Lesson Planning for Diversity: Processes and Pedagogical Content

Author(s):

Hazel Lawson(presenting / submitting)Brahm Norwich(presenting)Alison Black

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 04 A, Inclusive Paedagogy

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

09:00-10:30

Room:

W6.13

Chair:

Helga Fasching

Contribution

This paper reports on a two-part study which examines how teacher lesson planning, and guidance for this lesson planning, takes account of learner differences, with a focus on pupils with special educational needs (SEN).

Lesson planning is regarded as good practice by policy-makers in England (DfE, 2013; Independent Teacher Workload Review Group, 2016) and internationally (Mutton, Hagger & Burn, 2011; EASNIE, 2016) and is a key component of initial teacher training (European Commission, 2013; Fautley & Savage, 2013). The process of lesson planning reflects continuing challenges and dilemmas in teaching that have been recognised for decades (Berlack & Berlack, 1981), for example, the balance between subject content demands and learner needs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). Despite its perceived importance, however, research in this topic has been sporadic (Hughes, 2005).

Notwithstanding the recognition that planning is an important teaching skill, confusion over the need (or not) for a lesson plan highlights an enduring issue in teacher lesson preparation: whether it is the product, that is, a concrete lesson plan, or the planning process itself which is most significant and valued (Rusznyak and Walton, 2011). A prevailing official lesson discourse is frequently reflected in the lesson plan (Linné, 2001). However, whilst a lesson plan may be presented as if it were a functionalist artefact, the manner in which the lesson is conducted, the way in which it is enacted, is based in interaction. As Alexander (2000) suggests, the lesson is like a performance, preceded by composition (the lesson planning) but affected by interpretation and improvisation.

The enactment of plans that take account of learner differences is particularly important in the context of international moves in contemporary school teaching relating to issues of personalisation and inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) with a focus on supporting all learners regarded as an important part of inclusive teachers’ repertoire (DfE, 2013; EADSNE, 2012).There is debate about the existence and nature of specialised pedagogies for pupils with SEN (Lewis & Norwich, 2005) as well as a growing literature about ‘inclusive pedagogy’ (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Spratt, 2013; UNICEF, 2014). Thinking about learner differences and pedagogy is thus an important part of the lesson planning process.

The literature thus highlights the policy interest in lesson planning, issues about the linear or interactive nature of lesson planning and pedagogical differentiation in the planning process in response to learner diversity. Within this context, the first part of this study investigates teachers’ lesson planning processes. It examines in depth how three secondary subject teachers think about and take account of learner difference and diversity in their lesson planning and reviewing with a specific focus on pupils with SEN. How do teachers, whose lesson planning is nominated as high quality, think about and cater for diversity/SEN in their lesson planning? This first part of the study led to the development of a provisional situated model of lesson planning processes in relation to SEN.

The second part of the study builds on this process model by considering the pedagogical content of lesson planning and design and the advice given to teachers/student teachers regarding this pedagogical content (not subject content), generally and specifically in relation to teaching children with SEN. What pedagogical aspects do teachers include in their lesson planning? What advice and guidance are teachers given in professional and practitioner literature regarding pedagogical adaptations in their lesson planning in relation to SEN?

This paper brings together the two parts of this study (lesson planning processes and pedagogical content – the how and what of lesson planning) to present a more complex picture of lesson planning for diversity/SEN.

Method

Part 1 of the study involved the development of case studies of three secondary school teachers who were nominated by senior teachers for their competence and ‘good practice’ in the area of general lesson planning. Participants taught in the subject area of English, Maths or Design and Technology. Each teacher’s lesson planning was studied through interviews, observations and lesson planning documents and artefacts. A series of two lessons was observed in one of each teacher’s classes (where there was at least one pupil with special educational needs, including at least one pupil with a low incidence difficulty) with pre- and post- lesson interviews, the latter using stimulated recall methods (Lyle, 2003). Individual case analysis incorporating processes of thematic coding was carried out and resulting themes then applied to cross-case analysis to distinguish between common and distinct themes. The common themes were then used to develop a conceptual model. Part 2 of the study involved the initial identification of aspects of pedagogical content on lesson plans from the case study teachers in part 1 (for example, aims and objectives, grouping, differentiation, learning activities, resources). A systematic search of professional and practitioner literature (for example, books and websites) was then carried out to identify a) advice and guidance given to teachers/student teachers about each aspect in relation to planning for teaching learners with SEN; b) the specific, ‘middling’ or general nature of the advised strategy; c) whether it was applied to all learners, all learners with SEN or learners with specific types of SEN; and d) whether it was cross-subject or subject-specific. Additional pedagogical aspects were added as appropriate (for example, teacher communication). This analysis will be used to develop a map of pedagogical adaptation as relevant to lesson planning.

Expected Outcomes

Part 1: Different types of lesson planning were identified (formal, personal, expanded and in-flight) and the relationship between them represented in a process model of lesson planning for diversity. The case studies showed the influence of the linear objectives model of planning, but also illustrated the extent to which teachers review and adapt their teaching after the initial planning and during the lesson. Planning for diversity might thus be a formal process from some perspectives, but is also an informal, interactive ongoing process. The teachers’ saw lesson planning for pupils with SEN to be part of planning for wider diversity and in terms of different kinds of pedagogical differentiation. Teachers’ knowledge about pupils’ characteristics and their needs derived from various sources, at different levels of generality with regards to their lesson planning. The subject they taught provided the main frame for identifying learner characteristics, which derived from coming to know pupils through teaching/assessing their learning. This finding underlines the importance of how teachers’ knowledge about the areas of SEN for teaching is moderated by subject and personal learner characteristics. Part 2: Initial analysis, focusing on the pedagogical content of lesson planning and advised adaptations for teaching pupils with SEN, seems to indicate that many recommended pedagogical adaptations are general in nature, not specific to teaching pupils with SEN and apply across subjects, reflecting previous work in this area (Lewis & Norwich, 2005). It is envisaged that a map of pedagogical adaptation as relevant to lesson planning will be developed, then considered alongside the process model. The inclusion of learners with SEN in mainstream classrooms is a contemporary continuing international issue and the combined outcomes of the two parts of this study will provide a more complex, detailed and researched understanding about lesson planning and design in this field.

References

Alexander, R. (2000) Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell. Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981) Dilemmas of schooling. Methuen: London. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011) Index for inclusion (3rd ed.). Bristol: CSIE. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Department for Education (DfE) (2013) Teachers’ standards. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/208682/Teachers__Standards_2013.pdf European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE) (2012) Teacher education for inclusion: Profile of inclusive teachers. Brussels: EADSNE. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE) (2016) Raising the Achievement of All Learners in Inclusive Education – Literature Review. (A. Kefallinou, ed.). Odense, Denmark: EASNIE. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Raising%20Achievement%20%C2%AD%20Literature%20Review.pdf European Commission (2013) Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. Brussels: EC. Fautley, M., & Savage, J. (2013) Lesson planning for effective learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013) Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119-135. Hughes, S. A. (2005) Some canaries left behind? Evaluating a state‐endorsed lesson plan database and its social construction of who and what counts. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 105-138. Independent Teacher Workload Review Group (2016) Eliminating unnecessary workload around planning and teaching resources: Report of the Independent Teacher Workload Review Group. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511257/Eliminating-unnecessary-workload-around-planning-and-teaching-resources.pdf Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (eds.) (2005) Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Linné, A. (2001) The lesson as a pedagogic text: a case study of pedagogic designs. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 129-156. Lyle J. (2003) Stimulated Recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6): 861-78. Mutton, T., Hagger, H., & Burn, K. (2011) Learning to plan, planning to learn: the developing expertise of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 17(4), 399-416. Rusznyak, L., & Walton, E. (2011) Lesson planning guidelines for student teachers: a scaffold for the development of pedagogical content knowledge. Education as Change, 15(1), 271–285. UNICEF (2014) Teachers, inclusive, child-centred teaching and pedagogy. New York: UNICEF.

Author Information

Hazel Lawson (presenting / submitting)

University of Exeter

Exmouth

Brahm Norwich (presenting)

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Alison Black

University of Exeter

GSE

Bishopsteignton

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.