Teacher education for disability-focussed anti-oppressive pedagogy: the case for reconceptualisation

Abstract

Disability Studies scholars have extensively analysed how people with disabilities are oppressed in societies that devalue them. Teachers can promote change in thinking by presenting people with disabilities as people with multiple identities and experiences who are frequently oppressed. This paper explores how teachers can change their thinking and Reconceptualise their practices to this end. It reports on a two-year teacher education programme implemented in Cyprus. The participants were 59 teachers from pre primary, primary and secondary levels of education. The study analysed discussions with teachers held in seminars, lesson plans and the researcher’s diary. The findings suggest that teachers questioned dominant oppressive practices, became critical of and proposed alternatives to oppressive materials, began to think in terms of anti-oppressive Approaches, and planned and implemented anti-oppressive lesson plans. The discussion draws the connections between the findings and relevant research to consider changes that can advance teacher education for inclusion.

Points of interest

• This paper explores how teachers Reconceptualise their thinking and practices to raise disability awareness.

• The research team developed a teacher education programme, based on Disability Studies key ideas, such as the social model.

• The participants were 59 teachers from pre primary, primary and secondary levels of education.

• The data included recorded discussions with teachers held in seminars, lesson plans and the researcher’s diary.

• According to the findings teachers changed their initial views on disability and were able to develop lesson plans to raise disability awareness.

• The discussion suggests how teacher education can be improved to empower teachers raise disability awareness.

Keywords:

• Teacher education for inclusion
• inclusive education
• anti-oppressive pedagogy
• disability
• disability studies in education

Introduction

Disability Studies, as a discipline focussing on disability as a marker of identity, highlighted the social, cultural, historical and discursive issues that construct the concept of disability in different societies (Valle and Connor 2019). Given that its aim is to deconstruct the deficit-view of disability and illuminate its social construction, Disability Studies informed other scientific fields, such as Inclusive Education. Inclusive education scholars value the range of children’s diversity and the multiple markers of identity that characterise individuals, such as gender, race, class, language, disability etc., and the ways these intersect (Liasidou 2014; Pugach, Blanton, and Florian 2012; Pugach, Matewos, and Gomez-Najarro 2021). They also criticise the segregation and exclusion of particular groups of children from the mainstream school, due to their individual characteristics (Allan 2011; Alves 2020; Florian 2021).

Despite the growing literature in Disability Studies and Inclusive Education, it is argued that there is a need to look into disability in research focussing on social justice in teacher education (Morton et al. 2023). Sometimes, disability ‘is typically treated as an isolated marker of identity’ rather than as a social construct (Pugach, Matewos, and Gomez-Najarro 2021, 237). In contrast, disability is central in disability-specific studies in teacher education (Symeonidou 2017). Such research documents how teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and skills change after an undergraduate module on inclusive education and disability including fieldwork (Drelick et al. 2023; Forlin and Chambers 2011; Sharma, Simi, and Forlin 2015), how in-service teachers can promote inclusive education through school based professional learning approaches which encourage links between schools and universities (Ainscow 2016; Forlin and Sin 2017), and how teacher education is being transformed to consider national and transnational policy changes towards inclusion (Alves 2020; Buchner and Proyer 2020).

The critique of treating children with disabilities as objects to be assessed, labelled and treated through segregating special education provision led to the development of Disability Studies in Education (DSE). DSE scholars acknowledge the need for disability to be viewed as a marker of identity that intersects with other identities and recognise that the convergences with other disciplines need to be addressed in teacher education (Connor et al. 2008; Liasidou 2014). At the same time, they argue that there are disability specific issues that can be raised through disability arts, disability films and narratives (Allan 2014; Baglieri and Lalvani 2020; Tsakiri 2020; Valle and Connor 2019; Ware 2001, 2008). Educating teachers on disability-focussed anti-oppressive pedagogy is also considered important (Beckett 2015). Nevertheless, there is little research on the actual process which teachers go through when they engage with disability issues/materials and anti-oppressive pedagogy. The study presented in this paper aimed to shed light to the process of teachers’ learning and its complexities. Adopting a DSE theoretical framework, the study sought for answers to the following research questions: How do teachers change their perceptions on disability and disability related issues through their engagement with DSE values and anti-oppressive pedagogy ideas? How do teachers reconceptualise their practices to promote active empathy, in the context of disability-focussed anti-oppressive pedagogy?

Theoretical framework

DSE aims to combine Disability Studies and Inclusive Education and develop research, policy and action that, among others, ‘privilege the interests, agendas, and voices of people labelled with disability/disabled people’ (Connor et al. 2008, 448). In the last two decades, scholars are concerned with the non-inclusive nature of existing teacher education programmes. For example, they criticise the ideological orientation of separate initial teacher education programmes that create either general or special teachers (Buchner and Proyer 2020; Guðjónsdóttir and Óskarsdóttir 2020; Siuty 2019). Arguably, these programmes supply mainstream schools with general teachers who feel unprepared to educate/include all children, and with special teachers who are considered the experts to educate children with disabilities (Florian 2021; Valle and Connor 2019; Zoniou-Sideri and Vlachou 2006). Researchers also note that even attempts to merge special and general education programmes lack a genuine inclusive education ideology (Young 2008). Deficit-based assumptions, associated with the medical model of disability (which views people with disabilities as unable objects with inherent problems who need treatment), are still in place in a number of university modules. Such modules inevitably engage teachers in discussions about ableism by focussing on different types of impairments, elaborating on the tools for assessment, and describing individualised education approaches (Guðjónsdóttir and Óskarsdóttir 2020). Consequently, ableist thinking, which views people with disabilities as inferior, less capable, and in need of separate treatment, is not challenged in the way activists with disabilities who support the social model of disability (which views disability as a social construct) and DSE scholars would expect (Bolt 2019; Collins 2013; Karagianni 2014). Siuty (2019) argues for the need to turn towards ‘critical inclusive teacher preparation’ to enable teachers disrupt dominant ideologies and develop ideologies of resistance, informed by the DSE framework.

Sociologists of education proposed that teacher education for inclusion curricula should privilege the voices of people with disabilities, rather than the voices of special education experts (Barton 2003; Tomlinson 1982, 2017). Back in 2003, Len Barton argued that:.

A valuable innovation in future courses which would be part of the intention to enhance inclusive thinking, values and practices, would be to include disability/equality awareness training as an essential part of course provision. This would be taught by qualified trainers. (pp. 21–22)

Within this line of thinking, Ware (2008) was among the first scholars to work with teachers, using disability arts. According to the findings, the discussions and activities that emerged from a documentary and other materials highlighting the voices of people with disabilities, had an impact on most teachers’ thinking. Most of them were exposed to the experiences and voices of people with disabilities for the first time and came to realise that disability is socially constructed. Ware’s argument for a teacher education curriculum that encourages ‘close engagement with the arts, and in dialogue with disability studies scholarship’ (Ware 2008, 581) was embraced by other DSE scholars who supported and/or implemented this kind of curricula (Allan 2014; Connor and Bejoian 2007; Peters and Reid 2009; Symeonidou 2019, 2022).

I would argue, however, that this is a path in teacher education that has attracted less attention, compared to the need to develop teachers’ skills to educate children with disabilities. In my view, developing teachers’ positive attitudes towards disability and diversity to an extent that they can pass them on to their students is a missing piece of the puzzle. Beckett’s (2015) typology of anti-oppressive pedagogies guided my previous work in teacher education, and led to the development of teacher education programmes infused by the tenets of DSE and developed around disability arts and disability experiences (Symeonidou 2019, 2022, 2023; Symeonidou and Loizou 2018). Previous research with teachers who participated in a professional development programme helped define the elements of oppressive and anti-oppressive pedagogies (Symeonidou and Chrysostomou 2019), which are presented below.

In particular, the epistemological principle of oppressive pedagogies is that disability is understood as the opposite of ability, whereas in anti-oppressive pedagogies disability is seen as a complex condition. In oppressive pedagogies the person with a disability is understood as different/same, whereas in anti-oppressive pedagogies the person with a disability is seen as equal. Oppressive pedagogies promote empathy by presenting disability as a pitiful condition that could happen to ‘us’ and therefore we need to ‘love’ people with disabilities, whereas in anti-oppressive pedagogies disability is presented as lived experience and children’s critical thinking in relation to the violation of rights is developed. In relation to curriculum and teaching, in oppressive pedagogies knowledge, attitudes, and skills in relation to disability issues are presented as separate issues in specific curricular goals and are fragmented. The person with a disability is presented as a passive citizen. Simulation activities prevail alongside disability related texts written by people without disabilities. In anti-oppressive pedagogies, knowledge, attitudes, and skills in relation to disability issues are infused throughout the curriculum and are connected. The person with a disability is presented as a citizen with agency. In oppressive pedagogies the possibilities for transformation are less, since children may reproduce stereotypes and become oppressors themselves, whereas in anti-oppressive pedagogies, children may recognise social oppression and take action.

The concept of empathy, which is one of the elements understood differently by oppressive and anti-oppressive pedagogies, is important for scholars in teacher education. In a previous paper, I focussed on empathy and I suggested a framework of teacher education for Re-empathy (Symeonidou, under review). According to this framework, educating teachers for Re-Empathy entails supporting them to Reflect on oppressive attitudes and beliefs about disability and recognise the problems in promoting ‘passive empathy’, that is merely empathising with those who are considered the ‘Other’ (Boler 1999). It also entails providing space for discussion and interaction that encourages them to Reconceptualise their practices, and Recosnider their day-to day practices. In this process, teachers are presented with key Disability Studies concepts (e.g. medical and social models of disability, ableism-disablism, etc), are encouraged to reflect on oppressive and anti-oppressive materials and practices, and make their own suggestions and decisions for practice that promotes ‘active empathy’ (Boler 1999) and ‘empathy for inclusion’ (Symeonidou, 2023). ‘Active empathy’ is about taking active responsibility to contribute in overcoming oppression, and ‘empathy for inclusion’ is about the use of language and practices that value diversity and disability as a state of being. This process is not linear, as teachers revisit the steps during their interaction with the teacher educators and their colleagues. In parallel tracks, there is a need for teacher education to consider ‘strategic empathy’ (Zembylas 2012; Zembylas and Papamichael 2017), which is linked with educating teachers about how they can face their own fears about sensitive issues and their students’ resistance to reconsider dominant stereotypes and beliefs. This paper seeks to shed more light to one part of the process in teachers’ learning, namely the Reconceptualisation of practices.

Methodology

The aim of the study was to investigate how teachers’ perceptions and practices concerning disability issues change though a teacher education programme that considered the national context (see Symeonidou 2002a, 2002b; Symeonidou and Mavrou 2020), and combined DSE theory and anti-oppressive pedagogy. Given that DSE and anti-oppressive pedagogy comprise the theoretical framework with which the author-researcher of this paper adopts, a deductive research approach was followed (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2018). Therefore, the hypothesis was that if teachers were exposed to a teacher professional development programme that embedded the ideas and values of DSE and anti-oppressive pedagogy, they would gradually change their perceptions and practices about disability related issues. In addition, if the design of the professional development programme considered the teachers’ pre-existing perceptions and practices and provided the opportunity to reflect on specific perceptions, materials and practices that do not comply with DSE and anti-oppressive pedagogy, this could further contribute to changing their perceptions and practices. Last but not least, it was hypothesised that if teachers were intensively supported in their attempts to develop lesson plans which embedded the principles of DSE, they would follow some or all the Approaches of anti-oppressive curriculum development.

The programme was developed and implemented in Cyprus by the author of this paper, with her capacity as a teacher educator at the University of Cyprus. Overall, 59 teachers, 52 female and 7 male, participated in the programme: 9 early childhood education teachers, 33 primary education teachers and 17 secondary education teachers. Two teachers had no teaching experience, whereas the experience of the rest ranged: 1–5 years (6 teachers), 6–10 years (12 teachers), 11–20 years (22 teachers), and 21–30 years (17 teachers). One of the participants was a head-teacher. Fifty-one teachers had a masters degree and three had a PhD. Two female teachers had chronic illness (Crohn’s disease and Myasthenia gravis). Teachers joined the programme voluntarily, with a commitment to participate in the meetings organised by the research team, which would last about 2 h on a monthly basis. The programme had the nature of a professional development activity for which they received a certificate. For the aforementioned reasons, no progress markers were set.

The programme was divided in two Phases. Phase 1 (2020–2021) entailed school-based teacher education. Thirty-four teachers from eight schools participated in this phase (one kindergarten, five primary schools, two gymnasiums). During meetings with the research team, teachers were informed about key theoretical concepts in Disability Studies through materials produced by people with disabilities (e.g. sculptures, paintings, poems, interviews, video-taped speeches, etc.). They were then supported to develop their own lesson plans. Although the key concepts and materials presented to them were decided by the research team, teachers’ needs were considered to an extent. In particular, the content considered the analysis of interviews with teachers. In addition, teachers who engaged in lesson planning were encouraged to choose the topic and materials themselves, based on their interests and priorities. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Phase 2 (2021–2022) entailed an online series of ten 2-h seminars. Nine teachers continued from Phase 1 and 25 teachers were new in the programme. Two groups of teachers were formed to facilitate group discussions and interactions. The goals and nature of the seminars of Phase 2 were similar to Phase 1.

This paper reports on part of the data collected throughout the study: (a) 20 recorded discussions held in Phase 2 online seminars (10 recorded discussions for each teacher group); (b) 11 teachers’ lesson plans and 6 distance learning activities, and (c) researcher’s diary. Another paper, which reports on the same study, presents the findings about teachers’ conceptualisations of disability (i.e. ability, disability, state of being) and empathy, and is based on the analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted prior to the professional development programme, recorded discussions and teachers’ reflective diaries. All teachers were informed about the aim of the study and the teacher education programme, and provided their informed consent for recording, saving, and analysing the data for research purposes. They were also reassured that their anonymity would be protected, and thus, pseudonyms are used. Given the changes in teachers’ lives due to the Covid-19 pandemic, decisions about supporting them to remain engaged in the programme without feeling pressure were taken during the study. For example, although submitting at least one lesson plan during each Phase was initially a requirement, eventually this became optional and teachers could submit a lesson plan or a distance education activity only if they had the time and energy to develop it. Furthermore, during Phase 2, if teachers were unable to attend the online seminars because they or members of their family were infected with Covid-19, the research team offered individualised meetings at a later time to provide updates on the content and discussions held in previous seminars. This was the best that could be done under Covid-19 decisions.

Two approaches in data analysis were taken. First, a memo (Patton 2002) was created for teachers who developed one or more lesson plans, to facilitate an understanding of their initial ideas, the decisions they made until they finalised each lesson plan based on communication with the research team and the given three options for anti-oppressive Approaches, and how the lesson plans were related with their profile and identities. Second, a thematic analysis was undertaken for the recorded discussions with teachers, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six steps. Moving from familiarising ourselves with the data and developing initial codes, broader thematic categories were developed. These entailed themes related to teachers’ perceptions about oppressive or anti-oppressive practices, ability to criticise oppressive practices and propose alternative approaches, thinking in terms of anti-oppressive Approaches in thinking. Based on these themes, thoughts about their inter-connectedness with reconceptualising practices for anti-oppressive education were made, which could perhaps lead to a new concept in anti-oppressive education. The themes were reviewed, defined and named. Finally they were associated with data extracts.

These were analysed with other data that are not used in this paper (e.g. teachers’ interviews and self-reflective diaries). The development of the coding frame entailed a good knowledge of the data, an initial attempt to develop relevant codes, and a trial coding of 10% of the data by the two researchers who comprised the research team (i.e. the author of the paper and a research assistant with good knowledge on disability issues). This process led to changes in the initial coding frame. The ways teachers Reconceptualise their perceptions and practices, which is of interest in this paper, was one of the key coding categories, and some of the relevant codes were teachers’ reflections on materials they used in the past, teachers’ questions about disability related activities they conducted in the past, teachers’ suggestions of using materials produced by people with disabilities, etc. The data were coded in the qualitative data analysis software ATLAS.ti.

Findings

The data analysis indicates that the process of changing their perceptions of disability and reconceptualising their teaching practices to promote active empathy is linked to four themes: (1) Questioning oppressive practices - thinking in a new direction; (2) Being critical of and proposing alternatives to oppressive materials; (3) Familiarising with and beginning to think in terms of anti-oppressive Approaches in teaching; and (4) Learning through planning and implementing anti-oppressive lesson plans. This section presents the findings for each theme.

Questioning oppressive practices - thinking in a new direction

A significant number of teachers entered the programme believing that passive empathy activities were ideal. During the introductory online seminars, they talked highly of disability simulation activities, visits to special schools and disability awareness events/days. It was interesting to observe that during one seminar, which focussed on the role of the mass media in constructing disability stereotypes, teachers drew the links with their practices, without directly being asked to do so. However, the findings of a study presented to them, sparked their reactions. The study sought for kindergarten children’s perceptions of disability before and after a popular charity event advertised by the media, known as Radio-Marathon. After realising that the rhetoric used at school to support this event constructed an ableist understanding of disability, some teachers shared their questions and concerns about the practices they have been following.

I am now concerned… In the kindergarten, there are some lessons that are ‘a must do’. Mathematics teacher educators promote them. For example, ‘The body’ is a unit associated with teaching numbers 1 and 2 by presenting photos of the body with two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears… For example, we do a graph with numbers 1 and 2 and ask children if we have 2 ears, 2 eyes, 1 nose etc. Is this appropriate? (Eliza, early childhood teacher, seminar 4, group A)

I always use a video with a ballerina without hands and I expect students to admire her. But I realise now, perhaps I should use it differently? In a unit about dance? (Afrodite, early childhood teacher, seminar 4, group A)

During the seminars, examples of active empathy practices were presented. Teachers began to see the value of promoting active empathy, and shared specific questions about practices they were thinking to develop, which related to their own experiences. Following the presentation of a raising awareness programme in which a person with physical disability talked to children about his life, a kindergarten teacher with a chronic illness asked a question that was linked to her own experience, and her ideas about teaching:.

I wanted to ask whether you had made an agreement with Mr X. [person with physical disability] on how he would approach children or if he decided about what he was going to say himself. […] The reason I am asking is because I know that people with disabilities, like all people, we are different. I am thinking that I might develop a unit related to disability, so I am thinking that we should be careful about the person we will invite. […] There might be a person with a disability who constantly moans and complains, like a person without a disability. (Eliza, early childhood teacher, seminar 6, group A)

This kind of questions and concerns, either about practices they have been doing or practices they were thinking to develop, were the first step in the process of reconceptualising practices.

Being critical of and proposing alternatives to oppressive materials

The second step was to deconstruct taken-for-granted materials. In the following quotes, the teachers strongly criticise a text from the Greek Language school text book entitled ‘In the position of the other’. The text was included in a unit about different forms of racism, and invited the students to imagine how difficult it is to be a person with a disability. Among others, it suggested that students should cover their eyes and their ears to experience how hard it is for people with disabilities to function. It is worth commenting on the fact that teachers used key concepts they learnt in previous seminars (shown in italics in the quotes) both to criticise the text and to suggest alternative ways of working, taking a more active role as teachers and expecting their students to do so.

It repeats the word ‘problem’ and promotes negative attitudes towards disability; the poor children that we need to feel sorry about… (Catherine, secondary education teacher, seminar 5, group A)

It conveys the message of pity; these children are inferior and they can’t do what we can do. It points to the medical model of disability. (Anthi, early childhood education teacher, seminar 5, group B)

Even the title segregates, it says ‘the other’. The text aims to promote empathy by placing you in the position of the other. It is part of oppressive pedagogies. (Thekla, primary education teacher, seminar 5 group A)

The text targets children without disabilities, which is dangerous, because there are children with disabilities in each class. It causes emotions of guilt because it suggests that some people are not capable of understanding their fellow citizens. It says that ‘some of us have difficulties walking in other people’s shoes’. (Daphne, secondary education teacher, seminar 5, group A)

In the second round of the discussion, teachers proposed and justified alternative ways of working to promote critical thinking and active empathy.

I could ask them to see this text from a critical lens. I would ask them to critically reflect on whether what the author asks, is appropriate. Maybe, if I found a text based on the social model, we could compare the two. (Afrodite, early childhood teacher, seminar 5, group A)

I would use another text or an interview of a person with a disability. A text that would point out, not only that they experience racism, but how they want people to see them and how they want their life to be without incidents of racism. (Thekla, primary education teacher, seminar 5 group A)

We could use photos showing that access for people with disabilities is denied in particular services or in the parking. Students could be asked to comment which rights are violated in those photos. (Daphne, secondary education teacher, seminar 5, group A)

In one of the seminars, where we discussed the strengths and limitations of the book ‘Susan laughs’ [a popular book presenting the daily activities/emotions of a girl with physical disability in a realistic and humorous way], some of the teachers contrasted it with books referring to ‘difference’ (e.g. characters with of ‘different’ physical appearance, ‘different’ colour, wearing glasses).

Claire: I would like to mention that some children’s books, particularly those written by Giolanda Tsoroni [a Greek author who wrote ‘books promoting emotional intelligence’] guide the reader to the wrong conclusion. I bought those books for my daughters and for the children at school, but we no longer use them, even though they are considered as ‘top’ books.

Evelyn: Oh no, I used them all except for one.

Antigoni: Do you have any children’s books to suggest? (seminar 5, group B)

Such discussions took place in both teacher groups and on different occasions. Teachers drew the links with materials they have been using, and sometimes felt guilty for not realising that they were oppressive. In their questions to suggest books with an anti-oppressive stance, the research team recommended some books, but at the same time, reminded them of the key-theoretical principles that could guide them in selecting books and other materials.

Familiarising with and beginning to think in terms of anti-oppressive Approaches in teaching

As part of the exploration of anti-oppressive pedagogy, the teachers were presented with three Approaches they could follow, followed by examples of relevant practices. Approach 1 suggested the development of a new unit (not included in the school textbooks) with explicit reference to disability issues (e.g. the right of people with disabilities to alternative communication). Approach 2 provided the opportunity to modify an existing unit that referred to racism/disability (e.g. forms of racism). Approach 3 was about modifying an existing unit by incorporating materials produced by people with disabilities, without making a direct reference to disability issues (e.g. a school unit about friendship could be modified to include an interview extract from a person with a disability talking about friendship).

After being presented with these Approaches, teachers began to draw the links with their everyday practice. Most of them expressed their preference to Approach 3, mainly because: (a) they felt it is a ‘safe’ way to approach disability issues, (b) it is useful for introducing students to disability issues, and (c) it is more relevant to particular subject areas.

I prefer Approach 3. I followed it last year and I felt comfortable with it. I rejected some texts, and substituted them with others. Now, there is a painting in the Music text book and I want to use it alongside another painting by a person with a disability. (Thekla, primary education teacher, seminar 6, group A)

I think that it is easier for children to approach disability indirectly. Disability can be placed ‘discretely’ in the units. Children begin to ‘suspect’ that there are disability issues linked with each topic. After creating the ‘base’ we could move to a unit that directly approaches disability issues. (Michelle, primary education teacher, seminar 6, group A)

I prefer Approach 3 because it is easier to use in Music lessons, which is my subject area. I need to teach particular topics in Music (Lydia, secondary education teacher, seminar 6, group B)

A small number of teachers felt that Approach 2 could also be implemented, given the oppressive ways that issues associated with racism and discrimination are approached in the National Curriculum and school textbooks. A primary education teacher stated:.

I believe that many texts included in the Greek Language school text books, aiming to promote anti-racism, need to be replaced with texts written by people with disabilities we can find in the digital archive [presented in the programme] (Margarita, primary education teacher, seminar 5, group B)

Very few teachers said that they would follow Approach 1 because they felt that it requires good knowledge of disability issues. A primary education teacher stated:.

I would like to be in a position where I could follow Approach 1, but personally, I feel it would be difficult for me at this point. I would like to feel comfortable to develop materials and make direct references to disability, and to have the self-confidence to discuss disability issues directly, as it is required in Approach 1 (Evelyn, primary education teacher, seminar 6, group B)

However, they recognised that this was an approach that they followed in the past, albeit in ways that were not in line with anti-oppressive pedagogy (e.g. they developed lesson plans aiming to encourage students admire people with disabilities).

In one of the seminars, the biography, songs and video-clips of Stelios Pissis were presented to initiate discussion about how they could be used in teaching. Pissis is a compositor with muscular dystrophy who composes music using a software that detects eye movement. Teachers expressed a range of ideas falling within Approach 3, and the following quote from a teacher who reports on the discussion she had in a small group (breakout room) with two other teachers, is a representative example.

This material is ideal for an interdisciplinary approach. In Greek Language, we could use the material to discuss the profession of the compositor. We can also use his biography to ask students to develop questions for an interview. In Life Skills, we could use the material to discuss the five dimensions of the self, which include the body, and point out that there are different bodies. His music could be used in Music lessons. For example, we could listen to his music, analyse it, and ask the children to write lyrics. In addition, I had never thought of talking to students about how technology contributed in the advancement of the world. It would be very useful to comment on how technology supports people with and without disabilities in their inventions. (Alexandra, primary education teacher, seminar 7, group A)

It needs to be noted that a few teachers expressed their fears about materials that most teachers judged as promising. For example, a teacher disagreed with using the image of Stelios Pissis lying on his bed, having a tracheostomy tube for oxygen supply.

I wouldn’t use some of the videos you showed us […] Sometimes, this kind of images are disturbing for some children, they put them into a difficult situation. […] You never know what a child goes through at home. After all these years in education, I avoid blunders, and I am very careful on what I present. I would prefer to read a text without an image. If I present an image, students may take the wrong messages. (Fiona, secondary education teacher, seminar 7, group A)

Several discussions took place during the seminars aiming to encourage teachers to accept and appreciate the diverse images of disabled bodies, and surpass their fears to share such images with their students. Some of the teachers appreciated the suggestions, but a few teachers did not change their mind.

Learning through planning and implementing anti-oppressive lesson plans

The fourth step is the learning process that takes place when teachers engage in the process of planning and implementing anti-oppressive lesson plans or distance education activities. Overall, 11 lesson plans and 6 distance education activities were developed, adopting different Approaches. All teachers received support and feedback during the process. Some of them shared their experiences during the online seminars. One of the teachers, Daphne, taught Home Economics in the secondary school, and had a chronic illness herself. She is an example of a teacher who, during Phase 1, moved from Approach 3 to Approach 1, while at the same time she considered the National Curriculum.

Approach 3

I followed Approach 3 and developed a lesson plan about Folk Art. The topic was not linked to disability, but in the introductory activity, I used paintings by Triantafillos Eliades [mouth painter] and sculptures by Petros Roukoutakis [blind artist] showing folk art, such as basket weaving, etc. I remember you [the research team] advised me to use paintings from artists with and without disabilities so that the material was balanced. I prepared a power-point presentation with all the paintings. I included the name and a photo of the artist on each slide. (seminar 6)

Approach 3

In the unit ‘Development of the self’ we had the topic of how to deal with stressful conditions. In the final test, I used an extract from Carolina Pelendritou’s [Paralympic swimmer with visual impairment] interview. In the extract, she talked about the stressful conditions she faced at different stages of her life, how she dealt with negative attitudes, etc. She mentioned everything that was included in the school textbook! […] This worked. Apart from the fact that the students did well on the test, they wanted to know more about the athlete. (seminar 5)

Approach 1

• The Home Economics Curriculum included a unit entitled ‘Difference on the basis of disability’ (3^rd grade of gymnasium). The goals were: (a) the development of empathy towards people with disabilities, through the understanding of their difficulties, and (b) the acceptance of the rights of people with disabilities. The Curriculum suggested disability simulation activities.

• Daphne set goals around the violation of the rights of people with disabilities and the development of active empathy. She developed her own unit entitled ‘The rights of people with disabilities’. She rejected the suggested activities.

• She developed four case studies of people with disabilities as (a deaf sign language teacher, a Paralympic athlete, and two people with physical impairments using wheelchairs; one being a poet and an activist, and the other a photographer).

• She formed student groups who studied material related to the four people (e.g. interviews, photos, videos) and discussed questions related to their rights, e.g. What do athletes with disabilities/people with hearing impairments ask from the state? Which rights are violated in the text you have read?

Homework: List and comment on the accommodations provided by our school to people with disabilities. (Extract from Memo)

This example is useful because it indicates that although Approach 3 was perceived as the ‘safest’ and was the most appealing to the teachers, it also has a level of difficulty. Looking into the data (Researcher’s diary and Memo), it is clear, that the research team provided essential feedback in the lesson plan falling in Approach 3, but no significant feedback was given in the lesson plan adopting Approach 1. The feedback provided concerned mostly suggestions to use appropriate terminology (e.g. ‘reasonable accommodations’ instead of ‘facilities’, avoid referring to people with disabilities with an abbreviation). It is worth noting, that a few months later, this particular teacher contacted the Home Economics inspector to report why the content of the National Curriculum is oppressive and needs to change.

Discussion

The findings provide evidence to suggest that teachers go through different stages to Reconceptualise their practices. The findings also suggest that the process differs from teacher to teacher, and each one of them makes different connections at each stage. Nevertheless, the process is informed by the voices, experiences and artwork of people with disabilities. It is also influenced by the discussions between the teachers themselves, and the interaction between teachers and the research team. The discussion draws the connections between the findings and relevant research in the field, and considers some changes that can advance teacher education for inclusion.

To begin with, I would argue that it is crucial to work with teachers at all levels (knowledge, attitudes and skills for disability and equality awareness), rather than equipping them with tips for practice and ready-made lesson plans (Damianidou 2021). The latter promotes passive empathy through ‘Education about the Other’ (Beckett 2015) and silences significant DSE issues that teacher education is expected to raise. Both theory and personal experiences of disability, situated in particular cultures, are necessary prerequisites for the Reconceptualisation of practices. Alves (2020), drawing on Lewin’s model on group dynamics (1947) argues that teacher education can provide the conditions for teachers to ‘unfreeze’ their practices (i.e. to remove prejudices), and then ‘move’ them further, to ‘freeze’ new practices. For this to happen, collaboration with education stakeholders and pupil voice is essential. I would add that theory and the voice of people with disabilities is also essential. As Collins (2013, 286) argues, a DSE approach in teacher education for inclusion ‘asks teachers and teacher educators to consider the personal perspectives of those who have experienced the positioning effects of disability labels in school’. As outlined in the findings, teachers questioned oppressive practices they have been following after combining theoretical concepts with the life stories of people with disabilities. Teachers would not engage in this process if they had ready-made plans to follow.

Second, I would argue that it is essential to have an adequate theoretical part in teacher education programmes, which is followed by opportunities to criticise existing practices (e.g. oppressive lesson plans/texts/activities). This provides teachers with a common language to talk with their colleagues about their practice (Ainscow 2005). In most countries, the common language about disability issues is informed by curricula and school text books that are not inclusive of the voice and work of people with disabilities (Erevelles 2005; Symeonidou and Mavrou 2020). The programme presented in this paper supported teachers to develop a language that was based on DSE. Thus, when teachers recognised that oppressive texts and lessons they developed around them were carried out in an ‘automatic, intuitive level, involving the use of tacit knowledge’ (Ainscow 2005, 115), they used scientific language to express their criticism.

Third, teacher educators need to elaborate on how anti-oppressive education can be realised, in similar ways they elaborate on how a lesson plan is developed to meet key pedagogical criteria. Currently, this is not considered an integral part of teacher education for inclusion. In the study presented in this paper, the three Approaches provided a baseline for teachers’ thinking, their communication with other teachers, and their ability to draw the links with the existing curriculum and explore the possibilities of how they could intervene. Research can inform the ways teacher educators can elaborate on anti-oppressive practices. For example, teachers’ preference of Approach 3 and their justification (i.e. the need to know more about disability issues before adopting Approaches 2 and 1) recorded in this study are in line with another study examining the practices of beginning teachers (Symeonidou 2022). It is worth noting that in that study, Approaches 2 and 1 were selected by teachers who were related to people with disabilities (e.g. one of the teachers had a deaf sister) and teachers who pursued doctoral studies in Inclusive Education. In addition, the fact that a few teachers expressed their fears about using materials showing disabled bodies is worth considering. Ableist thinking and segregating structures feed their fears and construct the ‘DisHuman condition’; the view that people with disabilities are freaks, monstrous, unable, and dependent (Bolt 2019; Goodley, Runswick-Cole, and Liddiard 2016, 782; Watson 2023). The existence of these fears needs to be acknowledged and teachers need to be supported to overcome them. Incorporating ways to develop teachers’ strategies for strategic empathy (Beckett 2015; Zembylas 2012; Zembylas and Papamichael 2017) needs to be an element of teacher education.

Fourth, teacher education for inclusion needs to be ongoing and provide opportunities to revisit all the themes which are linked to teacher professional development. In the present study, doubting about previous practices, criticising the curriculum and related materials, thinking about new practices and understanding the value of anti-oppressive Approaches led some teachers to the development of lesson plans promoting anti-oppressive education. However, Reconceptualising practices was not completed with lesson plan development, because as shown in the findings, followed different Approaches, received feedback, gained experience from implementing them, and kept learning during the seminars. Although a few teachers moved between the Approaches as they explored the curriculum, the detailed example presented in the findings (Daphne) supports the view that teacher education can lead to teachers who can infuse the curriculum with disability voice and experience, and can become advocates of people with disabilities (Baglieri and Lalvani 2020; Valle and Connor 2019; Ware 2001, 2008).

Conclusion

Some years ago, Young (2008, 492) argued that ‘teacher education has been constructed to look as it does; it can also be deconstructed and reconstructed to look differently’. Indeed, teacher education often takes an ableist trajectory: programmes follow a special education approach which is termed inclusive, what has to be learnt about diversity and disability is eliminated in single units, and teachers are expected to manage rather than understand children with disabilities (Buchner and Proyer 2020; Guðjónsdóttir and Óskarsdóttir 2020; Siuty 2019; Slee 2018). Pugach, Blanton, and Florian (2012, 236) encourage us to think of the ‘larger question of what it means to prepare teachers for all of the students they will teach—in all of their complex, challenging, glorious, and intersecting diversities’. What this study suggests is that educating teachers for all the students they will teach, requires, among others, educating them to Reconceptualise their practices in relation to disability, equality and advocacy. This indicates that a DSE approach is worth adopting, and the combination of theory with the voices and materials of people with disabilities and anti-oppressive teaching strategies strongly inform teachers’ knowing, doing and believing (Rouse 2008).

Reconceptualising practices is part of the greater framework of educating teachers for Re-Empathy, which requires Reflecting on their views about disability and Reconsidering their day-to-day practices (Symeonidou, 2023). This framework is relevant for teacher education that seeks to address other markers of identity, such as gender, race, language, etc. and their intersections. Is educating teachers for Re-Empathy the answer in teacher education for inclusion? I would argue that it is an essential element, which needs to be combined with content and strategies that will lead to teachers who believe in, function in terms of, and know about inclusive education. For this to be achieved, there is a need for broader changes in teacher education (Livingston 2020). The common and different barriers in different national contexts should not be underestimated, but at the same time a belief that change is feasible is necessary (Van Hove et al. 2014). Barton (2003, 23), referring to the need to make significant changes in teacher education once stated that ‘establishing a basis of hope, therefore is an urgent, difficult, exciting and necessary task’. After working with teachers in the programme presented in this study and witnessing their interactions, changes in thinking and practices, I couldn’t agree more with his statement.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the teachers who participated in the study for their commitment and active engagement. The authors would also like to thank the research assistant Marina Democratous who worked on this project for two years.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the University of Cyprus through the Internal Grants Competition.