Abstract

     Following an embedded sequential explanatory mixed-method research design in which quantitative and qualitative data were merged, this paper examines teachers’ experiences of stress and job satisfaction and their relation to the DI practice. The quantitative study uses data from the National Educational Panel Study in Germany (N = 209 teachers), while the qualitative study analyses interview responses of 24 secondary school teachers. Findings reveal that teachers experience positive effects from implementing DI, but also perceive the practice as slightly stressful. Additionally, the paper discusses teachers’ DI training needs and the implications of the results, and calls for further research.

Introduction

     In their classroom, teachers around the world are confronted with a highly diverse student population that differs not only in performance and academic readiness, but also in their learning preferences, cultural backgrounds, language competence, learning styles, and motivation, as well as social, methodological, and self-regulatory competencies (Hardy et al., 2019; Jokinen et al., 2012). In order to maximize each student’s learning potential, policymakers, and researchers urge teachers to embrace student diversity and adapt their instruction to the diverse learning needs of the students in their classrooms (e.g., Unesco, 2017).

     One pedagogical approach that acknowledges the differences among learners and aims to respond effectively to students’ varying learning needs is “differentiated instruction” (DI). DI is an approach by which teachers aim to provide optimal learning for all by carefully aligning learning tasks and activities with students’ learning needs (Roy et al., 2013; Tomlinson, 2014, 2017). Research has documented the positive effects of DI across the educational settings in which it has been implemented, reporting positive effects of DI on student achievement as well as learning interest and self-confidence (Eysink et al., 2017; Johnsen, 2003; Mc Quarrie & Mc Rae, 2010).

Conclusion

     We refined a dynamic CGE model to estimate the economic consequences of COVID-19 over eight semi-annual periods during 2020–۲۰۲۳٫ A baseline scenario in which the COVID pandemic is assumed not to occur was first established based on pre-pandemic growth forecasts. The COVID pandemic was then incorporated into the model and compared to baseline growth. The various causal factors of the pandemic were added sequentially to decompose their contributions to the overall impact of COVID on the U.S. economy. These causal factors include the mandatory closure of businesses and gradual reopenings, the avoidance of workplace and various activities (such as restaurant dining), the impact of deaths and illness on the labor force, the increase in hospitalizations and health care expenses, the fiscal stimulus implemented in 2020 and 2021, and the increase in pent-up demand once businesses were allowed to reopen. Sensitivity analysis was performed on disease spread with various interventions relating to vaccine availability, efficacy, and take-up. The decomposition of the influence of various causal factors will help policymakers make adjustments to offset the negative influences and reinforce the positive ones during the remainder of this pandemic and in anticipation of future ones.

     The analysis of the decomposition revealed that the largest losses from COVID were associated with the mandatory closure of businesses and the slow reopening process, followed by the avoidance of workplace and other activities by households. While deaths and illnesses resulted in a minimal decline in real GDP, primarily due to the decline in demand caused by the declining population, the increase in demand for health care led to a rise in real GDP. Pent-up demand is a significant factor in the recovery process, raising growth ever closer to the original baseline growth. Early rounds (1–۴) of fiscal policy were also very helpful in alleviating some of the losses in economic growth due to mandatory business closures, avoidance, and other causal factors. The benefits of the last round of fiscal policy are considerably lower, and even negative, compared to earlier rounds due to crowding out of private investment and the need for businesses to repay loans.