 3 points, compacting, respectful tasks, flexible grouping,
D = 2 points and SD = 1 point, which was reversed tiered assignments, learning contracts, teaching-up,
for the negatively worded items. The internal et cetera. All these were discussed in detail in the
consistency of MSES was calculated using training manual. An interactive session was also
Cronbach’s Alpha statistic which resulted in an held with the teachers on the concepts discussed and
α-value = 0.89. how they could bring these to bear in their
A Short Developmental Dyscalculia Index mathematics class.
(SDDI) was used to further augment mathematics Day 4: In collaboration with the teachers, the
PA in identifying learners with DD. The instrument selection of learner-oriented teaching materials was
consists of five short questions to which the learners discussed in detail. The researchers drew from the
responded orally during semi-structured interviews. topics that were to be covered to explicate the
The items measured whether the learner 1) Avoids materials and methods in each case. The participants
answering maths-related questions during day-to- were assigned to develop a framework for DI in two
day conversations; 2) Has trouble estimating how of the topics to be covered during the term. These
much something will cost or how long a trip will included three broad topics which included
take; 3) Cannot remember friends’ or parents’ phone geometry and trigonometry 1 & 2 (chord properties
numbers or addresses; 4) Uses a calculator for basic and circle theorems); algebraic processes 1
maths facts; 5) Is frequently late for classes. The (quadratic equations) and number numeration 2
learners attributing three or more of these items self- (approximations) as stipulated in the SSII
confirmed the presence of dyscalculia. curriculum, using New General Mathematics (a
standard mathematics textbook widely used in the
Training Programme area).
A 5-day training workshop was conducted with Day 5: Discussion and collaboration to develop a
follow-ups for two of the four SSII mathematics comprehensive framework of DI strategies
teachers in the four sample schools, who were continued. We collated ideas, compared the
teachers in the DI group. The 5-day programme was developed whole-term DI plans on the topics listed
necessary to up-skill the teachers with DI and above on Day 4. The researchers and the
motivate them to invest their efforts towards teachers/research assistants checked coverage of the
meeting all learners. The training workshop also curriculum objectives of each topic and the extent to
helped the researchers to build on teachers’ which the lesson plans were differentiated. For
self-efficacy in implementing DI as studies highlight instance, it was ensured that the plan would take care
this as a major hinderance in the use of DI (Ekstam, of learners differences by i) following different
Linnanmäki & Aunio, 2017; Suprayogi, Valcke & formats; ii) varying learners tasks in complexity and
Godwin, 2017). The workshop was held 2 weeks perspectives; iii) planning for on-going assessment;
before resumption of the first term of the 2016/2017 providing learning material; iv) making provision
academic session. To guide the training, a training for flexible grouping.
package was developed, which was utilised for 3 Follow up: During the follow-up exercise,
hours each day for 5 days. The training was aimed interaction sessions were undertaken to validate the
at educating the teachers about the concept of DI, the teachers’ preparation to implement DI. The
classroom implications of the teaching strategy, and flexibility of DI was also further discussed. Each
the activities of the teacher during DI. The training teacher exemplified the skills learned from the DI
sessions were guided by the DI manual developed training workshop.
by Onyishi (2017) to facilitate easy access to the Financial reinforcement was offered to the
workshop information. Session activities were as teachers. This was to cover their transport and
follows: refreshments during the 5-day training. The
Day 1: Familiarisation with the teachers, sharing financial support was also meant to assist the
experiences with the teachers on their favourite teachers in buying some local materials that could
teaching approaches, introduction of DI including help them diversify classroom experiences. This was
definition and overview. necessitated by the problem of a lack of materials
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 7

identified by the teachers. So, the financial support collected learners’ achievement histories from the
had positive implications for teachers’ commitment school records. This informed the grouping of the
and compliance to the package developed for the participants into high-achieving and low-achieving
study throughout the research period. learners, and learners with dyscalculia. Learners
who consistently scored 60% and above in the three
Procedure consecutive school terms were classified as high
The researchers obtained written permission from achievers. All those who scored between 40% and
the Educational Foundation Department at the 59% were regarded as low achievers. Learners who
University of Nigeria, Nsukka, to embark on the consistently scored less than 40% were identified as
study. Consent was also obtained from the being at risk of DD. Learners were further subjected
supervising principal of the Nsukka Education to additional criteria for DD including the teachers
Zonal Office in Enugu State, Nigeria. The confirming that such learners struggled abnormally
researchers took the written certification to all the in learning mathematics; ii) meeting the
secondary school principals whose schools would requirements for dyscalculia assessment (Kaufmann
take part in the screening exercise (see the sampling & Von Aster, 2012) in informal semi-structured
session). Thereafter, all the maths teachers in the interviews with five questions on indicators of
sampled schools were notified about the workshop dyscalculia in daily experiences as stated in the
and subsequent participation in the research. They instrument session. Based on these results, eight
held their first meeting to familiarise themselves learners met the criteria for DD, 95 learners were
with the schedule of the workshop. The workshop classified as low-achievers and 55 learners as high
itself then took place during the long vacation, 2 achievers. However, the learners were not informed
weeks before school resumed, as discussed above in about the grouping to avoid the psychological
the section on the training programme. effects of labelling. For the learners’ demographic
During resumption week, the researchers, with data, see Table 1.
the help of the teachers (research assistants),

Table 1 Learner’s demographic variables

Variable Category Experimental n (%) Control n (%) Total n (%)
Gender Male 33 (20.89%) 34 (21.51%) 67 (42.41%)
Female 47 (29.75%) 44 (27.84%) 91 (57.59%)
Total 80 (50.64%) 78 (49.36%) 158 (100%)
Prior achievement High 21 (13.29%) 34 (21.51%) 55 (34.81%)
Low 54 (34.18%) 41 (25.95%) 95 (60.13%)
DD 5 (3.16%) 3 (1.90%) 8 (5.06%)
Total 80 (50.63%) 78 (49.36%) 158 (100%)

With the teachers’ assistance, baseline data school three times every week to guide and monitor
(pre-test) were collected using MSES in both the progress. It was more like collaborative teaching.
experimental and control groups. After the pre-test, During the revision week, before the
learners in the experimental group (EG) were commencement of the school examination, the
informed that they would be adopting a teaching- researchers and the research assistants administered
learning approach where they would be fully a post-test to all the learner participants. All the
involved in the selection of materials developing learners who took part in the pre-test also completed
learning goals and overall learning processes. The the MSES during the post-intervention evaluation.
teacher trainees implemented DI in teaching Data collected during pre- and post-intervention
mathematics throughout the first term which lasted evaluations were subjected to analysis using
for a period of 12 weeks, while those in the CG had Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
their normal mathematics lessons guided by the version 23.00. Figure 2 shows the procedure and
teachers’ discretion. The researchers visited each data collection for the study.
8 Onyishi, Sefotho

Screening
N schools = 19
N students = 3,232

Excluded to
screening
N schools = 15
N students = 2,623

Included after screening

N schools = 4
N of intact classes = 14
N students = 609
Lost to random
selection
N intact classes = 10
N students = 451

Participated in the study

N schools = 4
N of intact classes = 6
N students = 158

Exp group Control group

N intact class = 3 N intact class = 3
Pre-test
N students = 80 N students = 78

Whole-term DI
in mathematics

Post-test Post-test Post-test

N = 80 N = 78

Analysis
N = 158

Figure 2 Sampling, experimental and data collection procedure

Design control groups are quite impracticable (Cohen,

A quasi-experimental research design was used for Manion & Morrison, 2011). Quantitative data were
this study. This is a compromised experimental collected during pre-test and post-test evaluations
design applied where the random selection and and analysed using ANCOVA.
assignment of the subjects to experimental and

Table 2 Pre-test–Post-test mean mathematics self-efficacy scores and standard deviation of learners
Method N Pre-test Post-test Mean gain
M SD M SD
Treatment 80 37.91 9.34 73.45 8.63 43.72
Control 78 36.71 8.55 39.59 1.77 1.85
Total 158 37.31 8.94 56.52 2.46 24.04

Table 2 shows that, at baseline (pre-test), both ±8.63) compared to those in the CG (39.59±1.77).
the EG and the CG had low mean MSE scores The EG had higher mean gain scores (43.72)
(experimental [exp.] = 37.91±9.34; control [cont.] compared to those in the CG (1.85). The moderate
= 36.71±8.55). At the post-test mean MSE score of value of standard deviation (9.34 and 8.63
learners in the EG increased significantly (73.45 respectively) in the pre-test and post-test of the EG
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 9

was indicative that individual mean scores were To test the significance of the main effect of DI
clustered around the mean. In the CG, their standard on MSE, data were subjected to ANCOVA (see
deviation during the pre-test was 8.55 while in the Table 3). Table 3 indicates that DI led to a
post-test, it was 1.77, showing that their individual significant improvement in the MSE of learners in
scores were more clustered around the mean in the the EG (F = 446.284; p = .000). This supports our
post-test than the pre-test. These results add to the hypothesis of significant improvement of MSE
validity of the mean scores in both the pre- and post- scores of learners after a whole term of DI in
tests. mathematics.

Table 3 Summary of the two-way analysis of covariance of learners on the Mathematics Self-efficacy Scale
Source Type III SS df MS F p
Corrected model 74072.493 4 18518.123 136.170 .000
Intercept 16350.812 1 16350.812 120.233 .000
SEpre 567.555 1 567.555 4.173 .043
Method 60691.102 1 60691.102 446.284 .000
Prior achievement 976.340 1 976.340 7.179 .008
Method * Prior achievement 3648.993 1 3648.993 26.832 .000
Error 20806.804 153 135.992
Total 577571.000 158
Corrected total 94879.297 157
Note. SEpre = Self-efficacy pre-test; Method-Differentiated instruction and lecture method; Method * Prior Achievement –
interaction effect of method and prior achievement.

We further sought to determine the extent to * Prior achievement in Table 3), prior achievement
which the MSE of learners with dyscalculia had had a significant impact on the learners’ MSE
improved. Controlling for the method (see Method (F = 7.179; p = .008).

Table 4 Interaction effect of teaching methods and prior achievement on learners’ mathematics self-efficacy
Prior achievement Groups N Pre-test Post-test Mean gain F p
M±SD M±SD
High Exp. 21 64.72±8.82 75.33±9.67 10.61 123.24 .001
Cont. 34 61.52±5.52 63.91±17.43 2.39 1.136 .569
Total 55 63.12±7.17 69.62±13.55
Low Exp. 54 26.31±11.65 75.19±11.81 48.88 144.21 .000
Cont. 41 28.69±5.80 29.85±8.56 1.16 .004 .813
Total 95 28.50±6.73 51.52±6.73
Dyscalculia Exp. 5 22.71±10.00 69.84±8.03 47.13 568.09 .000
Cont. 3 21.93±7.22 23.01±7.33 1.08 .916 .733
Total 8 22.32±8.61 46.42±7.68

We tried to determine whether DI bridged the = 48.88; F = 144.21; p = .000 and learners with
gap in MSE among high achievers, low achievers dyscalculia’s mean gain = 47.13; F = 569.01;
and those with DD. Thus, data were analysed based p = .000) in the EG improved significantly
on the interaction effect of DI and PA on MSE (see compared to their counterparts in the CG who had
Table 4). At pre-test, high achievers in mathematics no significant change in MSE scores across pre-test
in the EG obtained a higher mean MSE score and post-test (high achievers’ mean gain = 2.39;
(64.72±8.82), over both low-achievers F = 1.136; p = .569; low achievers’ mean gain
(26.31±11.65) and those with DD (22.71±10.00). = 1.16; F = 0.04; p = .813; dyscalculia mean gain
Interestingly, MSE improved greatly in the three = 1.08; F = .916; p = .733).
sub-groups at post-intervention evaluation: high Comparing the pre-test mean differences
achievers (75.33±9.67); low achievers between the high achievers’ and low achievers’
(75.19±11.81) and those with DD (69.84±8.03). In MSE in the EG, data indicated a significant
the CG, the high-achievers had a much higher difference (mean difference [MD] = 38.41; p = .000)
pre-test mean MSE score (61.52±5.52) than low in favour of the high achievers. This mean difference
achievers (28.69±5.80) and those with DD was reduced considerably during the post-test (MD
(21.93±7.22). = 0.14; p = .562). Further, the difference in MSE
Considering the mean gain in MSE across means of high-achieving learners and those with DD
pre-test and post-test, Table 4 demonstrates that all reduced significantly from MD = 39.59; p = .000 at
the learners’ sets (high achievers’ mean gain 10.61; pre-test evaluation to MD = 5.49; p = .03. These
F = 123.24; p = .001; Low achievers’ mean gain suggest that DI reduces limitations in MSE
10 Onyishi, Sefotho

associated with PA. Compared to learners in the CG, task, undoubtedly develops the learners’ self-
all in the three learner subgroups in the EG reported efficacy and enhances their mastery of the required
considerable gains in mean MSE scores across pre- skills.
test and post-test. Furthermore, explicating how to differentiate
by content (what the learners learn), process
Discussion (different ways to approach learning), product (how
The results of this study reveal that DI had a the learners show what they have learnt) and
significantly positive effect on the MSE of learners. environment (classroom condition) with the
It was revealed that the MSE of the EG (who teachers, using the training model could have also
received DI) improved significantly over the CG helped to draw teachers’ attention to the intricacies
(who did not receive DI). This result is in agreement that could build on both teachers’ and learners’
with the earlier research findings of SM Tomlinson competences. Also, the DI training model helped the
(2013) on the effect of DI on the MSE of learners teachers to become familiar with specific DI
who have experienced little success in mathematics. strategies such as jigsaw, goal-setting, ongoing and
The result of the study show that using DI-inclusive formative assessment, compacting, respectful tasks,
classrooms improved learners’ MSE. This finding is flexible grouping, tiered assignments, learning
in discord with that of a quantitative study carried contracts, and teaching-up, which could have helped
out by Scott (2012), in which the author concluded every learner to experience success. The initial
that DI did not have overall effectiveness at a training of the teacher was the basis of success
significant level. The nonsignificant effect found by throughout the term. It helped to draw the teachers’
Scott (2012) could be a product shortcoming in the attention to what they would ordinarily overlook,
DI procedures employed by the researchers. Other such as using local materials (improvisation) to
earlier studies, however, did find positive effects of attend to learners’ individual needs. This could be
DI on learners’ learning. For instance, Rojo (2013), why prior studies in this field have consistently
in a study of 48 learners from two regular chemistry highlighted the importance of teachers’ training in
classes, showed that learners expressed a more the use of DI (Ekstam et al., 2017; Gillespie Rouse
positive attitude to their level of self-confidence in & Kiuhara, 2017; Rachmawati et al., 2016; Spratt &
the learning after being exposed to DI. Other studies Florian, 2013; Strogilos, 2018).
have also confirmed the effectiveness of DI in The findings of this study reveal that PA as a
inclusive classrooms (Ogunkunle & Henrietta, factor in the study had a significant influence on the
2014; Williams, KG 2012). The study also adds to learners’ MSE. Generally, there was a significant
all other empirical evidence supporting the difference in the self-efficacy of high-achieving and
effectiveness of DI on learning and teaching low-achieving learners, and learners with
processes (Abbas & Abdurrahman, 2015; dyscalculia. This makes a significant contribution to
Chamberlin & Powers, 2010; Meyad et al., 2014; existing literature confirming the link between
Thakur, 2014; Tomlinson, C 2005; Tomlinson, CA self-efficacy and achievement, or what Bandura
1999, 2001; Westwood, 2001). refers to as mastery experiences (Bandura, 1986;
The ability of DI to enhance learners’ MSE can Cheema, 2018; Liu & Koirala, 2009). After the
be attributed to its distinctive and peculiar intervention, both high-achieving and
instructional approach which exposes the learners to low-achieving learners in the EG improved
learning content, learning process and assessment significantly in their MSE over those in the CG. This
procedures which are appropriate to the individual implies that as learners’ MSE increases, so does
learner’s level of prior knowledge, interest and their achievement and vice versa.
learning styles (Flaherty & Hackler, 2010; Low-achievement has a psychological impact
Tomlinson, C 2005; Tomlinson, CA 1999, 2001). DI on the low achievers, which accounts for their low
also provides the learners with immediate and academic self-concept, low self-efficacy, low
continuous feedback, and also tends to attend self-motivation, low goal-valuation and negative
promptly to the learners’ specific needs (Chamberlin attitude toward school and teachers compared to the
& Powers, 2010). Such feedback helps to motivate high achievers (Siegle, 2014). Learners who have
learners to learn by prompt recognition of the had a prolonged experience of low achievement in
learners’ strengths and weaknesses with regard to an area may consider their low achievement to be
the learning content and materials. This helps unchangeable; they expect to fail in the future, and
learners to improve their skills and experience a they give up easily when confronted with difficult
quantum of success needed for improved MSE. For tasks or even avoid tasks in that domain. Unless
instance, as the learners are presented with a task, interrupted by successful experiences and
they are guided to approach the materials from interventions, continued failure tends to confirm low
different angles based on what they already know. expectations of achievement, which in turn keeps
The teachers’ disposition to recognise the learners’ the learners in a vicious circle of low self-efficacy
strengths and direct each group or individual and poor performance. DI offers the necessary
through comments and questions as they try out the resources that help learners overcome the effect of
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 11

prior failures on both low-achieving learners and achievement in Kebbi state senior secondary
learners with DD. schools, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific
& Engineering Research, 6(1). Available at
Limitations of the Study https://www.ijser.org/paper/THE-
This was not without some shortcomings that could EFFECTIVENESS-OF-DIFFERENTIATED-
INSTRUCTION-ON-STUDENTS.html. Accessed
affect the generalisability of the findings. Firstly, the 23 May 2017.
result of this study may have been influenced by Achuonye KA 2015. Predominant teaching strategies in
teachers’ levels of interest and commitment to schools: Implications for curriculum
integrating DI strategies into teaching during the implementation in mathematics, science and
lessons. Further studies in this area may consider the technology. Educational Research and Reviews,
researcher disguising as a new mathematics teacher 10(15):2096–2103.
to self-implement DI over a period; action research. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2184
This could afford more insight into the actual Adetoro RA 2014. Inclusive education in Nigeria—A
effectiveness of DI in inclusive settings. Secondly, myth or reality? Creative Education, 5(20):1777–
1781. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.520198
we did not measure the learners achievement due to Agunloye OO, Pollingue AB, Davou P& Osagie R 2011.
DI. Further studies may consider exploring the Policy and practice of special education: Lessons
effect on achievement. Given the relationship and implications for education administration from
between self-efficacy and achievement, it is possible two countries. International Journal of Humanities
that DI could have improved learners’ achievement and Social Science, 1(9):90–95.
significantly. Thirdly, we did not consider the effect Agwagah U 2013. Improving the teaching of
of teachers’ self-efficacy and competence. More mathematics for attainment of seven point agenda:
studies are needed to explore those areas. Implication for gender disparity. ABACUS: The
Furthermore, the unique steps adopted to attend to Journal of the Mathematical Association of
Nigeria, 38(1):111–121.
the needs of learners with DD are not stated here. Algozzine B & Anderson KM 2007. Tips for teaching:
Further studies may be conducted to determine Differentiating instruction to include all students.
specific aspects of DI that are necessary to raise the Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
self-efficacy of those with DD. Finally, we only for Children and Youth, 51(3):49–54.
used quantitative data. In future studies teachers’ https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54
and learners’ perceptions and experiences may be Azar FS & Mahmoudi L 2014. Relationship between
explored using qualitative data obtained through Mathematics, self-efficacy and students’
interviews and observation. performance in statistics: The meditational role of
attitude toward Mathematics and Mathematics
anxiety. Journal of Educational Sciences &
Conclusion
Psychology,4(1):32–42. Available at
It can thus be concluded that DI is an effective https://www.proquest.com/docview/1746587015?p
teaching approach for improving the MSE of q-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.
learners with diverse individualities in an inclusive Accessed 17 November 2021.
classroom setting. This conclusion is based on the Bandura A 1986. Social foundations of thought and
findings of this study which reveal that using DI in action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
teaching mathematics enhanced the learners’ MSE Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
over conventional (lecture) methods. PA has Berman KM, Schultz RA & Weber CL 2012. A lack of
significant influence on the MSE of learners such awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher
that high-achieving learners have higher MSE than training: Preconceived beliefs about the gifted and
talented. Gifted Child Today, 35(1):18–26.
their low-achieving counterparts and those with https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511428307
dyscalculia. However, when DI was used in teaching Betz NE & Hackett G 1983. The relationship of
mathematics in mixed-ability classrooms, learners’ mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the
self-efficacy improved irrespective of PAs. selection of science-based college majors. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 23(3):329–345.
Authors’ Contributions https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90046-5
Charity N. Onyishi wrote the manuscript and Bonne L & Lawes E 2016. Assessing students’ maths
provided data for the study. Maximus M. Sefotho self-efficacy and achievement. NZCER, Set
provided material and supervised the investigation. 2016(2):60–63. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0048
Both authors reviewed the final manuscript. Bot TD & Caleb ML 2014. A study on the quantity and
quality of mathematics teachers in central Plateau
state, Nigeria: Implications for national
Notes
development in Nigeria. Journal of Education and
i. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence.
ii. DATES: Received: 13 August 2019; Revised: 13 July Practice, 5(31):20–28. Available at
2020; Accepted: 22 September 2020; Published: 30 https://irepos.unijos.edu.ng/jspui/bitstream/123456
November 2021. 789/1448/1/A%20Study%20on%20Quantity%20a
nd%20Quality%20of%20Mathematics%20Teache
References rs%20in.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2021.
Abbas GA & Abdurrahman MS 2015. The effectiveness Butterworth B 2009. Dyscalculia: Causes, identification,
of differentiated instruction on students’ geometric intervention and recognition. Paper presented at
12 Onyishi, Sefotho

the Dyscalculia & Mathematics Learning Fuchs LS, Fuchs D & Compton DL 2012. The early
Difficulties Inaugural Conference, London, prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and
England, 19 June. limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Chamberlin M & Powers R 2010. The promise of 45(3):257–269.
differentiated instruction for enhancing the https://doi.org/101177/0022219412442167
mathematical understandings of college students. Gardner H 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
International Journal of the IMA, 29(3):113–139. Gentry R, Sallie AP & Sanders CA 2013. Differentiated
https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrq006 instructional strategies to accommodate students
Charema J 2010. Inclusive education in developing with varying needs and learning styles. Paper
countries in the sub Saharan Africa: From theory to presented at the Urban Education Conference,
practice. International Journal of Special Jackson, MS, 18–20 November. Available at
Education, 25(1):87–93. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545458.pdf.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890569.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2021.
Accessed 16 November 2021. Ghazali NHC & Zakaria E 2011. Students’ procedural
Cheema JR 2018. Effect of math-specific self-efficacy on and conceptual understanding of mathematics.
math literacy: Evidence from a Greek survey. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,
Research in Education, 102(1):13–36. 5(7):684–691. Available at
https://doi.org/10.1177/0034523717741914 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2788482
Cohen L, Manion L & Morrison K 2011. Research 75_Students'_procedural_and_conceptual_understa
methods in education (7th ed). London, England: nding_of_mathematics. Accessed 15 November
Routledge. 2021.
De Fátima Goulão M 2014. The relationship between Gifford S & Rockliffe F 2012. Mathematics difficulties:
self-efficacy and academic achievement in adults’ Does one approach fit all? Research in
learners. Athens Journal of Education, 1(3):237– Mathematics Education, 14(1):1–15.
246. https://doi.org/10.30958/aje.1-3-4 https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2012.657436
Doyle A 2010. Dyscalculia and mathematical Gillespie Rouse A & Kiuhara SA 2017. SRSD in writing
difficulties: Implications for transition to higher and professional development for teachers: Practice
education in the Republic of Ireland. Dublin, and promise for elementary and middle school
Ireland: University of Dublin Trinity College. students with learning disabilities [Special issue].
Available at Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
http://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/3960/1/Doyle 32(3):180–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12140
%202010%20%20Dyscalculia%20-%20symp1- Gillum J 2012. Dyscalculia: Issues for practice in
1.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2021. educational psychology. Educational Psychology
Du Toit-Brits C 2019. A focus on self-directed learning: in Practice, 28(3):287–297.
The role that educators’ expectations play in the https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2012.684344
enhancement of students’ self-directedness. South Gökdağ Baltaoğlu M & Güven M 2019. Relationship
African Journal of Education, 39(2):Art. #1645, 11 between self-efficacy, learning strategies, and
pages. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1645 learning styles of teacher candidates (Anadolu
Ekstam U, Linnanmäki K & Aunio P 2017. The impact University example). South African Journal of
of teacher characteristics on educational Education, 39(2):Art. #1579, 11 pages.
differentiation practices in lower secondary https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1579
mathematics instruction. LUMAT: International Good ME 2006. Differentiated instruction: Principles
Journal on Math, Science and Technology and techniques for the elementary grades. San
Education, 5(1):41–60. Rafael, CA: Dominican University of California.
https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.5.1.253 Available at
Engelbrecht P, Oswald M & Forlin C 2006. Promoting https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491580.pdf.
the implementation of inclusive education in Accessed 17 November 2021.
primary schools in South Africa. British Journal of Gupta N 2014. Dyscalculic co morbidity in secondary
Special Education, 33(3):121–129. school going children. Available at
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2006.00427.x https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6336/5acd9a0e022
Fakayode AF 2000. Creativity-locus of control 7b997c066d7cb177070e441d6.pdf. Accessed 15
achievement motivation and their relationship with November 2021.
the academic performance of senior secondary Han S, Liou-Mark J, Yu KT & Zeng S 2015. Self-
school science students. PhD thesis. Ilorin, Nigeria: efficacy and attitudes towards mathematics of
University of Ilorin. undergraduates: A U.S. and Taiwan comparison.
Flaherty S & Hackler R 2010. Exploring the effects of Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1):1–15.
differentiated instruction and cooperative learning Available at
on the intrinsic motivational behaviors of http://educationforatoz.net/images/Han_Spring_20
elementary reading students. Chicago, IL: Saint 15_.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2021.
Xavier University. Available at Henderson A 2012. Dyslexia, dyscalculia and
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509195.pdf. mathematics: A practical guide (2nd ed). London,
Accessed 16 November 2021. England: Routledge.
Florian L & Black-Hawkins L 2011. Exploring inclusive Heyd-Metzuyanim E 2013. The co-construction of
pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, learning difficulties in mathematics—teacher–
37(5):813–828. student interactions and their role in the
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 development of a disabled mathematical identity.
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 13

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(3):341– Methodology, 6(2):889–895. Available at

368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9457-z https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89e3/2d8c5fd6b93
Hornby G 2011. Inclusive education for children with 2ac7c67d08947b55103f25faf.pdf. Accessed 17
special education needs: A critique. International November 2021.
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, Monei T & Pedro A 2017. A systematic review of
58(3):321–329. interventions for children presenting with
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2011.598678 dyscalculia in primary schools. Educational
Kaufmann L & Von Aster M 2012. The diagnosis and Psychology in Practice, 33(3):277–293.
management of dyscalculia. Deutsches Ärzteblatt https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2017.1289076
International, 109(45):767–778. Mupa P & Chinooneka TI 2015. Factors contributing to
https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0767 ineffective teaching and learning in primary
Kay D & Kibble J 2016. Learning theories 101: schools: Why are schools in decadence? Journal of
Application to everyday teaching and scholarship. Education and Practice, 6(19):125–132. Available
Advances in Physiology Education, 40(1):17–25. at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079543.pdf.
https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00132.2015 Accessed 20 November 2021.
Kee CE 2013. Faculty views of developmental math Mutodi P & Ngirande H 2014. Exploring mathematics
instruction at an urban community college: A anxiety: Mathematics students’ experiences.
critical pedagogy analysis. PhD dissertation. Ames, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
IA: Iowa State University. Available at 5(1):283–294.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1415873128?fr https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n1p283
omopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar. Accessed Nel N, Nel M & Hugo A (eds.) 2013. Learner support in
15 November 2021. a diverse classroom: A guide for foundation,
Kreitzer K 2016. Differentiation for all learners: intermediate and senior phase teachers of
Applying theory and practice so all children reach language and mathematics. Pretoria, South Africa:
their potential. MAT dissertation. St Paul, MN: Van Schaik.
Hamline University. Available at Nfon NF 2016. A survey of the mathematical problems
https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewconte (dyscalculia) confronting primary school pupils in
nt.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsre Buea Municipality in the South West Region of
dir=1&article=5207&context=hse_all. Accessed 15 Cameroon. International Journal of Education and
November 2021. Research, 4(4):437–450. Available at
Landrum TJ & McDuffie KA 2010. Learning styles in http://ww.w.ijern.com/journal/2016/April-
the age of differentiated instruction. Exceptionality, 2016/36.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2021.
18(1):6–17. Nunley KF 2003. Giving credit where credit is due.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903462441 Principal Leadership, 3(9):26–29.
Lingo AS, Barton-Arwood SM & Jolivette K 2011. Ogunkunle RA & Henrietta OA 2014. Effect of
Teachers working together: Improving learning differentiated instructional strategies on students’
outcomes in the inclusive classroom—practical retention in geometry in FCT senior secondary
strategies and examples. TEACHING Exceptional schools, Abuja, Nigeria. Global Journal of
Children, 43(3):6–13. Educational Research, 13(1):1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/005991104300301 https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v13i1.1
Liu X & Koirala H 2009. The effect of mathematics self- Ogunmakin AO & Akomolafe MJ 2013. Academic self-
efficacy on mathematics achievement of high efficacy, locus of control and academic
school students. In T Levine & H Marx (eds). performance of secondary school students in Ondo
NERA Conference Proceedings 2009. Storrs, CT: State, Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social
University of Connecticut. Available at Sciences,4(11):570–576.
https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p570
gi?article=1029&context=nera_2009. Accessed 17 Okafor CF & Anaduaka US 2013. Nigerian school
November 2021. children and mathematics phobia: How the
Mbam GO 2010. Effect of active learning techniques on mathematics teacher can help. American Journal of
senior secondary mathematics students’ Educational Research, 1(7):247–251.
performance in longitude and latitude problems in https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-7-5
Abakaliki. MEd dissertation. Ilorin, Nigeria: Onyishi CN 2017. Effect of differentiated instruction on
University of Ilorin. students’ self-efficacy, task-persistence and interest
McCoach DB & Siegle D 2001. A comparison of high in mathematics. PhD thesis. Nsukka, Nigeria:
achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, University of Nigeria.
perceptions, and motivations. Academic Exchange, Pagtulon-an EA & Tan DA 2018. Students’ mathematics
2:71–76. performance and self-efficacy beliefs in a rich
McConney A & Perry LB 2010. Socioeconomic status, assessment tasks environment. Asian Academic
self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement in Research Journal of Multidisciplinary, 5(2):54–64.
Australia: A secondary analysis. Educational Available at
Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2):77–91. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3266533
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-010-9083-4 11_STUDENTS'_MATHEMATICS_PERFORMA
Meyad NA, Roslan S, Abdullah MC & HajiMaming P NCE_AND_SELF-
2014. The effect of differentiated learning method EFFICACY_BELIEFS_IN_A_RICH_ASSESSME
on students’ achievement in writing skills in NT_TASKS_ENVIRONMENT. Accessed 14
learning Arabic as a foreign language. November 2021.
International Journal of Research in Education
14 Onyishi, Sefotho

Pajares F & Miller MD 1997. Mathematics self-efficacy Scott B 2012. The effectiveness of differentiated
and mathematical problem solving: Implications of instruction in the elementary mathematics
using different forms of assessment.The Journal of classroom. PhD dissertation. Muncie, IN: Ball
Experimental Education, 65(3):213–228. State University. Available at
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943455 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1017538121?p
Plerou A 2014. Dealing with dyscalculia over time. In q-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Accessed 14 November 2021.
Information Communication Technologies in Siegle D 2014. Technology: Differentiating instruction
Education. Kos, Greece. by flipping the classroom. Gifted Child Today,
https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4229.5681 37(1):51–55.
Prabawanto S 2018. The enhancement of students’ https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513497579
mathematical self-efficacy through teaching with Skaalvik EM, Federici RA & Klassen RM 2015.
metacognitive scaffolding approach. Journal of Mathematics achievement and self-efficacy:
Physics: Conference Series, 1013:012135. Relations with motivation for mathematics.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012135 International Journal of Educational Research,
Rachmawati MA, Nu’man TM, Widiasmara N & 72:129–136.
Wibisono S 2016. Differentiated instruction for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.06.008
special needs in inclusive schools: A preliminary Spaniol SR 2017. Students’ mathematics self-efficacy,
study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, anxiety, and course level at a community college.
217:585-–593. PhD dissertation. Minneapolis, MN: Walden
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.053 University.
Rajkumar R & Hema G 2017. Mathematics learning Spratt J & Florian L 2013. Applying the principles of
difficulties for school students: Problems and inclusive pedagogy in initial teacher education:
strategies. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, From university based course to classroom action.
Science and Humanities, 5(4):183–190. Revista de Investigaciónen Educación, 11(3):133–
Rittle-Johnson B & Schneider M 2015. Developing 140.
conceptual and procedural knowledge of Srivastava M, De Boer A & Pijl SJ 2015. Inclusive
mathematics. In R Cohen Kadosh & A Dowker education in developing countries: A closer look at
(eds). The Oxford handbook of numerical its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational
cognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Review, 67(2):179–195.
Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.847061
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.0 Strogilos V 2018. The value of differentiated instruction
13.014 in the inclusion of students with special
Rojo P 2013. Studying the effects of differentiated needs/disabilities in mainstream schools. In AG
instruction in the science classroom. MS Abdullah, J Foley, IGNA Suryaputra & A Hellman
dissertation. Bozeman, MT: Montana State (eds). SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 42). Paris,
University. Available at France: EDP Sciences.
https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/ https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200003
handle/1/2825/RojoP0813.pdf?sequence=1&isAllo Suprayogi MN, Valcke M & Godwin R 2017. Teachers
wed=y. Accessed 14 November 2021. and their implementation of differentiated
Rosen LD, Carrier LM & Cheever NA 2010. Rewired: instruction in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher
Understanding the iGeneration and the way they Education,67:291–301.
learn. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Thakur K 2014. Differentiated instruction in the
Rubinsten O & Tannock R 2010. Mathematics anxiety in inclusive classroom. Research Journal of
children with developmental dyscalculia. Educational Sciences, 2(7):10–14. Available at
Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1):46. http://www.isca.in/EDU_SCI/Archive/v2/i7/2.%20
https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-46 ISCA-RJEduS-2014-025.pdf. Accessed 14
Schmitt C & Goebel V 2015. Experiences of high-ability November 2021.
high school students: A case study. Journal for the Tomlinson C 2005. This issue: Differentiated instruction.
Education of the Gifted, 38(4):428–446. Theory into Practice, 44(3):183–184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607325 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4403_1
Schöber C, Schütte K, Köller O, McElvany N & Gebauer Tomlinson CA 1999. Mapping a route toward a
MM 2018. Reciprocal effects between self-efficacy differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership,
and achievement in mathematics and reading. 57(1):12–16.
Learning and Individual Differences, 63:1–11. Tomlinson CA 2001. How to differentiate instruction in
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.008 mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed). Alexandria,
Schwarzer R & Jerusalem M 2010. The general self- VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
efficacy scale (GES). Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, Development (ASCD).
12(1):329–345. Available at https://diabetes- Tomlinson SM 2013. A study of differentiated
psychologie.de/downloads/Beschreibung_GSE.pdf. instruction based on the SIOP model in Georgia
Accessed 20 November 2021. classrooms. PhD dissertation. Minneapolis, MN:
Schweisfurth M 2011. Learner-centred education in Capella University. Available at
developing country contexts: From solution to https://www.proquest.com/docview/1315766855?fr
problem? International Journal of Educational omopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar. Accessed
Development, 31(5):425–432. 21 November 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.005 Tosun T 2009. The impact of prior science course
 South African Journal of Education, Volume 41, Number 4, November 2021 15

experience and achievement on the science West African Examination Council 2014. Chief
teaching self-efficacy of preservice elementary examiners’ report on May/June school certificate
teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, examination. Lagos, Nigeria: Lucky Star.
12(2):21–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173597 Westwood P 2001. Differentiation as a strategy for
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural inclusive classroom practice: Some difficulties
Organization 1994. The Salamanca Statement and identified. Australian Journal of Learning
Framework for Action on Special Needs Education Difficulties, 6(1):5–11.
adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs https://doi.org/10.1080/19404150109546651
Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain, Williams A 2013. A teacher’s perspective of dyscalculia:
7-10 June 1994. Paris, France: Author. Who counts? An interdisciplinary overview.
Verger A, Novelli M & Altinyelken HK (eds.) 2012. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties,
Global education policy and international 18(1):1–16.
development: New agendas, issues and policies. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2012.727840
New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Williams KG 2012. The effect of differentiated
Vygotsky L 1978. Mind in society: The development of instruction on standardized assessment
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: performance of students in the middle school
Harvard University Press. mathematics classroom. PhD dissertation.
Walton E 2011. Getting inclusion right in South Africa. Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University. Available at
Intervention in School and Clinic,46(4):240–245. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210389033 cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir
Walton E 2017. Inclusive education in initial teacher =1&article=1609&context=doctoral. Accessed 13
education in South Africa: Practical or professional November 2021.
knowledge? Journal of Education, 67:101–128. Woolfolk A 2011. Educational psychology. Active
https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i67a05 learning edition (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Allyn &
West African Examination Council 2013. May/June Bacon.
2013 West African senior school certificate Zhou X & Cheng D 2015. When and why numerosity
examination: General resume of chief examiners’ processing is associated with developmental
report. Available at dyscalculia. In S Chinn (ed). The Routledge
https://www.waecgh.org/uploads/examinersReport/ international handbook of dyscalculia and
2013/General%20Resume2.pdf. Accessed 20 mathematical learning difficulties. New York, NY:
November 2021. Routledge.