Abstract
This study presents the design and experimental implementation of a differentiated foreign language teaching model for non-philological higher education students. The growing demand for professionally oriented foreign language competence in multidisciplinary university programs requires innovative pedagogical solutions that account for students’ diverse cognitive abilities, academic needs, and professional goals. The research aims to develop a structured differentiated instructional model that integrates level-based grouping, adaptive task design, and competence-oriented assessment within the framework of modern educational standards. The study employed a mixed-method research design, including diagnostic assessment, pedagogical modeling, and experimental validation. The proposed model consists of four interconnected components: diagnostic, procedural, technological, and evaluative. During the experimental implementation, students were divided into differentiated groups based on language proficiency and learning profiles. The results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in communicative competence, learner autonomy, and professional vocabulary acquisition compared to traditional instruction methods.References
1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 2006, 77–101.
2. Brindley, G. Assessing achievement in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
3. Canale, M., & Swain, M. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1980, 1–47.
4. Connor, D. J. Differentiation in higher education: Supporting diverse learners. Journal of Postsecondary Education, 4(2), 2013, 15–28.
5. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
6. Creswell, J. W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, 2014.
7. Dziuban, C., Graham, C., Moskal, P., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(3), 2015, 1–12.
8. Guskey, T. R. Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press, 2007.
9. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum,
10. Heacox, D. Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners. Free Spirit Publishing, 2012.
11. Kaur, A. Adaptive learning systems in higher education: A review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 2018, 1907–1923.
12. Littlewood, W. The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 2004, 319–326.
13. Peacock, M. The case for competence-based language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(1), 2011, 1–15.
14. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2014.
15. Santamaria, L. J. Culturally responsive differentiated instruction in higher education. Multicultural Education, 16(2), 2009, 41–48.
16. Subban, P. Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 2006, 935–947.
17. Tomlinson, C. A. How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. ASCD, 2001.
18. Tomlinson, C. A. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD, 2014.
19. Tomlinson, C. A., & Moon, T. R. Assessment and student success in a differentiated classroom. ASCD. Altheide, D. L. Qualitative media analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications,