NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

TEACHER LEARNING FOR EQUITABLE

INSTRUCTION OF ELL AND SPED
LEARNERS IN THE MAINSTREAM
CLASSROOMS
Margaret Solomon
University of Redlands

ABSTRACT

The article makes the case for teacher practitioners in the mainstream classrooms to
take on the instructional challenges they face with ELL and Special Needs learners with
a renewed perspective of becoming learners themselves. First it describes what is teacher
learning and then shows why teacher learning is vital. The author provides a learning
framework and explains each component thoroughly showing how teacher reflection can
become the ultimate learning process.

E normous pressure has been placed on teachers in the

mainstream classrooms to teach to all the learners for academic
success. The Educational reforms have impacted learning in
the mainstream classrooms even to the extent of “pushing” the English
Language Learners (ELL) and Special needs learners (SPED). The
ELL and SPED learners came to the mainstream classroom through
various educational reforms efforts contributing many teaching and
learning challenges for teachers and students. Teachers are expected to
teach for grade level mastery of all students in all subjects regardless
of their lack of academic skills and knowledge. This raises questions
such as, “What should teachers do? Should they in distraught pass on
their failing students “to fate” within the educational system? Or
should they take upon this challenge with a renewed perspective?

In order for teachers to manage the described instructional

challenges with an encompassing perspective and provide academic
success for all learners they have to become learners themselves.
Instead of feeling comfortable with the idea that they have mastered
39
40 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

learning how to teach, they must set themselves as continuous learners

of their own practice. That type of purposeful learning would help
teachers gain the needed knowledge, skills and proficiency to teach all
learners. Unless teachers take definite steps to learn and gain
knowledge and professional skills to bring change in their pedagogy
their efforts will not benefit students.

This article first describes and explains what is teacher learning

and then shows why teacher learning is vital in the context of teaching
ELL and SPED learners in the mainstream classroom. In addition
teacher reflection is described as the meaningful process for learning
new knowledge and instructional skills to match the learning needs of
ELL and SPED learners. All these ideas will be conceptualized within
the framework of teacher learning which takes the center stage in the
discussion.

What is Teacher Learning?

Basically, the term “teacher learning” refers to teachers gaining

new knowledge about teaching and learning. In the context of making
instructional adaptations for special learners we conceptualize teacher
learning as a type of learning that would help them become responsive
to teaching and make teaching responsive to student learning. Within
this concept we picture teachers as learners who are continuously
learning about their teaching and knowing how it matches with student
learning. Teacher learning implies “revising beliefs and values,
acquiring new knowledge and skill, adapting to new patterns of work”
(Sykes, l999. p. 153). Teacher learning also can be seen as a type of
“situated cognition” (Brown et al., 1989) when teachers are able to
think and reflect about their teaching and discover its effect on student
learning. It is also learning what they know, what they have to know,
and how to know in particular contexts. Therefore, teacher learning
has to do with the nature of teachers’ knowledge and the new
knowledge they have to acquire to bring pedagogical changes to meet
student needs.
 Margaret Solomon 41

Here teacher learning is envisioned as a professional

development process to build knowledge and understanding for
meeting the instructional demands teachers face in teaching English
learners and special needs students in the mainstream classrooms.
Emphasizing learning for teachers does not conflict with the learning
traditions of schools. In as much as schools are regarded as learning
organizations and they are run with an orientation to learning for
everyone (Senge, 2000); therefore, the learning for teachers
recommended here is natural and relevant.

Rationale for Teacher Learning

Although learning is imperative for teachers to achieve the

pedagogical applications of educational policies imposed on schools,
reforms do not make teacher learning a priority. Further, educational
reforms are centered on bringing equity in learning and equal access to
the curriculum for all learners but the policies usually do not consider
what learning teachers have to undertake to make that policy goal a
reality in their classrooms. Further policies seldom consider time and
efforts for teachers to build their capacity for implementing reform
goals. For example, at present schools are fully absorbed in
implementing the requirements of NCLB which has the “broad goal of
raising the achievement levels of all students especially
underperforming groups, and to close the achievement gap” (Darling-
Hammond, 2004). This accountability driven reform holds teachers to
implement grade level content standards and teach all the learners to
achieve the performance measures set by the Adequate Yearly Progress
indicators and Academic Performance Index in California. While
prescribing these measures for teachers, NCLB has not made
allowance for teachers to learn and acquire the necessary skills to meet
those measures.

The history of American education is filled with reforms of this

kind, including school desegregation, mainstreaming special needs
students into regular classrooms…The logic of such reform does not
42 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

centrally implicate teacher learning, but the reform cannot succeed

unless teachers change some of their beliefs, practices…many other
curricular or organizational reforms typically places a heavy burden
of learning on teachers…, where learning is associated with change of
some kind…(Sykes, 1999, p. 153).

Although educational reforms attempt to direct change in

teaching, they do not take into consideration the importance of teacher
learning which alone would lead to change in their teaching practice to
accommodate the educational needs of diverse learners in their
classrooms while meeting the demands of the law (Cohen & Barnes,
1993). According to the American Federation of Teachers report
(1995)…without professional development school reform will not
happen…The nation can adopt rigorous standards, set forth a visionary
scenario, compile the best research about how students learn…
promote teaching strategies that have been successful with a wide
range of students,…But, unless the classroom teacher understands and
is committed to the plan and knows how to make it happen, the dream
will come to naught” (pp. 1-2)

As you can gather from these quoted statements, teacher

learning is considered an essential component for mainstream teachers
who are expected to teach ELL and other at risk learners for academic
success. It is reiterated further in the following words, “If teachers are
to prepare an ever more diverse group of students for much more
challenging work…they will need substantially more knowledge and
radically different skills than most now have and most schools of
education now develop” (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 1997, p.
178).

National and State level Achievement Data reports indicate that

currently many of the ELL and SPED learners do not experience
academic success in the mainstream classrooms. California school
data shows that ELL are 83 points below their other counterparts on
their Academic Performance Index (API) score and Special needs
learners are 190 below the API score of other learners.(California
 Margaret Solomon 43

Department of Education, 2007-08 Accountability Progress

Reporting). There is also wide discrepancy in the academic
achievements of ELL and SPED learners in comparison with grade
level regular students at the national level (NAPE, 2005), this
continues to plague the educational system. These learners will
continue to slip through our fingers and drop out of school unless
teachers have the pedagogical expertise to adopt learning to the unique
differences of these students. This means that mainstream teachers
have to teach students with varying academic abilities including the
ELL and SPED learners and must take up some new learning in order
to make instructional adaptations to meet their needs. That makes
teacher learning a prerequisite to applying new pedagogy.

In a study on how a selected group of 3rd grade teachers used a

new math text that required them to change their content and methods
of teaching, it was seen that teachers revisited their current knowledge
about teaching math first and then expanded their mathematical and
pedagogical understanding through a learning process (Remillard,
2000). The underlying principle here is that through learning that
focuses on pedagogical knowledge and skills teachers can experience
a renewal to their teaching persona as well as make a difference for
their students.

Similarly, in making instructional adaptations for ELL and

SPED learners teachers have to first examine their current knowledge
and understanding about these special learners and the pedagogy most
appropriate to them and acquire new knowledge and skills they need
for engaging these learners in the learning process of the classroom.
The following diagram truly represents the conceptualization of
teacher learning because the context, content and process are essential
elements in the learning experiences of teachers.

Components of Teacher Learning

44 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Context

Content

Process

Learning about the Context

The reality of the mainstream classroom centers on the

students who are interacting with the learning environment provided
by the teachers. Teacher learning begins with teachers understanding
their current teaching context and then learning what instructional
decisions to make to create the most favorable context for their
learners. In every classroom the teacher takes the lead in creating the
learning environment that either engages the learners or ignores it. The
learning environment has a powerful influence on students’
motivation; therefore creating a positive learning environment that is
learner centered is essential in providing curriculum access for ELL
and SPED learners.

In order to create the learning context that supports the access

of grade level academic content and skills for our special learners,
teachers must develop the type of instruction that takes the prior
knowledge of these learners into consideration and builds on the skills
and knowledge they have. A learner engages in the reading and writing
 Margaret Solomon 45

and becomes motivated if there is “interaction with teachers and peers,

and participation in the meaning-negotiation process…if prior beliefs
and knowledge are activated, if tasks are personally relevant, and if
active meaning construction is involved. The teacher who incorporates
these features in the learning environment is considered to be mastery
goal oriented and is much more likely to produce productive learning
in students” (Ruddell & Unrau, 1994, p.1498) Teachers can
orchestrate this type of learning environment for their students, one
that engages their students by validating their culture, prior knowledge
and language skills.

Teacher Learning Content

Teacher learning is not only a concept, it is also a practical idea

that entails specific content and process for the selected context of
teaching ELL and SPED learners in mainstream classrooms. The
content of teacher learning refers to what teachers must learn now and
continue to learn to facilitate an effective learning environment for all
learners. Moreover it also includes the affective and cognitive domains
that teachers draw from when they incorporate knowledge, skills and
process while working with students. The learning recommended here
consists of three content focus areas: 1. the content for developing new
beliefs, knowledge, skills and experiences for teachers to build their
instructional capacity to meet the unique learning needs of their
special learners. Since there is a direct connection between teacher
beliefs and practice it is essential to bring change in beliefs and that
can be successfully accomplished only through teachers learning for
that purpose. 2. New knowledge about ELL and SPED learners. 3.
Instructional adaptations of the academic content for making learning
connections for students with varying needs.

Personal prior knowledge and beliefs

46 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Learning begins for teachers with the reflection of how their

personal knowledge and beliefs contribute to the instructional stance
they take regarding their students’ learning. Instructional stance refers
to instructional decisions teachers make in the teaching and learning
process that are influenced by the prior knowledge and beliefs teachers
hold. (Ruddell & Unrau, 2004) Green (1971) describes teaching as
“being concerned with the formation of beliefs, both what we believe
and how we believe it. He states, teaching has to do, in part at least,
with the formation of beliefs, and that means that it has to do not
simply with what we shall believe, but with how we believe it.
Teaching is an activity which has to do, among other things, with the
modification and formation of belief systems” (p. 48). Weiss also
(1995) supports the view that teachers’ personal beliefs, interests and
knowledge about teaching and learning provides the inertia for their
instructional practice. According to her, a teacher interprets his/her
teaching act with personal interests, ideologies and knowledge about
students, content, teaching and learning. Therefore, learning about the
personal knowledge and beliefs they hold about the special learners in
the classroom is an essential component of the learning content.

Pedagogical Knowledge

The pedagogical knowledge piece is a crucial part of the

teacher learning content, in as much as the teachers’ belief system and
their prior knowledge have a great deal of influence on how they
teach. In addition, principles of good teaching practice need to play a
central part in teacher learning. The literature in this specific area
speaks about two perspectives teachers have to learn in terms of
pedagogy, namely, the adaptive perspective and the critical
perspective. Here we would like to take relevant concepts from both
the perspectives. The adaptive perspective (Devency and Sykes, l988;
Kennedy, l991) refers to the content on adapting to the change of the
social and demographic characteristics of the learners and the nature of
their learning. When teachers apply instructional strategies to the
 Margaret Solomon 47

identified learning difficulties students face they are using adaptive

perspective.

On the other hand critical perspective arises from the social

conflicts between the dominant gender, race and class over education.
This perspective argues that the prevailing teaching practices serve for
an unequal structured society with unequal results of schooling and
calls for changes in teaching and teachers. Thus, instead of asking
teachers to learn to adapt their pedagogy to perpetuate the current
system, this perspective suggests that the central tasks of teacher
learning is helping students to learn to participate in changing the
unequal structured society and defining their own future. (Frankstein,
l983; Freire, l970; Noddings, l990). Thus, critical perspective gives
teachers a philosophical norm to overcome historical problems of
alienation, social struggles and educational marginalization ELL and
special needs learners have historically experienced.

Therefore, teaching ELL and SPED learners the grade level

academic content requires teachers to have a new set of skills from
both adaptive and critical perspectives of pedagogy in order to build
their instructional repertoire. That really asserts mainstream teachers
must learn to adapt their teaching to the learning needs of their
students and also develop a sense of responsibility to bring equity in
the learning contexts envisioning new possibilities. Consequently,
empowering students to become successful learners and active
participants in developing an equitable society becomes a natural
result.

Knowledge about the ELL and SPED Learners

In order to become proficient in their orientation to teaching

these two focused student populations, mainstream teachers need to
learn about the nature of the students’ specialties and understand who
they really are. In studies that explored teachers’ orientations toward
diverse learners, they noted that the knowledge of teachers about their
48 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

diverse students was often superficial. Paine (1988) stated, Teachers’

ability to talk about student differences in thoughtful, comprehensive
ways was often limited; and their thinking about its pedagogical
implications was often quite problematic. For example, these
prospective teachers seemed to share the sense that student differences
should be taken into account, but they were often unsure about how to
think about those differences in terms of planning and arranging
academic work. Their discussions of diversity were often
contradictory… (p. 291).

Although most teachers agree that student differences should

be taken into account in the teaching process, they seemed to lack
understanding of the learning needs of students with differences.
Therefore, it is important to emphasize the need for mainstream
teachers to gain a thorough knowledge about the ELL and other
students with special needs in order to be able to make instructional
adaptations for them.

Learning about their Educational Needs

Mainstream teachers’ familiarity and understanding of

principles involved in learning a second language is essential for
effective instructional delivery. Cummins’ (l981) ideas on the domains
of second language development are helpful reminders that in learning
English, the ELL first acquires Basic Interpersonal Communication
Skills (BICS) which is learned through social interactions with their
peer and achieved easily. Then, the Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) is achieved through various cognitive
engagements in the classroom. According to research it is estimated
that it takes five to seven years for ELL to achieve CALP (Cummins,
1981).

In many situations, it is common for ELLs to be placed in

mainstream classrooms without the grade level academic language
proficiency because their BICS have reflected verbal fluency in
 Margaret Solomon 49

English considered ready for grade level content learning. Often, when
teachers or counselors hear them speak English fluently, they are
mistakenly considered English proficient even when ELLs have not
fully mastered the language. Although in most of the schools that have
a high number of ELLs some types of assessment are given to find out
their English language proficiency before they are placed in a grade at
the elementary level and in a course at the secondary level, this
assessment data may not give any information about the academic
language proficiency level of the ELL. In order to be successful in
mainstream classrooms where academic language is used constantly
by teachers who teach content materials, students need academic
language support to understand and acquire content knowledge.
Academic success and student empowerment are associated with ELL
gaining academic language proficiency. This is a vital information
mainstream teachers must understand.

Cummins (2001) suggests that in order to increase ELL’s

academic language proficiency teachers have to focus instruction
around these three areas: focus on language, focus on meaning, and
focus on language use. Focus on language refers to the forms and use
of language, focus on meaning is about making input comprehensible
and developing critical literacy, and focus on use is about ways of
using language to generate new knowledge and confirm what they
know. All these three areas of language involve engagement in
reading, writing, thinking and speaking. This is a helpful way of
looking at second language learning for mainstream teachers because
in the learning of subject matter content language is used in all three
ways. This framework will not only assist teachers to understand the
learning functioning of their ELL it also would also assist
recognizing areas that need instructional attention. Then make
adaptations through these three areas of language development. Since
language acquisition takes place when students make new connections
with information they hear and see around them through reading and
writing (Kettler & Kettler, 2002) these avenues should be considered
seriously in mainstream teaching.
50 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Further, developing language abilities requires instruction that

also integrates extensive reading of texts and expansion of vocabulary
knowledge contributing to the development of academic language
proficiency. Teachers must know that effective instruction in the
second language focuses initially on meaning beyond literal
comprehension. This is done by allowing students “to relate textual
and instructional meanings to their own experience and prior
knowledge by activating their cognitive schemata and critically
analyzing the information in the text…”(Cummins, 2001).

Promoting academic and cognitive engagement through a set

of techniques and strategies for making content meaningful is not
enough. According to Cummins (2001) “Much more crucial is the
recognition that human relationships are fundamental to students’
academic engagement…this is particularly so in the case of second
language learners…For students to invest their sense of self, their
identity, in acquiring their new language and participating actively in
their new culture they must experience positive and affirming
interactions with members of that culture.” (p.68).

The next phase of the teacher learning relates to the needs of

ELL from the cultural domain of their functioning. In a study by
Poplin and Weeres (1992) which inquired the types of relationships
that were in existence in four multicultural urban California schools,
they found there was a “pervasive sense of despair for students” in
urban settings. The study implied that there was a lack of successful
learner identity, students face cultural isolation, and overall confusion
about who they are in the learning context of the classroom.

These realities cause alienation and many subtle and

unintentional rejections. It has also been found that only in very few
classrooms does ELL have the opportunity to negotiate their personal
identity and develop an acceptable learner identity. With these findings
it is worthwhile to be reminded that “When students’ developing sense
of self is affirmed and extended through their interactions with
teachers, they are more likely to apply themselves to academic effort
 Margaret Solomon 51

and participate actively in instruction.”(Cummins, l996, p. 2). From

this we see that there is a direct relationship between the learning
efficiency of learners and validation of their culture. If cultural
elements are not supported students’ learning is negatively affected. In
the case of ELL those factors show a great demand.

Learning about SPED Learners and their Educational Needs

In the case of learning about the special education students,

mainstream teachers must know about the special education placement
process and the special designations given to them and their specific
learning characteristics. The placement of a special needs learner into
a mainstream class is decided and monitored by the Individual
Education Planning committee that consists of the special education
director, teacher, counselor, social worker, the administrator and the
parent. This school team determines why the regular classroom setting
would best meet the unique needs of the learner under consideration.

The Individual Educational Planning (IEP) Team follows the

guidelines on the least restrictive education placement procedures. If
Inclusion in the regular classroom for one or two hours is the choice of
the IEP committee because the student shows skill attributes to
function in the regular classrooms, they assign the students for that
specification. “Because inclusion is individualized, it will look
different for every student.” (Merrit, 2001, p. 1) and it is based on the
needs of each student. The intent is not to simply push a student into
the regular classroom but to find the best way to educate them without
restriction in the learning environment.

The Individual Education Planning team also decides how best

to deliver instruction for each student qualifying for special education
services. If the team decides that placing a student in the least-
restrictive environment of a mainstream classroom for part of the day
is the best for the student, the student schedule is modified to
accommodate that. At the secondary level, the student is assigned to
52 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

one or two mainstream classes first and in the elementary level the
student is assigned to the resource room for part of the day. The (IEP)
determined by the teacher led team clearly specifies the academic and
affective needs of the students and makes suggestions for
improvement. Thus, it is the IEP that introduces the SPED learner to
the regular teacher and becomes the guide for planning instruction for
teachers.

The academic and social needs of SPED learners vary from

student to student and within various designations of disabilities. The
needs of special education students in the mainstream are uniquely
different because there are ability differences within each type of
special needs students. In addition, their learning capacities are varied
from other learners in the classroom. “Exceptional children are
different from non-exceptional children in many characteristics. They
may be intellectually superior, they many not see or hear as well, they
may not have the mobility of the average child, they may not have the
facility or skill in language or speech of the average child, or they may
be deviant in interpersonal relationships” (Kirk, & Callagher, l983, p.
45).

The learning needs of SPED learners are much different from

that of the English learners, while their social needs may be the same
because they also experience negative identity from their peers and
teachers. The special label placed on them has many negative
consequences on their self-concept. Their learning needs in the
mainstream classroom vary widely because their learning
characteristics are intrinsically associated with their “disability”. Many
teachers mistakenly think that ELL and Special education students’
learning difficulties are the same.

Research shows that most children with special needs who are
mainstreamed do not require specialized reading instructional
techniques because they have been taught the basic reading skills in
special education classes. A great number of special needs students in
the mainstream class “have mild learning disabilities, mild behavioral
 Margaret Solomon 53

and emotional disabilities, as well as students with physical and

sensory disabilities, and students identified as speech delayed”.
(Leyser, 2002, p. 1) However, a number of them do not read or
comprehend at grade level and most lack memory skills to store
information. In addition, they may also have difficulties in processing
information they read or hear causing many learning problems. Some
might even exhibit behavioral disorders that disrupt instruction.
Mainstream teachers need to be looking out for behavioral and
learning disruptions and be prepared to take precautionary steps to
avoid those moments.

Learners with special needs include sensory, cognitive and

physical disabilities. For example, the mildly LD students may be able
to read the text but cannot process the content knowledge presented in
the text while the students with mild emotional disabilities could read
and understand but have a high level of frustration and inability to
control their emotions. They are also unable to process information
presented in class and achieve mastery of the content and skills.
Similarly, students with physical and speech complicatedness would
present other obvious challenges for the teacher in terms of movement,
space and oral expression.

On the other hand, the gifted learners in the mainstream show

more demanding needs for the teacher and they are placed in the
regular classrooms with the hope their needs are better met there than
in a segregated classroom. The teacher is expected to provide an
accelerated curriculum with more advanced experiences. It is certainly
an enormous task for mainstream teachers to plan instructional
adaptations to support different ways of learning for SPED learners.
Unless mainstream teachers take charge of the learning of these
different learners in their classrooms nobody will. This burden
however should be shared by the school administrators by providing
support and learning opportunities for their teachers. They must also
make the necessary organizational changes within the school’s
traditional schedule to accommodate the learning of teachers for
54 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

meeting the educational needs of these special learners with unique

learning challenges.

Teacher Learning Process

The key factor in teacher learning process is the acceptance of

the need for change in the regular instructional paradigm allowing
instructional adaptations for ELL and SPED learners. Teacher learning
research clearly indicates that it is very difficult to learn to teach
demanding academic content to diverse learners. There is no doubt
then that teachers have to rethink their assumptions about diverse
cultural and learning characteristics of students and enhance their
subject matter knowledge on diversity. In order to achieve those
learning goals we have to consider an effective process of professional
learning. Professional development literature presents three
perspectives about teacher learning process (Richardson & Hamilton,
1994). The first perspective represents the traditional externally driven
professional development process in which consultants and specialists
are hired to teach some new information to teachers. It may be new
curriculum adaptation or preparing for the State assessment or for
purposes that relate to what teachers have to do to manage their
classrooms.

The next perspective supports the idea of the teacher becoming

the self-directed learner developing personal knowledge and skills to
meet the demands of the classroom through reflection. As an
independent artisan (Hubberman, l993) “the individual teacher serves
as arbiter of new ideas, adopting or adapting some, rejecting others…
Learning is largely self-selected and self-directed” (Sykes, l999, p.
157) Here the teacher freely chooses what is best for him/her and may
even modify and change practice to transform student learning. In the
third perspective, teachers are viewed as social beings constantly
interacting with their environment; therefore, learning is structured
 Margaret Solomon 55

within the cultural and organizational context of the school with

teacher collaboration becoming the core feature.

Self Directed
Learning
Reflection

Learning
through
Collaboration

The teacher learning model we illustrated draws the special

qualities of the later two perspectives and structures those
within the framework of reflection. After working with school
districts in New York for implementing school-wide
instructional change in schools Elmore and Burney (1999)
assert that a successful professional development, “focuses on
concrete classroom applications of general ideas; it exposes
teachers to actual practice rather than to descriptions of
practice; it offers opportunities for observation, critique, and
reflection” (p. 263). In addition, Richardson (1994) proposes a
56 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

collaborative and purposeful inquiry based professional

development with reflection as the core learning process.

Learning the Art of Reflection

The process of reflection is structured within a broad

framework of reflective cycle as defined by Rodgers (2002) which
integrates different phases of reflection for teacher learning and
change. This model grew out of a federally funded professional
development project by Carol Rodgers(2002) known as “Teacher
Knowledge Project” and had two specific goals in this process. The
first is to develop their capacity to observe skillfully and to think
critically about students and their learning so they learn to consider
what this tells them about teaching, the subject matter and the context
in which all of these interact. The second goal is for them to begin to
take intelligent action based on the understanding that emerges
(Rodgers, 2002, p. 231, 232).

In this step teachers are able to reflect on their personal

knowledge about student learning and what must be done to improve
teaching that would result in better student learning. The content for
teacher learning is generated by teachers reflecting his/her personal
teaching experience. Their knowledge about student learning becomes
the starting point for their learning and is very different from the
traditional professional development programs. In this reflective
educational process teachers will consider the “prismatic dimensions”
of teaching and student learning that they encounter on a daily basis. It
focuses on teachers taking personal responsibility for learning and the
changes they have to initiate for themselves. Reflection is an effective
process that would facilitate the nature of learning anticipated in the
mainstream classrooms. In addition, reflection provides for teachers
who are wondering and thinking about how best they can teach their
ELL and SPED learners the grade level, a process to gain new
insights, knowledge and skills.
 Margaret Solomon 57

Here reflection is viewed as an active learning process that can

be used by individual teachers or by a collaborative team of teachers in
order to bring the needed changes in their pedagogy and support the
learning of special needs learners.

The Reflective Process

This process entails four phases developed by Rodgers and

grew out of Dewey’s ideas of reflection (2002). After, all the goal of
reflection here is to help teachers learn ways of improving student
learning. The following diagram adopted from Rodgers (2002) gives
an overview of the process of reflection. Although this process seems
linear and structured, it does not have to be that way. It begins with
step 1 but steps 2 and 3 can be done interactively and recursively. Each
of the components will be explained and connected to the teaching of
ELL and SPED learners.
58 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Learning to
describe &
differentiate

Learning Reflective Think from

1 3
to see Cycle multiple
perspectives

Learning to take
intelligent action
through inquiry

Learning to See

Learning to reflect begins with learning to see details of their

teaching and student learning which is well described by the term
“Presence in Experience”. In this first step teachers are asked to come
to a state of mind that focuses on the ability “to be present to students’
learning and able to respond with the best possible next instructional
move…the more a teacher is present, the more she can perceive, the
more she perceives, the greater the potential for an intelligent
response” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 234) Mainstream teachers here learn to
be present in the moments of the teaching and learning that take place
concurrently for ELL and SPED learners in their classrooms. Teachers
are guided in this step to develop his/her capacity for presence which
is described as a way “to pay attention right here, right now, and to
invest in the present moment with full awareness and concentration”
 Margaret Solomon 59

(Tremmel, l993, p. 433). This type of mind set allows teachers to see
exactly how the ELL and the SPED learners respond to their teaching.

In this initial step teachers learn to really “see” what’s going on

for their students and about their teaching. It aims to metacognitively
help them look at learning dilemmas of students in terms of moments
before teaching, while teaching and after teaching. This also provides
an excellent opportunity for teachers to individually look into their
personal beliefs and attitudes about the students who are unlike the
regular students. For example, if teachers learn to purposefully
describe an instructional moment when their ELL or SPED learner
was not able to do a given assignment in journals, they would be able
to metacognitively reflect on this particular instructional dilemma.
While doing this, teachers are able to unpack their prior knowledge
and beliefs and inquire as to how they match in meeting the needs of
special learners in the classroom. When they reflect their experience in
this type of writing, they are able to describe the dilemma under
consideration in detail allowing them think about their thinking of
their experience. This is a good example of an individual teacher
becoming a self-directed learner wanting to understand and tackle the
learning difficulties of his/her selected learner.

Learning to Describe and Differentiate

In the next phase teachers collaborate with other colleagues in

looking at different instructional dilemmas they face by describing the
teaching and learning events first then interpreting and differentiating
them through a collaborative conversation. They bring various
selected “moments” of their teaching and share them with other
colleagues in the team. The purpose here is “through collaboration to
dig up as many details as possible, from as many different angles
possible so that one is not limited to the sum of one’s own
perceptions” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 238). They also get feedback from
students about the teaching moment selected to understand the
difficulties they experienced. These detailed descriptions help teachers
60 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

to interpret the event from multiple points of view of the colleagues

with whom they are collaborating.

Teachers also dialogue with colleagues about the identified

teaching and learning dilemmas for ELL and Special needs learners.
This can be considered as a collaborative critical dialogue (Costa &
Kallick, 2000). This dialogue is between the teacher and colleagues
when they question one another about what was taught and learned
and what difficulties they experienced. “In an atmosphere of trust,
well-crafted questions allow participants to reveal their insights,
understandings, and thought processes” ( Costa & Kallick, 2000, p. 3)
The dialogue continues until resolutions for the teaching dilemmas are
discussed and determined. If these types of collaborative activities are
done regularly in schools big changes will occur in the abilities and
instructional practice of teachers. An inclusive instructional
environment that supports the ELL and SPED learners will eventually
emerge in the school.

Teachers also learn descriptive skills in describing classroom

events then interpret and even verify them by asking students to give
feedback. For example, let us picture a 7th grade social studies teacher
in her lesson on one of the topics related to U.S. Geography who
realized that three of her ELL and one LD student in the class did not
understand the text the class was reading because none of them were
able to write short responses to the five questions she asked on the
lesson. She describes this event in detail and brings it to the team of
colleagues working with her. In addition, she also has the students’
written work as the data to show that they did not achieve the learning
goal she had in mind. She also talks with those students and has them
explain why they were finding it difficult to answer the questions.
After looking at the details of the described event and the responses
she collected from the students she looks at the event from different
perspectives drawn from her team members. Then, they interpret the
instructional event drawing implications for what she must do to
 Margaret Solomon 61

improve her teaching. This is the exact purpose of the learning process
we are recommending here.

Analysis of Experience: Learning to think critically from multiple

views:

In this phase of analysis teachers generate collaboratively

different explanations about a selected teaching with colleagues.
“Although it comes after description, there is often a dialectical
relationship between the two. During the analysis it is sometimes
necessary to return to the descriptive phase and seek more data, which
in turn may point toward different analyses” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 244).
It is here teachers’ assumptions, prior knowledge and beliefs are
unearthed making this a very essential part of reflection. The purpose
is to see how personal theories and assumptions about student learning
influence their teaching. In the case of teaching ELL and SPED
learners, teachers will uncover their personal underlying attitudes and
beliefs. Those ideas become the content of discussion and analysis. By
describing and analyzing a selected teaching event for their special
learners, teachers not only would be reorganizing and reconstructing
their experience but also thinking about an intelligent action (Rodgers,
2002).

The third phase provides the opportunity to bring some

solutions to the teaching and learning problems related to the
instruction of ELL and SPED students. Teachers learn new techniques
to remediate the teaching dilemmas they continually face with the ELL
and SPED students. Their focus now is to learn to make instructional
adaptations within their grade level content in the elementary level and
within their content areas at the secondary level. They learn to make
adaptations first in the content standards for their grades and subject
areas, then they learn strategies to make instructional adaptations
while teaching regular students. In other words, they purposefully
select strategies that would fit their lesson plan and prepare ahead of
time planning the total learning process. They also familiarize
themselves with the tasks involved in teaching the selected strategies
62 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

and implement them as they reflect about their teaching while

planning instruction, during instruction and after the instruction. They
do not stop here but take steps to inquire if their instructional
adaptations work efficiently.

Path of Inquiry

After the hard work of describing and analyzing teachers learn

to take intelligent action through inquiry. This inquiry is done mainly
for improving their teaching and student learning by gathering
convincing evidences through a simple research process.
“Experimentation is the final as well as the initial phase of the
reflective cycle…at some point the ideas of action that teachers settle
on must be tested in action...” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 249). Teachers select
instructional adaptation strategies with specific goals of inquiry in
mind and see how they impact student learning by collecting various
evidences. Such an inquiry is called an action research which “is a
disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking
the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to
assist the “actor” in improving and/or refining his/her actions” Sagor,
2000, 4).

Mainstream teachers can analyze the effectiveness of

instructional adaptations they make for ELL and SPED learners using
the action research process. In fact action research serves as key to
improving teaching. Calhoun (1994) lists various definitions of action
research highlighting the importance of improving teaching. Action
research is a process by which practitioners attempt to study their
problems scientifically in order to guide, correct, and evaluate their
decisions and actions.

Thus action research in education is study conducted by

colleagues in a school setting of the results of their activities to
improve instruction
 Margaret Solomon 63

Action research is a fancy way of saying, “Let’s study what’s

happening at our school and decide how to make it a better place” (p.
20).

The following diagram depicts the steps in the action research

process. It is shown as a continuous recurring process allowing
teachers to continue their interventions for improving their teaching.

Action Research Cycle

Integrate 1
practice Select
Area

4
2
Analyze/
Take
Interpret
Action
Data

3
Collect
Data

This sort of inquiry begins with a selected instructional

problem arising from the mainstream classroom. In the first three steps
of the reflective process discussed earlier, the problem and action to
remediate are determined. In the experimentation phase, the planned
intervention is implemented and observed to see if it brings out the
expected outcomes for the learners. Action research can be done
individually or collaboratively depending on the selected focus of the
inquiry. Mainstream teachers can undertake simple individual inquiries
64 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

testing to see if selected adapted strategies work for their ELL and
SPED learners and help them achieve the expected academic goals of
the grade level content.

This encompassing teacher professional development process

is captured in the following example. Ms. Rogers, a high school
science teacher while teaching a lesson sees a puzzled ELL who could
not follow his/her directions for the class activity. She recognizes this
incident as a dilemma and reflects on the details of that teaching
moment in a journal. She then describes the incident moment by
moment in a journal and decides to use a specific instructional
adaptation strategy to avoid such a moment again for that student.
Afterward she goes to his/her teacher mentor or a team member and
carries on a critical dialogue about the teaching challenges faced
asking the “why” and “how” questions. Following that an intervention
strategy is selected which she implements and inquires if it works for
the student by observing student reactions, and the quality of their
learning tasks they complete. Then this teacher analyzes the
information she/he gathers on student learning and evaluates to see if
any improvement in student learning occurred as a result of the
selected strategy she applied. If it does not bring the expected
outcomes, she modifies her instructional technique and evaluates the
student results again. This brief example shows all the steps taken in
this recommended reflective learning process for teachers.

The teacher learning process envisioned here is intended to

provide opportunities for teachers to develop new beliefs, attitudes and
practice as they design and implement adaptation strategies because it
is rooted in self and group reflection. School leadership must take the
responsibility to provide this type of learning for teachers. That might
mean changes in the school schedule and organization, whatever it
might be. Unless the school leaders recognize the importance of
teacher learning and make it a priority in their budget the learning of
ELL and SPED learners will continue to be marginalized. Teachers
should be supported to take the necessary steps to teach adaptation
strategies, not as a set of separate skills but as part of their regular
 Margaret Solomon 65

teaching. If teachers are given this type of reflective process oriented

learning opportunities, there is a greater chance they will acquire new
beliefs, attitudes and knowledge about teaching ELL and SPED
learners in the mainstream classrooms.

Therefore mainstream teachers are asked to access a larger set

of skills and tools to meet the diverse learning needs of his/her
students (Sacco, 2002) In as much we have become a nation of
educators that support and embrace the philosophy of inclusiveness
and equal educational expectations, our choice is to go forward with
the vision of making the mainstream classroom a special learning
place that is designed to teach all learners including the ELL and
Special Needs learners by making instructional adaptations for them.
All the pedagogical challenges that come from lack of English
language proficiency and the innate learning needs that arise from
disabilities have to be faced ‘head on’ by the mainstream teacher
through a path of learning and envisioning new possibilities for their
learners with special learning needs.
66 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

REFERENCES

American Federation of Teachers (1995). Principles for professional

development. Washington DC: Author.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking (eds) (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school, New York, NY:
National Academy Press.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid (1989). Situated cognition and
culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-43.
Cohen, D.K., & Barnes, C. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for
policy. In D.K. Cohen, M.. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert
(Eds.), Teaching for understanding. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Incorporated.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Getting into the habit of reflection.
Educational Leadership, 57(7), 60-62.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in
promoting educational success for language minority students.
In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling
and language minority students: A theoretical framework.
Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment
Center California State University.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for
empowerment in a diverse society. Los Angeles: California
Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. (2001). Second language teaching for academic success:
A framework for school language policy development. A Paper
included in the Staff Development Resources Training
Manual on Accelerating Second Language and Literacy
Development, Torrance, CA: Staff Development Resources.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From ‘Separate but Equal’ to ‘No Child
Left Behind’:The collision of new standards and old
inequalities. In D. Meir, & et. al. (Eds.), Many children left
behind. Boston, MA: Bacon Press.
 Margaret Solomon 67

Davaney, K., & Sykes, G. (l988). Making the case for

professionalization. In A. Liberman (Ed.), Building a
professional culture in schools. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Elmer, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Staff development and instructional
improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Incorporated.
Frankenstein, M. (l983). Critical mathematics education: An
application of Paulo Freire’s epistemology. Journal of
Education, 165 (4). Boston: Trustees of Boston University.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY:
Seabury Press.
Green, T. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Huberman, M. (1993) . The model of the independent artisan in
teachers’ professional relations. In J. Little & M. McLaughlin
(Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and
contexts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kennedy, M. (1991). An agenda for research on teacher learning
(NCRTL Special Report). East Lansing, MI: National Center
for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.
Kirk, S., & Gallagher, J. (l983). Educating exceptional children.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Kottler, E., & Kottler, J. (2002). Children with limited English:
Teaching strategies for the regular classroom. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Incorporated.
Leyser, Y. (2001). Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming
changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts.
Education, 121(4), 751-600.
Merrit, S. (2001). Clearing the hurdles of inclusion. Educational
Leadership, 59(3), 67-70.
The Nation’s Report Card (2005). National assessment of
educational progress. Nation Center for Educational Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
68 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Noddings, N. (1990). Feminist critiques in the professions. In C.

Cazden (ed.), Review of research in education. Washington
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1992). Voices from the inside: A report on
schooling from in the classroom.. Claremont: CA: The
Institute for Education in Transformation at the
Claremont Graduate School.
Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’
learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics
text. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (4), 331-351.
Richardson, V. (1994). The consideration of teacher’s beliefs. In V.
Richardson (ed.), Teacher change and the staff development
process: A case in reading instruction. New York, NY:
Teachers College.
Richardson, V., & Hamilton, M. (1994). The practical argument staff
development process. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher
change and the staff development Process: A case in reading
instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Voices inside schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 72(2).
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. (1994). Reading as a meaning-
construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In
R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading. IRA: New Directions
Publishing Corporation.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Incorporated.
Sagor. R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Sacco, J. (2002). Special needs solutions. Instructor, 112(4), 1-2.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn. New York, NY: Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Incorporated.

Sykes, G. (1999). Teacher and student learning: Strengthening their

connection. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.),
 Margaret Solomon 69

Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass Incorporated.
Tremmel, R. (1993). Zen and the art of reflective practice in teacher
education. Harvard Educational Review, 63(4).
Weiss, C. (1995). The four ‘I’s’ of school reform: Interests, ideology,
information, and institution. Harvard Educational Review, 65
(4), 571-590.