Inclusive ideals and special educational tools in and out of tact: didactical voices on teaching in language and communication in Swedish early childhood education

ABSTRACT

The aim of this research is to highlight didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools noted in the written reflections of 178 preschool teachers in 10 Swedish municipalities. The research questions are as follows: How do preschool teachers signify inclusive ideals in written reflections of teaching in language and communication in preschools? Which special educational tools emerge in the written reflections about teaching in language and communication in preschool, and how are these tools said to be used? The material was analysed with multi-voiced didactic modelling and didactical tact as a theoretical base. The results show that there are didactical voices on inclusion in the analysed material. The core foundation of the teaching appears to be built upon inclusive ideals where all children are involved, included and part of the group. Utterances of a more individual character are sparingly present. In our interpretation, the (special) educational tools that are brought to the fore are described and used in an inclusive way and are didactically modelled into more general, rather than specialised, tools.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusion
• multi-voiced didactic modelling in and out of tact
• preschool special education
• Swedish early childhood education
• teaching in language and communication

Introduction

This research focuses on inclusive ideals and special educational tools in early childhood education in a specific institutional setting: the Swedish preschool. Early childhood education to promote child development, learning and well-being is a field of education and research that has attracted political interest in recent years, both locally, nationally and international (EU, and OECD perspectives) (OECD 2012, 2017; Tallberg Broman 2015). Since 2011, the Swedish preschool is a separate school form, is included in the educational system, and conforms to the Education Act. Currently, the 1998 curriculum is under revision. In the latest revision proposal (Skolverket 2018), the mission of education and teaching is enhanced, and it is seen by the government as being the responsibility of preschool teachers. According to the Education Act, teaching in preschool is defined as goal-directed actions led by preschool teachers that direct children’s attention to stimulating ‘development and learning through the acquisition and progression of knowledge and values’ (SFS 2010:800, Chapter 1, Section 3). A recent quality audit (Skolinspektionen 2017) shows shortcomings in equality for children in need of special support; such children do not enjoy equal opportunities to benefit from preschool education. Palla (2018, n.p.) points out that ‘In an inclusive preschool, children’s well-being, development, and learning become central issues. All children are entitled to both receive the support and be presented with the educational challenges they are perceived to be in need of’.

In this study, ideals refer to a set of standards to strive towards. According to Haug (2016), international organisations – such as the European Union, UNICEF and UNESCO – share ideals when defining inclusion. Inclusion involves the right to education for all and is strongly value- and ideology-driven. Haug argues that although the majority of the European countries have acknowledged that inclusive education is central to securing equal educational rights for all, the practices of inclusive education differ greatly in many of the countries and even in and between educational settings. There seems to be a gap, he maintains, between formulations and realisations of inclusive education.

In this study, we use a broad definition (Göransson and Nilholm 2014) of inclusion as a policy, as a vision or as an ideal that concerns education for all children. Moreover, we construe inclusive education as a practice to meet the needs of all educationally, socially and spatially. In addition, special education in this study is defined as an educational practice in teaching in language and communication in preschool where educational inclusion may or may not occur. In this context, a special educational tool is regarded as a teaching tool that has its origin in a more narrowed special educational tradition regarding specific children with needs.

Conditions for an inclusive preschool

Inclusive education in preschool can be regarded as a rather multifaceted and complex area. Recent studies within the Nordic field have looked at the conditions under which inclusion occurs, in a spatial, social and educational sense. Regarding these conditions, Luttropp (2011) investigated the extent to which the interaction relationships and participation of children with and without developmental disabilities were consistent. The results indicated that children with developmental disabilities were included in the same situations as other children in the preschool: a spatial participation. Furthermore, the results strongly indicated no differences in participation in structured situations such as during meals and at assembly. However, children with developmental disabilities were less involved than other children in unstructured situations such as indoor and outdoor play.

Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) examined how young children with cochlear implants were involved in interactions with other children in the preschool, and how the implant itself created opportunities for participation. Their study showed that children with implants were active participants in interactions in the same way as other children. The study highlighted how both the cochlear implant and the adults’ skills were fundamental for participation. Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) explored whether and how conditions were created for deaf children in a bilingual preschool – a preschool with both children with a hearing loss or deafness and those without hearing impairments. The results of the study made clear that several key factors regarding the children’s acquisition of literacy constituted major educational challenges for the staff in environments that included both hearing and deaf children.

Research emphasises that there are great differences between preschools regarding organisation, resources and quality when providing education and care to children with special educational needs (Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016); this includes knowledge of and motivation to provide the special support many children are in need of (Sandberg and Ottosson 2010). Quality is associated with the teacher’s pedagogy and pedagogical competence, and further connected with aspects of equality. High quality in early childhood education, as well as in early special education, is crucial in enhancing inclusion and participation (Syrjämäki et al. 2017). Several studies highlight the need to develop expertise and to further develop quality in specific areas of inclusive education (Åmot 2012; Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna 2014; Lundqvist, Allodi Westling, and Siljehag 2016). For example, Gjermestad (2009) examined the characteristics of everyday dyadic interactions between children with severe developmental disabilities and the individuals these children have a close relationship with in the preschool. An important aspect of the result was how challenging it was for adults to interpret children’s creation of meaning from their physical and emotional expressions.

Inclusive educational challenges

The research conclusively finds that inclusive early education for all within the Nordic countries is considered a right. Recent Nordic research has analysed dilemmas and challenges related to this right, the results of which indicate that there are no simple solutions or answers to complex processes (Åmot 2012; Palla 2011; Warming 2011). How educational staff act is more often related to their immediate assessments in the moment (Åmot 2012), or their immediate pedagogy in difficult situations (Gjermestad 2009; Wetso 2006) than to evidence-based strategies (Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson 2008). For example, Gjermestad (2009, 240) claims that ‘the educational challenge means that interactions and teaching activities may be created and caught in the moment here and now’ (my translation). However, Åmot (2012) asserts that the immediate assessments which staff demonstrate are largely linked to their perception of the requirements contained in the policy documents.

In addition, early interventions indicate that longer training sessions and research projects directed at preschool staff result in positive effects for children (Bygdeson-Larsson 2010; Wetso 2006). Shorter researcher-initiated activities, as in Arnesen’s study (2014), do not show any significant difference in children’s development. Similarly, the results of an intervention study in the area of language and communication showed that intervention in the form of a few sessions had little effect, for example, in terms of verbal and nonverbal communication and play behaviours of children diagnosed with specific language impairment. Though the interventions had some positive impact on nonverbal communication and play behaviours, they had no significant effect on measures of language development (Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu 2010).

Cologon and Mevawalla (2017) focus on ways of increasing inclusion in early childhood in Australia. They regard key word signing (KWS), a specific part of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), which they define as a communication partner intervention, as a way of increasing inclusion. In their study, 196 early childhood teachers were educated in KWS and were then asked to develop ways of implementing this communication partner in early childhood practice. The main results of the perceived impact reported by the teachers were the following: When supporting communication development, KWS was seen as beneficial, as well as a partner that facilitated inclusion through reducing participation barriers, enhancing the sense of belonging and valuing diversity.

As a whole, the studies indicate that the preschool staff’s knowledge and skills, as well as their values and attitudes, are aspects that significantly affect the possibilities for an inclusive preschool to take place and for inclusive education to occur.

Aim and research questions

The central issue in this study is the relation between inclusive ideals regarding all children, or each individual child, and the relation between teaching tools for all and for individuals. Haug (2016, 215) argues, ‘there are few simple answers about how to proceed towards successfully implementing inclusive education. — All institutions must introduce their own processes from where they stand’. Teacher competence is essential in this matter and in need of development. This calls for empirical documentation. Furthermore, Swedish preschool teachers seem to struggle with the concept of teaching in their daily work, of which inclusive ideals and special education are regarded as integral. These issues were expressed and identified as problems at the beginning of a current R & D project (see note¹), in which this study is included. Since teaching is highlighted in recent preschool policies, as well as in preschool practice, it is essential to bring to the fore how professionals in preschool express inclusive ideals and the special educational tools that emerge in relation to the concept of teaching.

In a recent study, Palla and Vallberg Roth (2018) identify that children in preschool are the focus of teaching. Teaching in language and communication is characterised as omnipresent in preschool by preschool teachers and managers. While teaching is regarded as something that happens throughout the day, and in a verbal and communicative ongoing process, this picture is augmented with utterances describing teaching as a variety of delimited and planned activities and situations. Not only is teaching seen as unlimited and spontaneous, but also as delimited and planned. Both approaches are based on the pedagogical awareness of the preschool teacher.

With this background, the aim of the following research is to highlight didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools as noted in the written reflections of preschool teachers in ten Swedish municipalities. The research questions in focus are the following:

1. How do preschool teachers signify inclusive ideals in written reflections about teaching in language and communication in preschool?

2. Which special educational tools emerge in written reflections about teaching in language and communication in preschool, and how are these tools said to be used?

Material and methods

The material in this research consists of written answers to an open-ended question in a reflective document² collected during the spring and summer of 2016, that is, at the beginning of a three-year-long project. The question was as follows: What may characterise teaching in language/communication/multilingualism? The sample consists of 243 respondents representing their respective municipalities in a three-year research project.³ Of the 243 respondents, 178 were preschool teachers.

In the following research, delimitations are made. Firstly, the aspect of multilingualism is not taken into consideration to any great extent as it is not looked upon as a specific special educational area per se. Secondly, the delimitation of excluding responses from school managers is a result of the research being interested in a more practice-close level: what the professionals who work closely with the children on a daily basis relate has taken place at the preschool and activity level. In addition, preschool teachers constitute the professional group with teaching responsibilities, in accordance with the revised curriculum and the Education Act. The analysis is also narrowed to focus on the utterances of preschool teachers as a group. The number of participating preschool teachers in the various municipalities ranges between 3 and 42. There are no comparisons made between municipalities. This analysis comprises the answers of the 178 preschool teachers. The teachers work as general educators in public preschools, which are regarded as inclusive as they comply with the Swedish Education Act, and with the preschool curriculum, which expresses inclusive policies and visions.

Theoretical assumptions

The overall theoretical approach in this research is influenced by critical didactics (cf. Biesta 2011; Brante 2016). Critical didactics support critical reflection through alternative tools. In this research, the term ‘multi-voiced teaching’ is used where didactics may appear as multi-voiced in different ways (Vallberg Roth 2018). ‘Multi-voiced’ refers to many voices in many keys, which may be interpreted as multiple angles and a variety of approaches. In this research, it is related to questions of inclusive ideals (multiple angles) and special educational tools (variety of approaches) in texts about education in preschool. Inspired by the work of Russian philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, the Norwegian linguist Dysthe (1993) launched the concept of ‘the multi-voiced classroom’. More specifically, didactical modelling (Ingerman and Wickman 2015) is used as an analytical tool. In this research, a model is regarded as something that may simplify the complexity between individual and universal outcomes and make the teaching phenomena manageable.

Multi-voiced modelling may involve didactical components such as ‘didactical voices’, which in turn may be ‘didactically in or out of tact’, that is, in harmony or not. Didactical tact may be interpreted as between the presence and absence of didactical voices. Tact may be said to apply to the teacher’s room for manoeuvre (Vallberg Roth 2018; Vallberg Roth et al. 2019). van Manen (2015) argues for the need for pedagogical tact. He summarises this phenomenology of pedagogy as ‘knowing what to do, when you don’t know what to do’ (n. p.). Pedagogical tact refers to the relation between the teacher and the child, and more specific, the ethical and improvisational character of this relation. Active thoughtfulness, sensitive insight and the ability to act caringly in the immediacy of the moment, are central aspects of pedagogical tact.

Analysis

In the methodological dimension, the analysis refers to abduction. The abductive analysis moves between empiricism, open reading and theory-based tracing. The analysis consists of a textual analysis to highlight didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools, in a thorough and primarily qualitative way and through a special analytical lens (see Theoretical assumptions). In this research, this means that the important aspects of the analysis were the following:

Firstly, utterances were read in response to each question. In a process of repeated readings in a back and forth movement, relevant and prominent conceptions were highlighted and regarded as key concepts. The frequency of the conceptions was counted as an initial quantitative processing. The purpose of the quantitative processing was to stabilise the analysis of the comprehensive material and to reduce over-interpretations as, for example, confirmation bias. During the process, the material was repeatedly read in its individual parts and as a whole (cf. Vallberg Roth 2018).

Secondly, the analysis focused on how the concepts interacted with each other in their specific context. Examples of this could be the differentiation of ‘all children’ versus ‘every child’. Themes were identified and labelled. Finally, after several processes of reflection, the content themes were established as signs of didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools. When the content themes were established, certain aspects within the themes were further elaborated, as examples or characteristics of the theme in question (cf. Vallberg Roth 2018).

Thirdly, the results are presented in a narrative style, where examples are used to enlighten and exemplify the content in each theme. The preschool teachers’ own words are used in these descriptions. In addition, several examples may be presented together as a way to shed light on variation in a specific theme. Signs refer to the common traits that have emerged for a theme in question (cf. Vallberg Roth 2018).

In the process of repeated readings in a back and forth movement, relevant and prominent patterns were highlighted and themes established as signs of didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools. Inclusive ideals were grouped in two main themes: ‘Inclusive education for all children’ and ‘Inclusive education for every child’. Special educational tools were also grouped in two main themes: ‘The differentiation of methods and materials’, and ‘General and specific methods at the same time’.

In addition, a cohesive analysis was then performed in the light of multi-voiced teaching. This resulted in a focus where didactical components – such as ‘didactical voices’, which in turn may be ‘didactically in or out of tact’ – were brought to the fore.

The research ethics principles (Vetenskapsrådet 2017) have been followed in each part of this research. Ethical considerations were made continuously throughout the process, though the present study does not include any sensitive material. To ensure trustworthiness and reliability issues, the analysis was made as transparent and clear as possible. The generalisation in this research may be regarded as situated. This is an approach that is discursive, exploratory and sensitive; and one in which the reader interprets the extent to which the results can provide guidance in similar cases, situations and contexts outside this particular research (see Larsson 2009).

Results

The results are divided into two parts: ‘Inclusive ideals’ and ‘Special educational tools’. In the first, ideals in this analysis are defined as something more abstract and visionary than, for example, methods, tools or the like, which constitute the second part of the section.

Inclusive ideals

Inclusive ideals are grouped in two main themes: ‘Inclusive education for all children’ and ‘Inclusive education for every child’. The former comprises expressions about children as a group and the latter expressions about the individual child. Inclusive ideals also elaborate on the following angles: Children in general; The needs of the group; and, finally, Individual needs. Taken together, these narratives shape a kind of multi-voicedness when it comes to inclusive ideals in education on language and communication.

Inclusive education for all

The analysis addresses examples that can be categorised under the concept of ‘inclusive education for all’. Explicit expressions that can be linked to inclusive education and education for all are low-frequent in the material. ‘Inclusive’ as a concept is not explicitly expressed in any utterances. However, the concepts of ‘all’, and ‘everyone’ appear in the utterances in a few, though various, contexts. They are connected to aspects like play, the necessity to take all children’s languages seriously, and the benefits for all when including and enhancing all the different languages existing in the preschool group, for instance.

Organised games so that everyone has a frame of reference. Everyone can join in and understand rules.

It is important to take all children’s languages seriously, even the youngest ones that do not have any verbal language yet.

The teaching may be characterised by the teachers enhancing all languages and multilingualism as important, as something which enriches and benefits everyone in the group, as something we all can get new bits of knowledge from.

The utterances above are interpreted as ways of thinking of and planning the teaching, where everyone is included from the beginning. The education embraces all children, and this attitude or approach stands out as a core foundation for the teaching. When everyone is accounted for, no one has to be excluded from the planned or spontaneous teaching activities that occur.

Children in general

The material visualises children as a group and children in general, rather than children as individuals. The children are constructed as curious, interested, knowledgeable and participating and, to a certain extent, as needy.

It is the children’s interests and pieces of knowledge that steer the activity … 

Based on the children, which needs are there?

The needs of the group

The concept ‘needs’ is developed in a few texts. These more concrete descriptions relate to the group of children as a whole.

Engagement and creativity as a guide based on the needs of the group of children.

We document and reflect on the knowledge the group of children have in the different subjects, and we teachers listen to the children or see what knowledge the group needs.

Inclusive education for every child

The analysis addresses examples that can be categorised under the theme of ‘inclusive education for every child’, meaning the individual child. Explicit expressions that can be interpreted as didactical voices on ‘inclusive education for every child’ are also low-frequent in the material. However, a few examples, which may be seen as a kind of multivoicedness of ‘every child’, are connected to educational possibilities in preschool to offer a variety of activities to potentially fit the individual.

It may also be about offering many different ways to cater for means of expression, such as creativity, dancing and drama – so that every child can find his or her favorited way to express his or herself.

The teacher follows the children’s own initiatives and also presents activities thought to fit the group of children and the individual, that is, activities that challenge and stimulate the children’s learning and development.

Individual needs

The concept ‘needs’ may also relate to a specific ‘category’ of children, as well as to a single individual. Explicit utterances regarding the individual child are quite unusual in the material. The following example includes both a specific ‘category’ of children with perceived common needs – that is, the need to communicate in different ways, formulated as children who do not yet have any language – and a specific child: a boy with Down syndrome.

We have to help the children who do not have any language yet. — We help those who need it to communicate in other ways. At our preschool, we have a boy with Down’s Syndrome who needs support in the form of signing and sometimes pictures.

Special educational tools

This theme contains the more concrete tools that are enhanced in the analysed material. Initially, the theme presents a multi-voiced teaching and didactical model, through aspects comprising the following: The differentiation of methods and materials, and general and specific methods at the same time.

The differentiation of methods and materials

In the analysed material, a kind of multivoicedness on how teaching involves a differentiation of methods and materials emerges. This rather than, for example, use a spacial, achievement based, or knowledge-based level to differentiate the children, due to knowledge or likewise when creating conditions for, or organising, education. In this context, expressions that individualise the child, as well as those aimed at children in general, are represented.

It is important that everyone gets the opportunity to explore and develop the language in their own way.

One can express oneself in many different ways, for example, through sign support/language – if you lack speech, hearing, and so on – and through speaking to each other one-to-one, using gestures with multilingualism, and using digital media.

To allow for different forms of expression – verbal language, body language, gesturing and speaking slowly – one can use pictures and signs as support.

The differentiation also includes the availability of different materials that the children can choose from in educational activities.

Different language materials should be available to the children, which they can help themselves to and work with whenever they want.

Different language material is available to the children, for example, rhymes, story sequencing, prepositions, and so on.

General and specific methods at the same time

With its origin in special education, a specific method was frequently mentioned in the material: signing as support, or, more specifically, the Signing as Augmentative and Alternative Communication (SAAC) method.⁴ SAAC emerges in the texts as commonly used. Consequently, it can be viewed as a method at the centre of the intertwined relationship between general and special education (see also Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018).

Sign language, which is not the same as SAAC, is also mentioned, but it is not something that is further elaborated in the material; the same applies to using pictures as support. Taken together, the examples below can be interpreted as indications of SAAC being used as a more general, rather than special, teaching method. SAAC is said to be used to improve and to support communication and language development, and as a method used in the daily work.

Signing support to improve children’s opportunities to communicate.

We also use SAAC to support children’s language development.

The use of SAAC (support signs) in the daily activities.

In addition, there are also manifestations of SAAC being used to encourage children in certain difficult situations. The method then becomes more of a special educational method than a general one.

Use sign support to encourage children who are having difficulty communicating using signs to be able to express themselves.

The purpose of the usage of the methods is conveyed as tools for reinforcement and clarification in relation to the spoken language, as well as a complement to other teaching methods.

To use pictures and signs as reinforcement.

To speak clearly, to enhance the language with signs (SAAC).

The use of SAAC as a compliment.

On the whole, SAAC in this educational context is used as a teaching method that benefits all children, not only those who are perceived as in need of special support.

There are also verbalisations involving another method, or model, grounded in special education, in a sense: the Bornholm Model.⁵ In the analysed material, this method, or model, is not mentioned or explained as a complementary teaching method; rather, it is manifested as a more general model for all.

We also work with the Bornholm method with all five-year-olds.

The Bornholm method is proven to stimulate the language development of the children in a playful manner.

Our preschool works with the Bornholm Model from an early stage.

Language assemblies in small groups, where one stimulates the children’s linguistic awareness with the help of, for example, the Bornholm Model.

Inclusive ideals and special educational tools in and out of tact

Didactical voices on inclusive ideals have emerged in the analysed material. There appear to be no voices on non-inclusive ideals or education here. The analysis shows there is an absence of utterances that, for example, could relate to educational categorisations or organisation that might be viewed as segregating or excluding.

Based on the analysis, the (special) educational tools may be understood as being in tact with the overall inclusive ideals that have emerged, especially considering the didactical modelling of special educational methods into more general ones. In addition, when focusing on the presence and absence of utterances, the analysis entails when the didactical voices may be understood as out of didactical tact. In the material, there is a presence of utterances regarding all children, those children in the group, and group needs. However, there is a corresponding deficit, or absence, of utterances referring to the individual child, the individual’s need, as well as special educational tools for each individual child. This may be regarded as a didactical untact between the group and the individual.

Discussion

A definition of inclusive ideals may be said to involve inclusive settings with social, spatial and other environmental aspects (Luttropp 2011), as well as other possible conditions for enhancing or ensuring inclusive education (Gjermestad 2009). This analysis has focused on didactical voices in the analysed material that may be regarded as inclusive ideals when teachers reflect on education in preschool and teaching in language and communication, specifically.

In a previous study (Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018), conclusions were drawn that in relation to an occurring child-centred approach to teaching in language and communication in preschool, a special educational and inclusive educational perspective may also be enlightened. In accordance with the previous study, this present research indicates that it is primarily children in general and within the group that are portrayed, while only a few utterances contain concepts that may be related to a more individualised perspective.

In this context, the previous study (Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018) brought forward the question of what more individualised expressions regarding ‘every child’ might mean in less abstract terms in relation to teaching. There are, for example, no descriptions of non-inclusive forms of education in the analysed material. However, does the absence of exclusion mean that the teaching is inclusive? The current research has shown that there are in fact didactical voices of inclusion in the analysed material. The core foundation of the teaching appears to be built upon inclusive ideals where all children are involved and are seen as belonging and as part of the whole. The special educational tools that are brought forward are described, in our interpretation, as being used in an inclusive way.

However, this finding raises the question whether there is a potential risk that the inclusive approach – where all the children are seen a part of the whole – makes differential needs invisible, or toned down, and perhaps overlooks individual needs of support or challenges. The didactical voices are in tact concerning inclusive ideals and special educational tools for all children. However, they are not in tact with a more individualising perspective, involving the individual child and special educational tools for each.

Earlier research (Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna 2014; Kristoffersen and Simonsen 2013) points in this direction, emphasising that in inclusive settings the awareness of the teacher is even more important if educational inclusion is to occur. When it comes to children who are perceived as being in need of special support in preschool, the curriculum conveys the joint responsibility of the educational work team to ‘pay particular attention to and help children who need support in their development for various reasons’, as well as to ‘provide stimulation and special support to children who are experiencing difficulties of various kinds’ (Skolverket 2018, 1).

This brings us back to the question about equality as a matter of importance in an inclusive preschool. A recent quality audit (Skolinspektionen 2017) points out that ‘there are qualitative differences in how the analysed preschools work with children who have special support needs and that, as a result, children do not enjoy equal opportunities to benefit from preschool education’ (5). Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) indicate significant differences between preschools regarding knowledge of and motivation to provide the additional support that many children are perceived to be in need of.

In the current research, and in line with ideals of an inclusive preschool that enhances and enables equality, there are manifestations of both knowledge of and motivation to provide, at least, two specific methods of support. SAAC emerges in the analysed material as an established method in preschool. This applies to both the needs of specific individuals and teaching in general. According to Tisell (2009), SAAC was used mainly for children with autism, language difficulties, functional CP disorders or learning difficulties. This reference reinforces the conclusion that SAAC has evolved from specific special didactical support to a general method used in many preschools. As a consequence, SAAC may be described as being in the intersection between general education and special education. The method seems to have been didactically modelled to cover more, or even all, children in preschool (see also Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018).

The other method, or model, emphasised in the analysed material is the Bornholm Model. This model may also be characterised as residing in the intersection between general and special education, as it initially involved identifying and supporting children with reading and writing difficulties and dyslexia.

Earlier research on inclusive and special education in preschool highlights the need for educators to develop skills in areas with relation to teaching situations and activities, methods, and children with various disabilities in early childhood education and care (Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna 2014; Kristoffersen and Simonsen 2014). There may also be a need to enhance skills related to the child’s perspective and attitudes (Åmot 2012; Palla 2011; Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018; Warming 2011).

Improved teaching skills among preschool teachers, as well as developmental work with values and attitudes, may be perceived as tools for achieving greater equality and enhancing inclusive attitudes, where differences and diversity are, to a great extent, considered as resources that are thought and spoken about. Moreover, these elements more clearly constitute input in teaching than is evident in the analysed material. As stated, such teaching may be beneficial not only to children perceived as in need of additional, individualised support and challenges in early childhood in inclusive education, but also to all children.

The expressions interpreted as being more special educational orientated in the analysed material seem completely embedded in the discourse of the texts. The educational support and challenges do not happen outside of general education – which is said to occur during the whole school day, in all activities, spontaneous as well as planned – as long as the teacher uses her or his awareness. Such attitudes and ways of educating are in alignment with what earlier research (Bygdeson-Larsson 2010; Wetso 2006) point outs as effective when it comes to children’s development, learning and well-being.

To conclude, the intimate relationship between general and special education becomes clear in the analysed material. The lack of clear and delimited borders between the two becomes especially visible when it comes to the (special) educational methods that are used as more general teaching tools in the analysed material. One might wonder, therefore, why it is necessary, in research and in practice, to separate special education from general, or inclusive, education. This raises the questions, how and what it means when something or someone becomes special in the didactical modelling within the frames of multi-voiced teaching?

Methodological and ethical reflections

The research makes no claims to present a complete picture of the analysed material in all of its aspects. Rather, it should be regarded as a delimited focus on didactical voices that have emerged during the analysis of the material. The present research reflects on the question whether inclusion becomes something qualitatively different, when put in relation to education and teaching in language and communication, rather than just managing the children together in the same institutional setting. An overall approach in this research has been to highlight when and how didactical voices on teaching in language and communication may be understood, taking into consideration inclusive ideals and special educational tools.

Furthermore, it is likely that preschool teachers have ideas about inclusive education, special education and teaching that were not manifested in the analysed material, particularly as the question asked did not include these themes explicitly. The preschool teachers may very well, for example, be knowledgeable and resourceful in this area, regardless of what has become apparent in the analysed material, even though they do not explicitly refer to these themes to any great extent when they think and write about teaching in preschool. However, it was interesting to investigate whether, – and if so, which – didactical voices on inclusive ideals and special educational tools would emerge from a material built upon a general question regarding teaching. As the utterances of the preschool teachers vary in length, scope and depth, it was considered important not to over-interpret their answers. Finally, the identification of the didactical voices in and out of tact may be findings that can contribute to a force for change in preschool practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This specific research presentation is based on a larger research project (Vallberg Roth 2017). In collaboration with preschool teachers, preschool head teachers, administrative representatives and researchers, the project aims to further develop knowledge about what may characterise teaching and co-assessment in relation to scientific grounds and tested experience in approximately 130 preschools/or preschool departments situated in 10 municipalities (Bjuv, Landskrona, Lidingö, Svedala, Strängnäs, Trelleborg, Uppsala, Vaxholm, Åstorp, Österåker) in Sweden. The project is being carried out in partnership between Ifous (a Swedish acronym for Innovation, research and development in schools and preschools) and Malmö University (MU). A total of 3385 participants consented to participate in the project in the spring of 2016, including 2700 children/legal guardians and about 670 preschool teachers/child care workers/preschool head teachers/administrative managers. Of these 670 participants, 243 represent their municipalities on development teams that participate at joint national seminars and workshops at least twice a year. The project design is based on parallel case studies (series of cases) of teaching arrangements and didactically-oriented analysis. The following research is a delimited and immersed part of the study mentioned above (Palla and Vallberg Roth 2018), with a specific analytical focus on inclusive ideals and special educational tools.

2 The material as a whole consists of written answers to five relatively open-ended questions included in a reflective questionnaire administered to preschool teachers and managers, as follows:

The reflective questionnaire

1. What may characterise teaching in preschool?

2. What may characterise preschool teaching in

   1. music

   2. mathematics

   3. language/communication/multilingualism?

3. What may characterise an instructive preschool teacher?

4. What may characterise an organisation and leadership that promotes teaching in preschool?

5. What might characterise assessment and co-assessment in preschools?

3 The reflective questionnaire described above was distributed by email to all 243 respondents from the 10 municipalities. The instructions to the project participants were simply to answer the questions and then return the completed questionnaire by email. After four reminders, there was a total of 21 non-responders. The researchers had hoped to obtain a 100% response rate, and the four reminders probably influenced the number of responses. Overall, the response rate was 91%.

4 In the SAAC method, spoken language is augmented with the hand movements of sign language to clarify what is expressed verbally. The staff speak and sign simultaneously (Tisell 2009). According to Heister Trygg (2010), the most important aim of SAAC is for the child to acquire tools for linguistic interaction before speech has developed. The aim of SAAC is thus ‘to foster and build communication and language in harmony with each other’ (16).

5 The Bornholm Model, according to the website www.bornholmsmodellen.se, first appeared in 1994 and has since stimulated children’s linguistic awareness and prepared them for reading. The model is based on the Danish Bornholm Project, in which researchers followed two groups of six-year-olds for one school year. One group was the experimental group, who were given daily language games for eight months. The other group was the control group, whose teachers were given no special instructions on language games. There were pupils in each group who had been identified as potentially having dyslexia.