In modern education, the distinction between inclusive education settings and mainstream classrooms reflects more than structural or programmatic choices; it represents divergent educational philosophies and practices. Inclusive education is built on the premise that classrooms must adapt to the needs of all learners, including those with disabilities, language differences, and cultural diversity. In contrast, mainstream classrooms have historically expected students to conform to a standard mode of teaching and learning. As such, teaching methods differ significantly between these two models, especially in the realms of pedagogy, technological integration, and cultural responsiveness. These differences affect not only how students access content, but also how they engage with learning, how they express understanding, and how they perceive their place in the academic community (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).
Pedagogically, inclusive education settings emphasize flexibility, accessibility, and learner-centered instruction. Teachers working in inclusive environments adopt frameworks such as differentiated instruction and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to meet the diverse needs of their students. Differentiated instruction entails modifying the content, process, and output of a lesson based on student readiness, interest, and learning profile (Tomlinson, 2014). Rather than delivering a uniform lesson to the entire class, teachers offer multiple pathways to understanding, recognizing that not all students learn in the same way. UDL furthers this approach by providing multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014). This proactive model designs instruction from the outset to be accessible to the widest range of learners, minimizing the need for retrofitted accommodations. Inclusive classrooms often utilize co-teaching models, where a general education and special education teacher collaborate to support all students. These environments support real-time differentiation, individualized scaffolding, and the normalization of support services within the general education context (Friend, 2014). Students are not removed from class to receive help; rather, the help comes to them in a classroom structured for variability.
Conversely, mainstream classrooms have traditionally employed a one-size-fits-all approach, oriented around the needs of the “typical” or average student. Lessons are often uniform in structure, and assessments are standardized, with limited attention to individual differences in learning. When students fall behind or struggle to engage, the solution is often external intervention through pull-out services or supplemental instruction, rather than adapting the primary instructional method (Kauffman, Hallahan, & Pullen, 2017). The assumption is that students must adapt to the curriculum rather than the curriculum adapting to the students. While some mainstream teachers do attempt informal differentiation, systemic structures often limit their capacity to fully meet the needs of all learners. The result is an instructional environment that privileges conformity and may inadvertently exclude those who require alternative supports.
The use of technology in inclusive and mainstream classrooms further illustrates their pedagogical divergence. In inclusive settings, technology is employed not only as a teaching tool but also as a bridge to equity. Assistive technologies such as speech-to-text software, screen readers, braille displays, and augmentative communication devices are embedded in the daily classroom routine (Dell, Newton, & Petroff, 2017). These tools allow students with disabilities to access the same content and demonstrate their learning in meaningful ways. Moreover, adaptive learning platforms can adjust content complexity and pacing based on real-time student data, providing a personalized learning experience that is inclusive by design (Edyburn, 2010). Importantly, these technologies are not reserved for isolated special education settings but are instead incorporated into general classroom instruction, normalizing their use and reducing stigma.
Mainstream classrooms, though increasingly equipped with general educational technologies such as interactive whiteboards, classroom tablets, and learning management systems, often lack integration of assistive technologies. In these settings, technology tends to be used uniformly across students, without regard for individual learning needs. Specialized tools are often located in resource rooms or used only by students with formal accommodations (Rose & Dalton, 2009). Teachers in mainstream settings may lack training in assistive technology and may not integrate accessibility features into their lessons. As a result, students who need technological supports may be marginalized or required to work separately from their peers, thereby limiting their full participation in the learning process.
Cultural responsiveness is another critical domain in which inclusive and mainstream classrooms differ significantly. Inclusive education is inherently multicultural and equity-driven. Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) involves recognizing and valuing students’ cultural backgrounds, languages, and lived experiences as integral to the learning process. Inclusive educators intentionally embed diverse perspectives in curriculum materials, use instructional strategies that honor students’ identities, and create classroom environments where all cultures are respected (Gay, 2010). CRT also emphasizes the importance of family and community engagement, encouraging partnerships with caregivers and local organizations to support student learning (Ladson-Billings, 2009). In an inclusive classroom, curriculum is designed to reflect the diversity of the student population, and cultural competence is viewed as a necessary skill for both teachers and students.
In contrast, mainstream classrooms often operate from a monocultural framework, where the dominant culture sets the norm for curriculum, communication styles, and behavioral expectations. While diversity may be acknowledged through special events or isolated units, it is rarely woven into the daily instructional fabric. The use of Eurocentric textbooks, limited representation of non-dominant cultures, and a reliance on “heroes and holidays” approaches to diversity education can result in superficial engagement with cultural difference (Banks, 2015). Moreover, the ideology of “colorblindness”—treating all students the same regardless of background—is still prevalent in many mainstream settings, despite evidence that such approaches can marginalize students by failing to acknowledge their unique strengths and challenges (Gay, 2010). Without intentional efforts to include diverse cultural narratives, mainstream classrooms risk reinforcing systemic inequities and limiting students’ opportunities to see themselves as valuable contributors to the learning community.
Real-world classroom practices illustrate the consequences of these differing approaches. In an inclusive reading class, a teacher might offer multiple formats of a novel—print, audio, simplified summaries—and allow students to choose how to demonstrate comprehension, whether through an essay, oral presentation, storyboard, or digital media project. Students with disabilities use assistive technologies openly, and English learners receive vocabulary support in their first language. Class discussions are structured to draw on students’ diverse cultural experiences and perspectives. In a mainstream classroom covering the same content, students may all be expected to read a standard version of the text silently and complete a uniform comprehension quiz. Students who struggle with reading fluency or decoding may fall behind or be sent to a separate room, while cultural discussions may be limited or absent entirely.
These structural and philosophical differences between inclusive and mainstream education impact more than academic performance. Research indicates that inclusive classrooms foster stronger social-emotional skills, higher levels of engagement, and greater academic achievement for both students with and without disabilities (Hehir et al., 2016). By promoting flexibility, personalization, and equity, inclusive pedagogy prepares students for a diverse, interconnected world. Mainstream classrooms, though effective for many learners, may inadvertently exclude or underserve those who do not conform to traditional educational expectations. Without systemic changes in pedagogy, technology use, and cultural inclusion, mainstream models risk perpetuating disparities and limiting the potential of diverse learners.
In conclusion, the comparative analysis of teaching methods between inclusive and mainstream classrooms reveals fundamental differences in how educators approach the needs of diverse learners. Inclusive classrooms are characterized by pedagogical flexibility, integrated assistive technologies, and a deep commitment to cultural responsiveness. They reflect a shift from standardization to personalization and from assimilation to inclusion. Mainstream classrooms, while evolving, still often operate from legacy frameworks that prioritize uniformity over equity. As the student population becomes increasingly diverse, the inclusive model offers a robust, evidence-based approach to teaching every learner—not by lowering expectations, but by expanding the means through which students can succeed.
References
Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed.). Routledge.
Dell, A. G., Newton, D. A., & Petroff, J. G. (2017). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experiences of students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Edyburn, D. L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828.
Friend, M. (2014). Co-teach! Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools (2nd ed.). Marilyn Friend Inc.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Abt Associates.
Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (2017). Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (13th ed.). Pearson.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2009). Learning to read in the digital age. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(2), 74–83.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
