Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP): a cultural validation and investigation of its perceived usefulness in the context of the Swedish preschool

ABSTRACT

The Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) is a structured observation instrument. It has been developed to support high-quality early childhood inclusion of children with special educational needs and disabilities. The aim of this study is to examine the cultural validity of the instrument in Swedish preschools and to investigate its perceived usefulness in a Swedish preschool context. Ten special educators, who conducted professional dialogues with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members in a Swedish municipality, were enrolled. The instrument was compared with the Swedish national curriculum for the preschool, and the perceptions of special educators were collected by way of dialogue seminar method. Thematic analyses were conducted. The results of the study show that the instrument, with few exceptions, is valid in Sweden, and that the instrument can be useful for special educators conducting professional dialogues about early childhood inclusion with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. The study has relevance for those who work with early childhood inclusion in Sweden as well as elsewhere, and for those who plan to validate the instrument and investigate its perceived usefulness in a context pertinent to them. High-quality inclusion is on the agenda in many nations, and a Sustainable Development Goal.

KEYWORDS:

• Early childhood inclusion
• Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP)
• special educational needs
• professional dialogues

Introduction

At present, early childhood inclusion is being implemented in preschools both in Sweden and elsewhere (Johanna, Mara, and Eva 2016; Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016; Soukakou, Evangelou, and Holbrooke 2018), and there is a growing interest in research-based instruments and frameworks that can facilitate the planning, evaluation and development of high-quality early childhood inclusion in preschools (Lundqvist 2016; Soukakou, Evangelou, and Holbrooke 2018). One reason for this growing interest is that the quality of early childhood inclusion, as well as that of preschools, matters (Harms, Clifford, and Cryer 2005; Sammons 2010; Soukakou 2016; Taguma, Litjens, and Makowiecki 2013): The quality of a preschool, for example, is related to children’s learning and developmental outcomes (Harms, Clifford, and Cryer 2005; Sammons 2010) as well as to other benefits such as a child’s well-being, more equitable outcomes and a reduction in poverty (Taguma, Litjens, and Makowiecki 2013). Another reason for this growing interest is that inclusion can prevent discrimination and foster solidarity (Salamanca Statement, UNESCO 1994; UN CRPD 2006, 24) and can also have a positive impact on the learning and development of the young individual child (Odom et al. 2004; Sandall et al. 2008).

Early childhood inclusion and the notion of special educational needs

In this study, early childhood inclusion refers to inclusive practices (e.g. adaptations of space and materials and support for communication) in preschools in which young children with and young children without special educational needs are educated together, and are provided with the support they need for participation, learning and development (Lundqvist 2016; Sandall et al. 2008; Soukakou 2016). The notion of children with special educational needs refers to those children who, for different reasons, need additional help, attention and support in educational activities, routines and play so that they are able to participate, learn and develop (Johanna, Mara, and Eva 2015; Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016; Sandall et al. 2008). Early childhood inclusion is also about justice and an appreciation of diversity in education and society.

European and international consensus on the importance of inclusion

In Europe a consensus has emerged ‘on the importance of inclusive education, and ensuring children with special educational needs (SEN) are included within mainstream education’ (European Commission 2013, 4). This is also the case in an international perspective: In 1994 the Salamanca declaration about inclusion was agreed upon (UNESCO 1994) and in 2015 the Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted (UN 2015). The agenda includes 17 sustainable development goals to make the world a better place with the time frame 2015–2030. One of these goals is about quality education and inclusion: The goal is to ensure ‘inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (UN 2015, goal 4).

Research-based instruments and frameworks about early childhood inclusion

There are research-based instruments and frameworks that can facilitate the planning, evaluation and development of high-quality early childhood inclusion (Table 1): For example, the Inclusive Early Childhood Education Environment Self-Reflection Tool (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2017) and the Building Blocks model (Sandall et al. 2008). One more example of such a research-based instrument and framework is the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP, Soukakou 2016). It was developed in the United Kingdom and the United States to support the high-quality inclusion of young children (2–5 years) in early childhood education – for example, in preschools. The ICP contains research-based inclusive practices and is intended to be used as an assessment and quality improvement instrument together with other structured observation instruments, such as the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (Soukakou 2016; Soukakou, Evangelou, and Holbrooke 2018). Soukakou (2016, xiii) hopes that the ‘ICP will support users in reflecting on important dimensions of inclusive practice, identifying areas for improvement, and developing relevant action plans to support the diverse learning and developmental needs of children included in early childhood classrooms’. The ICP comprises twelve items (Table 1). Each of these twelve items encompasses indicators for inadequate, minimal, good and excellent quality on a 7-point Likert Scale. A rating of 7 means excellent quality of inclusive practices, and a rating of 1 means inadequate quality. An overall assessment of the inclusive practices in an educational setting (e.g. a preschool) can be established by calculating the mean value of the 12 items. An ICP assessment is, first and foremost, based on observations; however, document analyses and interviews are required with certain items. The importance and necessity of using the ICP lies with its focus on the actual implementation of high-quality early childhood inclusion and its potential for guiding preschool improvement.

Table 1. Research-based instruments and frameworks about high-quality early childhood inclusion.

Instrument	Instrument type	Administration	Overview
Inclusive Early Childhood Education Environment Self-Reflection Tool (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2017)	Self-reflection tool	Can be used by staff	Consists of 8 items designed to help staff in inclusive early childhood education: 1. Overall welcoming atmosphere; 2. Inclusive social environment; 3. Child-centred approach; 4. Child-friendly physical environment; 5. Materials for all children; 6. Opportunities for communication for all; 7. Inclusive teaching and learning environment; and 8. Family-friendly environment
Building Blocks model (Sandall et al. 2008)	Didactical framework; a handbook	Can be used by staff	Consists of a set of evidence-based educational practices designed to help staff teaching preschoolers with special educational needs
Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP; Soukakou 2016)	Structured observation rating scale; assessment tool for inclusive practices	One classroom/one group at a time attended by children aged 2 through 5 years of age; requires 2½–3 h of direct observation; can be used by staff, evaluators and researchers; and 7-point Likert Scale	Consists of 12 evidence-based items (practices): 1. Adaptations of space, materials, and equipment; 2. Adult involvement in peer interactions; 3. Adults’ guidance of children’s free-choice activities and play; 4. Conflict resolution; 5. Membership; 6. Relationships between adults and children; 7. Support for communication; 8. Adaptations of group activities; 9. Transitions between activities; 10. Feedback; 11. Family-professional partnerships; and 12. Monitoring children’s learning

The ICP has been validated (Soukakou 2012) and field-tested in a pilot study in North Carolina, United States (Soukakou et al. 2014) and in a pilot study in the south of England (Soukakou, Evangelou, and Holbrooke 2018), and has also been used in multiple-case study research in Sweden (Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016). In two of these studies (Soukakou 2012; Soukakou et al. 2014), evidence has been found concerning the ICP’s interrater reliability, factor structure and construct validity. In the other two studies, the instrument has been described as positive for professional development purposes (Soukakou, Evangelou, and Holbrooke 2018) and a useful data collection method in research on early childhood inclusion and inclusive practices (Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016).

At present in the context of the Swedish preschool, there is a growing interest in the ICP instrument and its potential to facilitate the planning, evaluation and development of high-quality early childhood inclusion.

The Swedish preschool context

In Sweden, the majority of children (86%) (both those with and those without special educational needs and disabilities) aged between one and five years attend inclusive preschools when their parents work or study (SNAE 2017). In Sweden, there are few segregated preschools – that is to say, preschools that are only for children with special educational needs and disabilities. During preschool, which is the first step in the Swedish education system, all children are to be supported in their learning, daily routines and play with peers, and are also to be prepared for compulsory preschool class and school (SNAE 2011). Swedish preschools are regulated by an education act (Education Act 2010:800) and a national preschool curriculum (SNAE 2011). The curriculum encompasses the fundamental values and tasks of heads, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members (e.g. childminders); it does not contain goals that children ought to reach by a certain time or age. In Sweden, heads, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members can decide on what teaching strategies to implement and how to realise the goals and intentions of the curriculum. However, these strategies ought to be evidence-based and proven in practice. They have a duty to collaborate with parents and systematically follow up, document and analyse children’s learning and development ‘so that it is possible to evaluate how the preschool provides opportunities for children to develop and learn in accordance with the goals and intentions of the curriculum’ (SNAE 2011, 14).

Heads, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members in Sweden can receive support from special educators. One task of special educators is to conduct professional dialogues on such matters as early childhood inclusion with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members working in preschools that educate and care for children with and children without special educational needs. Professional dialogues refer to shared activities (e.g. preschool observations and assessments), consulting practices (i.e. hands-on-advice) as well as processes of reflection and conversations. Among other things, Dewey (2008) and Larsdotter Bodin (2017) have reported that shared activities, advice, processes of reflection and conversations (e.g. professional dialogues) present rich opportunities for learning among, for example, professionals.

A need to further develop early childhood inclusion in Sweden

Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag (2016) used the ICP in a multiple-case study of Swedish preschools and found a variation in quality of inclusive practices and a need to further develop early childhood inclusion in terms of such matters as guidance in children’s play, support in conflict resolution, feedback, family-professional partnerships and monitoring of children’s learning. There was no case of any of the preschools investigated in their multiple-case study reaching a score on the ICP that corresponded to a level of good or excellent inclusion.

Recent preschool inspections by the Swedish School Inspectorate (2016, 2018) have also reported a variation in quality of preschools and a need to improve the education and care of children with special educational needs in many preschools.

Aim, research questions and rationale

The aim of this study is twofold. The first aim is to examine the cultural validity of the ICP in Swedish preschools. The second aim is to investigate the instrument’s perceived usefulness in professional dialogues, conducted in a Swedish preschool context, between special educators, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. The questions posed are the following: To what degree does the instrument match the national curriculum for the Swedish preschool? What are the special educators’ reflections in terms of the instrument and which themes occur in the reflections of the special educators? Which types of professional dialogues, informed by the instrument, are implemented by the special educators and how is the instrument used? According to the special educators, what are the experienced benefits and outcomes of these professional dialogues and what is the perceived feasibility of the instrument?

A study on high-quality early childhood inclusion and what it can be in practice is needed at a time when high-quality inclusion is on the agenda in many nations and contexts, and is also stated as a Sustainable Development Goal (UN 2015).

Method

This study is part of a larger study entitled Inclusive Education and Practices in Preschools: Planning, Implementation and Evaluation.

Participants

Guidelines and recommendations from the Swedish Research Council (2017) were carefully followed in the study. Before the study commenced, a preschool manager in a Swedish municipality was informed about the study by way of a letter and a phone call. Written consent was obtained from the manager. Thereafter, all ten special educators working with professional dialogues in the municipality’s preschools were informed about the study by way of a letter and a physical meeting. The processes of information encompassed aim of study, data collection methods, planned presentations and publications, as well as information regarding research ethics and rights of participants. Written consent was obtained from ten out of ten special educators (N = 10). They all had (preschool) teacher training and special educator training. The municipality was selected using a convenience sample.

Data collection and analyses

A qualitative research approach (Creswell 2013) was adopted.

A comparison between the ICP and the Swedish national curriculum for the preschool (SNAE 2011) was conducted using a deductive thematic analysis encompassing five stages (Braun and Clarke 2006). The ICP and the curriculum were read through (stage one). Thereafter, the twelve items of the instrument (i.e. the themes) were searched for in the curriculum by means of additional readings and a digital Word search tool. Interesting features in the curriculum (i.e. matches and mismatches) were coded (stage two) and related to the twelve items of the instrument (stage three). Next, the coding was reviewed (stage four), as were the links that had been observed between the ICP and the curriculum (stage five). When similarities and no conflicts were found between an ICP item and the curriculum, the accordance was considered full. When similarities and few conflicts were found, the accordance was considered partial. When no similarities were found, the accordance was considered low. A low accordance does not necessarily suggest a conflict; rather, it can reflect the fact that a central word in the instrument (e.g. feedback or transition activities) was not talked about in the curriculum. Inter Rater Reliability (IRR) in terms of full, partial or low accordance was calculated: The IRR between the first and second author was 83%. The first and second author discussed the differences and came to a joint decision.

The special educators’ reflections on the instrument were collected using the dialogue seminar method. It is a data collection method (Hammarén 1999; Larsdotter Bodin 2017; Ratkic 2006) in which participants have an open-minded discussion on a certain topic that is initiated by the researcher and introduced to participants in advance. A dialogue seminar can also be used as a tool for professional reflection and development (Hammarén 1999; Larsdotter Bodin 2017; Ratkic 2006). Two dialogue seminars concerning the instrument (i.e. its items) were conducted (October 2017). One question posed was the following: What are your thoughts about the instrument and its items? One of these was led by the first author and attended by five of the special educators; the other was led by the second author and attended by four of the special educators. Thus, one out of the ten special educators did not participate in this phase of the data collection. These dialogue seminars were recorded and transcribed, and then stored securely. Before these dialogue seminars, the special educators were invited to individually read the instrument and reflect on its items in relation to the curriculum, and their own knowledge and experiences about early childhood inclusion. They were each provided with a notebook in which they could write their reflections; these notebooks were used in the dialogue seminars. The instrument was translated into Swedish by the first author, since not all of the special educators had a good working knowledge of English. This translation was checked by the second author and is not for public use. Data on types of professional dialogues, experienced benefits and outcomes of professional dialogues informed by the instrument, and its perceived feasibility were collected from two additional dialogue seminars (December 2017). Two questions posed were the following: How did you use the instrument in your professional dialogues with preschool teachers and other preschool staff member? What was positive, difficult or problematic? One of these was led by the first author and attended by four of the special educators, and the other was led by the second author and attended by five of the special educators. Thus, one out of the ten special educators did not participate in this phase of data collection. These dialogue seminars were recorded and transcribed, and then stored securely. Before these two additional dialogue seminars, the special educators were informed about structured observations and the 7-point Likert Scale, and were given opportunities to ask questions about the instrument. The first author was responsible for this information; she has received information and individual training about the instrument from its author Soukakou (Lundqvist 2016). Before these two additional dialogue seminars, the special educators were also invited to use the instrument in their professional dialogues with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. The preschool teachers and other preschool staff members were informed about the study by way of a letter (written by the authors) and were given the opportunity to participate in the professional dialogues led by the special educators. We do not have the exact number of preschool teachers and other preschool staff members who took part in these professional dialogues. Once again the special educators were invited to write in their notebooks; this time what they wrote was to reflect the uses, experienced benefits, outcomes and feasibility of the instrument in their professional dialogues. These written reflections were used in the two additional dialogue seminars. After these two additional dialogue seminars, the special educators gave their notebooks (N = 203 handwritten pages in A5 size; m: 20 handwritten A5 pages) and translated instruments to the researchers. The special educators’ reflections on the instrument, obtained from the dialogue seminars and notebooks, were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) encompassing the following five phases: The notebooks and transcriptions of dialogue seminars (i.e. the data) were read through (stage one). Thereafter, interesting features in the data (e.g. likes and dislikes of special educators, described matches and mismatches between the instrument and the curriculum) were coded (stage two) and grouped into potential themes (stage three). Next, the coding was reviewed (stage four) as were the themes that were generated (stage five). In stage five, a naming of themes was also conducted. The analysis generated three themes (Table 2). Thematic analyses (Braun and Clarke 2006), concerning types of professional dialogues, uses, experienced outcomes, benefits and feasibility, encompassing five stages, were also conducted on data from dialogue seminars and notebooks. The notebooks and transcriptions of dialogue seminars (i.e. the data) were once again read through (stage one). Thereafter, interesting features in the data (e.g. forms of professional dialogues, uses, experienced outcomes, benefits and feasibility) were coded (stage two) and grouped into potential themes and subthemes (stage three). Next, the coding was reviewed (stage four) as were the themes and subthemes generated (stage five). In stage five, names were given to subthemes. The analysis generated four themes and several subthemes (Table 3). The analyses of data from the two additional dialogue seminars were conducted by the first author and validated by the second author. The second author, with two exceptions, confirmed the analyses. The first author and second author discussed the exceptions; two changes were made. The first change related to the two types of professional dialogues and the second to a reflection related to the feasibility of the instrument. A respondent validation with the special educators (N = 10) was done, by the first author, to increase the trustworthiness of the study: No changes to results or analyses were made thereafter.

Table 2. ICP items, examples from the curriculum, level of accordance (low, partial or full) between the ICP and the curriculum, and themes generated.

ICP items (Soukakou 2016)	Examples from the curriculum (SNAE 2011)	Accordance	Themes
1. Adaptations of space, materials, and equipment	The staff is responsible for ‘structuring the learning environment of the preschool so that the child has access to a good environment and material for development and learning’ (16).	Full	IC and CMC
2. Adult involvement in peer interactions	The staff should ‘stimulate interaction between children’ (9).	Full	IC and CMC
3. Adults’ guidance of children’s activities and play	‘Play is important for the child’s development and learning’ (6). The work team should ‘cooperate to provide a good environment for development, play and learning, and pay particular attention to and help children who for different reasons need support in their development’ (11).	Full	IC and CMC
4. Conflict resolution	The staff should ‘stimulate interaction between children and help them to resolve conflicts, as well as work out misunderstandings, compromise and respect each other’ (9).	Full	IC and CMC
5. Membership	The work team should ‘show respect for the individual and help in creating a democratic climate in the preschool, where a feeling of belonging and responsibility can develop, and where children have the opportunity of showing solidarity’ (9).	Full	IC and CMC
6. Relationships between adults and children	‘Children in the preschool should meet adults who see the potential in each child and who involve themselves in interactions with the indi­vidual child and the group of children as a whole’ (5).	Full	IC and CMC
7. Support for communication	The staff should ‘challenge the curiosity of children and their growing understanding of language and communication’ and ‘give children the opportunity to develop their ability to communicate’ (11).	Partial	IC and CMC
8. Adaptations of group activities	‘Concern for the individual child’s well-being, security, development and learning should characterise the work of the preschool. Account should be taken of the varying conditions and needs of children. This means that the preschool cannot be organised in the same way everywhere  … ’ (4).	Full	IC and CMC
9. Transitions between activities	No explicit mention of transitions between activities.	Low	IC and CMC
10. Feedback	No explicit mention of feedback.	Low	IC and CMC
11. Family-professional partnerships	The work team should ‘cooperate with the home concerning the child’s upbringing, and discuss with parents the rules and attitudes in the preschool’ (9).	Partial	IC and CCD
12. Monitoring children’s learning	According to the curriculum, ‘each child’s learning and development’ should be ‘systematically documented, followed up and analysed so that it is possible to evaluate how the preschool provides opportunities for children to develop and learn in accordance with the goals and intentions of the curriculum’ (14).	Partial	IC and CCD

Note: Interesting and Clarifying, (IC). Cultural Matches and Confirmations, (CMC). Cultural Conflicts and Dislikes, (CCD).

Table 3. Themes and subthemes by forms, benefits, outcomes and feasibility.

Themes	Subthemes
Forms	One-on-One Professional Dialogues
	Small-Group Professional Dialogues
Benefits	Point of Departure
	Strengthened Recommendations
	Practice-Oriented Professional Dialogues
	Environmental-Oriented Professional Dialogues
Outcomes	Increased Knowledge
	A Bird’s Eye View and Critical thinking
	Quality Improvement Efforts
	An Enriched Professional Language
Feasibility	Concepts and Negotiations
	Accuracy
	Unfairness

Results

In this section, the results of the analyses are described, beginning with the results from a comparison between the ICP items and the Swedish national curriculum for the preschool.

More similarities than differences

The comparison between the ICP and the Swedish national preschool curriculum reveals more similarities than differences.

In both the ICP and the curriculum, adaptions in terms of space and materials, and equipment, adult involvement in peer interactions, adults’ guidance of children’s free-choice activities and play, conflict resolution, membership, relationships between adults and children and adaptations of group activities are stated as important. There is full accordance between these seven ICP items (1–6, 8) and the curriculum (Table 2).

Communication is stated as being important in the ICP and in the curriculum, but the ICP is more explicit about the importance of supporting children in their communication with peers. Family-professional partnerships, which can also be termed preschool-home-collaboration, are also given importance in both the ICP and the curriculum, but the ICP states, in contrast to the curriculum, that a written policy for such partnerships is necessary. Both the ICP and the curriculum state that it is important to monitor, document and analyse children’s learning. According to the ICP, this is important in terms of knowing whether children will reach their individual learning goals. The motive in the curriculum is different; children’s learning and development should be documented, followed up and analysed to evaluate how preschool staff provide opportunities for children to develop and learn. There is partial accordance between these three ICP items (7, 11–12) and the curriculum (Table 2).

The ICP puts forward the importance of organised transitions between activities in preschool as well as feedback from adults to children. The curriculum does not encompass these terms (i.e. transition activities and feedback), but states that children’s transitions between school forms should be facilitated and that staff should provide positive support to children and make sure children can develop a positive self-image. There is low accordance between these two items in the ICP (items 9 and 10) and the curriculum (Table 2).

The special educators’ reflections on the ICP

In the two first dialogue seminars, the special educators shared reflections on the instrument. They, for example, talked about items that were interesting, items that confirmed their own understanding about important inclusive practices and items that were/were not applicable in Sweden. Three themes that reflect the special educators’ views on the items of the ICP emerged in the analysis of data. The links between the ICP items and the three themes are presented in Table 2.

The first theme is entitled Interesting and Clarifying (IC). It reflects reflections in which the special educators described how the ICP was stimulating to read with its detailed descriptions of early childhood inclusion. According to them, it presented, in a detailed way, interesting indicators as to inadequate, minimal, good and excellent quality in terms of early child inclusion and made clear what quality early childhood inclusion means and can be in preschool. They said: ‘It has been very interesting to read the ICP’; ‘The ICP sheds light on aspects that are important to pay attention to in inclusive preschools’; and ‘The indicators are detailed and have been well thought out’.

The second theme is Cultural Matches and Confirmations (CMC). It captures the reflections in which the special educators stated how items of the ICP (in particular in terms of items 1–10) confirmed their own understanding of what constitutes a good or excellent early childhood inclusion as well as an inadequate or minimal quality. The theme also captures the reflections in which the special educators described how items of the ICP (in particular in terms of items 1–6, 8) were well-matched with the national preschool curriculum, the recommendations given to them from the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools, and their local action plans on such matters as discrimination and equality. One of them said the following about membership (item 5): ‘This is a very important item, we work with this topic a lot [during professional dialogues in preschools]’. Overall, the special educators were positive about the first ten items. Another of them said the following about transitions between activities in inclusive preschools (item 9): ‘Transition activities are very important’.

The third theme is Cultural Conflicts and Dislikes (CCD). It represents the reflections in which the special educators stated how the items of the ICP did not match their own understanding of quality early childhood inclusion. It also represents the reflections in which the special educators described how the items of the ICP (in particular in terms of items 11 and 12) were not well-matched with the national preschool curriculum, their work in the municipality, and national laws on such matters as individual learning goals and transferring documentation and information from other professionals to preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. These parts of the ICP (items 11 and 12) they resisted. Moreover, this theme represents the reflections of a special educator who said that the instrument was insufficient in terms of toddlers in preschool but referred more to older children in preschool and young students in compulsory school.

One-on-one and small-group professional dialogues informed by the ICP

In the additional two dialogue seminars, the special educators described their professional dialogues with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. Two forms of professional dialogues, informed by the ICP, were identified in their dialogues: One-on-One Professional Dialogues and Small-group Professional Dialogues (Table 3). An example of a described one-on-one dialogue between a special educator and a preschool teacher is the following:

During a one-on-one professional dialogue, a special educator presents the ICP to a preschool teacher working in a preschool for children with and children without special educational needs aged 1–3 years. They flip through the instrument, discuss its items and choose five items (1, 3, 6, 7 and 10) to evaluate and talk about in their one-on-one professional dialogues. With guidance from the special educator, the preschool teacher observes and assesses the preschool by means of the instrument. The special educator also assesses it. During the assessment, the preschool teacher struggles with negotiations and some interpretations. The special educator and the preschool teacher discuss the results of their assessments; which are similar. Their assessments show that improvement work is needed.

Small-group professional dialogues, informed by the ICP, were led by a special educator and attended by two or more preschool teachers and/or other preschool staff members. Together they concentrated on certain items, assessments and improvement efforts. There were also special educators who said that they combined one-on-one and small-group professional dialogues. Moreover, the special educators described how they implemented the instrument within their own group of special educators in order to gain a picture of the quality of early childhood inclusion in the municipality as well as insight into inclusive practices in need of attention and improvement work.

Perceived benefits of adopting the instrument in professional dialogues

In the additional two dialogue seminars, the special educators also described the perceived benefits of adopting the instrument in professional dialogues. Four subthemes were identified in their dialogues: Point of Departure, Strengthened Recommendations, Practice-oriented Professional Dialogues and Environmental-Oriented Professional Dialogues (Table 3).

The instrument was described as a positive starting point for professional dialogues on the topic of preschool inclusion. One of the special educators said: ‘It is a fantastic basis for discussion’. They also felt that the instrument strengthened their recommendations to preschool teachers and other staff members. One special educator had unsuccessfully recommended picture schedules; a professional dialogue informed by the ICP changed this situation. Another special educator explained this benefit as follows: ‘It is not only about what I [as a special educator] think  … or say’. She also said that ‘it is easier to talk about these matters [important inclusive practices] in relation to this [the ICP]  … than if you just say: Research shows, or my experience is’. Moreover, they felt that the instrument contributed to practice-oriented professional dialogues since the instrument did not only suggest what inclusive practices are needed in high-quality early childhood inclusion, but also provided examples of how these can be put into practice. Furthermore, they felt that the instrument generated professional dialogues that were concentrated on the work of preschool teachers and other preschool staff members, and not on children’s shortcomings. One of them said that it is positive that the ICP reminds preschool teachers and other preschool staff members of the role of the environment in relation to the occurrence of special educational needs.

Perceived outcomes of professional dialogues informed by the ICP

Moreover, the special educators in the additional two dialogue seminars described the perceived outcomes of professional dialogues informed by the instrument. Four subthemes were identified: Increased knowledge, A Bird’s Eye View and Critical Thinking, Quality Improvement Efforts and An Enriched Professional Language (Table 3).

According to the special educators, one outcome was increased knowledge about early childhood inclusion: Through the professional dialogues, informed by the ICP, the preschool teachers and other preschool staff members developed their knowledge about early childhood inclusion and evidence-based inclusive practices. In one case, a preschool teacher said to the special educator that she had not learnt anything new from the instrument. Another outcome was a bird’s eye view of early childhood inclusion amongst preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. They could view their work with early childhood inclusion from above, at a distance, by way of observations using the instrument. This facilitated and enhanced overall understanding and critical thinking concerning the inclusive practices implemented, according to the special educators. One of the special educators said: ‘They [the preschool teachers and other preschool staff members] are absolutely thrilled [after an ICP assessment]. They see so much during observations [structured observations]  … They can discuss this’. This special educator also gave an example of how the critical thinking of a preschool teacher increased as a result of this new view from above: The preschool, in which the preschool teacher worked, was described as inclusive, but the ICP observation (made by the special educator and preschool teacher) spoke against this description: The staff in this preschool, with the exception of a resource teacher, did not communicate much with the child with special educational needs; therefore, the child was not as socially or pedagogically included as the other children and the preschool not as inclusive as assumed. Another special educator also gave an example of how the critical thinking of preschool teachers and other preschool staff members increased on such matters as conflict resolution: In their preschool, there were those who implemented time-out. According to the instrument, this is not an example of high-quality support provision, and this they were now realising. One more outcome was quality improvement efforts. When the need for improvement was identified in professional dialogues, the preschool teachers and other preschool staff members made efforts to improve the quality of early childhood inclusion. According to the special educators, they started to implement support provisions (e.g. picture schedules), and strived to improve both their feedback practices and their conflict resolution (e.g. using hand puppets, visualisations and signs, as well as by setting up rules with the children). According to the special educators, the instrument also provided preschool teachers and other preschool staff members with new and useful words and expressions relating to preschool inclusion; this was perceived to ease processes of reflection and conversation in professional dialogues.

The special educators also described how the instrument increased their own knowledge about early childhood inclusion and provided them with new and useful words and expressions relating to preschool inclusion.

The special educators’ reflections on the instrument’s feasibility

Furthermore, the special educators, in the additional two dialogue seminars, described their reflections on the feasibility of the instrument. These also reflect the views of preschool teachers and other preschool staff members. Three subthemes were identified: Concepts and Negotiations, Accuracy and Unfairness (Table 3).

Two described challenges were interpretation of concepts and observations of concepts, e.g. the difference between attentive and very attentive; the meaning of a few and many; the difference between 5.1 and 7.1 in item 9; and the meaning of enjoyment and what enjoyment can be in practice. Indicator 5.1 reads as follows: ‘Adults consistently support children throughout the day who have difficulty making the transition between activities’ and indicator 7.1 reads: ‘Adults consistently support each child who has difficulty making the transition between activities throughout the day’ (Soukakou 2016, 28). This theme also encompasses described challenges related to the words no and not in the ICP. According to the special educators, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members, sentences including no or not were difficult to answer (with a yes or a no). One example, obtained from the ICP item 3, is the following: ‘Children are not allowed to choose play topics, activities, or playmates or explore toys of their choice during free-choice activities and play time’ (Soukakou 2016, 16). Another described challenge was to ensure accuracy when the time of an observation is limited and when only one observation is to form the basis for an assessment: It can, for example, be difficult to assess conflict resolution when there are only a few conflicts or to know that an observation is representative (e.g. a staff member during an observation may not act as he/she normally would). One more described challenge was the presentation of a low score on an item when some indicators under good or excellent quality were achieved. Two other challenges, also related to feelings of unfairness, are the presentation of a low score due to a lack of resources (e.g. there are preschool teachers and other preschool staff members who have the knowledge and skills, but who do not have good work conditions) and the presentation of a low score due to one staff member lacking knowledge and skills (e.g. one preschool staff member does not have the knowledge and skills and as a result, the preschool cannot attain good or excellent quality).

Discussion

The aim of the study was to examine the cultural validity of the ICP instrument in Swedish preschools and to investigate the instrument’s perceived usefulness in professional dialogues, conducted in a Swedish preschool context, between special educators, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members.

The results of this study show that the ICP, with few exceptions (i.e. 11 and 12), is valid in Swedish preschools. In the comparison made between the instrument and the Swedish curriculum for the preschool (i.e. the SNAE 2011), more similarities than differences were observed, and two out of the three themes reflecting the special educators’ reflections on the instrument were positively oriented. The difference between item 11 (i.e. Family-professional partnerships) and the curriculum is not crucial: The curriculum and the ICP state that preschool teachers and other preschool staff members should collaborate with parents. According to the ICP, the staff who work within a preschool should also request copies of children’s assessment results from previous assessments as well as ‘attend intervention planning meetings with service providers and families’ (Soukakou 2016, 32). The curriculum does not mention assessment results and meetings with service providers. Likewise, the difference between item 12 (i.e. Monitoring children’s learning) and the curriculum is not crucial: According to the ICP, the staff who work within a preschool should monitor children’s learning so that it is possible both to evaluate ‘children’s progress towards individual goals’ as well as to ‘discuss the learning profiles and progress of individual children’ (Soukakou 2016, 34). The curriculum does not recommend individual learning goals for children, but states that preschool teachers and other preschool staff members should systematically follow up, document and analyse children’s learning and development. The partial accordance between item 7 (i.e. Support for communication) and the curriculum does not suggest a conflict: Communication is stated as being important in the ICP and in the curriculum, but the ICP is more explicit about the importance of supporting children in their communication with peers. Likewise, the low accordance that is reported between item 9 (i.e. Transitions between activities) and the curriculum, as well as between item 10 (i.e. Feedback) and the curriculum, does not suggest a conflict; it reflects the fact that feedback and transition activities were not explicitly talked about in the curriculum. According to the special educators in this study, support for communication, support to children in transitions between activities and the provision of feedback are important in the context of the Swedish preschool.

The results of this study also show that the instrument can be useful for special educators conducting professional dialogues regarding early childhood inclusion with preschool teachers and other preschool staff members working in a Swedish preschool context. According to the special educators enrolled in this study, the instrument was useful in several ways: It functioned as a point of departure; strengthened recommendations; generated practice-oriented and environmental-oriented professional dialogues; increased knowledge; developed a bird’s eye view and increased the critical thinking; boosted quality improvement efforts; and enriched their and other staff members’ professional language. In point of fact, these benefits and outcomes seem more than what Soukakou (2012, 2016) had hoped for when she developed the instrument. It should be noted that the perceived benefits and outcomes reported about in this study relate not only to the instrument but also to dialogues informed by the instrument.

In this study, the special educators received nothing more than information from the first author of the instrument before using it. This is a limitation of the study. Soukakou (2016) recommends thorough training before use of the ICP. The lack of thorough training of the special educators enrolled, and of preschool teachers and other preschool staff members, might explain why certain challenges arose (i.e. interpretation of concepts and negotiations), but might not explain all of them (i.e. accuracy and unfairness). One possible reason for the challenge in terms of accuracy is that one observation was to form a basis for assessment. According to the special educators, one observation is not enough to ensure accuracy and representativeness. One possible reason for the challenge in terms of unfairness is the use of a 7-point Likert Scale in the ICP. According to the special educators, the presentation of a low score on an item can be unfair when indicators under the level of good or excellent quality are achieved as well as when the available resources in a preschool are too limited.

This study contributes with knowledge regarding the dialogue seminar method and confirms results from previous studies (Hammarén 1999; Larsdotter Bodin 2017; Ratkic 2006) suggesting that dialogue seminars can work as a data collection method as well as a tool for professional reflection and development. By way of the dialogue seminars conducted in this study, the special educators were not only given explicit opportunities to share their reflections to researchers, but also, it seems, embedded opportunities for learning. They explained how, for example, their knowledge about early childhood inclusion and inclusive practices increased and how their professional language was enriched. Hence, the dialogue seminar seems to be both useful and valuable whenever research and development are to be combined.

More research concerning the validity of the instrument and its perceived usefulness is needed; this is a small-scale study. Future research could investigate whether or not there are similar results in other contexts and nations, and in larger studies or with other instruments about early childhood inclusion: for example, the Inclusive Early Childhood Education Environment Self-Reflection Tool (The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2017) and the Building Blocks model (Sandall et al. 2008).

The study has relevance for those who work with early childhood inclusion in Sweden (e.g. school inspectors, special educators, preschool teachers and other preschool staff members) and elsewhere, and for those who plan to validate the instrument and investigate its perceived usefulness in a context pertinent to them. At the time of writing, quality education and inclusion are on the agenda in numerous contexts and nations, and a worldwide goal is in place (UN 2015; UNESCO 1994).

Authors’ contributions

JL planned the study, collected the data, performed the analyses and wrote the paper. ULB planned the study, collected the data, discussed and validated the analyses of the first author, and contributed to the revision of the paper.

Conference presentation

The study was presented at the ICPQIE, Intergenerational and Comparative Perspectives on Quality Inclusive Education, Stockholm University, June 22–25, 2018.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the preschool staff and special educators who shared their views.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Johanna Lundqvist is a Senior Lecturer at Mälardalen University, Sweden, in inclusive and special education. Her research interests are early educational pathways, support provisions and inclusive education.

Ulrika Larsdotter Bodin is a Lecturer at Mälardalen University, Sweden, in inclusive and special education. Her research interests are inclusive preschools, professional development and dialogue seminars.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by Mälardalen University, Sweden.