Conference Agenda

Introduction

Research indicates that in a diverse classroom, where children with varying levels of competence and support needs learn together, learning becomes more effective when teachers adapt teaching to meet students’ needs (e.g., Jung et al., 2018) and implement different inclusive practices (Finkelstein et al., 2021). Previous studies confirm that inclusive education benefits all students (Szumski et al., 2022). Inclusive education fosters students’ self-confidence by promoting peer acceptance (Rodríguez Herrero et al., 2020) and often improves academic outcomes for both students with and without special educational needs. Peer collaboration further enhances social skills and strengthens students’ sense of belonging (Kefallinou et al., 2020; Polat et al., 2024; Szumski et al., 2022). Overall, inclusive education is essential for advancing educational equity and sustainable social inclusion (Kefallinou et al., 2020). One of its key principles, as outlined by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2014), is the early identification and support of children with additional support needs. Accordingly, this study focuses on inclusive education in primary education.

Despite recognised benefits of inclusive education, teachers often struggle to implement inclusive principles in everyday practice (Polat et al., 2024). Similar challenges have been reported among Estonian teachers (Leijen et al., 2025; Silm et al., 2024). Successful implementation is hindered by various factors, including insufficient resources such as support specialists (Polat et al., 2024), as well as the teachers’ insecurity and inadequate competence (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2012).

Although Estonian schools are required to follow inclusive education principles (Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, 2010), research shows that teachers continue to face significant challenges in implementing inclusive practices effectively. Previous Estonian studies have predominantly focused on the third school level (e.g., Leijen et al., 2025; Taimalu et al., 2019) or broader evaluations of inclusive education (e.g., Silm et al., 2024), leaving primary education comparatively underexamined. Yet international frameworks emphasise early identification and support, making primary education a critical starting point for successful inclusion. Taken together, these insights indicate a clear need to better understand how primary education teachers perceive their professional development needs, considering teaching in inclusive classrooms, and what they expect from professional development courses.

Therefore, the study aimed to identify the professional development needs of primary education teachers regarding inclusive practices, based on their perceptions and expectations for a professional development course focused on teaching in inclusive classrooms. The following research questions were formulated:

1. What are the teachers’ additional professional development needs in the context of inclusive practices, based on their perceptions?

1. What are the teachers’ expectations for a professional development course on teaching in an inclusive classroom, based on their perceptions?

Special education adaptions in inclusive classrooms, manifested in Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), have been widely established as key instruments for supporting inclusive education across different national contexts. The IEP, in particular, is a legally mandated and pedagogically grounded instrument that is central to the education of students with special educational needs and is reflected internationally in inclusive education frameworks. It formalizes the right to individualized educational provision through collaborative planning among multiple stakeholders. Adaptations can include, for example, access to special resources, adapted assignments, support from a special educator, special seating arrangements, or extra time for examinations.

Previous research has shown that such recommendations are widely regarded as conceptually meaningful, yet their practical usefulness for teachers remains uneven, with recurring concerns related to clarity, feasibility, and alignment with everyday classroom practice (e.g. Bray & Russell, 2018; Rotter, 2014). The findings point to a fundamental tension at the heart of current IEP arrangements. On the one hand, IEPs seem to function reliably as legal artefacts of proof: they document entitlement to support, provide parents with a formal basis to claim services, and offer schools a defensible record of compliance. In this respect, IEPs are largely successful. On the other hand, they seem to fall short in fulfilling what they are also intended to stand for, namely, a pedagogically meaningful framework that guides instruction and supports students’ learning in practice. What is secured is the right to support, rather than a tool that reliably enables the kind of support teachers and students actually need.

Against this background, the present survey study examines how classroom teachers in Germany and Sweden perceive the usefulness, implementation, and everyday relevance of special education adaptions in inclusive mainstream schooling. Particular attention is given to classroom teachers because they are responsible for implementing special education recommendations such as IEPs in everyday inclusive classroom practice, while their scope of responsibility and access to support remain ambiguously defined in the literature and the authors prior empirical findings (e.g. King et al., 2017; Kozi̇Koğlu & Albayrak, 2021; LeDoux et al., 2012; McKay et al., 2018; Rotter, 2014). At the same time, the ways in which teachers can access, interpret, and use IEPs are also shaped by national policy frameworks, school-level organizational arrangements, and professional traditions (e.g. Bray & Russell, 2018; Durmuş & Ergen, 2021; Rose et al., 2012; Timothy & Agbenyega, 2019). The study therefore adopts a functional comparative perspective by examining how similar pedagogical challenges related to the use of special education recommendations are addressed within different institutional contexts in Germany and Sweden. These two contexts are particularly interesting to compare because both countries have established systems of special education assessment and documentation while differing substantially in school structures, professional autonomy, inclusion practices, and support arrangements (Wermke & Beck, 2025). The differences and similarities enable exploring what different educational systems and organizational arrangements make of the same type of document, and how these conditions shape the ways IEPs are used, valued, and perceived in practice.

Inclusive education is often perceived as a foreign concept, although it is strongly emphasized in educational programs driven by development partners in Nepal and other low‑resource countries(Maudslay, 2014) This may have further contributed to the persistent gap between policy and practice in the field (Sharma et al., 2013; Sharma & Mullick, 2020). To reduce such gaps, positive cultural aspects and initiatives need to be explored and brought to light.

This qualitative study aims to identify less resource‑demanding and alternative solutions for the success of inclusive education, as an endeavor to explore contextual and culturally appropriate approaches in low‑resource settings. It does so by examining stakeholders’ experiences of enabling inclusive education in Nepal, which is the main research question.

Sociocultural approach (Chirkov, 2020; Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978) provides the framework for interpreting the qualitative data. Drawing on Vygotsky’s foundational ideas and Rogoff’s elaboration of context‑specific sociocultural learning, the data are understood in terms of both formal and tacit mutual learning among stakeholders within their context. Chirkov (2020) introduced the Theory of Sociocultural Models (TSCMs) to explain the role of both conscious and unconscious sociocultural models (SCMs). SCMs are conceptualized as complex tools consisting of social, cultural, and psychological processes through which members of cultural groups interpret the world. This framework explains how SCMs are developed at the personal psychological level and how they collectively construct shared public values. Chirkov thus expands the mechanisms of the sociocultural nature of learning to the development of cultural communities that share similar SCMs. He provides a clear distinction between the private and public aspects of such models and explains the mechanisms by which they are internalized at the psychological level in relation to public reality (Chirkov, 2023). This perspective supports the interpretation of stakeholders’ views on positive endeavors related to inclusive education in the context of Nepal, where culture is assumed both to facilitate and to constrain inclusive education, thereby contributing to the co‑creation of a more inclusive culture through communities (Göransson & Nilholm, 2014).

Italy has long established mainstream schooling as the normative setting for learners with disabilities. Within the broader European landscape of inclusive education, it represents one of the earliest and most structurally integrated systems following processes of deinstitutionalisation and rights-based reform. Yet research continues to document a persistent gap between structural inclusion and the transformation of everyday teaching and learning practices (Dell’Anna et al., 2023). The presence of students with disabilities in mainstream settings does not automatically translate into shared responsibility, collaborative redesign of pedagogy, or collective engagement with barriers to participation.

A distinctive feature of the Italian system is the structural co-presence of subject teachers and support teachers within the same classroom. This arrangement potentially creates favourable conditions for inclusive practice. However, empirical studies suggest that co-teaching frequently defaults to parallel work or delegated support, with responsibility for inclusion often implicitly shifted towards support teachers (Ciletti et al., 2025). As a result, structural co-presence risks remaining an organisational arrangement rather than becoming a transformative pedagogical resource.

At a European level, inclusive education is increasingly framed not only as access to mainstream schooling but as participation, agency and contextual transformation. The CRPD positions persons with disabilities at the centre of decisions concerning their life projects and the environments they inhabit. Translating this principle into school contexts implies moving beyond models in which support is designed for students towards approaches in which students actively contribute to identifying barriers and reshaping learning environments. Such a shift foregrounds agency not as an individual trait, but as a relational and collective process enacted within institutional structures.

Within this framework, student voice is understood as a political and epistemic practice rather than a mere consultative tool (Fielding, 2004; Cook-Sather, 2007). However, participation practices often privilege speech-centric forms of expression, limiting the involvement of students with complex communicative repertoires (Lewis-Dagnell et al., 2023). Expanding participation therefore requires multimodal approaches capable of recognising voice as relational, embodied and contextually shaped (Gonzalez et al., 2017).

This study responds to these tensions by recontextualising Inclusive Inquiry (Messiou, 2014) within the Italian co-teaching model. Originally developed as a collaborative action research approach that positions students as researchers of their own learning environments, Inclusive Inquiry offers structured cycles of observation, evidence gathering and pedagogical redesign. In this project, the framework is adapted to operate within structurally mandated co-teaching contexts, explicitly foregrounding joint planning between subject and support teachers and embedding multimodal participatory strategies that enable all students—including those communicating predominantly or entirely non-verbally—to participate as co-researchers.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How can Inclusive Inquiry be recontextualised within the Italian co-teaching model to transform structural co-presence into intentional collaborative practice?
   

2. How do multimodal participatory strategies enable students, including those communicating predominantly or entirely non-verbally, to act as co-researchers in processes of pedagogical redesign?
   

3. How does engaging in collaborative inquiry reshape teachers’ professional learning and shared responsibility for inclusion?
   

By situating Inclusive Inquiry within a structurally inclusive European system, the study contributes to ongoing debates about how rights-based frameworks can be translated into everyday pedagogical practice. It seeks to illuminate how collaborative inquiry may function as a mechanism for redistributing epistemic authority and transforming co-teaching from an organisational arrangement into a site of collective agency and professional learning.