Conference Agenda

Rising international and national migration has led to new challenges within European classrooms. As ongoing challenges remain and students with a migration background persistently score persistently lower in academic testing and well-being surveys, teacher students need to be prepared to teach in, for, and about cultural diversity within their initial teacher education (ITE). Teacher educators (TEs) need to meet this needs, both through the design of ITE curricula but also through its implementation. Intercultural education in ITE can prepare student teachers for culturally diverse environments, e.g. to foster cultural awareness and understanding through knowledge of power-dynamics, promoting intercultural dialogue and inclusion (e.g., Deardorff, 2009; Rapanta & Travão, 2021). Research has shown that student teachers need to be able to employ practical skills, such as communication and relationship building skills (e.g., Deardorff, 2009; Romijn et al., 2020), as well as have knowledge, awareness and the reflectivity to be able to navigate culturally diverse environments successfully when entering teaching profession (e.g., Dervin & Hahl, 2014; Hachfeld et al., 2015; Metsäpelto et al., 2024). However, the understanding of such concepts can differ between TEs (e.g., Hahl & Löfström et al., 2016).This underlines the importance of investigating TE's perspectives of and approaches to the topic of cultural diversity in ITE. Nonetheless, their perceptions and approaches to this topic are often overlooked in research, with studies focusing on student teachers' experiences or the impact of interventions. We aim to fill this research gap in this study by answering the following research question:

How do teacher educators perceive and approach the preparation of student teachers for culturally diverse classrooms?

By investigating how TEs conceptualise and enact diversity-related teaching, we deepen our understanding of their positionalities within rapidly changing sociocultural and institutional contexts. Importantly, this research highlights that effective preparation of student teachers for cultural diversity cannot be understood as an individual pedagogic endeavour but as situated within institutional structures. As such, this study offers relevant insights for TEs, faculties, and policy makers seeking to develop legislation, curricula, and support structures.

Finland, which despite a rich multicultural history has only relatively recently seen international immigration on a larger scale, has long been lauded in Europe for it's education system. However, despite Finland maintaining good results in PISA, it also has the highest disparity in academic outcomes between students with and without an immigration background in Europe (e.g., Pulkkinen et al., 2024). This underlines the importance of preparing student teachers for cultural diversity, positioning our study in a fast-changing educational landscape requiring of TEs to adapt to new needs and situations.

This study employs reflective thematic analysis to investigate interview data from 20 TEs working in ITE programmes in Finland. We identified four overarching themes relating to the state and scope of student teachers’ preparation for cultural diversity, TEs’ preparedness to address these topics, and how discomfort can be used to challenge beliefs and initiate development. TEs expressed the need for more institutional support for professional development and peer-collaboration to navigate knowledge gaps and sociopolitical challenges. Furthermore, TEs highlighted the need for more practical teaching experiences in culturally diverse contexts in ITE.

As changing demographic and cultural contexts remain an European-wide phenomenon, our findings offer valuable insights into the often overlooked TE perspectives and approaches, as well as the challenges and opportunities when developing ITE to meet the needs of this new educational landscape. It offers insights and suggestions for TEs, faculties, and universities in Europe and beyond.

One of the aims of inclusive education is to bring diverse groups of pupils together within common learning communities. Although inclusive education is often discussed within the framework of special education, broader ethical and philosophical perspectives highlight that inclusion also concerns social categories such as social class, gender, and ethnic background (Tomlinson, 2017; Huilla et al., 2024). Educating all kinds of pupils under the same roof compels some schools and teachers to adapt their pedagogical practices and may require fundamental changes in how teachers understand their work and professional responsibilities (ibid).

Against this backdrop, I ask: how teachers describe their ideal study group? Theoretically, I draw on the Bourdieusian tradition and analyse the classed and normative dimensions that shape Finnish teachers’ preferences.

Howard Becker’s (1952) classical study showed that teachers held strong, shared notions of an ideal pupil—one who behaved properly and possessed adequate academic skills. Such pupils were easier to teach and enabled teachers to succeed, whereas pupils from lower social positions posed more challenges. The ideal also carried strong moral judgments regarding both pupils and their parents. In another influential study, Merrilee K. Finley (1984) demonstrated that when ability grouping was introduced, teachers actively competed to teach higher-track groups. Less experienced or part-time teachers were assigned to lower tracks, typically composed of pupils struggling with academic demands. Later large-scale American quantitative studies similarly show an unequal distribution of teachers across schools: more experienced and qualified teachers tend to apply to advantaged schools located in well-off neighbourhoods (Goldhaber et al., 2015).

European discussions on inclusive education show similar dynamics (Lindner et al., 2023; Huilla et al., 2024). It is not trivial for teachers who the pupils they teach are. Teachers have preferences. In Finland, subject teachers consider heterogeneous groups the most challenging teaching environments. Diversity in pupils’ backgrounds and academic readiness is perceived as a greater challenge than class size or pupils’ motivation (Kärnä & Rautopuro, 2013). In other words, teachers often prefer homogeneous groups. The Finnish education system carries implicit expectations grounded in a white middle-class norm. While some teachers overlook classed dynamics, others express a willingness to work with more disadvantaged groups (Huilla et al., under review). These preferences shape where teachers choose to work, which neighbourhoods they consider attractive, and what types of classes they want to teach (see also Keane et al., 2023).

Teachers’ descriptions and expectations have real life consequences. Studies across various European contexts indicate that teachers perceive and treat pupils differently depending on their backgrounds (Stevens & Vermeersch, 2010; Tarabini et al., 2022; Kneppers, 2023). The characteristics attributed to pupils often contain underlying classed elements, even when framed as psychological. Discourses of ‘ability,’ ‘skills,’ or ‘talent’ obscure the social conditions through which these qualities develop. Social class, ethnic minority status, and gender easily fade from view in school cultures dominated by psychological explanations. From a Bourdieusian perspective (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bourdieu, 1986), this constitutes symbolic violence: when pupils’ social realities and families’ capitals are not recognised, schools may inadvertently reproduce social positions. Inclusive education can therefore be seen as a way to counter symbolic violence. Its central ideal—seeing all pupils as equally valued and prestigious regardless of background or academic readiness—challenges the white middle-class norm embedded in European education systems (e.g. Tarabini et al., 2022; Kneppers, 2023).

To summarize, the aim of this study is to critically analyze how teachers describe their ideal study group and what kinds of normative and classed assumptions these descriptions shape.

Introduction and Problem Statement Recently, the role of education in the Republic of Kazakhstan has been strengthened due to growing global competition. Consequently, the government has focused on supporting gifted and talented youth through the establishment of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools and the "Daryn" center (MES RK, 2010). However, despite this focus on giftedness, the specific phenomenon of underachievement among gifted students remains perplexing and has not been widely investigated within the Kazakhstani context (Vostrokolenkova, 2007).

Often, students labeled as gifted demonstrate low academic performance and may drop out (Reis & McCoach, 2000). The main problem is grounded in the variety of definitions of underachievement, which complicates identification (Baum, Renzulli & Hebert, 1995). In Kazakhstan, teachers may misunderstand the notion of underachievement due to a lack of specific knowledge, leading to inappropriate educational support. While one school in the East Kazakhstan Region has extensive experience working with gifted students, the issue of underachievement specifically has not been studied there. International research highlights the necessity of considering cultural features and school values when defining underachievement (Gallagher, 2005).

Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ understanding and perceptions of the phenomenon of underachievement among academically gifted students, and their beliefs regarding how these issues can be improved in one school in the East Kazakhstan Region.

The research questions are:

1. What is teachers’ understanding of the term underachievement among academically gifted students?

2. What are the factors affecting gifted students’ underachievement from the teachers’ perspective?

3. What are teachers’ attitudes toward gifted underachievers?

4. What strategies do teachers believe are useful to improve underachievement?

Theoretical Framework This study applies Social Constructivism as the epistemological lens. This paradigm allows for examining participants’ daily experiences, personal viewpoints, and attitudes in the local context (Creswell, 2012). As knowledge is constructed through interaction, the meaning of gifted underachievement in this study is explored based on teachers’ responses and the specific school culture.

Literature Review Summary Literature indicates that while there is no universal definition, underachievement is often viewed as a discrepancy between potential and performance (Siegle & McCoach, 2010). Factors influencing this include individual aspects like self-efficacy and motivation (McCoach & Siegle, 2003a), family dynamics, and school-related factors such as curriculum suitability and teacher attitudes (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Strategies for reversal often involve collaboration among stakeholders and curriculum modification (Rimm, 1997; Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010).

Significance There is a dearth of studies in Kazakhstan focused on this phenomenon. This research contributes to evaluating teachers’ awareness, which may lead to better identification and support for gifted underachievers (Moltzen, 2004). The findings may assist school administrators and policymakers in developing professional development programs and intervention plans to prevent the loss of student potential.

According to the OECD (2023), addressing heterogeneity within inclusive education constitutes a central task of schools. Inclusion is a multifaceted concept that extends beyond the joint teaching of students with and without disabilities to encompass further dimensions of heterogeneity, such as gender, migration background, and individual talents (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2024). Consequently, a wide range of partly contradictory definitions of school inclusion coexist in the literature (e.g., Göransson & Nilholm, 2014; Grosche, 2015). Across these approaches, three core elements emerge as particularly relevant for the present study: diversity, understood as the appreciation of heterogeneous learning groups; individuality, referring to the consideration and valuation of individual characteristics and needs; and community, defined as unconditional participation and belonging within a social collective.

Teachers are frequently attributed a key role in the implementation of inclusive education. However, empirical findings regarding the relevance of teachers’ orientations toward inclusion remain inconsistent. While some studies highlight the importance of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (e.g., Heyder et al., 2020; Lenkeit et al., 2024), other studies fail to confirm such associations (e.g., Garrote et al., 2020). Two issues are particularly relevant when interpreting these findings.

First, previous research has predominantly focused on attitudes toward inclusive schooling (Lüke et al., 2021), rather than on a broader inclusive stance. Although the terms attitude and stance are often used interchangeably (Collins Dictionary, n.d.), they differ conceptually. Attitudes refer to evaluations of a specific object (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), whereas a stance denotes a broader, value-based orientation that guides perception and judgment across situations (Kurbacher, 2008). While attitudes are primarily affective, a stance is more cognitive in nature and involves conscious reflection on moral, ethical, and cultural values, which is fundamental to taking responsibility (Kurbacher, 2008).

Second, many existing instruments conceptualize inclusion narrowly as the joint teaching of students with and without special educational needs. This approach risks neglecting broader dimensions of heterogeneity emphasized by the OECD (2023) and UNESCO (2024). To address this research gap, the present study aims to develop and validate a new measurement instrument assessing (pre-service) teachers’ inclusive stance based on a broad understanding of inclusion.

Building on the discourse on inclusion and Kurbacher’s (2008) conceptualization of stance, an inclusive stance is defined as the conscious recognition of diversity, individuality, and community as values that guide teachers’ role understanding and behavior. Kurbacher (2008) argues that holding certain values does not necessarily result in corresponding behavior. This assumption provides the rationale for analytically distinguishing between value orientation and role understanding (as a prerequisite for action) in the operationalization of inclusive stance. Accordingly, the developed instrument operationalizes inclusive stance along three dimensions (diversity, individuality, community), each assessed from two perspectives: value orientation and role understanding.

Against this background, the study addresses the following research questions:

1. Can the theoretically assumed factor structure of the inclusive stance instrument be empirically confirmed? To what extent is inclusive stance expressed in this study?

2. To what extent is there a relationship between a teacher's value orientation and their understanding of their role?

Furthermore, a teacher’s inclusive stance can be assumed to be related to their conviction regarding inclusive learning settings. Teachers who value heterogeneous learning groups, individual student characteristics, and unrestricted participation in a community, and who feel responsible for these aspects, are more likely to view inclusive learning settings as desirable. This results in the third research question, which is also used to validate the instrument.

3. Is an inclusive stance positively associated with attitudes toward an inclusive school system?