See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349811863
Teachers Supporting Students in Collaborative Ways—An Analysis of
Collaborative Work Creating Supportive Learning Environments for Every
Student in a School: Cases from Austria, Fi...
Article  in  Sustainability · March 2021
DOI: 10.3390/su13052804
CITATIONS
0
READS
26
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
VAHTO-Vahvuusperustainen tulevaisuusohjauksen kehittämishanke View project
Inclusive Education: Socio-Psychological, Educational and Social Aspects View project
Suvi Lakkala
University of Lapland
26 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Alvyra Galkiene
Vytautas Magnus University Lithuania
20 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Julita Navaitiene
Lietuvos Edukologijos Universitetas
8 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Tamara Cierpialowska
Pedagogical University of Cracow
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Satu Uusiautti on 24 March 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
sustainability
Article
Teachers Supporting Students in Collaborative Ways—An
Analysis of Collaborative Work Creating Supportive Learning
Environments for Every Student in a School: Cases from
Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and Poland
Suvi Lakkala 1,* , Alvyra Galkien˙e 2 , Julita Navaitien˙e 2, Tamara Cierpiałowska 3 , Susanne Tomecek 4 and
Satu Uusiautti 1
Citation: Lakkala, S.; Galkien˙e, A.;
Navaitien˙e, J.; Cierpiałowska, T.;
Tomecek, S.; Uusiautti, S. Teachers
Supporting Students in Collaborative
Ways—An Analysis of Collaborative
Work Creating Supportive Learning
Environments for Every Student in a
School: Cases from Austria, Finland,
Lithuania, and Poland. Sustainability
2021, 13, 2804. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13052804
Academic Editor: Andrea Weinberg
Received: 4 February 2021
Accepted: 3 March 2021
Published: 5 March 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1 Faculty of Education, University of Lapland, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland; satu.uusiautti@ulapland.fi
2 Educational Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania; alvyra.galkiene@vdu.lt (A.G.);
julita.navaitiene@vdu.lt (J.N.)
3 Institute of Special Education, Pedagogical University of Krakow, 30-060 Krakow, Poland;
tamara.cierpialowska@up.krakow.pl
4 Institut für übergreifende Bildungsschwerpunkte, University College of Teacher Education Vienna,
1100 Vienna, Austria; susanne.tomecek@phwien.ac.at
* Correspondence: suvi.lakkala@ulapland.fi
Abstract: Many studies have highlighted the importance of community and cooperation in inclusive
education. However, traditionally, teachers are trained to manage their classes alone. Along with
the aspirations of inclusive education, there is high pressure to develop school cultures that are
more communal and to reorient school personnel’s work, making it more collaborative, in order to
meet the diverse needs of all students. In this research, we explored and compared the collaborative
ways in which teachers supported their students in four schools in Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and
Poland. As a conceptual framework, the research utilized theories of interprofessional teamwork. The
researchers applied a theory-led thematic analysis to the research data. The main findings indicate
that collaborative action needs to be an essential part of teachers’ work in an inclusive school. The
schools and teachers implemented both proactive and reactive ways of constructing an inclusive
pedagogy when they supported their students.
Keywords: collaboration; co-teaching; inclusive education; inclusive pedagogy; interprofessional teamwork
1. Introduction
During the last few decades, pedagogies and teaching have evolved to be more studentoriented
and flexible in their methods [1]. This is due to the internationally approved goal
of inclusive education, expressed in many international guidelines, for example in a Guide
for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education by UNESCO [2,3]. According to Slee [4], the
goal of inclusive education is to remove learning barriers, involving students and enabling
them to learn in their own learning community. The move towards inclusive education
has created pressure to change the whole school culture, along with teachers’ professional
identity and role [5]. Inclusive education is based on communality and collaboration
among professionals as well as students and parents [6]. As such, communality in inclusive
education refers to social theories [7]. However, “there is a need for greater understanding
about ways in which individuals develop commitment to the processes of joint work, and
how such motivation can resolve inter-professional dilemmas” [8], pp. 59–60.
For centuries, teachers have been trained to work alone and to have control over
their classes [9]. The traditional strategy of managing a class on one’s own has slowed
down the successful implementation of inclusive education [10]. Many studies have found
that teachers feel they do not have sufficient competence to teach diverse students [11,12].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052804 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 2 of 20
One reason may be that there are only a few systematic pedagogical descriptions of how
to implement inclusive education [5]. Another reason may be the difficulty of teachers
changing their professional identity from a lone worker to a person who is able to work
and learn together with others in a multiprofessional network [13].
The practical implementation of inclusive education varies greatly in different European
countries in terms of the interpretation of concepts as well as implementation
strategies for inclusive education and their quality [14]. More research is needed, not only
to enhance common understanding about the basic principles of inclusive education, but
also to find the best practices and solutions to implement inclusion. Previous research has
found a strong connection between students’ feeling of belonging and learning achievements
[15]. For example, a supportive school climate and safe teacher-student relationships
increase students’ engagement [16,17]. Many studies state that students’ sense of community
and the satisfaction of their educational needs increase students’ engagement with
their studies [18]. However, educational support is difficult to investigate because of its
variability. Research still lacks empirical studies that investigate and analyze educational
support in various educational environments in different countries. More and more, scholars
have become aware that a teacher working alone inside the classroom is not able to
pay attention to the learning of every student because their needs are very diverse [10].
Instead, teachers’ will and ability to continuously reflect on their professional actions with
colleagues and other professionals have been found to be crucial [5,19].
Changes in educational policies call for schools to structure their professional work in
new ways. The drive towards inclusive education necessitates a closer collaboration with
other professions and sectors in order to promote educational support for all students in
inclusive settings. That is why, in this research, we tie the building of educational support
to the research discussions about interprofessional and collaborative networks [20,21]. The
importance of promoting support by interprofessional teamwork has been outlined in
the literature, but only few studies have described interprofessional practices involving
teachers [22].
By interprofessional teamwork, we mean goal-oriented cooperation between different
professions in which new kinds of knowledge and operating models emerge [23]. It contains
the idea of looking at something together from the perspectives of one’s own and another’s
profession, learning from professionals in other fields [8]. The difficulty of interprofessional
teamwork lies in the dilemmas that may arise from the different professional orientations
and each team member’s abilities to detect his/her own role as a promoter of collaboration
and negotiator of new goals in boundary spaces [8,24]. The premise of interprofessional
teamwork is shared expertise, whereby team members create goals and strategies together,
instead of offering ready-made solutions based on one’s own profession [23].
In this study, researchers from four European countries—Austria, Finland, Lithuania,
and Poland—compared the collaborative ways in which teachers in each country developed
supportive learning environments for every student in their work. In this study we
concentrate especially on the teachers’ professional network. The research utilizes the results
of our previous ethnographic research executed in each country’s unique context [25].
By exploring one school case in each country, we examined how teachers constructed
their teaching and support in trying to prevent failures in learning for their students and
promoting inclusive education. The research was carried out in 2014–2017, within a European
research program called Inclusive Education: Social-psychological, educational, and
social aspects (Erasmus +, KA2). For this article, we performed a comparative analysis of
the collaborative dimensions needed for creating supportive learning environments for
all students.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. The Collaborative Professional Orientation of an Inclusive Teacher
The implementation of inclusive education demands dedication and determination
from teachers. For example, in the Profile of Inclusive Teachers (PIT), inclusive teachers’
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 3 of 20
areas of competence are listed as attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and skills. The areas
of competence are expressed on the basis of four core values, describing the “values in
action” [14]. The four core values linked to the areas of competence are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Four core values underpinning areas of competence for inclusive education [26], p. 199.
Core Value Necessary Areas of Competence Related to
1. Valuing student diversity
-student difference is considered as a resource
and asset to education
Conceptions of inclusive education
The teacher’s view of learner difference
2. Supporting all learners
-teachers have high expectations for all learners’ achievement
Effective teaching approaches in heterogeneous classes
Promoting the academic and social learning of all learners
3. Working with others
-collaboration and teamwork are essential approaches for all teachers
Working with parents and families
Working with a range of other educational professionals
4. Continuing professional development
-teaching is a learning activity and teachers must accept responsibility for their
own lifelong learning
Teachers as reflective practitioners
Initial teacher education as a foundation for ongoing professional
learning and development
The PIT has similarities with Florian and Spratt’s [5] analytical framework they created
in research developing principles for a one-year Professional Graduate Diploma in Education
(PGDE), applying inclusive education. According to the first principle of the PGDE,
an inclusive teacher must give up deterministic views of ability and see students as transformative
individuals. The second principle states that the difficulties pupils experience in
learning can be reflected as dilemmas for teaching rather than problems with the pupils
themselves. The third principle claims that the profession must continuously develop new
and creative ways of working with others. Both the PIT and the PGDE framework capture
the core element of inclusive education: the inclusive school responds to the needs of its
students, instead of sending the students to various environments that are considered to
best respond to their learning needs. Inclusive education is meant for all students, not just
those who have special needs [5,14].
Both previously introduced frameworks for inclusive teachers’ orientation or competencies
entail the dimension of collaboration and working with others. It is commonly
acknowledged that the strength of inclusive teaching lies in its diversity on multiple levels,
not just being addressed to certain groups of students, like special needs students [27].
For example, Tjernberg and Mattson [19] stress the importance of keeping an eye on
students’ learning process and finding the individual strengths of each student through
inclusive teaching. Their notion of teachers’ constant reflectivity and care for all of their
students has strong implications for student-oriented teaching, which addresses pedagogical
approaches that facilitate students’ participation and possibilities to learn and progress,
whatever abilities the students may have at any given moment [1]. The teaching in heterogeneous
groups naturally leads to a need for carrying out various teaching methods that
are implemented according to the students’ needs, i.e., differentiated teaching [28]. In turn,
differentiation presumes resources, such as time, materials, physical classroom space, and
personnel [12,29].
However, along with the aspirations towards inclusive education, the school has
become more aware of the complex problems that arise in heterogeneous classes. That is
why collaboration (for example, team teaching) has become more and more common in
schools [30]. Team teaching can be considered one form of interprofessional teamwork.
Team teaching means a collaboration between two or more teachers, often a classroom
teacher and a special education teacher, where they are responsible for planning, implementing,
and assessing the teaching of a group of diverse students [31]. In order to create
a solid professional relationship among the collaborators, it is necessary to reflect each
member’s personal views and expectations, have mutual communication and reflective
discussions in the team, as well as be flexible and listen to other members’ opinions [23].
The practical challenges related to teamwork are, for example, a paucity of mutual
planning time or scheduling team teaching [30]. More profound prerequisites arise from the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 4 of 20
professional relationship with the partners [8]. Difficulties may appear, for example, due to
team members’ commitment to different goals, unequal positions between the teachers, or
disagreeing about the other team members’ teaching philosophy or actions [32].
In inclusive education, teachers often collaborate with other professionals. For example,
in all of our school cases there were several professionals working with the students,
their families, and teachers during the school day. When the collaborative network expands
beyond the teaching staff, there are even more possibilities for misunderstandings between
parties who represent different professional backgrounds [24]. In interprofessional teamwork,
the role of an individual as a part of the group [8] and the social and professional
relationships in the team [23] are important. The concept of “relational agency” [7] refers
to the extended learning that may develop in interprofessional teamwork and addresses
the focus on the collaborative processes, specifically the capacity of individuals to develop
shared understanding in joint work. Relational agency refers to the boundary areas between
different professionals, where there are collective goals for the team but also the need
to combine team members’ various competences [8]. Success in interprofessional teamwork
gives rise to one’s own professional development and a multidisciplinary understanding
when team members learn new perspectives from other professionals [7].
Rose and Norwich [8] were interested in the processes that lead to team members’
commitment to collective goals or, alternatively, may cause dilemmas and tensions in
teamwork. Based on a conceptual analysis of the literature, they developed theoretical
frameworks of interprofessional teamwork. They used both social-level analysis and
social-psychological-level analysis. The social-level analysis consists of factors affecting
interprofessional teamwork, such as national and local government policies and structures,
as well as the regulations and codes of practice of different services and professions. During
collaboration, these regulations interact, and tensions between the different policies may
appear, which, in turn, affect to the group’s work. Concerning the social-psychological-level
analysis, the researchers came up with a description of the positive collective preferences,
referring to the group and the individual team members, as follows:
(1) the group prefers and intends to achieve the best outcome for the group;
(2) the individual acts as a part of the group to achieve this outcome;
(3) the individual is accountable to the rest of the group for their actions (p. 66).
The framework is based on concepts of collective commitment, collective efficacy, and
process and outcome beliefs. In addition, Rose and Norwich [8] highlighted the tensions
that may arise in collaborative work. They are linked to team members’ dilemmas in terms
of their professional role, identity, and control in multi-agency work.
2.2. A Glance at Education in Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and Poland
This research focuses on four school cases implementing inclusive education in four
European countries: Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and Poland. The participating countries’
diverse political and social background affects their educational cultures. Two of our participating
countries, Finland and Austria, have a long history of democratic development.
The Finnish representative democracy has been in place since 1917 [33]. The independent
Austrian state, restored after World War II, marked the beginning of its democratic development
in 1955 [34]. In turn, the other two countries, Lithuania and Poland, have gone
through drastic social unification processes during the years of Soviet occupation, and have
experienced active revolutionary movements while liberating themselves from the regime.
In 1989, Poland was named the Democratic Republic of Poland, and its development
into a democratic state begun [35]. Lithuanian people escaped the Soviets’ grip when
they brought about the so-called “Singing Revolution,” and when the Act of the Supreme
Council of Lithuania on the re-establishment of the independent state of Lithuania was
adopted on 11 March 1990 [36]. Political and social changes in social structures have a
direct impact on the development of educational systems [37]. Although the educational
systems in the four countries vary, the domination of strong state schools is one of the main
features of all of them.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 5 of 20
Austria has a differentiated school system. At the primary level, pupils are in “integrative/inclusion
classes” taught either by one regular and one special schoolteacher, or
supported by special education teachers for a limited number of hours per week. The special
schoolteachers are formal members of a center for special education support, although
they may work full-time at schools. Pupils with special educational needs (SEN) may also
attend special schools. After the fourth grade, the pupils take an exam and may continue
in three parallel pathways: general secondary school, academic secondary school, or special
school [38]. Special needs experts can give recommendations, but the final decision
concerning the choice of school is in the hands of the parents or carers [39]. In the academic
year 2018–2019, 5% of students received special support in Austrian comprehensive schools.
Of those, 63.1% studied full time in mainstream classes (integration/inclusive classes) and
36.9% studied in special schools [40].
In Finland, all students receive a 10-year comprehensive education (from age six to 16).
There are still special classes that take place in mainstream schools and some special schools.
The compulsory school system offers three types of educational support. The general
support is meant for all students, and there is no need for official documentation [41].
To receive intensified support, a pedagogical assessment is required. This assessment is
made by the teachers, the student, the parents, and the school welfare personnel who are
dealing with the student and his/her family. The third tier of support, special support,
requires an extensive assessment and a formal administrative decision. An individual
educational plan (IEP) is made for all pupils within the special support [41]. In 2019, 7.4%
of students received special support in Finnish comprehensive schools. Of those, 22.5%
studied full time in mainstream classes, 43.7% studied partly in mainstream and partly
in special education classes, and 34% studied full time in special education classes or in
special schools [42].
In Lithuania, the idea of inclusive education is fairly new. Until the end of the Soviet
regime in 1990, according to the Lithuanian state policy, students with SEN were kept
separate from their peers in specialized boarding schools or stayed at home or in residential
care homes [25]. Now, compulsory education starts at the age of six and ends at the age
of 16. Nowadays there are pedagogical-psychological services (PPS) that support schools
in Lithuania. Two forms of education for learners with special educational needs exist
in general education schools: education in a general class, providing necessary student
support; and education in a special class, usually for learners with intellectual disorders [43].
The schools aim to promote diversity in educational establishments by creating favorable
learning conditions for all learners, according to their needs and abilities. The studies
are designed in collaboration with the students and their guardians. The Child Welfare
Committees coordinate the arrangements for educational assistance. The committees
consist of a school leader, various specialists, teacher representatives, and representatives
of learners’ parents [44]. In the academic year 2018–2019, the proportion of pupils with SEN
in mainstream schools was 11.6%. Of those, 45.5% were enrolled part-time in mainstream
schools and part-time in special classes or special schools [45].
The Polish educational system has gone through profound changes since the collapse
of the communist regime in 1989. Now full-time compulsory education begins at the
age of six as pre-primary education and the school applies to pupils aged 7–15 years.
Part-time compulsory education (the obligation to be in school) concerns pupils aged
15–18 [46]. Their education may take place either in school settings (upper secondary
school) or in non-school settings (vocational training offered by employers). The education
of students with special educational needs is provided in three main types of schools:
mainstream (inclusive) schools, integrated schools, or special schools [47]. In integrated
schools, which are not necessarily located in the area of residence of the children, students
with SEN study with their nondisabled peers or in special classes purposefully created
for their needs (e.g., specific learning disorders or language disorders) [46]. Inclusive
schools are regional schools where students with SEN study together with their peers [47].
In the Polish public education system, every student has the right to voluntary and free
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 6 of 20
psychological and pedagogical assistance [48]. The curriculum, methods, and forms
of work shall be adapted for the child/student on the basis of a developed individual
educational and therapeutic program (IPET), considering the recommendations of the
Special Education Needs Assessment [46]. Each school provides counselling and guidance
to students, parents, and teachers, in line with individual needs. Such support is also
offered by counselling and guidance centers (referred to as psychological and pedagogical
centers) [46]. In the academic year 2018–2019, 3.8% of students in Polish compulsory
education were identified having special educational needs. Of those, 31.1% studied in
special schools and 66.6% studied in schools with a non-segregated system. The students
with SEN in those schools were studying in integrated classes (29.6%), in mainstream
(inclusive) classes (68.6%), or in special classes (1.8%) in public schools [49].
There are some similarities and differences in terms of the provision of educational
support in Austria, Finland, Lithuania, and Poland. Specialist (psychologists, speech
therapists, and the like) team support is ensured for students with diverse needs in all four
European countries, as well as designing and following an Individual Learning Plan or
Educational Plan/program. The teachers and special education teachers of Austria, Finland,
Lithuania, and Poland provide educational support for students based on their needs.
Teaching/educational assistants have their responsibilities in the system of educational
support, too, whereas learning support teachers work in schools in Austria. School Welfare
groups/boards contribute to the provision of educational support in Finland and Lithuania.
The educational support situation in Poland differs from that in Finland, Austria, and
Lithuania as it particularly focuses on the assessment of a student’s level of functioning
and special educational needs. Nevertheless, some steps are being taken in Poland to
reorganize the general curriculum, and to adapt it to the education of students with diverse
needs, not just students with special needs.
3. Materials and Methods
This research presents comparative educational research and especially micro-level
comparisons [50]. Based on the categorization by Rust, Soumaré, Pescador, and Shibuya [51],
this research belongs to field research studies in comparative education research, which
is common in micro-level comparisons. This research strategy employs data collection
methods typical of this type of comparative research (in this case, interviews and pedagogical
reflective journals). Details of data collection in practice are given after introducing
the cases.
The research design of the original research carried out in the four European countries
was developed during systemic scientific colloquia involving researchers from all the
universities in the four European countries participating in the project, as well as expert
teachers working in participating schools [25]. The research was organized by applying an
interactional ethnography perspective [52]. The researchers implemented a multidimensional
research strategy that enabled them, through various research methods, to analyze
the processes taking place in selected schools.
3.1. Research Participants
A group of researchers representing one teacher training university in each of the
countries joined together for research on inclusive education. Each university selected one
school implementing inclusive education in their country. The schools are represented in
Table 2. The schools were selected for their broad experience of inclusive education and
reputation in the pedagogical community.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 7 of 20
Table 2. The university and the school communities in each country.
The Country The University The School
Austria University College of Teacher Education, Vienna Integrated Learning Center Brigittenau, Vienna
Finland University of Lapland, Rovaniemi Teacher Training School of University of Lapland, Rovaniemi
Lithuania Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, Vilnius Vilnius “Versm˙es” Catholic School, Vilnius
Poland Pedagogical University of Cracow, Cracow School No. 12 with Integrated Units, Krakow
Two class communities, including teachers, pupils and their parents, from each school
participated in the research (Table 3). All the classes were at an elementary level, the
students’ ages being seven to 12. All participants gave informed consent after reading
relevant information about the research goals and the means of publication, as well being
given the option to withdraw from the research whenever they wanted [53].
Table 3. Summary of the classes in the research.
Participant Finland Lithuania Poland Austria
Students 42 45 40 36
Teachers 2 2 2 2
However, our research results reflect the social pedagogical interaction in the entire
community of the participating school (including school leaders, special pedagogical
assistance providers, etc.), as well as national and local administrators outside of the
school community.
3.2. Research Instruments
All four research partners implemented similar research methods when carrying out
the original study. The original data included teacher, parent and student interviews,
observation, sociograms and teachers’ pedagogical journals. In addition, the data collection
took place within the same time period in each country (spring and autumn 2015). This
article is based on teachers’ interviews and pedagogical journals, as these formed the
primary data for the questions set for this research. The data and their reference codes are
introduced in Table 4. The other data served as supplementary data in this article.
Table 4. Research data and the reference codes.
Data Extent of Data Reference Code *
Teacher interviews Three interviews with each teacher Interview, T1 or T2 = Teacher 1 or 2
Pedagogical journals Each teacher wrote for one week, from September to December Diary, TA or TB = Teacher A or B
* Each nationality was added at the end of the code: AU—Austria; FI—Finland; LIT—Lithuania; POL—Poland, e.g., T2/LIT means
Teacher 2 from Lithuania.
The interviews in every country included two class teachers or special education
teachers from each participating school. All teachers were interviewed three times (April–
November 2015). The main topics of the interviews were the following: (1) the relationships
between the pupils in the class, (2) the relationships between the teachers and the pupils in
the class and (3) the co-operation and communication between professionals in the school
and the professional network. The interviews were semi-structured as the researchers
planned together the main questions to be asked (see Appendix A). The length of the
interviews varied between 17 to 58 min. The average length of the interviews was 30 min.
All the interviews were transcribed. The researchers did not agree upon the font type but
the minimum number of words in one interview was 2235 words (17 min interview) and
the maximum number of words was 9561 words (in 58 min interview). The teachers kept
pedagogical journals for four weeks, one week per month from September to December in
2015, in which they reflected on their experience of implementing inclusive education. They
reflected on the experiences of identifying and acknowledging diverse needs, planning
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 8 of 20
curricula and activities, organizing support to students and teachers, and developing
cooperative networks. The topics and instructive questions for the pedagogical journals are
presented in Appendix B. The lengths of the pedagogical journals varied a lot depending
on the teacher’s way of expressing one self. The shortest journal was 5174 words and the
longest was 21,533 words.
For the selection of analyzing the strategy applied in this research, it was important
to acknowledge that, for “studies involving direct, concrete, and subjective experience
with reality” [51], p. 104, the worldview the research presented was constructivist in
nature [54]. The method of structuring content analysis [53,55] was applied for the analysis
of qualitative data. The qualitative data from interviews and pedagogical journals were
analyzed in the following stages: stage 1—definition of the categories; stage 2—description
of examples in each category; stage 3—deductive analysis, producing text with references
to the categories, moving from theory to the text, and stage 4—inductive analysis, moving
from text to theory, open for new categories. The research results were then compared
between the countries.
4. Results
As a theoretical framework, we used Rose and Norwich’s [8] analysis of interprofessional
work. We analyzed the findings on two levels: the social level, introducing the policy
context; and the social-psychological level, describing the team members’ experiences.
4.1. Introduction of the Four School Cases
The sociocultural context of the school cases differed considerably. Thus, the results
section begins with a short introduction to each school case. The introduction of the school
cases is meant to frame the policy context, i.e., the national regulations and school policies,
and to deepen the analysis of the categories and the comparison of the school cases.
4.1.1. The Integrated Learning Center Brigittenau, Vienna, Austria
Vienna, in contrast to many other parts of Austria, is a culturally diverse city [56]. In
the Integrated Learning Center Brigittenau (ILB), all classes are inclusive, multi-age classes,
each containing four to five pupils with special educational needs and students from an
immigrant background. In the academic year 2014-2015 there were 368 students, of whom
91 were identified as having special educational needs [57].
The organization of teaching and learning is in three stages depending on the age of the
pupils. The first to third are is called the entry stage. These pupils are taught in six inclusive
classes of approximately 20 pupils. The fourth to sixth grades are the transition stage. The
pupils are organized into inclusive clusters of approximately 44 pupils. The classrooms
are designed as subject rooms for German language, English language, mathematics, or
science. The seventh and eighth grades are the exit stage. In all of these inclusive groups,
the children have individual plans for their learning. In the first to third grades, the pupils
stay in their social group, but their work is also individualized. In the fourth to eighth
grades, the pupils are given a topic or question and tasks from the subject teacher in the
subject room. Music, art, handicraft, and gymnastic lessons are weekly, and fixed by the
classroom teachers [58].
There are different types of teachers in every class: a special needs teacher and a class
teacher or, for the older students, a subject teacher. Once a week for 2 h, teachers have team
meetings after the school lessons. To organize the students’ individualized work, there is a
coaching system whereby each teacher takes care of one group. Approximately 10 pupils
are in one coaching group. These groups meet regularly, most of them in the morning
circles, to plan their work or individual projects and discuss further steps. There they also
talk about other problems the pupils need help with. During the lessons, there are always
at least two, and sometimes three or four, teachers in the classroom, and various forms of
team teaching are applied. There are five tutoring lessons per week during which subject
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 9 of 20
material learned can be revised and memorized. Lessons are based on reform pedagogy, as
in Montessori, Freinet or Jenaplan pedagogy [57].
Lessons start at 8:30. The first learning unit lasts for 100 min, followed by a 30-min
break. Self-directed learning phases, such as independent work on individual projects, are
discussed and structured together with the teachers. There are ordinary lessons in German,
mathematics, and English, wherein new contents are introduced by subject teachers and
then structured into work plans. This structure is only interrupted when the groups work
on larger projects. In the projects, everyone can contribute with their individual skills, and
everyone is important for the community. The second learning unit takes place after lunch,
lasts for another 100–150 min, and follows a similar structure to that of the morning one.
ILB is a full-time school. All students are at the school from 8.30 a.m. to 4 or 5 p.m. In
the afternoons, there are leisure teachers who are also members of the pedagogical teams.
Other experts, such as advisory teachers and speech therapists, come to the school for
several hours a week [57].
There are class council meetings once a week where students are trained in problemsolving
and participatory skills. For peer conflicts, peer mediation is used, and students
can participate in peer mediation training if they wish. The forum for adult debate is the
Class Parliament where the teachers and parents can have discussions [58]. Moreover, at
the school level there is the School Parliament, where the teachers and parents have their
representatives [59]. Once a week, parents meet in the “Parents’ Café”. This serves as
an opportunity to receive information on school life in a rather informal setting and in
languages other than German. These meetings are organized by an external association and
are led by a multilingual organization. A strong parents’ association [59] cooperates with
the headmaster, the staff, and the management board in order to build effective cooperation
and partnerships between the pupils’ home and school lives. In various work groups, the
parents, teachers, and pupils effectively deal with specific issues.
4.1.2. The Teacher Training School, Rovaniemi, Finland
In the Teacher Training School of the University of Lapland, the number of children
was about 317 in the academic year 2014–2015. At the school, there were six grades, with
three parallel classes in each grade, for a total of 18 groups. Every year, there are also
about 200 student teachers practicing in the school; accredited teachers are responsible for
supervising them.
In the Teacher Training School, teachers and teaching assistants have a weekly 1-h
planning and reporting meeting. Moreover, teachers meet other professionals, such as
therapists, school social workers, and family counsellors, when they have student welfare
matters with their students. Parents’ evenings take place several times a year. Teachers also
offer family meetings when necessary, but at least once a year, usually for 1 h at the end of
the school day or in the evening. Usually the student him/herself attends the meetings at
least some of the time [60].
According to national practice, in every class, some pupils receive intensified support
and a few receive special support, alongside the support and teaching that all pupils receive.
In other words, in this school, all pupils with special needs study in their “home classes,”
with a special education teacher coming into the home classes as a co-teacher a few times a
week. Every student with special needs also has the opportunity of learning part-time in a
flexible small group [41].
At the beginning of the school year, class teachers and special needs teachers, in
co-operation with the parents and the student, plan the special support for the students
individually. Again, the plans are assessed at the end of the school year together with
parents and the student. At the school, there are three special needs teachers, one of whom
is in charge of those special needs children who would benefit from individual teaching
and learning in a flexible small group. Similarly, there are three trained teaching assistants
able to help in various classes, moving between them according to their needs [60].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 10 of 20
The school carries out remedial work with students in groups of a maximum of 10
students. A group called “Maltti” (Patience) is one such remedial program, guiding children
to self-determination [61]. Taught by special education teachers, it supports children
who have difficulties in concentrating on learning and controlling their own feelings and
behavior. Another remedial program is the so-called ART group (Aggression Replacement
Training), run by the school social worker for antisocial and choleric children. For individual
student welfare services there are several professionals available, organized by the
municipal district—for example, support from the school social worker, school psychologist,
the family counselling, and rehabilitation and children’s psychiatric clinics [62], or
regular support from therapists (e.g., physiotherapy, speech therapy, functional therapy, or
riding therapy).
The teachers use various methods to help pupils concentrate, focus on learning,
participate, and learn in their own ways and at their own levels. Special attention is given
to various teaching methods, flexible grouping, anticipating and preparing pupils for
future situations, and task differentiation. To support the schoolwork in the classrooms,
teachers also use daily routines, structuring, and modelling. Importance is also given
to visualizing, concretizing, chopping assignments into small parts, taking little breaks
during lessons, exercising during the lesson and throughout the school day, and awarding
systems. Teaching is based on flexible grouping and utilization of space, personal guidance,
co-teaching, and part-time special education, and, in many cases, on multiprofessional
work. [60].
4.1.3. Versm˙e Catholic School of Vilnius, Lithuania
After the signing of the Act on the Restoration of Lithuania’s Independence on 11
March 1990, an active movement began developing a society and educational system
based on democratic foundations [37]. The processes were stimulated by the initiatives of
emerging nongovernmental organizations and community groups. One of these initiatives
was realized by the teachers working in a boarding school for blind children. The Versm˙e
Catholic School of Vilnius started inclusive education practices in Lithuania, with the
help of a group of pupils’ parents. The community of Versm˙e Catholic School of Vilnius
sought to enable all students, including those with disabilities, to learn, play, and relax
together. The community set itself another goal: to prove that boarding school is not a
prerequisite for learning for students with disabilities. The socio-educational basis of the
school was generated by analyzing the best practices of American teachers, and the school
education model was supported by scientific research. The school ethos was developed on
Christian values. The Versm˙e school soon became a model of inclusive education practice
for other schools in Lithuania, and its leaders and teachers were active participants in
shaping inclusive education policy in Lithuania.
In the academic year 2014–2015, there were 579 pupils in the school, 80 teachers and
specialists (psychologists, special needs teachers, social workers, physiotherapists, and
speech and language therapists), and 20 teaching assistants. There were two parallel
classrooms of primary, basic, and secondary education programs in the school. Up to
30% of pupils in each classroom had disabilities, such as visual or hearing impairments,
movement disorders, autism spectrum disorders, mental disabilities, etc. Children with
severe mental disability were educated in a special class.
The educational system of the school aims to enable each pupil to achieve the highest
personal academic results possible and to develop the capacity to live and be active in
a heterogeneous community. The whole school environment is adapted for pupils with
reduced mobility, so they can move independently using wheelchairs or special supports
throughout the school environment. Teaching assistants and professionals support pupils
with learning difficulties as well. The teachers, acting together with special education
teachers, select the directions of educational differentiation, appropriate educational means,
and ways of organizing activities. Support for teachers is provided using the resources
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 11 of 20
of the school and external institutions. Pupils’ needs assessment and institutional and
interinstitutional support are coordinated by the Child Welfare Committee [63].
The school fosters positive interactions between teachers and pupils, which helps to
create a trust-based educational environment that ensures the well-being and safety of
all students. One of the most important strategies in a heterogeneous school community
is collaboration when identifying common goals, coordinating actions, and empowering
each other. An important tool for enhancing positive interaction is the learning of
communication skills [64]. In heterogeneous classrooms, teachers employ empowering
education. As teaching methods go, teachers rely on, e.g., sharing information and experiences,
searching for collective solutions, reflecting on results, promoting inspirational
examples, and enhancing conscious commitment. These directions of education enable all
pupils actively participate and express themselves in educational processes. In this way,
teachers’ support for pupils is focused on learning activities without excluding some of the
pupils or overemphasizing the need for support. The practice of empowering education
enables pupils with adapted programs to successfully engage and participate in the joint
learning activities. In addition, teaching assistants and other support professionals are a
natural part of the learning environment [65].
4.1.4. Primary School No. 12 with Integrated Units, Krakow, Poland
Primary School No. 12 is a public school (inclusive) with integrated units. This
was the first school in Poland to include students with special educational needs. Since
1957, the school has operated as a teacher training school, providing practical training for
higher education students. In 1999–2019, this institution functioned as the Zespół Szkół
Ogólnokształc ˛acych Integracyjnych (Union of Integrated Schools) and consisted of six
grades (Primary School No. 12) and a three-grade Gymnasium No. 15, with Integration
Units. In each grade there are two to four peer classes, including one or two classes of an
integrated type. In the academic year 2014–2015 a total of 610 pupils attended the school,
including about 100 pupils with special educational needs due to various disabilities [66].
In the integrated classes there are 15 to 20 students, including 3–5 students with
different types of disabilities. Each integrated class employs two teachers at the same time.
At the level of the so-called junior classes (grades 1–3), where the research was carried out,
there was one early years education teacher and a special education teacher. Both these
educators worked full-time in the classroom, i.e., 20–23 h per week. Physical education,
foreign languages, and computer science classes were conducted by an additional teacher,
and students were also accompanied by a special education teacher.
It is the rule that, at the beginning of each school year, an individual educational and
therapeutic program (Indywidualny Program Edukacyjno-Terapeutyczny, IPET) is prepared
for each student with SEN. It provides information on the strengths and weaknesses
of the pupil, possible curriculum modifications, individual activities (for each SEN student
two additional hours are organized per week) and team activities to help each student
succeed. This school employs many specialists, including numerous special education
teachers, physiotherapists, speech therapists, psychologists, and social skills training specialists.
In addition, there is much systematic cooperation between teachers and parents,
who are treated as partners in their children’s education [67].
There are 22 classrooms available to pupils and two gym halls, one of which is
used for choreotherapy, as well as a biofeedback laboratory, speech therapy rooms, and
a correctional and compensatory room for all students who need support. The school is
fully adapted to work with pupils with special educational needs, not only because of
the universal local layout, which eliminates all physical barriers, whether architectural or
spatial, or those related to the environment, but also because of its organization, which
promotes integration [66].
The school is an open and dynamically developing institution focused on the changing
needs of students, the expectations of parents, and the possibilities of teachers. The
school aims to ensure the comprehensive and harmonious development of the child both
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 12 of 20
individually and socially as a member of the collective (class, school, local community,
nation, European community, and—most broadly—citizen of the modern world).
The school’s mission is to continuously support each pupil on the path to broadly understood
success—his/her harmonious, comprehensive development, in accordance with
his/her personal needs and abilities. The school sets itself the goal that the spontaneous
cognitive motivation of the child, as a result of education and interactions, will develop
into conscious motivation [68].
4.2. Comparison of the Policy Context between the School Cases
For the comparison of the policy context, we used the elements of Rose and Norwich’s
[8] social-level analysis, highlighting national regulations and school policies. The
school cases were quite similar in terms of the multiprofessional support system. In some
form, they all offered multiprofessional support for teachers and their students and families.
Our data did not allow us to more deeply analyze the possible interactions and tensions
between different policies that may occur when applying the municipal regulations at the
school level [8].
However, the data and the information of the national educational regulations show
that the school cases differ in terms of their pedagogical structures. The strongest pedagogical
support, enhancing inclusive environments, existed in the Austrian Brigittenau and in
the Polish Primary School No. 12 school cases. As a basic assumption, both these schools
were built on teachers’ co-teaching. In Brigittenau, all classes had at least two teachers, one
class or subject teacher, and one special education teacher. In the Polish Primary School No.
12, there was the same kind of teaching resource in the integrated classes. In the Lithuanian
and Finnish schools, there was a collaboration-based support structure, too, but there were
fewer teachers available or the special education teachers were responsible for several
classes. In addition, all of the schools had spaces for various kinds of functions, not only
traditional classrooms, but, e.g., for rehabilitative action.
At all of the schools, support was made available in the students’ daily lives. Many
kinds of consultation were available and other professionals supported the students at
school, e.g., giving occupational therapy, school social workers participating in lessons,
helping teachers to develop the social relationships in the class, and psychological services.
However, in Poland, the curriculum and guidelines for educational programs were quite detailed
and regulated, whereas, according to Austrian, Finnish, and Lithuanian regulations,
the national guidelines gave more flexible possibilities for teachers and other professionals
to shape learning environments to match the whole student group’s diverse needs.
4.3. Analysis of the Social-Psychological Level of Interprofessional Work and Its Dilemmas
Our ethnographic data gave us opportunities to look at the social-psychological level
of interprofessional work. We categorized the data according to Rose and Norwich’s [8]
theoretical framework, which, for a social-psychological-level analysis, has three categories,
collective commitment, efficacy, and process. Within these categories, we also paid attention
to possible dilemmas, but, since our original research aim was to explore good ways of
implementing inclusive education, there are few references to dilemmas in the data.
4.3.1. Collaborative Commitment
In all datasets, the teachers’ work was based on shared values and insights that made
it possible for them to find mutual goals when working with each other, other professionals,
as well as with students’ parents and carers. Through this, they were collectively committed
to working together and saw themselves as responsible for ensuring positive outcomes [8].
“I cooperate with a wide and meaningful network: parents, colleagues (especially
those who teach in the same grade and special education teachers), school counsellors,
trainees, speech therapists, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists
. . . school nurses, and school social workers. Within the network, we share
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 13 of 20
news, know-how, and we consider possible forms of support for the school’s
everyday life.”
(Ped. journal, T1, FI)
The strongest ties seemed to exist among the Lithuanian Versm˙e school members. They
also spent time together during their leisure time and often had informal get-togethers:
“Before the school year, in December before Christmas Eve, and at the end of the school
year we go on retreats” (Interview, T1, LIT). By contrast, the Austrian data showed that the
teachers preferred to maintain correct and professional relationships with their colleagues
(Interview T1, T2, AU).
All of the teachers involved in our research also saw boundary spaces [23] in their
collaboration, which means they saw opportunities to complement each other’s skills and
thus obtain benefits for their own work among the students as well as promote the goals
they set for their work. This required coordinated action and the division of work tasks in
order to achieve a joint goal [8].
“From a professional perspective, one could say that each person’s skills and
competence are included in the teaching process, which can be quite fruitful for
the team.”
(Interview, T1, AU)
“I, as a teacher with experience in working with pupils with disabilities, know
how important it is to support the young as well as those who have been teaching
a single subject in the classes where the pupils were rather average.”
(Ped. journal, T1, POL)
Teachers characterized the work in boundary spaces as requiring recognition of other
members’ professionalism, as well as respect for opposing opinions and the ability to
compromise.
“I believe it is a constant, almost daily struggle to find similarities, to distance
yourself from certain things, to give in, and to have your way as well.”
(Interview T1, AU)
4.3.2. Collaborative Efficacy
The second category refers to the group’s beliefs about its capabilities to carry out a
course of action [8]. Efficacy here means both individual as well as interactive aspects of
group functioning as a whole [8]. The teachers in our research were aware that working
together needs supportive interaction as well as respect for other members’ knowledge
and skills. The teachers utilized consultations by other professionals, a service that was
regularly available in schools.
“If they need professional consulting and coaching, professionals can come to
school and the teachers can discuss problems and conflicts in professional settings.
In one school year I and my team arranged six consulting sessions.”
(Interview T1, AU)
“Solutions to the psychological issues of these girls were discussed with the
psychologist more than once—The psychologist reassured me by saying that the
children will only learn through consequences.”
(Ped. journal, T1, LIT)
In addition, teachers appreciated consulting and discussing with colleagues, as they could
share good practices and discuss current issues with their teaching. This was apparent
especially from the Lithuanian and Polish data.
“We have methodological meetings where we discuss educational matters and
new things that we have learnt. The meetings are pre-planned because it is
always interesting to know more.”
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 14 of 20
(Interview, T2, LIT)
“We also have teams, and each time a need arises, we meet; we get on well.
We must find an adequate solution if something is happening in the class; we
act together.”
(Ped. journal, T2, POL)
The research data offered several indications that teachers felt that their professional
competencies complemented each other. For example, Finnish teacher 2 described her
collaboration with the special education teacher:
“Our collaboration has its roots way back. We both know what we like, and we
try to bring those elements to the co-teaching lessons. We have a clear [division
of labor] and she knows my system in the class.”
(Interview, T2, FI)
4.3.3. Collaborative Process
The third category describes the ways in which the teachers planned and implemented
their teaching and collaboration with others. In the school cases, reflection was one of
the most powerful ways to understand the changing situation at a school. The constant
reflection enabled flexible implementation of teaching arrangements and construction of
student support [10].
For example, in the Finnish school case, teacher 2 preferred co-teaching but this year,
she and her colleagues had to develop flexible hybrid models for co-teaching according to
this year’s students’ needs:
“This year, we [the class teacher, the special education teacher, and the resource
teacher] have often divided the group flexibly so that the one group has stayed at
our classroom, and the other group has worked the next door, at least for part
of the lesson. There are several pupils for whom mindfulness and concentration
are challenging.”
(Ped. journal, T2, FI)
In spite of the good practices and successful execution of collaborative work, the teachers
identified some dilemmas that complicated their work. Partly, the difficulties were connected
to too few resources in terms of time or personnel. For example, in the Austrian
school case, teacher 1 felt that the teachers were obliged to concentrate too much on organizational
matters in their weekly 2-h meetings, instead of having more time for pedagogical
exchange (Interview, T1, AU). The same notion came up in the Finnish teachers’ data
(Interview T1, T2, FI).
There were also instances where the teachers’ collaboration did not work out well. It
seemed that some teachers were not committed to inclusive goals or wanted to keep their
traditional autonomous role as a teacher.
“Some teachers’ have a positive attitude towards co-teaching and they enjoy it.
Some teachers, on the other hand, find it stressful. Some think that co-teaching is
only a passing phase because it is too expensive anyhow.”
(Ped. journal, T2, FI)
In the Austrian school case, teacher 1 described a poorly planned lesson where the responsibilities
were not clear and the pupils became restless, chatting loudly. In addition,
the teacher felt she did not receive support from her colleagues (Ped. journal, T1, AU).
This occasion is linked to teachers’ professional identity or the dilemmas in controlling
the teaching situations collaboratively, supporting each other instead of holding on to the
traditional teacher’s role.
In sum, our data showed that team members’ ability to have conscious dialogical
conversations with each other is crucial to the success of interprofessional work.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 15 of 20
“I help my colleagues, they help me; for instance, when Ja´s had communication
and aggression problems, we all sat together and each of us tried to suggest some
solutions. It did not end with conversation only; we acted together and it turned
out that after a few such meetings everything started to go well somehow.”
(Ped. journal, T1, POL)
The teachers in our research pointed out that precise and joint planning and mutual
understanding form the backbone of successful inclusive teaching. They also accentuated
the importance of negotiation and a division of responsibilities and roles (e.g., Interview,
T1, AU and Interview T2, FI).
5. Discussion
Based on our results, collaborative action seemed to be an essential part of teachers’
work in an inclusive school. In our school cases, the supportive collaborative actions
were characterized by two main features, proactive and reactive ways of constructing an
inclusive pedagogy. As proactive structures, we see the kinds of solutions that benefit all
the students [5]. For example, when co-teaching is the foundation of supporting students,
teachers can build learning environments that consider diverse students’ needs.
Another dimension of proactive structures is collective commitment. A high level
of commitment characterizes an inclusive school community, where all personnel are
supposed to work together in line with collective goals [6,8]. In our school cases’ data,
there were quite clear manifestations of collective commitment to inclusive values, such as
valuing every student and family and seeing every student as a transformative learner [5].
Still, in the Finnish school case, the data showed that some of the teachers at the school had
diverse ideas when it comes to inclusive goals. This is probably due to the autonomous
position of Finnish teachers and the different generations of teachers; when they have
acquired their education may affect the professional values and role they have adopted [9].
While the Finnish school had an average level of commitment to inclusion, the other three
school cases were exceptional in terms of acting as pioneer schools in the field of inclusion
in their own countries.
The other main feature of teachers’ collaborative work is reactive structures. Here, we
include the principle that students’ difficulties with learning can be considered dilemmas
for teaching as a whole rather than problems with the students themselves [5]. This notion
acts as the basis for considering what resources are sufficient when it comes to the number
of guiding adults in the learning community, what kinds of teaching methods are carried
out, what the division of work is among the teachers and other professionals, and how and
by whom the students’ well-being is supported.
Of course, it is worth keeping in mind that the data acquired in this research were
from four schools, each one representing a country. Thus, the work culture in these specific
schools has likely affected the findings, in addition to wider cultural factors and national
guidelines for education. On the other hand, the purpose of this research was not so
much to introduce generalizable findings but to show through case studies how inclusive
teaching practices were implemented and could be developed based on experience and
observation. The data included various sets that complemented each other and therefore
increased the reliability of the research. The differences between cultures and countries
provided perspective on inclusion and the ways and levels of its implementation, so that
through the analysis of these examples, it can be further developed worldwide.
When personnel work collaboratively towards inclusive goals, they need time and
space to reflect on mutual values, conceptualize the polices they aspire to, and renew
professional knowledge and skills. All this means, as Tynjälä [69] states in her study of
work place learning, integrating theoretical, practical, and self-regulative knowledge in
formal and informal situations. In their comparative research of interprofessional and
collaborative work in health, social care, and education, Floyd and Morrison [13] noted
the extreme complexity of the abovementioned concepts. The researchers accentuate, as
did Rose and Norwich [8], that, at the macro level, the concepts need to be reflected with
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 16 of 20
existing regulations, policies and practices, and in micro level as personal biographies and
abilities to amend one’s professional identity, role, and control.
6. Conclusions
Our results support the conceptual framework of inter-professional teamwork created
by Rose and Norwich [8]. Interprofessional and collaborative work appear as transforming
and negotiating processes. Our research results indicate that collaborative actions need to be
an essential part of teachers’ work in an inclusive school. Partly, the heterogeneous students’
needs can be anticipated and their skills can be enhanced by collaborative proactive
ways of constructing practices. Partly, reactive ways of constructing practices are needed,
where teachers and other professionals together reflect their mutual goals and own actions
in order to build socially sustainable learning environments and social arenas for their
students and their families. As such, our results could be implemented, for example, in
teacher education, indicating the importance of developing student teachers’ reflective
and dialogical skills and awareness of collaborative ways of working. Another implication
could be strengthening the previously mentioned skills through teachers’ and principals’
in-service training.
Author Contributions: S.L. was the main author of this article and performed the theoretical review
and main analyses, and outlined the conclusions. A.G. coordinated the design of the data collection
in the original research; J.N., T.C., S.T., S.L., and A.G. gathered the data and did the initial analysis.
All the authors acted as experts on their own country’s educational system. S.U. contributed to the
theoretical review, methodological writing, and conclusions. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study received funding via the European Commission Erasmus+ project “Inclusive
Education: Socio-Psychological, Educational and Social Aspects” (No. 2014-1-FI01-KA200-000893).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval of an institutional board were
waived for this study, due to reason that the research procedures and practices followed All European
Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities’instructions.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the other members of our original international researcher
team, Sabine Albert, Georg Jäggle, Agn˙e Juškeviˇcien˙e, Remigiusz Kijak, Outi Kyrö-Ämmälä, Joanna
Kossewska, Ona Monkeviˇcien˙e, Katja Norvapalo, and Stas˙e Ustilait˙e, who gathered all the research
data. We are grateful to the teachers, students, and parents who participated in our research and
made their experiential expertise available to us.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
Appendix A
Table A1. Interview frame for teachers.
Relationships among pupils Time period
Please share about the interpersonal relationships among pupils in your classroom:
1. What signs of equality, respect, and dignity do you observe?
2. What signs of acceptance, pleasure to be together, and tolerance do you observe?
3. What signs of support, and cooperation do you observe?
4. How do you create the relationships in the classroom?
5. How do you try to solve relationship-related problems in the classroom?
April, 2015
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 17 of 20
Table A1. Cont.
Teacher’s relationships with pupils
1. Please share on what makes you happy in your relationships with your pupils?
2. How can pupils participate in everyday decision-making process in your classroom? Please
provide specific examples.
3. What possibilities do you have to talk, to support, to motivate, and to encourage
pupils individually?
4. What do the pupils want to talk to you about the most? Please provide specific examples.
5. How can you recognise the different needs of pupils, and how do you create positive
relationships with them?
6. What would you like to change in your relationships with the pupils?
April, 2015
School community
1. Please share the ways you create ethos in your heterogeneous school community. Do
teachers have common leisure time? Please provide specific examples.
2. Please share on how you create professional relationships in the community of teachers?
3. How do the teachers share the good and bad experiences? Please provide an example of
something valuable you have learned from your colleagues.
4. What would you like to change in the relationships within the community of teachers, why
and how?
October–
November,
2015
Appendix B
Table A2. Teachers’ pedagogical journal, instructions.
The field of education Basic questions
Design of learning
Teacher as a support seeker
Teacher as a support giver
Cooperation and my experience in it
Meeting the needs of learners: planning, implementing, evaluating
Reflection and evaluation of my teaching process
Learning environment: What would I have needed more of today?
Learning environment: What did I appreciate today?
How do I do it?
What challenges do I meet?
How do I/we solve the problems in
certain circumstances?
How do I/we overcome it?
What was there of the best today?
What was there of the best
this week?
References
1. Lakkala, S.; Uusiautti, S.; Kyrö-Ämmälä, O.; Grönfors, P. Students’ Social Self-image and Engagement to Studies–A Qualitative
Multimethod Research on Teachers’ Pedagogical Activities in Inclusive Education. Int. J. Whole Sch. 2020, 16, 35–60.
2. UNESCO. A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2020).
3. Norwich, B. Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education. Living with Uncertainty; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013.
4. Slee, R. Social justice and changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2001, 5,
167–177. [CrossRef]
5. Florian, L.; Spratt, J. Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2013, 28,
119–135. [CrossRef]
6. Booth, T.; Ainscow, M. Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools, 2nd ed.; Centre for Studies on Inclusive
Education: Bristol, UK, 2002.
7. Edwards, A. Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio Int. J. Hum. Act. Theory 2007, 1, 1–17.
8. Rose, J.; Norwich, B. Collective Commitment and Collective Efficacy: A Theoretical Model for Understanding the Motivational
Dynamics of Dilemma Resolution in Inter-Professional Teamwork. Camb. J. Educ. 2014, 44, 59–74. [CrossRef]
9. Hargreaves, A.; Shirley, D. The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
10. Lakkala, S.; Uusiautti, S.; Määttä, K. How to make the neighbourhood school a school for all? J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 2014, 16,
46–56. [CrossRef]
11. Joseph, S.; Thomas, M.; Simonette, G.; Ramsook, L. The Impact of Differentiated Instruction in a Teacher Education Setting:
Successes and Challenges. Int. J. High. Educ. 2013, 2, 28. [CrossRef]
12. Lingard, B.; Mills, M. Pedagogies making a difference: Issues of social justice and inclusion. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2007, 11, 233–244.
[CrossRef]
13. Floyd, A.; Morrison, M. Exploring Identities and Cultures in Inter-Professional Education and Collaborative Professional Practice.
Stud. Cont. Educ. 2014, 36, 38–53. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 18 of 20
14. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Teacher Education for Inclusion. A Profile of Inclusive
Teachers. 2011. Available online: https://www.european-agency.org/resources/publications/teacher-education-inclusionprofile-inclusive-teachers
(accessed on 1 December 2020).
15. Qvortrup, L. Capacity building: Data- and research-informed development of schools and teaching practices in Denmark and
Norway. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2016, 39, 564–576. [CrossRef]
16. Kelly, S.; Zhang, Y. Teacher Support and Engagement in Math and Science: Evidence from the High School Longitudinal Study.
High Sch. J. 2016, 99, 141–165. [CrossRef]
17. Moreira, P.A.S.; Dias, A.; Matias, C.; Castro, J.; Gaspar, T.; Oliveira, J. School effects on students’ engagement with school:
Academic performance moderates the effect of school support for learning on students’ engagement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2018,
67, 67–77. [CrossRef]
18. Lenzi, M.; Sharkey, J.; Furlong, M.J.; Mayworm, A.; Hunnicutt, K.; Vieno, A. School Sense of Community, Teacher Support, and
Students’ School Safety Perceptions. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2017, 60, 527–537. [CrossRef]
19. Tjernberg, C.; Mattson, E.H. Inclusion in practice: A matter of school culture. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2014, 29, 247–256. [CrossRef]
20. Rose, J. Dilemmas of Inter-Professional Collaboration: Can they be Resolved? Child. Soc. 2011, 25, 151–163. [CrossRef]
21. Harris, S. Inter-agency practice and professional collaboration: The case of drug education and prevention. J. Educ. Policy 2003,
18, 303–314. [CrossRef]
22. Davis, B.C.; Clevenger, S.; Posnock, B. Robertson, and D. Ander. Teaching the Teachers: Faculty Development in Inter-Professional
Education. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2015, 28, 31–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Edwards, A. Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational
expertise in systems of distributed expertise. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2011, 50, 33–39. [CrossRef]
24. Lakkala, S.; Turunen, T.A.; Kangas, H.; Pulju, M.; Kuukasjärvi, U.; Autti, H. Learning inter-professional teamwork during
university studies: A case study of student-teachers’ and social work students’ shared professional experiences. J. Educ. Teach.
2017, 43, 1–13. [CrossRef]
25. Galkien˙e, A. (Ed.) Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four European Countries; The Publishing House of
the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; Available online: https://www.doabooks.org/doab?
func=search&query=rid:43292 (accessed on 1 December 2020).
26. Watkins, A.; Donnelly, V. Teacher education for inclusion in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. In Future Directions for
Inclusive Teacher Education: An International Perspective; Forlin, C., Ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012; pp. 192–202.
27. Hausstätter Sarromaa, R. In support of unfinished inclusion. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2014, 58, 424–434. [CrossRef]
28. Tomlinson, C.A. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners; ASCD: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2014.
29. Laari, A.; Lakkala, S.; Uusiautti, S. For the whole grade’s common good and based on the student’s own current situation.
Differentiated teaching and the choice of methods among Finnish teachers. Early Child Dev. Care 2019, 1–14. [CrossRef]
30. Saloviita, T. How Common Are Inclusive Educational Practices among Finnish Teachers? Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018, 22, 560–575.
[CrossRef]
31. Rytivaara, A.; Kershner, R. Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teach.
Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 999–1008. [CrossRef]
32. Solis, S.; Vaughn, M.; Swanson, E.; McCulley, L. Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and
co-teaching. Psychol. Sch. 2012, 49, 498–510. [CrossRef]
33. Solsten, E.; Meditz, S.W. Finland: A Country Study; Library of Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 1990.
34. Steininger, R. Austria, Germany, and the Cold War: From the Anschluss to the State Treaty 1938–1955; Berghahn Books: New York, NY,
USA, 2008.
35. Wójcik, Z.K. Origins of local government in the third Polish republic: Issues in outline. In Local Government in Selected Central and
Eastern European Countries: Experiences, Reforms and Determinants of Development; Sienkiewich, M.W., Kuc-Czajkowska, K., Eds.;
Marie Curie Sklodowska University Press: Lublin, Poland, 2013; pp. 10–38.
36. Kugelmass, J.; Galkien˙e, I. National identity and education for democracy in Lithuania. In Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project; Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., Amadeo, J.-A., Eds.; IEA:
Amsterdam, The Nederlands, 1999; pp. 419–436.
37. Kugelmass, J.; Galkien˙e, A. Democratic reform and the emergence of special needs education in Lithuania. Eur. J. Spec. Needs
Educ. 2003, 18, 53–70. [CrossRef]
38. The Austrian Education System. 2020. Available online: https://www.bildungssystem.at/en/ (accessed on 16 August 2020).
39. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. Richtlinien zur Organsiation und Umsetzung der sonderpädagogischen
Förderung [Guidelines on Organisation and Implementation of Special Educational Needs]. Rundschreiben Nr. 7/2019.
2019. Available online: https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/dam/jcr:1b74dec8-236b-4e88-b3e1-9b187e1074bd/2019_07.pdf (accessed on 6
December 2020).
40. Statistics Austria Pupils with Special Educational Needs 2018/19. 2019. Available online: https://www.statistik.at/web_de/
statistiken/menschen_und_gesellschaft/bildung/schulen/schulbesuch/029658.html (accessed on 15 December 2020).
41. Finnish National Agency of Education. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014; The Finnish National Agency of
Education: Helsinki, Finland, 2016.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 19 of 20
42. Official Statistics of Finland. Special Education. Appendix Table 5. Comprehensive School Pupils Having Received Special Support by
Place of Provision of Teaching, 2019; Statistics Finland: Helsinki, Finland; Available online: http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2019/erop_
2019_2020-06-05_tau_005_en.html (accessed on 30 July 2020).
43. Law Amending the Law on Education of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2011-03-31, No. 38-1804. 2011. Available
online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.407836 (accessed on 8 January 2021).
44. Lakkala, S.; Juškeviˇcien˙e, A.; ˇCesnaviˇcien˙e, J.; Poteli¯unien˙e, S.; Ustilait˙e, S.; Uusiautti, S. Implementing Inclusive Education in
Lithuania: What are the main Challenges according to Teachers’ Experiences? Acta Paedagog. Vilnensia 2019, 43, 37–56. [CrossRef]
45. Statistics Lithuania. Number of Educational Institutions, Pupils, Students and Pedagogues/General School Pupils with Special
Educational Needs. 2020. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/EN/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize?hash=b331cbcd-c8ae-4560-b6
95-f7380924efcc#/ (accessed on 24 November 2020).
46. Eurydice. National Education Systems. 2020. Available online: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/nationaldescription_en
(accessed on 24 November 2020).
47. Sipowicz, K.; Pietras, T. Wprowadzenie do Pedagogiki Inkluzyjnej (Wł ˛aczaj ˛acej) [Introduction to Inclusive Education]; Wydawnictwo
Continuo: Wrocław, Poland, 2017.
48. Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland, 25 August 2017, Item 1591. 2017. Available online: http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/
download.xsp/WDU20170001591/O/D20171591.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2020).
49. Statistics Poland. Education in the 2018/2019 School Year. 2019. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/education/
education/education-in-the-20182019-school-year,1,15.html (accessed on 24 November 2020).
50. Bray, M.; Adamson, B.; Mason, M. Introduction. In Comparative Education Research. Approaches and Methods; Bray, M., Adamson, B.,
Mason, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–16.
51. Rust, V.D.; Soumare, A.; Pescador, O.; Shibuya, M. Research Strategies in Comparative Education. Comp. Educ. Rev. 1999, 43,
86–109. [CrossRef]
52. Green, J.L.; Dixon, C.N.; Zaharlick, A. Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language
Arts, 2nd ed.; Flood, J., Lapp, D., Squire, J.R., Jensen, J.M., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003;
pp. 201–224.
53. Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education, 7th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011.
54. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage: Los Angeles. CA, USA, 2009.
55. Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution; PsychOpen: Klagenfurt,
Austria, 2014.
56. Proyer, M.; Biewer, G.; Kreuter, L.; Weiß, J. Instating settings of emergency education in Vienna: Temporary schooling of pupils
with forced migration backgrounds. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 25, 131–146. [CrossRef]
57. Tomecek, S. Integrated learning centre Brigittenau in Vienna. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School Cases in
Four European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; The Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius,
Lithuania, 2017; pp. 26–210.
58. Mazal, M. Inclusive learning center Brigittenau. In Proceedings of the Lecture in conference ‘Making Diversity Capital’, Rovaniemi,
Finland, 21 September 2016.
59. Schulunterrichtsgesetz. Bundesgesetz über die Ordnung von Unterricht und Erziehung in den im Schulorganisationsgesetz
geregelten Schulen (Schulunterrichtsgesetz—SchUG) StF: BGBl. Nr. 472/1986 (WV). 1986. Available online: https://www.jusline.
at/gesetz/schug (accessed on 24 November 2020).
60. Kyrö-Ämmälä, O.; Lakkala, S. Teacher training school of University of Lapland in Finland. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational
Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; The Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of
Educational Sciences: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; pp. 211–216.
61. Paananen, M.; Aro, T.; Närhi, V.; Aro, M. Group-based intervention on attention and executive functions in the school context.
Educ. Psychol. 2017, 38, 859–876. [CrossRef]
62. Student Welfare Act 1287/2013. Available online: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2013/20131287 (accessed on 29 January
2021).
63. Galkien˙e, A. Vilnius “Versm˙es” Catholic school. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four European
Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; pp.
217–222.
64. Navaitien˙e, J. Interpersonal interaction between pupils and teachers in Vilnius “Versm˙es” Catholic school. In Inclusion in SocioEducational
Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; The Publishing House of the Lithuanian
University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; pp. 335–353.
65. Galkien˙e, A. Learning–teaching approach: Lithuanian case. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four
European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius, Lithuania,
2017; pp. 364–387.
66. Kijak, R. Integrated secondary school no. 1 in Cracow. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School Cases in Four
European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; The Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences: Vilnius,
Lithuania, 2017; pp. 223–226.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2804 20 of 20
67. Cierpiałowska, T. Educational interaction of pupils’ parents: Polish case. In Inclusion in Socio-Educational Frames: Inclusive School
Cases in Four European Countries; Galkien˙e, A., Ed.; The Publishing House of the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences:
Vilnius, Lithuania, 2017; pp. 420–430.
68. Primary School No. 12 with Integrated Units, Web Page. Available online: https://sp12krakow.edupage.org/ (accessed on 15
January 2021).
69. Tynjälä, P. Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educ. Res. Rev. 2008, 3, 130–154. [CrossRef]
View publication statsView publication stats