Teachers’ In-Flight Thinking in

Inclusive Classrooms
David Paterson

Abstract
This article explores the thinking of five junior high school teachers as they teach students with learning difficulties in inclusive class-
rooms. Insights into the ways these teachers think about students in these inclusive secondary school contexts were obtained through
triangulating data from semistructured interviews, stimulated recall of in-flight thinking, and researcher field notes. Exploration of teach-
ers’ in-flight thinking (i.e., the thinking of teachers as they engaged in classroom teaching) revealed a knowledge of individual students
that was not related to categorical notions of learning difficulties. This research has implications for the practice of teaching in inclusive
settings as well as for teacher preparation. Specifically, it suggests that attention to student differences should be replaced by the develop-
ment of teachers’ knowledge about individual students as a rich source of practical knowledge and the basis for developing effective in-
structional techniques.

I
n Australia, students with learning
difficulties have always been part
of general education classrooms.
Educational provisions such as re-
source rooms or pullout programs for
these students have not generally been
part of the Australian experience;
where specialist support is available,
this has been in the form of consulta-
tion with learning difficulty specialists.
Much of the research into effective in-
struction for students with learning
difficulties in inclusive settings has
been focused on specific instructional
techniques that could be implemented
in general education classrooms (Ham-
ill, Jantzen, & Bargerhuff, 1999; Vaughn
& Linan-Thompson, 2003). A conse-
quence of this focus on specialized in-
structional methods has been an in-
crease in the complexity of teaching
and stress for general education teach-
ers who have been taking responsibil-
ity for teaching students with an in-
creasingly diverse range of learning
needs.
Students with learning difficulties
make up approximately 20% of the stu-
dent population of general education
classrooms in Australia. A feature of
these students is that their needs
are usually not met by conventional
forms of instruction (Vaughn & Linan-
Thompson, 2003). These forms of in-
struction are typically designed with
the needs of the average student in
mind. An alternative is to design in-
struction that acknowledges the needs
of groups of students within the class:
students with learning difficulties, stu-
dents who are gifted and talented, and
students for whom English is a second
language. To consider the needs of any
group of students in a generic sense,
however, is of doubtful value, because
it implies that all members of that
group share common characteristics.
Students with learning difficulties have
individual learning characteristics,
some of which they share with other
learners and some of which are unique
to themselves (Hallahan, Lloyd, Kauff-
man, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). Effec-
tive instruction for students with
learning difficulties, therefore, requires
teachers to acknowledge the individ-
ual needs of these students and to de-
sign instruction that will be meaning-
ful for all learners. Research in the area
of teacher–student interaction (Good,
2003; Weinstein & McKown, 1998) has
consistently indicated that teachers in-
teract differentially with students in re-
lation to their knowledge and beliefs
about student achievement, and that
this has particular implications for stu-
dents with learning difficulties (M. D.
Clark, 1997). Fundamental to teacher
interaction, then, is the nature of teach-
ers’ knowledge of students.
Teacher Knowledge
of Students
The study of teachers’ knowledge con-
tinues to be a topic of interest to edu-
cational researchers (Ethell & McMeni-
man, 2000; Freeman, 2002; Grossman,
1990; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002;
Putnam & Borko, 2000; Shulman, 2000).
This body of research complements the
research in the area of instructional
techniques for students with learning
difficulties because it recognizes the
professional knowledge that each
teacher brings to the lesson (Eisner,
1995; Hiebert et al., 2002; Shulman,
2000). Teachers’ knowledge has been
described as having various domains.

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007, PAGES 427–435
428
Some of these, however, have been the
subject of more research than others.
Pedagogical content knowledge (Shul-
man, 1986), general pedagogical knowl-
edge (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), and
knowledge of self (Elbaz, 1991), for ex-
ample, are domains of teacher knowl-
edge about which there has been con-
siderable research. Less research has
been conducted in the domains of
knowledge about curriculum and its
development, learners and learning,
and teacher knowledge of context
(Grossman, 1995).
Teacher knowledge about learn-
ers and learning is usually concerned
with knowledge of learning theories
and theories of student development.
This would include knowledge of con-
structivist or humanist views of learn-
ing and views about aspects of human
development such as cognition and so-
cial skills. From this more formal and
decontextualized knowledge comes
teachers’ understanding about stu-
dents in a generic sense, for example,
“typical characteristics” of Grade 8
students or “typical characteristics” of
students with learning difficulties. It
has been suggested that teachers are
drawing on this generalized knowl-
edge of students when they predict
how a group of students will react or
what a class will be like before they ac-
tually teach them (Calderhead, 1983)
and that this information is used by
teachers for a variety of purposes, in-
cluding making informal assessments
of students and anticipating their ac-
tions in the classroom (Berliner, 1988).
Although it is important that
classroom teachers have a general
knowledge about learning and a gen-
eral understanding of learning difficul-
ties, more specific knowledge about
the classroom context—which includes
knowledge of individual students in
the class—has particular relevance to
the education of students with learn-
ing difficulties. In a study of this area
of teacher knowledge, Mayer and Mar-
land (1997) interviewed five highly ef-
fective teachers about their knowledge
of the students in their classes. This
study concluded that these teachers
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
had extensive knowledge of their stu-
dents that was rich, relevant to their in-
structional practice, and valid. Teach-
ers provided information about their
classes as a whole, which was in the
form of generalities, but they also re-
vealed knowledge about individual
students that was “quite extensive,
readily recalled from memory and, of
course, intensely personal” (Mayer &
Marland, 1997, p. 25). In an important
caveat, however, the authors of this
study noted that
Because the data on the teachers’
knowledge of students was drawn
from post-lesson commentary on their
teaching, it cannot be asserted that
they actually called up and processed
their knowledge of students during
the lesson. No attempt was made to
gain access in this study to the teach-
ers’ interactive, that is, in-lesson think-
ing. (Mayer & Marland, 1997, p. 31)
In-Flight Teacher Thinking
Although teachers’ thinking about
their teaching in the Mayer and Mar-
land (1997) study provided access to
some aspects of teacher knowledge,
the extent to which teachers used this
knowledge in practice was not known.
Research techniques that facilitate ac-
cess to teachers’ cognitions, such as
stimulated recall methods, have proved
particularly useful in exploring the
“in-flight” thinking of teachers—that
is, the thinking of teachers as they en-
gage in classroom teaching. Using this
method, Stough and Palmer (2003) in-
vestigated the interactive decision mak-
ing of expert special education teach-
ers. Their findings were similar to
those of Mayer and Marland (1997), in
that teachers had a highly detailed
database of knowledge about students,
which they used to inform their choices
of instructional approach. Interesting
enough, however, the authors noted
that these expert special education
teachers “consistently referred to spe-
cific assessments of specific students
rather than making more global state-
ments about the performance of the
class as a whole” (Stough & Palmer,
2003, p. 213).
The cognitions of general educa-
tion teachers have not yet been ex-
plored in regard to their knowledge of
students in contexts where the needs
of learners are quite diverse—contexts
such as secondary classrooms that in-
clude students with learning difficul-
ties as permanent members. Although
it might be supposed that in such class-
rooms, individual differences between
students would be more apparent, it is
not known how, in those contexts,
teachers consider student individual-
ity. Without a knowledge of individual
students in context, it might be ex-
pected that teachers would instead rely
on generalized knowledge of students
with learning difficulties (M. D. Clark,
1997). This knowledge would be based
on prior classroom experiences, under-
standings of student development based
on preservice and inservice training,
and other professional learning experi-
ences. On the basis of this knowledge,
which is not directly related to the cur-
rent classroom context, however, it is
quite possible that instructional adap-
tations and accommodations may be
chosen that, although applicable to
some, might not be applicable for all
learners in the classroom.
This situation has implications for
the professional development of gen-
eral education teachers. It is known
that whereas most teachers support the
right of students with learning diffi-
culties to be educated in general edu-
cation classrooms, teachers typically
lack confidence in their own abilities to
meet the needs of all students in those
classes (Baker & Zigmond, 1995). As fi-
nancial resources to support inclusion
are scarce, there is a pressing need for
more deliberately focused professional
development of teachers. More focused
professional development, however,
assumes that the key variables impor-
tant to the development of “inclusive
teachers” are known. This is not yet the
case. Because there have been so few
studies on the thinking of teachers of
students with learning difficulties in
secondary classrooms, little is known

about the variables that operate in those
contexts, and hence little is known
about future directions for professional
learning. It is known, however, that
consideration of teachers’ current
knowledge and beliefs is critical if ef-
fective professional learning is to take
place (Putnam and Borko, 1997).
The investigation reported here
explored the thinking of teachers as
they taught in heterogeneous secon-
dary classrooms. The study focused on
the nature of teachers’ knowledge of
students during their lessons. From
this investigation, it was anticipated
that insights could be derived that
might contribute to research on teacher
knowledge about students with learn-
ing difficulties and inform the devel-
opment of more effective teacher pro-
fessional learning.
The present investigation is based
on three assumptions about teacher
thinking. The first of these assumptions
is that teaching is a complex cogni-
tive process that takes place in a rela-
tively unstructured, dynamic environ-
ment (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986). The
second assumption is that there is a
reciprocal relationship between teach-
ers’ actions and thoughts such that
their actions are guided by thoughts
that in turn are influenced by their
actions (C. M. Clark & Peterson, 1986;
Elbaz, 1990; Freeman, 2002). Finally, it
is assumed that teachers’ thoughts and
actions facilitate student learning (Put-
nam & Borko, 2000). Teacher thinking
that demonstrates a knowledge of in-
dividual students could therefore be
seen as a critical factor in the develop-
ment of effective teacher actions.
Method
The five teachers who participated in
this study all taught in junior high
school classrooms that were defined by
their school systems as inclusive. The
definition was largely related to the
place of instruction, referring to an in-
clusive classroom as being one having
as a permanent member at least one
student who, because of his or her
VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007
identified difficulties with learning,
qualified for additional support ser-
vices from the local education author-
ity. All participating classes met this
criterion. It should be noted that in
an Australian context, funding is not
provided specifically for students with
learning difficulties—that is, students
who have difficulties with literacy, nu-
meracy, organization, or attention but
who do not have intellectual or devel-
opmental disabilities. Instead, schools
typically use school-based special edu-
cators in a consultancy role to support
the learning of these students in gen-
eral education classrooms. The classes
of the teachers participating in this
study included between three and six
students with learning difficulties.
Participants taught in a small city
in rural Australia and in a large city in
western Canada. Teaching experience
of the participants ranged from 3 to 27
years, and the subjects they taught
included English/language arts, social
science, mathematics, and science (see
Table 1).
Teachers were invited to partici-
pate in this descriptive research project
if they had taught students with learn-
ing difficulties in inclusive classrooms
and were willing and able to clearly
articulate that experience (Van Manen,
1990). Characteristics of individual par-
ticipants were not a consideration in
the sampling process. It is acknowl-
edged, however, that the teachers who
volunteered to participate in this study
may have been characteristically and
TABLE 1
Characteristics of Participating Teachers
Participant Location Subject taught
Laurie Canada Social science
Denise Australia English (language arts)
Lysander Australia Social science
Max Canada Science
Christine Canada Language arts
Note. All participants are identified by pseudonyms.
aYears.
429
qualitatively different from those who
chose not to participate. Limitations re-
lated to the selection process are ac-
knowledged as restricting the general-
ization of the findings of the study. It is
suggested, however, that these limita-
tions are outweighed by the heuris-
tic value of the data obtained from a
purposeful selection of teachers hav-
ing particular characteristics (Mer-
riam, 1998).
Three data collection techniques
were combined in this study: (a) re-
searcher field notes, (b) semistructured
interviews, and (c) stimulated recall in-
terviews. The use of three different
data collection techniques resulted in
three discrete but interrelated sets of
data and served to increase the study’s
authenticity and to provide added
depth to the investigation of teacher
thinking. This form of data collection,
referred to by Denzin and Lincoln (2000)
as data triangulation, served as a means
by which the weaknesses of one data
collection technique could be compen-
sated by the strengths of another tech-
nique (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Patton,
1990).
The first of the three techniques,
researcher field notes, involved the re-
searcher recording observations of what
happened in the research context and,
in addition, recording subjective im-
pressions, thoughts, hunches, and ideas.
The second data collection technique,
semistructured interviews, focused on par-
ticipants’ experiences of teaching in in-
clusive classrooms, the meaning they
Grade Teaching experiencea
8 15
9 27
8 25
9 7
9 3
430
placed on those experiences, and the
principles that guided their practice
(Seidman, 1991).
The third data collection tech-
nique was a stimulated recall interview
procedure, in which participants were
asked to make retrospective reports of
their thinking during a lesson based on
the provision of extensive retrieval
cues on videotape (Shavelson, Webb, &
Burstein, 1986). The rationale for this
technique is that participants may be
able to recall their thoughts during an
original situation in greater depth if
they are presented with a large number
of detailed cues or stimuli that oc-
curred during the original situation
(Bloom, 1954).
Prior to the stimulated recall in-
terviews, several visits were conducted
during which the researcher was able
to gain some familiarity with the con-
text in which each participant was
teaching—a process that increased the
authenticity of subsequent data collec-
tion. To obtain stimulus material for
the stimulated recall interviews, two
lessons with each participant were
videotaped, one a week after the other.
During these lessons, the camera was
positioned to capture the teacher’s per-
spective as far as possible, so that the
teacher did not usually appear in
the field of view. Within 5 minutes of
the lesson’s conclusion, the teacher
was asked to watch the videotape of
the lesson and think aloud regarding
the thoughts that occurred during that
lesson. Participants were free to stop
the tape at any time to make more de-
tailed comments. All comments made
by the teacher and the researcher dur-
ing these interviews were recorded on
audiotape, which was then transcribed
and the protocol used as a source of
data for analysis.
Transcripts of stimulated recall
interviews were used as data from
which to explore the nature of the par-
ticipants’ in-flight thinking. Following
the identification of thoughts that had
occurred during the lesson, coded
units of thought data were developed
and described, and a draft of this sec-
tion of the analysis was sent to each
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
participant for comment and valida-
tion. Semistructured interview data
were then used to identify partici-
pants’ guiding principles. Again, a
transcript of this section of the analysis
was sent to each participant for com-
ment and validation (Paterson, 2000).
The process of analysis just de-
scribed was both sequential and recur-
sive, with information from one data
source being compared with another
throughout the process. The data
analysis process was inductive in na-
ture, so that there were no prede-
termined variables but instead only
emerging themes. The multidimen-
sional analytical process used in this
study sought to examine data from
multiple perspectives.
Results
The teachers who participated in this
study—Denise and Lysander in Aus-
tralia and Laurie, Christine, and Max
in Canada—reflected the diversity of
junior high school teachers in their re-
spective countries. They were asked to
describe their experience of teaching in
the context of an inclusive classroom
and to describe the principles that
guided their teaching. Recognition of
student individuality was a theme that
was evident in the guiding principles
of most participating teachers. Laurie,
Denise, and Max referred to the im-
portance of seeing students as unique
and individual rather than as generic
members of a class. Implicit in this rec-
ognition of individuality was the rec-
ognition that each student was also dif-
ferent from each other student—that
the students were a heterogeneous
group with differing needs. The guid-
ing principles of Laurie and Max,
however, went beyond a general
acknowledgment of individuality to
refer specifically to an affective dimen-
sion. Notions of “whole” people,
building up the “inner person,” and
consideration of students’ sense of
identity indicated an awareness of stu-
dent feelings and emotions.
In their in-flight thoughts, all
teachers revealed a knowledge of their
students that was general—relating to
the class or “typical” student charac-
teristics—but that also recognized the
characteristics of individual students.
Reflecting the distinction described
earlier between more generalized
knowledge of learners and learning
and more specific knowledge of stu-
dents in the context of instruction,
teacher thinking in this study is pre-
sented in a sequence from most general
to most specific and individual.
Thinking About Students
in General
It has been suggested that the most
general level of knowledge about stu-
dents is that in which teachers think
about typical characteristics of students
(Grossman, 1990). Thoughts that re-
veal an understanding of learning dif-
ficulties in general or of typical pat-
terns of student development would
be examples of this type of thinking.
This type of thinking was not observed
in the study. Analysis of teachers’
in-flight thoughts did not reveal any
thoughts that were related to decon-
textualized features of learners—the
type of knowledge that might have
been acquired from prior experiences
or from professional learning courses.
Thinking About Students
in Context
Whereas teachers did not think about
decontextualized characteristics of stu-
dents with learning difficulties or of
Grade 8 or 9 students, they did re-
veal thoughts that were contextualized
within the class (Grossman, 1995)—
thoughts that included knowledge of
the students who made up the class
they were currently teaching. Consis-
tent with other research (Good, 2003),
this study indicated that teachers
thought about the whole class and
about individual students.
Knowledge of the Whole Class.
Teachers frequently thought about
characteristics of the whole class that
they were teaching at that moment as

a single, intact group. One finding of
this study, however, was that these
thoughts were of two distinct types,
characterized as third person or second
person.
In third-person thoughts, teachers
typically referred to the class and to
groups within the class more imper-
sonally as “they,” and their knowledge
of those groups, though specific to that
group of students, was of a more ge-
neric nature. Teachers’ knowledge was
of the group as a whole, rather than
about individuals within that group.
For example, Lysander thought, “I’m
trying to think of things that they will
understand.” Denise expressed sur-
prise when a group of students began
work on a task: “I’m surprised; they
did, they did start!” Later, she revealed
an understanding of the learning char-
acteristics of the class as she thought, “I
don’t want them to have to take too
long writing it down, knowing how
slow they are.” Christine thought as
she commenced her drama lesson, “I
bet they don’t remember a lot of the de-
tails from the beginning of the play.”
Max thought, “OK, how am I going to
relate this and really explain it well to
them?” and, considering the class re-
sponse to his explanation of a scientific
concept, “I thought they would have
caught on a lot easier.” For the four
teachers cited so far, thoughts of this
nature were common. The teachers’
thoughts revealed knowledge about
the students in context but were lim-
ited to knowledge of the students as an
intact group. In these thoughts, any
knowledge of the students with learn-
ing difficulties in the class was sub-
sumed by consideration of the group.
Response to student actions (e.g., “I’m
surprised . . . ,” “I thought they would
have . . .”) and consideration of in-
structional choices (e.g., “How am I
going to . . ?” “I’m trying to think of
things that they will . . .”) was being
guided by this knowledge of the whole
class.
In contrast to these thoughts
were second-person thoughts. In these
thoughts, the teacher referred in a
more personal way to the whole group,
VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007
as “you guys!” This particular varia-
tion on knowledge about a whole class
was especially evident in the thinking
of Laurie, an experienced and passion-
ate teacher of social science. Although
she still demonstrated knowledge of
the students as a group, her thoughts
about the group or class seemed to
have a unique character derived from
the characteristics of individuals, in-
cluding those students in the class with
learning difficulties. It became evident
that her thinking about students—
individually or collectively—involved
a sense of identity. For Laurie, the class
had a collective personality and char-
acteristics to which she frequently
made reference. Laurie’s tendency to
refer to the class in the second per-
son—“You guys have a tough time
talking about feelings!”—rather than
the less personal third person them or
they tended to support this interpreta-
tion of a group with a collective per-
sonality with which she was immedi-
ately involved.
During the lessons, Laurie’s in-
flight thoughts revealed reactions to
the class as a group based on knowl-
edge of personality as well as academic
skills: “You guys are awesome,” “You
guys are so on the ball,” and, as some
students became distracted, “You guys,
don’t leave me now!” Laurie’s in-flight
thoughts revealed a particular sensitiv-
ity to the achievements and positive
characteristics of the class: “I’ve got to
tell these guys about their strengths.”
Knowledge of Individual Stu-
dents. Whereas the teachers’ knowl-
edge of students described up to this
point has been in relation to the class as
a group, for four of the five teachers
in this study, most of the knowledge
revealed in in-flight thoughts about
students in the class was in relation to
individuals. Only Max showed pre-
dominantly knowledge of students in
the class as a group.
A significant finding of this study
was that the teachers’ knowledge of
students seemed unrelated to categories
of students, such as those with learn-
ing difficulties. Instead, the teachers’
431
in-flight thoughts revealed a knowl-
edge of students across the class as in-
dividuals from both an academic and
a non-academic perspective. Demon-
strating a knowledge of students’ abil-
ity to perform different learning tasks,
Laurie thought, “N. impresses me.
Whoa, you can really peel the layers off
the onion!” Denise revealed her knowl-
edge of individual students through
predictions of their actions as she
thought, “If I ask S., he’ll probably say
something stupid,” and “I’m pleased
that I’ve got those two girls, they will
be able to handle it. I know they’ll be
prepared.” Similar predictions were
made by another experienced teacher,
Lysander: “Oh, he’s a good student
too, so he’ll have a reasonable sort of
summary.”
Teachers also demonstrated un-
derstanding of the characteristics of in-
dividual students with learning diffi-
culties. Laurie revealed a knowledge of
several students with learning difficul-
ties in the following thoughts: “I’m
particularly attending to P., because he
has a tendency not to understand,”
“D. has a tough time focusing,” “I’m
happy that it’s J. because he doesn’t
usually get involved,” and “Geez, you
know, M., they categorized you in this
area as being really weak, and all I see
is your strengths.” Similarly, Chris-
tine’s thought that “she is probably just
lost right now in this discussion” indi-
cated an awareness of the skills of a
particular student with learning diffi-
culties in relation to the current class-
room activity, and Lysander’s thought
about specific actions that she could
use to facilitate the learning of a stu-
dent with learning difficulties (“I’m
couching the question in a way so that
she can give a quite competent answer”)
were further examples of teachers’
knowledge of individual students with
learning difficulties. These thoughts, in
addition to demonstrating teachers’
knowledge of individual students, also
reflected the way that teachers modify
their expectations of students based on
their knowledge of prior performance.
Denise’s thought that “you mightn’t
have done as much as everybody else,
432
but for you it was a really good effort,”
was another example of this form of
thinking.
Most teachers also displayed a
knowledge of individual students that
went beyond knowledge of their per-
formance in academic tasks. The fol-
lowing teachers’ thoughts revealed a
sensitivity to student affect, personal-
ity, and personal experiences that went
beyond the immediate lesson:
Laurie: “I’ve got to make sure P. real-
izes that we weren’t laughing at
him but with him,” and “I’m not
surprised that it’s R. who said
‘thank you’.”
Denise: “ Maybe she’ll be interested
in that, she’s that sort of girl,” and
“B. is acting out of character today”
Christine: “N. has his head down, but
he’s just been hospitalized and he
looks really pale, so I’ll just kind of
let it go”
These teachers had knowledge of
the students as individuals, not only as
students in the context of the classroom.
Discussion
This study found that in their in-flight
thoughts, teachers of students with
learning difficulties in inclusive junior
high classes demonstrated a knowledge
of individual students. This finding
has particular relevance to one of the
most enduring dilemmas of teaching—
when attention to individual needs in
a classroom conflicts with attention to
the needs of the larger group. This be-
comes particularly acute in an inclu-
sive class, where there is a pronounced
degree of heterogeneity within the
class, and the needs of individuals are
less likely to be met by attention to the
whole class. In this study, teachers did
attend to the class as a single large
group at times, even though students
were engaged in a range of learning
tasks ranging from whole-class discus-
sions through small-group work to in-
dividual seatwork and presentations.
Attention to individual students, how-
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
ever, was a theme clearly articulated in
the guiding principles of all partici-
pants in this study and was also evi-
dent from their in-flight thoughts.
If inclusive education is defined
as appropriate education for all stu-
dents in the context of the same het-
erogeneous class, and if it is assumed
that appropriate education for stu-
dents in any class is a fundamental goal
of education, then the heterogeneity of
the inclusive class is its major distin-
guishing characteristic. Awareness of
the increased range of learning needs
in inclusive classes, it could be antici-
pated, would be evident in the in-flight
thoughts of teachers in those contexts.
The classes in which these teachers
worked were characterized by their
heterogeneity—by a broad range of
learning needs. All classes had, as per-
manent members, students with learn-
ing difficulties. Despite this, no teacher
reported in-flight thoughts in which
specific reference was made to generic
characteristics of students with learn-
ing difficulties or to categorical notions
of student need—the type of knowl-
edge described as decontextualized
knowledge of learners and learning
(Grossman, 1990, 1995).
An observation of researchers in
inclusive classrooms has been that gen-
eral education teachers pay most at-
tention to the whole class rather than
to individual students (Baker & Zig-
mond, 1995; Vaughn, Hughes, Moody,
& Elbaum, 2001; Vaughn & Linan-
Thompson, 2003). Although attention
to the whole class could be interpreted
with some dismay because it implies a
loss of sensitivity to individual needs,
the current investigation suggests a
different interpretation. Observation of
teachers’ actions in the five cases de-
scribed by Baker and Zigmond (1995),
for example, revealed overwhelming
attention to the class as a whole instead
of to individual students. In contrast,
unobservable teacher thoughts were the
focus of the current investigation. An
examination of the in-flight thoughts of
teachers in this study revealed that at
this unobservable cognitive level, all
participants were thinking not only
about the whole class but also about
individual students, recognizing their
experiences, personalities, skills, and
preferences and making ongoing ad-
justments to the lesson in accordance
with that recognition.
It is suggested that if the current
investigation had been focusing on the
observable actions of teachers, the com-
ments of Baker and Zigmond (1995)
could have also applied to these teach-
ers—that is, that teachers seemed to at-
tend to the class as a whole. This study,
however, indicated that although teach-
ers’ observable actions may have been
directed to the whole class, their choices
were being based on knowledge of the
class and also of individual students.
Although relationships between action
and thought were not the focus of this
study, the content of in-flight thoughts
revealed instructional decisions being
made to differentiate instruction and to
accommodate the needs of students
with learning difficulties. Often, these
were subtle accommodations, such as
additional prompts and explanations,
teacher encouragement, or attention.
In the context of these inclusive class-
rooms, it is likely that these accommo-
dations were facilitating learning.
A final observation on knowledge
of the whole class is concerned with
the relationship between teachers’ in-
flight thoughts and their observable
actions. This study did not explore the
effectiveness of teachers’ actions or the
impact of those actions on student
learning. More personal, “second-
person” thinking about a whole class,
however, as seen in the thoughts of
Laurie, may be a level of knowledge
that, though not specifically revealing
an understanding of individual stu-
dents, is still more powerful than
“third-person” thinking. Teachers who
think of their class in this more per-
sonal manner are better placed to in-
clude students with learning difficul-
ties and students with other diverse
learning needs, as they have a sense of
closeness with the class and a conse-
quent responsiveness.
Whereas teachers did demonstrate
a knowledge of the class as a whole

group, knowledge of and attention to
individual students in context (Gross-
man, 1990, 1995) was a key finding of
this study, and one with particular sig-
nificance for the inclusion of students
with learning difficulties. Teachers did
make reference in their in-flight thoughts
to specific students who had been
identified as having learning difficul-
ties. There was, however, no evidence
that attention to those students was a
function of predetermined categoriza-
tion. Rather, teachers’ in-flight thoughts
revealed attention to these students
and to other students on the basis of
those students’ individual characteris-
tics. Although participating teachers,
in describing their guiding principles,
discussed the importance of focusing
on the specific needs of students with
learning difficulties once the lesson
commenced, this “categorical” atten-
tion appeared to become subsumed by
attention to the individual character-
istics of students. Furthermore, this
knowledge of students in context re-
flected a sensitivity to their academic
characteristics and also to the “whole”
person—his or her personality and
other individual traits.
One way in which participants re-
vealed their knowledge of individual
students was through predictions of
their actions or thoughts, such as “he’ll
probably . . .” and “they will. . . .” Mak-
ing predictions about future events,
such as those described earlier, implies
an awareness of different contextual
features of the class; familiar scripts,
scenes, and propositional structures
(Hiebert et al., 2002; Shavelson et al.,
1986). Clearly, awareness of student
characteristics, irrespective of accu-
racy, could be described as one aspect
of teachers’ propositional structures.
Predictions about student actions and
thoughts were a particular feature of
the in-flight thinking of the more expe-
rienced participating teachers, reflect-
ing earlier research findings (Calder-
head, 1983; Mayer & Marland, 1997;
Stough & Palmer, 2003) that more ex-
perienced teachers have more detailed
propositional structures about stu-
dents than do novice teachers.
VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007
Implications
There are several implications of the
current investigation. Absence of in-
flight thinking about generic charac-
teristics of learners suggests a limited
impact of professional learning—
whether preservice or inservice—that
attempts to generate teacher knowl-
edge of “typical” students with learn-
ing difficulties. Professional support
provided to teachers of students with
learning difficulties, rather than focus-
ing on categorical notions of difference
and selection of instructional approaches
according to those categorical notions,
should instead be focused on the in-
dividuality of all students. This could
be done by assisting teachers to de-
velop a more detailed understanding
of the students in their own classes.
As this appears to be more consis-
tent with teachers’ current practice, it
would be more likely to be incorpo-
rated into their teaching in inclusive
classrooms (Ungerleider, 1993). Simi-
larly, current trends away from cate-
gorical approaches to special educa-
tion in preservice teacher education
(Peterson & Beloin, 1998) should be en-
couraged and enhanced by attention to
all students as individuals with diverse
educational needs.
The value of teachers’ practical
knowledge (Hiebert et al., 2002) should
also be enhanced by increased atten-
tion to teachers’ knowledge of stu-
dents. This study suggests that a focus
of teachers’ in-flight thoughts on stu-
dents as individuals is a necessary but
insufficient condition for effective in-
struction. Attention to instructional
techniques that reflect student individ-
uality would complement the type of
thinking that seems to occupy teachers
in inclusive classrooms. A focus on
relevance and connectivity in teaching,
for example, which requires teachers
to know the student in context (New
South Wales Department of Education
and Training, 2003), would appear par-
ticularly valuable.
The finding that teachers were,
during their lessons, thinking about
students and revealing a knowledge of
433
students with and without learning
difficulties, has particular significance
when seen in the light of the afore-
mentioned studies by Mayer and Mar-
land (1997) and Stough and Palmer
(2003). Stough and Palmer found that
effective special education teachers
were not characterized by the instruc-
tional techniques they used but by
their knowledge of individual students,
on which they based their instructional
choices. Similarly, Mayer and Mar-
land’s study of effective general edu-
cation teachers concluded that the ef-
fectiveness of the teachers was linked
to their detailed knowledge of the
students in their classes. The current
study, which indicates that general ed-
ucation secondary teachers do have
knowledge of individual students in
their classes that they engage during
the lesson, provides some clear direc-
tions for the development of inclusive
education. As Mayer and Marland
(1997) observed, “The interpretative
and predictive power this knowledge
bestowed on the teachers enabled
them to optimize the learning and de-
velopment of their students by tailor-
ing processes, opportunities and edu-
cational programs to suit individual
learners” (p. 33).
In conclusion, it must be acknowl-
edged that it is considerably more dif-
ficult to acquire knowledge of indi-
vidual students in a secondary school
context, where a teacher might see
more than 100 students in a week, than
in a primary school, where a teacher
would typically have one class of 25–
30 students for the school year. Never-
theless, the justification for considering
teachers’ in-flight thinking as an aspect
of professional learning is twofold: Ac-
tion and thoughts are interrelated—
one should not be considered without
the other—and all new learning is
shaped by existing knowledge and be-
liefs (Putnam & Borko, 1997). Where
professional learning for teachers builds
on their existing knowledge of stu-
dents, it is more likely that educational
programs will be developed that are
designed to meet the unique needs of
all students.
434
Limitations
Certain limitations of this study must
be acknowledged. First, generaliza-
tions from a qualitative study of only
five teachers can only be made with
great caution. The professional con-
texts of these teachers, in Australia and
Canada, shared many common fea-
tures but were essentially unique. Sec-
ond, this study involved a detailed ex-
ploration of the in-flight thinking of
teachers in inclusive secondary school
contexts, but not of the observable ac-
tions of those teachers. Studies that ex-
plore both the unobservable cognitions
and the observable actions of teachers
in these inclusive contexts would pro-
vide a valuable extension to the exist-
ing research in this important area.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Paterson, PhD, is a lecturer in special
education and educational psychology at the
University of New England, New South Wales,
Australia. His current projects include cogni-
tive strategy instruction in inclusive classrooms
and education in rural contexts. Address: Dr
David Paterson, School of Education, Univer-
sity of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351,
Australia; e-mail: dpaters1@une.edu.au
REFERENCES
Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The
meaning and practice of inclusion for stu-
dents with learning disabilities: Themes
and implications from five cases. The
Journal of Special Education, 29, 163–180.
Berliner, D. C. (1988, February). The develop-
ment of expertise in pedagogy. C. W. Hunt
Memorial Lecture, presented to the Ameri-
can Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, New Orleans, LA.
Bloom, B. S. (1954). The thought processes
of students in discussions. In S. J. French
(Ed.), Accent on teaching: Experiments in
general education (pp. 23–46). New York:
Harper.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Quali-
tative research for education: An introduction
to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Calderhead, J. (1983, April). Research into
teachers’ and student teachers’ cognitions:
Exploring the nature of classroom practice.
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research As-
sociation, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 229
366)
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teach-
ers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd
ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to
learning disability: A test of attributional
principles. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 69–79.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000).
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisner, E. W. (1995). Preparing teachers for
schools of the 21st century. Peabody Jour-
nal of Education, 70(3), 99–111.
Elbaz, F. (1990). Knowledge and discourse:
The evolution of research on teacher
thinking. In C. Day, M. Pope, & P. Deni-
colo (Eds.), Insights into teachers’ thinking
and practice (pp.15–42). London: Falmer
Press.
Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teachers’
knowledge: The evolution of a discourse.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(1), 1–19.
Ethell, R. G., & McMeniman, M. M. (2000).
Unlocking the knowledge in action of an
expert practioner. Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation, 51, 87–101.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the
work: Teacher knowledge and learning to
teach. A perspective from North Ameri-
can educational research on teacher edu-
cation in English language teaching. Lan-
guage Teaching, 35, 1–13.
Good, T. L. B. J. E. (2003). Looking in class-
rooms (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a
teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher edu-
cation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowl-
edge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), Interna-
tional encyclopedia of teaching and teacher
education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). New York:
Pergamon.
Hallahan, D. P., Lloyd, J. W., Kauffman,
J. M., Weiss, M. P., & Martinez, E. A.
(2005). Learning disabilities (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hamill, L. B., Jantzen, A. K., & Bargerhuff,
M. E. (1999). Analysis of effective educa-
tor competencies in inclusive environ-
ments. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3),
21–37.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W.
(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching
profession: What would it look like and
how can we get one? Educational Re-
searcher, 31(5), 3–15.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The
cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 78, 75–95.
Mayer, D., & Marland, P. (1997). Teachers’
knowledge of students: A significant do-
main of practical knowledge? Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1), 17–34.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research
and case study applications in education
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
New South Wales Department of Education
and Training. (2003). Quality teaching in
NSW public schools: A discussion paper.
Sydney, Australia: Author.
Paterson, D. (2000). Teaching in inclusive
classrooms in secondary schools: A study of
teachers’ inflight thinking. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Al-
berta, Edmonton, Canada.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation
and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teach-
ing the inclusive teacher: Restructuring
the mainstreaming course in teacher edu-
cation. Teacher Education and Special Edu-
cation, 21, 306–318.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher
learning: Implications of new views of
education. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, &
I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International hand-
book of teachers and teaching (Vol II, pp.
1223–1296). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do
new views of knowledge and thinking
have to say about research on teacher
learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1),
4–15.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualita-
tive research: A guide for researchers in edu-
cation and the social sciences. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L.
(1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 50–91). New York:
Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and re-
search programs in the study of teaching:
A contemporary perspective. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York:
Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (2000). Domain expertise
and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of
 VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 435

Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 129–
135.
Stough, M. L., & Palmer, D. J. (2003). Special
thinking in special settings: A qualitative
study of expert special educators. The
Journal of Special Education, 36, 206–222.
Ungerleider, C. S. (1993). Why change
(hardly ever) happens. In E. Riecken & D.
Court (Eds.), Dilemmas in educational
change (pp. 93–106). Calgary, Canada:
Detselig.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived ex-
perience. London, ON, Canada: Althouse
Press.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., &
Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional grouping
for reading for students with LD: Impli-
cations for practice. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 36, 131–138.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003).
What is special about special education
for students with learning disabilities?
The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140–
147.
Weinstein, R. S., & McKown, C. (1998). Ex-
pectancy effects in “context”: Listening to
the voices of students and teachers. In
J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on
teaching: Expectations in the classroom
(Vol. 7, pp. 215–242). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Editors: Nick Elksnin and Linda K. Elksnin

Assessment for Effective Intervention (AEI) presents man- • analyze relationships between
uscripts relevant for educational diagnosticians, special existing instruments; and
educators, school psychologists, academic trainers, and • review assessment techniques,
others interested in psychoeducational assessment. strategies, and instrumentation.
Each article in AEI clearly communicates the empirical
evidence that has direct and timely implications for
practitioners. Published quarterly, AEI provides critical AEI is the official journal of the Council for Educa-
analysis of practitioner-developed assessment proce- tional Diagnostic Services.
dures, as well as papers that focus on published tests.
ISSN 1534-5084 • Published Quarterly
AEI regularly features articles that:
Subscriptions:
• describe the relationship between assessment
Individual $48 Institution $80
and instruction;
Foreign Individual $65 Foreign Institution $100
• introduce innovative assessment strategies;
• outline diagnostic procedures;

PRO-ED, Inc. • 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd. • Austin, Texas 78757-6897 • ph 800/897-3202 or
512/451-3246 • fax 800/FXPROED • All PRO-ED products are sold on a 30-day approval.
Shipping and handling: U.S. add 10%, Canada add 15%, others add 20%.