Role of NCSE
2. Literature review
2.2 Initial Teacher Education for Inclusive Teaching
There is a developing, but still quite limited, research base documenting how teachers working in inclusive settings are being – or should be – prepared for their work (EADSNE, 2012, p.37). Donnelly and Watkins (2011) provide an account of the policy context and evidence supporting the move towards teacher education for inclusion in the European context. Hollenweger, Pantic, and Florian (2015) report an example of a regional network promoting inclusive education in South East Europe, which linked initial and in-service teacher education through a collaborative network of schools and teacher educators.
2.2.1 The Irish context for ITE for inclusive teaching
The establishment of the NCSE in 2005, and the emergence of its research programme, added significant impetus and concentrated effort to research associated with inclusive education in Ireland. However, to date, research on initial teacher education programmes and inclusion is quite limited, and even more limited if you adopt the view that inclusion is a series of categorised disabilities. Within this particular research paradigm, and subsequent policy advice documents, the focus on initial teacher education usually follows a common pattern of frequent reference but scant research. Examples of this practice include research conducted in the specific areas of ASD, EBD, Deaf and Hard of Hearing and other identified needs.
Of late, teacher diversity, or lack of it, in Ireland has been researched by Keane and Heinz (2016) and Darmody and Smyth (2016), who highlight the fact that the teaching population remains homogeneous, being predominantly white, female and of the majority ethnic and social class groups. Other work by AHEAD has identified the low levels of disability identified among the initial teacher education cohort (AHEAD, 2012), while emerging HEA/DES initiatives seek to promote greater representation from certain cohorts (special education, intercultural and socio- economic disadvantage).
A more nuanced research paradigm is emerging in the context of the EASNIE profile and others such as the UNESCO Policy Guidelines for Inclusion report (UNESCO, 2009) where a focus on a more holistic view seeks to improve initial teacher education in the context of induction and continuing professional development. These approaches suggest that teachers adopt a problem-oriented approach that also draws upon team building and peer tutoring with an emphasis on ‘daily’ learning. Similar views are adopted by the TALIS report (OECD, 2009/2013), where teaching students with special needs is highlighted by established teachers as the greatest challenge they face in their teaching. Isolation and lack of teamwork were the norm in the TALIS survey of 2009 and recommendations from the 2013 survey suggest that collaborative practices both within a school and in particular within classes add to teachers’ sense of efficacy and well-being. The role of leadership in schools is central to teachers’ learning (Donnelly et al., 2016) where a community of practice (Wenger, 1998) is established that allows the continuum of learning to be part of teachers’ daily lives. While conscious that ‘the ties that bind may also blind’ (Chin & Vasu, 2007), collaborative practices among teachers, including ITE students, offers a range of context-sensitive possibilities. In short, we are invited by the research
to date to explore what teacher learning or professional development might look like in Ireland where a complementarity of actions between the various supports for ITE can converge and adopt a more systematic, and less ad hoc, approach to ITE4I.
Caena (2011) describes continuing professional development as ‘teacher learning’. In the
context of ITE4I this is an important point. In Ireland, continuing professional development (CPD) is often seen as something done to teachers, while ‘teacher learning’ is more outward-looking and associated with identity and growth in the context of teachers’ daily lives. It should be noted that the Teaching Council has of late (Teaching Council, 2016) adopted the phrase ‘teachers’ learning’ in place of ‘CPD’ when rolling out its Cosán framework. Similarly, the recalibration from ‘teacher training’ to ‘teacher education’ is more than a question of semantics and indicates an understanding that being an inclusive teacher involves not just possessing the skills required but also possessing the knowledge to choose the appropriate skill at the appropriate time. The reconceptualisation of initial teacher education is also represented in the shift from the concept of ‘teaching practice’ to that of ‘school placement’, which draws conceptually from a broader understanding of what it means to be a teacher and by implication an ‘inclusive teacher’. This contextual and holistic dimension to effective teaching and learning is captured in the NCSE research (NCSE, 2015).
This shift in focus is represented in the emerging research in Ireland where early
attention to ‘teacher training’ (in the terminology of the time) and individual skill sets is now accompanied by a recognition of the importance of teacher education, teacher context and teacher collaboration for professional learning (NCSE, 2013, 2016). Of note also is the importance of teacher confidence (O’Gorman, 2007) and perceived teacher competence (Travers
et al., 2010). Such research has informed the engagement between NCSE and DES with regard
to policy advice that makes specific reference to the importance of teachers in achieving policy goals associated with inclusion in our educational system.
This NCSE policy advice has highlighted the emerging challenges and opportunities associated with ensuring that teachers are initially and continuingly positioned to respond to the needs and abilities presenting in their classes and their schools. It has highlighted the conundrum that the mechanisms for identifying needs and providing resources may not always align with how best to use such resources. This is significantly the case when 99.2% of the pupils in Ireland’s educational system attend mainstream schools, if not always mainstream classrooms. Such a context requires resources to be used in the collective where they can be best maximised by a combination of general and specific expertise among staff while, until most recently, they are accessed by way of identified individual educational needs. Policy advice from the NCSE also highlights how specialist settings require specialist skill sets which need to be acquired in a timely manner, if not already present at the time of appointment (NCSE, 2012). Whether the focus is on an individual student profile or a general school profile, a consistent theme in the policy advice offered by the NCSE spins on the twin axis of the centrality of the importance of the teacher and the support provided by leaders.
In the context of this study, the latter paradigm may shift our focus regarding what we understand to be a national picture of research on inclusive education. Research by Hall et
al. (2012) on initial teacher education and the experience of being a ‘student teacher’ draws
attention to the importance of school placement and the enculturation effect. Similar work by Clarke, Lodge, and Shevlin (2012) seeks to map out where and how student teachers access support. Both studies highlight the centrality of school placement. We add that the centrality of class placement within the school and the support or otherwise of a cooperating teacher is vital in pursuing ITE4I. By implication, the role of school leaders in supporting student teachers comes very much to the fore, for example by influencing which classes student teachers are assigned to and which staff engage with them during school placement. The importance of engagement with collaborative skills (Teaching Council, 2013) such as those required to work with fellow teachers and special needs assistants as well as parents and external agencies, including health professionals, would align with a model of provision that focuses on ‘teacher learning’ as context- sensitive. The recent adjustments to assessment practices for ITE and the use of portfolio- based learning, including e-portfolio, and ‘teacher as researcher’ also offer possibilities for the pedagogical dimension of ITE to be revisited in a more coherent and reflective fashion between classroom and lecture room. In such a space, competence and standards can align with not only having the skill set but also the mind set required, i.e. the ability to choose the right response from an ever-extending pedagogical repertoire.
Such a view shifts attention from an overly social-justice stance to one that retains a focus on social justice and values while also addressing the pedagogical skill set and knowledge needed to allow for learning to occur that is in itself socially just and promotes social justice. Such a skill set can be at one level generic but needs to respond subsequently to ever-increasing needs by acquiring further skill sets. Such skill sets need to be in the possession of programme providers also, or at the very least be accessible to programme providers via support service personnel. A greater role for support service personnel to support HEIs would be worth exploring in the context of the establishment of building capacity rather than episodic visits. Similarly, the invitation from the Teaching Council to HEI personnel interested in returning to the classroom, however briefly (Teaching Council, 2013), offers possibilities and aligns with Watkins, De Vroey and Symeonidou’s (2016) view that ‘teacher educators should model effective practices for teachers’ (p.70). We draw strength and guidance from Watkins et al.’s summation:
While there is wide agreement on the content required to effectively prepare teachers for diversity in the classroom, there is as yet little evidence to indicate the most effective approaches to teacher education and how best to support a move from discrete modules dealing with ‘inclusion’ towards integrated content … More rigorous follow up of new teachers and evaluation of new initiatives is also needed to gather evidence on the most effective routes into teaching. (p.70)
In summary, ITE4I as depicted by the research indicates that it requires considerable attention and the present longitudinal study is an important contribution to understanding how we can support it.
2.2.2 Re-balancing the ITE curriculum for inclusive teaching
One influential strand of research (Corbett & Norwich, 2005; Davis & Florian, 2004; Florian, 2008; Norwich & Lewis, 2007) has suggested that, despite traditional assumptions underpinning special education, there is limited evidence for separate specialist pedagogies for learners described as having special educational needs. Norwich and Lewis (2007) proposed that it may be helpful to distinguish between specialist knowledge of particular disabilities and categories of special educational need; the use of specialist teaching strategies and equipment; and whether these can be said to constitute a special pedagogy. This argument suggests that, whilst some learners may require more intensive teaching, this does not necessarily amount to a fundamentally different or ‘special’ mode of learning. Indeed, the issue of inclusive pedagogy extends beyond learners with disabilities to all learners who may be at risk of exclusion or marginalisation (Dyson & Hick, 2005; Wrigley & Hick, 2009). At this stage, no clear consensus has been established within the research literature on how best to balance understandings of inclusive pedagogy in initial teacher education, with access to knowledge about particular categories of special educational needs or disabilities (Mintz & Wyse, 2015). However, this discussion is in a sense superseded by the shift in focus away from inclusive education as concerned primarily with special educational needs and disability, towards situating inclusive practice in a broader framework in relation to diverse learners and encompassing issues of cultural responsiveness.