Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia

Muhamad Nanang Suprayogi

, Martin Valcke

, Zulaikha Mohamed

Psychology Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, 11480 Indonesia

Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Keyword: Differentiated instruction, teaching strategies, primary education, Indonesia

Abstract: This study investigates, on the base of the Differentiated Instruction Implementation Scale (DIIS), (1) the

level and nature of differentiated instruction (DI) implementation in public and private schools, and (2) the

large differences in quality in Indonesian private and public primary schools. By means of five vignettes,

reflecting key dimensions of DI, 604 primary school teachers were reported their perspective on different

areas of DI-implementation in their daily teaching practice, and the challenges they face in its

implementation. Teachers’ input revealed their overall DI-implementation level is significantly below a

mastery learning benchmark of 80%, and is considerably different between public and private schools; the

latter reflecting a lower DI-level.

1 INTRODUCTION

To improve educational quality, the Indonesian

Government increased– during the last decades - the

budget for education up to 20 % of the national

budget. Unfortunately, to this day, education in

Indonesia is still facing critical challenges,

especially in improving students’ achievement.

(OECD, 2016)

In part, a solution to attain better education is

related to enhancing the teaching and teacher’s

quality, especially to adopt the Differentiated

Instruction (DI) (Fogarty and Pete, 2011). DI

approaches are geared towards catering for the

diversity in students, encouraging teachers to apply

various teaching strategies and offering a broad

range of learning activities (Moore, 2005). Recent

research of (Suprayogi and Valcke, 2016)

emphasized Indonesian teachers really lack

capacities to implement DI in their teaching

activities.

Another challenge in improving the Indonesian

educational quality is about the large differences in

quality between public and private schools with the

former outperforming the latter. Several studies

highlighted the disproportion in learning resources

(Budiraharjo, 2014), operational funds (Heyneman

and Stern, 2014) and in resulting student

performance between both types of school

(Newhouse and Beegle, 2006; Bedi and Garg, 2000).

The question remains to be answered whether part of

the differences in quality result from differences in

teaching and learning approaches adopted by

teachers, as suggested by (Tomlinson, Brimijoin and

Narvaez, 2008).

In response to the aforementioned challenges, the

present study centres on the level and the nature of

current DI-implementation by primary school

teachers in both public and private schools. The

results are expected to result in benchmarking data

to support macro-level and school-level policies,

especially in relation to teacher professional

development.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Differentiated Instruction and Its

Impact

Differentiated instruction (DI) is a practice that starts

from the assumption that learners are different and

they learn differently (Fogarty and Pete, 2011; Levy,

2008) defines DI in a practical way as a set of

strategies that will help teachers meet each learner’

needs and move them forward as far as possible in

their educational career. DI stresses that a single

teaching style will not accommodate every student,

especially when the teaching style does not fit an

Suprayogi, M., Valcke, M. and Mohamed, Z.

Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0009999600002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 36-44

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

individual’s learning style. Therefore, DI can be

seen as a way to push teachers to invoke various

learning activities, to consider different content

demands, to adopt varying modes of assessment, and

to install an active learning environment to meet the

needs of each learner and support their growth

(Thousand, Villa and Nevin, 2007; Reis, McCoach,

Little, Muller and Kaniskan, 2011) reported their DI-

implementation resulted in higher reading fluency

and comprehension for students. (Baumgartner,

Lipowski and Rush, 2003) concluded that the

implementation of DI strategies resulted in increased

reading achievement.

2.2 Dimensions of Differentiated

Instruction

Different authors use varying but related concepts

when describing the nature of DI. Building on this

literature (Suprayogi, Valcke and Godwin, 2017)

developed a synthesis of related dimensions and

presented the following integrated approach,

reflecting five dimensions: Differentiated Instruction

is an instructional approach that accommodates the

diversity of students by (1) coping with student

diversity, (2) adopting specific teaching strategy, (3)

invoking a variety of learning activities, (4)

monitoring individual student needs, and (5)

pursuing optimal learning outcomes.

2.3 Public and Private Schools in

Indonesia

As discussed in the introduction, the quality

difference between public and private schools is a

challenge in Indonesia. The difference in the

allocation of financial and learning recourses is of

major concern (Budiraharjo, 2014; Heyneman and

Stern, 2014; Bedi and Garg, 2000). Moreover, the

government – through a voucher system – also

supports private schools but requests these schools

to fit the national standards, but allow a large degree

of freedom in other issues; e.g., professional

development (see e.g., Steiner-Khamsi, 2016).

The available evidence about quality differences

in learning performance of learners in private and

public schools is alarming, especially in the context

of overall poor educational quality (Newhouse and

Beegle, 2006). The study of (Newhouse and Beegle,

2006) builds on the data analysis of the national

junior high school examination shows a consistent

higher achievement level of public school graduates,

as compared to their privately schooled peers.

Building on the theoretical and empirical base,

the present study aims at developing a baseline

about DI practices in Indonesian public and private

primary schools by focusing on the following two

research questions:

1. What is the level of DI-implementation in

public and private schools?

2. What is the nature of DI-implementation in

public and private schools considering the five

DI-dimensions?

3 METHODOLOGY

The participant of this study consists of primary

school teachers in six regions of Jakarta. 604

teachers from 145 schools participated in the study.

294 teachers from 78 public schools, and 310

teachers from 67 private schools. Two research

instruments were developed for this study: a DI-

implementation Scale (DIIS), and a vignette-based

instrument. The DIIS consists of 15 items; three for

each DI-dimension presented above. The DIIS was

designed to determine the extent to which teachers

currently adopt this particular DI-dimension. The

DIIS reliability is α=.916. The vignettes were

employed in this study as a technique for exploring

teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and meanings about

concrete situations with regard to DI-adoption. The

vignettes presented five different cases based on real

life stories derived from Indonesian school reality.

This study applied descriptive statistics and

comparison of means to answer the research

question A significance level of p <.05 was put

forward. The one-sample t-test was applied to

compare mean levels of DI-implementation with an

external benchmark. With reference to this

benchmark, we put forward an 80% or higher

mastery level (Zimmerman and Dibenedetto, 2008).

A qualitative analysis was adopted to analyse

responses to the vignettes. The analysis followed the

three-step qualitative analysis approach as described

by (Miles and Huberman, 1994). To ensure the

reliability of vignette coding, 15% of the vignette

responses were recoded independently and showed a

high reliability level (Kappa= .87). In view of

interpreting the differences in proportions of themes

coded in either public or private schools, a two-

sample Z-test was applied.

Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia

Table 1 : Mean, and one-sample t-test of DI-implementation.

DI-dimensions

Public schools (n=294) Private schools (n=310)

ean

Copin

with student diversit

7.22 -982,04* 6.82 -853,62*

Adopting specific teaching strategy

7.56 -991,47* 7.43 -987,99*

Invokin

a variet

in learnin

activit

7.35 -968,19* 7.14 -951,35*

Monitoring individual student needs

7.89 -1091,99* 7.88 -1244,36*

Pursuing optimal learning outcomes

7.14 -738,98* 6.68 -715,01*

Overall DI-implementation 7.43 -1125,71* 7.19 -1171,53*

* p<.05

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 The Level of DI-implementation in

Public and Private Schools

In order to determine the level of DI-

Implementation, teachers in both of school were

asked to indicate on a scale from 0 to 10 the extent

to which they implemented each DI-dimension. We

put forward the value of 80%. Table 1 summarises

the analysis results.

The overall DI-implementation level is 7.43 for

public schools, and 7.19 for private schools. Both

are significantly below threshold compared to the

benchmark of mastery learning (80%). The mean

score for each of the five DI-dimensions in public

and private schools is consistently below the

threshold.

To examine the difference between public and

private schools, we used the independent sample t-

test. The results (Table 2) show clear and significant

differences between public and private schools in

dimension 1, dimension 5, as well as on the overall

DI-implementation level. The mean score of DI-

implementation in public school appears higher than

in private school. This exemplifies further the gap

between public and private school teachers in terms

of school quality.

First of all, these results help explaining the low

education quality in Indonesia as compared to

international benchmarks (OECD, 2016). In

addition, they help explaining the gap between

public and private schools’ quality in Indonesia

(Budiraharjo, 2014; Heyneman and Stern, 2014;

Bedi and Garg, 2000).

4.2 The Nature of DI-implementation

in Public and Private Schools

To find out the nature of DI-implementation,

teachers responded to a vignette describing a school

case according to each of the five DI-dimensions.

Particular vignette responses are shown in Tables3to

7. We only focus on the three most frequently

observed themes in relation to each dimension.

Percentages point at the proportion of indicators

uttered by teachers from either public or private

schools, in relation to this theme.

Table 2 : Mean, SD, and independent sample t-test of DI-dimension.

DI-dimension

Public school (n=294) Private school (n=310)

ean SD

Copin

with student diversit

7.22 1.2

6.82 1.51 3.54*

Adoptin

specific teachin

strate

7.56 1.25 7.43 1.29 1.23

Invokin

a variet

in learnin

activit

7.35 1.29 7.14 1.35 1.91

Monitorin

individual student needs 7.89 1.13 7.88 1.02 0.16

Pursuin

optimal learnin

outcomes 7.14 1.69 6.68 1.81 3.25*

Overall D

-implementation 7.43 1.33 7.19 1.40 2.71*

* p<.05

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Table 3 : Dimension 1. (N=604).

* p<.05

4.3 Dimension 1: Coping with Student

Diversity

Looking at the data, we can conclude that the

majority of teachers in both public (94%) and

private (99%) schools felt it is realistic to cope with

student diversity. A large proportion of teachers

described they want their students to succeed

academically; they are willing to make extra efforts

for these students and to adopt alternative teaching

strategies.

To cope with student diversity, more than 50%

of the teachers in public and private schools

mentioned appropriate teaching strategies. This can

be linked to the meta-analysis study of (Hattie,

2009) who stressed that using an appropriate

teaching strategy is a positive response to learner

diversity. Furthermore, they also mentioned this

requires time, training, intentional planning and

long-term commitment. In our findings, the

willingness of teachers to exert further effort and

devote extra time is clearly expressed.

As to their need for support, the private school

teachers mention a strong need for more teaching

aids and learning facilities as compared to their

public school counterparts. This finding corroborates

the results of (Budiraharjo, 2014; Heyneman and

Stern, 2014) who stated that public schools enjoy

better resources compared to private schools.

4.4 Dimension 2: Adopting Specific

Teaching Strategies

The following table summarizes the key vignette

results. The table makes clear that three main

teaching strategies were being adopted by all

teachers. The majority of public school teachers

adopt grouping strategies (31%), while private

school teachers mostly adopt interactive learning

approaches (30%). Both are the key strategy

mentioned by public and private school teachers.

Table 4. Dimension 2. (N=604).

Public schools Private schools

Question 1: What teaching strategy do you adopt to cope with student diversity?

Grouping the students 31%

27%

1.1

Interactive learning 25%

30%

1.4

Experiential learning 10%

12%

0.8

Question 2: Do

ou a

ree with ‘one size

its all’ approach? Wh

Disagree 92% Disagree 96%

2.1

Teachers want to accommodate student diversit

70% 71% 0.3

One strategy is not enough 15% 17%

0.7

Teachers want to achieve the goal of learning 7% 7% 0

*p< .05

Public schools Private schools

Question 1: Is coping with student diversity realistic? Why?

Realistic 94% Realistic 99%

3.4*

Teachers want students to succeed

55% 50%

1.2

Teachers are willing to make extra effort for students

29% 37%

2.1

Teachers use appropriate teaching strategy

11% 12%

0.4

Question 2: How to cope with student diversity?

Use appropriate teaching strategy

51% 53%

0.5

Make extra effort and extra time for students

22% 34%

3.3*

Identify the need and characteristics of students

11% 20%

Question 3: What support is needed to cope with student diversity?

Teaching aids and learning facilities

22% 28%

1.7

Support from parents

22% 19%

0.9

Support from school and other teachers

20% 20%

Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia



Table 5. Dimension 3. (N=604).

*p< .05

The third teaching strategy -applying experiential

learning strategies- is mentioned to a lesser extent.

These results can be linked to a study by

(McQuarrie and McRae, 2010) who mentioned the

benefits of grouping students. In terms of interactive

learning and experiential learning, (Hannafin, Hill

and Land, 1997) stated that learning is most

effective when it evolves from rich hands-on

concrete experiences with realistic and relevant

problems. Also the focus on experiential learning is

relevant. It emphasises direct experiences and in-

context actions as a primary source of learning,

balancing the role of thinking, analysis and

academic knowledge (Kolb, 2014). Our results also

suggest that most teachers disagree with the one-

size-fits-all (OSFA) approach. This positive

commitment fits the recommendation of Fogarty and

Pete (McQuarrie and McRae, 2010; Fox and

Hoffman, 2011).

4.5 Dimension 3: Invoking a Variety in

Learning Activities

Public school teachers build more strongly on

activity that uses teaching aids, play/games activity

(18%), whereas private school teachers invoke more

play/games activity (20%). In general, private school

teachers have a higher tendency to utilise teaching

aids than public school teachers. Brazdeikis and

Masaitis (2012) state that teaching aids can promote

the transformation of educational environments into

a ‘personal’ learning environment. In terms of

invoking play/games activities,

other teachers’ responses stress the need for

planning different additional activities for different

students. Most teachers agree with this idea since it

guarantees engaging all students in learning at the

same time.

4.6 Dimension #4: Monitoring Individual

Student Needs

Table 6 shows that public and private school

teachers feel it is realistic to monitor students’ needs

(94%). They state it is part of a teacher’s

responsibility, even quite necessary, and they will do

the best they can for their students. These reiterate

the statements put forward in relation to first

dimension.

To monitor student needs, public school and

private school teachers put a high percentage on

understanding the students’ characteristics and

needs, providing extra time for guidance, and

teaching according to students’ characteristics. In

terms of understanding students’ needs and

characteristic, these results support the findings of

Fogarty and Pete (2011) who recommend teachers to

identify particular students’ needs and

characteristics.

Teachers mentioned problems related to lack of

parental support.

Public

chools

Private schools

Question 1: What learnin

activit

ou invoke in students?

Activit

that uses teachin

aids 18% 18% 0

Pla

ames activit

16% 20% 1.3

Personal/

roup tas

16%16% 0

Question 2: Wh

ou invoke these speci

ic learnin

activities?

To activate students in class 48% 46% 0.5

To help students to comprehend the lesson 42% 42% 0

Students like that activit

10% 12% 0.8

Question 3: Do

ou a

ree with selectin

erent activities

or di

erent students? Wh

ree 64%

ree 59% 1.3

ree, because teacher want to cope with student diversit

33% 29% 1.1

Disagree, because teacher don’t want to differentiate the student

activit

19%

Disa

ree, because it will disrupt the student focus 15% 21% 1.9

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Table 6. Dimension #4. (N=604).

Public schools Private schools Z*

Question 1: is it realistic to monitor all student needs? Why?

Realistic 94% Realistic 94% 0

It is part of a teacher’s responsibility 32% 27% 1.3

It is necessary to meet the student needs 17% 27% 3*

Teacher will do the best for students

Question 2: What are your actions to monitor student

needs?

Try to understand the student characteristics and needs 28% 26% 0.6

Give extra time for guidance 24% 21% 0.9

Teach students according to their characteristics

Question 3: What are the problems when attempting to

monitor the student needs?

Lack of parent attention 33% 20% 3.6*

Lack of student motivation 22% 21% 0.3

Lack of teaching aids 18% 21% 0.9

* p<.05

This reiterates themes stated in first dimension on

parent involvement linking parent engagement to

academic achievement (Hattie, 2009). Furthermore,

students’ motivation is considered to be crucial for

learning in a DI-setting. Students motivation is

perceived to be positively related to their

achievement (Hattie, 2009). The lack of teaching

aids reappears with higher percentage among private

school teachers (21%).

4.7 Dimension #5: Pursuing Optimal

Learning Outcomes

The ‘Jakarta Smart’ programme implemented by the

Governor of Jakarta gives extra money to particular

students to cater for their learning expenses. This

can be linked to this vignette. This particular

vignette also invites teachers to indicate what they

do in order to pursue optimal learning outcomes.

The vignette data show that most teachers encourage

students to invest in teaching aids and extra learning

facilities. This reflects teachers’ beliefs about

teaching aids and learning facilities.

Aside from the ‘Jakarta Smart’ money, actions to

pursue optimal learning outcomes comprise:

choosing fun and active learning activities,

motivating students, and providing extra time for

remedial and enriching instructional activities.

About motivating the student, the public (19%) and

private (24%) school-teachers try to build up a

strong relationship with their students. This is,

according to Hattie (2009), well known to have a

positive impact on student achievement.

Finally, to indicate the problems in pursuing

optimal learning outcomes, public school teachers

asserted that they lack parental support (42%), can

hardly build on strong student motivation (37%),

and they lack teaching aids (7%), while private

school teachers reflected somewhat different

responses. It seems that public school receive more

resources from the government, but they facing

more problems in relation to parent and student

involvement.

5 IMPLICATIONS AND

CONCLUSIONS

The present study centered on the level and the

nature of current DI-implementation by primary

school teachers in public and private Indonesian

schools. The DI-implementation Scale (DIIS)

revealed an overall DI-implementation level of 7.43

in public schools, and 7.19 in private schools. The

score could be interpreted as relatively good,

however, this still significantly below the benchmark

as compared to mastery learning criteria (80%). DI-

implementation seems challenging.

Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia



Table 7: Dimension #5. (N=604).

Public schools Private schools Z*

Question 1: What action will you do to pursue the optimal learning outcomes with money from ‘Jakarta

Smar

’

ramme?

Recommend the student to buy teaching aids and learning

suppor

54%

61%

1.7

Improve teachers’ professionalism 14% 18% 1.3

Motivate the students 10% 11% 0.4

Question 2: Re

ardless of the ‘Jakarta Smar

’mone

, how do

ou pursue optimal learnin

outcome?

Opt for fun and active learnin

activit

29% 28% 0.3

Motivate the studen

19% 24% 1.5

Give extra time to the students for remedial and enrichmen

21% 19% 0.6

Question 3: What are the problems to pursue optimal learnin

outcome?

Lack of parent attention 42% 30% 3.1*

Lack of student motivation 37% 27% 2.6*

Lack of teachin

aids 7% 11% 1.7

* p<.05

Though teachers provide an optimistic response to

the vignettes (e.g. on first dimension, 94% and

above teachers are feel realistic to cope with student

diversity), the actual DI-implementation is still

below the benchmark. This corroborates the study of

Mills, Monk (2014), who concluded that DI is a

complex concept which is not easy to shift from a

policy to a reality. Another study by Tobin and

Tippet (2014) revealed similar barriers to

implementing DI; i.e. the fears and insecurities of

teacher performance, the lack of time, and the lack

of resources. The results of a t-test also confirmed

that there is a significant difference in the average of

DI-implementation between public and private

schools. Teachers in public schools reflect higher

DI-scores. This finding also reflected the gap

between public and private schools as also proven in

the disproportion in learning resources (Budiraharjo,

2014), operational funds (Heyneman and Stern,

2014) and in resulting student performance between

both types of school (Newhouse and Beegle, 2006;

Bedi and Garg, 2000). Moreover, none of the DI-

dimensions in public and private school is at par

with the benchmarks standard.

This finding has key implications, especially at

policy level; in particular, when it comes to the

professional development (PD) of in-service

teachers, next to reconsidering the curriculum for

pre-service teachers. The PD has a significant

impact to school improvement (Hoque, Alam and

Abdullah, 2011). Furthermore, the finding provides

the ‘nature’ of DI-implementation. Teachers’

responses to the vignettes reflected an awareness of

the importance of DI and the fact that student

diversity should be considered during lesson

planning and instruction. Regarding the coping with

student diversity, a majority of the teachers seems to

be aware of student diversity, and they want to cope

with it by applying appropriate teaching strategies.

In view of adopting specific teaching strategy, most

teachers reported the adoption of a group-based

teaching strategy. Most teachers disagree with the

OSFA approach, and want to accommodate to

student diversity. On invoking a variety of learning

activities, most teachers are willing to use teaching

aids and play/games activities to motivate students

and make them more active. Considering the

monitoring individual student needs, most teachers

feel it is realistic to monitor individual needs, as part

of their teaching responsibilities. Concerning the

pursuing optimal learning outcome, most teachers

recommend students to allocate the money from

‘Jakarta Smart’ program to purchase their own

teaching aids/learning support. In view of the

challenges facing the implementation of most DI-

dimensions, teachers mentioned the lack of parental

support, the lack of student motivation, and the lack

of teaching aids.

The quality of Indonesian education can clearly

be improved. At the macro-level, the Indonesian

Ministry of Education could set up a national plan to

put a high priority on educational quality and

implement a consistent related regulatory system to

monitor educational outcomes in relation to new

instructional approaches. At the same time, there has

to be a shift in the nature and quality of PD about

DI, next to an emphasis on extra teaching

resources/teaching aids. These plans could build on

a school-based exchange of good practices, school-

based lesson plan studies focusing on DI-solutions,

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

collegial consultation when attempting to implement

DI. Other countries such as Korea (Cha and Ahn,

2014), England and Australia (Mills, Monk,

Keddiea, Renshawa, Christiec, Geelanb, et al., 2014)

also emphasize professional standards that cater for

DI. Future research could centre on studying actual

teacher behaviour in classrooms, next to

experimenting with particular DI-strategies.

Student diversity puts educational quality at the

forefront of education in general and of Indonesian

education in particular. The present study can be

considered as a benchmark study contributing to

processes that push education forward to the benefit

of all stakeholders.

REFERENCES

Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M.B. and Rush, C. (2003)

'Increasing Reading Achievement of Primary and

Middle School Students Through Differentiated

Instruction', Unpublished Master of Arts Research

Project, Saint Xavier University, Chicago.

Bedi, A.S. and Garg, A. (200) 'The effectiveness of private

versus public schools: The case of Indonesia', Journal

of Development Economics, 61(2), pp. 463-94.

Brazdeikis, V. and Masaitis, M. (2012) 'Teaching aids in

teaching and learning environments of Lithuanian

schools', Social Sciences, 76(2), pp. 74-83.

Budiraharjo, M. (2015) Private schools need more

appreciation from government [Online]. Available at:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/12/13/priva

te-schools-need-more-appreciation-government.html.

[Accessed 3 March, 2015].

Cha, H.J. and Ahn, M.L. (2014) 'Development of design

guidelines for tools to promote differentiated

instruction in classroom teaching', Asia Pacific

Education Review, 15(4), pp. 511-23

Fogarty J.R. and Pete, M.B. (2011) Supporting

differentiated instruction; A professional learning

communities approach. Bloomington, NJ: Solution

Tree Press.

Fox, J. and Hoffman, W. (2011) The differentiated

instruction book of lists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J.R. and Land, S.M. (1997) 'Student-

centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status,

issues, and implication', Contemporary Education,

68(2), pp. 94-9.

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800

meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York:

Routledge.

Heyneman, S.P. and Stern, J.M. (2014) 'Low cost private

schools for the poor: What public policy is

appropriate?', International Journal of Educational

Development, vol. 35, pp.3-15.

Hoque, K. E., Alam, G. M. and Abdullah, A. G. K. (2011).

'Impact of teachers’ professional

development on school improvement—an analysis at

Bangladesh standpoint', Asia Pacific Education

Review, 12(3), pp. 337-348. Available at:

doi:10.1007/s12564-010-9107-z

Kolb, D.A. (2014) Experiential Learning: Experience as

The Source of Learning and Development. New

Jersey: Pearson Education.

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), pp.161-4.

McQuarrie, L.M. and McRae, P. (2010) 'A provincial

perspective on differentiated instruction: The alberta

initiative for school improvement (AISI)', Journal of

Applied Research on Learning, 3(4), pp.1-18.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data

Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. California: Sage

Publication.

Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddiea, A., Renshawa, P., Christiec,

P., Geelanb, D., et al. (2014) 'Differentiated learning:

From policy to classroom', Oxford Review of

Education, 40(3), pp. 331-48.

Moore, K.D. (2005) Effective Instructional Strategies:

From Theory to Practice. California: Sage

Publication.

Newhouse, D. and Beegle, K. (2006) 'The effect of school

type on academic achievement evidence from

Indonesia', Journal of Human Resources, 41(3),

pp.529-57.

OECD (2016) Program for the International Assessment

of Adult Competencies, PIAAC 2016 result. [Online].

Available at: http://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills-

Matter-Jakarta-Indonesia.pdf. [Accessed 5 Sept,

2016].

Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., Little, C.A., Muller, L.M. and

Kaniskan, R.B. (2011) 'The effect of differentiated

instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading

achievement in five elementary schools', American

Educational Research Journal, 48(2), pp.462-501.

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016) 'Standards are good (for)

business: Standardised comparison and the private

sector in education', Globalisation, Societies and

Education, 14(2), pp. 161-82.

Suprayogi, M.N. and Valcke, M. (2016) 'Differentiated

instruction in primary schools: Implementation and

challenges in Indonesia', PONTE, 72(6), pp.2-18.

Suprayogi, M.N., Valcke, M. and Godwin, R. (2017)

'Teachers and their implementation of differentiated

instruction in the classroom', Teaching and Teacher

Education, vol. 67, pp. 291-301.

Thousand, J.S., Villa, R.A. and Nevin, A.I. (2007)

Differentiating Instruction: Collaborative Planning

and Teaching for Universally Designed Learning.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tobin, R. and Tippett, C.D. (2014) 'Possibilities and

potential barriers: Learning to plan for differentiated

instruction in elementary science', International

Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2),

pp. 423-43.

Differentiated Instruction in Public and Private Schools in Indonesia



Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K. and Narvaez, L. (2008)

The differentiated school: Making revolutionary

changes in teaching and learning. Alexandria,

Virginia: ASCD.

Zimmerman, B.J. and Dibenedetto, M.K. (2008) 'Mastery

learning and assessment: Implications for students and

teachers in an era of high-stakes testing', Psychology

in the Schools, 45(3), pp. 206-16.

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference