Inclusive pedagogy: From learning to action. Supporting each
individual in the context of ‘everybody’
Jennifer Spratt a, *
, Lani Florian b
a
School of Education, University of Aberdeen, UK
b
School of Education, University of Edinburgh, UK
h i g h l i g h t s
 This is a study of the enactment of inclusive pedagogy by new graduates of the University of Aberdeen.
 The paper shows how theoretical concepts informed actions in different contexts.
 The dignity of each child in the classroom community was central to inclusive pedagogy.
 The paper shows how individual difficulties were addressed through a consideration of ‘everybody’.
 Teachers drew selectively and purposefully from established strategies to ensure inclusion.
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 3 November 2014
Received in revised form
12 March 2015
Accepted 17 March 2015
Available online 11 April 2015
Keywords:
Inclusive pedagogy
Inclusion
Teacher education
Diversity
a b s t r a c t
This paper draws from a novel study of graduates from a one year Professional Graduate Diploma in
Education (PGDE) course at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. The study explored how beginning
teachers in their various contexts used the theoretical ideas of inclusive pedagogy. Observation and
interview data were analysed to reveal linkages between the principles that informed the course and the
practices of programme graduates. By drawing on examples from the data that illustrate inclusive
pedagogy in action, questions are addressed about how teachers in diverse classrooms create learning
environments with opportunities that are available to everybody.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
This paper explores how the theoretical concept of inclusive
pedagogy is being taught and studied in a university based teacher
education program. The study is of particular relevance to teacher
educators around the world as the role, value and relevance of
university based teacher education is being questioned and
teachers are under pressure to achieve high standards of academic
performance for an increasingly diverse student population. As
discussed below, inclusive pedagogy is an approach that has
emerged from research into the craft knowledge of teachers who
are able to maintain high levels of academic attainment in diverse
classrooms (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The preparation of
teachers to meet the challenges of teaching under such circumstances
is of concern to teacher educators and policy makers in
many parts of the world because of the significant role that teachers
play in influencing student achievement (Hattie, 2009; OECD.,
2005). Our work is concerned with understanding how classroom
teachers can be prepared to respond to differences between individual
students without perpetuating the marginalization that can
occur when some are treated differently from others. This is an area
of increasing interest among policy makers and teacher educators
in many jurisdictions (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2011; EADSNE, 2011;
OECD., 2010).
Funded by a research and development grant from the Scottish
Government, in the period 2006e2010, the post-graduate initial
teacher education programme at the University of Aberdeen underwent
a fundamental reform that framed educational inclusion
as a core concern for all students, rather than an additional
component or an infusion of information about special needs (for
details, see Florian, Young, & Rouse, 2010). The course as a whole
was underpinned by the principles of inclusive pedagogy (Florian,
2010; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Kershner, 2009), a* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j.spratt@abdn.ac.uk (J. Spratt), l.florian@ed.ac.uk (L. Florian).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006
0742-051X/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e96
distinctive approach to educational inclusion that emphasises the
responsibility of mainstream teachers to support the learning of all
pupils, and promotes an understanding of inclusion as participation
(Black-Hawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007).
This paper draws from a qualitative study of seven graduates
from Aberdeen's Professional Graduate Diploma in Education
(PGDE) programme during their first year as probationary teachers.
The purpose of the study was to explore how the ideas of inclusive
pedagogy were used in practice by new teachers in their various
contexts. The aim was not to evaluate how ‘good’ the teachers were,
or how successful the course had been, but to undertake a more
nuanced exploration of how the beginning teachers understood
and enacted inclusion in their classrooms. This novel approach to
researching the programme effects was designed to generate
important new knowledge about how primary and secondary
classroom teachers might be better prepared to teach increasingly
diverse groups of students. The examples we report reflect the
linkages between the principles that informed the PGDE course
reform and the practices of programme graduates. By drawing
examples from the data which illustrate inclusive pedagogy in action
we also address the related questions of how these conceptual
ideas manifest in practice and how to recognise inclusive pedagogy
when it occurs.
2. Inclusive pedagogy
Inclusive pedagogy is a pedagogical approach that responds to
learner diversity in ways that avoid the marginalisation of some
learners in the community of the classroom. It is a specific approach
that has emerged from research into the craft knowledge of
teachers who were committed to the principles of educational inclusion
in their practice (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The
approach has been further refined by research conversations between
teacher educators (Florian, Young, & Rouse, 2010), and discussions
with policy makers and academics at national and
international dissemination events. Thus the teacher education
research and development project of which this study was part (the
Inclusive Practice Project, or IPP) has involved a complex reciprocal
cycle of knowledge exchange between researchers, practitioners,
policy makers and teacher educators. In examining the pedagogy of
new teachers, the study reported here further strengthens and
consolidates the links between our theoretical ideas and the
learning and teaching that occurs in the classroom when teachers
are informed by these concepts. This paper provides research detail
about what it is that teachers who are committed to the principles
of inclusive education actually do.
This is important because inclusive education is a contested
concept that has been plagued by definitional problems. Originally
conceived as an alternative to special education for students
identified as having disabilities or difficulties in learning, the idea
has broadened to include any and all learners who may be excluded
or marginalised by the processes of schooling. However, the term is
used idiosyncratically to mean different things, from a new name
for special education to a new way of thinking about mainstream
education. The contested nature of the concept creates difficulties
for research. Consequently, we have differentiated inclusive education
from synonymous terms such as inclusive practice and inclusive
pedagogy and defined them specifically for the purpose of
our programme of research which focuses on improving the quality
of provision for diverse groups of learners in mainstream schools
(Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).
Inclusive pedagogy challenges the deterministic practices that
pervade contemporary education. For example, schools commonly
base organisational decisions on the twinned assumptions, firstly
that children's ability is fixed and immutable and secondly that
differences between students should be addressed by offering
alternative provision, whether that is through ability grouping
within classrooms, setting and streaming within year groups or
separate provision for ‘special needs’. Thus the structures of many
schools have developed in ways which exacerbate difference by
providing for some individuals or groups in ways that mark out and
reinforce divisions. At an individual level these practices have been
shown to selectively undermine some pupils' sense of self-worth
(Boaler, William, & Brown, 2000), or their willingness to persist
in the face of difficulty (Dweck, 1999) whilst at a societal level they
reproduce social inequalities as certain groups, for example some
ethnic minorities, are over represented in special education (Harry,
2014).
The supposition that the future achievement (or ‘potential’) of a
child can be determined from present performance also leads to
pessimistic assumptions in teachers who do not believe it is in their
power to bring about change (Hart, 1998). As an alternative, inclusive
pedagogy draws from the work of Hart, Dixon, Drummond,
and McIntyre (2004) who argue that a child's capacity to learn is
transformable, when teachers remove the limits imposed by
deterministic beliefs. Inclusive pedagogy is informed by a sociocultural
understanding of learning. It acknowledges that learning
takes place in the context of the ‘person plus’ (Claxton, 2009), in
other words, the individual together with the complex web of social
relations which he or she inhabits. Drawing from the work of
Vygotsky (1978) children are seen to grow into the intellectual and
cultural life of the community through their interactions with
others. Hence the capacity to learn is not seen as a solely dependent
on innate factors such as intelligence, but instead the social origins
of cognitive development and the idea that the capacity to learn can
be enhanced by the choices that teachers make (Hart et al., 2004;
Kuzolin, 2014) are fore grounded.
A socio-cultural approach also recognises that in the microculture
of the classroom, the choices that teachers make about
learning and teaching convey messages which are much wider than
the formal learning focus of the lesson (Alexander, 2001). Through
its unconditional recognition and acceptance of all learners, the
inclusive pedagogical approach recognises that all children have
much in common, whilst acknowledging that each child is unique
(Alexander, 2004). Rather than denying differences between children,
it seeks supportive ways of accommodating diversity (Florian,
2010). Thus, understanding how to respond to difficulties in
learning, in ways which respect what Linklater (2011) has called the
dignity of each child within the classroom community, is critical.
Specifically, inclusive pedagogy is opposed to the practices which
offer provision for ‘most’ alongside additional or different experiences
for ‘some’. Instead it demands that teachers extend what is
ordinarily available to be accessible to all (Florian, 2010) by offering
a range of options which are available to everybody.
The inclusive pedagogical approach, then, favours classroom
practices which encourage collaboration between children in
learning activities which build a sense of an inclusive community
learning together. However, it is also important to be mindful what
each individual brings to and gains from the complex interaction of
the classroom (Kershner, 2009). Hence it is not a slavish adherence
to group work at all costs, but instead asks that teachers draw on
their professional judgement to choose the most appropriate
approach to teaching and learning in any particular context, being
ever mindful about how those choices will impact on the opportunities
for all children in the class (De Valenzuela, 2014).
By refusing to categorise children according to perceptions of
‘ability’, inclusive pedagogy also calls for a reconceptualisation of
professional partnership in the field of learning support. Classroom
teachers and other specialists are urged to view children's difficulties
in learning as professional dilemmas, and to constantly
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e9690
work together to seek new approaches to support children, to avoid
stigmatising. By placing responsibility for all learners on classroom
teachers, specialists are now seen as partners with whom to
explore new ways of working with children (rather than parallel
workers to whom problems can be referred). In replacing older
notions of consultation and advice, this model provides opportunities
for professionals to co-construct knowledge by working with
others (Trent, Artilles, & Ernst, 1998).
The inclusive pedagogical approach fosters an open-ended view
of each child's potential to learn, consistent with Hart et al.'s (2004)
‘core idea of transformability’ which illustrates that what teachers
choose to do (or not) can affect any child's capacity to learn.
Drawing from a distinction made by Robeyns (2005) this approach
rejects the ontological individualism created by repeated judging,
sifting and sorting of children and replaces it with an ethical individualism
which values the learning of every child. This resonates
with Biesta's (2011) call that education should allow children's
uniqueness to ‘come into being’ as the child develops, (a process he
calls subjectification) rather than simply socialising children into
the status quo. The inclusive pedagogical approach has the potential
to disrupt the existing order of deterministic expectations to
create a new type of classroom where, what Griffiths (2001) terms
the ‘lovely diversity’ of children is expected and welcomed as an
asset in the learning of all. In this paper we illustrate the concept of
inclusive pedagogy by describing and discussing how it was enacted
by new teachers in different settings. In particular the data
show how the teachers respected the dignity of each individual
through the options that were made available to everybody.
3. The PGDE course
The PGDE Professional Studies course introduced inclusive
pedagogy as three core themes: Understanding Learning, Social
Justice and Active Professionalism. The Understanding Learning
theme offered a critique of ability labelling and an introduction to
theories of how children learn. The Social Justice theme sought to
develop awareness of the inequalities that are perpetuated by
deterministic practices and to imbue students with a sense of their
responsibility to support all learners. The Active Professionalism
theme conveyed a form of collaborative professionalism whereby
teachers work with and through others to find new ways of
responding to the difficulties that children may face in their
learning, whilst respecting the dignity of the child. The course
aimed to go beyond ‘what works’ lists of strategies that describe
what teachers should do, to introduce a deep and nuanced understanding
of the philosophical, political, educational and professional
issues that intersect in the pedagogical stance of a teacher.
While many teacher education courses share these aims, our
approach was distinctive in its focus on difference as an ordinary
aspect of human development, a key assumption underpinning the
inclusive pedagogical approach e something that is foundational
rather than additionally covered by adding or infusing content
about special or additional educational needs to the course.
4. Methods
Rouse (2009) suggests that becoming an inclusive practitioner
depends on ‘knowing ‘(theory, policy and legislation), ‘doing’
(turning knowledge into action) and ‘believing’ (in their capacity to
teach all children). In essence this study examines the way in which
new teachers draw from the knowledge and belief system underpinning
their PGDE course to inform their ‘doing’ in the context of
their own classroom. Following Alexander (2004) we view ‘pedagogy’
to mean the act of teaching and its attendant discourses.
Simply by observing, a researcher cannot know why the teacher
chooses the action (s)he does. Hence we adopted a methodology
which allowed us to observe the practice of new teachers, and also
invited them to talk to us about the rationale behind their practice.
This study followed seven new teachers: four primary teachers
and three secondary teachers, employed in three different local
authorities, over the course of their probationary year. Prior to
starting the study, ethical approval was sought and obtained from
the ethics committee of the University of Aberdeen's School of
Education. Informed consent was obtained from the local authorities,
the head teachers and the participating teachers. In order to
ensure that we avoided participants being coerced by their managers,
we ensured we had obtained full consent from the new
teachers before we approached the head teachers for consent.
Participants were informed of the right to withdraw at any point,
without needing to give a reason. However, there was no attrition
from the study. Pseudonyms were allocated to ensure anonymity.
Six of the teachers were visited by a researcher three times
during the year, but one teacher (Chloe) was visited only twice
owing to logistical issues in the school. Each visit consisted of an
observation session e a full lesson in a secondary school, or a halfmorning
or afternoon session in a primary school - followed by an
in-depth semi-structured interview usually lasting between 45 min
and 1 h. The interviews invited the teachers to reflect on aspects of
the lesson, and also to discuss more general issues relating to
learning and teaching in their classes. The final interview also
provided an opportunity for the teachers, as they approached the
end of their probationary period, to reflect upon the content of the
PGDE of the course and to identify aspects which had been
particularly influential on their development of pedagogy. Interviews
were fully transcribed and prior to analysis participants
were invited to check the transcripts for accuracy, and also asked if
they would like to add, change or withdraw any comments.
Participants were recruited by issuing invitations to graduating
students based on a sampling frame which echoed the gender of
the whole cohort and also accounted for option choices during the
course and employing local authorities. However, the low level of
uptake (25 invitations generated seven positive responses) meant
that the people whom we did recruit were not typical of the cohort
as a whole. Participants were all female mature students. Nonetheless,
as this study was not intended to be an evaluation of the
course as a whole, this does not detract from the validity of the
findings. The aims of the study were to explore the ways in which
inclusive pedagogy can be enacted in practice, and our theoretical
model assumes that this will always vary according to the school
context and the individuality of the children in each class. We offer
here a detailed examination of a small number of cases which
exemplify (rather than typify) the enactment of inclusive pedagogy.
Analysis of the findings was a three stage process, which drew
from a framework based on the three course themes outlined
above: Understanding Learning, Social Justice and Active Professionalism.
The framework was developed in conversation with
teachers and teacher educators over the course of the PGDE
development project. Table 1 shows how the theoretical bases of
each of the themes were linked to the intended ‘graduate outcomes’,
i.e. the features we hoped to foster in the practices of our
graduates. This study sought to further understand how those
graduate outcomes were enacted in practice.
Full details of the analytical framework and the analytical process
have been published elsewhere (Florian & Spratt, 2013), so in
this paper we will illustrate the approach taken by using the theme
‘Understanding Learning’ as an example. From our own research
(Florian, 2010), from literature and from discussions with colleagues,
a list was compiled of the ways in which this theme would
manifest in practice. This provided the analytical codes for the
observations and for the interviews, for this theme. However, the
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e96 91
analysis should not be seen simply as a deductive process involving
a pre-determined framework, as the framework was refined as the
study progressed, in the light of the data.
Evidence for ‘Understanding Learning’ might include:
 Teaching practices which include all children
 Creating environments for learning with opportunities that
are sufficiently made available for everyone, so that all
learners are able to participate in classroom life;
 Extending what is ordinarily available for all learners (creating
a rich learning community) rather than using teaching and
learning strategies that are suitable for most alongside
something ‘additional’ or ‘different’ for some who experience
difficulties;
 Differentiation achieved through choice of activity for
everyone;
 Rejection of ability grouping as main organisation of working
groups
 Use of language that expresses the value of all children
 Social constructivist approaches e.g. providing opportunities for
children to participate in co-construction of knowledge
 Interplay/interdependence between teachers and learners to
create new knowledge (coeagency)
 Using formative assessment to support learning
 Rejecting deterministic beliefs about fixed ability and the
associated idea that the presence of some will hold back the
progress of others
 Believing all children will make progress, learn and achieve
 Focussing teaching and learning on what children can do
rather than what they cannot
 Grouping children to support everybody's learning
In the first phase of analysis, interview transcripts and observation
notes were coded according to the framework, using NVivo 7
as an organisational tool. This process enabled close scrutiny of the
data and provided a rich and detailed data set to illustrate each of
the themes. Coding was applied where these themes were evident,
but we also coded their absence, and any constraints to the
enactment of the principles of inclusive pedagogy. During this
process it was abundantly clear that the three themes: ‘Understanding
Learning’, Social Justice’ and ‘Active Professionalism’,
whilst theoretically distinct were closely interwoven in practice,
and it was the ways in which the teachers simultaneously paid
attention to all aspects of the theoretical framework that gave rise
to their inclusive pedagogies. Many actions or strategies simultaneously
attracted multiple coding.
In the second stage we shaped individual descriptive case
studies, using the coding generated in the first stage to illustrate
how the themes of inclusive pedagogy overlap and interweave to
inform the very complex practice of teachers.
Thirdly, a cross case analysis was conducted to identify the
commonalities between the cases. This was particularly applied to
aspects of teaching which we viewed as enacting the principles of
inclusive pedagogy. Thus at this stage we were asking which examples
could we confirm as being ‘inclusive pedagogy’, how might
this have been informed by the principles of the PGDE course, and
what could we learn by comparing these examples with each other?
5. Findings
The universal feature of the inclusive pedagogy which we
observed was the respect for the dignity of individual children
within the learning community of the classroom. It was clear from
cross-case analysis that in the classrooms of those teachers who
understood and enacted inclusion, each child was valued in the
community. One teacher, Rachel commented on her awareness of
this directly, using the term ‘status’. She observed:
It's vitally important that you protect their status because the
minute … it takes a second to lose that. .......It takes one careless
comment. It could take a moment, a bad day, a wrong decision, it's
so … you've got to be careful, you've got to be really careful with
that. It would take the slightest of comments if said in the wrong
way or meant in the wrong way or picked up in the wrong way, to
ruin a child's status.
This resonates with the observation made by Hart et al. (2004)
that everything that a teacher does, or chooses not to do, matters.
Table 1
The relationship between the Professional Studies core themes, the principles of inclusive pedagogy and the graduate outcomes. Adapted from Florian and Spratt (2013).
PGDE
professional
studies course
themes
Principles/ underlying
assumptions
Associated concepts Key challenges Outcome (Programme
graduates)
1.Understanding
Learning
Difference is an essential aspect
of human development in any
conceptualisation of learning
The concept of transformability in
learning replaces deterministic
assumptions fixed ability
‘Bell-curve thinking and notions of
fixed ability still underpin the
structure of schooling
Reject deterministic views
of ability
Accept that differences are
part of human condition
Reject idea that the presence
of some will hold back the
progress of others
Believe that all children can
make progress (if conditions
are right)
2. Understanding
Social Justice
Teachers must believe they are
capable of teaching all children
Difficulties students experience in
learning should be considered
dilemmas for teaching rather
than problems with students
The identification of ‘learning
difficulties’ places a focus on what
the learner cannot do and often puts
a ceiling on learning and achievement.
Teachers must be disabused of the
notion that some children are not
their responsibility
Commitment to the support
of all learners. Belief in own
capacity to promote learning
for all children
3. Becoming
an Active
Professional
Professionals must continually
develop creative new ways of
working with others to support
the learning of all children
Modelling (creative new) ways of
working with and through others
to better understand and address
the difficulties children experience
in learning
Changing the way we think about
inclusion (from ‘most’ and ‘some’
to everybody)
Willingness to work
(creatively) with and through
others to develop an
‘everybody’ approach
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e9692
The notion of status as commented on by Rachel in this excerpt
depends upon the way in which the teacher relates and responds to
pupils, in terms of the conversations and the teacherepupil relationships
that develop. All of our teachers were aware of the
importance of fostering welcoming, accepting communities, and
some spoke at length about this. Classroom relationships have long
been known to be a vital component of the successful classroom
(e.g. Spratt, Shucksmith, Philip, & Watson, 2006; Pomeroy, 1999).
However for us they are important, since everything in the classroom
takes place in the social context, but insufficient, as we are
interested not only in social inclusion, but more specifically in inclusion
in learning. We would argue that whilst good classroom
relationships are a prerequisite for inclusive pedagogy, that inclusion
in learning further enhances the relationships in and beyond
the classroom. This is supported by the findings of Mamas (2011)
who noted that the social status of children who were identified
as having ‘special needs’ was higher in classes where inclusive
approaches to learning and teaching were in evidence. Thus good
relationships are both a context for and a product of inclusive
pedagogy. Our interest lies in the strategies teachers adopt to
ensure that each child is an active member of a community which
learns together in ways which do not rely on the marking out of
difference.
Our analysis revealed two essential overarching, but intertwined
elements of the inclusive pedagogical approach. Firstly, and
fundamentally, the teachers used strategies for whole class activities,
which accounted for all the class members. Secondly, where
individual children encountered difficulties in learning, inclusive
pedagogy was characterised by responses which included a
consideration of everybody (not only changes targeted at that one
child). We will consider each of these below.
5.1. Whole class strategies e planning for everybody
Here we provide examples which illustrate different strategies
that teachers have used to make the learning available to everybody
in diverse classrooms, in ways which cater for all whilst
avoiding discriminating for some. Firstly we introduce Mary who
taught a composite Primary 4/5 (children aged 8e10) class in an
inner city school located in an area of deprivation. Of the 22 pupils
in her class, several were described by Mary as facing difficulties in
their learning for a variety of reasons. The following vignette describes
her approach to a lesson on grammar in which the children
were learning about the articles ‘a’ and ‘an’, and exploring their
different use:
The session began with a teacher-led class discussion of the difference
between the two articles and their appropriate use. The
class was arranged into four groups, each table starting with a
different task. At one table the children were require to divide a pile
of ‘noun’ cards into two piles of ‘a’ words and ‘an’ words. At a
second table children were invited to write ‘a’ words on a large
sheet of paper. The third table bore a similar sheet for ‘an’ words. At
the fourth table children were asked to link the appropriate article
to a long list of words which the teacher had written down in
advance. Each task involved shared working within the group. After
a short time each group moved to the next table, to contribute to a
different task. By the end of the session all children had contributed
to all tasks, and the end result was a class output rather than individual.
Following a class discussion of the outputs, the large
sheets of paper were displayed on the wall, and thus a record of the
work was shared.
Mary's approach differed from a ‘most and some’ approach to
inclusion in that it involved all children working together on a
collaborative task, in a way which did not seek to pre-determine
who could do what by identifying who was responsible for each
input. Instead the activity was framed as cooperative learning,
involving joint exploration of the issue. Rather than taking an
individualised approach where each child would have ownership
only of their own efforts (some of which may be largely mistaken),
the communal output was used as a resource for all members of the
class. In Mary's class the correct answers were viewed as a shared
achievement, the record of which was available to all for future
reference.
Significantly, Mary did not rely on ability as a rationale for the
groups in which she organised the class for this activity, which is
often the driver for group work. She chose the groupings for this
activity, with the purpose of promoting productive collaborative
working, based on what she knew of the existing relationships in
the class. The groups were transient, they were together only for
this piece of work, and Mary tended to alter the groupings for
different activities, thereby encouraging shared learning across the
classroom community and avoiding stereotyping children as long
standing members of particular groups.
The second example of whole class strategies is drawn from
Rachel, who was a secondary teacher of Technical subjects. The
department in which she worked placed constraints upon her
which were different from the other new teachers in this study.
What interested us was what she did within that context; how she
adopted an inclusive stance in circumstances which, in some ways
militated against. Our observations were made of Rachel working
with a second year class in secondary school (aged 13e14) class.
The curriculum for the first two years of secondary education, in
Rachel's school, was based on pupils undertaking a series of individual
projects, each lasting around six weeks, at the end of which a
mark was allocated to each pupil. These marks were stored and
collated to produce a final grade which dictated whether the students
were advised to continue with the subject in the third year.
Clearly the design of the programme was predicated on a notion of
ontological individuality e each child on his or her own trajectory
which was monitored by the teacher. Moreover, the furniture in
Rachel's classroom was designed for individual work stations, each
fixed with its own drawing board, all surrounded with a class-set of
computers, so it was impossible to arrange seating comfortably for
collaborative working on projects. Nonetheless, on the occasions
that she was observed, Rachel sought to maintain what she called
‘group status’ through class discussions at the beginning of the
session, together with end-of session feedback. She also paid
attention to the individuality of her pupils by offering an open
choice of focus so that each could bring an area of interest to the
work. Hence in the first observation, the topic was ‘product review’
where each pupil was evaluating a particular item of their own
choice. The range of items under review included a drum set, roller
blades, ballet shoes, hair straighteners and a tennis racket.
It was notable that Rachel herself did not see the departmental
organisation as problematic. She did comment that she thought it
was a ‘strange’ arrangement since at university or in the workplace
her experience of product design had always been group based. But
over three interviews, when asked if she saw any obstacles in her
work to being inclusive she replied in the negative, on one occasion
saying:
I think you create your own, I think a lot of people create their own
obstacles. I think it's down to personality and at the end of the day I
want the pupils in my class to do the best that they can and I'll
support them in that however they do it.
She was highly enthusiastic about her subject, and equally
enthusiastic about working with children and young people. Part of
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e96 93
her perspective on inclusion was the desire that all children should
have high quality experiences of her subject. For Rachel, a driving
force was the desire to work with children through her subject. A
key element in how she talked of her approach was that she always
tried to ‘be there’ for the children, which meant that her commitment
extended beyond the constraints of the timetabled lessons
and the walls of her classroom. This included an open invitation to
all children to come into the department at lunch times if they
wanted to work on their projects, and in this way she was able to
support any children who felt they needed additional time or
support, in a way that did not involve her singling anybody out for
‘extra help’. Evidence suggested that this opportunity was taken up
on fairly regular basis, particularly around key moments of
assessment, or when pupils had been absent.
The concept of ‘being there’ was part of her broader commitment
to relationships of trust with the pupils. During the second interview
she remarked on her pleasure when some pupils had confided in her
that they regularly attended the Support for Learning (SFL) department.
The fact that the pupils had volunteered this information was,
to Rachel, evidence that they trusted her. Her response was not
simply to provide work to be sent to the SFL department, but instead
to go to there in person to work with the pupils, where her timetable
allowed, thereby taking the unusual step of crossing the divide between
‘mainstream’ and ‘additional support’, demonstrating the
new kind of collaborative working that was encouraged on the PGDE
course. Rachel further commented on how this strategy had helped
her improve her understanding of those pupils' learning, and had
also cemented her relationship with the pupils.
These two examples taken together demonstrate how teachers
in different contexts use the idea of ‘everybody’, not ‘most and
some’ to inform choices when planning lessons. Taking, as a
starting point, the idea that learning opportunities which are
available to everybody ensure that all members of the class can
participate paves the way to a multiplicity of approaches, exemplified
here (but not restricted to) collaborative mixed ability group
work, pupil choice, and support of everyone's learning by ‘being
there’ beyond the confines of the classroom. The main point we
make here is that the planning for learning, whilst always underpinned
by a rejection of deterministic approaches, and a proactive
stance towards all children learning together, must take account of
the individuals and circumstances in each particular classroom
setting. Our argument is that it is not which strategy teachers
choose but how they use it that is the hallmark of inclusive pedagogy.
In this way the idea of ‘everybody’ not only invites the teacher
to think about their classes in new and different ways but encourages
a consideration of how they can attend to the individuality
of each learner without stigmatising some.
5.2. Responses to individual difficulties in learning - in the context
of ‘everybody’
It has long been known that identifying certain children as
having ‘special needs’ and providing additional targeted ‘learning
support’ which is different from or additional to the learning
experience of the majority of pupils, however well meant, has the
unfortunate side effect of reinforcing the divide between those who
are thought to be ‘less able’ from the rest of the school or classroom
community, and stigmatising those who are classified as ‘different’
(e.g. Rose, 2007). What is less well understood how else teachers can
or should respond to individual difficulties. If we accept that difference
is normal and inevitable we cannot revert to traditional
models of whole class teaching where all are expected to do the
same work. Inclusive pedagogy offers an alternative approach which
asks teachers to reframe the problem, not as deficit in the individual,
but as a professional dilemma for themselves as teachers. It asks
teachers to take a positive view, that all children have the capacity to
learn, when conditions are right, and to reject the belief that the
presence of some children impedes the progress of others. The inclusive
pedagogical approach addresses the issues faced by individuals
by extending what is available to everybody. Thus the
answer to individual problems should be sought in the modification
of whole class strategies. Below we offer two examples of teachers
taking an ‘everybody’ approach to individual difficulties.
Felicity was responsible for a first year class in primary school
(age 5e6). Much of her focus in interviews concerned ‘Andrew’
who was severely deaf, but whose hearing had been improved to
some extent with a cochlear implant. When addressing the class
she wore a microphone, but nonetheless his hearing was limited.
Felicity constantly sought strategies to teach in ways which were
accessible to Andrew. For example all her communication with the
class had a visual component, but as she explained e this had
benefits for all the class:
We try to make things quite visual and multisensory, which benefits
everybody anyway.
She explained that when she planned for the whole class she
always planned lessons with Andrew in mind, but that she did
nothing different for him, other than make sure she had his full
attention when she was speaking. In the second interview she reported
how she had been very pleased with the use of film for
story-telling, as an alternative to her reading from a book as she felt
that a number of the pupils had benefitted from that experience,
including Andrew. She said:
When we do writing and often we base it on a book and I sometimes
felt like he hasn't accessed it very well because he can't
remember the story, if I've just read it, even if he's seen pictures, so I
[showed] a film instead of a book and that was their story and he
completely got it. And it was a film with no dialogue, it was just a
silent film and he had a lot to say and that was really nice because
he could really get the story because it was all visual, so I'm
probably going to do a bit more of that.
Again, she pointed out how this approach had also been helpful
to other children in the class who had difficulties with writing from
stories.
Andrew was provided with some additional support in class from
a teacher from the School for the Deaf. However, the two teachers
had agreed to take a team teaching approach, so that Andrew was
not isolated by the presence of an additional adult. As far as possible
the visiting teacher worked with a group that included Andrew,
rather than by himself. Felicity also commented on her own professional
learning from working with the visiting teacher.
In the following example we can demonstrate how Chloe, a
teacher of the seventh year of primary school (age 11e12) when
trying to engage a reluctant learner took a whole class approach to
address the individual issue. In her planning for the whole class,
She spoke of one child, ‘Danny’, about whose disinterest in school
she had been forewarned when she joined the school:
..when I started this job I was told that [Danny] wouldn't get
involved, he would just sit out, because that's granny's fields (sic)
and he works in them every day after school. And that's his field
right next to the school, all them (sic) fields are his granny's and he
would just sit in the window and think about how he was going to
do the combining and stuff after school.
Chloe's solution was to introduce a conservation topic based
around farming for the whole class. At the time of the second
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e9694
research visit the classroom houses several elaborate model farms,
including a Clydesdale horse farm built by the pupils who were
interested in riding. Each group had been granted a theoretical
£50,000 with which to manage income, outgoings and even public
liability insurance for the horse riders. The cross curricular potential
was great, but the way in which the projects developed was led
by the children's interests. Chloe drew from Hart et al. (2004) to use
the concept of coeagency between teacher and pupils in the
learning process,
So it was taking things that are important to them and really things
that engage [Danny]. Coeagency and attaching my power to his
and we work together ..... And I was trying to get him to work with
people as well, so taking a topic like that and thinking how can I
then use his interest and his strengths to try and steer him towards
realising how this is relevant
While the strategy of topic work is a common cross-curricular
approach, our interest is in how Chloe used this strategy. By
choosing topic work as a strategy to enhance learning for Danny,
Chloe had refused to accept the status quo, in which there was little
expectation that he would ever show any interest in learning. At the
same time she sought a solution which did not mark Danny as
different by providing ‘special’ work. In keeping with the philosophy
of inclusive pedagogy Chloe found a way to invite everybody to
engage in a learning experience which took into account the individuality
of all the children. In presenting this example at a
seminar, we have been challenged, by the suggestion that it is
unfair to make everybody work on a farming topic just because
Danny liked it. Supposing, the questioner asked, that some of the
other children hated farming, wouldn't that be a bad choice to
make? However, the point here is that Chloe, in the light of her
knowledge of the children in her class looked for a topic that she
felt would offer a point of interest to all, and within that offered
choice in how to approach the work. It would, of course, have been
the wrong choice if she knew some children hated farming. But this
is the crux of the issue. Teachers must account for the diversity
within their class as they plan for everybody. Therefore the farming
project worked for Chloe because she understood her children, but
it may not transfer to other settings. Hence inclusive pedagogy is a
set of principles, which gives rise to a multiplicity of practical
possibilities across different settings.
Chloe also described the way in which the principles of the
PGDE course had shape her as a teacher, pointing out how it had
provided her with the theoretical concepts to interrogate her
practice, and with the language to justify her approaches:
I think [before the PGDE] I believed that people's ability is
changeable, but I didn't really know how to articulate it and I
certainly wouldn't have known how to translate it in practice with
the sort of passion and the organisation in my own thoughts to how
to bring it into the classroom. And that's what the course has helped
me with
We can see from this reflection that the concept of inclusive
pedagogy underpinning the PGDE course had enabled Chloe to
develop into a teacher who not only supported the idea of inclusion,
but knew how make and enact decisions that would support the
learning of all pupils in her classroom.
6. Discussion
The vignettes selected for inclusion in this paper are illustrative
of the key tenets of inclusive pedagogy. Whilst the settings and the
practice adopted by the new teachers are diverse, our cross case
analysis reveals the same principles underpinning the teachers
choices in their classrooms. The theoretical ideas which inculcated
their university learning offered a common framework for thinking
about the learning of all children. However, the actual choices made
by the new teachers were informed by the local knowledge that
they developed about the unique characteristics of the individuals
in their classes. Griffiths (2001) suggests that teachers committed
to fairness in education need to pay attention to ‘grand narratives’
and ‘little stories’. In the examples the grand narratives are the
theoretical principles of inclusive pedagogy, and the little stories
and the lived experiences of the individual pupils in the context of
the classroom community.
These vignettes also clearly demonstrate that the three distinct
themes which underpinned the PGDE course had become deeply
interwoven when enacted in practice. Take, for example, Chloe's
decision to introduce a farming topic in order to engage Danny with
the wider class activities. In refusing to accept that he couldn't or
wouldn't learn, she was acting out a belief that learning is transformative
(Hart et al. 2004) and that all children can learn when
conditions are right (Florian, 2010). Her choices were informed by a
socio-cultural understanding of learning as a shared activity.
Simultaneously she was careful not to take any steps that would
place Danny in deficit or offering an approach that would isolate
Danny from his peers. In seeking a novel solution which was
underpinned by a commitment to inclusion in learning she was
demonstrating the type of active professionalism endorsed by the
course. Similar overlapping themes are evident in all of the examples
provided here. Thus whilst, for clarity of communication,
the principles of inclusive pedagogy can be described separately, in
the lived reality of classroom practice they are linked together
synergistically to produce an approach which is larger than the sum
of its parts.
Key also to all of the vignettes provided here is the common
belief in the benefit to the whole learning community of valuing the
participation of each individual. As Griffiths (2001) argues inclusion
requires attention to ‘the good of each and the good of all, in an
acknowledgement that one depends on the other’, (p. 54) and this
is evident in the way that teachers believed unconditionally that all
children had a valuable contribution to make, and that to undermine
the status of any individual would be to the detriment of all.
By informing their teaching strategies with a consideration of
‘everybody’ the teachers addressed both the subjectification of individuals
(Biesta, 2011) and the shared commonality of their pupils.
A notable feature in the data is the way in which the teachers
sought an ‘everybody’ response to address individual difficulties.
Thus, respect for the dignity of each individual within the learning
community was the fundamental premise of the approach.
What we see emerging from these case studies are examples of
teachers who demonstrate how a coherent set of ideas can be used
as a framework to inform their approaches to classroom practice.
When examining the actual techniques the teachers used we can
see that inclusive pedagogy does not offer a whole new set of
practices; these teachers were using, for example, collaborative
group work, formative assessment, pupil choice all of which are
widely recognised as useful classroom practices. However, what
marks out this approach is how and when these different strategies
are chosen, so that they contribute to class solidarity and minimise
categorisation and determinism. Like the beginning teachers
studied in United States, (Cochran-Smith et al 2009), our Scottish
teachers drew selectively and purposefully from a range of established
strategies to ensure inclusion of everybody in meaningful
learning, a stance which Cochran-Smith et al (2009) characterise as
‘good and just teaching’. These findings provide further evidence
that an inclusive pedagogical approach cannot be summarised as a
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e96 95
simplistic list of ‘how to’ tips, but instead it requires teachers to
make thoughtful choices, underpinned by a sound professional
knowledge, in order to provide opportunities for all to participate in
the learning community of the classroom. We are beginning to
progress from a situation where teachers may wish to adhere to the
objectives of inclusive education but are unsure what to do, to
being able to offer clear guiding principles to inform the decisions
which inclusive teachers continually face.
Acknowledgements
The Inclusive Practice Project was funded by the Scottish
Government.
References
Alexander, R. (2001). Border crossings: towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative
Education, 37(4), 507e523.
Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in
primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7e33.
Biesta, G. (2011). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy.
Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2007). Achievement and inclusion in
schools. Abingdon: Routledge.
Boaler, J., William, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students' experiences of ability grouping
- disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational
Research Journal, 26(5), 631e648.
Claxton, G. (2009). Cultivating positive learning dispositions. In H. Daniels,
H. Lauder, & J. Porter (Eds.), Educational theories, cultures and learning: A critical
perspective (pp. 176e187). London: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2011). Teacher education for diversity: policy and
politics. In A. F. Ball, & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education.
Lanham MD: Rowan & Littlefiled.
Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., & Mcquillan, P.
(2009). Good and just teaching: the case for social justice in teacher education.
American Journal of Education, 115, 347e377.
De Valenzuela, J. S. (2014). Sociocultural views of learning. In L. Florian (Ed.), The
Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed.). (pp. 299e314). London: Sage.
Dweck, C. (1999). Self theories. Their role in motivation, personality and development.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011). Teacher
education for inclusion across Europe: A synthesis of policy and practice in 25
countries. Østre, Denmark: Author.
Florian, L. (2010). The concept of inclusive pedagogy. In G. Hallett, & F. Hallett (Eds.),
Transforming the role of the SENCO (pp. 61e72). Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British
Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813e828.
Florian, L., & Kershner, R. (2009). Inclusive pedagogy. In H. Daniels, H. Lauder, &
J. Porter (Eds.), Knowledge, Values and Educational Policy: A Critical Perspective
(pp. 173e183). London: Routledge.
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating
inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119e135.
Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive and
diverse educational environments: studying curricular reform in an Initial
Teacher Education course. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7),
709e722.
Griffiths, M. (2001). Action for social justice in education. Fairly different. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Harry, B. (2014). The disproportionate placement of ethnic minorities in special
education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed.).
(pp. 73e96). London: Sage.
Hart, S. (1998). A sorry tail: ability, pedagogy and reform. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 46(2), 153e168.
Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement (1st ed.). UK: Routledge.
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R. Kershner, &
P. Farrell (Eds.), Psychology for inclusive education. New directions in theory and
practice (pp. 52e65). Abingdon: Routledge.
Kuzolin, A. (2014). Dynamic assessment and cognitive intervention. In L. FLorian
(Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (2nd ed.). (pp. 553e572). London:
Sage.
Linklater, H. (2011). Making children count? An ethnographic exploration of pedagogy.
Unpublished PhD. University of Aberdeen.
Mamas, C. (2011). Pedagogy, social status and inclusion in Cypriot schools (available
on iFirst) International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1e17.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers.
Paris: OECD Publications.
OECD. (2010). Educating teachers for diversity: Meeting the challenge. Paris: OECD
Publications.
Pomeroy, E. (1999). The teacher student relationship in the secondary school. Insights
from excluded students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(4),
465e482.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities, 6(1), 93e117.
Rose, R. (2007). Curriculum considerations in meeting special educational needs. In
L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 295e307). London:
Sage.
Rouse, M. (2009). Developing inclusive practice: a role for teachers and teacher
education. Education in the North, 16, 6e13.
Spratt, J., Shucksmith, J., Philip, K., & Watson, C. (2006). ‘Part of who we are should
include responsibility for well-being’. Links between the school environment,
mental health and behaviour. Pastoral Care in Education, 24(3), 14e21.
Trent, S., Artilles, A., & Ernst, R. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism:
a review of theory, research and practice in special education. Review of
Research in Education, 23, 277e307.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
J. Spratt, L. Florian / Teaching and Teacher Education 49 (2015) 89e9696