In order to respond to diversity in the classroom ‘adapted teaching’ and ‘differentiated teaching’ have been introduced as important conceptions in teacher education. However there are indications that teacher education doesn’t provide students with good enough qualifications within the area of adapted teaching (Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L. & Duffy, H.,2005; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; NOKUT, 2013; Pugach, 2005). One reason for this is that adapted teaching historically is connected to pupils with special educational needs. Another reason stems from little awareness towards the perceptions and language we use when we talk about pupils and teaching.

Teachers tendency to categorize pupils as for example strong and week, can affect the way we think about and act in relation to pupils. According to Rosaen and Florio Ruane (2008) it is important to study metaphors we use when we speak of pupils and further discuss cultural and historical origins of these metaphors, because this may prevent student teachers in adopting the understanding and the actions already implicit in the concepts.

This paper discusses how student teachers make meaning about adapted teaching when they reflect on their own teaching together with their supervisor while in school practice during their one year teacher education. The paper discusses following question:

• What cultural/linguistic tools are being used when students and their supervisor are talking about adapted teaching and how do these tools effect students' understanding and behavior in the classroom?

• What is the supervisor's role in these processes?

Theoretical framework:

The theoretical framework is based on sociocultural and dialogical theory. How we make meaning is strongly contextual (Vygotsky 1978, 2001, Wertsch 1998, Linell 2009, Lemke 2000). Sociocultural and dialogical theory offers one way to conceptualize the social construction of knowledge and to analyzing situated learning processes. By focusing on the participants’ collective meaning-making in-situ, it is possible to explore what is talked about and how tools and sociocultural context are made part of their talk and action (Linell 2009). 

Key concepts in dialogical theory are interactivity, contextuality, semiotic mediation and moral and evaluative communicative construction (Linell 2009). Dialogues take place in and through words. The dialogical perspective implies that thinking and problem solving takes place in the world rather than in the individual brains. Therefore, in meaning-making there is interdependency between the activity, the persons involved, the contexts and the resources available.

This study also has focus on concept development, drawing on Vygotskys theories on scientific - and everyday language, and ‘meaning’ and ‘sense’ (Vygotsy 1978, 2001)

Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L. & Duffy, H. (2005): Teaching Diverse Learners. I L. Darling-Hammond og J. Bransford (eds.) (2005): Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco:The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999): Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities. I A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (eds.): Review of research in education. American educational research association, Washington, DC. Fosse, B.O. (2011): Lærerstudenters innramming og forståelse av tilpasset opplæring . En studie av kollektive læringsprosesser i ulike kontekster ved en praktisk-pedagogisk lærerutdanning. Ph.D dissertation, University of Oslo, Norway. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995): Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (1): 39-103. Lemke, J.l. (2000): Across the scales of Time: artifacts, and Meanings in Ecosocial Systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7 (4), 273–290. Linell, P. (2009): Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte, NC. NOKUT (2013). PPUs relevans av studenters og nyutdannede læreres oppfatninger. (Rapport 2013-3). Oslo: NOKUT. Pugach, M.C. (2005): Research on Preparing General Education Teachers to Work With Students With Disabilities. I M. Cochran-Smith & K.M. Zeichner (eds.): Studying Teacher Education. The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc. USA. Rosaen, C. and Floriane-Ruane, S. (2008): The metaphors by which we teach: experience, metaphor, and culture in teacher education. I M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre og K. E. Demers (eds.): Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring Questions in Changing Contexts. Routledge/Taylor & Francis group and the assosiation of teachers educators. UNESCO. 2003: Overcoming Exclusion through Inclusive Approaches in Education. A challenge. A vision. Conceptual Paper. Lastet ned fra: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001347/134785e.pdf Vygotsky, L. S. (2001): Tenkning og tale. Gyldendal Akademisk. Wertsch, J. V. (1998): Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.