International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tied20

Inclusive pedagogy through the lens of primary

teachers and teaching assistants in England

Jessica Losberg & Paula Zwozdiak-Myers

To cite this article: Jessica Losberg & Paula Zwozdiak-Myers (2024) Inclusive pedagogy through
the lens of primary teachers and teaching assistants in England, International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 28:4, 402-422, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1946722

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1946722

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

View supplementary material

Published online: 27 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18439

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 28, NO. 4, 402–422
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1946722

Inclusive pedagogy through the lens of primary teachers and

teaching assistants in England
Jessica Losberg and Paula Zwozdiak-Myers
Department of Education, Brunel University London, London, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Inclusion is an expectation of all mainstream schools across England Received 29 May 2020
yet research into strategies concerning how teachers and teaching Accepted 10 June 2021
assistants facilitate effective inclusive practice remains limited. This
KEYWORDS
study explores the enactment of Florian and Black Hawkins (2011. Inclusive education; inclusive
“Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.” British Educational Research pedagogy; primary teachers;
Journal 37 (5): 813–828) approach to inclusive pedagogy through teaching assistants; special
the lens of teachers and teaching assistants working with children education needs
across year 4 within one primary school in London to redress this
balance and identify any challenges they may encounter with this
approach. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews
revealed several key themes: whole-class approaches; emphasis
on learners’ capabilities; flexibility; commitment to ongoing
professional development; diversity of needs; TA interventions;
and ability-based tasks. While practitioners exemplified inclusive
pedagogy on a regular basis it was difficult to implement in all
aspects of classroom life, given the complex nature and diverse
range of needs they encountered in mainstream classrooms. The
importance of acknowledging individual needs was recognised
and some key strategies to accommodate these without causing
feelings of marginalisation were highlighted. Practitioners voiced
positive experiences and placed great value on, working flexibly
with one another to create welcoming environments for all
children yet the effective deployment of TAs was not consistently
realised.

Introduction
The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994) called upon countries worldwide to uphold
their obligation and responsibility to ensure all children learn together irrespective of
difference or disability, claiming regular schools delivering inclusive practice are the
most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes and achieving education
for all. In recent decades, inclusive education in mainstream schools for all children
with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has been advocated within the
UK, prohibiting schools from fostering discriminatory attitudes (DfES 2001; DfEE

CONTACT Jessica Losberg [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1946722.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 403

1997, DfES 2001; SEN Code of Practice DfE/DoH 2015; Children and Families Act Great
Britain 2014) and by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for schools: ‘An educationally inclusive
school is one in which the teaching and learning, achievements, attitudes and well-being
of every young person matter. Effective schools are educationally inclusive schools’
(Ofsted 2000, 7).
Since the Warnock Report of 1978, moves towards more inclusive systems has been a
priority in England to ensure all children with SEND have equitable learning opportu-
nities within mainstream classrooms (Sikes, Lawson, and Parker 2007; Trussler and
Robinson 2015), reflecting the vision that all pupils matter, regardless of circumstance,
and schools must be committed to meeting the needs of all children effectively. A
whole-school approach to inclusion is essential and teachers should work in professional
environments that actively promote inclusion since negative attitudes constitute a barrier
(UNESCO 2009). Hosford and O’Sullivan (2016) found positive perceptions of a school’s
climate relate directly to teachers’ confidence and ability to teach in inclusive classrooms:
teachers who felt well supported demonstrated assurance in managing challenging
behaviour, implementing inclusive instruction and engaging collaboratively with peers.
This signals why schools should develop cultures and values within communities, so tea-
chers feel supported by the schools and systems they work in (Ainscow and Sandill 2010).
To facilitate education for all, Wilde and Avradmidis (2011) further recommend effective
leadership should be spread throughout the school.
Adequate resources are vital in facilitating inclusive practice (DfES 2001). All children
must be equipped with suitable tools and support mechanisms to be successful in class-
room life and for children with SEND, this may include manipulatives, practical tools
and equipment and/or specialists and support staff. Woodcock and Woolfson (2019)
found teachers value specialist staff working with SEND children yet access to support
can be limited, whereas Round, Subban, and Sharma (2016) note although material
resources have support value, unease regarding the number of speciality support staff
remains significant amongst teachers.
In 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) reported children with SEND receiving
mainstream provision in England, which has been on the rise since 2010, accounts for the
highest percentage of all children with statements and Educational Health and Care Plans
(EHCP). With more children receiving diagnoses and statements, teachers must be prepared,
and have a responsibility to accommodate the needs of all learners (Maciver et al. 2018).
However, studies reveal daily challenges faced by teachers in successfully implementing
inclusive practices to ensure all children learn effectively and make expected progress, along-
side multiple pressures when managing diverse classrooms (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019).

Teachers
Teacher attitudes, a key enabler in creating an inclusive environment, ‘reflect feelings and
influence behaviours related to a particular object’ (Triandis 1971). Teachers form atti-
tudes toward children with SEND and inclusion, based on certain characteristics of
the child, factors within the classroom and prior experiences: attitudes are then
reflected in teachers’ behaviours and influence how they make decisions in daily activities
(UNESCO 2009). Leatherman and Niemeyer (2005) found teachers with past positive
experiences of working with pupils with SEND displayed more feelings of positivity, as
404 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

they fostered more inclusive and welcoming environments. They conclude teachers must
feel adequately trained and display a positive attitude toward inclusion, if this is to be
realised in daily classroom life. Brennan, King, and Travers (2019) noted increasingly
positive attitudes toward learner achievement after implementing more flexible strategies
in the mainstream classroom, following support sessions teacher participants received
using the Inclusive Pedagogical Approach in Action (IPAA).
Teachers must also implement and execute highly effective strategies to work flexibly
within the environment (UNESCO 2009). As classrooms become more diverse, choices
and strategies exemplified by teachers are essential to pupils’ participation in all aspects of
learning (Molbaek 2018). These may include flexible grouping strategies, children’s
access within the classroom and differentiation through tasks. While much has been
documented about teacher attitudes, approaches to teaching, and challenges teachers
may encounter, research into specific inclusive strategies and pedagogical approaches
proven to be effective in meeting pupil needs is limited (Brennan, King, and Travers
2019; Lindsay et al. 2014).

Teaching assistants
Due to increasing numbers of pupils with SEND receiving mainstream provision
(Webster et al. 2010) TA employment has been on the rise and comprises over one
quarter of the school workforce in England (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018).
TAs have been deployed to facilitate inclusion for children with SEND and as an informal
instructional resource for pupils in need (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). Con-
cerns raised as TAs take on these responsibilities include inadequate preparation and
training (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018; Bosanquet and Radford 2019); individ-
ual attention and support for pupils with SEND potentially leading to lack of progress
and less inclusive opportunities (Webster et al. 2010). The Deployment and Impact of
Support Staff (DISS) project examined TA support for pupils with SEND (Webster
et al. 2010) and revealed such unintentional consequences as greater separation from tea-
chers and the curriculum as a result of missed opportunities, due mainly to separate
workstations, and limited inclusive experiences for some children.
Conversely, when TAs are deployed appropriately and deliver high quality, small group
or individual support using structured interventions with reliable evidence of effectiveness,
the impacts observed are positive (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018). TAs can help
pupils develop key independent skills including self-scaffolding, open-ended questions,
prompting and encouragement to take risks (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018).
They can also form positive relationships with children and demonstrate effective behav-
iour management (Groom and Rose 2005). When TAs have a direct instructional role, it is
critical they add value to the work of the teacher, not replace them, which means schools
should organise staff effectively, so they understand their complementary roles within
classrooms (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018).

Inclusive pedagogy
Inclusive pedagogy derived from studies concerning effective teacher support for all lear-
ners within classrooms, avoiding stigmatisation of difference, (Florian and Black-
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 405

Hawkins 2011) premised on the belief that all children have potential to progress and
succeed, and none should be excluded from opportunities based upon individual capa-
bilities. It opposes practices delivering education for all by offering inclusive opportu-
nities for most with additional or modified experiences for some (Florian and Spratt
2013) and assists teachers facing challenges, enabling them to address difficulties in
responding to differences between learners in non-exclusive ways.
Inclusive pedagogy involves three key tenets. First, there must be a shift in focus
away from individuals with needs to that of all children (Florian and Black-
Hawkins 2011) within the community of the classroom. This can be accomplished
by creating rich learning opportunities available for everyone, by extending what is
ordinarily available to all children, rather than differentiated work and additional
strategies for those experiencing difficulties. Teachers must focus on what is to be
taught and how, rather than who is to learn it, and eliminate preconceived notions
of achievement so all children take responsibility for their own learning through
choice (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Second, inclusive pedagogy involves
teacher belief in transformability (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019), the notion
that children’s academic capabilities are not pre-determined, and all children have
potential to progress and succeed. Teachers must focus on each child’s strengths
and implement strategies that encourage collaborative work without judgments
based on ability (Florian and Spratt 2013). Rejecting pre-determined beliefs about
ability is essential and teachers must keep an open-minded view of each child’s poten-
tial to learn without labelling (Florian and Spratt 2013). Third, teachers must be
flexible and view difficulties in learning as professional challenges, rather than pro-
blems within the child (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Teachers are encouraged
to find new ways of working by implementing strategies to support all children,
which includes working collaboratively with other professionals. Effective communi-
cation amongst staff members and creating a school environment where ideas can be
shared are key (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019). This involves commitment to
ongoing professional development to keep practice current and effective (Brennan,
King, and Travers 2019). Regarding support and inclusion of children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in mainstream settings, Lindsay et al. (2014) found teachers
were committed to attending workshops to deepen their knowledge and understand-
ing of ASD, valued ‘mini workshops’ with peers to learn from one another, especially
newly qualified teachers, and discussed the importance of informal training to help
them develop successful practices.

Research design and process

Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) approach to inclusive pedagogy was drawn upon to
capture the perspectives and experiences of teachers and TAs working in a mainstream
primary school in England. We sought answers to four research questions:
Q1: How do teachers create opportunities concerned with the learning of all children within
the classroom?
Q2: What strategies do practitioners employ to ensure all children make progress?
Q3: How do practitioners reflect an openminded attitude to develop new ways of working?
Q4: What barriers prevent practitioners from achieving inclusive pedagogy?
406 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

A qualitative approach was chosen as this enables researchers ‘to get at the inner experi-
ence of participants’ (Corbin and Strauss 2008, 11) and involves ‘careful examination and
listening to people in their natural settings’ (Lichtman 2013, 4). This allows for rich, thick
descriptions and is relevant to the study of social interactions (Flick 2009). Situated
within an interpretivist paradigm, which emphasises ‘analysing meanings people
confer on their own actions’ (Lichtman 2013, 323) we sought to ‘explain and demystify
social reality’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2007, 19) by understanding participants’
perspectives and lived experiences of inclusive pedagogy.

Context and participants

This study was undertaken in a four-form entry primary school located within a
London Borough in England with more than 700 pupils on roll, 37 teachers and 28
TAs. The school achieved the Inclusion Quality Mark (IQM 2020) Flagship status
and Gold Level Rights’ Respecting School (UNICEF 2019) award in recognition of
ongoing commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for all children. All
staff promote an inclusive and collaborative ethos: TAs are pivotal in supporting
pupils with SEND, trained to deliver interventions and work on specific targets
across subject areas.
Purposive sampling was used to identify practitioners with knowledge and experi-
ence of inclusive pedagogy, the phenomenon of interest (Creswell and Plano Clark
2017) and convenience sampling to select those easily accessible (Cohen, Manion,
and Morrison 2017). All year four teachers (n = 4) and three TAs variously deployed
across years three and four participated (see Table 1). Each year four class had
between 28 and 30 children with four receiving individual support for SEN. Across
the year four cohort a number of children present with a range of SEND and
medical needs, therefore, participants could provide enriching accounts for each
research question.

Procedure
To explore participants’ perspectives, meanings, understanding of situations and con-
structions of reality (Punch and Oancea 2014) individual, face-to-face, semi-struc-
tured interviews were chosen. This enabled interviews to be guided by standardised
questions and prompts yet with flexibility to adapt to unexpected discussions and
responses through probing (Rubin and Rubin 2005). Question sets for teachers and
TAs were crafted and tailored (to cater for each role) to ‘control the line of question-
ing’ (Creswell 2009, 179) and caution was exercised to ensure questions were neither
leading, too broad nor too narrow (Lichtman 2013) but well-focused and relevant (see
Appendix A).
All semi-structured interviews were conducted after obtaining consent by the first
author of this article to ensure consistency of approach, lasted between twenty and
thirty minutes and were audio-recorded using a digital device to ensure accuracy
and precision of data. This enabled the interviewer not only to focus on questions and
prompts but to fully engage with participants by maintaining eye contact and interest
(Lichtman 2013).
Table 1. Research participant profiles.
Participant Years of Number of children with SEN
pseudonyms Year Group Experience in class (EHCP or no EHCP) Profiles
Alicia Year 4 3 6 In her third year of teaching. This is her first year at the school. She is a Year 4 teacher and
has taught Year 3 previously. She has experience working with children with a range of
SEN. Has completed an additional course on Dyslexia.
Beatrice Year 4 1 3 A newly qualified primary school teacher in her first year of teaching Year 4. This is her first
year at this school. 1 allocated TA in her class for general support during core subjects. As
an NQT, Beatrice does not hold additional qualifications in SEN however expressed
interest in further education.
Greta Year 4 2 2 In her second year of teaching. She has been a supply teacher in her home country and now
shares a Year 4 class with another teacher. She works part time in both Year 4 and Year
2. This is her first year at this school. 2 allocated TAs to her class for children with 1:1
support. Greta does not hold any other qualifications in SEN. Volunteered at an
organisation working to support those with ASD and completed a course on Applied

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Behavioural Analysis for children with ASD.
Jennifer Year 4 4 4 In her fourth year of teaching. This is her first year teaching Year 4 and prior to this she
taught Year 3 for three years. She has been teaching at this school for four years. Her
current class has 1 allocated TA for a child requiring 1:1 support working at a Year 1 level.
She has experience teaching children with a range of SEN and working with various TAs
across the school.
Isabelle Year 4 and Reception 5 N/A A teaching assistant working 1:1 with a child with ASD part time. She splits her time also
working in Reception as a general TA. She has been a classroom volunteer since 2012 and
first became a 1:1 TA in 2015. This is her second year at this school. She completed several
additional courses focussing on ASD and speech and language.
Lauren Year 4 and covers classes 11+ N/A A teaching assistant who works 1:1 with a child for 1.5 h daily. She has been a TA for over 11
throughout school years. This is the second school she has worked in. She is a Higher Level Teaching
Assistant (HLTA) who regularly covers teachers throughout this school. Various
experience working as a general TA and working with specific children 1:1.
Andrea Years 3 and 4 9 N/A A teaching assistant who works 1:1 with a child with medical needs. She also delivers
Speech and Language sessions for lower KS2 and facilitates social skills groups for
children with SEN. She has worked at this school for 9 years with experience working 1:1
with specific children and as a general class TA. She holds an additional diploma in SEN
and completed a speech and language course through ELKLAN specifically for children
with ASD.

407
408 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

Data analysis
We followed the six phases in thematic analysis identified by Braun and Clarke (2006, 87)
to sustain sensitivity to the interview data: (1) familiarisation with data; (2) generating
initial codes; (3) searching for themes; (4) reviewing themes; (5) defining and naming
themes; (6) producing the report. This method offers theoretical flexibility as ‘the
search for, and examination of, patterning across language does not require adherence
to any particular theory of language, or explanatory meaning framework for human
beings, experiences or practices’ (Braun and Clark 2013, 120).
Phase 1 was undertaken during the transcription process and by reading/re-reading
the interview data and phase 2 involved generating initial codes from the entire data
set in a systematic manner. These codes were collated onto an Excel spreadsheet with rel-
evant narrative excerpts from each participant. Phase 3 enabled us to identify all mean-
ingful text segments from initial codes and generate potential themes and phase 4 to
analyse and combine several codes into overarching themes and sub-themes supported
by relevant evidence. Phase 5 involved organising and defining themes and sub-
themes to capture commonalities and nuances and provide the reader with an immediate
sense of what each is about. During phase 6, we selected narrative excerpts to exemplify
key themes and sub-themes related to each research question and compared this with rel-
evant literature in our discussion of findings.

Ethics, reliability and validity

This study was undertaken according to the requirements of Brunel University London
research ethics committee and guidelines advanced by the British Educational Research
Association (BERA 2018). Formal approval was gained from the headteacher and all par-
ticipants received information sheets explaining the aims/nature of the study in advance,
also informing them of their right to withdraw. Signed consent forms were collected; par-
ticipants’ privacy and anonymity were ensured as interview recordings were saved on a
password-protected computer, and once transcribed, pseudonyms were used.
Member checking ensured data accuracy and enabled participants to identify and
recognise their experiences in the findings (Rahman 2016), which validates whether
‘the researcher has accurately translated the informants’ viewpoints into data’ (Krefting
1991, 219). To ensure validity both authors collaborated closely throughout the entire
study from reviewing relevant literature, discussing/refining the focus of questions,
searching for and generating themes to discussions/elaborations of analyses and
findings through peer review and examination. This maintains honesty and integrity
with the research (Guba and Lincoln 1985) and offsets any biases or subjectivities.

Findings
The profiles of each participant are illustrated in Table 1.
Key themes and sub-themes derived from interview data analysis are presented here in
relation to each research question.
Q1 How do teachers create opportunities concerned with the learning of all children within
the classroom?
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 409

Whole-class approaches
Inclusive learning environments have positive achievement and participation outcomes
for all children (Molbaek 2018) and several approaches to whole-class learning were
identified, each practitioner offering different strategies to mitigate exclusion.

Environment
Teachers created welcoming and accessible classrooms to make all children feel comfor-
table and safe as well as the freedom to use what is provided flexibly. Jennifer, in her
fourth year of teaching, emphasised the importance of creating an environment where
all children, regardless of ability, race or religion, feel valued and comfortable sharing
ideas and, justified the significance of whole-class discussion during lessons as a way
of children expressing themselves:
… I make sure that everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas and value everyone’s
opinions … I can see that it is those lower-ability children that do feel more confident to
share … so I guess that’s a result of the comfortable environment they’re in, they feel
included, they feel valued, so they’re comfortable [sharing] … (Jennifer)

Greta, in her second year of teaching, echoed the need for an accessible environment
and explained pupils were free to use the classroom space, for example, reading corner or
practical resources whenever they pleased. Beatrice, a newly qualified teacher (NQT),
further discussed the importance of explaining resources in advance so children could
access them during tasks, freely of their own choosing. Visual displays throughout the
classroom for all children to access were considered essential for all teachers:
I make sure I have visual timetables, I’ve got the ‘how I feel today’ chart so they all can show
me how they’re feeling, but then they can interact and show each other too … (Alicia)

These strategies provide children with opportunities to form positive bonds and build
trusting relationships which are fundamental to an inclusive classroom (Maciver et al.
2018).
Teachers explained the importance of mixed ability seating arrangements for grouping
children, which was common for all subjects. Two of the three TAs, Andrea and Lauren,
noted the mixed ability arrangements and encouragement of children to work with and
support one another, as Andrea elaborates:
I have observed that children aren’t segregated into abilities … you don’t have the lower
ability children sitting together … they’re with their peers and sometimes they’re supported
by people that may be working at a higher level … I think that’s really important (Andrea)

Mixed ability seating arrangements reinforce the rejection of deterministic beliefs

(Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) affirming that children should not be limited in
their achievement based on teachers’ assumptions about their ability. Teachers
ensured pupils had opportunities to interact freely with one another, discuss ideas and
work co-operatively during tasks so children would not feel segregated. Further,
inclusion involves changes to certain structures, which is evident as children are not
grouped based on their ability level (UNESCO 2009). This said, Jennifer acknowledged
some children must be seated strategically to access the lessons, for example, front of
class for hearing impairment.
410 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

While teachers considered mixed ability groups important, three children with SEND
had their own classroom workspace since they were not accessing the year four curricu-
lum and received individual support for most of the school day. Two were working
toward year one targets and teachers felt it inappropriate to seat them with the class
during most lessons. The severity of their behavioural and emotional needs was also a
factor, and one child demonstrated aggressive behaviour and outbursts. While having
a separate workstation is ‘additional’ or ‘different’ teachers extended ‘what is ordinarily
available for all learners’ (UNESCO 2009) to ensure children received equitable learning
opportunities and were able to succeed:
Maths and English are all done separately with the TA and that’s the most appropriate
way of doing it. However, if we’re doing a multiplication test then he can do one at the
same time. I think once or twice we’ve done an investigation and he’s done a simple
investigation, but he still felt [included] because he was doing the same kind of activity.
(Jennifer)

Similarly, Greta explained why a child with ASD had flexible seating arrangements
and often participated in reception activities since they were more practical, and he
enjoyed the sensory aspects. She expressed that having his own space when working in
class was appropriate due to the nature of his needs as his targets were year one level
or below. These scenarios illuminate that inclusive pedagogy can be difficult to accom-
plish in diverse mainstream classrooms (Lindsay et al. 2014) and there are cases where
individualised strategies are necessary (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019).
Practitioners commented positively on the school ethos and supportive attitudes of
senior leadership, which are essential for fostering inclusive attitudes, systems and prac-
tices (Ainscow and Sandill 2010; Hosford and O’Sullivan 2016). Isabelle expressed a
mindset of acceptance concerning the inclusion of children with SEND within all
aspects of school life and Beatrice spoke of how the school embraces and celebrates
diversity:
… the school really is [inclusive] … all children from all different backgrounds, and they’re
aware of this but they respect it and I think it’s celebrated. (Beatrice)

Behaviour management
Children should be active participants within the classroom community without being
marginalised for individual differences (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) and teachers
implemented several whole-class approaches for behaviour management. All used Class-
Dojo, an interactive reward system to reinforce positive behaviour consistently across
the school, yet recognised at times, some children need further reinforcement. If children
need a more mature talking to, this would be done in private (Beatrice, Jennifer) whereas
increased positive reinforcement could boost confidence helping others to stay motivated:
A lot of positive praise is required for some. The ones that don’t have much self-confidence,
I’ll need to be very encouraging … lots of praise, lots of dojo points, to give them that
encouragement … when they are doing something particularly good then I’ll make sure I
highlight that to the rest of the class. (Jennifer)

Individualised behaviour approaches were implemented by Isabelle and Lauren for

two children with ASD in the same class. As an HLTA with 11 years of experience,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 411

Lauren felt she had a range of strategies to choose from to support these pupils. If chil-
dren became distressed or aggressive within the classroom environment, there was a
range of support in place, for example, choice cards, visits to the sensory room,
calming station and individual reward systems. Isabelle further explains:
We’ve got a feelings chart, if he feels angry he can move the picture and tell me how he’s
feeling … we’ve got a behaviour management chart where he’s got strategies … if he’s
angry he can choose one of the activities to calm him down … he’s been quite independent
with it and it’s working. (Isabelle)

Although inclusive pedagogy may not consider complexities between learners

(Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) and individual strategies do not reflect a whole-
class approach, practitioners found them effective when addressing specific behavioural
issues, enabling children to be successful and feel valued within the classroom. This aligns
with the notion of inclusion involving changes and modifications to be made, based on
individual pupil’s needs (UNESCO 2009).
Q2 What strategies do practitioners employ to ensure all children make progress?

Emphasis on learners’ capabilities

Practitioners spoke positively when referring to pupil progress, irrespective of ability, and
articulated the importance of success by focusing on capabilities rather than limitations
(Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). Teachers emphasised the need to enhance confidence
and independence through implementing specific strategies to embrace diversity
(UNESCO 2009).

Autonomy of pupils
The significance of differentiation for supporting children, when implemented flexibly
and creatively rather than as a linear way of sorting pupils by ability (Florian and
Black-Hawkins 2011), was emphasised by all practitioners. Teachers discussed several
strategies that enhanced pupil progress, highlighting capabilities without focusing on
ability grouping and explained task differentiation for lessons in all subjects through
the ‘chilli challenge’ strategy, which moves from lower (Chilli 1) to higher-order thinking
skills (Chilli 3) and levels of cognition, as exemplified in Table 2.
During each lesson, all children (other than those working individually with TAs)
have the same learning objective to achieve through differentiation by outcome. Each
task has options, to complete one of three ‘chilli challenges’ ranging in levels of
difficulty. Following lesson input, children select a ‘chilli challenge’ based on their confi-
dence level and what they feel capable of completing. In most instances, children have
complete autonomy to choose their own task, as Alicia elaborates:
However, if I feel that they’re going for something that is too hard for them or too easy, I’ll
try and encourage them to try another challenge. (Alicia)

Teachers ensured children felt confident and understood the task, affording to scaffold
where necessary. Word banks and support sheets were provided by Jennifer for those in
need of extra support yet, as she explained, although children knew to ask for help, they
were always encouraged to have a go on their own first.
412 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

The ‘chilli challenge’ is an innovative strategy (UNESCO 2009) flexibly responsive to

learner needs, which demonstrates inclusive pedagogy for task completion insofar as
children develop confidence in choosing an appropriate challenge, whilst being sup-
ported when needed without marginalisation (Florian and Spratt 2013). As UNESCO
(2009) emphasises, inclusion is the process of addressing and responding to different
pupil needs, which is evident in this approach. As this was routine for most tasks in
all year four classes, children were familiar with selecting a suitable challenge and prac-
titioners demonstrated positive attitudes toward inclusion as well as inclusive approaches
to learning (Leatherman and Niemeyer 2005).
Children were in mixed-ability groups for most group-based work. In most subject
areas this strategy was implemented so children could help one another, use the skillset
of each child, work together and share ideas (Alicia, Beatrice). Greta facilitated peer-
assessment in mixed ability pairs so children could share their work, review different
ideas, develop confidence and feel valued by peers. Practitioners acknowledged pupil
choice when organising groups for certain tasks and Jennifer felt she could get more
from children by mixing the groups or letting them choose. These grouping strategies
exemplify ‘provision of choice’ as a shift from deterministic beliefs and thinking
(Brennan, King, and Travers 2019) and encourage inclusive peer interaction and positive
outcomes for all.

Positive attitudes towards progress

All practitioners expressed a positive outlook on pupil progress and achievement com-
menting on how all children, regardless of ability could be successful in their own way
given the right environment (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011), including those
working below age-expected outcomes:

Table 2. Differentiation through Chilli challenge.

Topic Maths: fractions of amounts English: create a fictional character Geography: mountains
Chilli Using the cubes practically, show ½, Complete the character profile Write a postcard home using the
1 ¼ and ¾ of each number given. template to describe a new template and key vocabulary
Challenge: Draw a picture to show character. Draw a picture and box to tell about your
¼ of 20. label key features of their experience climbing Mount
appearance e.g. purple, spiky Everest. Include a picture on
hair your postcard.
Chilli Draw pictorial representations for ½, Write a descriptive paragraph to Design your own postcard and
2 ¼ and ¾ each number given. describe your new character. write home about your
Challenge: Which is greater? ¾ of Include details about their experience travelling to and
24 or 5/6 of 30? Explain your personality and what they look climbing Mount Everest using
reasoning. like. Use a thesaurus to choose key and exciting vocabulary
exciting vocabulary. Then, draw from the lesson.
a picture of your character.
Chilli Find the following fractions of Write two or more paragraphs Write a diary entry explaining your
3 amounts for each number below describing the features of your experience climbing Mount
using the written method taught. new character. Include details Everest. Discuss key moments in
Then, explain which is greater, about their personality, what detail and use new vocabulary
using your reasoning skills: 3/5 of they look like, where they live from the lesson. Think about
15 or 5/8 of 24? and what role will they play in writing several paragraphs and
the story. Use metaphors and applying proper diary entry
similes across your writing and a format.
range of sentence openers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 413

… in the last half term there’s been an acceleration … once they gain confidence in class,
they seem a lot happier to contribute and their ideas have more explanation behind
them. (Beatrice)

Practitioners offered a flexible curriculum to ensure learning and tasks were centred
around the capabilities of children, especially those with SEND (UNESCO 2009) which
may not be solely academic. Lauren explained how the teacher provided options for a
child with ASD tailored to his needs and interests to keep him motivated during tasks,
which resonates with strategies used by Maciver et al. (2018). Greta and Lauren worked
together with this child and although he was resistant to schoolwork and expressed nega-
tivity toward learning, they maintained a positive outlook on his progress:
All the planning has been thought out for the child … it’s all broken down, it’s accessible, it
gives him a chance to actually feel successful … sometimes [I’ll] take him out for movement
breaks … things I find with him … he loves the colour green, he likes animals … he likes
Lego, so we’ve got things to make sure that he does his work. (Lauren)

Lauren elaborated that his interest in Lego allowed him to explore other ways (than a
highly academic structure) of showcasing his strengths, to work flexibly and successfully
meet targets and throughout the year, as his confidence grew so too did his attitude
toward schooling.
Q3 How do practitioners reflect an openminded attitude to develop new ways of working?

Flexibility
Practitioners demonstrated flexibility and open-mindedness in seeking new ways of
developing inclusive practice to support children (Maciver et al. 2018; Lyons, Thompson,
and Timmons 2016) and working collaboratively with other staff to overcome pro-
fessional challenges within the classroom (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011).

Collaboration with others

Teachers discussed positive relationships and several strategies used with TAs which pro-
moted good communication to ensure children with SEND were supported effectively to
meet their targets e.g. a communication book; regular discussions during preparation time;
shared planning, problem solving and differentiation strategies; set meeting times to ensure
TAs understood how to support children and discussion of any arising issues:
We have a good relationship. I think that’s really important … if there’s any worries or con-
cerns we have a chat … the child who she’s with has got a communication book which goes
home every day … then she’ll show me that most days, if there’s anything [significant]. So, I
know what’s going on back home as well. (Jennifer)

Similarly, Beatrice explained how she worked collaboratively with her TA on a daily
basis to support children within class as well as outside for intervention groups with chil-
dren needing additional practice in maths or spellings, to establish a clear understanding
of her role in different areas:
… we’ll have a discussion beforehand to see where she would be best utilised . … I would say
that she wants to make sure that her time is worthwhile and that she’s [being] proactive.
(Beatrice)
414 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

Andrea affirmed her co-teacher was very organised and thorough, providing her with
a timetable of scheduled lessons. Due to their professional relationship, she felt confident
asking for guidance to maximise her time within the classroom effectively. When taking
children out for interventions she stated this was organised in such a way to ensure chil-
dren did not feel marginalised, which aligns with inclusive pedagogy insofar as prac-
titioners openly communicated and worked together to avoid marginalising children.
Practitioners spoke about the importance of working together as a team: in addition to
regular consultations with the teacher, SENCO and phase leader, TAs would not hesitate
to ask for support from senior leadership to overcome challenges involving children. Isa-
belle elaborates:
… each member of staff is very helpful, so whenever I need help, I come to the class teacher
or assistant heads, they’ve always been happy to help. (Isabelle)

These examples reveal how practitioners engaged in meaningful collaboration and

ongoing communication to facilitate inclusion within classrooms against the backdrop
of a wholly supportive school environment (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019; Lindsay
et al. 2014).

Willingness to try new things

Teachers reflected upon their flexibility and open-mindedness to try different approaches
to support all learners equitably. Jennifer recognised the need for trying different strat-
egies if something was not working in class and the importance of self-reflection to
improve practice and explained how she would use pre-assessments in maths to see
what children were capable of and then plan accordingly:
I think the key thing with teaching is flexibility. If something is not working, then you’ve got
to try another way. (Jennifer)

Greta also felt this approach was beneficial to address misconceptions and inform the
focus of subsequent lessons whereas Beatrice reported if a lesson did not go as well as
planned, the topic would be revisited and lesson adjustments, including the effective
use of resources, would be made. As an NQT, she shares an insightful reflection:
… we have a lot of resources; I admit at times I’ve started lessons and wished I had more
physical resources but that’s about a self-reflection after the lesson … the next time I
would think about having these items. (Beatrice)

Alicia additionally tried new strategies for children with SEND in her class which did
not result in exclusionary practice. A diabetic pupil had to drink plenty of water through-
out the day and rather than singling her out, she encouraged the whole class to drink
water and made a game of it. She also explained using different tools for certain children
to address behaviour and academic needs that were inclusive and had positive outcomes:
One child has a whiteboard that says, ‘what do I need’ and she’ll think what she needs
specifically for that lesson or I’ll write her a list … I’ve got a child who really struggles to
sit down … I’ve got some movement break cards or I’ll give him dice to roll so he can
choose an active activity and then can refocus on his tasks. (Alicia)

Aligning with Alicia, Jennifer mentioned she had a laptop available for a child experi-
encing writing anxiety in the event he needed to use it as an alternative. While these
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 415

strategies are individualised, they show a willingness to implement equitable ways of sup-
porting pupils. They demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness in trying new ways of
working and reducing factors within the physical and social environment of the class-
room to facilitate inclusive practice (Maciver et al. 2018). Teachers are proactive in
finding solutions to support children rather than seeing challenges as deficits within lear-
ners (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011); a hallmark of inclusive pedagogy.

Commitment to ongoing professional development

Several teachers were concerned about limited opportunities to engage with specific
training courses on SEND (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019; Brennan, King, and
Travers 2019) yet all expressed willingness to undertake professional development to
deliver more inclusive practice with greater confidence and positivity (Woodcock and
Woolfson 2019; Brennan, King, and Travers 2019). Some had participated in specialist
courses for SEND and expressed interest in more training opportunities:
I’ve been on one training course for dyslexia and the strategies they [provided] to help [chil-
dren] overcome challenges were brilliant, whereas everyday life for me is trial and error …
but if there were more courses to go on it would open up a whole horizon of what we could
do. (Alicia)

Not only did all practitioners express an interest in attending courses to develop prac-
tice, they articulated which courses would be of interest, particularly focusing on ASD.
The importance of having relevant training not focused on diagnosis was also explained:
… different resources to support children as a whole … and being aware of what features to
look out for to be able to help … if we started focusing on just individual special needs, we
would be looking for diagnosis rather than helping support [them]. I think it’s more about
having strategies. (Beatrice)

Beatrice’s account aligns with inclusive pedagogy and avoids labelling or marginalis-
ing children by focusing on equitable learning opportunities for all pupils. Several prac-
titioners voiced interest in learning more about key resources already available within
school, specifically maths and literacy resources to assist pupils in different ways.
Although Webster et al. (2010) caution that TAs are not always prepared or certified
for the nature of their role, TAs in this study had undertaken additional courses for
speech and language and ASD and expressed commitment to further learning.
Q4 What barriers prevent practitioners from achieving inclusive pedagogy?

Diversity of needs
While teachers are pressured in managing diverse classrooms to ensure student success
(Woodcock and Woolfson 2019) they must be prepared to work against limitations to
ensure educational equity (Florian 2009). Several teachers raised concern about difficul-
ties experienced in managing the range of needs and felt they were constantly having to
find ways of supporting all children:
It’s a challenge to have so many different needs because it’s not only the lower ability that
need my support, I have children who are really academic but also need time to interact with
416 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

me … but making that time is quite challenging because I’m spread across [many] children.
(Alicia)

Lack of frequent support within classrooms to meet pupils’ diverse needs was another
challenge. Several teachers spoke about the inconsistent deployment of TAs, particularly
in a class where many children had challenging needs. Jennifer reported since she already
had a TA working with one child, no other TAs were deployed to support during lessons.
This was problematic as Jennifer felt it was assumed the TA would be able to support
other children at the same time. However, due to the nature of the child’s needs, this
was not possible unless he was participating in an intervention outside the class:
Yes, I’ve got a T.A. in my class but she’s solely there for the 1:1, she’s not there for other
children, so it’s me being spread in 29 different directions. (Jennifer)

Although teachers implemented several inclusive strategies to manage their classes,

the daily challenge of ensuring all pupils received equitable opportunities consistently
was found to hinder inclusive practice. This was voiced by all teachers and was noted
to be a primary concern. While teachers spoke of successful strategies, ensuring they
were consistent and carried out effectively daily was difficult. Teachers acknowledged
the value of more support in working against limitations, such as having more TAs to
work with different groups of children during tasks (Woodcock and Woolfson 2019;
Round, Subban, and Sharma 2016).

TA interventions
Several specialised interventions took place outside the classroom: TAs reported taking
small groups of children with and without statements for support with social skills, spel-
lings and maths. Although practitioners felt positive about such interventions, the
removal of children from the classroom suggests inclusive opportunities are missed
when children with SEND work separately with a TA (Webster et al. 2010) and does
not align with inclusive pedagogy (Florian and Spratt 2013). Andrea explained how
she facilitated social skills and speech and language therapy for children with SEND
across year four in small groups. Although these groups took place separately, teachers
felt they had a positive impact on pupils, especially for their independence and social
interactions with peers. This resonates with guidance from Sharples, Webster, and
Blatchford (2018) concerning positive effects of high quality, structured interventions:
I can definitely see the improvement [from maths groups] … social skills groups, that’s
really impacted them and their confidence within class to put their hand up to answer ques-
tions. (Alicia)

Although UNESCO (2009) questions the need for separate interventions for different
groups of learners, Andrea explained the importance of maintaining interventions to
help children with SEND develop communication and interaction skills in school:
I try and think of what life would be like not in a classroom but in a playground or when they
go to each other’s houses … we concentrate on those types of skills. (Andrea)

Lindsay et al. (2014) suggest inclusive pedagogy could prove difficult to enact for lear-
ners with ASD who need individual strategies and approaches to address certain issues.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 417

Practitioners did not report feelings of marginalisation from children and felt they
enjoyed coming to interventions, as skills were taught using games. Separate provision
beyond the mainstream classroom was deemed valuable by all staff and allowed
further progress to be made for certain children. Brennan, King, and Travers (2019)
argue that inclusive pedagogy may not support teachers without marking some learners
with SEN as different, which is evident in this scenario as individually centred learning
opportunities for children with ASD ensured children were equipped to handle social
situations with more confidence and remained happy in school.
The interventions led by Andrea contrasts with findings from Webster et al. (2010)
since the group proved to be effective: the TA had professional qualifications in SEND
and helped children progress with their social skills, aligning with key guidance from
Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford (2018).

Ability-based tasks
While teachers spoke about their flexibility and use of mixed ability strategies, they used
ability-based grouping when conducting guided reading. This whole school strategy
focused on skills related to reading levels and was consistent across the school:
That would be the only thing grouped by ability, so we can work closely with the ones who
might not be reading fluently, but the ones who are reading well we can have a more in-
depth conversation. (Greta)

Teachers worked closely with pupils in ability-based groups allowing them to focus on
critical reading skills daily for thirty minutes. Alicia explained class novels were often
quite challenging and some children needed support inferencing texts; smaller group ses-
sions gave them more opportunity to practice key skills:
I need to be able to focus questions for [some] children who won’t necessarily be able to
infer what something means. (Alicia)

Participants persuasively argued ability-based grouping was essential in supporting

the range of reading levels and did not report feelings of marginalisation amongst
pupils. Further ability-based support was evident across core subjects like maths and lit-
eracy and necessary to ensure children felt supported in completing tasks and helping
them develop a thorough understanding of the taught skill. However, Florian and
Spratt (2013) note ability grouping infers the presence of some will hold back the pro-
gress of others and Boaler, William, and Brown (2000) caution predetermining children’s
potential can, for some, undermine their sense of self-worth. In contradiction to inclusive
pedagogy, this strategy did label children as different (Brennan, King, and Travers 2019)
as they were noticeably working in a group or independently with the teacher, whilst
others carried out tasks independently or with others.

Discussion and recommendations

This study explored inclusive pedagogy through the lens of primary teachers and TAs
perspectives and lived experiences of working within a mainstream primary school in
England. Their narratives reveal several themes for facilitating inclusion: whole-class
approaches; emphasis on learners’ capabilities; flexibility; and, commitment to
418 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

professional development as well as several barriers: diversity of needs; TA interventions;

and, ability-based tasks.
Teachers used whole-class approaches within the classroom and for behaviour man-
agement, for example, several strategies took the needs of all pupils into account by creat-
ing a welcoming environment without causing feelings of marginalisation. This is a
central tenet of inclusive pedagogy (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). However, some
individualised seating arrangements and behaviour strategies were incorporated to
meet the needs of specific children with SEND. While this may be inconsistent with
inclusive pedagogy, practitioners stressed the importance of differentiated arrangements
to ensure positive outcomes for all pupils, allowing them to work flexibly. Clearly, this
resonates with the notion of inclusion as a process that involves adjustments and modifi-
cations in approaches to be made (UNESCO 2009).
Practitioners emphasised pupil success and created opportunities for children to take
accountability of their own learning. They believed all pupils could make progress and
described effective strategies for promoting confidence and independence; stressed the
importance of all children feeling valued and successful; and, created strategies tailored
to the needs of all individuals. In so doing, teachers’ reflected an innovative and positive
outlook by facilitating a pupil-centred environment that did not place emphasis on
ability-based learning.
Flexibility was a major theme insofar as practitioners expressed positivity toward
working with one another alongside the importance of communication. They worked
cooperatively as a team and felt comfortable approaching staff to overcome challenges
within the classroom. Teachers experimented with different strategies to support chil-
dren, and although some were individualised, these were implemented in response to
pupil needs (UNESCO 2009) and showcase teachers’ willingness to be proactive in
seeking new ways of working. All practitioners indicated commitment and willingness
to professional development and training courses in SEND, which reflects the underpin-
ning ethos of the school to promote education for all pupils.
Meeting the diverse needs of all pupils within a mainstream setting was an ongoing
challenge. TA interventions played an important role in supporting children with
SEND to develop specific skills and although some were conducted separately, as in
social skill development, teachers felt they were beneficial and effective, especially for
children with ASD. Although this may indicate a clear tension between inclusive and
exclusive practices (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011) this strategy was justified by all
practitioners since having more time to interact and communicate enabled the children
to progress in key social skills.
Inclusive pedagogy may seem idealistic and unfeasible in all aspects of classroom life.
The diversity of classrooms present major challenges yet individualised strategies for
some children are crucial. As all pupils possess different capabilities, it is essential that
teachers respond to individual differences to achieve inclusion (UNESCO 2009). While
some strategies surfacing from this study are opposite to the principles of inclusive peda-
gogy, practitioners acted in the best interests of and responded to children with, SEND as
they deemed fit. This degree of autonomy was reflected by the collaborative and flexible
ways in which both partners not only worked together closely but perspectives and view-
points were highly valued.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 419

Several recommendations for policy, schools, teachers and TAs emerge from this
study. First, the importance of individualised strategies for some children with SEND
should not be overlooked. While inclusive pedagogy views this as marginalising, it is
imperative to acknowledge the needs of all pupils and implement effective strategies
for them to succeed. Practitioners should be open-minded to trialling new strategies
which promote inclusion, yet also meet individual needs.
Second, access to professional SEND courses would be beneficial to inform prac-
titioners on using resources more effectively as well as learning additional strategies
which promote inclusivity. These sessions should not necessarily focus on diagnosing
children but on ways to support them within the classroom environment. More training
and development courses should be offered by schools for practitioners seeking to learn
more about inclusive practice.
Third, school leaders should compile a policy document to articulate a shared under-
standing of TA deployment and preparation (Sharples, Webster, and Blatchford 2018)
which clarifies specific expectations for all teachers and TAs to ensure they understand
the complementary nature of their respective roles.
Fourth, this study was conducted across Year 4 and although findings may relate to
other classes/schools with similar characteristics, replication within other boroughs
and beyond would allow further strategies and challenges to surface and add value in
identifying patterns and trends across schools, enabling meaningful and robust compari-
sons to be made.
Fifth, this approach to inclusive pedagogy is not prevalent within research in the
English context and further investigations would contribute to the knowledge base of
this important field of study.

Concluding remarks
Inclusive education continues to be a topic of great concern and while teachers and TAs
exemplify multiple facets of inclusive pedagogy, it can be complex to facilitate in all
aspects of classroom life given the complex, diverse needs prescient within our schools.
This study highlights several strategies to overcome challenges without causing feelings
of marginalisation and reinforces the importance of recognising individual pupil needs
within mainstream settings. It gives voice to positive experiences encountered by prac-
titioners in working flexibly to create welcoming environments for all children. The
findings contribute to the literature on inclusive pedagogy and the knowledge base of prac-
titioners working with children presenting with SEND in English primary schools.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Jessica Losberg is a Canadian primary school teacher in England, currently in her fifth year of
teaching. She studied at Western University in Ontario, Canada and received a degree in
Media, Information and Techno culture. She continued her studies in Teacher Education and
received her Bachelor of Professional Studies in 2015 specialising in Primary/Junior education.
420 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

To continue her passion and interest in the field of inclusion, she completed a Master of Arts
degree in Education, specialising in Special Educational Needs and Disability and Inclusion gradu-
ating with a Distinction. She was the recipient of the James Pitman Special Education Prize in rec-
ognition of her formidable research efforts. She acquired an additional qualification in Special
Education training from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Within her role as a
primary school teacher, she has worked collaboratively with many staff members including the
Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) in facilitating inclusive practice within her class-
room and the school. Her experiences as a researcher and primary school teacher have fostered a
deeper interest in the areas of equity within the classroom and inclusive pedagogy.
Paula Zwozdiak-Myers is Programme Director for the Doctor of Education (EdD) at Brunel Uni-
versity London within the Department of Education. She has led the ‘Social Justice, Equity and
Inclusion’ pathway for the MA in Education and designed/led the MA in Teaching for early
career professionals. As Chair of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) committee
for the Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET) (trustee and member of the
Executive) she has liaised with the Department for Education (DfE) and Her Majesty’s Inspecto-
rate (HMI) on national priorities and developments concerning teacher education and CPD in
England. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA), a member of the
National Network for Directors of Professional Doctorates in Education and an external examiner
for EdD programmes offered by two Higher Education Institutions in England. Particular research
interests include reflective practice for professional development in teacher education, pedagogical
strategies for inclusion and spiritual capital in curriculum design. She has written book chapters/
articles on a wide range of subject areas and authored/edited three books.

ORCID
Jessica Losberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5182-0023
Paula Zwozdiak-Myers http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7860-2261

References
Ainscow, M., and A. Sandill. 2010. “Developing Inclusive Education Systems: The Role of
Organisational Cultures and Leadership.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14 (4):
401–416.
Boaler, J., D. William, and M. Brown. 2000. “Students’ Experiences of Ability Grouping –
Disaffection, Polarisation and the Construction of Failure.” British Educational Research
Journal 26 (5): 631–648.
Bosanquet, P., and J. Radford. 2019. “Teaching Assistant and Pupil Interactions: The Role of
Repair and Topic Management in Scaffolding Learning.” British Journal of Educational
Psychology 89 (1): 177–190.
Braun, V., and V. Clark. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Braun, V., and V. Clark. 2013. “Teaching Thematic Analysis.” The Psychologist 26 (2): 120–123.
Brennan, A., F. King, and J. Travers. 2019. “Supporting the Enactment of Inclusive Pedagogy in a
Primary School.” International Journal of Inclusive Education. Accessed 24th June 2021. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1625452.
British Educational Research Association (BERA). 2018. Ethical Guidelines for Educational
Research, Fourth Edition. BERA. June 20. Accessed April 24, 2020. https://www.bera.ac.uk/
publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2017. Research Methods in Education, Eighth Edition.
Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 421

Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research,
Third Edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Department for Education and Department of Health. 2015. Special Educational Needs and
Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 Years. London: Crown.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). 1997. Excellence for all Children: Meeting
Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2001. Special Educational Needs Code of Practice.
London: Crown.
Department for Education (DfE). 2018. Statements of SEN and EHC Plans: England, 2018. London:
DfE.
Flick, U. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Fourth Edition. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Florian, L. 2009. “Preparing Teachers to Work in ‘Schools for All’.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 25 (4): 533–534.
Florian, L., and K. Black-Hawkins. 2011. “Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy.” British Educational
Research Journal 37 (5): 813–828.
Florian, L., and J. Spratt. 2013. “Enacting Inclusion: A Framework for Interrogating Inclusive
Practice.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (2): 119–135.
Great Britain. 2014. Children and Families Bill. London: HMSO.
Groom, B., and R. Rose. 2005. “Supporting the Inclusion of Pupils with Social, Emotional and
Behavioural Difficulties in the Primary School: The Role of Teaching Assistants.” Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs 5 (1): 20–30.
Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1985. Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation
Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hosford, S., and S. O’Sullivan. 2016. “A Climate for Self-efficacy: The Relationship Between School
Climate and Teacher Efficacy for Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (6):
604–621.
Inclusive Quality Mark (IQM). 2020. IQM Inclusive School Award. Accessed April 23, 2020.
https://iqmaward.com/iqm-inclusive-school/.
Krefting, L. 1991. “Rigor in Qualitative Research: The Assessment of Trustworthiness.” American
Journal of Occupational Therapy 45 (3): 214–222.
Leatherman, J., and J. Niemeyer. 2005. “Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion: Factors Influencing
Classroom Practice.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 26 (1): 23–36.
Lichtman, M. 2013. Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide, Third Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lindsay, S., M. Proulx, H. Scott, and N. Thomson. 2014. “Exploring Teachers’ Strategies for
Including Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Mainstream Classrooms.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (2): 101–122.
Lyons, W. E., S. A. Thompson, and V. Timmons. 2016. “‘We Are Inclusive. We Are a Team. Let’s
Just Do It’: Commitment, Collective Efficacy, and Agency in Four Inclusive Schools.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (8): 889–907.
Maciver, D., C. Hunter, A. Adamson, Z. Grayson, K. Forsyth, and I. McLeod. 2018. “Supporting
Successful Inclusive Practices for Learners with Disabilities in High Schools: A Multisite, Mixed
Method Collective Case Study.” Disability and Rehabilitation 40 (14): 1708–1717.
Molbaek, M. 2018. “Inclusive Teaching Strategies – Dimensions and Agendas.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (10): 1048–1061.
Ofsted. 2000. Evaluating Educational Inclusion: Guidance for Inspectors and Schools. London: Ofsted.
Punch, K. F., and A. Oancea. 2014. Introduction to Research Methods in Education, Second Edition.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Rahman, M. S. 2016. “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature
Review.” Journal of Education and Learning 6 (1): 102–112.
422 J. LOSBERG AND P. ZWOZDIAK-MYERS

Round, P. N., P. K. Subban, and U. Sharma. 2016. “‘I Don’t Have Time to be This Busy’. Exploring
the Concerns of Secondary School Teachers Towards Inclusive Education.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (2): 185–198.
Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Second
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Sharples, J., R. Webster, and P. Blatchford. 2018. Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants, Guidance
Report. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
Sikes, P., H. Lawson, and M. Parker. 2007. “Voices on: Teachers and Teaching Assistants Talk
About Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 11 (3): 355–370.
Triandis, H. C. 1971. Attitude and Attitude Change. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Trussler, S., and D. Robinson. 2015. Inclusive Practice in the Primary School, A Guide for Teachers.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
UNICEF United Kingdom. 2019. What is a Rights Respecting School? Accessed April 26, 2020.
https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-respecting-schools/the-rrsa/what-is-a-rights-respecting-
school/.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1994. The
Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paper presented
at the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality, Salamanca, Spain,
June 7–10.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2009. Policy
Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Great Britain, and M. Warnock. 1978. Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of
Enquiry Into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. London: HMSO.
Webster, R., P. Blatchford, P. Bassett, P. Brown, C. Martin, and A. Russell. 2010. “Double
Standards and First Principles: Framing Teaching Assistant Support for Pupils with Special
Educational Needs.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 25 (4): 319–336.
Wilde, A., and E. Avradmidis. 2011. “Mixed Feelings: Towards a Continuum of Inclusive
Pedagogies.” Education 3-13 39 (1): 83–101.
Woodcock, S., and L. M. Woolfson. 2019. “Are Leaders Leading the Way with Inclusion? Teachers’
Perceptions of Systemic Support and Barriers Towards Inclusion.” International Journal of
Educational Research 93: 232–242.