Conference Agenda

While values play a key role in formal education, as highlighted in policies at European level (Council of Europe (CoE), 2016) as well as worldwide (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019; The international Group of Seven (G7), 2016; United Nations (UN), 2015) very few empirical studies have collected data from children and their teachers. This gap in research is particularly wide in preschool and early primary school years. The four presentations in this symposium are aiming to help close this gap, analysing data from five-to-eight-year-old children and their teachers across three countries. Schwartz’s (1992) theory of human values with its ten key values of universalism and benevolence (self-transcendence values), achievement and power (self-enhancement values), tradition, conformity, and security (conservation values), and hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction (openness to change values) forms the theoretical framework. This framework has been particularly strong in facilitating approaches to the assessment of children’s values, explaining dynamics of value development and value change in social and educational contexts, and understanding how values direct children’s actions (Döring et al., 2016). Thus, gaining empirical evidence on children`s value development in an early school education has a particular importance for pedagogical practice in an increasingly diverse educational settings where values has been recognized as a pathway to inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Booth, 2011).

The contribution of the symposium maps the diversity of value research in early school education with particular focus on value transmission in classrooms of three different countries (Switzerland, the UK, and Israel).

Scholz-Kuhn and colleagues are presenting a multi-level study with 952 Swiss children in primary schools, showing how children’s self-reported values of self-transcendence versus self-enhancement and openness to change versus conservation are systematically related to their supportive versus performance and learning-oriented versus disciplined behavior in the classroom as observed by their teachers.

The following presentation by Jones and colleagues gives voice to ten British primary school teachers and applies deductive content analysis as well as inductive thematic analysis to interview data. The emerging themes speak to the different routes to value transmission inside and outside of the classroom and facilitators of value change (see Bardi & Goodwin, 2011), such as identification, adaptation, and priming.

The third presentation by Habermann and colleagues explores data from both countries, Switzerland and the UK and reflects the reality of today’s primary school classrooms in Europe, which is often multilingual. The findings show how children’s value priorities (the importance children give to specific values) are systematically related to language as well as cultural background.

The fourth presentation by Elizarov and colleagues adds data from a new country, Israel, and lowers the age range to kindergarten age. In the same vein as the first presentation, it demonstrates how children’s values predict their prosocial behaviour, but it adds a potential mediating mechanism via social information processing as well as children’s feelings toward school.

The discussion by Döring will review these novel insights in view of children’s developmental background during these early stages of formal education, focusing on how values predict children’s actions and vice versa.

There has been little research on the relationships between children's personal values and the behaviors that express such values in the school context. Hence, the promotion of prosocial values of children in school could be a mean to encourage a positive school climate, an effective learning environment and especially an approach to reduce negative and disruptive behaviours in class, which has always been one of the predominant challenges to effective teaching-learning processes (Turhan & Akgül, 2017). Previous research indicates the association between disruptive behavior and individual demographics such as gender and ethnicity (Kellam et al., 1998; Pas et al., 2010; Pas et al., 2011). Furthermore, it has been shown that process characteristics (e.g., the quality of relationships within a classroom) are more important than structural characteristics (e.g., percentage of girls in class) to explain behavior problems (Schönbächler et al., 2011). In the present study, we examined for the first time with children at this young age, the relations between values and their value-related behaviors, i.e., supportive, disciplined, learning-oriented and achievement-oriented, in the primary school context. The sample consisted of 952 primary school children (51.5 % boys; Mage: 7.93, SD=.35). Data used in this study were collected in 2022 in Switzerland. A multilevel analysis confirmed the hypothesis that systematic relationships between values and teacher-rated behaviors can be demonstrated with young children. However, gender was the strongest predictor of teacher-rated children’s classroom behaviors. The results highlight the significance of understanding children’s value-behavior relations, teachers’ possible gender stereotypes of children’s behaviors and its practical importance in the school context. Overall, this study strengthens the idea that focusing on value theory, understanding, development and education might be a way out to reduce disruptive behavior and to create a positive school climate to foster children’s learning.

Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001564 Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., Hershfeldt, P. A., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). A multilevel exploration of the influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018576 Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mitchell, M. M. (2011). Examining the validity of office discipline referrals as an indicator of student behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 48(6), 541-555. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20577 Schönbächler, M.-T., Herzog, W., & Makarova, E. (2011) 'Schwierige' Schulklassen: Eine Analyse des Zusammenhangs von Klassenzusammensetzungen und wahrgenommenen Unterrichtsstörungen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39 (4), 310-327. Turhan, M., & Akgül,T. (2017). The Relationship between Perceived School Climate and the Adolescents' Adherence to Humanitarian Values. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 357-365. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050308

Values are the trans-situational goals guiding human attitudes and behavior (Schwartz, 1992). As education has a responsibility to equip individuals with democratic values of citizenship, attitudes and beliefs, teachers play an active role in promoting and transmitting values, in order to create a more inclusive, fair and sustainable society (OECD, 2019). Despite being the earliest socialization agents outside the home, little empirical evidence exists on the important role that primary school teachers play in value transmission. By facilitating social cognitive development through social interactions, the school setting helps to spark curiosity, leading to reflection and adaptation (Goswami, 2015). Teachers use a range of strategies (including imitation and modelling, priming and discussion) to help children to make sense of the world (Oeschger et al, 2022) which they apply across a range of subjects and in a range of ways. The present study aims to give voice to educators through the personal experiences of 10 UK primary school teachers, with between 7 and 28 years of primary teaching experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted lasting between 50 and 90 minutes. Data was analyzed in two stages. First, a deductive content analysis was conducted to identify how values, as defined in Schwartz’s (1992) model, were reflected in the interview data. Next, questions were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis. The following themes emerged: the mechanisms of values transmission (modelling, priming, discussion, social stories and questioning); the implicit and explicit ways that values are promoted across the school setting and curriculum; values which are more difficult to teach (power values, self-direction values); value transmission through taught lessons (including PSHE, Maths, PE and Geography); opportunities for value transmission in the wider school environment (lunch and play times, Forest School and collective worship); and the role that a school culture and ethos (including the Head Teacher) play on the transmission of values. Future studies might consider comparing qualitative data from teachers with quantitative data or observations of pupils in the school setting in order to understand how pupils interpret the values taught.

Goswami, U. (2015) Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning (CPRT Research Survey 3), York: Cambridge Primary Review Trust. ISBN 978-0-9931032-2-3. Oeschger, T., Makarova E., & Döring, A. K. (2022). Values in the School Curriculum from Teachers‘ Perspective: A mixed-methods Study. International Journal of Educational Research Open, Volume 3. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100190. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: Conceptual Learning Framework. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf, [26.3.2019]. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25(25), 1-65. https://doi.org 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

One of the biggest challenges for the educational systems in our constantly changing world is managing ever increasingly diverse classrooms, and creating equal learning opportunities for multilingual, multicultural, and multi-competent students. According to the UN, ”education (…) shall be directed to the development of respect for the child’s (..) language and values” (Convention on the rights of the child, 1989). However, little is known about the influence of multilingualism on the ten basic human values (Schwartz, 1992). Gross and Dewaele (2017) found that multilingualism was linked to higher scores on conservation, and that children with a migrant background scored higher on conservation and self-enhancement, and lower on openness to change. When comparing monolingual and bilingual children in the United Kingdom and Switzerland, we would therefore expect to find similar patterns in value priorities. The present study investigates how speaking two languages is related to the ten basic human values of 6- to 8-year-old children in the UK and Switzerland. 537 primary children in the UK, 1103 in Switzerland primary children in Switzerland completed a comprehensive questionnaire on children’s values, including the Picture Based Value Survey for Children (Döring et al., 2010). More than half of the children were monolingual, and almost all of the monolinguals were born in their country of testing, compared to only two thirds of the bilingual children. Similar to Gross and Dewaele (2017), the results showed that bilingual children score higher on conservation and self-enhancement, and lower on self-transcendence and openness to change, compared to their monolingual peers. Bilingual children with a migrant background did not score differently than bilinguals without a migrant background. The findings of this study provide valuable conclusions for teachers in diverse classrooms.

Convention on the rights of the child (1989) Treaty no. 27531. United Nations Treaty Series, 1577, p. 13. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf (Accessed: 8 January 2023). Döring, A., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L., & Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing values at an early age: The picture-based value survey for children (PBVS–C). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497423 Gross, B., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). The relation between multilingualism and basic human values among primary school children in South Tyrol. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1318885 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

The value-behavior relationships are evident in different contexts and age groups and include a wide range of behaviors (Benish-Weisman et al., 2022; Schwartz et al., 2010). However, much remains to be learned about the mechanism underlying these relationships. In our study, we introduce a possible socio-cognitive mechanism that may play an important role in this context, which involves kindergarten children’s social information processing and attitudes toward class acting as mediators between the children’s values orientations and their social behavior in kindergarten. Study participants included 121 children (59 girls; Mage = 67.45 months, SDage = 6.56 months). Children’s values were obtained via the Animated Values Instrument (Lee et al., 2017). Children’s values-oriented SIP patterns were measured using a new measure entitled The Social Information Processing and Values Interview (SIP-VI) which is based on The Social Information Processing Interview for Preschoolers (SIPI-P; see Ziv & Sorongon, 2011). Children’s attitudes toward class were examined using the Feeling About School scale (FAS; Valeski & Stipek, 2001). Lastly, children’s social behaviors were reported by teachers using the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, Goodman, 1997). As hypothesized, this study’s overall model fitted the data (NFI = .93, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04; Kline, 2016). Specifically, children’s preferences of self-transcendence values over self-enhancement values were positively linked to their prosocial behaviors and negatively linked to their antisocial behaviors, and these associations were mediated by the children’s bias toward more self-transcendence-oriented SIP patterns (over self-enhancement-oriented SIP) and their subsequent more positive attitudes toward Kindergarten.

Benish-Weisman, M., Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2022). The contribution of peer values to children’s values and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(6), 844-864. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672211020193 Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. Lee, J. A., Ye, S., Sneddon, J. N., Collins, P. R., & Daniel, E. (2017). Does the intra-individual structure of values exist in young children? Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 125-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.038 Schwartz, S. H., Caprara, G. V., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31(3), 421-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00764.x Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. J. (2001). Young children's feelings about school. Child Development, 72(4), 1198-1213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00342 Ziv, Y., & Sorongon, A. (2011). Social information processing in preschool children: Relations to sociodemographic risk and problem behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 412-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.009

For children with disabilities and their families, starting school is considered a particularly sensitive and, therefore, challenging phase: The children face the challenge to deal with changes in the support structures surrounding them. The families face the challenge to organise additional support addressing the specific needs of their children (Janus & Siddiqua, 2018). As a result, children with disabilities (Jiang et al., 2021) as well as their families (McIntyre et al., 2010) tend to find the transition to be particularly difficult. As educational disadvantages at transition to school affect a child’s whole educational career (Crosnoe & Ansari, 2016) and thus the life of the child’s family, designing an inclusive transition setting for children with disabilities is crucial both for the children’s future academic trajectories and the families’ future experiences.

Although the transition to school is such an important biographic milestone, recent research activities addressing the transition to school of children with disabilities haven’t been systematically reviewed yet. Available reviews on this topic focus on studies conducted before the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in 2006 (e.g., Janus et al., 2007). As a result, it is difficult to identify current research gaps and to derive future research needs in this field.

Therefore, we conducted a systematic review that focus on the transition to school of children with disabilities (Then & Pohlmann-Rother, 2023). In order to structure the research field, we developed a theoretical model of inclusive transition to school and used it as a conceptual framework of our review. According to the ecosystemic perspective on transitions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), three levels are considered relevant for the transition within this model: The (1) individual level includes the actors in the transition process, i.e., the child; families/parents; preschool teachers; the teachers in compulsory school-based settings; the neighbourhood (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000); and service providers such as school psychologists or therapists. The (2) process level contains the processes that moderate the successful course of the transition to school in general, i.e., the long-term and high-quality (Garber et al., 2022) adaptive support of the child; the support and active involvement of families/parents in the transition (Cook & Coley, 2017); children’s interactions at the peer level (Dockett & Perry, 2004); (multi-)professional cooperation of teachers with each other and with service providers (Ahtola et al., 2011); and the coordination of the institutions’ activities to foster alignment and continuity between the educational settings (Boyle et al., 2018). (3) Finally, on the societal level, the administrative framework of the transition (e.g., the legal provisions regarding the school enrolment process) is set.

Following this model and addressing the current need in conducting a systematic review of transition to school of children with disabilities, we focus on the following research questions:

1. What samples and research designs are used in empirical studies on the transition to school of children with disabilities published since the adoption of the UN CRPD in 2006?
2. What are the main research priorities on the transition to school of children with disabilities?
3. What are the needs for future research regarding the transition to school of children with disabilities?

We use the term ‘transition to school’ to describe transitions from preschool to compulsory school-based settings. According to the biopsychosocial model of the World Health Organization (2001), we focus on ‘children with disabilities’ as a group of children who experience long-term restrictions in their social participation and in their interactions with their environment because of permanent physical, mental, or psychological exceptionalities.

An inclusive school system provides equal opportunities for education and satisfaction of individual learning needs to all pupils. In recent years, the understanding of inclusion has broadened to focus on the best possible support and participation of all learners (Booth & Ainscow, 2002). The larger scope includes not only physical disabilities or learning problems, but also other aspects possibly linked with marginalization, such as mental health problems.

A relevant group of learners in the context of inclusion are children and adolescents with mental illness. Studies have shown that anxiety disorders are among the most common mental illnesses in children and adolescents, affecting about 10% (Schneider & Margraf, 2019). Depressive disorders are also very common, especially in adolescence. The prevalence rate of depression increases from less than 2% in kindergarten children to about 9% during adolescence to more than 20% by age 18 (Pössel, 2019). These disorders tend to persist into adulthood and, if left untreated, can have long-term consequences for the rest of the life course (Pössel, 2019; Schneider & Margraf, 2019).

The impact of mental illness on the transition from compulsory education to vocational education and training (VET) has been little researched to date - in particular, the recording of transition trajectories in this group of learners represents a research gap (Kranert & Stein, 2019). Research in this field is important because the transition from school to VET represents an important developmental step for young adults and lays the foundation for their professional future as well as for the further course of their lives. Early educational decisions and career transitions have long-term consequences; for example, missed vocational training is rarely compensated later on in the career and early career decisions are rarely changed (Blossfeld, 1988). In addition to performance- and aptitude-related characteristics, ascriptive characteristics such as gender, natio-ethno-cultural and social origin exert a significant influence on the transition process (e.g. Glauser, 2015).

Previous research shows that the presence of a diagnosed mental illness at lower secondary level is associated with lower educational aspirations and, consequently, more likely school failure, and can significantly complicate the transition to VET further down the line (for a review see Stein & Kranert, 2020). In addition, various studies have shown that depression and anxiety disorders can have a negative effect on VET (de Lijster et al., 2018; Wickersham et al., 2021). However, previous studies on the influence of mental illness incompletely consider performance- and aptitude-related as well as ascriptive characteristics (e.g. Baumann et al., 2018). From the literature is known that mental illnesses correlate for example with gender and natio-ethno-cultural background. The question therefore arises how large the correlation between mental illnesses and educational attainment is when adjusting for these factors.

The planned study contributes to closing this desideratum and investigates whether the presence of an anxiety disorder or depression during lower secondary level is a risk factor for three aspects of educational attainment: intellectual demands of VET, educational changes, and educational satisfaction. Additionally, it is explored, inasmuch these associations are stable when adjusting for performance, social and natio-ethno-cultural origin as well as further central ascriptive characteristics.

Exploration of the impact of impaired listening and processing skills is not generally reviewed in the educational context. The ability to process and interpret speech in noise, block out extraneous noise or the voices other than the person to whom the student needs to attend, is generically called Auditory Processing Difficulties (APD). Auditory Processing Difficulties (or Disorder) is a complex condition that impacts people worldwide (Iladou et al., 2017) and is not always related to the functioning of the hearing organs. It is only recently that its links with other conditions, such as dyslexia (Richardson et al., 2004), dyspraxia, autism (O’Connor, 2012), ADHD (Witton, 2010), as well as students with hearing impairments and those learning in their non-first language. Although the study described here took place in the UK, it is relevant to the wider European and world-wide context as are the implications of the findings.

Although speech and listening is the main form of communication in HE (and education in general) with students expected to work in groups with other students, teaching staff have little knowledge of the condition or about creating positive hearing and speech processing environments. Students have limited training in listening and speech processing skills. APD difficulties not only apply to listening to a lecturer, but also being able to understand who is speaking in a group and may impact performance in presentations when the student is asked questions.

This is among the first research to investigate the impact of APD on learning and teaching in the HE environment. This project extends previous research with younger children (Capewell, 2015) into the HE environment. It aims to raise awareness of the impact of APD among staff and non-affected students.

The underpinning theoretical framework is that according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) under Article 12, a 'child' has the right to express their views with Article 28 specifically including access to higher education for disabled students/young people. In the UK, the active involvement and right of individual students to express their needs as a basis for changing pedagogical pracitce is identified in an Insight report (Office for students, 2020) which urges individual universities to consider the experience and outcomes for those students who identify as having a disability.

The aim of this research was to enable students with APD to analyse and evaluate their experiences of processing what a target speaker says to them in noisy environments and be central to the data collection and analysis. It gives them a tool to identify enablers/barriers in learning and communicate this with their lecturers and for lecturers to have a structured way of identifying the practical and minor adjustments needed to improve the learning and teaching environment.

Research Questions:

What are the barriers/enablers for students with APD to understanding a targeted speaker in an environment with background noise?

How can students develop agency in identifying and sharing enablers/barriers to processing speech in noise, to those around them?

What information would help academic staff to implement minor adaptations in learning/teaching environments so that there could be a more inclusive environment for students with APD difficulties and evaluate such implementation?

In this paper we focus on access to education for persons with intellectual disability or. The articles puzzle is the mismatch between proclaimed intent to include all through education and provide long life learning for all citizens as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2008).

In 1994 the UNESCO adopted the Salamanca declaration, which states that every child has a right to education and that the education system should be designed, and educational programmes implemented, to meet the diversities among children, and that students with special need must have access to regular schools and adapted education (Shakespeare, 2018, p. 110). Education is critical to most citizens but in particularly for persons with disability because having formal qualifications can make the difference between being included or excluded in employment and society (Shakespeare, 2018). In higher education, students need to navigate many disabling barriers (Magnus & Tøssebro, 2014).

Since 2021, VID Specialized University has planned and carried out a pilot program of 30 ECTS funded by the foundation DAM called “Higher education in human rights for students with intellectual disabilities”. The courses taught were: Human rights and everyday life, Worldview, values and professional relations, and o-research. The courses have been carried out partly for this group of students as a segregated provision and partly with students in the master program in citizenship and co-operation, a hybrid form of provision. This pilot program is the case providing the empirical material for the paper.

The main objective is Disability as an exclusionary factor in Education The obstacles and possibilities for granting persons belonging to these groups access to, and meaningful participation in higher education, lifelong learning and knowledge production. We operationalize this in two research questions:

• What obstacles or possibilities can be identified for granting these groups access to, and successful participation in higher education, lifelong learning?
• What obstacles or possibilities can be identified for granting these groups access to, and successful participation in knowledge production?

According to the World Bank and WHO report on disability (2011), 15% of the population lives with disability, thus disability is highly relevant for education at all levels. However, disability is to a little degree explored as an exclusionary factor in the system of education. In the Norwegian system of education all persons have equal right to education, and yet persons with disabilities are more vulnerable to dropping out of education at high school and have less access to higher education than their peers. A proper system of education is an important key for combating social inequality and for creating a just society for all inhabitants. According to CRPD article 24, state parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education and “shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to access general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with other” (UN, 2008). Also the UN Sustainability Development Goals, 4 focuses on inclusive education.

The overarching theoretical perspective is Citizenship and the importance of the educational system for supporting citizenship for persons with disabilities (Nussbaum, 2007). This theoretical perspective is promising for understanding the role of education for individual and society, and even the role of education in the welfare state. Those excluded from education often are also excluded from citizenship. Education supports citizenship and democracy (Nussbaum, 2010). The capabilities approach, offers a conception of the states responsibilities supporting every persons right to be recognized as equal citizens with rights and duties and to live lives according to human dignity.

The German-speaking research fields with regard to understanding Germany as a migration society (Mecheril 2010) often deal with integration, (the lack of) educational success, multilingualism or power asymmetries between Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) persons and non-BIPOC persons within institutions or society in general. While there is knowledge about the role of researchers in qualitative studies and the importance of reflecting the powerful position they find themselves in, it seems to be a different context when the researchers themselves come from a minority within academia (Karabulut 2022). Usually, researchers are not BIPOC persons and come from educated middle-class families (ibid.) But what if the researchers have the same social positioning as the persons who are objectified for research purposes? How will data be collected or analyzed (differently)? What are the opportunities and challenges of being BIPOC for the researchers and the research process? How are BIPOC researchers perceived by interview partners or other researchers?

Based on two research projects, the problematization of the role as a BIPOC researcher will be developed and presented with reference to concepts of Othering, the Critical Race Theory, and Bourdieu’s concept of capital (1990). The research projects deal with different topics of inclusion and language learning in the migration society.

In the first project, 18 qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with teachers and school leaders from six different schools on the practices and challenges of including newcomer students into the school. In Germany, newcomer students are primarily educated in separate but highly diverse classes in order to learn German as a second and academic language as quickly as possible (BSB 2018). Although cultural and linguistic diversity is not a new phenomenon in the German education system, the “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin 1994) is still persistent and can be identified in the data as well as in the addressing of the researcher during data collection. While the researcher was seen as a professional and potential teacher or co-expert on the topic of teaching newcomer students and additionally as a qualified researcher coming from university to pursue a study, another component was relevant: the attribution of a natio-ethni-cultural affiliation (Mecheril 2010) and related competencies and knowledge were mentioned in some interview situations. The so-called “visible” migration background might have led to label the researcher as “other” (ibid.) and construct different social groups where the researcher is in- or excluded.

The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz (2018). With the help of the systematic approach, all relevant units of analysis could be considered in a multi-level interpretation. The analysis is complemented by an evaluative qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2018, 124ff.) based on selected features as those were identified as central influencing factors for the embedding of preparatory classes in the respective schools and the construction of a racial or social “other”.

The second project is about creativity and literacy development with a focus on migration-related multilingualism and examines texts which are written in German and Turkish by primary school students. With a researcher that not only has a knowledge of German as a native speaker but also Turkish language skills at a high level, the data analysis differs from that of other researchers. Research on migration-related multilingualism, which is particularly concerned with the acquisition of German as a second language, explores the linguistic development of German as a condition for school success or failure. In this context, linguistic deviations from convention are declared as errors or interference resulting in linguistic inability (e.g. Klicpera/ Gasteiger-Klicpera/ Schabmann 2006, 415). /...

Social and racial diversity in Swedish cities is currently in proportion to that of London and other European places characterized by super-diversity (Lundström & Hübinette, 2022). The diversity of the population is also reflected in the segregation and inequities in the Swedish school system (Kuusisto & Garvis, 2020; Skolverket, 2022/2021-09-14). Preschool can be seen as the first step into the educational system and one of the first meeting spaces for newly arrived children and families (Johannes, 2013; Leseman, 2007). However, despite affordability, access and attendance of young children, Swedish cities and preschools remain highly segregated (Andersson, Bråmå, & Hogdal, 2009; Righard, 2022). Segregation along the lines of race and class creates a pedagogical dilemma for reciprocal and mutual integration across socio-economic, racial, and spatial divides. Preschool teachers in privileged and disadvantage areas both need to compensate for and counteract the combined effects of increased diversity, racial divides, and social inequalities between social groups. My research aims are to highlight preschool teachers’ pedagogic skills in constructing educational content and practices for young children that bring awareness of racial and social diversity (Derman-Sparks & Olsen Edwards, 2020; Ramsey, 2004).

The analysis of data examines preschool teaching and pedagogic practices that promote knowledge about social diversity, respect for social variations, and contribute to a collective understanding that can create a sense of belonging and inclusion. The theoretical impetus comes from Basil Bernstein’s pedagogic theory on the sociology of knowledge, the pedagogical discourse and symbolic control. Within this frame the Bernstein’s two pedagogic models: the competence model and the performance model have helped guide the research design and data analysis (Bernstein, 2000).

Bernstein’s theoretical concepts have been applied in previous studies to critique pedagogic practices that tend to reinstate the status quo and reproduce social inequalities. Previous research that utilizes Bernstein’s pedagogic theory has to a large extent focused on the negative effects of dominant norms underlying pedagogic policy and practice (Neaum, 2016). Assumptions about the type of child and what kind of childhood is considered desirable are not openly stated but constructed and conveyed in the pedagogic practices and communication with children and families (Brooker, 2003; Emilson & Johansson, 2009; Smith, 2019). These expectations of children are unstated but have been shown to have disadvantaging effects (Brooker, 2003). Research shows that assumptions and norms about the ideal child and appropriate pedagogic practice exacerbates social inequalities and deficit perspectives of working-class and minoritized children and families (Brooker, 2003; Palludan, 2007; Smith, 2019).

Bernstein’s pedagogic models of competence and performance (Bernstein, 2000) can both have advantaging and disadvantaging effects (Brooker, 2003). The competence model foregrounds child-centered pedagogy, exploratory play, social relations, and self-regulation. Performance models on the other hand foreground acquisition of official knowledge through imitation, copying, memorization and repetition in relation to pre-set learning criteria (Brooker, 2003; Neaum, 2016). Children who are familiar with the competence models have an advantage in that they can recognize and can manifest their own learning and development through self-regulated activities. Previous studies show that the competence model has to a large extent benefitted middle-class children and families who are already familiar with the ideas of children as leading and constructing their own knowledge (Catucci, 2021; Smith, 2019).

The primary research questions guiding the research design and analysis are:

• What are the preferred pedagogic models at work in early childhood education and care (ECEC)?
• How do early childhood educators construct knowledge about social and racial diversity in the pedagogical practice?
• And how do the pedagogic practices contribute to collective understandings of social diversity and inclusion in a broader societal perspective?

From its inception, the inclusive education project recognised the importance of early intervention. This was reaffirmed in the statement produced in 2022 on the rights of children with disabilities by the joint working group on the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This statement states that “early intervention, accessible learning environments, and individual support must be provided in all phases of education process for ensuring inclusive education” (UN, 2022, p. 3).

Despite this longstanding recognition of its crucial role, early intervention has been peripheral in the inclusive education literature, which has focused its critical attention predominantly on schooling and formal education. There are inherent complexities in capturing the remit of early intervention, what early intervention is, and where is located across different fields, with education being one of them. Often the early part of early intervention is seen as prior to education, or the intervention part is located outside of education. As the boundaries of education have expanded to a from birth, lifelong endeavour, this paper argues that understanding the foundational role of early intervention is imperative. What is inclusive about early intervention and how it relates to inclusive education are questions explored in this paper.

Early intervention is a specialised, multidisciplinary, loosely delineated field that provides targeted and individualised support to groups of young children and their families. It originated in the 1960s and is concerned with children whose development is perceived as at risk because of environmental or biological factors, including disability. Early childhood education, maternal and child health services, special education, and child development research contributed to the development of early intervention as an applied field (Meisels and Shonkoff, 2000). Different models of how to organise and provide early intervention have been proposed (Dunst, 1985). These models identify core principles, such as family-centred, culturally responsive, strengths-based practice in inclusive and authentic environments, with a recognition that existing practice often doesn’t exhibit these principles (Dunst, 1985) and that early intervention is a diverse enterprise (Dunst, 1996). The premise of at risk that is foundational to early intervention has been critiqued from a Disability Studies in Education perspective by interrogating its role in reproducing ableist, classist and racist constructions of normalcy (Ferri & Bacon, 2011; Love & Beneke, 2021; Mutua, 2001).

This conceptual paper starts from the notion that the provision of early intervention intends to shape the lifelong experience of disability and in doing this it gives new expressions to it. In doing so, early intervention and its transformative potential raise questions about inclusion and exclusion with implications for inclusive education. The paper explores and presents the divergent relationships between early intervention and inclusive education: a) early intervention independent from education, b) early intervention in education and c) early intervention for inclusive education. The latter is related to General Comment 4 on the Rights to Inclusive Education (United Nations, 2016) as a whole-person approach with the ‘provision of support and reasonable accommodation and early intervention’ aiming to end segregation stating that “all such interventions must guarantee respect for the dignity and autonomy of the child” (p. 21). The paper discusses the characteristics of early intervention for inclusive education and discusses the challenges surrounding its implementation.

Regarding the funding of inclusion, it is clear from multiple sources (for example, Fontaine, 2019; Meijer and Watkins, 2019; Slee, 2018; UNESCO, 2020) that an effective inclusive education system requires investment and adequate support. Whilst the various properties of inclusion funding models are numerous, it is argued by Meijer (1999) that all funding for inclusion/special educational needs is essentially:

1. input - needs funding. Sometimes referred to as a pupil Backpack fund that travels with a child through their school/college life.

or

1. throughput - tasks funding. Throughput funding of tasks, services, continuing professional development, etc.

Of the two forms of funding, throughput is argued to be the more inclusive of the funding options (Meijer and Watkins, 2019) as it seeks to develop and improve services and is more likely to avoid the labelling of pupils (Meijer, 1999). In this paper, the focus is on governmental throughput funding of practitioner research projects in the form of Action Research for Inclusion and Special Educational Needs and Disability (ISEND). The funding of Action Research as continuing professional development (CPD), is considered to be particularly interesting because it aligns with the current and widely respected literature on the topic of efficacious CPD for inclusion (for example, Alves, 2020; Black-Hawkins and Florian, 2012; Norwich and Ylonen, 2014; Rouse, 2008), and contrasts with other current trends which are steering towards the homogenisation of teacher CPD.

This paper comes from the premise that when teacher CPD is set within a constructivist ontology which frames inclusive practice as a process rather than an end goal, teachers are more likely to embrace its challenges (Robinson, 2021). The constructivist ontology also aligns with Jordan et al.’s (2009) construction of an interventionist paradigm, which views inclusive teachers as holding a belief that children with SEND are their responsibility and their actions have a positive and meaningful effect on the outcomes for children with SEND. The interventionist paradigm being juxtaposed against the pathognomonic paradigm which situates SEND as ‘within the child’ and requiring specialist intervention from experts, and a greater use of segregated forms of support which take place outside of the classroom (Jordan, et al., 2009). Pathognomonic beliefs have also been argued to deplete teachers’ feelings of professional wellbeing (Codina and Fordham, 2021). In this paper the epistemology and efficacy of practitioner research (which recognises teachers as complex agents of change who operate in highly contextualised and collaborative settings) is explored.

Key questions on which this paper will focus

- What is the relationship between the Action Research projects undertaken by participants and the interventionist and pathognomonic paradigms?

- Is this form of throughput funding leading to participants’ engagement in projects which promote inclusive practice (as set within a constructivist ontology)?

- Is there anything that can be said about Action Research for ISEND and a reduced reliance, or shift in analyses, regarding the use of backpack funding?

- Will the teachers involved in this project be interested in, or able to, embed a practitioner research culture within their setting, if so why?

Inclusive education arises from the idea that dominant culture and practices prioritize certain social groups while excluding others. Kozleski and Waitoller (2010) note that teachers are often trained to be "transmitters of the dominant culture, practices, and knowledge" and, as a result, they often reinforce existing inequities. To combat this, inclusive education requires teachers who are aware of their role in maintaining/challenging existing inequalities and are motivated to remove barriers to student participation and learning. In other words, inclusive education requires professional development activities which are more localized and tailored to the specific circumstances of particular teachers and schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2003; Shulman, 1992).

Collaborative action research (CAR) could be considered a tool for the mobilization and sharing of knowledge among participants, as well as an opportunity for improving educational practices in interconnection with the immediate environment (Moliner et al., 2021). This localized nature of CAR, i.e., transforming practices within the specific context of a school, leads to the development of teachers’ and schools’ ownership of identified problems and processes of change (Jovanović et al., 2017).

CAR values the expertise and interdependence of both practitioners and researchers, and, at the same time, offers an opportunity for learning for all involved. The collaboration and change in power relations open up the opportunity for practitioners to take on new roles and exhibit leadership, giving legitimacy to school professionals’ practical understanding and their definition of problems (Lieberman, 1986). Through CAR, practitioners develop both practical knowledge and a critical understanding of the everyday practices that result in exclusion. Therefore, CAR contributes to the development of teachers’ sense of agency, changes teachers’ definitions of their professional roles, and fosters teachers’ competencies (Angelides et al., 2008; Jovanović et al., 2017).

CAR requires different stakeholders to become engaged within a particular context in a search for common agenda to guide their work (Ainscow et al., 2004). Through this process of collaboration and constant negotiation of different understandings, CAR is modeling how to learn from differences and how to build a school community that acknowledges these differences.

The research aims to examine the process of creating an inclusive school culture and practices through collaborative action research.

Every child has the right to receive education that considers the child's individual needs (Unesco, 1994). For some children, collaborative approaches in support are fundamental in ensuring their inclusion and sense of belonging in education (e.g. Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Such collaborative practices refer to interprofessional collaboration, which is a method of working in special needs education, social work, and healthcare (Bricker et al., 2022). Interprofessional collaboration has been found to be beneficial (Anderson, 2013), and the importance of educating future professionals to work together is evident (Dobbs-Oates & Watcher Morris 2016). Interprofessional collaboration has also been emphasized in the recent educational reforms in Finland (Alila et al. 2022).

The methods of interprofessional support vary, since each child needs different types of support. The support varies from structured daily routines (e.g. pedagogy) and flexible groupings to collaboration between different units of extensive expertise (e.g.,. hospital schools, specialized centers for learning and consulting). For example, when planning teaching by activity areas consultation is often needed. Also, hospital schooling might be needed for children with severe socio-emotional support needs that might be also very sudden, or consultation regarding the use of communication or other supportive methods that generally the early childhood education or school cannot provide alone.

Moreover, children should receive support based on their individual needs rather than based on the diagnosis that they might have (Äikäs et al., 2022). Important factors for a child or youth receiving interprofessional support are high-quality early childhood or primary education and an operating culture that supports all students as a whole, and these have also been highlighted in research conducted in these contexts. Effective and ideal interprofessional support consists of working collaboratively across different administrative sectors (Äikäs et al., 2022). Although previous studies have indicated inadequacies in the implementation of interprofessional collaboration (Bricker et al. 2022;), successful collaboration is possible; trust, mutual respect, and functional communication between the sectors are prerequisites for promoting inclusive practices.

However, if the collaboration is not functional, children that need such interprofessional support may have a particularly high risk of being excluded from mainstream education (Äikäs & Pesonen, 2022). Additionally, teachers often encounter challenges in supporting children that require more interprofessional collaborative approaches in inclusive settings (Saha & Pesonen, 2022). A reform concerning cross-sectional and administrative collaboration is currently in process in Finland. Furthermore, internationally the interprofessional support, good practice models and concepts describing such working methods are also unclear (e.g. Heiskanen et al., 2021) Thus, more research to describe the interprofessional support and how to efficiently organize functional support are needed.

The aim of this study is to examine the state of interprofessional support by focusing on outputs from our research and developmental projects in Finland. We used an integrative review approach (Cronin & Georger, 2023) as a guide for synthesizing the projects’ outputs in the context of Finnish special needs education. We synthesized the projects’ studies, technical reports, theses and developmental work to answer the following research question:

1. How interprofessional support methods should be outlined and conceptualized in order to guarantee education for all?

2. What possibilities does interprofessional support offer for enhancing education for all?

Inclusive education research has grown over the past decades but is skewed towards Global North contexts, mostly framed by Global North scholars and published in outlets legitimated in the Global North. This Global North hegemony has been challenged, with calls for the field to be decolonised (Walton, 2018). In response to these calls, we ask the following research question:

How can inclusive education research(ers) be informed, challenged and changed by decolonial approaches?

In answering the research question, we pursue these objectives:

*To develop provocations for the field(work) that serve as prompts for reflection, critique and transformation.

*To animate these provocations with examples from the presenters’ research.

*To advance the field with suggestions for new ways of being, doing and thinking research.

Decolonial theories offer the theoretical framework. We are informed by Epistemologies of the South (Santos, 2018) and the grounding ideas are the coloniality of being, the coloniality of knowledge, and the coloniality of power, as developed by Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013) and Dastile and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2013). These colonialities are imbricated, and are mutually constitutive, and decolonial perspectives need to address each, and in combination. The coloniality of being renders some people as lesser humans in value and capacity, and thereby their exploitation is enabled and normalised. The coloniality of knowledge refers to epistemological colonisation whereby local, indigenous, and alternative knowledges have been displaced, disciplined or destroyed (Dastile & Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013) by assumptions of the superiority and universality of the scientific and technical knowledge of the coloniser. The colonialities of knowledge and of being are enabled by the coloniality of power, which refers to modern global power that is characterised by domination, exploitation, extraction and control, affecting all dimensions of social and ecological existence.

The colonialities of being, knowledge, and power challenge inclusive education research and researchers in the imbricated dimensions of the subjective (issues of being), the epistemic (issues of knowledge) and the political (issues of power). In this paper, we offer provocations to ourselves and our colleagues in each of these dimensions.

A decolonial provocation for the subject: What investments and divestments does inclusive education research demand from the researcher?

This provocation engages the inclusive education researcher as a subject and echoes Allan’s (2005, p.293) statement that inclusion is not “‘something we do to a discrete population of children, but rather… something that we must do to ourselves”. With this provocation, we call for a recognition of positionality, especially by Global North researchers, and a willingness to learn and delearn, to embrace academic humility, and to divest from inequitable and exploitative research relations with others.

A provocation about epistemology: Whose and what knowledge counts?

This provocation is prompted by concerns about extractive research practices, deficit assumptions about certain knowers, and the perpetuation of a theory/practice hierarchy. It is a challenge to seeing people as research projects, to theorising their practices, and then re-packaging that theory and selling it back to them. We query the notion of ‘findings’ in inclusive education research, and its foreclosure of further searchings. We ask what an ecology of inclusive education knowledge/s (Santos, 2018) might look for, and how this might shape the field and its concerns differently.

A provocation about power: Who/what is the research for?

This provocation is political. It’s about the importance of work that is transformational and emancipatory. It asks what activism inclusive education demands from us, and challenges the armchair theorist. We question who our research makes a difference for, and who determines what difference should be made. It calls for co-production, partnership and allyship and challenges power relations and structures in the field(work).

Seminal global summaries of inclusive practice have highlighted the need for both improvement and consistency of approach towards educational equity for young people with disabilities (Antoninis et al., 2020). Students with Complex Additional Support Needs (CASN) are an exceptional group with multiple, overlapping and significant (dis)abilities. The heterogeneous nature of their presentation means that the question of labelling and definition is ambiguous (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2012) and their educational experiences often contingent on the attitudes of education staff. Students with CASN have been historically marginalised in many ways including omission from policy, lack of participation in research and denial of access to certain educational subjects, as a result of such agentic restriction, both in the UK (Imray & Colley, 2018; Slee, 2018) and internationally (Male, 2015).

This research aimed to illuminate the experiences of pupils with complex needs, and the factors that impacted on their educational experiences, within a Scottish ASN school. Using subject choice as a lens, consideration was given to the relationship between staff attitudes and pupil agency in decision making. The research questions were as follows:

1. What are the experiences of students with CASN in relation to subject choices across the curriculum?

2. What are the views of teachers of students with CASN in relation to pupil choices across curricular subjects?

3. Do teachers’ views on educating students with CASN affect the agency of those students when making curriculum choices?

Attitudes of others are influential in restriction of agency because there has been a historical focus on remediating perceived deficits for this group (Adams, 1998), with adults often making decisions on behalf of pupils. Using pupil and staff interviews, my research aimed to uncover influences upon the educational experiences of pupils with CASN and illuminate ways forward to reduce marginalisation. Furthermore, wider attitudes were sought through an online teacher questionnaire. Data was analysed thematically.

I found that there were many additional factors that influenced pupils’ experiences and impacted on their agency to make choices across the curriculum. These will be presented in a multiple cause diagram but include school ethos, policy at local and national level, teacher training and teacher commitment to inclusive pedagogy.

In the school studied, both pupil and teacher interview data highlighted that pupils could make choices, and a sense of agency was evident. However, this was based on pupil experiences in that particular setting hence, this research comes from a relativist position. This research was undertaken in the Scottish context, however, the findings are applicable globally.

The fact remains that there can be variability across settings, staff, time, and country. A charter of 'educational rights' for young people with CASN, as well as standardised training for all staff, is proposed. This huge, unaddressed population of exceptional young people with CASN will go on to become exceptional adults whose lives could be improved through increased recognition of their capacity and ability to make decisions. This research gives students a voice and proposes how exclusion and restriction of agency can begin to be rectified.

The long-standing principle of inclusion in Norwegian education policy, dating back to the introduction of unified schooling more than one hundred years ago, was strengthened in legislation from 1975, which provided for adapted education within the framework of the local school for all children, and has been reinforced by the Salamanca Declaration (1994) (Faldet et al., 2022). Despite this, many students lack access to meaningful participation, belonging, and mastery in accordance with the criteria of inclusive practice (Barneombudet, 2017), the completion rate of upper secondary education is cause for concern (Reegård & Rogstad, 2016), and researchers have identified significant challenges related to the support system established to support those who are struggling in school (Nordahl, 2018). To address these issues, PPT (Eductional and psychological counselling service) has been granted a central role by law both as an expert body for decisions on special education and as a support service for competence and organizational development in kindergartens and schools. In response, several strategies have been developed since the turn of the millennium, primarily focusing on the enhancement of PPT and their collaboration with kindergartens and schools, research has focused on the development of ordinary pedagogical practices in order to prevent the need for special education, while also improving the connection between ordinary and special education (Andrews et al., 2018; Hustad & Fylling, 2012). To this end, there has been support provided to various municipal school development initiatives in collaboration with research environments, where PPT has participated to varying degrees. For instance, the SUKIP project (Cooperation on the Development of Competence for Inclusive Practice) is an innovation project funded, in part, by the Research Council of Norway, and is being carried out between 2019-2022 in collaboration with PPT, as well as a kindergarten and school in two different municipalities (Mjøs et al., 2023 - in press). The aim of the SUKIP project is to develop and investigate a new infrastructure for collaboration between the PPT and the kindergarten/school, which is suitable for the desired competence and organizational development.

This project was conducted using a case study approach (Yin, 2014), whereby researchers and practitioners collaborated (Ainscow et al., 2004) and the practice field itself prioritized and designed the innovations; a total of four cases. This process falls in line with the new national strategy for local competence development in the education sector, known as the Competence Boost for special pedagogy and inclusive practice (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2021).

Based on the White paper titled “Early intervention and inclusive community in kindergarten, school and after-school care”, the strategy has been implemented with the primary focus on the general education offer in kindergarten and school as responsible for a more inclusive practice, requiring cooperation from the "team around the children and pupils". Drawing from the data of the SUKIP project and the educational policy guidelines, this study will explore the research question: how can PPT serve as a central agent to the further development of an inclusive practice in kindergarten and school, and what seems to promote or inhibit such a role?

Teachers in inclusive schools need a specific attitude or belief, knowledge or understanding, and also competencies to apply their knowledge in a practical setting (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022). To provide optimal support for children with learning difficulties, it is necessary that teachers are familiar with different concepts of disability (Gebhardt et al., 2022). The social concept of disability shows that, in addition to individual factors, risk factors and protective factors of the social setting play a role in support at school. Only when teachers know the individual-child-related factors, support in school can use the potential in the environment of the person. Following the model of resilience research, inhibiting factors and difficulties are referred to as risk factors and supporting aspects, while strengths and resources are assigned to the protective, supportive factors (Werner, 2020).

Problem-based learning (PBL) has positive effect on knowledge retention and application, changes in attitudes and enhancing future teachers' diagnostic competence (Wedel et al., 2022; Yew & Goh, 2016). Realistic portrayals of learners based on the experiences of experts in special and inclusive education were created and summarized in a casebook (Lutz & Gebhardt, 2021). When working with these cases, students were asked to take a comprehensive look at protective and risk factors in the learner as well as in the influencing environment, since interactions and interconnections occur between the child, the school, and the broader environment (Doblinger & Becker-Stoll, 2020; Lauth et al., 2014).

As an instrument, a text-based case was developed that included individual-child-related factors such as a child's academic performance, social, motivational, emotional, motor, cognitive and language skills. To integrate a social-systemic concept of disability, family and environmental factors were added to the case. By having students work on the case, the following research questions should be answered in the study at the first (A) and second (B) measurement point:

A1. How well do student teachers succeed in identifying protective factors and risk factors of a child with learning difficulties?

(Note: Identify means naming the factors mentioned in the case. This does not imply categorization or assignment.)

A2. What protective factors and risk factors are identified in the child's environment?

A3. What additional individual-child or social-systemic information not mentioned in the case is considered important by the students?

B1. Can more individual-child-related factors be assigned to categories after students have been instructed with PBL?

B2. Do students identify more social-systemic factors after PBL instruction?

B3. Do students ask for additional individual-child or social-systemic information after PBL instruction?

Inequality indexes in Spain have increased in recent years, and it is possible to observe how the inequality gap has grown more rapidly due to the effects of the pandemic caused by COVID-19 (FOESSA, 2021). Similarly, the rate of population at risk of poverty in Spain is one of the highest among EU countries (EAPN, 2020). This situation is mirrored in Spanish schools: according to the 2018 Pisa Report, 36.4% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have low academic performance, compared to only 9.5% of students located in the first quartile of the socioeconomic index (OECD, 2021).

Educational institutions, therefore, have an important role to play in the fight against inequality and in promoting inclusion; firstly, as places where students from different socio-cultural and economic contexts can live together and, secondly, as a privileged place for the acquisition of tools that allow the most vulnerable students to escape from this situation of exclusion (UNESCO, 1994).

The educational challenge of social inclusion demands a teacher training process that provides future teachers with the skills required for educational inclusion. At any stage of education, it is necessary to have teachers well trained in inclusive education to meet the diversity of students (Medina García et al., 2020).

The aim of the research presented in this paper is to understand how inclusive education policies and practices are answered and represented by different social and educational agents in different social contexts from a multidisciplinary perspective. In particular, this research focuses on the policies of inclusion and exclusion that underpin the initial and in-service teacher training in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, (situated in the South of Spain), in the framework of a research project that analyzes the needs of inclusive education in three different regions of Spain. This research is also committed with increasing teachers' participation in both identifying and searching for solutions aimed towards a process of social transfer of knowledge, to increase the levels of social inclusion and the priorities to advance towards inclusion and equity.

The purpose of this study is to examine the following research question: What characterizes teachers’ formal competencies related to inclusive education and special needs education in the Norwegian primary school?

In Norway, inclusive education has been a guiding principle for almost 20 years (Johnsen, 2020; Nilsen, 2010), and all pupils, irrespective of their background or individual abilities, has a legal right to education in the regular local school (Nes et al., 2018). When talking about “inclusive education” and “inclusive schools” in Norway, we therefore refer to local schools, which must provide for all pupils, regardless of social, cultural, and academic differences or disability. Furthermore, pupils who are unable to benefit satisfactorily from ordinary teaching have an individual right to special education. However, 15-25% of the pupils need additional help to achieve satisfactory learning outcomes (Nordahl et al., 2018). Haug (2020) has shown that “the average pupil receiving special education, as well as pupils with educational needs not receiving special education, express a far less favourable experience of school, compared to those who do not strive or receive special education” (Haug, 2020, p.312). Hence, there is reason to believe that many pupils could benefit from schools having teachers with special educational competencies in terms of preventive work, early identification, and implementation of adequate help (Olsen, 2021).

Teachers’ competencies have significant impact on educational quality (Baumert et al. 2010), but several studies has shown that regular teachers find it difficult to meet the needs of all their pupils (Persson and Persson, 2012; Allan, 2012). Thygesen et al. (2011) claim that in inclusive schools the diversity among pupils might lead to a need for specialist expertise beyond what general education teachers can provide. Olsen (2021) has suggested that formal competence special needs education makes teachers more positively disposed towards diversity. Good teacher competencies are crucial if all pupils are to benefit from both the academic, social, and cultural activities in an inclusive school (Dyssegaard et al., 2013), and specific expert knowledge is key to meeting the educational needs of all children (Florian, 2019). Furthermore, teachers who have studied special needs education for one year, experience a greater sense of security related to adapting the regular education than teachers without such training (Buli-Holmberg et al. 2015). Knowledge about teachers’ competencies related to inclusive education and special needs education are consequently of importance.

The theoretical framework is inspired by the three-tier model as explained in Sundqvist et al. (2019), a framework developed for structuring and systematizing educational support into 1) general support, 2) intensified support, and 3) special support, depending on pupils' identified needs. Keles et al (2022) shows that although this framework directs the pupils into different intervention tracks, it has been recommended as an approach to inclusive education since pupils might be “treated unequally in order to achieve equity” (Nes & Strømstad, 2006, p. 366). In this project we use this model to refer to different dimensions of special educational competencies, whereas level 1) refers to special educational knowledge on how to be proactive and prevent negative learning outcome (e.g. inclusive learning environment, universal design and early intervention), level 2) refers to special educational knowledge on how to address the needs of pupils who require additional support to benefit from primary intervention (e.g. pupils with reading difficulties), and level 3) to knowledge needed to provide education for those who have complex and/or permanent special educational needs (e.g. severe or rare disabilities).

Inclusion is a central theme in current socio-political and scientific discourses, both nationally and internationally. In Portugal, since 2018, Decree-Law nº 54 puts into effect the commitment to inclusive education, in accordance with the definition of UNESCO (2009), as a process that aims to respond to the diversity of needs and potential of each student, through increasing everyone's participation in the learning processes and in the life of the school community. It also argues that at the center of pedagogical activity are the curriculum and student learning. In this sense, the present decree-law has as its central axis of orientation the need for each school/teacher to recognize the added value of the diversity of its students, finding ways to deal with this difference, adapting the teaching processes to the individual characteristics and conditions of each student, in order to ensure that they have access to the curriculum and learning, taking them to the limits of their potential.

Reynolds (2009, cit. by AEDEE, 2010) states that teachers' knowledge, beliefs and values are crucial for creating an effective learning environment for children, with teachers playing a central role in inclusion practices. Therefore, it is important to clarify that the paradigms of inclusive education and, consequently, of the inclusive school, advocate inclusive educational practices that, starting from human diversity as an added value and using methodologies of inclusive differentiation and cooperative learning, can generate success for all through the success of each one, thus moving towards the emergence of a new school paradigm (Sanches & Teodoro, 2007).

It is current evidence that pedagogical or curricular models in education constitute an important support for teachers to intentionalize their practices, contextualize their action and even reflect on it and in it. And, in this way, they are essential for defining the great educational purposes, their objectives and the means to achieve them (Formosinho, 2013).

In short, the adoption of a pedagogical model by teachers translates into a framework of values that guides pedagogical action and which, contemplating an inclusive matrix, can contribute to the promotion of inclusion.

In this communication we intend to reflect on the contributions of the implementation of the Pedagogical Model of the Modern School Movement (MEM) in pre-school education, for the promotion of skills that reinforce inclusion and for the creation of a school culture where everyone finds opportunities to learn and the conditions to fully realize themselves, responding to the needs of each student, valuing diversity and promoting equity and non-discrimination in access to the curriculum.

Migration patterns have affected educational system in many countries around the world. Nowadays cultural and linguistic diversity is not a new phenomenon in European classrooms and it is one of the goals for United Nations that all learners are provided with inclusive and equitable quality education (SDG4 United Nations, 2015). A body of international studies were conducted taking into account organization of reception for migrant students, second language learning acquisition (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 2009, Garcia 2009) and traumatic experiences of refuge youth (Rutter, 2006; Lynnebakke, Pastoor & Eide, 2020). However, it is still a challenge for many European countries to ensure education equality for newly arrived students providing inclusive practices through different models of adapted education (Garcia and Kleyn, 2016; Bunar, 2018; Bunar and Päivi, 2021).

When it comes to Norway, the main challenge in integration policy in Norway is that immigrants, especially refugees and women are without work (Kunnskapsdepartement, Regjeringens integreringsstrategi 2019–2022). Reserch show that newly arrived students of upper secondary school age is the most vulnerable group of learners when it comes to risk of underachievement and failure to complete upper secondary education (Kirkeberg, Dzamarija, Bratholmen & Strøm, 2019; IMDI, 2020). The issue concerning educational inclusion of newly arrived students has received considerable critical discourse targeting such issues as educational policies in Norway (Hilt, 2015) and organizational models of adapted education (Hilt & Bøyum 2015). Decentralized organization of educational system in Norway gives significant autonomy to municipalities and local schools to organize educational provisions differently for newly arrived students. Rambøll Management reports that varied standards of introductory programmes have good potentials but still lack guidelines, resources and organizational structures (Rambøll, 2016). At the same time, introductory classes have been criticized for intern organizational exclusion of newly arrived students that lead to segregation of the learners (Hilt & Bøyum 2015). When it comes to national policy regarding education of newly arrived students of 16- 24 age, it is still unclear who is responsible for the educational program on a local level, which leads to a lack of responsibility when it comes to organization of educational programs (Kunnskapsdepartement,  Regjeringens integreringsstrategi 2019–2022).

Thus, the purpose of this study is to contribute to an understanding of the education offered to immigrant and refugee youth of upper secondary school age in Norway considering the overall goal of equity through education. The study focuses on an educational provision for newly arrived learners of (16-19) age with little school background with the goal of qualifying them for entry into upper secondary education or vocational training. The paper presents a study of organizational responses to educating newly arrived learners of (16-19) age in Norway. This study describes how the set of national policy regarding education for newly arrived students with little school background is implemented on a local level and how the aspect of such organization influence students’ social and educational inclusion. The study describes and analyses how policy regarding the aim and goals of the educational program is interpreted and enacted by the key actors of policy enactment -principals, school leaders and teachers. It analyzes how these key-actors in policy enactment understand and act in relation to educational program that provides extended basis education for newly arrived students.

The theoretical and conceptual framework of this study focuses on the work by Stephen J. Ball (Ball 1993, 1997, 2005, 2013, Ball et al. 2011a, 2011b) and his critical analyses of policy as a text and its enactment in practice.

In Norway, The Educational Psychological Service (EPS) is a significant partner to guide and support the development of learning environments for inclusive education (IE) in kindergartens and schools.

The EPS offices are localized at the municipal and county level. The Services' duties are twofold: to assist the kindergartens' and schools' work on competence enhancement and organizational development in order to improve the adaptation of education for children with special needs and ensure that expert assessments are prepared when required. The Norwegian Education Act (1998) and the Curriculum Framework (2018) emphasise adapted and inclusive education (IE) as the gateway to high-quality education for all, striving for fellowship, participation, democratization and benefit, promoting learning and well-being for all children (Booth, 2011; Haug, 2003, 2010; Fasting & Breilid in press). These values provide a direction for the EPS counsellors to be dialogic partners in helping kindergartens and schools convert inclusive values into everyday practices.

However, research on the EPS' practice shows that limited emphasis has been placed on developing inclusive practices in kindergartens and schools (Moen, Risberg, Samuelsen & Sølvberg, 2018), largely due to the extensive requests for individual expert assessments (Hustad, Strøm & Strømsvik, 2013; Andrews, Lødding, Fylling & Hustad, 2018). Based on the reports and the criticism of Norwegian special education practice and the criticism of the EPS' role regarding the education of pupils with special needs (Haug, 2014; The children's Ombudsman, 2017), it is of interest to explore how inclusion as a concept, strategy, and practice are emphasized in collaborative efforts between kindergartens, schools and the EPS.

Given the challenges of implementing inclusive education, it may be of international interest to gain insight into how Norwegian EPS counsellors try to realize inclusive values when organizational development is on the agenda. Such knowledge may give information on how external parties may be proactive in promoting inclusive practices.

Research question
The aim of the study is to explore how IE, as a concept, strategy and practice, is used as the basis for organizational learning, aiming to improve the quality of education for pupils at risk and with special needs. To our knowledge, there are no such Norwegian studies (Moen, Risberg, Samuelsen & Sølvberg, 2018), and the issue is sparsely focused internationally.

Hence, the research question we want to investigate is: How is IE facilitated, and which properties of IE are emphasized when EPS counsellors collaborate with kindergartens and schools to improve the education for pupils at risk and with special needs?

Accordingly, the aim of this study is to explore how and in what ways the EPS counsellors facilitate organizational learning to strengthen the idea of IE in classrooms and schools for pupils at risk and pupils with special needs.

Relationships are a crucial aspect of schooling and are particularly important for student groups that have been traditionally marginalized, such as students who receive special education services. Positive peer relationships are essential for enhancing a sense of belonging and academic and social well-being for all students, particularly those with disabilities. This paper introduces the concept of ‘relational inclusion’ in the context of special and inclusive education and provides an example of how to explore it using a Social Network Analysis (SNA) Toolkit. The authors argue that schools and educators should be more systematic in understanding and promoting relationships, thus developing more inclusive, caring, and just communities.

The paper has two main purposes. First, it aims to introduce and define the term ‘relational inclusion’ in the context of special and inclusive education. Second, it presents a tool that enables educators to directly examine the nature of inclusivity in their classrooms: a Social Network Analysis (SNA) Toolkit. The authors show how teachers can make use of this tool to explore and transform relational inclusivity in their classroom communities, with a particular focus on students with identified disabilities.

Inclusive education or inclusivity has gained international momentum over the last few decades, but there remains much ambiguity in defining the term (Lindsay, 2003). In this paper, the authors use these terms interchangeably to refer to various models of school organization that promote the involvement of students with disabilities in the general education environment. Despite the ambiguities of inclusion, there are a few generally agreed upon tenets of these models. First, that disability is a social creation. Inclusive education stems from the social model of disability, which posits that it is not the differences themselves that cause someone to be disabled, but rather the social institutions around individuals which are unable to accommodate these differences. Second, that educational settings can be designed to meet the needs of all students. Third, that policy agendas should explicitly demand that students have access to equitable learning environments, prioritizing access to general education settings.

One of the main justifications for including students with disabilities in general education settings is for opportunities to engage in social interactions with peers (Mamas et al., 2021). Inclusive pedagogy aims to provide students with opportunities to experience meaningful social interactions and develop peer relationships (Freitag & Dunsmuir, 2015). The success of inclusion is often measured by the extent to which these students are accepted by their mainstream peers (Lewis, 2002). Unfortunately, as Connor and Berman (2019) argue, much of what is happening in educational practice in the name of inclusion has been a technical response to change rather than meaningful integration.

In this paper, the authors argue for the concept of relational inclusion as a fundamental ethical, moral, and pedagogical component of larger conceptualizations of inclusive education. By relational inclusivity, they mean the degree to which all students are connected into the social fabric of their educational environments. This rests on the belief that students’ sense of belonging and community are integral to both their academic and civic success. The authors call it out as a separate term to emphasize that programmatic models of inclusion do not necessarily result in actual inclusion in all senses of the word. Instead, relational inclusion needs to be actively monitored, developed, and maintained to ensure that students, particularly those with disabilities, are able to fully engage and actively participate in their educational contexts.

Education carries a considerable responsibility when it comes to improving global inequality, and while not everyone thinks this is as it should be (for example, see Muller, 2018), it must be acknowledged that education matters. Educational attainment has been shown to improve a broad range of life outcomes (OECD, 2022) and equitable access to education enhances ‘social equity’ (Harber 2014, p. 20). It is unsurprising therefore to find ‘Quality education’ (Goal 4) identified as one of 17 goals described within the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015). It has been argued that for education to be considered ‘quality’ it must be inclusive (Anderson & Boyle, 2020). If enacted successfully, inclusive education can reduce inequalities more broadly, including in the areas of physical and mental health, income and employment, and social connectivity. It is these wider benefits that position inclusive education as a construct of consequence within the global discourse, not just within the realm of education.

Inclusive education has been the prevailing philosophy globally for the education of students with a disability for more than quarter of a century, and in more contemporary times, for all students. In 2016 the committee responsible for the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) described inclusive education as follows:

a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences (United Nations, 2016, para. 11).

Captured within these words is the scale of change required for inclusive education to prevail. The enormity of change may explain in some part both why inclusive education has struggled to gain traction in recent years and why the ‘substantial distance between the conceptualisation of inclusive education and its implementation’ has persisted (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016, p. 7). In many countries, such as Australia and England, there is evidence to suggest segregation and exclusion of some groups of students, particularly those from minority groups, is again on the rise (Anderson & Boyle, 2019; Norwich & Black, 2015). Reasons for this are varied and complex, yet one notion that requires further exploration is the role special education, and those working in the field, have played. While the notion of inclusive education has been lauded globally by many policy makers, researchers, and practitioners, it has faced unrelenting criticism and resistance (Artiles & Kozleski, 2016) with much of this coming from the field of special education (Slee, 2018).

Inclusive education emerged from within the special education debate, and much of the discourse around it still attaches itself to residual ideas from each of the exclusion, segregation, and integration eras (Mac Ruairc, 2020). Having grown out of the field of special education, inclusive education consistently gets entangled in the politics of disability and education. The challenges from special educators to protect what has traditionally been their educational space are real (Slee, 2018). Advocates of special education have fought to maintain separate provisions for students with disability in the form of segregated classes and special schools. The argument is based on the premise that segregation is needed - it's for their own good. Full inclusion has been positioned as the enemy of special education and the debate has become on centred on inclusive verses special education.

This study sought to understand the impact of the inclusive verse’s special education debate on those entrusted with providing an education to all children – principals of public primary schools.

The school as an institutionalized place of education and socialization is constantly reviewed to see if it meets its requirements: inclusion demands that all pupils can fully participate in the learning environment that is designed for all students. This goes hand in hand with minimizing discrimination and maximizing social participation and educational opportunities. The ongoing digitalization of living- and working environments implies the modernization of school. Designing the school of tomorrow, in which all pupils learn with new media, is a global challenge, as shown in international documents (UN 2006; UNESCO 2022). Here the interdisciplinary joint research project „DiLernProfis“ (Formative Assessment and teaching methodology - incremental scaffolds as a concept for professionalization for adaptive teaching), funded by the BMBF, is located. It focuses on the use of a digital incremental scaffold (as an app for tablets) for biology experiments in secondary inclusive science classes.

In differentiated school classes, the scientific experiment challenges teachers as well as pupils. While incremental scaffolds (Leisen 2010) already offer a good solution for such complex situations (Kleinert et al. 2021) digital media provides new opportunities for handling diversity in school: the app was designed as an instrument to face diversity in classes to support the independent work process. We use an extended construct of inclusion, which covers all forms of diversity, which lead to exclusion in school and society and contribute to social inequalities (Löser & Werning 2015, p. 17).

“DiLernProfis” offers a possible answer to the question of the challenging handling of diversity in inclusive science classes and experiments. Our qualitative subproject uses an ethnographic approach to analyse inclusive and exclusive practices in classes with the digital scaffold and aims to evaluate this solution. This includes individual, as well as classwide uses of the app.

There are many international studies about the use of tablets in school (see Aufenanger & Bastian 2017). The use of digital media is often seen as a catalyst for inclusion, although simultaneously pupils digital skills are strongly related to socio-economic backgrounds (Senkbeil et al. 2019). Many studies focus on the compensating tablet-use for pupils with disabilities (Cumming & Draper Rodriguez, 2017) and less on the integration in a general teaching concept for diverse classes. Another focus lies upon learning outcomes: those studies show a slight positive trend in the tablet-use (Haßler et al. 2016). The potentials of tablets for science classes are highlighted (see e.g. Cotič et al. 2020). Furthermore, qualitative studies are needed for a deeper understanding on changing classroom practices with digital media. So far, there is no evidence for innovative teaching practices, but incremental adaptions: Regulation practices by teachers for the use of tablets as well as new forms of publicity of learning products in connection to smartboards can be found (Thiersch & Wolf 2021). The use of digital devices leads to an acceleration of workflows and fosters the expectation to share learning products (Herrle et al. 2022). The research of the precise use of digital incremental scaffolds in inclusive science classes is a desideratum, which our project addresses. In our subproject we use a praxeological approach (Schatzki 2003) and therefore locate the social within practices. This enables us to analyse the ensemble of human actors and material artefacts (Röhl 2015). The use of artefacts is embedded in normative orders (e.g. teaching, performance) (Rabenstein 2018). The specific use uncovers different subject positions and can stabilize or destabilize normative orders. A praxeological approach therefore allows us to analyse social differentiations in practices with the app and gain findings about their inclusive and exclusive potentials.

Background

The term, play, is often used as a metaphor for all kinds of human activity (Karoff, 2013a). According to Sutton-Smith (1997), play is ambiguous and influenced by people's cultural ways of thinking. In the context of Physical Education (PE), play, games and sport are central content elements (Stoltz, 2014) and play is often set against games and sport. The relationship between these terms can be described as unclear and in need of clarification in order to better understand the intention and content of PE in school (Stolz, 2014).

Play is often associated with situations without extrinsic goals characterized by self-initiation and freedom (Van Oers, 2013). And while play is associated with innocent, spontaneous and creative children in kindergarten and primary school, these are characteristics that are seldom associated with students in secondary school (Blok Johansen, 2015). However, freedom and self-initiation does not need to stand in contrast to learning. Play can lead to learning in the broadest sense and have an impact on further play (Pramling Samuelson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). In the context of Physical Education, Mosston (1966) describes different ways of teaching PE, which shows that concepts such as self-initiation and freedom can be linked to teaching and learning.

Compared to other European countries, Norway has a long tradition of curriculum-based Physical Education in schools with grading (Borgen et al., 2019). In Norwegian curriculum reform Kunnskapsløftet 2020 (LK20) (Udir, 2019a) play is presented as essential for students’` well-being and development, and a prerequisite for creativity and meaningful learning. Within the PE curriculum, it has been said that movement activities, play and practice should be emphasized to a greater extent than before (Udir, 2019b). However, we have little knowledge of how play has been understood in PE teachers’ previous professional practices.

A literature search with the keywords "play" and "Physical Education" in the databases "ERIC", "SPORTDiscus" and "Web of Science" yielded a total of 171 hits, but only 51 of the hits dealt with "play" in PE. The search showed that there are few international studies on play in PE, and we have little knowledge of how teachers understand and include play in their PE teaching in secondary and upper secondary school.

On the basis of this background, the research questions for this study are:

• How do secondary school and upper secondary school teachers in Norway understand play in the Physical Education curriculum?
• How do teachers in secondary school and upper secondary school include play in their teaching of Physical Education?

Theoretical framework:

In this study, we use Karoff’s (2013a; 2013b) theory of play that combines various theoretical and empirical perspectives on play. This theory provides an analytical framework for empirical studies of play practices, play moods and play tools. From this theoretical framework, we use the analytical concepts of “rules” and “formulas” of play. Whilst traditionally rules are associated with games, play can be linked to formulas to a greater extent. The formulas appear in situations where play is happening, which implies a form of improvisation where the formulas can play out in different ways (Karoff, 2013b). This means that participants in the play activity can play without there being "unanimity" about the content, but rather, a "consensus" (Karoff, 2013b). Accordingly, play has a certain form of freedom as formulas can be interpreted differently among the participants. Conversely, rules provide guidelines for the game, and often have a set goal (Karoff, 2013b). Play and games, however, must not be seen as two separate categories, but rather in motion between each other. We are particularly interested in how PE teachers understand and integrate play in teaching practices.

Decades of previous research has addressed the need for changes in physical education where embodied experiences and learning are emphasized (Wrench and Garrett 2015; Wright 2000). Accordingly, we align with the ongoing call for a ‘corporeal turn’ (Smith 2007, 66) in physical education, towards a more holistic understanding of learning and experience as embodied and emplaced (Pink 2011). The concept of embodiment has roots in phenomenological philosophy. As such, understanding the body as the ground of subjective experiences (Standal 2020) deconstructs the notion of a mind/body divide. The theory of emplaced learning involves considering embodied learning as always embedded in the world around us, which we always interact with (Pink 2011).

Pleasure, enjoyment, and meaningful experiences are significant for the individual’s relationship to their own body and for their desire for further participation in physical activity (Wellard 2012; Beni, Fletcher, and Ní Chróinín 2017). Siedentop considered playful activities as ‘important forms of inherently meaningful human experience’ (1972, 209). The fact that many pupils struggle in ‘gaining a love of movement’ (Pringle 2010, 130) is a reason why further research about what pupils experience as pleasurable and meaningful is needed. Exploring the pupils’ embodied and emplaced experiences may lead to insights around what they learn in physical education. Such insights may contribute to create pedagogies where meaningful and pleasurable learning experiences are educational goals (Lambert 2020; Pringle 2010; Wellard 2012). Building on this, we ask whether a pedagogy that gives room for playfulness may be a starting point for physical education being perceived as more meaningful and pleasurable.

In this presentation I present empirical findings from a sensory ethnography that aims to explore pupils’ playfulness and their pleasurable experiences in physical education. The research question is ‘How do pupils create possibilities for pleasure in physical education by being playful and responsive to their environment, and what opportunities for learning are afforded?’

To interpret how possibilities for pleasure are created, we draw upon phenomenological perspectives on playfulness (Hyland 1977) and affordances (Gibson 1986). Hyland proposes a phenomenological stance on play, which he operationalizes as responsive openness (Hyland 1977). Openness involves being aware of, and open to, the possibilities that arise in your environment. Responsiveness is explained as the ability to act on the possibilities that emerge through the activity. The concept of affordances (Gibson 1986) can be described as how characteristics of the physical environment encourage action. Affordances are understood as the possibilities that emerge from our interaction with our environment, responsive openness can be described as the way in which we respond to such affordances.

Body expression (BE) is thought to be the oldest form of communication, with humans using it to create, express, and communicate feelings, emotions, and ideas in a deliberate and aesthetic manner (Aparicio et. al., 2019). A recent study affirms that BE is a reliable method to understand the most natural meaning of a human’s expressiveness, and is it achieved by body awareness, self-knowledge, and educational transformation (Megias, 2020). It also represents the artistic, expressive component of physical activities that employ innovative methodological approaches aimed at promoting autonomous learning and social skills (Redondo, et al.,2019). Through BE, students can acquire attitudes, concepts, as well as procedures that they can apply to their daily physical activity. (Vega-Ramírez et al., 2022).

BE relies on a series of elements as musicality, students’ features, the visual environment (lighting, space) (Sánchez y Ordás, 2011), and together with social encounters and human connections (Leach & Stevens, 2020) are vital in the evolution of creative thinking.

The creative process involved in the artistic and athletic practice of students has recently begun to be studied (Valverde-Esteve, 2020). In terms of creative practitioners of BE were likely to obtain high values in aspects of creativity such as fluency, flexibility, and expressiveness (Iglesias et al., 2014). In this context, BE has begun to be considered a necessary tool in the school curriculum to promote creativity (Megias, 2020).

In terms of gender, some differences were observed in terms of creativity and are most likely influenced by the different opportunities available to men and women and kinds of experiences both genders are likely to have (Baer, 2008). Some studies had found that men prefer sports that are dominated by physical contact and strength while women present more interest and motivation to carry out artistic and language activities (dance, gymnastics, etc.) (Mašanović, 2019).

The current need to provide innovative knowledge in different contexts of action turns creativity into a fundamental component for the broader development of the human personality (Sanchez et al, 2017). Therefore, creativity takes on greater importance during university training, when students prepare for future tasks, they will have to perform as teachers/trainers, and many situations require novel options and solutions. These arguments are in line with the acquisition of key competence for university students, established by the European Higher Education Area (Sanchez et al, 2017). Due to the lack of a correct "true-false" answer and the motivational factor required in creative performance, the evaluation and assessment of creativity posed a significant challenge for specialists (Corbalán et. Al., 2015). The specialists focused on the development of motor creativity through BE (Iglesias et al., 2014) and the development of creative thinking or the creative intelligence was less studied.

The aim of this study was to analyze the role of Body Expression on the development of creative intelligence and the differences between genders by students in Physical Activity and Sport Sciences. We hypothesized that creative intelligence is improved by participating in BE activities.

Introduction

Reflections in teacher education (TE) is a disputed issue surrounded by “mixed messages and confusing agendas” (Fendler, 2003 p.20). According to Russell (2013), reflections have done more harm than good, especially when TE have forced their STs to reflect on theoretical matters and not on teaching practices. The “place to develop skills of reflective practice is in the practicum classroom as a novice teacher, not in the halls of the university as a student” (Russell, 2013 p.88). For that reason, my study focused on STs’ reflections on how they incorporated specified content into their teaching at practicum. The STs read about Assessment for Learning (AfL) at the university before entering their school placements. Research focusing on the link between universities and practicum is required since few studies on TE have “investigated how preparation [at the university] influenced candidates’ practice, […]to do the actual tasks of teaching” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015 p.117).

I focused on whether STs' reflections were educative or non-educative (Dewey, 2015), and how contexts within school placements influenced STs' reflections on practicing AfL. An educative experience stimulates to further growth of STs' experiences of teaching situations (Dewey, 2015), which in this study is how STs' experiences of AfL gained at the university stimulate their further growth of experiences when incorporating AfL into their teaching practice. On the other hand, non-educative experiences stagnate STs' further growth (Dewey, 2015).

Examining ST's reflections on their incorporations of AfL can give insights into how they experience their teaching, since “reflections are blind without experiences, and experiences are empty without reflections” (Wackerhausen, 2008 p. 19). These concepts are intertwined because present experiences influence how the STs frame teaching situations in their mindscapes, (Dewey, 2018) when reflecting on them so that they are enabled to teach more intelligently (Dewey, 2015). Intelligent teaching, interpreted in this article, is a matter of STs' judgment, and how they decided to incorporate AfL. AfL is based on research findings from Black and Wiliam’s (1998) meta-study, and Biesta (2020) is concerned with how teaching has come to be seen as an evidence-based practice. Biesta (2020) finds it problematic when teachers take research findings for granted when incorporating them into their teaching thinking that they can solve problems by applying them. Instead, teachers should incorporate findings by judging the situation and adapting them based on what they think is useful for their pupils in the situation.

Aim and research questions

The aim is to shed light on STs' reflection to get insight into how they experience the incorporation of AfL in their teaching and whether their experiences were educative or non-educative. This can be done by analyzing their reflections, and by looking at how they compose them with either educative or non-educative elements. For that reason, the following research questions guided my investigation:

- Does context influence STs’ educative or non-educative reflections on using AfL and if it does, how?

- How can STs’ reflections be described in terms of a composition of parts, shaping either educative or non-educative reflections?

Topic

This proposal is based on a scoping review published in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 2022. The proposal focuses on how physical education teachers are positioned in models scholarship.

Aim

The paper had two specific aims. First, we aimed to provide a detailed map of how scholars have positioned teachers within physical education models literature. Second, we aimed to provide a reinterpretation of our findings using Deweyan theory.

Theoretical framework

In adopting a Deweyan perspective and accepting Dewey's critique of 'recipies and models', we set out to discuss and problematize the positioning of teachers in models literature in PE. While Dewey did not critique modern pedagogical models, his critical stance on teaching prescriptions, provides a vantage point from which we can view the positioning of teachers achieved in contemporary models scholarship. Dewey's concepts create a useful platform for furthering scholarly discussion on the positioning of teachers in the development and implementation of models in PE.

When considering the overarching educational policy landscape in Scottish physical education, the two main documents that influence teaching and learning are the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (Scottish Government, 2009) and Benchmark physical education (BPE) document (Education Scotland, 2017). Despite claim of a central focus of health and wellbeing (HWB) within physical education curriculum documents, many schools do not have this focus on HWB and HWB often gets marginalised in practical settings (Thorburn et al., 2009; Thorburn et al., 2011). Thorburn and colleagues (2009) point out, for example, that there is a recognized problem with the policy-driven process because of this notable difference in government documents and the actual practices happening in schools. Furthermore, teachers are required to read, interpret and enact curriculum policies across a wide variety of teaching contexts (Penney, 2006). Given this, teachers have been conceptualised as policy actors (Alfrey et al., 2017) who go through a process of making sense of policy documents. Through this process, teachers may have different interpretations of the CfE and BPE document. Therefore, it is important to explore how teachers shape their classrooms based on curriculum policy documents. As some scholars have noted, in the classroom, teachers' beliefs may not align with those with the official curriculum (Hay & Macdonald, 2010), and their actions may not be as "progressive" as they are in the documents (Evans & Penney, 2008, p.32). Therefore, this research aims to gain insight into how physical education teachers and teacher educators in Scotland engage with, the curriculum policy, and physical education benchmarks.

Research Questions:

1.How do PE teachers and teachers educators understand with Curriculum for Excellence and the Benchmarks for Physical Education?

2.What challenges do PE teachers and teacher educators face in using the Benchmarks?

Critical Theory as a lens in this research

Critical theory, as an approach is based on the assumption that knowledge is a social construct (Bain, 1989). This lens is particularly relevant in the field of physical education, which is a discipline that is shaped by social and cultural constructs (Kirk, 2010). In this study, critical theory is used as a lens to examine physical education teachers' interpretations and understanding of curriculum policies in the Scottish context, specifically the curriculum for excellence.

Kirk (2006) points out the fundamental features of critical pedagogy in physical education, which is primarily concerned with education for social transformation. He emphasizes critical pedagogy as cantered on achieving social change through education, revealing the complexity of society and resisting indoctrination as well as the imposition of simplistic and “quick-fix solutions” (p. 257). Therefore, this study attempts to explore issues of current curriculum policy, as well as teachers' positions, perspectives, through critical theory. Teachers, as intellectuals, work groups, and actors of curriculum, I support Kirk (1986) advocates that teachers are potential agents of social reproduction or emancipatory change.

Critical theory provides a useful framework for examining physical education teachers' and teacher educators engagement with curriculum policy in the Scottish context. By analysing the underlying power dynamics and social constructs that influence teachers' and teachers educators understandings and values, physical education teachers' perspectives on curriculum for excellence and benchmarking policies are uncovered. The lens of critical theory allows for an in-depth and wide-ranging analysis of the issues and factors affecting physical education in Scotland. This research has the potential to contribute to the development of transformative curriculum policy and practice.

Background

Literacy focuses on linguistic and communicative abilities, and disciplinary literacy revolves around the specific literacy in a specific school subject. Disciplinary literacy is about a person’s knowledge and use of many different representational forms to communicate learning, express and challenge ideas (Moje, 2008, pp.97, 99). Different school subjects have different traditions of communications and use of language. The subject-specific literacy must be strengthened in physical education (PE) (Lundin & Schenker, 2022, p.77), a subject that is often organized around the idea of the pupils being active and trying different movement activities (Larsson & Nyberg, 2017). However, there is a resistance among teachers regarding teaching literacy (Moje, 2008, p.98) because they consider it hard to fit into an already full agenda of instruction (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012, pp.14-15). PE teaching is described as an act of control, where the pupils are expected to follow rules, listen, and do as they are told (Fitzpatrick & Russell, 2015). However, if students get to talk about the meanings of words and use the new words when communicating themselves, they can expand vocabulary and deepen their understanding (Schmidt & Wedin, 2017, pp.3-4). When the involvement of movement is combined with learning language, a bodily experience and a sensation of the language is offered that makes it easier to memorize the knowledge (Chan, 2018). Also, being able to show knowledge in different ways is important (Schmidt & Wedin, 2017, pp.1-2). Through circus, children can challenge themselves based on their ability because circus contains a wide variety of progressions for many movements (Kriellaars et al., 2019). Also, unlike the traditional content of PE, there are an embedded potential in circus arts regarding telling a story and conveying a message.

Aim

The purpose of this workshop is to explore and discuss how to develop and involve the disciplinary literacy in PE and stimulate pupils’ use of verbal language. The focused activities are exploratory circus assignments and the following research questions are addressed:

• How can pupils’ use of verbal language be stimulated in PE?
• What are the participants’ experiences of PE lessons focusing on disciplinary literacy and the involvement of language?
• How can exploratory circus assignments facilitate disciplinary literacy in PE?

The embodiment of words is investigated, where the body functions as a tool to learn, teach, experience, and express yourself. Visual and tactile supports are used. In the workshop, the participants get to see and try out examples of how the use of verbal language can be encouraged and how the disciplinary literacy can be integrated with movement, focusing on exploratory circus assignments.

The theoretical framework

The theoretical concept of Biesta (2014) is used: risk and subjectification. According to Biesta, education always needs to involve a risk – the not knowing of outcome in advance. If there is no risk in education, there is just reproduction and transforming of information from one to another. Also, Biesta means that education is about communication that happens through a two-way dialogical process, between teacher and student. It is about the exchange of meaning. Participants in teaching must be seen as subjects and not objects (Biesta, 2014, p.18). Students are subjects of action and responsibility. Regarding subjectivity and uniqueness, Biesta means that we need each other to be able to articulate that we are different from each other. We are irreplaceable in our responsibility for each other (Biesta, 2014, p.144). During the workshop, the theory will be interwoven in the practical exploratory circus assignments as we try to understand what happens when literacy is focused and how it can steer teaching and learning processes in certain directions.