Approaches to inclusive pedagogy: a systematic literature review

134 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Approaches to Inclusive Pedagogy: A Systematic Literature Review Anabel Moriña Seville University, c/ Pirotecnia, s/n, ES-41013 Seville, Spain, anabelm@us .es Abstract. The paper presents a systematic review of inclusive pedagogy; it differences between inclusive education, inclusive practice, and inclusive pedagogy; the pedagogic approach adopted integrates four elements: beliefs, knowledge, design and actions; further research is needed to determine what teachers do, how, and why they do it. Keywords: inclusive pedagogy, diversity, teachers, faculty members, systematic literature review. Introduction The terms inclusive education, inclusive practice, and inclusive pedagogy are often used interchangeably in the literature. They are not, however, synonyms. In a recent work, Black-Hawkins (2017) explained the differences between the three concepts. Inclusive education is related to the political, social and cultural processes that take place in schools. Ainscow et al. (2006), Messiou (2017) and Slee (2018) all view inclusive education as a process which maximises learning and increases the engagement of all students. This concept is opposed to that of special education, which categorises students with SEN and, on many occasions, denies them the opportunity to participate and share educational and social experiences with their peers in ordinary contexts (Slee, 2018). In contrast, inclusive education refers to efforts to reduce exclusion in school curricula, cultures, and communities. It is perhaps the broadest of the three concepts, since the starting point for both inclusive practices and inclusive pedagogy is the acknowledgment of inclusive education (Florian, 2015a). ISSN 1392-0340 (Print) ISSN 2029-0551 (Online) https://doi .org/10 .15823/p .2020 .140 .8 Pedagogika / Pedagogy 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4, p. 134–154 / Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 134–154, 2020 135 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 For its part, inclusive practice refers to the actions carried out by teachers1 in order to give meaning to their understanding of inclusive education. In other words, it refers exclusively to teaching practices which foster the learning and engagement of all students, thereby reducing marginalisation. Examples of inclusive practice include cooperative learning (Kagan & Kagan, 2009), ‘lesson study’ (Simon et al., 2018), or peer tutoring (Topping, 2015). The third concept, on which this systematic literature review focuses, is inclusive pedagogy. Unlike the notion of inclusive practice, inclusive pedagogy does not refer exclusively to teaching actions, but rather encompasses other teaching skills also. From the perspective of inclusive pedagogy, all decisions made are seen as being determined not only by teachers’ knowledge, competence and actions, but also by their values and beliefs regarding students and the nature of teaching and learning, as well as social processes and influences (Alexander, 2004). Conceptually, inclusive pedagogy has been defined as an approach to teaching and learning in which teachers respond to learners’ individual differences, in order to avoid excluding certain students (Florian, 2014). Indeed, Florian (2015b) has suggested that the starting point for developing inclusive pedagogy would be the recognition that every learner is different and that learning must be improved for all students. This approach argues that everyone can learn when the conditions are suitable. In order to develop inclusive pedagogy, teachers first need to acquire a set of skills to enable them to facilitate processes of inclusion in their classrooms. According to Forlin (2001), teachers need a series of skills, attitudes, and knowledge in order to do their job from this perspective. Rouse (2009), however, argues that one of the main barriers to developing inclusion is precisely the fact that the majority of teachers do not have the knowledge, skills or attitudes required by their profession. This stance is closely linked to the analysis carried out in 2004 by Shulman, who argued that teacher training should encompass three key learning elements: 1) the head (knowledge and theoretical basis of the profession); 2) the hand (skills, techniques, and practices); and 3) the heart (ethical and moral dimensions, attitudes, and beliefs that are crucial to the profession). Following Shulman’s proposal (2004), Rouse (2009) suggested that inclusion depends on what teachers’ ‘know’ (about theoretical, political and legal questions), ‘do’ (moving from knowledge to action) and ‘believe’ (about their capacity to teach all students). Florian (2014) later revisited these ideas, proposing an inclusive pedagogy model focused on what, how and why teachers engage in inclusive pedagogy. The works cited so far all refer to pre-university educational stages. However, the concept of inclusive pedagogy has also been adopted in the context of higher education. Indeed, Gale and Mills (2013) identified three dimensions underpinning inclusive 1 Throughout this article it used the generic term ‘teacher’ to refer to education professionals working at all levels of the education system, from primary all the way up to university level. 136 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 pedagogy in the university context: beliefs, designs, and actions. Thus, a fourth element can be added to the analysis model proposed by Rouse (2009) and Florian (2014) for inclusive pedagogy, namely design or planning. In this sense, the framework of analysis for inclusive pedagogy adopted in this article comprises beliefs, knowledge, design and actions. Firstly, in this pedagogical approach, there is a belief that all students are valuable and have something to contribute to the teaching and learning process. Diversity is seen as an opportunity to improve learning processes (Shields, 2000). This component of the inclusive pedagogy model is perhaps the most complex, since changing beliefs or attitudes is no easy task (Rouse, 2017). Nevertheless, it is important to establish initiatives to try and do just this, since studies such as the ones by Tiwari et al. (2015), Van Houtte and Demanet (2016) have concluded that successful inclusion depends on the development of a positive attitude by teachers. These same studies also found that teachers’ beliefs regarding students’ teachability contribute to preventing dropout. On the knowledge dimension, Rouse (2009) underlines the need for teachers to be familiar with teaching strategies; disability and special needs; how children learn; what the child needs to learn; classroom organisation; where to go for help when needed; how to identify and assess difficulties; how to evaluate and monitor children’s learning; and the legal context of education. It should be pointed out here that, while it is important to provide teachers with this content-based knowledge, the evidence suggests that it alone is not enough to improve practice since many teachers fail to apply what they have learned after the end of the training course. One issue that arises in relation to this, therefore, is the question of how to organise in-service training for teachers. From the perspective of inclusive pedagogy, training is best provided in the workplace, in collaboration with and based on the specific needs of the teachers themselves (Spear & Da Costa, 2018). The other dimension is the design of a pedagogy that recognizes the difference, and the planning of actions that really respond to the needs of all students (Gale & Mills, 2013). The belief that all students have something valuable to contribute to the learning environment prompts a pedagogical design that includes and makes the most of these knowledge bases. From this perspective, all subjects should be designed, right from the very start, to try and satisfy the educational needs of as many students as possible. They should also be as accessible as possible, thereby minimising the need to make adjustments later on, in order to respond to each students’ specific requirements (Sandoval et al., 2020). Within this dimension, the best option seems to be to plan in accordance with the precepts of universal design for learning (Lawrie et al., 2017; Ok et al., 2017), prioritising a proactive, rather than a reactive response. The final element is linked to the actions or practices that ‘work with’ rather than ‘act on’ students and their communities (Gale & Mills, 2013). Some studies focusing on actions based on inclusive pedagogy suggest a number of ways of achieving this, including flexible learning, student-centred learning, and teachers who encourage students to 137 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 share their beliefs, knowledge, and experiences (Aguirre et al., 2020; Melero et al., 2020; Moriarty, 2007). Others suggest that teaching for inclusion means developing actions based on universal design for learning (Evans et al., 2015; Sanahuja et al., 2020), in which there is room for all students. Moreover, according to Waitoller and Thorius (2016), any curriculum which does not take diversity into consideration in its design is, by definition, ‘disabling’. Some authors propose a different set of pedagogic strategies which seek to involve all students, such as visual representations, cooperative learning activities, research-based approaches (including simulations), problem-based learning, work projects, and the use of new technologies (Evans et al., 2015). In general terms, pedagogic methods need to be varied (Seatter & Ceulemans, 2017) and focused on fostering constructivist learning through the active engagement of learners (Nie & Lau, 2010). In addition to methodological strategies, this last dimension also includes an emotional and affective component which is related to the way in which teaching is carried out (Moriña, 2020). Studies have therefore concluded that effective teaching methods, while necessary, are not the only key aspect, and that positive interactions between teachers and their students are also of crucial importance, along with the worry expressed by the former about the latter (Scott et al., 2003). There are clear benefits when teachers know their pupils (Arnaiz et al., 2019; Ouellett, 2004) and in this sense, teachers are invited to make personal relationships with their students and to develop motivational strategies (Scott et al., 2003). In short, diversity, as it is understood by inclusive pedagogy, is a common element in both inclusive education and inclusive practice. What inclusive pedagogy contributes is an approach focused entirely on teachers, although not only on their teaching actions but also on their social actions, beliefs, knowledge, and designs. The systematic review presented in this article offers an overview of what is known about inclusive pedagogy at all educational stages. The article analyses all existing evidence, with no time constraints. It aims to fill a void in the literature, since no other study to date has undertaken a systematic review of this particular topic. Method Systematic literature reviews are an organised and systematic method for selecting and critically analysing research (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). The procedure followed in this article involved six steps. First, the research questions were raised. Then, the descriptors for the search were defined and the databases for the study were selected. Thirdly, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Fourth, the scientific quality of the publications was analysed using predefined quality criteria. Only studies that met the quality requirements were included in the study. Fifth, data answering the research questions were extracted. Finally, a thematic analysis of the studies was carried out. 138 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Research Questions Four questions guided this review: 1) What is the map of evidence on inclusive pedagogy in terms of country, research methodology, educational stage, and date of publication? 2) What exactly has been researched in relation to the inclusive pedagogical approach (beliefs, knowledge, design, and actions)? 3) How has inclusive pedagogy been used in teacher training? 4) Which teaching and learning strategies foster inclusive pedagogy? Literature Search Descriptors and Databases The descriptors for this study were: ‘inclusive pedagogy’ and the combination of ‘inclusive pedagogy’ and ‘education’, ‘school’, ‘primary education’, ‘elementary education’, ‘secondary education’, ‘high school’, ‘higher education’, ‘university’, ‘college’ or ‘tertiary education’. These descriptors were entered in the search engines of three scientific databases: ERIC, Scopus and Web of Science. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria In this study the inclusion criteria were: 1. The study was peer-reviewed, to ensure that it met a minimum standard of quality and reliability in the view of other scholars. 2. The article was published in English. 3. The article included the keywords, with no restrictions in terms of date of publication. 4. Inclusive pedagogy was viewed as a pedagogical approach based on what is done, as well as how and why. 5. The article focused on inclusive pedagogy in any educational stage. Three exclusion criteria were established: the article used the concept of inclusive pedagogy but with a meaning different from that represented by the pedagogical approach on which this article is based (i.e. the study had a different aim); the study had been published in other types of publications (books or book chapters and conference papers); and the article adopted an exclusively theoretical approach to the meaning of inclusive pedagogy or did not provide any kind of implication for educational practice. 139 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Document Selection The initial searches identified 190 potential publications in the three databases selected (duplicated studies were eliminated). All the abstracts were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles for which there was doubt as to their pertinence were also ordered for further examination. An exhaustive analysis identified 41 articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria. These 41 full articles were downloaded and read. After analysing all 41 articles in accordance with these criteria, 23 were finally selected for the analysis of inclusive pedagogy. Review Based on the research questions, a matrix was designed to systematise the analysis of each of the selected papers and facilitate comparisons between them. The first part of the matrix noted authorship, publication year, country, and educational stage. The second part recorded information about the study, including aims, type of study, data collection instruments, and a number of participants. The final section focused on main findings and conclusions. Analysis The articles were sorted into categories by means of a thematic analysis which encompassed the following themes: country, educational stage, research methodology, inclusive pedagogical approach, teacher training, and teaching strategies for inclusive pedagogy. Each article was individually analysed and coded according to these established categories. This analysis allowed the four research questions to be answered. Results The vast majority of the studies employed qualitative research methods, with the exception of two quantitative works (Higbee, 2009; Woodcock & Hardy, 2017) and three based on a mixed design (Barrington, 2004; Moriarty, 2007; Sheehy & Budiyanto, 2015). All articles were published from 1996 onwards. The majority were conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 9), the United States (n = 5), and South Africa (n = 3). The rest were all carried out in a single country (Australia, Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand and Thailand), with the exception of the study by Burnard et al. (2008), which was an international work conducted jointly in Australia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. In relation to the educational stage on which the studies focused, the majority centred on primary education (n = 12), with 6 focusing on university teaching and 5 on secondary education. The remaining two studies did not specify this information. 140 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 All articles were published between 1996 (Winiarcyk & Long, 1996) and 2018 (Majoko, 2018), although most of the research was carried out between 2014 and 2017. As regards the topics analysed, three main categories were identified: an inclusive pedagogical approach, inclusive pedagogy in teacher training, and methodological strategies for inclusive pedagogy. The Inclusive Pedagogical Approach: What to Do, and Why and How to Do it Firstly, those studies focused on the inclusive pedagogical approach (n = 12) were studied, in terms of what is done, and why and how. The first study identified was by Ammah and Hodge (2005), in which the authors aimed to describe the beliefs and practices of secondary-school physical education teachers regarding the inclusion and teaching of students with severe disabilities. Participants were two teachers with secondary school experience. Three recurring issues emerged from the results: (a) wavering beliefs; (b) inclusion is complex; and (c) troubled confidence. The conclusion drawn was that, in order to engage with confidence in inclusive pedagogy, it is important for teachers to feel properly trained and supported and to have the necessary resources. Subsequently, this time in the field of higher education, Moriarty (2007) conducted a study to explore the use of inclusive pedagogy among members of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculties. The aim was to identify obstacles to adopting inclusive teaching methods for diverse students and students with disabilities, and to propose ways of overcoming them. The most significant barriers identified for the development of inclusive pedagogy were the lack of an inclusive mindset, lack of knowledge regarding pedagogy, high teaching loads and lack of time to develop new methods. The study also observed a relationship between beliefs, knowledge and environment factors, which helped teachers develop inclusive pedagogy. Burnard (2008) carried out a study on music teachers in UK secondary schools and their beliefs about inclusive pedagogy and approaches to inclusive teaching and learning. Interviews were used to explore music teachers’ perceptions of what they believe they do in responding to the challenge of re-engaging disaffected youth. The findings highlighted the fact that inclusive pedagogies imply more than the accumulation of teaching strategies. Rather, they work hard to forge connections with students and find new ways of responding to their needs, building democratic relationships both in and outside the classroom, and rethinking teachers’ roles. In a similar vein, but this time focusing on four different countries (Spain, Australia, Sweden, and the UK), Burnard et al. (2008) explored ways of working with young people on the margins of society, looking at how teachers development a learning context in which students can succeed musically. The challenge seemed to lie in teachers’ ability to strategically (rather than just tactically) focus on the musical experience as a means of building common ground between community cultures and values. In this study, as in 141 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 the previous one by Burnerd (2008), the relationship between teachers and students was found to be extremely important. In 2011 and 2012, two studies were published as part of the same research project: Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) and Black-Hawkins and Florian (2012). These studies aimed to explore teachers’ craft knowledge of what constitutes inclusive practice, in terms of what they do and why and how they do it. The results identified several practical examples of inclusive education. And, also, highlighted the fact that teachers wishing to use inclusive pedagogy to ensure the academic achievement of all students are faced with a number of challenges and dilemmas in their everyday practice. The practice of class teachers was often varied in nature, and can be considered to be based on the standards of inclusive pedagogy. The study highlighted two strategies based on inclusive pedagogy: work choice and play zone. For his part, Makoelle (2014) interviewed six secondary-school teachers who engaged in inclusive pedagogy. The main findings reported by the study indicated that there is no universally-accepted definition of inclusive pedagogy; rather, it’s meaning is contextually, philosophically, and operationally determined. The study showed that further research is required to redefine the idea of inclusive pedagogy. In this article, inclusive pedagogy referred to all teaching methods, approaches, means and principles aimed at improving student engagement. Moreover, it was assumed that inclusive pedagogy also encompassed beliefs and conceptions regarding what constitutes inclusive teaching and learning. In this sense, the pedagogical approach adopted was more constructivist. In 2015, Moscardini presented the results of a study with a group of 12 teachers from special primary schools for children with moderate learning difficulties. The study explored teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the process of teaching and learning mathematics in relation to children with moderate learning difficulties. The findings revealed that, prior to the training course, participants had limited knowledge of children’s mathematical development, with teaching often being based on intuition and out dated practices. The majority of teachers had low expectations of children with learning difficulties. Following the intervention, participants rethought their attitudes and claimed that a better understanding of children’s mathematical thinking provided a more secure knowledge base for teaching. They also acknowledged the extent to which learners were limited by existing classroom practices. The study concluded that the pedagogical decisions made by teachers were prompted by complex interactions between knowledge, beliefs and contextual factors. Sheehy and Budiyanto (2015) researched the pedagogic orientations of teachers working in the context of inclusive education. The findings suggested that, in general, the implicit teachers’ orientation was a social constructivist one. The study concluded that the majority of participants believed that all children learned in the same way and were the responsibility of all teachers. This in turn was linked to a belief in children’s right to receive education alongside their peers. In general, what these authors discovered was 142 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 that all teachers believed they could teach all children, an attitude that constitutes a solid basis for supporting the development of inclusive practice in the classroom. Slightly later, but also in 2015, Spratt and Florian (2015) studied a cohort of graduates from a one-year Professional Graduate Diploma in Education. The article explores how newly-qualified teachers (in their first year as probationary teachers) used the ideas of inclusive pedagogy. The authors also aimed to determine whether or not teachers who had completed their studies and were working in a school environment actually put the concept of inclusive pedagogy into practice in their classrooms. The study concluded that there was a common belief among participants in the benefits of valuing the participation of each individual. When the real techniques used by teachers were examined, it was found that inclusive pedagogy did not offer a completely new set of practices; the teachers were using, for example, collaborative group work, formative assessment, and student choice. These findings provide additional evidence that an inclusive pedagogic approach cannot be reduced to a simple list of ‘how to’ tips. Rather, inclusive pedagogy requires teachers to make careful decisions, rooted in sound professional knowledge, in order to offer opportunities for everyone in the classroom learning community to participate and engage in the learning process. Two years later, Florian and Beaton (2017) carried out a study on the inclusive pedagogic approach in response to questions regarding how students could gain access to the additional support they required without being treated differently from their peers. The article presented a case taken from a broader exploratory study designed to explore the role of pupil voice in both self-assessments and teachers’ formative assessments of learning. The study was designed to expand on previous work carried out in relation to the concept of inclusive pedagogy, which had emphasised the importance of the teacherpupil relationship. The aim was to work in collaboration with teachers and students to deepen our sociocultural understanding of inclusive pedagogy, focusing on the studentpupil interaction more than on teaching or school practices, which had previously been the focus of analysis in the other studies cited in this section (for example, the one by Spratt & Florian, 2015). This study analysed teacher and student assessment practices and explored how teachers used what they learned from listening to their pupils. For their part, the students trusted their teachers to listen to them and chose to participate in activities that were meaningful to them as students, thus bestowing true meaning on the concept of inclusion. The last study analysed in the inclusive pedagogic approach category was by Nind and Lewthwaite (2018). These authors proposed applying the lens of inclusive pedagogy to research methods pedagogy. The results revealed that while participants had an extensive knowledge of research methods, the main challenge was how to develop their knowledge of pedagogic content. In other words, the challenge was how to make their expert knowledge accessible (i.e. teachable and learnable) to students. Many of the approaches to the teaching of social research methods described by participants were 149 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain, State Research Agency and FEDER funds European Union [grant numbers EDU2016-76587-R]. References Aguirre, A., Carballo, R. & Lopez-Gavira, R.(2020).Improving the academic experience of students with disabilities in higher education: faculty members of Social Sciences and Law speak out,Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1–16.doi:10.1080/13511610.2020.1828047 Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London, UK: Routledge. Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7–33. doi: 10.1080/0305764042000183106 Ammah, J. O., & Hodge, S. R. (2005). Secondary physical education teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching students with severe disabilities: A descriptive analysis. The High School Journal, 89(2), 40–54. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2005.0019 Arnaiz, P., De Haro, R., & Maldonado, R. (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 Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 421–434. doi: 10.1080/1356251042000252363 Black-Hawkins, K. (2017). Understanding inclusive pedagogy: Learning with and from teachers. In V.Plows & B. Whitburn (Eds.). Inclusive education. Making sense of everyday practice (pp. 13–30). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching Education, 18(5), 567–584. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2012.709732 Booth, A. (2001, May 14–16). Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? [Conference presentation] Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, Taking a Critical Stance. Coventry University. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ documents/00001724.htm Burnard, P. (2008). A phenomenological study of music teachers’ approaches to inclusive education practices among disaffected youth. Research Studies in Music Education, 30(1), 59–75. doi: 10.1177/1321103X08089890 Burnard, P., Dillon, S., Rusinek, G., & Saether, E. (2008). Inclusive pedagogies in music education: A comparative study of music teachers’ perspectives from four countries. International Journal of Music Education, 26(2), 109–126. doi: 10.1177/0255761407088489 150 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Carballo, R., Morgado, B., & Cortés-Vega, M.D. (2019). Transforming faculty conceptions of disability and inclusive education through a training programme. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1579874 Canning, J. (2017). Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: four theoretical lenses. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5), 519–531. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1273207 Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. (2018). Strategies for inclusion: Learning from students’ perspectives on acceleration in inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 243–252. doi: S0742051X17306789 Gale, T., & Mills, M. (2013). Creating spaces in higher education for marginalised Australians: Principles for socially inclusive pedagogies. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 5(2), 7–19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11120/elss.2013.00008 Gast, I., Schildkamp, K., & Van der Veen, J. T. (2017). Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 736–767. doi: 10.3102/0034654317704306 Eilam, B. (2017). Probing teachers’ lesson planning: promoting metacognition. Teachers College Record, 119(13), 1–28. http://www.tcrecord.org Evans, C., Muijs, D., & Tomlinson, M. (2015). Engaged student learning. High-impactstrategies to enhance student achievement. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Gale, T., Mills, C., & Cross, R. (2017). Socially inclusive teaching: belief, design, action as pedagogic work. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 345–356. doi: 10.1177/0022487116685754 Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–295. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.933551 Florian, L. (2015a). Inclusive Pedagogy: A transformative approach to individual differences but can it helps reduce educational inequalities? Scottish Educational Review, 47(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2012.709732 Florian, L. (2015b). Conceptualising inclusive pedagogy: The inclusive pedagogical approach in action. In J. M. Deppeler, T. Loreman, R. Smith & L. Florian (Eds.), Inclusive Pedagogy Across the Curriculum, volume 7 (pp. 11–24). Melbourne, AU: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (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. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 813–828. doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (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 Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.10 80/08856257.2013.778111 Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43 (3), 235–245. doi: 10.1080/00131880110081017 151 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Higbee, J. L. (2009). Implementing universal instructional design in postsecondary courses and curricula. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(8), 65–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.19030/ tlc.v6i8.1116 Hitch, D., Macfarlane, S., & Nihill, C. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy in Australian universities: A review of current policies and professional development activities. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 6(1), 135–145. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.254 Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Klibthong, S., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2018). Exploring professional knowing, being and becoming through inclusive pedagogical approach in action (IPAA) Framework.Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 108–123. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.7 Lawrie, G., Marquis, E., Fuller, E., Newman, T., Qiu, M., Nomikoudis, M., Roelofs, F., & vanDam,L. (2017). Moving towards inclusive learning and teaching: a synthesis of recent literature. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(1), 1–13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20343/ teachlearninqu.5.1.3 Majoko, T. (2016). Inclusion in early childhood education: pre-service teachers voices. Early Child Development and Care, 186(11), 1859–1872. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1137000 Makoelle, T. M. (2014). Pedagogy of inclusion: a quest for inclusive teaching and learning. Mideterranean Journal of Social Sciencies, 5(20), 1259–1267. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1259 McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7–29. doi: 10.1080/0158791010220102 Melero, N., Domenech, A., & Cabeza-Ruiz, R. (2020). Beliefs and actions of university lectureres of Sports Sciences and Physical Activity regarding students’ learninng motivation. Pedagogika, 137(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2020.137.3 Messiou, K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(2), 146–159. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184 Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Excelence and Equity Education, 40, 252–265. doi: 10.1080/10665680701434353 Moriña, A. (2019). The keys to learning for university students with disabilities: Motivation, emotion and faculty-student relationships. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0215249. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.021524 Moriña, A. (2020). Faculty members who engage in inclusive pedagogy: Methodological and affective strategies for teaching. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356 2517.2020.1724938 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 Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation and achievement. Learning & Instruction, 20(5), 411–423. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.04.002 152 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Nind, M., & Lewthwaite, S. (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 Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal design for learning in pre-K to rrade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116–138. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450 Orr, A., & Hamming, S. (2009). Inclusive postsecondary strategies for teaching students with learning disabilities: a review of literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 181–197. doi: 10.2307/27740367 Ouellett, M. L. (2004).Faculty development and universal instructional design. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(2),135–144. doi: 10.1080/10665680490453977 Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: practical guide. Malden, US: Blackwell Publishing. Postareff, L., Mattsson, M., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Hailikari, T. (2017). The complex relationship between emotions, approaches to learning, study success and study progress during the transition to university. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 73(3), 441–457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0096-7 Ramirez, E., Clemente, M., Martín-Domínguez, J., & Rodríguez, I. (2016). Planning and doing in professional teaching practice. A study with early childhood education teachers working with ICT (3–6years). Early Childhood Educational Journal, 45(5), 713–725. doi: 10.1007%2Fs10643- 016-0806-x Rouse, M. (2009). Developing inclusive practice: a role for teachers and teacher education. Education in the North, 16, 6–13. Rouse, M. (2017). A role for teacher and teacher education in developing inclusive practice. In M.Etherington (Ed.). What teacher need to know (pp. 19–35). Eugene, US: Wipp & Stock. Sanahuja, A., Moliner, O., &. Moliner, L. (2020). Inclusive and democratic practices in primary school classrooms: A multiple case study in Spain. Educational Research. 62(1), 111–127. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2020.1716631 Sandoval, M., Morgado, B., & Domenech, A. (2020). University students with disabilities in Spain: faculty beliefs, practices and support in providing reasonable adjustments,Disability & Society,1–20. doi:10.1080/09687599.2020.1751078 Scott, S. S., Loewen, G., Funckes, C., & Kroeger, S. (2003). Implementing universal design in higher education: moving beyond the built environment. Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, 16, 78–89. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/publications/jped/vol_16 Seatter, C. S.,& Ceulemans, K.(2017). Teaching sustainability in higher education: pedagogical styles that make a difference. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 47(2), 47–70. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/186284 Sheehy, K., & 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 153 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Simon, C., Echeita, G., & Sandoval, M. (2018). Incorporating students’ voices in the ‘Lesson Study’ as a teacher-training and improvement strategy for inclusion. Cultura & Education, 30(1),205–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1416741 Shields, C. M. (2000). Learning from difference: Considerations for schools as communities. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/0362-6784.00166 Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco, US: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Slee, R. (2018). The inclusive education workbook: Teaching, learning and research in the irregular school. London, UK: Routledge. Spears, A. M., & Da Costa, R. B. (2018). Potential for transformation? Two teacher training programs examined through a critical pedagogy framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69, 202–209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.10.013 Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy: From learning to action. Supporting each individual in the context of ‘everybody’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 89–96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006 Srivastava,M.,De Boer,A. A., &Pijl,S. J.(2016).Preparing for the inclusive classroom: Changing teachers’ attitudes and knowledge. Teacher Development, 21(4), 561–579. doi: /10.1080/13664530.2017.1279681 Subban, P., & Mahlo, D. (2017). ‘My attitude, my responsibility‘ Investigating the attitudes and intentions of pre-service teachers toward inclusive education between teacher preparation cohorts in Melbourne and Pretoria. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(4), 441–461. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1197322 Tiwari, A., Ajay Das, A., & Manisha Sharma, M. (2015). Inclusive education a “rhetoric” or “reality”? Teachers’ perspectives and beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 128–136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.002 Topping, K. (2015). Peer tutoring: old method, new developments. Infancia & Aprendizaje, 38(1), 1–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2014.996407 UNESCO (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report - Inclusion and education: All means all. Paris: Unesco. Van Houtte, M., & Demanet, J. (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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.003 Vinogradova, P., Linville, H. A., & Bickel, B. (2011). “Listen to my story and you will know me”: digital stories as student‐centered collaborative projects. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 173–202. doi: 10.5054/tj.2011.250380 Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. doi: 10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366 154 Pedagogika / 2020, t. 140, Nr. 4 Walton, E., & Lloyd, G. (2012). From clinic to classroom: A model of teacher education for inclusion. Perspectives in Education, 30(2), 62–70. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/ library/journal/1P3-3455870941/from-clinic-to-classroom-a-model-of-teacher-education Winiarcyk, E., & Long, T. (1996). Navigating through community service learning approaches. Thresholds in Education, 22(2), 2–6. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ539153 Woodcock, S., & Hardy, I. (2017). Probing and problematizing teacher professional development for inclusion. International Journal of Educational Research, 83, 43–54. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.008 Inkliuzinės pedagogikos požiūriai: sisteminė literatūros apžvalga Anabel Moriña Sevilijos universitetas, c / Pirotecnia, s / n, ES-41013 Sevilija, Ispanija, anabelm@us .es Santrauka Šis tyrimas atliktas siekiant apžvelgti tai, kas yra žinoma apie inkliuzinę pedagogiką visoje švietimo sistemoje. Straipsnyje analizuojama pagal porinę apžvalgą (angl. peer review) recenzuota mokslinė literatūra apie inkliuzinę pedagogiką. Iš viso rasta 190 straipsnių, kuriuose aprašyti įvairūs inkliuzinės pedagogikos aspektai. Iš jų 23 atitiko nustatytus kriterijus ir buvo peržiūrėti. Analizuojami straipsniai buvo suskirstyti į kategorijas, apimančias šias temas: šalis, ugdymo etapas, metodika, inkliuzinės pedagogikos požiūris, mokytojų rengimas ir inkliuzinės pedagogikos mokymo strategijos. Atlikus sisteminę apžvalgą aprašomi inkliuzinės pedagogikos srityje atlikti tyrimai, taip siekiant padidinti mūsų dabartinį supratimą, ką mokytojai/dėstytojai daro siekdami įtraukti visus mokinius į mokymąsi ir kaip bei kodėl tai daro. Analizuojama, kuo skiriasi inkliuzinis ugdymas, inkliuzinė praktika ir inkliuzinė pedagogika. Čia pedagoginis požiūris apima keturis elementus: įsitikinimus, žinias, sumanymus ir veiksmus. Rezultatai išryškina faktą, kad visuose švietimo lygiuose reikalingi tolesni tyrimai, kad būtų galima išanalizuoti inkliuzinę pedagogiką praktikuojančių mokytojų/dėstytojų įsitikinimus, žinias, sumanymus ir veiksmus. Esminiai žodžiai: inkliuzinė pedagogika, įvairovė, mokytojai, dėstytojai, fakulteto nariai, sisteminga literatūros apžvalga. Gauta 2020 06 09 / Received 09 06 2020 Priimta 2021 01 04 / Accepted 04 01 2020