Inclusive Practice Project: Final Reportthesendhub.co.uk › ... › 2016 › 09 › inclusive-practice-project-final-repo… · Inclusive Practice Project: Final Report September

Inclusive Practice Project: Final ReportSeptember 2012

Martyn Rouse and Lani Florian

Executive Summary

Scottish schools face a period ofunprecedented change and development.Although many things are done well inScottish education, the long tail of under-achievement and lack of participation forcertain groups is a chronic problem. Thereare additional challenges associated withdemographic changes in the population of schools associated with migration,disability and first language spoken.Schools also have to deal with changes in the curriculum, new approaches toassessment, new understandings of how children learn, new developments in inclusive pedagogy and demands for multi-agency working. All of thesechanges have implications for howteachers are prepared and supported.The task of initial teacher education is to prepare new teachers to enter aprofession that accepts individual andcollective responsibility for improving the learning and participation of allchildren, taking account that there will be differences between pupils. To this end, the Inclusive Practice Project (IPP) in the School of Education, University of Aberdeen has been developing andstudying new approaches to trainingteachers to ensure that they:

• have a greater awareness and understanding of the educational and social problems/issues that can affect children’s learning; and

• have developed strategies they can use to support and deal with such difficulties.

The Aberdeen approach is based on aconcept of inclusive pedagogy whichrecognises that with appropriate support,class teachers can accept with confidence, the responsibility for teaching all childrenin inclusive classrooms. The inclusivepedagogical approach does not reject the notion of specialist knowledge aboutadditional needs and why some pupilshave difficulties in learning, but focuses on how to make use of this knowledge in ways that facilitate the learning andparticipation of everyone. At the heart ofthis process is the development of positiverelationships with optimistic views aboutlearners.

As a research and development project, the IPP focused on embedding issues ofinclusion from the outset in initial teachereducation for primary and secondarystudent teachers. Based on socio-culturalunderstanding of learning, the inclusivepedagogical approach promotes a view ofhuman difference as an aspect of everyperson, rather than something thatcharacterises or differentiates somelearners from others. The approach was developed from studies of the craftknowledge of experienced teacherscommitted to inclusive practice in mainstream schools.

The concept of inclusive pedagogyemerged from these studies as a principled approach to the relationshipbetween teaching and learning,

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012i

ContentsContents

where the classroom teacher acceptsresponsibility for all pupils in ways that do not marginalise or stigmatise somelearners as different from others of similar age.

Pupils may encounter difficulties inlearning, or be identified as havingimpairments such as autism or dyslexiathat require teachers to seek specialistsupport and advice. Whilst expertise maybe needed about why some children havedifficulties in learning, the inclusivepedagogical approach takes the view thatrather than send the pupil to the specialist,the specialist is called upon to support theteacher in enabling the pupil to have ameaningful learning experience in thecontext of the classroom community.

This position recognises that a serious, ifunintended consequence of thinking thatonly specialist trained teachers can teachchildren with additional needs, is that classteachers may not believe that they havethe skills and knowledge to teach suchpupils. By only preparing some teachers todeal with difference, a climate is created inwhich other teachers can reasonably claimthat teaching pupils who may requiresomething different or additional in orderto learn are not their responsibility. The IPP approach is based on the belief that inclusive practice has to be the task of all teachers if inclusive education is to be an effective strategy in supporting the participation and achievements of all pupils. The idea of difference as anordinary aspect of human development is particularly important when preparing teachers because education systems are

built upon processes that systematicallysort pupils according to perceived abilitiesand aptitudes. This process starts early inthe primary school when children areplaced in groups according their ‘level’ fordifferent subjects of the curriculum. Bysecondary school the process of sorting andsifting often becomes part of an inflexibleorganisational structure. It is anorganisational arrangement that studentteachers face when they are working inschools but it is also one that discriminatesagainst certain pupils by imposing limitson teaching and learning. In promotingmore equitable and inclusive education, it is necessary therefore to challenge whathas been called the ‘bell curve’ thinkingthat underpins the structure of schooling.Thus, an important aspect of inclusivepedagogy involves an examination ofmany deep-seated assumptions abouthuman differences and an exploration ofalternatives to deterministic, bell curvethinking about human abilities.

The IPP involved colleagues in the School of Education in working to refine, embedand further explore the emergingunderstandings of inclusive pedagogy and its role in initial teacher education(ITE). The IPP approach presented manychallenges for ITE, particularly in preparingteachers to embrace diversity and respondto differences without marginalising somepupils. However, studies of the reformshave highlighted many opportunitieswithin initial teacher education and for the professional development of teachersand teacher educators.

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012ii

ContentsContents

The questions teacher educationcolleagues have asked about thetheoretical concept of inclusion and whatit might mean for their practice, reflect thedebates and concerns about professionalknowledge that are occurring elsewhere.While there is agreement that there isinsufficient content knowledge in initialteacher education about the differenttypes of difficulties children experience inschool, the add-on nature of this contentcan be problematic, leading todisagreements about what beginningteachers need to know and be able to do tosupport all pupils. It is also impossible forall teachers to know everything aboutvarious types of disabilities and difficultiesthat can occur. Expertise is needed aboutwhy some children have difficulties inlearning and many experienced teachershave concerns about inclusion, in partbecause they are not confident they havethe knowledge and skills to teach allpupils. Indeed, many teacher educatorsshare this view to varying degrees.

In this regard the PGDE at Aberdeen servedas a typical site for exploring importantideas about teacher education andinclusion. As a result, the research anddevelopment activities associated with theIPP were designed to generate lessons thatmight be useful to others interested in howbest to prepare new teachers for thedemands of inclusive education. Amongthese key stakeholders are teachereducators, policy makers and school staff.

Short summaries of the IPP have beenprepared with each of these audiences inmind. More broadly, however, a series ofkey findings emerged from the IPPresearch. These are:

• A deeper understanding of the theoretical principles and practical approaches that underpin inclusive pedagogy, where the classroom teacheraccepts responsibility for all learners, should be a central core of all programmes of teacher education.

• In order to build inclusive pedagogical approaches it is helpful to suspend judgments about the practices associated with other, perhaps less inclusive approaches, rather than seeing them as problems. Articulating and debating what is pedagogically significant, and why it is significant, with colleague teacher educators is likely to strengthen the involvement of staff and the sustainability of reform.

• New opportunities for what can be achieved within teacher education, as well as what might be achieved by student teachers as they become teachers, are opened up by an increasing capacity to articulate why, how and what is pedagogically significant to inclusive practice.

• The inclusive pedagogical approach provides a framework for thinking about learning and teaching. It also provides a means of articulating and justifying a way of working that focuses on everyone in the learning community of the classroom.

• A shift in focus away from ‘bell curve thinking’ and notions of fixed ability towards one that reflects the dynamic relationship between teacher and learner is helpful in convincing teachers that they are capable of teaching all learners.

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012iii

ContentsContents

• It is important for teacher educators to reflect on their assumptions about human abilities and diversity as well ashow these beliefs are communicated in initial teacher education and continuing professional development.

• When the task of building inclusive teacher education programmes is described in terms of extending what isgenerally available rather than adding ‘special’ education approaches to an already overloaded programme, it becomes less daunting.

• University-based teacher education hasan important role to play in ensuring that mainstream class teachers are prepared to deal with human differences in ways that include rather than exclude pupils from the culture, curricula and community of mainstream schools. But teacher educators may feel uncomfortable being asked to educate teachers in ways they themselves have not worked. Thus professional development for teacher educators is also needed.

• Building upon and making links with current practices in school in ways that respect and yet challenge them is an essential aspect of university-school partnership in teacher education.

• Schools and classrooms vary in the extent to which inclusion is seen as an important aspect of practice. As a resultit is important for student teachers to learn to negotiate their way through potentially difficult professional situations. This requires an emphasis

on working with other adults and on developing the skills of reflective practice, critical thinking and using evidence from their teaching to inform decision-making.

• The theoretical and practical aspects of inclusion should be assessed as an important element of teacher education programmes.

• The reform of initial teacher education is only the first step in building a profession that accepts the responsibility for enhancing the learning of all pupils, substantial professional development for teachers is also required.

• The findings of the IPP are consistent with the recommendations of the Donaldson Review of teacher educationTeaching Scotland’s Future.

• More than 1500 students successfully completed the reformed PGDE over a six year period from 2007 - 2012.

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012iv

ContentsContents

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to express their gratitude to colleagues in the School of Education, University of Aberdeen for the open way in which they have engagedwith the ideas on inclusion underpinning the reform of the Professional GraduateDiploma in Education (PGDE). In particularwe would like to thank the directors andcourse coordinators of the PGDE over the life of the project and also Myra Pearson,Head of the School of Education (2006-10),for her support and encouragement.

The project advisory group provided crucialinsights and practical support.

Persistent questioning of government and the universities by Sir Jackie Stewart aboutwhy teachers were not better prepared todeal with children’s difficulties was animportant element in establishing theproject.

We are indebted to the ScottishGovernment for funding the project,particularly the Learning Support Divisionand Mike Gibson, one of the architects ofthe project.

Thanks are due to the schools that havewelcomed members of the project teamduring its various research activities.

Our colleagues in the other ScottishUniversities, especially the members of the STEC Framework for Inclusiondevelopment group, played an importantrole in extending our thinking.

The late Professor Donald McIntyre, aninspirational teacher educator and life-long advocate for a fairer educationalsystem, provided great support to theproject until his untimely death.

We would like to express our thanks toProfessor Tony Gallagher, Pro-ViceChancellor of Queen’s University, Belfast,for conducting the insightful externalevaluation of the project at what was avery busy time for him.

We would like to thank the support staffwho worked with the project at varioustimes for all their help: NapalaiHuayhongtong, Sarah Inkson, Marie-LousieSmoor and Lorna Thomson.

Our thanks are also due to the researchstaff of the inclusive practice project teamfor their important contributions to theresearch and to the writing: NigelBeacham, Joy Cameron, Holly Linklater,Jenny Spratt and Kathryn Young.

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012v

ContentsContents

A note on terminology

Pupils refers to children and young people in schoolsStudents refers to student teachers Teacher educators refers to tutorial staff in universitiesTeachers refers to staff in schoolsProgramme graduates are former students on the PGDE at Aberdeen UniversityProgramme refers to the PGDECourse refers to a constituent component of the PGDE

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 2012vi

ContentsContents

Teacher Education for Inclusive Education:Final Report of the Inclusive Practice Project

INCLUSIVE PRACTICE PROJECT September 20121

Contents Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ v

A note on terminology ............................................................................................................ vi

Teacher Education for Inclusive Education: ................................................................. 1

Final Report of the Inclusive Practice Project

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

The Inclusive Practice Project ............................................................................................ 10

Researching the IPP ............................................................................................................... 24

Key Findings of the IPP ......................................................................................................... 38

References .................................................................................................................................. 42

Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 46

A. Reference List of IPP Research Papers ..................................................................47

B. Inclusion Framework (evidencing inclusive pedagogy)............................... 50

C. Number of students on the new PGDE Programme ........................................ 52


Introduction

The Inclusive Practice Project (IPP) emergedfrom an on going interest of staff in theSchool of Education, University of Aberdeenabout the need to reform initial teachereducation to ensure that it might be moreresponsive to the demands facing teachersand schools today. The impetus for reformwas associated with many factorsincluding the increasing diversity inScottish schools and the underachievementof certain groups of pupils, including thosewith additional support needs. This has ledto questions about how initial teacher

education might be reformed to ensure that newly qualified teachers (NQTs) areprepared to enter a profession that takesresponsibility for the learning andachievement of all pupils, particularly when those pupils encounter difficulties inlearning. This report provides details abouthow the IPP has responded to the challengeof developing a new approach to preparingprimary and secondary teachers. It beginswith an overview of the key issues thatwere addressed and a summary of projectactivities.


• Inclusive Practice Project (IPP) - Scottish Government funded initiative to develop new approaches to Initial Teacher Education

• Seeks to promote understanding of educational and social issues that may affect learning, and to develop strategies to respond

• Informed by a concept of inclusive pedagogy

• This report provides an overview of the IPP. It summarises research exploring the extent to which the concept of inclusive pedagogy was embedded in an initial teacher education course; and how it was enacted in practice by beginning teachers.

ContentsContents

A number of research studies wereundertaken to explore the extent to whichthe new approaches were embedded in the reformed programme, reflected in theattitudes of students and teachereducators, and enacted in the practices of programme graduates when they werenew teachers during their induction year.Key findings and lessons for teachereducation, school practice and policy arepresented.

Context

Although, Scotland has retained a largelycomprehensive school system, problems ofequity persist. According to a 2007 reportfrom the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),Quality and equity of schooling in Scotland,the variation between pupil attainment islargely a ‘within school problem’, ratherthan a ‘between school problem’ as inEngland, that is associated with widelyheld beliefs about pupil’s ability andpotential. These beliefs sometimes gettranslated into low expectations andorganisational responses in schools, such asability grouping, setting and special classes.In one of its more critical comments theOECD report points out that previousattempts to help the lowest 20% ofachievers have been largely unsuccessful,in part because they have only focused onthe bottom 20% and often rely onorganisational responses that segregatedsome pupils from the broader range oflearning opportunities that were availableto other pupils. Further, there is aperception that teachers are not

sufficiently well prepared to meet theneeds of all pupils in schools today.These challenges are also apparent in many other countries, and the IPP is part of a broad international attempt to createmore inclusive educational systems.

The importance of Inclusion

Throughout the world, there is an increasedawareness of the problems that arise fromdifferences in access to, and variations inthe outcomes of, education. Thesedifferences are important because of a belief in the power of education toreduce poverty, to improve the lives ofindividuals and groups, and to transformsocieties (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004).Education is not only a right in itself; it isthe means through which other importanthuman rights can be achieved. Yet manyschool systems seem to perpetuate existinginequalities and intergenerational under-achievement. The failure to develop schoolscapable of educating all children, not onlyleads to an educational underclass, but alsoa social and economic underclass whichhas serious consequences for society nowand in the future (Belfield & Levin, 2007).However, there is evidence that someschools can be inclusive as well as beingeffective in raising achievement (Black-Hawkins, Florian & Rouse, 2007). Thedevelopment of successful inclusiveschools, ‘schools for all’, in which thelearning and participation of all pupils isvalued, is an essential task because of thebenefits that such schooling can bring toindividuals, communities and society.


ContentsContents

To what extent are teachersprepared to meet thechallenges of inclusiveschools?

The European Agency on the Developmentof Special Needs Education (EADSNE)(2006) reports that dealing withdifferences and diversity is one of thebiggest challenges facing schools acrossEurope. Barriers to learning andparticipation arise from existingorganisational structures, inflexible orirrelevant curricula, inappropriate systemsof assessment and examination, andnegative attitudes and beliefs about somechildren’s potential. It is argued that thesebarriers are exacerbated by inadequatepreparation of teachers, particularly in thearea of ‘special needs’ and for working ininclusive schools (Forlin, 2001).

In Scotland and the other countries of theUK, teachers face the challenge of teachingpupils whose differences vary across manydimensions. As the concept of ‘inclusiveeducation’ has gained currency, manypupils who would previously have beenreferred to specialist forms of provision,having been judged ‘less able’ or disabled,are now in mainstream classrooms.However, it is often claimed that teacherslack the necessary knowledge and skills towork with such pupils in inclusiveclassrooms. Schools often exclude, or refuseto include, certain pupils on the groundsthat teachers do not have the requisiteknowledge and skills to teach them. Thissense of being unqualified or under-prepared to teach all pupils raises

questions about what constitutes‘necessary knowledge and skills’, anddifferent views about what teachers needto know and how they might be preparedto work in inclusive classrooms have beenexplored in the literature (Abu El-Haj &Rubin, 2009; Fisher, Frey & Thousand,2003; Kershner, 2007; Pugach, 2005;Stayton & McCollum, 2002). However,there are no clear answers to questionsabout how to prepare teachers for thedemands of inclusive education. Someargue that there is insufficient contentknowledge about different types ofdisabilities and difficulties in initialteacher education (ITE) (Hodkinson, 2005;Jones, 2006). In this view, new teachers do not know enough about disabilities anddifficulties such as sensory impairments,dyslexia, autism, ADHD and othersyndromes that are thought to requirespecific training about specialist teachingapproaches that have been developed forpupils with particular kinds of disabilities.In contrast to those who call for morespecial education knowledge in ITE, others(e.g. Slee, 2001) argue for a radical newapproach based on the development ofinclusive approaches to teaching andlearning that do not depend on theidentification of particular forms ofdisability or difficulty.

While these debates about the place ofspecialist knowledge in ITE have been ongoing, the funding to support courses ofcontinuing professional development inthe area of additional needs forexperienced teachers has been reducedover time and the numbers of teacherstaking advanced qualifications has


ContentsContents

declined even further since Julian andWare (1997) and Dyson et al (2001)highlighted the problem about theshortage of specialist expertise in theteacher workforce. This is important,because much of what student teacherslearn about additional support needs andinclusion occurs during school placementwhere there may be a lack of expertise(OFSTED, 2008). Thus, the current contextis one where there is a widely held beliefthat not all teachers are being properlyprepared to work in inclusive schools andat the same time there has been areduction in the availability of awardbearing continuing professionaldevelopment opportunities in the field ofadditional needs for experienced teachers.

Currently, in initial teacher education,modules, courses or inputs on additionalneeds and inclusion may be offered as anoptional extra, available only to somestudents. Typically these courses focus onthe characteristics of particular kinds oflearners, how they should be identified,specialist teaching strategies and theprevailing policy context. The mainproblem is that the content knowledge ofsuch courses is often not well integratedinto the broader curriculum andpedagogical practices of mainstreamsettings. Crucially only some, not all,teachers are able to take such courses,which reinforces the message that they arenot capable of teaching all childrenbecause they have not done the course. Ona one-year Professional Graduate Diplomain Education (PGDE) there may only be one or two lectures plus some follow-upactivities on additional support needs.

Even on courses where input on inclusionis required, the coverage is limited, againreinforcing the view that the education of pupils identified as having difficulties inlearning is the responsibility of additionalsupport needs specialists rather than theresponsibility of classroom and subjectteachers.

The development of inclusive practice isabout the things that staff do in schools,which give meaning to the concept ofinclusive education (Florian, 2009). Itrecognises that all teachers should acceptresponsibility for all children in the classesthat they teach, but it does not reject thenotion of specialist knowledge and doesnot mean that teachers and learners areleft on their own without support. Rather,it is in the use of that support, the waysthat teachers respond to individualdifferences during whole class teaching,the choices they make about group workand how they utilise specialist knowledgethat matter. Thus it involves working withand through others, and teacher educationcourses have to address the ways in whichadults might develop the skills of workingcollaboratively to support children’slearning and participation.

At the heart of this process is thedevelopment of positive relationships(adult to child, adult to adult, and child tochild) and optimistic views about learners.The development of inclusive practicedepends to a large extent on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs as well as theirknowledge and skills. This practicalexpression maps onto Shulman’s (2007)conceptualisation of professional learning


ContentsContents

as apprenticeships of the head(knowledge), hand (skill, or doing), andheart (attitudes and beliefs). Shulman’sconcept of three apprenticeships provide a framework for thinking about thepreparation of teachers who can beconsidered inclusive practitioners. It isimportant to consider how it might bepossible for teachers to develop new waysof believing that all children are wortheducating, that all children can learn, thatthey have the knowledge and skill to makea difference to children’s lives and thatsuch work is their responsibility and notonly a task for specialists. By onlypreparing some teachers to deal withdifference, a climate is created in whichother teachers can reasonably claim thatthese things are not their responsibility.Inclusive practice has to be the task of allteachers if inclusive education is to be aneffective strategy in supporting theachievements of all children. In addition it acknowledges that all teachers requiremore expertise about how to supportpupils when they experience difficultiesin learning. If classroom teachers are totake responsibility for the learning andachievement of all pupils they need to be prepared differently, including knowinghow to access help and support in this task.Clearly, new ways of thinking about howall beginning teachers are prepared andsupported to work in inclusive schools and classrooms are needed, together with new ways of thinking about the role ofspecialist knowledge and workingtogether.

A problem of the educationsystem?

In recent years, the idea of special needseducation as a parallel or separate systemof education to that which is provided tothe majority of children has beenchallenged on the grounds that it leads tosegregation and perpetuatesdiscrimination. Research studies showdifferential treatment based on social class(Dyson, 1997) as well as the over-representation of ethnic minorities(Gillborn & Youdell, 2000) identified ashaving additional or special educationalsupport needs. And yet there is goodhistorical evidence that without specialtreatment (e.g. anti-discriminationlegislation, ring-fencing of resources,provision of specialist support), pupils withdisabilities are denied equal opportunityfor full and meaningful inclusion (Winzer,2007). Since the 1990s the countries of theUK have been working toward improvingaccess to mainstream education for pupilswith disabilities and others identified ashaving additional educational needs. Butprogress has been slow and uneven. Newapproaches to inclusion and to preparingteachers are needed if schools are tobecome more inclusive.

Notions about the ‘additional needs’ ofsome learners are deeply embedded in theeducational system because of the widelyheld assumptions about the nature anddistribution of ability (Fendler & Mufazar,2008), based on the idea that intelligence isfixed and normally distributed throughoutthe population (e.g. Herrnstein & Murray,1996). As a result, expectations and


ContentsContents

achievement levels for some children,including those who have disabilities orother additional needs, or who are fromcertain social, cultural or ethnicbackgrounds, are still too low in manyschools (Gillborn and Youdell, 2000).Because notions of ability have beeninstitutionalised in many responses todifference – through ‘additional support’for some students, or through banding,streaming, setting or other forms of abilitygrouping - they are difficult to replace withalternative responses despite researchwhich has shown how they disadvantagepupils placed in lower sets (e.g. Ireson,Hallam & Huntley, 2005).

The Problem of AdditionalEducational Needs

While understanding differences betweenlearners has been a central interest ofresearch and practice in additional (special)needs education, the emphasis on studyinghuman differences has perpetuated abelief that such differences are not onlypredictive of difficulties in learning, butthey are to be expected. This is a view that has become self-reinforcing and hassustained deficit-based categoricalapproaches to the provision of educationalservices in many countries. Yet, it is alsowell known that the frequently usedcategories of disability have not proveduseful in determining educationalinterventions (Ysseldyke, 2001). Since the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) therehave been efforts across the UK to abandoncategorical and deficit thinking about

children who experience difficulties inlearning, but with limited success(Norwich, 2008). Scotland has gone furtherthan other countries in the UK byattempting to leave behind the languageof special educational needs. TheEducation (Additional Support forLearning) (Scotland) Act (ScottishExecutive, 2005/09) introduced a newconcept of 'additional support needs' torefer any child or young person who, forwhatever reason, requires additionalsupport for learning. Though the Actreplaced the old system for the assessmentand recording of children with specialeducational needs, and introduced a newsystem for identifying and addressing theadditional support needs of children andyoung people who face barriers tolearning, careful reading of its provisionshas raised concern that it does little morethan replicate the previous system (Allan,2006). Indeed the definition in thelegislation of additional support, as that‘which is additional to, or otherwisedifferent from, the educational provisionthat is generally provided to their peers’(Scottish Executive, 2005) is the same as the definition of special educational needsprovision that it replaced.

The United Nations Convention on theRights of Persons with Disabilities(UNCRPD) (United Nations, 2006), calls foreducation systems to ensure that, “personswith disabilities receive the supportrequired, within the general educationsystem, to facilitate their effectiveeducation”. The UNCRPD calls for stafftraining to, “incorporate disabilityawareness and the use of appropriate


ContentsContents

augmentative and alternative modes,means and formats of communication,educational techniques and materials tosupport persons with disabilities”. Clearlythe availability of specialised support isseen as an important aspect of inclusiveeducation. But the specialist supportdemanded by inclusive education requiresthat it be provided without perpetuatingthe segregating practices that have beenassociated with traditional approaches tospecial education. Addressing thischallenge requires a consideration of theimplications for how primary andsecondary education teachers are preparedto work in schools and classrooms that areincreasingly diverse.


ContentsContents

The task of teacher educationfor inclusive education

Criticisms of the ways in which teachersare prepared to deal with diversity andlearning difficulties are two-fold. As notedpreviously, one view holds that there is aspecific body of knowledge and a set ofskills for working with ‘special’ childrenand that initial teacher education coursesdo not adequately cover these matters. Thesecond claims that because inclusion is notonly about ‘special’ pupils, teachereducation should focus on improvingteaching and learning and should helpbeginning teachers to reduce the barriersto learning and participation of all pupils.

Both these views are right to an extent, buteach response is insufficient. A new way ofthinking about the problem of teachingwhich does not deny human differences, but attempts to respond to them within what is ordinarily available in schools, rather than by marking some children asdifferent, is needed (Florian, 2007). Thisrequires all teachers to acceptresponsibility for all the pupils they teachwith confidence that they know how toaccess appropriate support whennecessary.


The Inclusive Practice Project

Fig. 1: PGDE Model of Inclusive Practice

A definition of inclusion: ...the process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion from theculture, curricula and community of mainstream schools...” Booth & Ainscow (2002)

ContentsContents

It is important therefore to move beyondpolarised debates about whether beginning teachers only need to knowhow to improve teaching and learning by removing barriers to participation orwhether they need more specialistknowledge about disability and individualchildren’s learning needs. In the short timethat student teachers are in initialpreparation it is impossible to anticipateevery type of difficulty they might meet intheir professional lives.

The task of initial teacher education is toprepare new teachers to enter a professionwhich accepts individual and collectiveresponsibility for improving the learningand participation of all children, takingaccount that there will be differencesbetween them.

Origins of the IPP

The origins of the Inclusive Practice Project(IPP) can be traced to the confluence of key people, concerns and events. One ofthe key people is Sir Jackie Stewart, formerFormula One world motor racingchampion, who, based on his ownexperiences at school, was concernedabout the long-term consequences ofreading difficulties caused by dyslexia. In particular he believes that teachers arenot sufficiently well prepared to deal withpupils who have dyslexia in theirclassrooms. A related concern thatexpectations and achievement levels forsome pupils, particularly those identifiedas having additional support needs,including dyslexia, are still too low in

many schools was shared by the Scottish Executive who indicated that they wereprepared to support a teacher educationproject based at one of the ScottishUniversities.

Sir Jackie visited the principals of a numberof Scottish universities to see if he couldpersuade any of them to adopt a specificprogramme aimed at preparing teachersbetter to understand and deal withproblems associated with dyslexia. Heclaims to have had the most sympathetichearing at the University of Aberdeen,where the Principal and the then Head ofthe School of Education expressed keeninterest.

As the shape of a specific proposal startedto emerge there was a move away from anarrow focus on dyslexia in favour of abroader approach to learning difficultiesand support needs based on the idea ofinclusion that would be consistent withemerging Scottish policy. There wasencouragement from the Support forLearning Unit within the ScottishExecutive for the project to adopt a broaderdefinition of inclusion that would beconsistent with new legislation (Education,Additional Support for Learning Act(Scotland), 2005; 2009) and Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) (ScottishExecutive, 2006). At the same time, theGeneral Teaching Council (Scotland) withthe support of the universities through the Scottish Teacher Education Committee(STEC) was looking at changes to theStandards for Initial Teacher Education(SITE) and at the role of additional supportfor learning within such changes.


ContentsContents

As a result of the national context and in light of the foregoing debates anddiscussions, the Inclusive Practice Project(IPP) in the School of Education, Universityof Aberdeen was tasked with developingnew approaches to preparing teachers sothat they would:

• have a greater awareness and understanding of the educational and social problems/issues that can affect children’s learning; and

• have developed strategies they can use to support and deal with such difficulties.

Thus while the impetus for change wasdriven by the interests and experience of key stakeholders and the reform agenda inScotland, it was also informed by the viewthat more flexible approaches to preparing

teachers for the demands of 21st centuryschools were needed in the light of newunderstandings about inclusion, emerginginsights into children’s learning and asworking practices across education, healthand social services responded to theGIRFEC agenda (Scottish Executive, 2006).

A New Professional GraduateDiploma in Education

In 2006, with these challenges in mind, theSchool of Education began the reform ofthe Professional Graduate Diploma inEducation (PGDE), a one-year university-based initial teacher education programmefor those who already have graduated withan acceptable degree.


Fig. 2: PGDE Programme - Components and Connections

ContentsContents

The reformed programme that served as asite for the IPP resulted from a long processof consultation between university stafftogether with teachers, former graduates,representatives from local authorities andteacher unions, in the development of newapproaches so that new teachers wouldaccept professional responsibility for thelearning and participation of all the pupilsthey teach, together with knowledge aboutwhere and how to get help, advice andsupport if necessary to develop inclusivepractice.

As shown in Figure 2, (see p.12), the PGDE is informed by the Scottish Standards forInitial Teacher Education (SITE) (GTCS,2006) and recognises the importance ofpartnership – the idea that studentteachers become teachers by working in schools. The university supports thelearning that occurs in schools with acurriculum incorporating professional and theoretical knowledge. Mindful thattheoretical knowledge can be inconsistent

with practice in schools, the programme is also designed to support students toengage in critical and reflective practice in order to help them make sense of their experiences in schools.

The PGDE incorporates professional andtheoretical knowledge as well as skills inresearch and reflection. Half theprogramme (18 weeks) is spent in schoolexperience placements, the other 18 weeksconsists of university-based learning.

The programme is made up of a number ofdistinct but integrated courses(Professional Studies, Further ProfessionalStudies, Learning through the Curriculumand School Experience) that cohere arounda set of programme aims. These aims aredesigned to:

• prepare teachers for making a contribution to the development of pupils within school, and


Fig. 3: PGDE Professional Studies Course Overview

ContentsContents

• to enable them to become effective teachers of the curriculum and to attainhigh standards of professional practice.

In addition, at the time of the IPP, a newnational curriculum, Curriculum forExcellence (CfE) was adopted. Integratingthe aims and principles of CfE (figure 7 p.17)was an important development activity forthe PGDE course team.

The PGDE Professional Studies course ‘wasconsidered an ideal site for the IPP reformbecause it covered issues common to allprimary and secondary student teachers as developing professionals with an emphasis on those which haveimplications for direct action in theclassroom such as creating an inclusiveenvironment for learning’ (Graham, Bruce& Munro, 2011). Professional Studiesbecame the ‘spine’ of the new programmeand was used to promote the key messages and underpinning principles in relation tothe aims of the IPP.

There were two key elements in theprocess of reform: changes to the structureof the programme and changes to thecontent of the professional studies course.In turn these changes were informed byboth practical and theoreticalconsiderations. Three ideas that emergedfrom earlier work on questions of specialand inclusive education (Florian, 2007)were given particular attention.

These were:

• clearer thinking about the rights to, and in, education;

• the need to challenge deterministic views about ability, and

• a shift in focus from differences between learners, to learning for all.

Addressing these three theoretical ideasbecame the basis of the developmentactivities that led to the new ProfessionalStudies course.


Our vision of the teacher as an Inclusive Practitioner is linked to the underpinning design principles of ‘Curriculum for Excellence’. Both aim to improve opportunities for learning, recognise the impor-tance of learning and working together, value diversity and a wider interpretation of achievement.

Definition of Inclusion: “...the process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion from theculture, curricula and community of mainstream schools...” Booth & Ainscow (2002)

Aims of ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ - “The purpose of the programme is to improve the learning,attainment and achievement of children and young people in Scotland. It is also about ensuringthat pupils achieve on a broad front, not just in terms of examinations. It is important to ensure thatchildren and young people are acquiring the full range of skills and abilities relevant to growing,living and working in the contemporary world. Curriculum for Excellence aims to ensure that theywill enjoy greater choice and opportunity to help realise their individual talents.”

Fig. 4: Inclusive Practitioner

ContentsContents


The over-riding aim was to help newteachers accept the responsibility for thelearning of all pupils and to know where toturn for help when required. Two books,Learning without Limits (Hart, Dixon,Drummond and McIntyre, 2004) andAchievement and Inclusion in Schools(Black-Hawkins, Florian and Rouse, 2007) were among the key texts chosen for thecourse.

As the course team began thinking abouthow the principles that were emergingfrom the development work could beincorporated into the PGDE programme, itbecame clear that decisions would have tobe made about what beginning teacherswould need to know and be able to do,within a framework of values and beliefs

about social justice, educational rights andinclusion. The outcome of this debateformed the content of the professionalstudies course as reflected in Figure 8 (p.18).

Theoretical underpinnings

The IPP adopted the position that inclusiveeducation should not be thought of as adenial of individual differences, but anaccommodation of them, within thestructures and processes that are availableto all learners. In other words, it should bea normal part of a school’s response whenpupils experience difficulties. The IPP embraced the view that all learnersare not the same and human differenceshould not be ignored or denied.

The vision of the Inclusive Practitioner is the key driver through the PGDE programme at the University of Aberdeen. The 4 elements of inclusion and the CfE 7 principles for design provide our framework.

Definition of Inclusion: “...the process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion from theculture, curricula and community of mainstream schools...” Booth & Ainscow (2002)

Aims of ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ - “The purpose of the programme is to improve the learning,attainment and achievement of children and young people in Scotland. It is also about ensuringthat pupils achieve on a broad front, not just in terms of examinations. It is important to ensure that children and young people are acquiring the full range of skills and abilities relevant togrowing, living and working in the contemporary world. Curriculum for Excellence aims to ensurethat they will enjoy greater choice and opportunity to help realise their individual talents.”

We argue that there is a sound relationship between the vision of the teacher as an InclusivePractitioner and the underpinning design principles of ‘Curriculum for Excellence’. Both aim toimprove opportunities for learning, recognise the importance of learning and working together, valuediversity and a wider interpretation of achievement.

Fig. 5: PGDE Programme Architecture

ContentsContents

The task is not to accommodate learnerdifferences by providing something‘different from’ or ‘additional to’, as definedin the legislation, but to challenge andextend what is ‘generally available’(Florian, 2007). This idea of extending whatis ‘generally available’ was generated byon-going research on the ‘craft knowledge’of experienced teachers which wasshowing that the need to provide supportthat is ‘different from’ or ‘additional to’that which is otherwise available could bereduced by extending what was generallyavailable to all (Florian & Black-Hawkins,2011).

The Inclusive PedagogicalApproach

In order to extend what is generallyavailable, three ideas have to be givenparticular attention in teacher education.First, the approach begins with theassumption that programmes of initialteacher education must take differenceinto account from the outset as a centralconcept of human development. Instructuring the PGDE, therefore, deliberatedecisions were made to teach about issuesof diversity and social justice in educationat the beginning of the course in order tomake the point that difference is part ofthe human condition.


Fig. 6: Four Elements of Inclusion

ContentsContents

However, as Hart and her colleagues(2004) point out, daily life in schoolsprovides many opportunities to learn adifferent message. Real equity in learningopportunities, they suggest, only ‘becomespossible when young people’s schoolexperiences are not organised andstructured on the basis of judgements ofability’ (p3), and this is made explicit in therejection of what they have termed‘deterministic’ views of ability and otherscall ‘bell-curve thinking’ in education(Fendler & Muzaffar, 2008).

The challenge in supporting studentteachers to explore different assumptionsabout learning demands that teachereducation courses adopt a broad andmulti- faceted view of learning. To this end, the second idea is that a

socio-cultural perspective on learningshould underpincourse development. This is particularly important as socio-cultural theory offers an interactive way of thinking about learners and learningrather than something that developsaccording to a biologically determinedsequence. In particular, the concept oftransformability (Hart, Dixon, Drummond& McIntyre, 2004, see fig.9) offers analternative approach that replacespedagogical approaches to teaching basedon ‘bell-curve thinking’ and ideas of fixedintelligence. It was derived from ananalysis of teachers’ thinking and thechoices they made as reflected in theobserved practice of teachers who hadrejected ability labelling and groupingstrategies in their teaching.


Fig. 7: CfE Design Principles

ContentsContents


Fig. 8: PGDE - Professional Studies Working Group - Integrated Framework

Inclusive Pedagogy

Inclusive Pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning that represents a shift in thinking about teaching and learning from that which works for most learners along with something ‘different’ or additional’ for those who experience difficulties, to anapproach to teaching and learning that involves the creation of a rich learningenvironment characterised by lessons and learning opportunities that are sufficientlymade available to everyone so that all are able to participate in classroom life.

ContentsContents

Transformability refers to,“… a firm and unswerving conviction thatthere is the potential for change in currentpatterns of achievement and response,that things can change and be changed forthe better, sometimes even dramatically, asa result of what happens and what peopledo in the present.”

(Hart, Dixon, Drummond and McIntyre, 2004:166)

The key argument here is when learning is viewed as a result of a dynamic processof social interaction that occurs over timeand within specific contexts, it leads to thedevelopment of a more ‘inclusivepedagogy’ because it offers a way ofthinking about how to understand andrespond to the complexities inherent inteaching diverse groups of pupils.


Fig. 9: Transformability

ContentsContents

Thus, the third idea involves a focus oncollaborative ways of working with andthrough others as promoted by Getting itRight for Every Child (GIRFEC) (ScottishExecutive, 2006) and other approaches ofworking together (Thousand, Nevin andVilla, 2007), using the ideas about learning,pedagogy and inclusion discussed above.Pupils may be identified as havingimpairments such as autism or dyslexia,for example, and may encounterdifficulties in learning that requireteachers to seek specialist support andadvice. However, in so doing, the teacherdoes not relinquish responsibility for thepupil. Rather than send the pupil to thespecialist, the specialist is called upon tosupport the teacher in enabling the pupilto have a meaningful learning experiencein the context of the classroomcommunity.

These ideas were intended to permeate theprofessional studies course in lectures andtutor group discussions. On the basis ofthese theoretical foundations, majorchanges were made to the structure andcontent of the programme in whichprimary and secondary student teacherswere brought together for the professionalstudies element of the programme.Inclusion is now addressed at the heart ofthe programme from the outset; it is notjust an optional course selected by some, or as a series of additional lectures.

Structure of the ProfessionalGraduate Diploma in Education

The reform of the programme wasstructured around three core themes of theprofessional studies strand of theprogramme and was linked to keyassumptions underpinning the IPPapproach, the barriers that might beencountered and the actions that would berequired in the PGDE. These are displayedin Table 1 (see p.21) and Figure 3 (see p.13).


ContentsContents

The Core Themes ofProfessional Studies

1) Understanding Learning

• Understanding socio-cultural perspectives on learning

• Replacing ‘bell-curve’ thinking with thenotion of ‘transformability’

• Considering issues relating to educational and emotional literacies

2) Understanding Social Justice

• Considering dilemmas of access and equity in education

• Examining the role of ‘additional support’

3) Becoming an Active Professional

• Developing autonomy and resourcefulness, practical and ethical responsibility

• Emphasising teacher responsibility to look for new ways of working by working with and through others

Underlying Assumptions Actions Key ChallengesProfessional Studies

Course Themes/Units

Difference must beaccounted for as anessential aspect of human development inany conceptualisation of learning

Replacing deterministicviews of ability with aconcept of transformability

‘Bell-curve’ thinking andnotions of fixed ability stillunderpin the structure ofschooling

Understanding Learning

Teachers must believe(can be convinced) thatthey are qualified/capableof teaching all children

Demonstrating how thedifficulties studentsexperience in learning canbe considered dilemmasfor teaching rather thanproblems within students.

The identification ofdifficulties in learning and the associated focuson what the learner cannotdo often puts a ceiling onlearning and achievement.

Understanding SocialJustice

The profession mustdevelop creative newways of working withothers

Modeling new creativeways of working with andthrough others.

Change the way we thinkabout inclusion (from‘most’ and ‘some’ toeverybody)

Becoming an ActiveProfessional

Table 1: Inclusive Pedagogical Practice Approach Linked to Course Themes


ContentsContents

The programme was structured so thatprimary and secondary student teachersare taught professional studies coursestogether, while curriculum courses areorganised by phase and subject. Bycombining primary and secondary studentteachers for lectures, workshops and tutorgroup activities, learning opportunitiescould focus on the general insights of education in the practical context of classroom teaching. The rationale was that primary and secondary teachers have much to offer and learn from eachother. It was also intended to modelcollaborative working across sectors and toengage student teachers in a livedexperience of cross-sectorial collaborationfrom the outset in order to try to breakdown preconceived ideas about thedifferent phases.

In structuring the programme in this way,the emphasis was placed on implicationsfor action in the classroom. Although thePGDE is based on the recognition thatinitial teacher education cannot producethe ‘finished article’, it can only prepareteachers to enter the profession, there wasalso an awareness that new teachers needto learn strategies for working with andthrough others.

The emphasis on working with others isnot only because of the changing nature of schools but because of the increase innumbers and range of other adultsworking to support pupils in schools. One task for teacher education is to help all teachers to think about the difficultieschildren experience in learning asopportunities for teaching (e.g. Hart, 2000).

This aim is to build confidence and broadenthe student teachers’ repertoire of skillsand strategies, including collaborativeways of working with other adults.

University and school-basedlearning

In Scotland, the partnership arrangementswith schools are made administrativelyand there is an assumption that all schoolsand teachers should participate inpreparing future teachers. As a result, theSchool of Education has very little role indetermining the schools and classroomswhere student teachers are placed. Yet,Hagger and McIntyre (2006) have arguedthat as students prepare to becometeachers the most powerful learning occurs during the school experience.

To prepare teachers for inclusive educationwithin the reformed PGDE, the IPP teamwere drawn to McIntyre’s (2005) proposalsfor bridging the gap between differentkinds of knowledge. At one end of thecontinuum McIntyre places research-basedknowledge that has been generalised insome way and which teachers find difficultto use in their classroom practice. At theother end of the continuum he placesteachers’ professional craft knowledge,which is concerned with addressing thecomplexities of everyday classroompractice and tends to be privileged bymany teachers over research–basedknowledge.


ContentsContents

McIntyre’s research-practice continuum isbased on the premise that the gap betweenresearch and practice is in effect a gapbetween two different kinds of knowledge.In the centre of his research-practicecontinuum is a space in which there arepossibilities for practitioner research andreflection which might help to bridge thegap between research generated theoryand practice. Given the contested natureof the concept of inclusion and the manyinterpretations of inclusion as practice,student teachers inevitably encounter awide range of experiences and situationsduring school placements. For the IPP,university-based experiences needed to be structured in ways that would supportstudents to acquire a critical view ofpractice without criticising the practicethey observed or experienced. To this end,a reflective problem-solving approach,guided by Brookfield’s (1995) ideas ofcritical reflection was adopted. Herestudent teachers are guided to ask a seriesof questions of themselves that help themto think pedagogically about thedifficulties pupils experience in learningrather than to assume that the difficultyarises from something that is wrong withthe child. Within the context of the PGDEthis was thought to provide the meansthrough which student teachers might beable to negotiate a path betweenrespecting the practices of the school whenfinding opportunities to ‘try out’ inclusivepedagogical practices.


ContentsContents

Researching the IPP

The IPP was both a development and aresearch project. It involved a complexprocess of elaborating, embedding andsimultaneously researching selectedaspects of the project, while alsocontinuing to study and learn from thepractices of teachers committed toinclusive practice. This necessitatedconsideration of how a reciprocal processbased on research-based practice andpractice-based research might beadvanced.

The expertise and interests of our teachereducation colleagues contributedenormously to the generation of newknowledge about inclusive practice,children’s learning and teacher education.In light of the contested nature of inclusiveeducation and with previous teachereducation reform efforts in mind, the IPPresearch and development teamendeavoured to design a research strategythat would capture how teacher educatorsengaged with a complex reform processthat involved changes that were bothpractical (e.g. structural reforms to thecourse) and theoretical (embeddinginclusive pedagogical approaches into thecourse content). Teacher educationcolleagues were viewed as collaboratorsengaged with the reform agenda invarying degrees. As in other schools ofeducation there were many differences ofopinion within the teaching team aboutwhether, what and how the reformsshould proceed. The questions ourcolleagues asked of both theory andpractice reflected the debates and concerns

that were occurring elsewhere. To thisextent we saw Aberdeen as a typical sitefor teacher education and the intentionwas that what we learned about thereform of teacher education for inclusiveeducation might be useful elsewhere.

A programme of research (Appendix A)supplemented the development work onthe IPP and was carried out with theconsent and collaboration of colleagues.The research consisted of four areas ofstudy which focused on: (1) the coursereforms (Florian & Rouse, 2009, Florian &Linklater, 2010; Florian, Young & Rouse,2010; Florian, Linklater & Young, 2011;Graham, Bruce & Munro, 2011; Young &Florian 2011); (2) teacher educators’professional development (Florian, 2012);(3) surveys of students’ attitudes towardsinclusion (Beacham & Rouse, 2011); (4) afollow up study of course graduates(Spratt, Florian & Rouse, 2011). This sectionpresents a summary of the research and asynthesis of findings across the studiesthat collectively identify some of the keylessons of the IPP.


ContentsContents

Studying the course reforms

The PGDE addressed three challenges:

(1) how teacher education might take difference into account from the outset (knowing);

(2) how student teachers might be convinced that they are qualified to teach children with ‘additional needs,’ (believing); and

(3) how student teachers might learn new strategies for working with and through others (doing).

Two studies of these curriculum reformswere designed to investigate the extent towhich the theoretical reforms had evolvedduring the development process and hadbecome embedded in the course, toidentify contradictions in the curriculum,as well as areas that might benefit fromfuture development work (Florian, Young& Rouse, 2010). Methods for data collectionand analysis were developed to enable anexploration of the complexity of initial teacher education and the complexity ofwhat was called the inclusive pedagogical approach, or inclusive pedagogy. It isimportant to note that the purpose of these studies was not course evaluation, or an evaluation of student teachers, or of teacher educators.

Collection of data was focused onrecording the content of professionalstudies lectures and workshops/seminarsin order to answer a series of questionsabout whether and how the reforms wereembedded in the course and to identifyany contradictions between what we aimed to achieve and what was actuallyachieved. The video and audio recordings

were transcribed and entered intoTransana, a software package that enablesmultiple users to work from differentlocations simultaneously. Throughout theperiod of data collection we shared whatwe were doing and learning with theteaching team through formal andinformal data sharing sessions which alsogenerated rich qualitative data that wererecorded as field notes. Formal sessionsincluded annual professional developmentevents held in June of each year. Informalevents were held as requested by theteaching team, for example before alecture or tutorial.

The curriculum study (Florian, Young &Rouse, 2010) deepened our understandingof the principles used to define the conceptof inclusive pedagogy, and how theseprinciples were understood andcommunicated by teacher educators.Although each level of analysis wasdiscrete, together they formed part of aniterative and cumulative process thatenabled a deeper understanding of theimplications of the initial reformsundertaken, the continual development ofthe programme, and the articulation of theprinciples that inform the reform in waysthat ensure they are not specific orparticular to the context of the Aberdeenprogramme.

For example, at the descriptive first level ofanalysis questions about whether and howthe key concepts and principles wereidentified as foundational for theprofessional learning and development ofinclusive practitioners had been embedded


ContentsContents

in the programme. The initial analysis of the data provided rich detail about the ideas, concepts and strategies lecturers consider important, as well ashow these were conveyed. For example,the data showed 48% of lecturer talk codedas ‘theory and practice’, suggesting thatlecturers were spending almost half oftheir time making explicit attempts toconnect theory to practice.

For the second level of analysis, datasummaries of each of the codes weredeveloped enabling a deep engagementwith what the data were revealing asnoted in Fig. 10 above. For example, in 14 of 15 lectures, personal stories of varyinglength were used as a vehicle to make atheoretical point.

Here, a lecturer might tell a story aboutwhen he or she was a classroom teacherand made an incorrect assumption aboutthe ability of a child or young person. Such a story served to act discursively,provoking an examination of theassumptions held about pupils’ ability, ordemonstrating how the lecturer reflectedon the experience and learned from his orher mistakes, which reinforced the drive tobe a better teacher. One insight emergingfrom the ‘data sharing’ with teaching staffthat occurred throughout the studyrepresents a key lesson learned. That is, theteaching team relied heavily on personalstories as a pedagogic tool to convey coursecontent but the IPP reforms were making adifferent demand.


Fig. 10: IPP Coding Frame

ContentsContents

As one lecturer noted: ‘you are asking me toteach in ways that I myself did not teachwhen I was in the classroom.’ When coupledwith the insight from the dataset about theimportance of personal stories to howteacher educators help student teachersbridge the theory practice gap, it wasrealized just what a challenging task hadbeen set by the reforms.

Another study explored how studentteachers engage with key aspects ofinclusive pedagogy (Florian and Linklater,2010). As part of the PGDE, students arerequired to undertake a course in FurtherProfessional Studies’ (FPS). The FPS courseprovides an opportunity for students todeepen their understanding of an aspect ofthe topics covered in the professionalstudies element of the PGDE in part toextend and deepen knowledge,understanding and expertise in oneprofessional area of personal interest. TheFPS course ‘Learning without Limits’ wasinspired by the book Learning withoutLimits (Hart et al., op. cit.) as a means ofexploring how it is possible to createinclusive learning environments withoutrelying on ability or attainment asorganising principles for teaching. Thecourse entails a notional student effort of50 hours, 25 hours of which are tutordirected (including 14 hours contact intaught sessions) and 25 hours of which arestudent directed.

Qualitative data were collected by audio-recording the tutorial sessions and classdiscussions from the 2007-08 coursecohort. Verbatim transcripts were analysedby an inductive analysis of data from theFPS Learning without Limits that was

undertaken to identify key themes fordiscussion and self-study as the course wasbeing developed. The study explored howstudent-teachers engaged with theprinciples of inclusive pedagogy as theyreflected on the concept oftransformability; how they respondedwhen they encountered pupilsexperiencing difficulties in learning; andhow they worked collaboratively withothers, particularly colleagues who werecommitted to ability grouping as a meansof differentiating teaching. Because thefocus of the study was on how the studentswere engaging with and using the ideaspresented in Learning without Limits as anexample of inclusive pedagogy, thedecision was taken to focus on analysingthe stories students told about theirexperiences while on school placements.This provided rich descriptions of practicethat reflect how the students engaged with the theoretical ideas of the course.

The analysis identified five themes:

• developing an appreciation of the impact of ability labelling

• new ways of thinking about teaching• responding to individuals and offering

choices• taking risks, adapting the curriculum,

and being surprised• new ways of working with others

The thematic analysis of the coursetranscripts revealed how student-teachers’understanding of inclusive pedagogyemerged as they engaged with the conceptof transformability that was taught on theFPS course.


ContentsContents

The findings from this study supported the possibility that the clear rigorousframework for thinking about therelationship between teaching andlearning provided by the book Learningwithout Limits contributes to the kind ofenhanced professionalism sought by theaims of the IPP. The course encouragedteaching in ways that actively createdspaces for teachers to be surprised by how and what the children learned. This contradicts a culture more common in schools where teachers and student and teachers are expected to teach to pre-determined ‘learning intentions’ or ‘lessonobjectives’ with carefully differentiatedexpectations for some children.

The study highlighted the potential forsurprise and its importance inunderstanding the significance of teachers’thinking about how opportunities forlearning are made available to all children.The core idea of transformability provideda tangible way for student teachers torecognise their capacity to teach alllearners.


Students became alert to:

• how ability labelling is used in schools;• the effect’s of ability labelling on children’s learning.

• that teachers can make alternative choices;• In making alternative choices, they enhance all children’s learning.

Today it really hit me...from the lecture; and, what I want to take forward to my next practice is howyou properly include children who are doing otherthings in the class, rather than just giving themany old work and leaving them to it - as they canstart to disrupt the classroom.It’s made me really think about just the one or twoin each of the classes who behave like that, andwhy.

There are two children in the class that went tothe base for English and Maths and a lot of otherthings, they were out quite alot and missed out alot. And another wee (small) boy who had specificbehavioural issues, violent, and he had to sit onhis own in a back corner. And when I was thereand during all my lessons I let him sit back atgroup... He got to join a group and he workedmuch better and his behaviour improvedmassively.

Fig. 11: Further Professional Studies: Learning without Limits - Students’ Comments

ContentsContents

Students had to overcome the challenges of:

• The culture in schools whereby some children are excluded from what is made ‘generally available’;

• Choice could be used as an inclusive pedagogical tool that also respected the ‘status quo’.

One of the problems I experienced was that usually in a writing lesson, the lower ability group are usually sent off... totally separate from their entire class. So I asked the teacher if there was any chance of me involvingthese children more. We decided to compromise and gave the children the choice... - the choice to either stay in the class and work moreindependently or, if they wanted the extra support, then they could still go through with the support staff. And lots of children were not veryconfident in poetry writing so four of the five children decided to go and gettheir extra help. But one of the wee (little) girls, who was in this group, justjumped at the chance and really was excited to stay in the class and workedwith everybody else.

Students had to overcome the challenges of:

• Expectations that, as teachers, they should determine or predict what children will learn

• Lessons could be planned that allowed for children to ‘surprise’ their teacher with what they have learned

• Teachers do not need to pre-determine potential for attainment for children to make achievements in learning

...first year French class. I had been using some of the language to open the lesson and close thelesson, and little bits in the middle, and theyhadn’t been used to it and I was sort of nervousabout taking it further...I was absolutely stunnedhow it changed the classroom environment... with all of them, they all started to speak back in French when they asked something.

...It was done with strengths. One girl wasincredibly assertive...in terms of managing hergroup, and I had never seen that at all in theclassroom...it wouldn’t have come out if I had put her into a group...




ContentsContents

An iterative process at work

During the IPP, initial understandings andarticulations of the principles orassumptions that had driven the reformsbecame more nuanced and sophisticated.This was reflected by the perpetuation ofthe need to engage with the ideas moredeeply. The original intention had beenthat the study would consider evidence ofthe uptake of the ideas expressed asunderlying assumptions into practice. Thiswas understood in terms of researchingwhat might be associated with learning tobe an inclusive practitioner, and (later),what might count as evidence of inclusivepedagogy (Florian & Spratt, 2012, AppendixB). Because the purpose of the study wasnot course evaluation, or an evaluation ofstudent teachers, or teacher educators, away needed to be found to capture andexplore how our understanding of theconcepts associated with inclusivepedagogy had developed over the course ofthe IPP. The method used at the third levelof analysis enabled a re-examination of thecomplex issues raised during the study.

As noted above, at the outset of this study,key concepts associated with the emergingarticulation of inclusive pedagogy wereexpressed as:

(1) the understanding that the challenge of inclusive practice is to respect and respond to human differences in ways that include rather than exclude learners in what is ordinarily available to others in the daily life of the classroom. Such an understanding is manifested when

(2) the teacher works to extend what isordinarily available to all, as opposed todoing something ‘additional’ or ‘different’ from that which is available to others. This is a complex pedagogicalendeavour that depends on

(3) a shift in thinking about teaching and learning from that which works for most learners along with something ‘additional’ or ‘different’ for those who experience difficulties, to the creation of lessons and learning opportunities that enable all learners to participate inclassroom life.

Supported by the findings of parallelstudies of the craft knowledge ofexperienced teachers committed toinclusive practice in mainstream schools(Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2010) weworked with our colleagues in the Schoolof Education to refine, embed and furtherexplore the emerging understandings ofthe concept of inclusive pedagogy, aprincipled approach to the relationshipbetween teaching and learning, where theclassroom teacher accepts responsibilityfor all learners.

The study of the reforms to the PGDE at theUniversity of Aberdeen has highlightedmany opportunities that exist in initialteacher education to prepare teachers toembrace diversity and respond todifferences without marginalising pupilswho experience difficulties in learning. Therich data set that was generated during theproject is currently being used for furtherstudy with an emphasis on analyses thatwork with (rather than deconstruct) thecomplexity of the theoretical concepts.


ContentsContents

In one study (Florian, Linklater and Young,2011), Stake’s (2006) method of multicasestudy analysis was used to examine howthe assumptions underpinning the IPPapproach to ITE were enacted (embeddedand implemented) in the PGDE. A secondstudy (Graham, 2011) explores how teachereducation can address the gap between the different kinds of knowledge that aregenerated by research and practice, andbetween what students learn in school and what they learn in the university. This study applies a hermeneuticphenomenological reflection to examinethe lifeworld of pre-service teachers andtheir tutors in their university class. Bothstudies are intended to enable a morecomplete understanding of how inclusivepedagogy is developed through teachereducation.

Professional development of teacher educators

As the spine of the new programme, the PGDE Professional Studies became the vehicle to promote the key messagesand underpinning principles in relation to the aims of the IPP as articulated inTable 1 (p.21). These teaching sessions were held throughout the year before and after school placement. The school-based element of the PGDE comprises aseries of school placements (18 weeks intotal) in two different schools withscheduled visits from university staff(school experience tutors) where lessonsare observed and assessed. During theacademic year 2007-08, fourteen tutorialgroups averaging 27 students (n = 388),

were staffed by a teaching team of primaryand secondary teacher education lecturers,many of whom did not see themselves ashaving direct experience of special orinclusive education. Consequently thepractical reforms were extended toconsider issues of professionaldevelopment for teacher educators, andthe IPP team began to offer formal andinformal meetings with tutors to discussthe course readings and activities as wellas to debrief after taught sessions.

Embedding the theoretical ideas into theprogramme reform heightened awarenessof the contested nature of the ideas thatunderpinned the reforms (these arediscussed in Florian, Linklater & Young,2011). Doing so also reinforced the decisionto draw upon practice-based studies of thecraft knowledge of experienced teachers inshaping the pedagogical knowledge aboutinclusion. As these studies suggested,teaching student teachers to questionwhat is generally available and extendlearning opportunities for everyone in the classroom community is a complextask. It requires teacher educators andstudent teachers to develop sensitivity to differences between learners withoutperpetuating the stigmatising effects ofmarking some pupils as different.

Throughout the project, feedback fromteaching and research colleagues at openmeetings was used to deepenunderstanding of the reforms. Over time,this process led to the insight that teachereducators needed opportunities forprofessional development that wouldsupport them in preparing new teachersfor the demands of inclusive education.


ContentsContents

Symeonidou & Phitaka (2009) used surveyresearch to show how experiencedteachers’ prior knowledge of inclusioncould be used to inform in-service coursesthat were both academically robust andprofessionally useful. What then could belearned from the experience at Aberdeenthat might help identify suchopportunities for teacher educators?

Over the course of the IPP, members of theresearch team took field notes during staffand teaching team meetings tosupplement the meeting minutes thatrecorded the development work. Theresearch process was open to all staff in the school and regular opportunities fordiscussion were offered to the teachingteam. School wide research fora were heldin June of each year to report on the workof the IPP and to consult with staff aboutnext steps. Formal semi-structuredinterviews were conducted with keymembers of the teaching team (the twocourse co-ordinators) in December 2008. A methodological memo that wasgenerated during the three-year study ofthe course reforms (2007-2010)documented the many informaldiscussions and debates that characterisedthe implementation of the reformedcourse. These documents formed the datasources that supported an inductiveanalysis of the professional developmentneeds of teacher educators. This wasachieved by continuously reviewing thedata to identify recurrent themes in orderto generate some initial ideas about theissues and problems raised as the teachingteam (tutors) engaged with the practicalimplications of a complex reform that was both theoretical and contested.

Three themes emerged: (1) differentunderstandings of inclusion, (2) the searchfor common ground, and (3) uncertaintyabout evidencing inclusive practice.

The development work undertaken during2006-07 created an important spacewithin which different understandingsabout inclusion could be debated. Thesediscussions were supplemented bypresentations given by the IPP researchteam that explored the challenges anddilemmas associated with developinginclusive practice. Simultaneously, as aresult of practice based studies ofexperienced teachers in schools (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2011), the concept ofinclusive practice emerged as one wherethe teacher’s focus shifts from thinkingabout ‘most’ and ‘some’ learners, to‘everybody’. Increasingly, the initial ideasdriving the IPP reforms were replaced byan integrated focus on extending what is generally available to all learners as an alternative to providing for ‘all’ bydifferentiating for ‘some’, particularly insituations where the differentiation wasbased on judgments about ability.

However, as one of the course coordinatorsnoted, the general view of inclusion at thestart of the IPP was that it was about‘special needs’, and ‘inclusive practice’ wasviewed as the domain of a few members ofstaff who had specialist knowledge of thistopic. It was only when agreement wasfound on other important issues such asthe primacy of belonging, and theresponsibility that teachers have to care, as well as teach, that bridges were builtbetween the curriculum subject teachereducator and the inclusion specialist.


ContentsContents

The common ground that enabledcolleagues to transcend or at leastnegotiate other differences was theprincipled belief that all children couldlearn. In addition, the agreement tocombine primary and secondary studentteachers for the professional studieselement of the PGDE reflected a consensusthat teaching approaches across of allsubjects of the curriculum and phases ofschooling also had much in common.

It is important to note that the majority ofcolleagues who were implementing thereforms were mainstream primary andsecondary subject specialist tutors. Manyinitially thought that they did not have thenecessary background knowledge andexperience to prepare teachers to work ininclusive ways. And yet these same tutorscould describe how they were able to maketheir subject meaningful to all learners, orhelp pupils overcome difficulties inlearning when they were teaching.

An exploration of PGDEstudents’ attitudes andpractices

Entry/exit surveys of students’ attitudesand beliefs about difference, diversity,learning and inclusion were carried out toinvestigate the extent to which attitudesand beliefs changed during the course andas a result of school experience. The beliefsand attitudes of teachers are an importantelement in the development of inclusiveeducation and its associated practices.Teacher education is seen as crucial inhelping to develop positive attitudes,

beliefs and critical thinking that arethought to promote inclusion, althoughattempts to carry out research on attitudesto inclusion are complex and problematic.Any research instrument that relies onself-reporting is likely to have itslimitations.

A set of surveys studied student teachers’attitudes to, and beliefs about, inclusionand exclusion at the beginning and end ofthe programme. The findings from thesurveys indicate that both primary andsecondary student teachers’ attitudes andbeliefs towards the principles of inclusiveeducation remain positive throughout thecourse and are largely undiminished byschool experience (Beacham & Rouse, 2011).The results showed that overall studentteachers’ views tend to support andcontinue to support the general principleof inclusive education and this suggeststhat when issues of inclusion areincorporated into the core programme itcan help to sustain the pro-inclusionattitudes and beliefs that are apparent atthe start of the course. This contradictssome findings that are reported elsewhere(Lambe & Bones, 2006) where attitudesand beliefs become more negativefollowing experience in schools. However,secondary student teachers seem less sureabout implementing inclusive practiceswhen children are grouped by ability, andin schools where some children are taughtoutside mainstream classes by specialists.Findings from this study also suggestedthat the student teachers recognise howthese kinds of practices can be understoodas institutional barriers to inclusion andmay inhibit inclusive practice.


ContentsContents

The follow-up study

This study followed seven new (not fullyregistered) teachers (four primary andthree secondary), employed in threedifferent local authorities, over the courseof their induction year. Six of the teacherswere visited by a researcher three timesduring the year, but one was visited onlytwice owing to logistical issues in theschool. Each visit consisted of anobservation session – a full lesson in asecondary school, or a half-morning orafternoon session in a primary schoolfollowed by an in-depth semi-structuredinterview usually lasting between 45minutes and one hour. The interviewsinvited the beginning teachers to reflect

on aspects of the lesson, and also to discussmore general issues relating to learningand teaching in their classes. The finalinterview also provided an opportunity for them, as they approached the end oftheir induction period, to reflect upon thecontent of the PGDE and to identify aspectswhich had been particularly influential on their development of their pedagogy.

The aims of the study were to explore theways in which inclusive pedagogy can be enacted in practice and our theoreticalmodel assumed that this would varyaccording to the school context and theindividuality of the children in each class.


Fig. 14: An Example of Inclusive Pedagogy

ContentsContents

Analysis of the findings drew from aframework (Florian & Spratt, 2012,Appendix B) developed to explore theextent to which and how the theoreticalideas embedded in the professional studiescourse were enacted in the beginningteachers’ practice. Informed by the theoretical principles of the IPP, theframework was developed in conversationwith teachers and teacher educators overthe course of the PGDE developmentproject.

Initially, interview transcripts andobservation notes were coded according to the framework, using NVivo 7 as anorganisational tool. This process enabledclose scrutiny of the data and provided a rich and detailed data set to illustrate each of the themes. Coding was applied wherethese ‘inclusive’ themes were evident,

but we also coded their absence, and any constraints to the enactment of theprinciples of inclusive pedagogy. Duringthis process it was clear that the themes,whilst theoretically distinct were closelyinterwoven in practice, and it was theways in which the teacherssimultaneously paid attention to allaspects of the theoretical framework thatgave rise to their inclusive pedagogies.

The common feature of the inclusivepedagogy that was observed was therespect for the dignity of individualchildren within the learning community of the classroom. It was clear from cross-case analysis that in the classrooms ofthose teachers who understood andenacted inclusion, each child was valued as a member of the classroom community.



ContentsContents

All of the teachers were aware of theimportance of fostering welcoming,accepting communities. The analysisrevealed two essential overarching, butintertwined elements of the inclusivepedagogical approach.

First, and fundamentally, the teachers usedstrategies for whole class activities, whichaccounted for all the class members.Second, where individual childrenencountered difficulties in learning, inclusive pedagogy was characterised by

a range of responses, which included aconsideration of everybody (not only changes targeted at that one child). Inaddition, the framework itself providedameans by which the teachers couldarticulate the reasons for making the practical choices they did. This also gavethem confidence in justifying theirapproach to colleagues, and in some casesthis was key in convincing mentors andhead teachers to allow them to continuewith what was, to the school, a novelapproach.



ContentsContents

External Support and Scrutiny

The IPP was supported by an advisorygroup consisting of key stakeholders fromthe teaching profession, the ScottishGovernment, local authorities, HMIE, GTCSand other Scottish universities. In additiona series of annual symposia were held inwhich members of an internationalreference group came to Aberdeen toengage with the ideas underpinning theproject and its emerging research findings.These meetings resulted in special editionsof the journals Teaching and TeacherEducation 25(5), the Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs (supplement,2010) and Prospects, UNESCO’s quarterlyreview of comparative education (2011). In addition members of the project teamhave presented papers as ‘work-in-progress’ both nationally andinternationally in order to increase userengagement with the key ideas, to holdthem up to public scrutiny and to enhancethe clarity with which they wereexpressed.

To provide additional scrutiny, an externalevaluation of the IPP was carried out byprofessor Tony Gallagher, Pro-ViceChancellor of Queen’s University, Belfast.In the evaluation he described it as,

“a third [new] way of dealing with thechallenges of difference and diversity, in acontext where there is significant attentionpaid to school improvement and increasingrecognition of the achievement gapsbetween the highest and lowest achievers…the IPP approach gives due regard to thereality of difference while seeking to provideteachers with the concepts and tools that

will not allow difference to become reified and hence set limits to the future of somechildren”

(Gallagher, 2011:33, IPP External Evaluation).

The IPP represents an attempt to engagewith long-standing problems of under-achievement and the changingdemographic of today’s schools byfocusing on preparing teachers to takeresponsibility for everyone’s learning. By addressing the relationship betweencurricular reforms that support thepreparation of teachers for inclusiveeducation, inclusive pedagogy, and teacher practice, this project highlightedthe synergistic and iterative relationshipbetween developing theory, and usingtheory to create curricular reform at auniversity. It provides an example of howinclusive education can be the spine of the professional studies element of teachereducation rather than something that is‘added-on’ to existing course content.


ContentsContents

Key Findings of the IPP

The IPP has developed an approach toinitial teacher education, which focuses onnew teachers’ developing awareness andunderstanding of the educational andsocial problems/issues that can affectchildren’s learning. The approach is basedon key theoretical ideas about inclusionand a concept of inclusive pedagogy thatemerged from studies of the practice ofexperienced teachers in inclusiveclassrooms. This inclusive pedagogicalapproach encourages a consideration ofindividual differences as something to be expected and understood in terms of the interactions between many differentvariables rather than fixed states withinindividuals. It also focuses on the strategiesteachers can use to support and deal withthe difficulties children experience inlearning. The research and developmentactivities associated with the IPP have ledto a deepening understanding of inclusivepedagogy, increased clarity about its rolein initial teacher education and some keymessages for education policy.

Inclusive pedagogy is a promising butnascent concept that necessitates anengagement with many complex notionsthat have not been the focus of previousresearch in teacher education. Over thecourse of this project a number of keyfindings are providing direction for futuredevelopments. These findings include:

• A deeper understanding of the theoretical principles and practical approaches that underpin inclusive pedagogy, where the classroom teacheraccepts responsibility for all learners,

should be a central core of all programmes of teacher education.

• In order to build inclusive pedagogical approaches it is helpful to suspend judgments about the practices associated with other, perhaps less inclusive approaches, rather than seeing them as problems. Articulating and debating what is pedagogically significant, and why it is significant, with colleague teacher educators is likely to strengthen the involvement of staff and the sustainability of reform.

• New opportunities for what can be achieved within teacher education, as well as what might be achieved by student teachers as they become teachers, are opened up by an increasing capacity to articulate why, how and what is pedagogically significant to inclusive practice.

• The inclusive pedagogical approach provides a framework for thinking about learning and teaching. It also provides a means of articulating and justifying a way of working that focuses on everyone in the learning community of the classroom.

• A shift in focus away from ‘bell curve thinking’ and notions of fixed ability towards one that reflects the dynamic relationship between teacher and learner is helpful in convincing teachers that they are capable of teaching all learners.


ContentsContents

• It is important for teacher educators to reflect on their assumptions about human abilities and diversity as well ashow these beliefs are communicated in initial teacher education and continuing professional development.

• When the task of building inclusive teacher education programmes is described in terms of extending what isgenerally available rather than adding ‘special’ education approaches to an already overloaded programme, it becomes less daunting.

• University-based teacher education has an important role to play in ensuring that mainstream class teachers are prepared to deal with human differences in ways that includerather than exclude pupils from the culture, curricula and community of mainstream schools. But teacher educators may feel uncomfortable being asked to educate teachers in ways they themselves have not worked. Thus professional development for teacher educators is also needed.

• Building upon and making links with current practices in school in ways that respect and yet challenge them is an essential aspect of university-school partnership in teacher education.

• Schools and classrooms vary in the extent to which inclusion is seen as an important aspect of practice. As a resultit is important for student teachers to learn to negotiate their way through

potentially difficult professional situations. This requires an emphasis on working with other adults and on developing the skills of reflective practice, critical thinking and using evidence from their teaching to inform decision-making.

• The theoretical and practical aspects of inclusion should be assessed as an important element of teacher education programmes.

• The reform of initial teacher education is only the first step in building a profession that accepts the responsibility for enhancing the learning of all pupils, substantial professional development for teachers is also required.

• The findings of the IPP are consistent with the recommendations of the Donaldson Review of teacher educationTeaching Scotland’s Future.

• More than 1500 students successfully completed the reformed PGDE over a six year period from 2007 - 2012.


ContentsContents

Teaching Scotland’s Future –some key lessons from the IPP

The recent national review of teachereducation, Teaching Scotland’s Future, (2011)affirms a continuing role for university-based teacher education, but proposesstronger relationship between theory and practice, between the academic andthe practitioner, between the providers of teacher education and schools. Theimportance of teachers being able to reflecton and learn from their experiences isstressed. The Review is quite clear thatteachers cannot learn how to be teachersby practice alone and the university-basedelement is crucial in this regard. The natureand quality of that practical experiencemust be carefully planned and evaluatedand used to develop understanding of how learning can best be promoted insometimes very complex and challengingcircumstances.

By building on and making links withpractices in schools, university-basedteacher education can fulfil its obligation to work in partnership with schools inways that both respect and challengecurrent practice. For the IPP, this was animportant aspect of the work thatresponded to McIntyre’s (2009) criticismthat beginning teachers are not sufficientlywell prepared to deal with pupil diversity,disability and other differences becauseteacher educators have not engagedsufficiently with the work of practicingteachers. By taking McIntyre’s criticismseriously, the IPP demonstrated oneexample of how teacher educationprogrammes can address the gap betweenthe different kinds of knowledge that aregenerated by research and practice.

It is hoped that the inclusive pedagogicalapproach that has emerged from thisproject will resonate with teachers andteacher educators.

For teacher education in Scotland, the aimsof the IPP were consistent with one of theimportant visions of the DonaldsonReview.

‘In addition to developing their subject andpedagogical knowledge and skills, all new(and existing) teachers should be confidentin their ability to address underachievement,including the potential effects of socialdisadvantage; to teach the essential skills ofliteracy and numeracy; to address additionalsupport needs (particularly dyslexia andautistic spectrum disorders); to assesseffectively in the context of the deeplearning required by Curriculum forExcellence; and to know how to managechallenging behaviour.’

(Teaching Scotland’s Future, 2011)

The Review points out the need tochallenge the narrow interpretations of theteacher's role which have created unhelpfulphilosophical and structural divides, andhave led to sharp separations of functionamongst teachers, teacher educators andresearchers. There is currently an over-emphasis on preparation for the first postand less focus upon the potential of theinitial and early period of a teacher's careerto develop the values, skills andunderstandings, which will provide thebasis of career-long growth.

The implications of this 'extendedprofessionalism' are taken forwardthroughout the report in relation to a teacher's developing career.


ContentsContents

The Donaldson Review highlights the needto bring together the practical and thetheoretical elements of teachers’professional learning throughout theircareers. Elsewhere members of the IPPteam have made similar arguments. Rouse(2007), suggests that developing effectiveinclusive practice is not only aboutextending teachers’ knowledge, but it isalso about encouraging them to do thingsdifferently and getting them to reconsidertheir attitudes and beliefs. It is a view thatis consistent with the notion of ‘extendedprofessionalism’ in the Review. In otherwords, professional learning should beabout ‘knowing’, ‘doing’, and ‘believing’(Rouse, 2008).

These three elements, knowing, doing andbelieving, are consistent with the threestrands within the Standards for InitialTeacher Education (SITE) and Standards forFull Registration (SFR) produced by theGeneral Teaching Council (Scotland); 1) professional knowledge andunderstanding; 2) professional skills andabilities and 3) professional values andpersonal commitment. In collaborationwith teacher education colleagues in otherScottish Schools of Education, many of thelessons from the IPP were incorporatedinto a teacher education initiative at thenational level, detailed in the following.

Scottish Teacher EducationCommittee NationalFramework for Inclusion

With the support of the Government, theScottish Teacher Education Committee(STEC) set up a working group consisting ofcourse directors and inclusion specialistsrepresenting all seven universitiesinvolved in initial teacher education todevelop the National Framework forInclusion. The remit of the group was todevelop a Framework, which wouldidentify the values and beliefs, theprofessional knowledge andunderstanding, and the skills and abilities,to be expected of student teachers and ofqualified teachers at whatever stage oftheir careers. The Framework, which waslaunched in April 2009 (STEC, 2009),highlights the underpinning principles ofinclusive practice - social justice, inclusionand learning and teaching, in the contextof current policy and legislation. It adoptsa broad definition of inclusion coveringadditional support needs, poverty, cultureand language and is informed by relevantaspects of UK Government’s new EqualityAct (2010). It promotes inclusion as beingthe responsibility of all teachers, in allschools and builds upon the work of the IPPand existing innovative practice within theother universities of Scotland, to providethe basis for planning courses in teachereducation and professional learning.


ContentsContents

References

Abu El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizingthe equity-minded aspirations of detrackingand inclusion: Toward a capacity-orientedframework for teacher education. Curriculum

Inquiry, 39 (3), 435-463.

Allan, J. (2006). The repetition of exclusion.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(2–3), 121–33.

Beacham, N., & Rouse, M. (2011). Studentteachers' attitudes and beliefs about inclusionand inclusive practice. Journal of Research in

Special Educational Needs, 12 (1), 3–11.doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01194.x.

Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2007). The Price we

Pay. Washington DC: The Brookings InstitutionPress.

Black Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M.(2007). Achievement and Inclusion in Schools.

London: Routledge.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The Index for

Inclusion. Bristol: Centre for Studies in InclusiveEducation.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically

reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Department for Education and Science (DES).(1978). Report of the committee of

enquiry into the education of handicapped

children and young people. [The Warnockreport]. London: HMSO.

Donaldson, G. (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future.

Edinburgh, The Scottish Government.Retrieved January 8, 2012, fromhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf

Dyson, A. (1997). Social and educationaldisadvantage: Reconnecting special needseducation. British Journal of Special Education,

24(4), 152-157.

Dyson, A. (2001). Special needs in the twenty-first century: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. British Journal of Special Education,

28(1), 24-29.

European Agency for the Development ofSpecial Needs Education (2006). Inclusive

Education and Classroom Practice. Retrieved 12 January 2009 from http://www.european-agency.org/iecp/iecp_intro.htm.

Fendler, L., & Muzaffar, I. (2008). The history ofthe bell curve: sorting and the idea of normal.Educational Theory, 58(1), 63-82.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). Whatdo special educators need to know and beprepared to do for inclusive schooling to work?Teacher Education and Special Education, 26,(1), 42-50.

Florian, L. (Ed.). (2007). The Sage handbook

of special education. London: Sage Publications.

Florian, L. (2009). Towards inclusive pedagogy.in P. Hick., R. Kershner & P. Farrell (Eds),Psychology for inclusive education: New

directions in theory and practice.

London:Routledge. (pp. 38-51).

Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusivepractice project in Scotland: Teacher Educationfor inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education,

25(4), 594-601. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003


ContentsContents

Florian, L., & Linklater, H., (2010). Enhancingteaching and learning: Using 'Learning withoutLimits' to prepare teachers for inclusiveeducation. Cambridge Journal of Education,

40(4), 369-386.doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588

Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010).Preparing teachers for inclusive and diverseeducational environments: Studying curricularreform in an Inital Teacher Education course.International Journal of Inclusive Education,14(7), 709-722. doi:10.1080/13603111003778536

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). ExploringInclusive Pedagogy. British Educational

Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828.

Florian, L., Linklater, H., & Young K. (2011,February). Studying the inclusive practice

project: Some lessons learned. Paper presentedto the 63rd Annual Meeting of the AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education,San Diego.

Florian, L. (2012). Preparing Teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for theprofessional development of teacher educatorsfrom Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project.Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275-285.

Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2012, September).Enacting Inclusion: An examination of theinclusive pedagogy of beginning teachers.Paper presented to the European ResearchAssociation, Cadiz, Spain.

Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potentialstressors for regular class teachers. Educational

Research, 43(3), 235-245.

Gallagher, T. (2011). An evaluation of the

Inclusive Practice Project, School of Education,

University of Aberdeen. Unpublishedmanuscript. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.

General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2006).The revised standards for full registration.

Edinburgh: GTCS.

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing

education: Policy practice, reform and equity.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Graham, A. (2011, October). Learning from

experience: A role for teacher education? Invitedpeer reviewed paper to the researchsymposium: What and how do teachers learnfrom experience, supported by the Society forEducational Studies and the Oxford Centre forSociocultural and Activity Theory Research,University of Oxford, Oxford.

Graham, A., Bruce, J., & Munro, C. (2011). An approach to reforming initial teacher

preparation for diversity and social justice.

Unpublished manuscript. Aberdeen: Universityof Aberdeen.

Grubb, W. N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The

education gospel: The economic power of

schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Hagger, H., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Learning

teaching from teachers: Realising the potential

of school-based teacher education. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Hart, S. (2000). Thinking through teaching.

London: David Fulton.


ContentsContents

Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J. & McIntyre,D. (eds) (2004). Learning without Limits,

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The Bell

Curve: Intelligence and class structure in

American life. New York: Free Press.

Hodkinson, A. J. (2005). Conceptions andmisconceptions of inclusive education: acritical examination of final year teachertrainees’ knowledge and understanding ofinclusion. International Journal of Research

in Education, 73, 15-29.

Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Huntley, C. (2005). Whatare the effects of ability grouping on GCSEattainment? British Educational Research

Journal, 31(4), 443-458.

Jones, P. (2006). They are not like us and neithershould they be: issues of teacher identity forteachers of pupils with profound and multiplelearning difficulties. Disability & Society. 19 (2)159-169.

Julian, G., & Ware, J. (1997). Specialist teachersfor pupils with learning difficulties? A survey of teachers in schools and units. British Journal

of Special Education, 25(1), 28–32.

Kershner, R. (2007). What do teachers need to know about meeting special educationalneeds? In L. Florian (Ed,). The Sage Handbook

of Special Education. (pp.486-498). London:Sage.

Lambe, J., & Bones, R. (2006). ‘Student teachers’perspectives about inclusive classroomteaching in Northern Ireland prior to teachingpractice experience.’ European Journal of

Special Needs Education, 21(2), pp. 167-186.

McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap betweenresearch and practice. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 35(3), 357–382.

McIntyre, D. (2009). The difficulties of inclusivepedagogy for initial teacher education andsome thoughts on the way forward. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 25(4), 602-608.

Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference:

international perspectives and future directions.

London: Routledge.

Ofsted (2008). How well new teachers are

prepared to teach pupils with learning

difficulties and/or disabilities. London: OFSTED.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (2007). OECD review of quality

and equity of education outcomes in Scotland.

Paris: OECD.

Pugach, M.C. (2005). Research on preparinggeneral education teachers to work withstudents with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith,& K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education:

The report of the AERA Panel on Research and

Teacher Education (pp. 549–590). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rouse, M. (2007). Enhancing effective inclusivepractice: Knowing, doing and believing.Kairaranga. Wellington: New Zealand Ministryof Education.

Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice:A role for teachers and teacher education,Education in the North, 16(1), 1-12.

Scottish Executive (2005). Supporting children’s

learning: code of practice. Edinburgh: ScottishExecutive.


ContentsContents

Scottish Executive. (2006). Getting it right

for every child. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Teacher Education Committee. (2009).National Framework for Inclusion. RetrievedJanuary 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.frameworkforinclusion.org.

Shulman, L. (2007, February). Paper presentedat keynote lecture to American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education AnnualConference, New Orleans, LA.

Slee, R. (2001). Social Justice and the ChangingDirections in Educational Research: the case ofinclusive education, International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 5(2-3), 167-177.

Spratt, J., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2011,February). Enacting inclusion: Beginning

teachers creating spaces for inclusive pedagogy.Paper presented to the American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education AnnualMeeting, San Diego.

Stake, R.E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis.

New York: Guilford Press.

Stayton, V.D., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifyinggeneral and special education: What does theresearch tell us? Teacher Education and Special

Education, 25(3), 211-218.

Symeonidou, S., & Phtiaka, H. (2009). Usingteachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefsto develop in-service teacher education coursesfor inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education,

25(4), 543-550.

Thousand, J., & Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2007).Differentiated Instruction: Collaborative

Planning & Teaching for Universally Designed

Lessons. California: Corwin Press.

UK Parliament (2010). The Equality Act 2010.

UN (2006). United Nations Convention on

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Retrieved January 30, 2010, fromhttp://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=284

Winzer, M. A. (2007). Confronting difference: An excursion through the history of specialeducation. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook

of special education, (pp 21-33). London: SagePublications.

Young, K., & Florian, L. (in press). Researchingteacher education for inclusion: Using amethodological memo. International Journal

of Research and Method in Education.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Reflections on a researchcareer: generalizations from 25 years ofresearch on assessment and instructionaldecision making. Exceptional Children, 67(3),295–309.


ContentsContents


Appendices

Research Papers

Beacham, N., & Rouse, M. (2011). Studentteachers’ attitudes and beliefs about inclusionand inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 3-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01194.x.

Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education. Teaching and TeacherEducation, 25(4), 594-601. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003

Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education: UsingInclusive Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching and Learning for All. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369-386. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588

Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010).Preparing Teachers for Inclusive and DiverseEducational Environments: Studying CurricularReform in an Initial Teacher Education Course.International Journal of Inclusive Education,14(7), 709-722. doi: 10.1080/13603111003778536

Florian, L. (2012). Preparing Teachers to workin diverse classrooms: Key lessons for theprofessional development of teacher educatorsfrom Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project.Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275-285. doi: 10.1177/0022487112447112

Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2012). Enacting inclusion:A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of SpecialNeeds Education.

Graham, A., Bruce, J., & Munro, C. (2011). An approach to reforming initial teacherpreparation for diversity and social justice.Unpublished manuscript. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.

Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education.Education in the North, 16(1), 1-12.

Rouse, M. (2010). Reforming initial teachereducation: A necessary but not sufficient condition for developing inclusive practice in C. Forlin (Ed). Teacher Education for Inclusion:Changing Paradigms and InnovativeApproaches. (pp. 47-54), London: Routledge.

Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (in preparation). Thedignity of the individual in the learningcommunity of the classroom: An examinationof the inclusive pedagogy of beginningteachers.

Young, K., & Florian, L. (in press). Researchingteacher education for inclusion: Using amethodological memo. International Journal of Research and Method in Education.

Dissertations

Linklater, H. (2010). Making children count? An autoethnographic exploration of pedagogy.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Aberdeen).

Invited Papers

Graham, A. (2011, October). Learning fromexperience: A role for teacher education?Invited peer reviewed paper to the researchsymposium: What and how do teachers learnfrom experience, supported by the Society forEducational Studies and the Oxford Centre forSociocultural and Activity Theory Research,University of Oxford, Oxford.


Appendix A: Reference List of IPP Research Papers

ContentsContents

Web Publications

Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2011). The InclusivePractice Project (IPP) at the University ofAberdeen, School of Education. InclusiveEducation in Action, http://www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/iea/index.php?menuid=25&reporeid=119

External Evaluation

Gallagher, T. (2011). An evaluation of theInclusive Practice Project, School of Education,University of Aberdeen. Unpublishedmanuscript. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.

IPP Symposia Proceedings -Aberdeen 2007, 2008, 2009

Published in Special Issues of the following International Journals:

Teaching and Teacher Education, (2009).Teacher Education for Inclusive Education,25(4). Florian, L. (2009). Preparing teachers to work in‘schools for all’, Teaching and Teacher Education(introduction to special issue on teachereducation for inclusive education), 25(4), 553-4

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs (2010). Teacher Education for Inclusion, 10 (Supplement).Florian, L. (2010). Editorial. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs (2010), TeacherEducation for Inclusion, 10 (Supplement), 137-138. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01171.x

Prospects (2011). Teacher ProfessionalDevelopment for Inclusion, 41(3).Florian, L. (2011). Introduction - Mappinginternational developments in teachereducation for inclusion. Prospects, 41(3), 319-321. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9202-x

Related Publications

Teacher Professional Learning and Inclusive Practice

Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Florian, L. (2011). Preparing general educators to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and National Council for Learning Disabilities.

Florian, L. (2009). Preparing teachers to work in‘schools for all’, Teaching and Teacher Education(introduction to special issue on teachereducation for inclusive education), 25(4), 553-4.

Florian, L. (2010). Forward. In C. Forlin (Ed.) Teacher Education for Inclusion: Changingparadigms and innovative approaches, pp. xviii-xxi. London: Routledge.

Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2010). Teachers’professional learning and inclusive practice. In R. Rose (Ed.). Confronting Obstacles toInclusion - International Responses toDeveloping Inclusive Schools, pp. 185-199,London: Routledge.

Florian, L. (2011, September 9). Inclusion is still a novelty for teacher trainers. TimesEducational Supplement.


ContentsContents

Florian, L. (2011). European Union universities and teacher preparation. In B. Lindsay & W.Blanchett (Eds.). Universities and globaldiversity: Preparing educators for tomorrow, (pp. 192-206). New York: Routledge.

Florian, L., & Becirevic, M. (2011). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in CIS/CEEcountries. Prospects, 41(3), 371-384. doi: 10.1007/s11125-011-9208-4

Florian, L. (2012). Teacher education forinclusion: A research agenda for the future. In C. Forlin (Ed.). Future directions for inclusiveteacher education: An international perspective,(pp. 210-218). London: Routledge.

Florian, L. (in press). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities: Aninternational perspective. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, & M. T. Brownell, M. T. (Eds.).Handbook of Research on Teacher Preparation.New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Inclusive Pedagogy

Beacham, N. (2010). Developing e-pedagogies for inclusion. ESCalate Final Report. University of Aberdeen, School of Education.

Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of theirinclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching, 18(5) 567-584. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2012.709732

Florian, L. (2009). Towards inclusive pedagogy. In P. Hick, R. Kershner, & P. Farrell (Eds.)Psychology for inclusive education: Newdirections in theory and practice, (pp. 38-51).London: Routledge/Falmer.

Florian, L., & Kershner, R. (2009). InclusivePedagogy. In H. Daniels, H. Lauder and J. Porter(Eds.) Knowledge, Values and Educational Policy: A Critical Perspective, (pp. 173-183).London: Routledge.

Florian. L. (2010). The concept of inclusivepedagogy. In G. Hallett & F. Hallett (Eds.).Transforming the role of the SENCO, (pp. 61-72).Buckingham: Open University Press.

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy. BritishEducational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.501096

Special Education and Inclusion

Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202-8.

Florian, L. (2010). Special education in an era of inclusion: the end of special education or a new beginning? Psychology of EducationReview, 34(2), 22-27.

Florian, L., Rouse, M., & Anderson, J. (2011).‘Education for All’ in the countries of the United Kingdom. In K. Mazurek & M. Winzer(Eds.). Special education in an internationalperspective, (pp. 67-86). Washington DC:Gallaudet University Press.

Rouse, M. (2010). Educational Assessment - key relationships: Impact of Assessment on Learner Groups (disabilities) The InternationalEncyclopaedia of Education, Volume 3, 492-7,Oxford: Elsevier.

Ravet, J. (2011). Inclusive/exclusive?Contradictory perspectives on autism andinclusion: the case for an integrative position.International Journal of Inclusive Education,15(6), 667-682.


ContentsContents


Appe

ndix

B: I

nclu

sion

Fra

mew

ork

(evi

denc

ing

incl

usiv

e pe

dago

gy)

Prin

cipl

es/

Unde

rlyin

gAs

sum

ptio

ns

Diffe

renc

e m

ust b

eac

coun

ted

for a

s an

esse

ntia

l asp

ect o

fhu

man

dev

elop

men

t in

any

conc

eptu

alis

atio

nof

lear

ning

Asso

ciat

edCo

ncep

ts/A

ctio

nsKe

y Ch

alle

nges

PGDE

Cou

rse

Them

es/U

nits

Outc

ome

(Pro

gram

me

Grad

uate

s)

How

mig

ht th

is m

anife

st?

Incl

usiv

e Pe

dago

gica

l Pra

ctic

e (A

naly

tical

The

mes

)

Repl

acin

gde

term

inis

tic v

iew

s of

abili

ty w

ith a

con

cept

of tr

ansf

orm

abili

ty

‘Bel

l-cur

ve th

inki

ng’

and

notio

ns o

f fixe

dab

ility

stil

l und

erpi

nth

e st

ruct

ure

ofsc

hool

ing

Unde

rsta

ndin

gLe

arni

ngRe

ject

s de

term

inis

ticvi

ews

of a

bilit

y

Acce

pts

that

diffe

renc

es a

re p

art

of h

uman

con

ditio

n

Reje

cts

idea

that

the

pres

ence

of s

ome

will

hold

bac

k th

e pr

ogre

ssof

oth

ers

Belie

ves

that

all

child

ren

can

mak

epr

ogre

ss (i

f con

ditio

nsar

e rig

ht)

Resp

ects

the

dign

ity

of th

e in

divi

dual

chi

ldin

the

com

mun

ity o

fth

e cl

assr

oom

Teac

hing

pra

ctic

es w

hich

incl

ude

allc

hild

ren

(eve

rybo

dy)

•Cr

eatin

g en

viro

nmen

ts fo

r lea

rnin

g w

ith o

ppor

tuni

ties

that

are

suffi

cien

tlym

ade

avai

labl

e fo

r eve

r yon

e, s

o th

at a

ll le

arne

rs a

re a

ble

to p

artic

ipat

e in

clas

sroo

m li

fe;

•Ex

tend

ing

wha

t is

ordi

naril

y av

aila

ble

for a

llle

arne

rs (c

reat

ing

a ric

h le

arni

ng c

omm

unity

) rat

her t

han

usin

g te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng s

trate

gies

th

at a

re s

uita

ble

for m

osta

long

side

som

ethi

ng ‘a

dditi

onal

’ or ‘

diffe

rent

’ fo

r som

ew

ho e

xper

ienc

e diffi

culti

es;

•diffe

rent

iatio

n ac

hiev

ed th

roug

h ch

oice

of a

ctiv

ity fo

r eve

ryon

e

Reje

c tio

n of

abi

lity

grou

ping

as

mai

n or

gani

satio

n of

wor

king

gro

ups.

Use

of la

ngua

ge w

hich

exp

ress

es th

e va

lue

of a

ll ch

ildre

n

Soci

al c

onst

ruct

ivis

t app

roac

hes

e.g.

pro

vidi

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

for c

hild

ren

to c

o-co

nstru

ct k

now

ledg

e (p

artic

ipat

ion)

,

Inte

rpla

y/in

terd

epen

denc

e be

twee

n te

ache

rs a

nd le

arne

rs to

cre

ate

new

know

ledg

e, w

hich

in tu

rn li

nks

to n

otio

ns o

f par

ticip

atio

n. (c

o-ag

ency

)

Reje

ctin

g de

term

inis

tic b

elie

fs a

bout

abi

lity

as b

eing

fixe

d an

d th

eas

soci

ated

idea

that

the

pres

ence

of s

ome

will

hol

d ba

ck th

e pr

ogre

ss

of o

ther

s.

•Be

lievi

ng th

at a

llch

ildre

n w

ill m

ake

prog

ress

, lea

rn a

nd a

chie

v e;

•Fo

cusi

ng te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng o

n w

hat c

hild

ren

can

do ra

ther

th

an w

hat t

hey

can

not;

•Gr

oupi

ng c

hild

ren

to s

uppo

rt ev

eryo

ne’s

lear

ning

rath

er th

an re

lyin

gon

abi

lity

grou

ping

;

Usin

g fo

rmat

i ve

asse

ssm

ent t

o su

ppor

t lea

rnin

g.

Floria

n, L.,

& Sp

ratt,

J. (20

12, S

epte

mbe

r). En

actin

g Inc

lusio

n: A

n ex

amin

atio

n of

the i

nclu

sive p

edag

ogy o

f beg

inni

ng te

ache

rs.

Pape

r pre

sent

ed to

the E

urop

ean

Rese

arch

Ass

ociat

ion,

Cadi

z, Sp

ain.

ContentsContents


Prin

cipl

es/

Unde

rlyin

gAs

sum

ptio

ns

Teac

hers

mus

t bel

ieve

(can

be

conv

ince

d)th

ey a

re q

ualifi

ed/

capa

ble

of te

achi

ng

all c

hild

ren

Asso

ciat

edCo

ncep

ts/A

ctio

nsKe

y Ch

alle

nges

PGDE

Cou

rse

Them

es/U

nits

Outc

ome

(Pro

gram

me

Grad

uate

s)

How

mig

ht th

is m

anife

st?

Incl

usiv

e Pe

dago

gica

l Pra

ctic

e (A

naly

tical

The

mes

)

Dem

onst

ratin

g ho

w th

ediffi

culti

es s

tude

nts

expe

rienc

e in

lear

ning

can

be c

onsi

dere

ddi

lem

mas

for t

each

ing

rath

er th

an p

robl

ems

with

in s

tude

nts

The

iden

tifica

tion

ofdiffi

culti

es in

lear

ning

and

the

asso

ciat

edfo

cus

on w

hat t

hele

arne

r can

notd

oof

ten

puts

a c

eilin

g on

lear

ning

and

achi

evem

ent

Unde

rsta

ndin

g So

cial

Just

ice

Com

mitm

ent t

o th

esu

ppor

t of a

ll le

arne

rs

Belie

f in

own

capa

city

to p

rom

ote

lear

ning

fo

r all

child

ren

Inte

ract

ion

betw

een

theo

retic

al k

now

ledg

e ab

out i

nclu

sion

and

exp

erie

nce

Focu

sing

on

wha

tis

to b

e ta

ught

(and

how

) rat

her t

han

who

is to

lear

n it

Prov

idin

g op

portu

nitie

s fo

r chi

ldre

n to

cho

ose

the

leve

l at w

hich

they

en

gage

with

the

wor

k (c

o-ag

ency

in p

lann

ing

lear

ning

)

See

diffi

culti

es in

lear

ning

as

prob

lem

s fo

r the

teac

her (

loca

te p

robl

ems

in e

nviro

nmen

t not

in c

hild

)

Stra

tegi

c/re

flect

ive

resp

onse

s to

sup

port

diffi

culti

es w

hich

chi

ldre

nen

coun

ter i

n th

eir l

earn

ing

Qual

ity o

f rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

teac

her a

nd p

upils

(tru

st)

Inte

rest

in th

e w

elfa

re o

f the

‘who

le c

hild

’ not

sim

ply

the

acqu

isiti

on

of k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

Flex

ible

app

roac

h - d

riven

by

need

s of

lear

ners

rath

er th

an ‘c

over

age’

of

mat

eria

l

Thei

r bel

iefi

n th

emse

lves

will

onl

y tru

ly b

e ev

iden

t fro

m th

e ph

iloso

phic

alst

ance

s th

ey re

veal

dur

ing

inte

rvie

w

Seei

ng d

ifficu

lties

in le

arni

ng a

s pr

ofes

sion

al c

halle

nges

(dile

mm

as)

for t

each

ers,

rath

er th

an d

efici

ts in

lear

ners

.

The

prof

essi

on m

ust

cont

inua

lly d

evel

opcr

eativ

e ne

w w

ays

of w

orki

ng w

ith o

ther

s

Mod

elin

g (c

reat

ive

new

) way

s of

wor

king

with

and

thro

ugh

othe

rs

Chan

ging

the

way

we

thin

k ab

out i

nclu

sion

(fro

m ‘m

ost’

and

‘som

e’ to

eve

rybo

dy)

Beco

min

g an

Act

ive

Prof

essi

onal

Will

ingn

ess

to w

ork

(cre

ativ

ely)

with

an

d th

roug

h ot

hers

Inte

rpla

y be

twee

n pe

rson

al/p

rofe

ssio

nal s

tanc

e an

d th

e st

ance

of t

he

scho

ol -

crea

ting

spac

es fo

r inc

lusi

on w

here

ver p

ossi

ble

•Se

ekin

g an

d tr

ying

out

new

way

s of

wor

king

to s

uppo

rt th

e le

arni

ng

o f a

ll ch

ildre

n;

•W

orki

ng w

ith a

nd th

roug

h ot

her a

dults

in w

ays

that

resp

ect t

he d

igni

ty

o f le

arne

rs a

s fu

ll m

embe

rs o

f the

com

mun

ity o

f the

cla

ssro

om;

•Be

ing

com

mitt

ed to

con

tinui

ng p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent a

s a

way

o f

dev

elop

ing

mor

e in

clus

ive

prac

tices

.

In p

artn

ersh

ips

form

ed w

ith te

ache

rs o

r oth

er a

dults

who

wor

k al

ongs

ide

them

in th

e cl

assr

oom

Thro

ugh

disc

ussi

ons

with

oth

er te

ache

rs/o

ther

pro

fess

iona

ls o

utsi

de

the

clas

sroo

m

Shift

ing

the

focu

s aw

ay fr

om d

iffer

ence

s am

ong

lear

ners

to th

e le

arni

ng

of a

ll ch

ildre

n.

•Se

eks

pupi

l vie

ws

•Pu

pil c

hoic

e

Appe

ndix

B: I

nclu

sion

Fra

mew

ork

(evi

denc

ing

incl

usiv

e pe

dago

gy) c

ont.

ContentsContents


Appendix C: Number of students on the new PGDE Programme

Completed PGDE Programme

324

300

315

238

183

161

Started PGDE Programme

400

363

366

263

204

175

Year

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

ContentsContents

Designed by Media Services, University of Aberdeen

ISBN 978-0-9570175-2-8© University of Aberdeen 2012

Inclusive Practice Project: Final Reportthesendhub.co.uk › ... › 2016 › 09 › inclusive-practice-project-final-repo… · Inclusive Practice Project: Final Report September

Documents