19.02.2026 –, Raum 1 (GW2 B1216)
Lesson planning can be understood as a complex and evolving process of professional decision-making that is intertwined with reflective practice (Tracey et al., 2014). It does not only take place before instruction but continues during classroom interaction and after the lesson, encompassing on-the-spot adjustments, reflection during action, and evaluation for future improvement (Munthe & Conway, 2017; Schön, 1987). Because of this multifaceted nature, lesson planning is considered a fundamental dimension of teachers’ professional competence, and teacher education programs worldwide place considerable emphasis on its development (European Commission, 2013). Within this framework, attention to learner diversity has been explicitly recognized as a central feature of inclusive lesson design (EADSNE, 2022).
Nevertheless, numerous studies indicate that lesson planning is strongly shaped by teachers’ assumptions and implicit biases, which can reproduce or exacerbate exclusionary dynamics. Teachers’ expectations influence how activities are structured, how learning potential is envisioned, and how students are evaluated. Research documents systematic biases related to race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and ability. For example, the overestimation of skills in in fluent and white students (Doyle et al., 2024), and underestimation of the mathematical potential among Black and Hispanic girls in the U.S. (Copur-Gencturk et al., 2019) have been empirically shown. Such perceptions contribute to unequal treatment, including differential referrals to gifted or special education programs (Childs & Wooten, 2022). Moreover, discriminatory attitudes—particularly those linked to ableism, and often intersecting with racism, sexism, and classism—are associated with lower engagement in inclusive approaches (Dell’Anna et al., 2024).
This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review examining how teachers’ biases affect inclusive instructional design. Using PRISMA guidelines, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Scopus databases were searched. The expected outcome is to offer a systematic overview of mechanisms through which bias shapes lesson planning and to outline implications for strengthening inclusive and equitable teaching practices.
Childs, T. M., & Wooten, N. R. (2023). Teacher bias matters: An integrative review of correlates, mechanisms, and consequences. Race Ethnicity and Education, 26(3), 368–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1805490
Copur-Gencturk, Y., Cimpian, J. R., Lubienski, S. T., & Thacker, I. (2020). Teachers’ bias against the mathematical ability of female, Black, and Hispanic students. Educational Researcher, 49(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19890577
Dell’Anna, S., Parisi, T., & Pedron, E. (2024). Atteggiamenti discriminatori e propensione all’inclusione. Il ruolo della formazione in un’indagine esplorativa su un campione di insegnanti. Scuola democratica, 16(2), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.12828/115032
Doyle, L., Harris, P. R., & Easterbrook, M. J. (2024). Quality and quantity: How contexts influence the emergence of teacher bias. Social Psychology of Education, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09953-2
EADSNE (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education). (2022). Teacher Education for Inclusion: Profile of Inclusive Teachers. EADSNE.
European Commission. (2013). Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. European Commission. https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-04/Supporting-teacher-competence-development-for-better-learning-outcomes.pdf
Munthe, E., & Conway, P. F. (2017). Evolution of research on teachers’ planning: Implications for teacher education. In J. Husu & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 836–849). SAGE Publications.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.
Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9
Wie ist der inhaltliche Status Ihres Beitrags? –Systematic reviews or literature analyses
Inclusive Teaching and Learning
Giulia Rodolfi is a PhD candidate in Educational Sciences at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. Her research focuses on implicit biases in assessment and instructional planning processes, with particular attention to issues of equity and school inclusion. She is also interested in social justice and the role of artificial intelligence in teaching. Her contribution to the conference explores the role of bias in instructional design and its implications for both initial teacher education and in-service professional development.