What teachers need to know: a study of secondary teachers’ use of personalised plans in inclusive classrooms

Abstract

While collaborative planning processes and systematic use of planning documents can enhance educational outcomes for students with diverse needs (Timothy & Agbenyega, 2018; Ysseldyke et al., 2004), implementation challenges persist in secondary contexts where teachers face unique constraints including subject specialisation, limited student contact time, and minimal involvement in initial Personalised Plan (PP) development. Critical gaps have been identified in understanding how teachers develop the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) required to transform generic planning information into subject-specific strategies (Rashid & Wong, 2023; Webster & Blatchford, 2018). This study addressed this gap by examining: (1) What integrated pedagogical, content and student knowledge do teachers need to use a PP to mediate planning decisions? (2) What information needs to be included in a PP for secondary teachers to use it as a planning tool? (3) How do secondary teachers use the PP to mediate planning decisions?
This qualitative case study employed an adapted three-component PCK framework developed from Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original model, to analyse three data sources: the PP document, questionnaires (n=39), and semi-structured interviews with secondary teachers (n=17). The study was conducted in one Catholic systemic secondary school (Years 7–12) in the ACT using the Catholic Education – Canberra Goulburn PP template employed across ACT and NSW Catholic systemic schools at the time. Participants included teachers across multiple subject areas representing diverse experience levels. The study examined how teachers interpret and translate generic PP information into subject-specific practice. Most existing research focuses on primary settings or leadership perspectives, leaving secondary teachers’ experiences unexplored, particularly the distinct challenges created by subject specialisation and reduced student contact time in secondary contexts.
Analysis indicated that effective PP implementation depends on sophisticated integration of three interconnected PCK domains: pedagogical knowledge to decode generic terminology, content knowledge to determine subject-appropriate implementations, and student knowledge to individualise adjustments. Teachers engage with PPs through a three-phase adaptation process: extracting information into parallel tracking systems during pre-planning, interpreting terminology through subject-specific lenses during implementation, and relying on professional judgement for ongoing adaptation. This knowledge development occurs primarily through trial-and-error and informal collegial collaboration rather than systematic professional learning. v
The findings revealed significant secondary-specific challenges. Teachers manage multiple students with PPs across numerous classes, with limited contact time for developing student knowledge underpinning effective implementation. Scale challenges interact with reduced contact time, separation from collaborative planning, and subject diversity to create conditions where individualised approaches become practically impossible. Adjustment terminology interpretation varies markedly across subjects, with practical subjects prioritising safety while theoretical subjects focus on literacy and communication supports. Identical terminology requires fundamentally different implementations, yet PPs provide generic language, placing interpretive burden on individual teachers without systematic support. The research documented information gaps: curriculum level indicators, subject-contextualised examples, assessment guidelines, and benchmarking tools.
Implementation challenges reflect systemic design limitations rather than teacher deficits. Teachers demonstrate commitment to inclusive education yet work within systems that individualise responsibility while providing insufficient support, making implementation experience-dependent and creating inequities in quality. Recommendations shift burden from individual teachers to educational systems: developing phased implementation guidelines, creating subject-specific frameworks, establishing systematic professional learning, enabling structured collaboration, providing curriculum benchmarking tools, and redesigning documentation. These recommendations could transform PP implementation from experience-dependent to systematically supported practice, creating equitable inclusive education in secondary schools.

Date of Award	2026
Original language	English
Supervisor	David PATERSON (Supervisor) & Kym SIMONCINI (Supervisor)