See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318775330

Inclusive education, pedagogy and practice

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
22 28,107

2 authors:

Hafdis Gudjonsdottir Edda Óskarsdóttir

University of Iceland University of Iceland
59 PUBLICATIONS 333 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 124 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Collaborative supervision View project

Supporting Inclusive School Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edda Óskarsdóttir on 01 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE

Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir* and Edda Óskarsdóttir

University of Iceland, School of Education

ABSTRACT
The policy of inclusion in schools is being implemented in countries around the world.
This development challenges teachers to search for pedagogy and practices that will
strengthen their professionalism in addressing diversity in their classroom. In this chapter
inclusion is emphasized as an on-going and never-ending process. It is grounded in the
ideologies of social justice, democracy, human rights and access to education for all.
Inclusion is discussed in three terms: (i) as inclusive education that stands for the process
of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion; (ii) as inclusive pedagogy that
focuses how to teach in inclusive schools; and (iii) as inclusive practice that stands for
how the concept of inclusion acquires meaning in practice. Furthermore the chapter
describes key methods for developing inclusive practice as teachers prepare teaching, as
they teach and collaborate with others. Science education is important for everyone and
therefore it is critical to develop equitable opportunities for all pupils to achieve and be
successful in the subject.

INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, the impact of technical, social and cultural change has added new
challenges to education throughout the world. In particular, international migration and
increased emphasis on inclusive education have raised awareness of diversity in pupil groups
and the expectations and hopes of families and communities (Guðjónsdóttir & Karlsdóttir,
2009).
One of the major challenges for teachers in modern times is the continuous search for
pedagogy and approaches to meet this diversity in inclusive schools. Ideas of inclusion
assume that every pupil has equitable access to education and that schools organize learning

*
Corresponding author: Email: hafdgud@hi.is.
2 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

spaces that accommodate everyone in the spirit of universal design. Facing these challenges,
school systems and teachers have to consider how they can respond. We argue, like others
have before us (Ainscow, 2008; Meijer, 2003), that teachers are the key to developing
inclusive practices and pedagogies in schools because they are the ones who, based on their
beliefs and knowledge, decide and choose the learning environment where pupils are meant to
learn and work within the structures of the school system.
In this introduction chapter we will define inclusion, then proceed to address the
questions of what inclusive pedagogy and inclusive practice mean for teachers and schools,
and finally describe some ideas about how classrooms and schools can become more
inclusive. The chapter is based on our vision of education and what it means for how
inclusive schools are constructed. Our vision builds on a notion of education that creates a
learning environment that empowers pupils and gives them space to feel the energy of their
minds and develop their competences. Pupils’ empowerment can develop through deep
understandings, confidence and complexity together with an understanding of community
responsibilities, democratic commitment and social justice. In that kind of environment,
teachers create a learning space that supports pupils and engages them in their learning
(Duckworth, 2006).

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Inclusion is an on-going process, a never-ending quest, aiming for increased participation
in education for everyone involved. Some define it as representing the participation and
education of disabled pupils and special needs pupils in mainstream or general education
(Department of Education & Science, 2007; Rogers, 1993; Salend, 2010). This view focuses
on special needs, as the prerequisite for inclusion, meaning that it is a part of special needs
education. Those who adhere to this definition hold the worldview that the difficulties pupils
experience in school are a consequence of their impairments or shortages. Thereby they
exclude the possibility that pupils’ difficulties can be attributed to failure in relationships, to
the fact that curricula and approaches to teaching and learning are not responsive to diversity,
or that difficulties can arise from the social pressures homes and communities bring into
schools (Booth, 2010; Slee, 2011).
For others, including us, the development in defining inclusion comes from the notion of
diversity, rather than disability (see Abels & Markic in this book), and how schools respond
to and value a diverse group of pupils. Diversity is a natural characteristic of a school
community, mirroring the wider community, and it can be explained as the range of
characteristics that result in a perception of difference among people. This perception of
difference can elicit responses in others that can either be favourable or unfavourable to the
individual in question (Lumby & Coleman, 2007). Inclusion is aimed at diverting attention
towards inequalities presented in exclusion and discrimination against diversities such as
social and ethnic circumstances, religion, gender and ability of pupils and their families.
Thus, we state that inclusive education is a movement against exclusion of any kind and a
reaction to political segregation and social inequality (Petrou, Angelides, & Leigh, 2009). The
goal of inclusion is to work against inequality and nurture people’s sense of belonging in
school and society. Inclusive schools aim to find ways to educate all their pupils successfully,
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 3

work against discrimination, and furthermore lead to an inclusive, just society where
everyone is a valid participant (Booth, 2010; Slee, 2011; UNESCO, 1994, 2001).
Inclusion is fundamentally grounded in the ideologies of social justice, democracy,
human rights and full participation of all (Ainscow & Kaplan, 2005; Florian, 2008;
Guðjónsdóttir & Karlsdóttir, 2009; Jónsson, 2011). These ideologies are connected and
dependent on each other in various ways. A critical social justice perspective emphasizes that
people with their different abilities, characteristics and backgrounds should be “celebrated
and valued, not quashed, ignored or assimilated” (Ryan & Rottmann, 2007, p. 15). Equality,
that is sameness, is often mistakenly associated with social justice in the way difference is
treated. Critical social justice does not advocate treating everyone the same because that
would simply prolong inequalities that are already in place. Rather, according to this
perspective, individuals and groups should be treated according to their abilities, interests and
experience; that is, they should be treated equitably. Treating individuals equitably rather than
equally provides the potential to counteract existing inequalities (Ryan & Rottmann, 2007).
Those advocating for critical social justice seek a world that is fair and equitable for
everyone, where everyone has the chance to reach their goals but not a world where everyone
has to reach the same goals.
In inclusive schools, pupil diversity is regarded as an “asset, an enduring source of
uncertainty” (Skrtic, 2005, p. 150), and from it derives the energy that drives and creates new
thinking, new knowledge and progress. When referring to diversity, we mean different
ethnicities, different interest groups, different power bases; just all the differences that can be
found (Fullan, 1999). Thus, diversity implies that the “myth of the normal child” (Baglieri,
Bejoian, Broderick, Connor, & Valle, 2011, p. 2124) needs to be dismantled. This means
unravelling the ideologies of difference such as whiteness (Leonardo, 2009) and ableism that
position some pupils as normal while others are marginalized and therefore need to be
integrated into the traditional educational model that was not created with them in mind in the
first place (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). It is important to take a critical
and reflective stance toward the myth of the normal child when creating a learning
environment that encompasses different cultural and linguistic practice where a variety of
ability is a valid form of participation and medium for learning. In so doing, an understanding
of the term ‘diversity’ must be expanded beyond disability or ethnic difference to focus on the
value of differences in gender, socio-economic status, cultural group, abilities, learning styles
and interests (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2004). There is a shift from emphasizing the source
of learning difficulties or difficulties in school as coming from within the pupil or stemming
from his/her social circumstances, to viewing the influence of the system of education or the
environment as problematic (UNESCO, 2009). From this perspective, schools must be active
in identifying these hindrances and use available resources to remove them (UNESCO, 2001).
Inspiring teaching practices promote inclusion, honour diversity, cultures and ethnic
experiences, and build the learning environment on the different contributions and identities
of each pupil. Teachers in these practices understand the experiences and perspectives their
pupils bring to the educational settings and respond to the diversity in the group as they
design the curriculum, learning activities, classroom climate, instructional materials, teaching
techniques and assessment procedures (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Bringing this together, our perspective is that inclusive schools are learning communities
that invest in the presence, participation and achievement of everyone in the school, both staff
and pupils, where everyone’s presence is valued and noted, their participation is meaningful,
4 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

and where they get the opportunity to achieve and show their strengths (Ainscow & Miles,
2008).

ACHIEVING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

The development of inclusive education has moved from emphasizing teaching to
emphasizing learning, away from the teacher-directed classroom that has been the dominant
trend in education and towards classrooms where pupils’ learning is stressed. Also, while the
placement, access and presence of diverse pupils in classrooms are important factors for
achieving inclusive education, they are not enough; the critical issue is the teaching and
learning that takes place inside classrooms (Ferguson, 2008; Guðjónsdóttir, 2003).
Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) have distinguished among inclusive pedagogy,
inclusive education and inclusive practice as the term ‘inclusive’ is a broad term in education
that has many meanings. As discussed in the section above, inclusive education stands for the
process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion. Inclusive pedagogy focuses on
how teachers understand the concept of inclusion and how to teach in inclusive schools.
Inclusive practice, however, stands for what people actually do in schools to give the concept
of inclusion meaning in their practice of teaching. In this section we will further discuss
inclusive pedagogy and inclusive practices.

Inclusive Pedagogy

Pedagogy is composed of the act of teaching and the ideas, values and beliefs informing,
sustaining and justifying that act (Alexander, 2013). The term pedagogy appears in the
educational literature to explain the disparate and complex issues of the teaching profession.
Three consistent uses of the term ‘pedagogy’ can be found in the literature; (a) to cover
teaching methods, instructional programs and curricula; (b) as an all-embracing term for
education in poststructuralist thought; and (c) to express and address moral education and
discourse about teaching and learning (Bruner, 1996; Freire, 2005; Van Manen, 1991, 1999).
A fundamental premise in the inclusive pedagogy approach is based on rejecting ability
labelling as a deterministic notion of fixed ability that has historically underpinned the
structure of education (Florian & Spratt, 2013). Thus, inclusive pedagogy is
particularly aimed at contesting practices that represent provision for most with additional or
different experiences for some (ibid.), because the very act of focusing on difference
intensifies the isolation and marginalization of children and adds to the social construction of
disability (Grenier, 2010).
Hart, Drummond, and McIntyre (2007) identified three fundamental pedagogical
principles necessary for the development of inclusive practices. To begin with, there is the
principle of everybody that relates to the responsibility the teacher has towards his/her pupils,
in the sense that the teacher is responsible for and committed to the education of all the pupils
in the classroom, not just some of them. This responsibility can however be shared with other
staff, such as special education or assistant teachers who collaborate with the teacher in
supporting the pupils. The second principle addresses co-agency, where the pupil is seen as an
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 5

active agent in his/her education and there is interplay between the teacher and the pupil. The
teacher creates learning spaces for the pupils, but the pupils are responsible for their learning
with the support from the teacher. The last principle is that of trust, in that the teacher trusts
that pupils want to learn and does not blame them when they do not learn. The teacher asks
what needs to be different for pupils who fail in their learning, what needs to be changed in
the learning environment, materials or activities, rather than asking what is wrong with the
pupil (Hart et al., 2007).
By incorporating pedagogical knowledge, understanding and skills into practice, an
opportunity to differentiate among pupils, contexts, methods, materials, resources and
outcomes is created in designing a curriculum for all pupils. The practice of teaching diverse
groups of pupils is grounded in a pedagogy that includes more than skill in using prescribed
instructional practices. Rather, this practice integrates professional knowledge about teaching,
learning and child development, and involves an ethical and social commitment to children.
Pedagogical qualities of the responsive professional teacher are witnessed in teachers who
understand child development and individual differences, are committed to the education of
all pupils, and who have a knowledge base which enables them to differentiate between
pupils as they develop a curriculum for all pupils (Guðjónsdóttir, 2000).

Inclusive Practices

Inclusive practices are based on the premise that education systems and schools assume
responsibility for organizing curriculum and teaching around a diverse group of pupils in such
a way that the learning environment is appropriate for the pupils’ inherent resources. All
pupils bring valuable resources and experiences to the classroom. These resources are their
talents, strengths and skills, built upon their personal experience, knowledge and beliefs.
Teachers who understand their pupils’ resources can better attune their teaching to the
resources pupils bring to the classroom. Rodriguez (2007) defines resources as personal
qualities and strengths emerging from and shaping life experiences and actions drawn upon in
life and school. These experiences come from children’s upbringing, their schooling and
social participation. Wertsch (1998) considers cultural resources as meditational tools for
people to make meaning and act in the world. Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti (2005) see culture
as ‘funds of knowledge’ or, in other words, a resource to draw upon in the process of learning
and empowering of pupils. This calls for presuming competence in all pupils, requiring
teachers to believe that everyone can meet expectations based on their inherent resources and
funds of knowledge, rather than deciding on incompetence or lowered expectations as a
starting point when working with marginalized pupils (Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer,
2008).
This approach includes viewing pupils’ development in relationship to others, rather than
as isolated individuals, and a view of education as

“an open-ended process of becoming for each person, rather than the achievement of
pre-specified ends; it has a moral purpose, concerned with preparing each person to live a
good life; and it is located in a particular historical and social context” (Howes, Davies,
& Fox, 2009, p. 5).
6 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

Being flexible, responsive, committed to each pupil, and using a variety of teaching
approaches creates an opening to effectively educate a diverse group of pupils according to
their resources and funds of knowledge. Furthermore, teachers who develop a deep personal
knowledge of each pupil can obtain the necessary discretion to differentiate learning among
pupils. Hence, inclusive practice is distinct in the ways that teachers respond to diversity, how
they make decisions about group work and employ specialist knowledge (Florian, 2010).
Important elements of teaching approaches that provide an opportunity for all pupils to
succeed include comprehensive and systematic ways to gather information about pupils,
connections between learning and pupils’ lives, and a focus on flexibility and open-endedness
of the curricula. A flexible curriculum with alternatives gives teachers a chance to respond to
the differences in each class. Then the classroom and the teaching are structured in a way that
offers mixed-ability teaching with alternative ways of learning and working and multiple
opportunities for success. This is not always easy, but teachers who believe in inclusion need
to constantly question their decisions and actions as they strive for improvement
(Guðjónsdóttir, 2003; Rouse, 2008). For teachers who want to respond to diverse learners in
effective ways, this is a never-ending pathway, but each step taken towards inclusion is
progress. As a curriculum is created for the whole group of learners that is responsive to each
pupil, the critical element is openness to children and young people and a recognition that
their resources contribute to the richness of the learning environment (Guðjónsdóttir, 2000).
The key idea here is that while pupils can be different across many dimensions, the most
significant difference resides in the way they approach and respond to learning tasks and
situations, rather than in their pathological or cultural categorizations (Florian, 2008). This
idea presents a challenge to teachers in being reactive to those differences and employing
responsive practice (Guðjónsdóttir, 2000).
Responsiveness, coupled with pedagogical skills, enables teachers to use pupil
differences, contextual issues, cultural and community events, subject matter, and problems
and challenges as opportunities for effective teaching and learning. However, responsive
teachers go beyond acknowledging and respecting differences as they create the curricula.
They focus on pupils and what they bring into the classroom in the shape of their resources
(ability, attitude, background, experience, interest, knowledge, and skills), and respond by
designing a universal learning environment that supports all pupils in expanding their
learning. Responsive teachers are skilled in creating a curriculum of learning activities and
environments in which all pupils have the opportunity to succeed. This means that the
responsive teachers’ preparations are solidly grounded in major theoretical perspectives on
child development and their practical applications, in an understanding of the social and
moral issues inherent in individual differences, as well as in a strong professional
commitment to the education of pupils (European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education, 2011; Guðjónsdóttir, 2003; Guðjónsdóttir, Kristinsdóttir, & Óskarsdóttir, 2007).
To respond to pupils’ diversity, the teacher builds the planning on flexible and alternative
approaches from the beginning, and creates an environment that gives pupils opportunities to
learn in different ways. Thus, responsive teachers’ comprehensive grounding in pedagogy
enables them to (a) base their teaching on detailed knowledge of each pupil, (b) construct
learning activities that are both challenging and enjoyable, (c) differentiate among pupils
within integrated curricula and programs, (d) use the physical and social environment to
support learning, (e) support pupils to develop a growing sense of responsibility for their
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 7

learning, and (f) work in partnership with pupils to monitor and modify teaching, learning and
assessment (Guðjónsdóttir, 2003).

KEY AREAS OF TEACHING, LEARNING, AND PROFESSIONALISM

Research into effective inclusive classrooms and schools has portrayed the following
areas as important for the development of inclusive practices:

• an emphasis on pupil-centred and activity-based learning,

• a focus on the classroom environment for diverse groups of pupils,
• strategies for designing curricula and teaching, and
• collaboration with colleagues and parents (Ferguson, 2008; Guðjónsdóttir, 2000;
Meijer, 2003).

These areas can be arranged by the phases teachers go through as they prepare, teach and
collaborate.

Preparing Teaching

Pupil-centred learning is a descendant of constructivist learning theories that have

defined learning as an “active process in which learners are active sense makers who seek to
build coherent and organized knowledge” (Mayer, 2004, p. 14). Strategies have been
described as emphasizing responsibility and activity on the part of the pupils where they are
intrinsically motivated in learning and moving away from focusing on the schoolbooks or the
teacher (Cannon & Newble, 2000). Through a range of approaches and technology, the
teacher can make the curriculum more captivating and meaningful for pupils so that they are
active agents in their own learning. Common features of pupil-centred teaching approaches
include that knowledge is constructed rather than received, there is emphasis on both
individualized work and group processes, learning and assessment can be performed in
various ways, pupils are responsible for their learning, and the teacher acts as a facilitator
creating a framework for pupils to work within. Following a constructivist viewpoint, the
main aim is that pupils are active sense-makers, learning to learn in a sustainable fashion.
Indeed, pupils are not expected to learn the same, at the same speed, or employ the same
approach (Wolfe, Steinberg, & Hoffman, 2013).
At the beginning of each school year or term teachers organize their classroom
environment. Creating an inclusive classroom environment involves an atmosphere of care,
attention to the physical, emotional and social well-being of pupils, accessibility and
belonging. Pupils can be sensitive to the atmosphere in the classroom, but by involving them
in constructing it they develop an ownership of their physical learning space and feel relaxed
towards the teacher and their classmates (Sheffler & Bucholz, 2009). The well-being of all
pupils matters; no learning will take place if pupils do not feel welcomed, noticed or
important in their classroom. Accessibility both to the room and inside it is important and
needs attention, also that the environment has room for everyone. How study conditions and
8 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

learning materials are organized can affect the learning, but so can certain pedagogical
traditions. Building on cohesion and democratic decision-making can give pupils
opportunities to share their opinion on teaching, ways of working and assessment. Thus,
pupils’ voices are sought, valued and taken into account in planning and organizing teaching.
By deciding that diversity is the norm, and emphasizing and assuming diversity in ways of
learning, places of learning and uses of learning materials, inclusive classrooms can be
created.
Universal Design of Learning (UDL) is a strategy that teachers can use for planning to
ensure pupil-centred learning and to create learning opportunities for a diverse group of
pupils (Kurtts, Matthews, & Smallwood, 2009). Traditionally a curriculum is designed with
certain pupils in mind, which builds barriers as it excludes others who will then need
something different or added to be able to cope. UDL, however, is a form of inclusive
practice that refers to the way instructional material and activities are designed to make
content accessible for all pupils (Rose & Meyer, 2006). UDL is based on research of the
brain, cognitive-social learning theories and ideas of multiple intelligences and learning
preferences (Gargiulo & Metcalf, 2012). One of the main features of UDL is that the
curriculum is designed to emphasize the end product: what the pupil is ultimately supposed to
know, be able to do or understand after having gone through the process. UDL is related to
the architectural and design concept of Universal Design (UD) that is oriented towards
developing buildings, outdoor spaces, products and devices that assume diversity from the
design stage (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012). The common goal of UD and UDL is to design
and create with diverse individuals in mind, rather than adding on or refitting later based on
individual differences (ibid.).
Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Understanding by Design (UbD) are two strategies
that work well together and can be used along with UDL to cater to individual pupils’
abilities, strengths and interests. Understanding by Design is a strategy to use for curriculum
planning. It has also been termed ‘backward design’ as it entails beginning by identifying the
desired learning outcomes and deciding how pupils show evidence of learning, similarly to
UDL (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Thus, the instruction and learning experiences are
planned based on clear learning goals specifying what pupils should know, understand and be
able to do. Differentiated instruction is however aimed at the way content or aims are
organized with diverse pupils in mind. Thus, in planning instruction there is variation and
inherent flexibility in content (what is to be learned), processes (how it is learned) and
products of learning (how learning is evidenced) (Tomlinson, 2003). This means that pupils
can choose their learning approach and product rather than the teacher making the choice for
them based on some pre-set profile of the pupils (Ferguson, 2008; Florian & Black-Hawkins,
2011). These two approaches together, backward design and differentiation, present a holistic
method of organizing curriculum, assessment and instruction based on ideas of effective
teaching and learning for diverse pupil populations.
UDL, UbD, and DL are three models that can be combined to create and support an
inspiring, productive and inclusive learning environment. By combining them they support
each other as the focus of UDL is to remove barriers for learning, UbD is a curriculum model
focusing on the what and how of teaching and DI is a model based on whom, how and what
to teach.
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 9

Teaching

As inclusive practices are tuned to the strengths and resources of diverse pupils, there is
no single recipe for success. However, there are some teaching strategies that have proven to
be suitable for teaching a diverse group of pupils which are flexible, emphasize pupil choice,
cooperation and independence. Researchers have suggested that teaching activities in science
classrooms that incorporate elements such as concrete, hands-on, inquiry-based learning
activities and group interaction can create high interest among pupils (Mastropieri et al.,
2005; Scruggs, Mastropieri, Bakken, & Brigham, 1993).
The organization of learning in the classroom is a contributing factor in the building of an
inclusive practice. One way to create an instructionally responsive classroom is to set up
learning stations (Good & Brophy, 2003; Tomlinson, 1999). Learning stations can be used
with pupils at different ages within different subjects and are organized at different spots
around the classroom. The time frame, tasks, content and learning processes are differentiated
to accommodate for pupil resources. In addition, teachers plan assignments by pupil readiness
and employ flexible grouping. The assignments at each station can vary and pupils can be
allowed to suggest topics and tasks. However, it is important to keep in mind that clear
instructions are necessary for pupils to become independent in their work.
Another way to respond to the diversity in the group is to construct learning centres like
teachers have used for many years in their classrooms (Good & Brophy, 2003; Tomlinson,
1999). That is, teachers create a science centre, a writing centre, an art centre or any other
kind of centre that fits the subject or the pupils they teach. A learning centre is an area that is
organized around activities designed to teach or practice a particular skill. An interest centre
is designed to motivate pupils and builds on the interest found in each pupil group. At each
centre material and activities can be found that address a wide range of learning levels and
pupils` interests. Pupils work towards certain goals, use a record keeping system and take part
in on-going assessment. In so doing the teacher can keep track of pupils’ progress and
reorganize the goals and assignments at the centres.
Cooperative learning is a form of teaching and learning in which the teacher organizes
pupils to work collaboratively in small groups. For pupils to gain individual accountability or
positive interdependence, the teacher structures the group work, gives pupils different roles to
be accountable for, designs groups that are small enough for everyone to contribute, and
clearly defines the tasks. By using cooperative learning, an opportunity is created for pupils to
work with others and listen to a variety of responses and different points of view.
Furthermore, the teacher enables pupils to add their perspectives to the discussion and get
acquainted with different cultures (Gillies, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Kagan, 1994;
Slavin, 2011). Cooperative learning is structured in such a way that it responds to pupils’
resources and gives them opportunity to work on their goals. Thus, this form of teaching and
learning is often employed in inquiry-based learning activities and works well in diverse
inclusive classrooms, at all grade levels and subjects.
Cooperative learning, carefully and strategically organized with clear goals and rules, can
lead to a more positive atmosphere in classrooms. One constructive element of this teaching
approach resides in mobilizing pupils as a valuable resource of support in classrooms. Thus,
peer support involves pupils working in pairs or groups to reach a common goal, learning
10 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

from each other or supporting each other socially, and this partnership is mutually beneficial.
Partnering pupils can be organized in various ways and for various reasons; pupils who are
learning a language might be partnered with those who are bilingual or have developed a
stronger language proficiency, and pupils who are less verbal can be paired with those who
are more verbal (Gargiulo & Metcalf, 2012). The possibilities for pairing are many and do not
always have to reside in binaries or opposites.

Collaborating

The third area we would like to address concerning the development of inclusive practice
is collaboration. Researchers have reported that collaboration is an important factor for
inclusive schools to become a reality (Guðjónsdóttir, 2000; Meijer, 2003). Thereby,
maintaining that collaboration among teachers, administrators, other professionals, staff,
parents and community is one of the key factors for developing education that accommodates
for all. Collaboration here refers to how practitioners and others interact and work
cooperatively to accomplish a task or series of tasks in and for various situations (Friend,
Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). Collegiality refers to the relationship
between colleagues with a common purpose where respect and support are practiced.
However, collaboration is often based on homogeneity and difference is viewed as a problem
rather than a resource (Lambert, Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1996; Richert, 1997). Group
practice can be ‘contrived’ and imposed by authority within a context of hierarchical power
and role relationships rather than as responsive to questions arising within authentic practice
(Hargreaves, 1994). Collaboration and collegiality usually happen in a certain context of a
school where collaborative actions and collegial relations establish important working
conditions for teachers and influence the professional development of teachers and schools
(Kelchtermans, 2006). The culture of the school and the working conditions regulate and
arbitrate teacher collaboration, but also how staff experience and value collegiality.
The challenge here is for teachers and others with different skills and expertise to work
together and to problem-solve in order to respond more effectively to pupils (Ferguson, 2008;
Meijer, 2003). Research on effective inclusive schools has shown that the disposition and
aptitude of staff towards working together was seen as critical for accommodating diverse
groups of pupils (Kugelmass & Ainscow, 2004). Furthermore it is suggested that
collaboration is most likely to be beneficial when collaborators each have something to
contribute, share mutual goals, work together voluntarily, contribute equally, and share
responsibility for making decisions and achieving pupil outcomes (Friend et al., 2010;
Guðjónsdóttir, 2003).
Families’ experiences of inclusion and exclusion can be a source of information and
insights that will assist in shaping practice (Allan, 2010; Guðjónsdóttir, 2003; Ryan, 2006).
When parents and teachers work together in collaboration, they may have extremely different
understandings of concepts and beliefs, regarding for example inclusion, that need to be
explored, unpacked and discussed to establish a discourse and conversation based on shared
understandings and mutual respect (Fauske, 2011). As participants in collaboration, parents
and families are important in creating and sharing the language and dialogue of inclusive
practice. Reaching understanding leads to developing the common inclusive values in which
discussions need to be grounded. The matter of mutual respect is grounded in trusting the
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 11

other. The other can be anyone who is “perceived by a majority group as not belonging or as
being different in some fundamental way” (Eliassen, 2014, p. 23). Usually this alludes to
someone who is not a part of the norm or majority group and carries a connotation of
inferiority. An ethnographic research by Valle (2011), who observed and interviewed mothers
of children with learning disabilities concerning their collaboration with schools, reveals that
the mothers’ ethnicity, class, culture and gender influenced interactions with school
practitioners. That is, practitioners treated mothers in this research as the other and hence the
collaborative efforts lacked partnership and trust. Of course, parents and practitioners inhabit
different roles towards children and their perspectives can be quite different. However, it is
important to “balance the unequal power relations” (Hodge & Runswick-Cole, 2008, p. 645)
that exist, to involve parents as experts in their children’s lives and place trust in them as
collaborators.

CONCLUSION
Inclusive practice is being created in classrooms and schools all around the world.
However, while schools have separate provision for pupils based on their abilities and the
teacher education prepares pupil teachers accordingly, subject teachers are often not educated
for inclusive practice and are challenged to transfer the general recommendations to their
practice. General and subject teachers report that they do not have the preparation or skills
needed to teach diverse groups of pupils in inclusive settings (Forlin, 2001; Loreman, 2002;
OECD, 2009). This is not something teachers pick up from a ready-made manual; rather it is
practice that is continuously being developed, as they are responsive towards new pupils, a
new class or group of pupils, to the development of pupils and changes in classroom
dynamics and new structures.
Inclusive practice happens in the school subjects (see Abels & Markic in this book).
Science education is important for everyone and therefore it is critical to develop equitable
opportunities for pupils from different groups so they can achieve and progress in the subject
(Boaler, Altendorff, & Kent, 2011; Smith & Leonard, 2005). Traditionally science teaching
has been an elite subject; it systematically disadvantages pupils by ethnicity, class and gender;
it is skewed in the way it appeals to pupils and provides opportunities; and it produces sharp
inequalities that characterize science achievement and participation (Boaler et al., 2011).
Developing inclusive practice demands a welcoming disposition towards diversity, an
understanding of learning as a creation of meaning and an assumption that all pupils are
inherently competent. Just as the human species is diverse, the curricula, teaching practices
and learning situations must mirror that diversity, rather than expecting pupils to assimilate to
existing school and subject structures. Teaching for equity, using teaching practices that
presume diversity from the beginning and building on pupil resources can be considered
simply as good teaching for all.
The inclusion movement challenges teachers, also science teachers, to investigate their
values and beliefs, to review their understandings of teaching, learning, curriculum, and to
reinvent their roles as participants in school change. Instead of relegating pupils who do not
meet school or classroom requirements (or who otherwise do not fit in) to separate settings,
school practices can adapt, improve or create educational environments to address pupils’
12 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

resources. Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) suggest that teachers extend what is usually
provided in a general classroom to create rich learning opportunities for all learners so
everyone can participate in classroom life and learning. The focus is on what all pupils in the
classroom should learn and how teachers, in every subject, can respond to those who
encounter barriers to learning.
Taking on the challenge of inclusion entails that all teachers take the initiative to move
out of their comfort zone, risking uncertainty while they are exploring new or different ways
of working, planning and organizing. Seeking collaboration with colleagues to problem solve,
debate and celebrate success, where each contributes through individual strengths and
interests, will support teachers in this endeavour. The effort to develop inclusive practice will
be rewarded with more effective classrooms that can reach and engage a broad spectrum of
pupils in an equitable way.

REFERENCES
Ainscow, M. (2008). Teaching for diversity: The next big challenge. In F. M. Connelly, M. F.
He, & J. A. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction. London:
SAGE Publications.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2004). Understanding and developing inclusive
practices in schools: a collaborative action research network. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 8(2), 125-139.
Ainscow, M. & Kaplan, I. (2005). Using evidence to encourage inclusive school
development: Possibilities and challenges. The Australasian Journal of Special
Education, 29(2), 106-116.
Ainscow, M. & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: where next? Prospects,
38(1), 15-34.
Alexander, R. (2013). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.
Allan, J. (2010). Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 25(2), 199-208.
Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J. & Valle, J. (2011). [Re] claiming
"inclusive education" toward cohesion in educational reform: disability studies unravels
the myth of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2122-2154.
Boaler, J., Altendorff, L. & Kent, G. (2011). Mathematics and science inequalities in the
United Kingdom: when elitism, sexism and culture collide. Oxford Review of Education,
37(4), 457-484.
Booth, T. (2010). Wie sollen wir zusammen leben? Inklusion als wertebezogener Rahmen für
die pädagogische Praxis. [How should we live together? Inclusion as a framework of
values for educational development.] Frankfurt a.M.: GEW.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cannon, R. & Newble, D. (2000). A guide to improving teaching methods: A handbook for
teachers in university and colleges. London: Kogan Page.
Duckworth, E. R. (2006). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and
learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 13

Department of Education and Science, (2007). Inclusion of students with special educational
needs: post-primary guidelines. Dublin: Department of Education and Science.
Eliassen, M. (2014). The emergence of individual instruction and relevant education in San
Francisco. In N. E. Johnson & S. A. Wilson (Eds.), Teaching to difference? The
challenges and opportunities of diversity in the classroom, (pp. 17-30). Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2011). Teacher education
for inclusion across Europe – challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark: European
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Fauske, J. R. (2011). Collaboration as transformative and inclusionary leadership. In P. Jones,
J. R. Fauske, & J. F. Carr (Eds.), Leading for inclusion, (pp. 13-28). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: the continuing challenge
to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2),
109-120.
Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special
Education, 35(4), 202-208.
Florian, L. (2010). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In F. Hallett & H. G. H. Fiona (Eds.),
Transforming the role of the senco: achieving the national award for sen coordination,
(pp. 61-72). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828.
Florian, L. & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating inclusive
practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119-135.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers.
Educational Research, 43(3), 235-245.
Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D. & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: the sequel. London: Falmer Press.
Gargiulo, R. & Metcalf, D. (2013). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms: A universal
design for learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gay, G. & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection
in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181-187.
Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C. & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge. NewYork: Routledge.
Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Grenier, M. (2010). Moving to inclusion: a socio-cultural analysis of practice. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 387-400.
Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2000). Responsive professional practice: teachers analyze the theoretical
and ethical dimensions of their work in diverse classrooms. Unpublished dissertation.
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2003). Viðbragðssnjallir kennarar. [Resourceful teachers]. Glæður,
13(1&2), 59-66.
14 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

Guðjónsdóttir, H. & Karlsdóttir, J. (2009). “Látum þúsund blóm blómstra”. [Let a thousand
flowers bloom]. Uppeldi og menntun, 18(1), 61-77.
Guðjónsdóttir, H., Kristinsdóttir, J. V. & Óskarsdóttir, E. (2007). Mathematics for all:
Preparing teachers to teach in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the 3rd Nordic
research conference on special needs education in mathematics, Aalborg.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A. & Rose, D. H. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom:
practical applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: teachers’ work and culture in the
postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hart, S., Drummond, M. J. & McIntyre, D. (2007). Learning without limits: constructing a
pedagogy free from determinist beliefs about ability. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage
handbook of special education, (pp. 499-514). London: Sage.
Hodge, N. & Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Problematising parent-professional partnerships in
education. Disability & Society, 23(6), 637-647.
Howes, A., Davies, S. M. B. & Fox, S. (2009). Improving the context for inclusion:
personalising teacher development through collaborative action research. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L. & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008). The dynamic relationship between
context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-
based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 175-
195.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Student motivation in co-operative groups. In R. M.
Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual
outcomes of learning in groups, (pp. 136-176). London: Routledge Falmer.
Jónsson, Ó. P. (2011). Lýðræði, réttlæti og menntun. [Democracy, justice and education].
Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative
Learning.
Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A
review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220-237.
Kugelmass, J. & Ainscow, M. (2004). Leadership for inclusion: A comparison of
international practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(3), 133-141.
Kurtts, S. A., Matthews, C. E. & Smallwood, T. (2009). (Dis)Solving the differences.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(3), 151-159.
Lambert, L., Collay, M., Dietz, M., Kent, K. & Richert, A. (1996). Who will save our
schools? Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Loreman, T. (2002). Teacher education and inclusion. Paper presented at the XIIIth World
Congress of Inclusion International, Melbourne, Australia.
Lumby, J. & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: challenging theory and practice
in education. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W. & Mcduffie, K.
(2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas successes, failures, and
challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?
American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
 Inclusive Education, Pedagogy and Practice 15

Meijer, C. J. W. (Ed.) (2003). Inclusive education and classroom practices. Odense: Europen
agency for development in special needs education.
OECD, (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from
TALIS. Paris: OECD.
Petrou, A., Angelides, P. & Leigh, J. (2009). Beyond the difference: from the margins to
inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(5), 439-448.
Richert, A. E. (1997). Teaching teachers for the challenge of change. In J. Loughran & T.
Russel (Eds.), Teaching about teaching: Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher
education, (pp. 73-94). London: Falmer.
Rodriguez, T. L. (2007). Language, culture, and resistance as resource: Case studies of
bilingual/bicultural Latino prospective elementary teachers and the crafting of teaching
practices. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin: Madison.
Rogers, J. (1993). The inclusion revolution. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Research
Bulletin.
Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education.
Education in the North, 16(1), 6-13.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, J. & Rottmann, C. (2007). Educational leadership and policy approaches to critical
social justice. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 18(1-2), 9-23.
Salend, S. J. (2010). Creating inclusive classrooms: effective and reflective practices (with
MyEducationLab). New York: Prentice Hall PTR.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Bakken, J. P. & Brigham, F. J. (1993). Reading versus
doing: The relative effects of textbook-based and inquiry-oriented approaches to science
learning in special education classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 1-15.
Sheffler, J. L. & Bucholz, J. L. (2009). Creating a warm and inclusive classroom
environment: Planning for all children to feel welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 2(4), 1-13.
Skrtic, T. M. (2005). A political economy of larning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 28(2), 149-155.
Slavin, R. (2011). Cooperative learning. In V. G. Aukrust (Ed.), Learning and cognition in
education, (pp. 160-166). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school. Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London:
Routledge.
Smith, R. & Leonard, P. (2005). Collaboration for inclusion: Practitioner perspectives. Equity
& Excellence in Education, 38(4), 269-279.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all
learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction &
understanding by design: Connecting content with kids. Alexandría, VA: ASCD.
UNESCO, (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs
education. Salamanca: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2001). The open file on inclusive education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO, (2009). Policy guideline on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.
 16 Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir and Edda Óskarsdóttir

Valle, J. W. (2011). Down the rabbit hole: a commentary about research on parents and
special education. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 183-190.
Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: the meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and the primacy of student experience.
Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy, 13-27.
Waitoller, F. R. & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of pofessional development research for
inclusive education a critical review and notes for a research program. Review of
Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press
Wolfe, R. E., Steinberg, A. & Hoffman, N. (2013). Anytime, anywhere: student-centered
learning for schools and teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Page layout by Anvi Composers.

View publication stats