Cross-professional collaboration to improve inclusive education

Figures & data

Table 1. Analytic design.

Analytic step	Units	Expected findings
(1) Initial analyses of the reports’ field of activities, purposes, and scopes
Review of the reports’ priorities, purpose and scope	Sixty-six program reports from EPS-advisers participating in the SEVU-PPT program.	Descriptions of the field of activities, key players, purposes, and scopes
(2) Summative theory-driven content analyses of statements representing signature characteristics of IE.
Summative thematic content analysis	Terms and phrases signifying signature characteristics of IE: i.e. fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome	Representations of signature characteristics of IE
(3) Conventional content analysis of three selected reports to get insight in how fellowship, participation, involvement, and outcome are called attention to at different organizational levels
Close-up reading of three selected reports	Three illustrative examples focusing respectively on the municipal level, kindergarten/school, and the EPS collaboration with adjacent partners	Illustrations of how the signature characteristics of IE was used to promote inclusive practices

Table 2. Project reports overview.

Fields of activities	Projects (n)	Percent
Municipal level. Projects affecting most kindergartens/schools in a municipality	14	21
Kindergartens and schools. Projects carried out in a group/class of children (kindergarten 5 projects, primary school 32 projects and upper secondary education 7 projects)	44	68
EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners to strengthen the coordination of the efforts for vulnerable children and adolescents	7	11
Total:	65	100

Table 3. Concepts and terms representing signature characteristics of IE in the EPS advisers’ project reports.

	Fellowship		Participation		Involvement		Outcome
	M	Sd.	M	Sd.	M	Sd.	M	Sd.
Municipal level (n = 14):	19.5	5.5	2.2	(3.0)	2.2	(3.0)	3.4	(3.9)
Kindergartens and Schools (n = 44):	21.6	5.8	0.9	(1.1)	0.9	(1.1)	4.0	(3,1)
EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners (n = 7):	21.5	5.3	1.2	(1.3)	1.2	(1.3)	3.2	(1.0)

Note: (1) N = 1944 extracted utterances. (2) M and Sd. refers to the average use of the terms in the reports.

Figure 1. Cumulative percentage representation of the signature characteristics on the municipal level, kindergarten and school, and EPS’ collaboration with adjacent partners.