Conference Agenda

Differentiated Instruction (DI) is widely promoted as a central pedagogical strategy for addressing learner heterogeneity and advancing equity in inclusive classrooms (Gheyssens et al., 2020; Lindner & Schwab, 2020). In Switzerland, this expectation is codified in the curriculum (Lehrplan 21), which requires teachers to adapt instruction to pupils’ prior knowledge, performance levels, and learning needs (D-EDK, 2016). In recent years, the implementation of this requirement has increasingly been accompanied by digitally enhanced teaching materials, learning platforms, and adaptive educational technologies that promise more efficient, objective and scalable forms of differentiation (Bernacki et al., 2021). Numerous educational applications, learning videos, self-assessment tools, and data-driven platforms claim to personalise learning trajectories and support teachers in dealing with - heterogeneity in their classrooms. These developments are embedded in a broader transformations of educational knowledge production. In this light, differentiation is not only a pedagogical practice but also a technological project, shaped by assumptions about what counts as relevant knowledge, how learning is measured, and who is authorised to interpret pupils’ needs.

Empirical research points to a first significant gap between the pedagogical potential attributed to educational technologies and their actual use in schools. Although a wide range of educational technologies promises to support differentiated instruction, research suggests that teachers often use apps, learning videos and platforms in limited or pragmatic ways that do not fully exploit their pedagogical potential for differentiation (Hangartner et al., 2024; Selwyn et al., 2017). Many applications remain aligned with standardised curricula and narrow conceptions of achievement. Teachers report both opportunities and constraints, emphasising that digital tools rarely replace pedagogical judgement but instead require ongoing interpretation and contextualization (Divanji et al., 2023).

A second, even less explored gap concerns pupils’ perspectives. Although differentiated instruction and educational technologies explicitly target pupils as their primary beneficiaries, pupils’ experiences and interpretations remain marginal in much of the research literature. Studies foregrounding student voice show ambivalent experiences. On the one hand, pupils value choice, flexibility and perceived fairness. On the other hand, they also report uncertainty, misalignment with their learning level, and feelings of exclusion when instructional adaptations are insufficiently responsive (Scarparolo & MacKinnon, 2022).

This paper presents a participatory research project that places pupils’ centre stage. Adopting a participatory approach, the study positions pupils as epistemic agents and co-researchers (Unger, 2014; Zahnd & Oberholzer, 2022, 2024) rather than passive recipients of differentiated instruction or digital learning tools. Drawing on participatory data, the study shows that pupils articulate a distinguished and critical understanding of digital tools. For example, pupils describe learning videos as frequently monotonous, poorly aligned with their questions, and unpredictable in quality, making it a matter of chance whether a video supports understanding or leads to disengagement. Learning apps are reported to produce rigid or incorrect feedback, for example by marking mathematically correct solutions as wrong due to formal criteria such as spacing or formatting. Such experiences undermine pupils’ confidence and sense of competence.

Across data, pupils consistently emphasise that digital tools are only conditionally helpful and become meaningful learning resources when teachers actively accompany their use. Teacher presence is described as crucial for interpreting tasks and addressing misunderstandings. From the pupils’ perspective, digitally supported differentiation does not replace relational pedagogical work. By foregrounding pupils’ situated knowledge, the paper contributes empirically grounded insights into the conditions and limits of educational technologies in inclusive schooling.

Differentiated teaching features prominently in European education policy as a key pedagogical approach for addressing learner diversity in general education classrooms (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2014; UNESCO, 2017). Policy discourse typically presents differentiation as an inclusive strategy that accommodates diverse learning needs within mainstream settings. However, despite its centrality in policy frameworks, limited empirical evidence exists regarding how differentiated teaching is understood and enacted in practice when classrooms include students with Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). In particular, little is known about how the presence of students with ASC reshapes teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and enacting, professional judgement, and everyday classroom practices.

This paper demonstrates that general education teachers in Cyprus experience notable changes in how they interpret and implement differentiated teaching when students with ASC are in mainstream classrooms. The key finding is that differentiation is not uniformly applied; instead, it becomes a practice shaped by teachers’ professional judgement and context, influenced by institutional and policy factors. These results challenge common policy views that consider differentiation a straightforward intervention for inclusion.

The study finds that, when teaching students with ASC, teachers report enacting differentiation differently and with specific conditions. They adjust teaching methods focusing more on behaviour management, and voice greater concerns about accountability. This shift from a generally flexible and adaptive approach is central: teachers report that the presence of students with ASC leads to more structured, less spontaneous differentiation than in other general education contexts.

Teachers report increased uncertainty in managing behaviour, setting appropriate academic expectations, and balancing inclusive intentions with accountability demands in classrooms that include students with ASC. Under these conditions, differentiated teaching becomes increasingly oriented towards managing classroom order and perceived risk. This shift is accompanied by greater reliance on institutional structures, formal procedures, and specialist support, which further reshape the scope and purpose of differentiation in practice. As a result, differentiation is no longer primarily enacted as an inclusion-oriented pedagogical approach but is reconfigured in more constrained and conditional ways.

These shifts do not indicate resistance to inclusion or negative attitudes toward students with ASC. Instead, they show how differentiated teaching is renegotiated due to policy ambiguity, limited preparation, and accountability pressures in general education (Florian, 2014). In Cyprus, these trends are further explained by recent national policy developments. Despite official support for inclusion, Cyprus still runs parallel mainstream and special education systems under separate legislation. This separation leads to unequal resources and perpetuates ableist views, shaping how inclusion unfolds in classrooms.

In examining differentiated teaching when students with ASC are present, this paper directly challenges policy narratives that frame differentiation as a simple, universally effective solution to inclusion. It argues that differentiated teaching is fundamentally reshaped by structural, institutional, and policy factors, and contends that meaningful inclusion depends on addressing these underlying conditions. While the study is based in Cyprus, its findings and analysis contribute to broader debates on the complexities of inclusive teaching and teacher professionalism across diverse educational systems.

Teacher achievement expectations have been shown to predict student achievement in subjects such as mathematics and German, well known as Pygmalion-effect (Wang et al., 2018). Teacher achievement expectations are self-fulfilling, i.e., teacher expectations influence the verbal and nonverbal teacher feedback to students, who perceive it and try to behave according to these expectations. Research has shown that teacher achievement expectations are biased (Wang et al., 2018). Teachers underestimate achievement in mathematics and German of students with diverse needs such as with low socio-economic status (SES) and with migration backgrounds (MB), because these students are less adjusted to the classroom norms (Dittmann-Domenichini, 2014). Teacher achievement expectations have been shown to mediate the effects of SES and MB on student achievement in mathematics and German (Neuenschwander & Niederbacher, 2021). Thus, teacher achievement expectations play a major role in explaining why SES and MB are associated with student achievement (educational inequality in school). Less is known about the extent to which teacher achievement expectations explain the effects of social processes in classrooms on student academic achievement.

Farmer et al.’s (2019) correlated constraint model describes how social processes in classrooms can foster the social inclusion of students with diverse needs (i.e., MB and low SES). It describes how teacher-student-relationship (TSR) and student social functioning, such as prosocial behavior, are interrelated and explain academic functioning (i.e., academic achievement). Meta-analyses have reported positive correlations between TSR and academic achievement (Emslander et al., 2026). Enlarging Farmer et al. (2019), positive TSR could lead to benevolent teacher achievement expectations and thus, teachers encourage students to increase their achievement. Timmermans et al. (2019) reported positive correlations between positive TSR and teacher achievement expectations. Less is known about whether teacher achievement expectations mediate the effects of TSR on student academic achievement. However, there is evidence that student MB is negatively, and SES is positively associated with close TSR (Arachambault et al., 2024).

In Farmer et al.’s (2019) model prosocial behavior is an aspect of social functioning on individual level, that is interrelated with academic functioning. Prosocial behavior is an aspect of other-oriented social competence and includes behaviors such as helping (Perren et al. 2012). Farmer et al.’s (2019) assume interrelations between concepts on individual level (prosocial behavior) and on group levels (TSR). Teachers appreciate student prosocial behavior (Longobard et al., 2021). Thus, students’ prosocial behavior is positively connected with positive TSR (closeness, no conflict) (Longobard et al., 2021). Caprara et al. (2019) also reported positive correlations between student prosocial behavior and academic achievement. Enlarging Farmer et al. (2019), teachers who positively evaluate students’ prosocial behavior could potentially hold benevolent achievement expectations (Longobard et al., 2021). Wang et al. (2018) reported positive correlations between prosocial student attitudes and teacher achievement expectations. Such benevolent expectations can turn into motivating students to increase their achievement. However, research also shows that student MB is negatively, and SES is positively associated with student prosocial behavior (Cirimele et al., 2024).

The following research question will be examined: to what extent do teacher achievement expectations mediate the effects of student MB and low SES as well as TSR (conflict and closeness) and student prosocial behavior on student achievement in mathematics and school language (German).

We hypothesize that teacher achievement expectations mediate (1) the negative effects of low SES and MB on student achievement in mathematics and German and 2) the positive effects of TSR (closeness, few conflicts) and student prosocial behavior on achievement in mathematics and German.