Understanding inclusive pedagogy in primary education: teachers’ perspectives

Moriña, A., & Orozco, I. (2021). Understanding inclusive pedagogy in primary education: teachers’ perspectives. Educational Studies, 47(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1670139 Understanding inclusive pedagogy in primary education: teachers’ perspectives Anabel Moriña Inmaculada Orozco Department of Teaching and Educational Organization, Faculty of Education Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, España ABSTRACT This article describes the beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions of primary education teachers who carry out inclusive pedagogy. We gathered the data using two semi-structured interviews. Twenty-five primary education teachers participated in the study, from eleven Spanish urban public schools. The results covered four topics: beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions for the learning of all students. We observed that teachers who apply inclusive pedagogy believe in the richness of diversity, use a student-centred learning approach, consider the affective and emotional aspects of learning, and base their teaching on active methodologies. This study provides examples of “good teachers” who may inspire others. KEYWORDS Inclusive pedagogy; teachers; primary education; qualitative methodology Introduction In the context of inclusive education, a new set of ideas and institutional regularities are required to ensure a deep and systemic change in educational systems (Haug 2017; Slee 2018). This means that the desire for improvement will have no value until it is demonstrated through the just, equal and encouraging care for each child, or, as stated by Florian and Linklater (2010) until pedagogy offers learning opportunities that allow all students to participate in the classroom. Since the United Nations Summit (2015), through the Agenda 2030, one of the goals to be achieved worldwide is an equitable education for all people (goal 4). In Spain, according to Spanish legislation, primary schools will develop and complete the curriculum and measures for attention to diversity, adapting them to the characteristics of the students and their educational reality in order to attend to all students. Likewise, schools will promote the educational inclusion of people with disabilities, carrying out flexibilization and methodological alternatives, as well as an accessible design for all (Royal Decree 126/2014, 28th of February, which establishes the basic curriculum of Primary Education). On a practical level, the reality is that the school integration model still persists, whereby certain children leave their ordinary classrooms to receive specialised support in the support classroom, and the curricula are rigid and homogeneous. Therefore, despite legislative efforts, inclusive education continues to be a pending task in schools (Gutiérrez- Rodríguez 2019). From inclusive pedagogy, the learning capacity of students depends on what teachers believe, know and do in the present (Florian and Linklater 2010). Florian (2014) defines it as a pedagogical approach that responds to the diversity of students to avoid the exclusion of certain students. Inclusive pedagogy poses an alternative pedagogical approach and understanding it involves realising that it is not a synonym of inclusive education (Black-Hawkins 2017; Florian 2019). Inclusive education refers to political, social and cultural processes that take place in schools and education systems (Slee 2018). Indeed, it is a broader concept. For its part, including pedagogy focuses exclusively on the analysis of what teachers do, how and why to respond to learners’ individual differences, in order to avoid excluding certain students in their class (Florian 2014). Inclusive pedagogy is part of the teacher’s duty; a social justice that creates conditions of emancipation and transformation is required. This involves taking the necessary actions to allow everybody to learn and avoid labelling learners according to their capacities and the idea that some will hinder the progress of others (Florian 2014). Rouse (2009) stated that teaching actions depend on what the teachers believe (expectations and trust in the students), know (about theoretical, political and legislative matters) and do (translating knowledge into actions). A fourth dimension could be added to these three, borrowed from higher education, which is the one related to designs and planning (Gale, Mills, and Cross 2017). Therefore, this inclusive pedagogy approach includes four elements: beliefs, knowledge, design and actions. Beliefs are the teachers’ ideas or principles that drive them to design and develop their curriculum to include every student. Few researchers have asked professionals who work in inclusive situations about their pedagogical beliefs regarding how all the students learn in such environments, or how they perceive diversity (Florian 2014). Inclusive pedagogy is related to the belief that every student offers value to the learning environment. Diversity is considered as an opportunity that enriches the teaching and learning processes. This is probably the most complex component of the inclusive pedagogy model, since changing the beliefs or attitudes of people is not an easy task (Beacham and Rouse 2011; Göransson and Nilholm 2014). Despite all that, some recent studies, such as the one by Sheehy and Budiyanto (2015), in Indonesia, reveal that experience and profession determine these. It is important to develop initiatives for this, as there are studies like those by Tiwari, Kumar, and Sharma (2015) and Van Houtte and Demanet (2016) which conclude that successful inclusion is determined by the development and maintenance of a positive attitude in teachers. These authors demonstrate that teachers’ beliefs about the teachability of students contribute to their motivation about staying in school. Knowledge refers to the theoretical, political and legislative approaches that drive teachers to support inclusive pedagogy. Rouse (2009) highlighted the need to know about learning strategies, disability and special needs, how children learn and what they need to learn, the organisation and management of the classroom, where to get help from when needed, identification and assessment of difficulties, evaluation and monitoring of children’s learning, and the legislative and political context. The results of Sheehy and Budiyanto (2015) show that teachers are aware of their role as facilitators and the inalienable right of every child to be educated with their group of peers. Studies like those by Florian and Beaton (2018) also add that knowledge evolves with the selfevaluation of the praxis. Majoko (2016) and Moscardini (2015) concluded that the training of teachers in inclusive pedagogy has a positive influence on students. Florian and Linklater (2010) analysed whether teachers have the knowledge and skills needed to teach in inclusive classes, and how they make a better use of what they already know when students have difficulties. In this sense, as stated by Arnaiz, De Haro Rodríguez, and Maldonado (2019) and Woodcock and Hardy (2017), the challenge associated with the implementation of inclusive education is the effective training of teachers to satisfy the different learning needs in their classrooms. With respect to designs, which are those aspects considered when planning subjects accessible to every student, the study by Sithembile and Varea (2018) shows that designs in primary schools can lead to participation and the sense of belonging for every child. From this dimension, a subject must be planned from the beginning with the aim of satisfying the educational needs of the largest possible number of students, making it accessible to every child and minimising the need for adjustments to attend to the specific needs of every student. The planning from the universal design for learning (ULD) seems to be the best recommendation in this dimension, with the proactive response being preferred over the reactive response (Lawrie et al. 2017). Lastly, actions correspond to the learning and teaching strategies implemented. These are not only about identifying and working from previous knowledge, but rather about working “with” the students themselves; instead of acting on them, the teachers involve the students (Klibthong and Agbenyega 2018; Nind and Lewthwaite 2018). In the field of actions, there is scientific evidence about practices based on inclusive pedagogy that identify effective didactic proposals: flexible teaching, active learning, teachers who encourage the sharing of beliefs, knowledge and experience among students, constant feedback, high expectations and respect for the different learning styles. Other studies propose that teaching for inclusion should involve the development of practices in which any student can participate and where the different ways of feeling, thinking and acting are respected (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019; Lawrie et al. 2017). Some authors propose specific pedagogical strategies that involve every student: research approaches including simulations, problembased learning, flipped classroom (Loizou-Raouna and Lee 2018), work projects, and the use of different technological resources for learning (Gómez and Badia 2016). There is a need for the pedagogical methods to be diverse, since teachers know that students have different ways of learning and, thereby, they use a variety of teaching methods to guide students while they actively build new knowledge (Sheehy and Budiyanto 2015). Likewise, in this scenario of inclusive actions it is also necessary to consider the emotional and affective component of teaching. Therefore, in the pedagogical dimension related to actions, not only effective teaching strategies are necessary, but also positive interactions between teachers and their students, the concern they show about them, personal connections, respect and everybody’s consideration (Yin, Huang, and Chi 2017). In recent years, some studies have demanded greater attention for the emotional dimension of learning (Chen 2016). In fact, they even mention the need for pedagogy of emotion (O’Brien, Blue, and Rowlands 2017). According to these authors, emotions influence the cognitive resources of students, the motivation to learn, the learning strategies and self-regulation. Therefore, this research aims to give teachers a voice and to know their experiences in order to identify, describe and share practical examples that may serve as a model to teach others how to carry out inclusive pedagogy. Specifically, this study analyses the beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions of primary education teachers who apply inclusive pedagogy. The research questions were the following: which beliefs drive teachers to carry out inclusive pedagogy? What knowledge do they have about diversity and the teaching and learning processes? How do they plan their subjects to make them accessible to all students? What actions do they implement to include all students? Method Participants The recruitment of participants was the result of a purposeful criterion convenience sampling. We contacted two teacher training centres. The training advisers of these centres provided the contact information of the teachers who were carrying out inclusive pedagogy in primary education. In Spain, these institutions are characterised for their effort to meet all the teacher updating and educational needs of schools from a didactic and pedagogical approach, with the aim of improving the quality of educational practice. The training offered is free-of-charge, supported by public funds. These centres offer training in teaching skills and educational innovation, both through external courses in which teachers from any centre can take part, and courses in schools based on the needs of the teaching staff. Regarding the initial teacher training, in Spain, there are some requirements for the exercise of the profession of Primary Education Teacher. In terms of diversity, it is stated that in initial training there will be basic and optional subjects, as well as a specialisation in recent years that involves designing and regulating learning spaces in contexts of diversity. The recruitment process began in February 2018 by e-mail. We first contacted an advisor at one of the training centres, who provided us with the teacher contact she considered inclusive (e.g. these teachers get all students to participate in class, trust everyone’s skills, use active methodologies, or motivate their students). This advisor provided us with 17 teachers, five of whom were excluded because they belonged to Secondary Education. Of the other 12 teachers, only seven responded and participated. Subsequently, we contacted three advisors from the second training centre and they recommended us six inclusive schools and one inclusive teacher. We only were able to contact the head of studies of one school, who provided us with five inclusive teachers. On the other hand, the inclusive teacher recommended by the training centre contacted us by email and was interviewed. In addition, the snowball technique was used to increase the number of participants (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000), i.e. those “colleaguesprofessionals” recommended by the initial participants were also contacted. There were seven inclusion criteria: 1) primary education teachers, 2) who teach in schools within the province of Seville (Spain), 3) of any age, 4) any gender, 5) with diverse years of teaching experience, 6) the availability to participate in the study and 7) the willingness to talk about their personal development and professional career. Interviews with participants began on 27 February 2018 and ended on 22 April 2018. Of the 25 interviews, 21 were conducted in their schools (classrooms, teachers’ rooms, or offices). The other four interviews were conducted in spaces outside the school, such as the participant’s own home, a library or cafeterias. The sample consisted of 25 teachers of 11 public primary schools. In Spain, primary education is compulsory and free in public schools, and it is accessed at the age of 6 years and comprises six academic courses, from the 1st to the 6th year of primary education. All teachers taught in schools in urban areas of the province of Seville (Spain). The vast majority of teachers worked in schools located in neighbourhoods of towns near the capital and disadvantaged areas where there was a high percentage of students in situations of vulnerability and risk of social exclusion (see Table 1). Classes were characterised by their diversity (participants understood this in its broadest sense when referring to cultural diversity, religious beliefs, abilities, sexual orientation, or diverse family situations) with an average ratio of 23–25 students. The profile of the participants is characterised for their teaching experience in schools with a high rate of students in vulnerable situation and at risk of social exclusion. There were a greater percentage of women (n = 18, 72%) with respect to men (n = 7, 28%). The age of the teachers was varied: five teachers were between 34 and 39 years old (20%), nine were between 40 and 49 years old (36%), and eight were between 50 and 57 years old (32%). The average age of the teachers was 43.96 years. Regarding their experience, of the 25 participants, two had taught between 5 and 10 years (8%), six between 10 and 15 years (24%), seven between 15 and 20 years (28%), two between 20 and 25 years (8%), four between 25 and 30 years (16%), three between 30 and 35 years (12%) and only one had carried out his profession for over 35 years (4%). Table 1. Participants’ profile. Participants Gender Age Teaching Experience The Meating Date School Context Participant 1 Female 34 7 27th of February Middle-class Participant 2 Masculine 48 28 5th of March Lower class Participant 3 Female 50 29 5th of March Middle-class Participant 4 Female 36 13 13rd of March Lower class Participant 5 Female 34 9 14th of March Middle-class Participant 6 Female 53 27 14th of March Middle-class Participant 7 Female 55 33 14th of March Middle-class Participant 8 Female 37 9 14th of March Middle-class Participant 9 Masculine 39 15 14th of March Middle-class Participant 10 Female 55 26 15th of March Lower class Participant 11 Female 47 28 15th of March Lower class Participant 12 Female 42 16 15th of March Lower class Participant 13 Female 52 26 15th of March Lower class Participant 14 Masculine 41 12 16th of March Lower class Participant 15 Female 56 30 19th of March Middle-class Participant 16 Female 57 36 22nd of March Lower class Participant 17 Masculine 36 14 23rd of March Lower class Participant 18 Female 42 15 23rd of March Lower class Participant 19 Masculine 41 13 28th of March Lower class Participant 20 Masculine 35 10 4th of April Lower class Participant 21 Female 45 18 6th of April Lower class Participant 22 Masculine 43 15 11st of April Lower class Participant 23 Female 36 13 18th of April Lower class Participant 24 Female 42 18 22nd of April Lower class Participant 25 Female 43 21 22nd of April Lower class Data gathering instruments Two semi-structured interview script was designed with the four key dimensions that make up inclusive pedagogy: beliefs and knowledge (script 1), designs and actions (script 2). The gathering of data was carried out in spring 2018. The average duration of the interviews was two hours. All the information was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Some of the questions asked during the interview were the following: what do you think diversity can contribute to the classroom? Which do you think is the best way to promote inclusion in the classroom? What methodologies do you know to really benefit all the students in your classroom? How should the training of an inclusive teacher be? Which are the teaching and learning strategies that you use in your classroom? Lastly, once all the interviews were transcribed, each of them was given back to their corresponding participants to verify them and make the necessary changes. Data analysis A system of categories and codes was created, which helped understanding the different data gathered (Miles and Huberman 1994). The transcribed interviews were incorporated to the program MAXQDA 12, to facilitate the handling of information. Ethical questions of the research To protect the rights of the participants, an informed consent was required from them, which communicated that the participation in the study was voluntary and protected from possible risk or damage, always respecting and guaranteeing their privacy and confidentiality. Moreover, to preserve the anonymity of each teacher, pseudonyms were used. Thus, the names that appeared in the interviews did not reveal the real identity of the participants. Results To change towards inclusive pedagogy, first of all, it is necessary to believe in it Most of the participants perceived the idea of diversity as reality itself. A philosophy that is undeniable and inherent to the field of education, and these teachers considered it a continuous enrichment and an opportunity to contemplate each child with respect and from a different perspective. They did not mention special education needs (SENs); their idea of diversity was rather wide, including in this concept any student, as a natural phenomenon. Angel: Very often, when talking about inclusion, it is said that everyone must be attended to, but in fact inclusion is reality itself . . . Every day is different. Every day a child brings a story. And the teacher also has different feelings. Regarding inclusive education and its contributions, some teachers think that it is a goal and a right to receive quality teaching, to own and use a space, to participate and to discover the talents as a community, since they believe that schools are the ones which should adapt to the differences, and not the opposite. Sofia: A school where there is inclusion is a school where there is life. However, others made an analysis of this concept, highlighting that it is a term that makes us reflect on our sense of humanity, as it allows individuals to cooperate and enhances their learning process, although it has been invented in society, since such differences have not been respected from the beginning. Angel: I believe that true inclusive education will start being inclusive when it loses its name. It was named inclusive in the first place because there are different people and they must be included somehow, as this is not happening. Most of the participants defined themselves as thoughtful, patient, responsible, affective, curious, tenacious, friendly, hopeful, talkative, conciliatory and vocational people who are committed to their job. They coincided in the concern for creating an affective bond with their students and, especially, for research and continuing education. Alicia: I am a teacher and a person that will always be willing to learn. I cannot be one minute of my life without training or improving myself. They also expressed their belief that no student learns the same way as another since it is impossible to teach them all in the same space and time, given that every person has a pace, a unique maturation process and a different way of receiving information. Bernardo: Each person has his/her own process and the closer you are to the process, the more you will realize that you are doing the right thing with that child. With respect to their competence to attend to diversity, some teachers stated that they are ready, since they had extensive teaching experience and in-service training, although others said, self-critically, that training should never be stopped. happiness and closeness they show, using anecdotal reports, pedagogical documentation, video recording or sharing experiences with others. Lucia: Mostly a field notebook and sometimes I also use video recordings because I take great care of my language in the classroom . . . how I express myself and talk to my students . . . whether it is with love, affection, respect, harshness . . . In order to motivate their students, they use games, generate life dynamics, get emotional with what they do and favour decision-making. When they observe discouragement, they turn to the families, change the activity and ask them to give their opinion about proposing alternatives. Fran: Perhaps it is not about the children, but rather the dynamic does not flow, they are not interested in it . . . and the teacher must adapt or change things. The space is usually organised according to the task approached since it is at the disposal of the group. However, work corners and small groups stand out. These are usually changing, flexible and heterogeneous. The resources that the participants use daily are technological and audiovisual (digital blackboard, computers and music), manipulative, natural and human (the students themselves, volunteers, experts, teachers of educational reinforcement, or experts on therapeutic pedagogy and speech and hearing). Lastly, evaluation is continuous, and the teachers understand it as a path to improvement rather than a tool to separate. They all support the idea that with one exam it is impossible to attend to diversity and that effort and interest must be rewarded. Thus, they create rubrics with their students and use gamified (Plickers, Kahoot, or ClassDojo) and varied tools such as observation, portfolios, research works, field notebooks with transcriptions of their conversations, discussion and interviews. Macarena: Observation, sharing, being with them in the classroom, allowing them to speak and getting results from them . . . I have enough with that to evaluate. Conclusions and discussion A general reading of the results can lead to conclude that, according to the teachers who participated in this study, tackling diversity educationally for every student to learn, participate and be respected in the schools of today’s society, is a complex task that involves plenty of patience, effort, uncertainty, affection and justice, but it is not utopic. This approach appears in studies like those of Florian and Linklater (2010), Haug (2017), and Spratt and Florian (2015), who highlight the need to recognise the dignity of each child in the ordinary classroom with vocation, commitment and critical awareness. These good practices analysed in this study can be the compass that teachers in primary education need in the 21st century to redefine their professional identity, design plans for everybody to participate under equal conditions, overcome their fears and face educational reality with greater confidence and justice. As can be seen throughout the study, taking care of this approach involves rethinking the beliefs, knowledge, designs and actions that decisively influence every day the fulfilment of the rights of every student to receive a humane and quality education (Florian 2014). According to the participants, these four dimensions that define inclusive pedagogy have certain aspects that inspire others to make it possible. This is the main contribution of this study, since, in addition to including an analysis of the beliefs, knowledge and actions, it also incorporates the planning dimension. The participants believe that any person can and must participate in the classroom if the proper opportunities are offered, counting on human potential. They associate the term diversity with reality, richness and personal and professional growth, without mentioning the excluding category of SENs, but rather considering all the members of the classroom. This conclusion is very relevant since in this study the participants move away from the vision of deficit and believe that diversity is a very broad term that refers to all the people who live together in the school and the classroom. This is in line with the results of the studies by Corbett and Slee (2000) and Sheehy and Budiyanto (2015). On the other hand, in order to know and guarantee which are the most inclusive approaches, teachers must be open to learn new ways of doing things and reflect with others on the possible teaching strategies that can be implemented. Therefore, it would be advisable for schools to promote working groups among professionals, who could be offered by the teaching centres or the university. On the other hand, they know how their students learn best and search for ludic, friendly and successful actions, as well as those backed by the international scientific community, understanding that in-service training improves teaching qualification. These teachers are humble and recognise that their training must be a lifelong learning, as Woodcock and Hardy (2017) also concluded. For this reason, the training policy must facilitate and guarantee a permanent training that prioritises the inclusive response to diversity. Likewise, they know that it is the resources which should be inside the ordinary classroom’s routine, instead of the students being outside of it (Tomlinson 2018; Westbrook, Croft, and Miles 2018). This teaching knowledge is an interesting reflection that leads us to think that children with SENs have to be in the ordinary classroom and not in another space far from their peers. It is the resources which must be used in a different way in the schools, instead of forcing the students to adapt to the environment. Pedagogical pairs between teachers can be a way to begin reflecting on educational practices. They design accessible life dynamics from the ULD (Rose and Meyer 2002) taking into account the participation of the entire educational community (family, volunteers and associations), with minimum objectives and activities in which cooperative learning, research, enquiry, manipulation, games and movement are the main components. Thanks to these, the expectations are high for everyone (Spratt and Florian 2015). The findings show that teachers have to design in a very flexible and open way so that everyone has a place. Therefore, teachers should rethink that it is not a question of carrying out differentiated curricular adaptations, but rather profound attitudinal and methodological changes from the beginning of the course. In the daily practice, the participants use student-centred teaching approaches, manipulative, technological and human resources, and active methodologies that favour the self-evaluation of the teacher and the research/action (Tam 2015). Another conclusion is that, if we want to carry out a significant project in the classroom, the learning has to be built together with the students, taking into account their interests, concerns and needs and not incorporating content that is alien to their reality. Therefore, studentcentred methodologies are fundamental (Klibthong and Agbenyega 2018; Rouse 2009). They also facilitate the autonomous search for solutions and allow students to assume their mistakes and learn with sense and emotions. Moreover, they make use of collaborative support, which allows sharing views between the tutor and the “specialist” in the ordinary classroom (Gómez- Zepeda et al. 2017). They carry out this efficient strategy for inclusion appreciating, in the same manner, the entering of any person in the classroom during school hours (Vesterinen et al. 2017). Another significant conclusion is how these teachers understand support. In schools, special support should not be aimed at a particular child or a particular group; we should rather change the view and see that support has to be for the whole class and is also needed by the teachers to improve their teaching in the ordinary classroom. Every single person who enters the classroom poses a learning opportunity for the group, and the Learning Community should make the most of it. Therefore, they reimagine the educational contexts, accompany the processes of all their students (with no exception) and optimise their praxis with sense. The active methodologies that these teachers propose and the successful educational actions can help other faculties to undertake inclusive actions. However, teachers who carry out inclusive pedagogy claim that they need to establish a stronger bond with the families, other teachers of primary education and universities to develop synergies. This is in line with the studies by Binkhorst et al. (2015), Brennan, Kings, and Travers (2019) and Hairon, Jonathan, and Siew (2015), who state that support networks must be created in order to build a collective and purposeful teaching leadership that promotes a true collaborative culture. Lastly, the authors of this study agree with Klibthong and Agbenyega (2018) and Florian (2019) in the idea that, until the teaching role becomes humanised, the social change will not take place. This involves reflecting on the beliefs, training constantly to expand knowledge, designing and accompanying, with the hope that everyone can participate and act together to achieve the success of all the students. Limitations and further research First of all, the authors consider that the availability and specificity of the sample was an unexpected difficulty, since the process was slow, due to the fact that it required contacting the training centres and the management teams of the schools, and also adapting to the timetable and situation of the teachers. Another limitation was the length of the interview (the script had many questions). The meetings, although they were fluid and other relevant topics were discussed in them, had to be sped up in some cases. The authors believe that this study opens new horizons to keep investigating about the keys to develop inclusive pedagogy. In this sense, it would be necessary to include more educational stages in the sample in order to access the testimonies of teachers in early childhood education, secondary education and higher education, and acquire a more holistic view of this pedagogical approach. To conclude, it is essential to study in detail good examples of teachers to carry out case studies that may inspire others and transform their way of thinking, being and acting, with the aim of achieving the participation of all students. These would be complemented with observations in the classroom and interviews with other voices, such as those of the students themselves. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain and FEDER funds European Union [EDU2016-76587-R/ Feder Funds]. Notes on contributors Anabel Moriña is associate professor in inclusive education. She has published in international journals and and regularly attends relevant conferences. Her research interests include disability, inclusive education, educational system and qualitative methodology. Inmaculada Orozco is PhD student in inclusive education. She has published in national journals and regularly participates at international conferences. Her research interests include inclusive education in all educational stages, teacher training and qualitative methodology. ORCID Anabel Moriña http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0852-7523 Inmaculada Orozco http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5170-7805 References Arnaiz, P., R. De Haro-Rodríguez, and R. M. Maldonado. 2019. “Barriers to Students Learning and Participation in an Inclusive School as Perceived by Future Education Professionals.” Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 8 (1): 18–24. doi:10.7821/naer.2019.1.321. Beacham, N. A., and M. Rouse. 2011. “Student Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs about Inclusion and Inclusive.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 12 (1): 3–11. doi:10.1111/j.14713802.2010.01194.x. Binkhorst, F., A. Handelzalts, C. L. Poortman, and W. Van Joolingen. 2015. “Understanding Teacher Design teams-A Mixed Methods Approach to Developing a Descriptive Framework.” Teaching and Teacher Education 51: 213–224. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.006. Black-Hawkins, K. 2017. “Understanding Inclusive Pedagogy: Learning with and from Teachers.” In Inclusive Education. Making Sense of Everyday Practice, edited by V. Plows and B. Whitburn, 13–30. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Brennan, A., F. King, and J. Travers. 2019. “Supporting the Enactment of Inclusive Pedagogy in a Primary School.” International Journal of Inclusive Education: 1–18. doi:10.1080/ 13603116.2019.1625452. Chen, J. 2016. “Understanding Teacher Emotions: The Development of a Teacher Emotion.” Teaching and Teacher Education 55: 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.001. Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2000. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Corbett, J., and R. Slee. 2000. “An International Conversation on Inclusive Education.” In Inclusive Education. Policy, Contexts and Comparative Perspectives, edited by F. Amstrong, D. Amstrong, and L. Barton, 133–146. London: David Fulton Publishers. Florian, L. 2014. “What Counts as Evidence of Inclusive Education?” European Journal of Special Needs Education 29 (3): 286–294. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933551. Florian, L. 2019. “On the Necessary Co-existence of Special and Inclusive Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 23 (7–8): 691–704. doi:10.1080/13603116.2019.1622801. Florian, L., and M. Beaton. 2018. “Inclusive Pedagogy in Action: Getting It Right for Every Child.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (8): 870–884. doi:10.1080/ 13603116.2017.1412513. Florian, L., and H. Linklater. 2010. “Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education: Using Inclusive Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching and Learning for All.” Cambridge Journal of Education 40 (4): 369–386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588. Gale, T., C. Mills, and R. Cross. 2017. “Socially Inclusive Teaching: Belief, Design, Action as Pedagogic Work.” Journal of Teacher Education 68 (3): 345–356. doi:10.1177/ 0022487116685754. Gómez, M., and A. Badia. 2016. “Exploring the Use of Educational Technology in Primary Education: Teachers’ Perception of Mobile Technology Learning Impacts and Applications’ Use in the Classroom.” Computers in Human Behavior 56: 21–28. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023. Gómez-Zepeda, G., C. Petrenas, D. Sabando, and P. Ignasi. 2017. “The Role of the Support and Attention to Diversity Teacher (SADT) from a Community-based Perspective: Promoting Educational Success and Educational Inclusion for All.” Teaching and Teacher Education 64: 127– 138. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.002. Göransson, K., and C. Nilholm. 2014. “Conceptual Diversities and Empirical Short Comings– A Critical Analysis of Research on Inclusive Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 29 (3): 265–280. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933545. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, F. 2019. “Progressive Recognition of the Right to Inclusive Education.” In Justice and Education. Inclusive Knowledge and Practices in America and Europe, edited by N. Ledesma, 613–640. Lima: Center for Constitutional Studies. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, F. 2019. El reconocimiento progresivo del derecho a la educación inclusiva. En Justicia y Educación. Saberes y prácticas inclusivas en América y Europa, editado por Nieves Ledesma, 613-640. Lima: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. Hairon, S., W. P. Jonathan, and C. Siew. 2015. “Teacher Leadership Enactment in Professional Learning Community Contexts: Towards Better Understanding of the Phenomenon.” School Leadership & Management 35: 163–182. doi:10.1080/13632434.2014.992776. Haug, P. 2017. “Understanding Inclusive Education: Ideals and Reality.” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19 (3): 206–217. doi:10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778. Klibthong, S., and J. Agbenyega. 2018. “Exploring Professional Knowing, Being and Becoming through Inclusive Pedagogical Approach in Action (IPAA) Framework.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 43 (3): 109– 123. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.7. Lawrie, G., E. Marquis, E. Fuller, T. Newman, M. Qiu, M. Nomikoudis, F. Roelofs, and L. van Dam. 2017. “Moving Towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching: A Synthesis of Recent Literature.” Teaching & Learning Inquiry 5 (1): 1–13. doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.3. Loizou-Raouna, M., and K. Lee. 2018. “A Flipped Classroom Model for Inquiry-based Learning in Cyprus Primary Education Context.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Networked Learning, Lancaster University: Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture, 210–217. Zagreb, Croatia. Majoko, T. 2016. “Effectiveness of Special and Inclusive Teaching in Early Childhood Education in Zimbabwe.” Early Child Development and Care 188 (6): 785–799. doi:10.1080/ 03004430.2016.1237514. Miles,M.,and M.Huberman.1994.QualitativeDataAnalysis.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications. Moscardini, L. 2015. “Primary Special School Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Supporting Learning in Numeracy.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 15 (1): 37–47. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12042. Nind, M., and S. Lewthwaite. 2018. “Hard to Teach: Inclusive Pedagogy in Social Science Research Methods Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (1): 74–88. doi:10.1080/ 13603116.2017.1355413. O’Brien, M., L. Blue, and D. Rowlands. 2017. “My Best Possible Learning Self: Primary School Children’s Perspectives on Happiness and Success in the Classroom.” International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 12 (1): 1– 16. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/115899/ Rose, D., and A. Meyer. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Rouse, M. 2009. “Developing Inclusive Practice: A Role for Teachers and Teacher Education.” Education in the North 16: 6–13. https://www.abdn.ac.uk/eitn/journal/46/ Royal Decree 126/2014, of 28 February, which established the basic curriculum of Primary Education (OSB num.52, of 28th February of 2014). [Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria (BOE num. 52, de 28 de febrero de 2014)]. Sheehy, K., and Budiyanto. 2015. “The Pedagogic Beliefs of Indonesian Teachers in Inclusive Schools.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 62 (5): 469–485. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2015.1061109. Sithembile, N., and V. Varea. 2018. “Primary School Playgrounds as Spaces of Inclusion/exclusion in New South Wales, Australia.” International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education 46 (5): 494–505. doi:10.1080/03004279.2016.1273251. Slee, R. 2018. Inclusive Education Isn’t Dead, It Just Smells Funny. New York: Routledge. Spratt, J., and L. Florian. 2015. “Inclusive Pedagogy: From Learning to Action. Supporting Each Individual in the Context of ‘everybody’.” Teaching and Teacher Education 49: 89–96. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006. Tam, A. 2015. “The Role of A Professional Learning Community in Teacher Change: A Perspective from Beliefs and Practices.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 21: 22–43. doi:10.1080/ 13540602.2014.928122. Tiwari, A., A. Kumar, and M. Sharma. 2015. “Inclusive Education a “retoric” or “reality”? Teachers’ Perspectives and Beliefs.” Teaching and Teacher Education 52: 128–136. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2015.09.002. Tomlinson, C. 2018. “Complex Instruction: A Model for Reaching up and Out.” Gifted Child Today 41 (1): 7–12. doi:10.1177/1076217517735355. United Nations. 2015. “Education 2030.” Incheon Declaration. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/ 48223/pf0000245656 Van Houtte, M., and J. Demanet. 2016. “Teachers’ Beliefs about Students, and the Intention of Students to Drop Out of Secondary Education in Flanders.” Teaching and Teacher Education 54: 117–127. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.003. Vesterinen, O., M. Kangas, L. Krokfors, K. Kopisto, and L. Salo. 2017. “Interprofessional Pedagogical Collaboration between Teachers and Their Out-of- school Partners.” Educational Studies 43 (2): 231–242. doi:10.1080/03055698.2016.1277131. Westbrook, J., A. Croft, and S. Miles. 2018. “Inclusions and Exclusions in Rural Tanzanian Primary Schools: Material Barriers, Teacher Agency and Disability Equality.” Social Inclusion 6 (1): 73–81. doi:10.17645/si.v6i1.1203. Woodcock, S., and I. Hardy. 2017. “Probing and Problematizing Teacher Professional Development for Inclusion.” International Journal of Education Research 83: 43–54. doi:10.1016/j. ijer.2017.02.008. Yin, H., S. Huang, and J. Chi. 2017. “Choose Your Strategy Wisely: Examining the Relationships between Emotional Labor in Teaching and Teacher Efficacy in Hong Kong Primary School.” Teaching and Teacher Education 66: 127–136. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.006.