Noticing inclusive teaching practices in tandems – results from cross-national video clubs at two different school levels

ABSTRACT

Inclusive teaching practices are increasingly encouraged in many countries, but there are still some difficulties with respect to the professional development of co-working general and special-needs teachers. We used video clubs as a promising tool to enhance Austrian and Swiss teachers’ competencies in noticing core features of their own inclusive teaching. Eight general and special-needs teachers met three times locally and once in a cross-national setting. Our research analysed the frequencies and differences in the perception of inclusive education by teachers across two different school levels. The focus was on the actors in the classroom and the design of inclusive teaching. The participants’ reflections on their perceptions were of further interest. The results showed a strong focus on classroom organisation; however, unexpectedly, teamwork was barely noticed. It was further encouraging in relation to professional development that teachers already noticed quite often the students’ learning and less their own actions.

KEYWORDS:

• Noticing
• video club
• inclusive teaching practices
• school levels

Introduction

Although much is being done in German-speaking countries to promote inclusive teaching, there are still difficulties in the concrete implementation of further education measures that are in place in this regard (Gebhardt et al. 2015; Krähenmann et al. 2019). Apart from challenging working conditions or fears of overload on the part of teachers, there are also unclear ideas about what meaningful inclusive teaching could look like. Of course, such difficulties do not only exist in the two countries covered in this study – Austria and Switzerland – but worldwide (Ferguson 2008). Cross-national studies make it possible to identify political, social, and cultural influences in the design of teaching.

The background to our study was a professional development initiative (PD) for co-working general and special-needs teachers, with the aim of enhancing the quality of inclusive learning settings. In both countries, a video club (Sherin and van Es 2009) was held three times, in which scenes from the teachers’ own lessons were viewed and interpreted. The aim of video clubs is to help teachers learn to notice and interpret central features of interactions in the classroom (van Es and Sherin 2010). One focus in these three video clubs was the situational demands that teachers deal with (e.g. noticing students’ needs, setting individualised goals, and designing common learning activities). A second focus was the design of the joint delivery of lessons by general and special-needs teachers. Finally, in addition to the three video clubs mentioned above, a fourth video club took place across the two countries. It should be noted that the participants in Austria were secondary school teachers while those in Switzerland were primary school teachers. In Austria, the transition to secondary school happens 2 years earlier than in Switzerland (after grade 4).

Facilitated discourse between teachers in video clubs, based on what teachers notice in video excerpts of their lessons, can lead not only to changes in their awareness, but also to instructional changes and adjustments to their management and classroom behaviours (Meadows and Caniglia 2018). Empirically, this involves researchers working in partnership with practitioners in noticing and analysing evidence, in order to develop aspects of the teachers’ inclusive practices (Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson 2004).

In our analysis of the content of the video club conversations, we were guided by the following research questions: What do teachers notice when they look at their own inclusive teaching, and how does this differ between contextually different video clubs? Although the present study would suggest a cross-national comparison, ultimately the differences between school levels were found to be more significant. Such an approach of comparing school levels is in line with research by Gheyssens et al. (2021) and Gebhardt et al. (2015), which shows that primary school teachers seem to implement inclusive teaching practices more often than secondary school teachers. Nevertheless, our study will point out important aspects of inclusive lesson planning for both school levels.

Theoretical framework

It has been reported that video-based noticing and reflection raises teachers’ awareness of their own teaching as part of PD (Rosaen et al. 2013; van Es and Sherin 2008). Noticing has been described as a component of expert practice and takes the form of a competence also referred to as ‘professional vision’ (Sherin and van Es 2009). Professional vision encompasses the ability of teachers to link general pedagogical knowledge with the components of effective teaching and learning, in order to identify and assess important features of classroom teaching (Seidel and Stürmer 2014), such as inclusive practices. The construct ‘noticing’ has recently been characterised as consisting of three parts: attending to noteworthy events, reasoning about such events, and making informed teaching decisions on the basis of the analysis of these observations (Santagata and Yeh 2016).

Gheyssens et al. (2021) showed that teachers who are more proficient at noticing inclusive practices also report applying more flexible grouping strategies or adaptive teaching, compared with teachers who are less able at noticing inclusive practices. However, research has also shown that when teachers watch videos of their own teaching, their attention is initially drawn to issues of classroom organisation and general teaching practices (pedagogy, classroom climate or management) rather than subject learning (Colestock and Sherin 2009; Meadows and Caniglia 2018).

Next to teaching practice, as mentioned above, the perspective teachers take while watching the video clips is another aspect that has been studied. When participants take the perspective of the person acting, it often seems to be that of the teacher, as this is the most accessible to them (Sherin and van Es 2009). Sherin and Han (2004) observed in their video clubs a positive development over time towards noticing more in-depth statements about students’ learning, i.e. a shift towards the actor-student.

There seems to be a difference between teachers watching their own videos and watching recordings of their colleagues’ lessons. Findings by Kleinknecht and Schneider (2013) indicate that teachers who viewed other teachers’ lessons were more deeply engaged in the analysis of events that give rise to discussion. Unexpectedly to the researchers, the observation of colleagues’ lessons corresponded with higher emotional and motivational involvement than watching one’s own lessons. This was contrary to a study by Seidel et al. (2011), where it was the other way round. Although more studies are needed to support the finding of Kleinknecht and Schneider, their conclusion deserves further consideration: It might be that observing one’s own videos requires more prearrangement and scaffolding by coaches than observing videos of others. This underlines the important role of the facilitator in a video club (van Es et al. 2014). Facilitators model particular strategies, and act as social and intellectual resources to support teacher growth (van Es and Sherin 2010). Especially at the beginning of a series of video club meetings, the facilitator seems to be important in pointing out issues related to students’ learning or thinking. Over time, the teachers also notice the students’ learning processes more (Sherin and van Es 2009). The challenge for the facilitator is to find a balance between the background role of discussion leader and that of actively guiding the teachers toward a goal. While, in the first case, the teachers drive the lesson development process themselves, in the second case, this task lies mainly with the facilitator (van Es and Sherin 2008). An obstacle to a more active role is that teachers have mostly been accustomed in PD courses to taking on a passive role as listeners (Desimone and Pak 2017). Hence, while video clubs are promising learning opportunities for teachers, it can also take time for such a group to become productive (van Es 2012).

Teaching is, on the one hand, planned – but, on the other hand, characterised by openness and unpredictability (Brokamp 2017). Thus, the teacher directs what is happening, but also notices what is happening, and decides and reacts according to the situation. These many situational decisions during a lesson usually cannot be discussed and agreed upon between the general and special-needs teachers (Mulholland and O'Connor 2016). General as well as special-needs teachers often approach lesson planning from their typical professional perspective and interpret the situation in the lesson from this specific perspective, too (Kuntz and Carter 2021). The general teacher interprets more in terms of method and task, while the special educator focuses more on the learning pathway or how to facilitate access to certain content (Kuntz and Carter 2021). In order for inclusive teaching to succeed, it is therefore necessary to combine the two perspectives, especially with the focus on the learner’s inclusion (Mulholland and O'Connor 2016).

Inclusive teaching practices

Inclusive teaching aims to achieve two goals: (1) promoting individual learning by adapting teaching practice to the different abilities of students and (2) providing joint learning settings in the classroom community with social goals of equal participation (Janney and Snell 2006; Krähenmann et al. 2019). Joint learning is understood as the pedagogical implementation of the general idea of inclusion. It consists of creating a common learning environment with activities for all (Feuser 1998). In terms of the instructional design, this can include whole-class activities as well as heterogeneous small-group activities in which all students can participate within the same topic area (Prediger and Buró 2021). As Kuntz and Carter (2021) point out, general educators’ lesson planning can have an impact on the opportunities for students to engage and interact within the class. This can be undertaken more productively in cooperation with the special-needs teacher (Janney and Snell 2006). With respect to goal (1), the adaptation of curricula and teaching practice, as well as learning materials and tasks, integrative approaches such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) have been developed (Rose and Meyer 2006). However, UDL does not provide suggestions for how students with and without special needs can cooperate on a joint learning objective (goal 2) (Krähenmann et al. 2019).

In his dissertation on inclusive task-oriented English teaching, Suter (2019) suggests combining these two goals by applying three distinct ways of being responsive to students’ abilities:

1. Enabling practices. Students should be able (or, if necessary, made able) to engage in classroom activities and participate in problem-solving interactions.

2. Involving practices. Students should be committed to collaborating and working together (and, if necessary, supported to do so).

3. Enhancing practices. Students should use what they have learned for their further learning (with support, if necessary) with regard to the development of communicative and intercultural competences (for example, as part of group findings that are presented in class).

The first group of practices relates to support that is needed to compensate for or circumvent weaknesses of students with special needs (Corno 2008). The teacher should apply differentiation practices, as suggested in UDL, to remove obstacles to participation. This support includes, for example, providing additional materials, peer support, or explanations by the special-needs teacher. The second group of practices is the core of the inclusion activities. Then students of different abilities work and learn together in small groups, completing individual tasks as part of a larger cooperative assignment. Both the general and the special-needs teacher actively support this process. Finally, the third group of practices aims to present the results of the learning process to the group or the class, and for the teacher to give feedback and determine further learning steps. This stage relates not only to the cognitive but also the social dimension: producing collective experiences in class can help to establish feelings of inclusion (Garrote 2017).

These three responsive practices coincide with the current instructional demands on teachers: in order to provide adequate learning support, teachers need to notice students’ abilities and identify potential challenges in common learning environments with regard to these abilities (Randi and Corno 2005). Such competencies of perception and interpretation of significant learning situations and student support by the teacher develop optimally in teacher communities, such as video clubs (Santagata and Yeh 2016). This is because community discourse can influence a teacher’s teaching decisions and even lead to changed teacher behaviour that is at odds with previous understandings of what inclusive practices should look like – to overcome, for instance, the idea that targeted practices should only be enacted in supplemental pull-out groups (Prediger and Buró 2021).

Research question

What are the frequencies and differences in the perception of inclusive education within video clubs by teachers at different school levels and with respect to:

1. actors (general and special needs-teachers, students)

2. teaching practice (pedagogy, classroom climate, management)

3. reflection (beliefs, teaching adaptation, policy framework)

Methods

Research design

Our video study was conducted in the 2020/21 school year between August 2020 and July 2021. The teachers designed the lessons according to their own concept and ideas, and they evaluated the ‘intervention’ with the help of a facilitated discussion. The second and the third author facilitated the video clubs. Basically, we followed the five key dimensions of facilitating, in line with Coles (2013). Initially, this was a PD project financed by the International Bodensee University (IBH), but we decided to add a research component as an additional benefit from the project. In Vorarlberg (Austria), participants came from the partner school of the teacher college. However, in St. Gallen (Switzerland), the participating teachers were found with help of an advertisement in the regional special-needs teachers’ newsletter.

In each country, an inclusive teaching lesson was recorded three times. Video clips were selected for teacher meetings, and these gatherings were conducted and recorded for further analysis as well. The meetings were held at the participants’ school to minimise the teachers’ workload. In addition, the teachers were compensated for their time. Although the facilitator selected the clips intentionally with respect to good inclusive practice, the participants were able to share and comment on what they noticed without guidance. The facilitator’s intention was to let the participants themselves come up with ideas for change. This was not always successful, and sometimes the participants requested more guidance from the facilitator. A final meeting of both groups marked the end of the PD project. In this final event, video clips were shown to the other country group and discussed, but there was also a general exchange about the conditions and purpose of inclusion. Overall, seven teacher meetings were video recorded for further content analysis.

Sample

The sample consisted of four teachers each for grades 3–4 (primary school) and grades 5–7 (secondary school). Our request went to teachers in the upper primary classes. Despite great efforts, only a very limited number of teachers responded, so that in the end we had to work with two different ends of the spectrum.

General or main teachers instruct in both countries the whole class in specific subjects, and are responsible for a class. Special-needs teachers support individual students with impairments in certain areas; in both countries, they need to divide their support time between several classes, hence they are not present all the time in each class. Special-needs teachers can work with their students individually or in groups, on individual tasks within the class or in separate rooms. Both teachers can also decide to teach the same topic together for all students for parts of the lesson. Compared with the Swiss region, in the Austrian region, inclusive education is politically promoted more strongly, and in terms of the number of hours there is slightly more support for children with special needs.

The participating teachers in grades 3–4 were from eastern Switzerland: two special-needs teachers and two general teachers. They taught 3rd and 4th grade students in multi-grade classes in a co-teaching model. All the teachers were female and had different levels of teaching experience. One general teacher had been teaching for less than 5 years, the other three for at least 20 years. One of the participating classes comprised 15 students, among whom three received special-needs support and one received education in ‘German as a foreign language’. The other class comprised 17 students, among whom six received special-needs support and two received education in ‘German as a foreign language'.

The participating teachers in grades 5–7 were from western Austria: two special-education teachers (female), one male general teacher, and one female general teacher. They also taught in a co-teaching model, but in single-grade classes. Three of the four teachers could be seen as very experienced (more than 20 years’ experience), while one of the special-needs teachers had less than 10 years’ teaching experience. One of the participating classes was made up of 24 students, with one student receiving special-needs support (20 h a week). The other class comprised 22 students, of whom three received special-needs education.

Analysis

The seven recorded video-club meetings were analysed by means of qualitative content analysis with inductive and deductive category development (Mayring 2000). The focus of the analysis was inclusive teaching practices and what teachers noticed from their own perspective without guidance by the facilitator. For the content analysis we developed a code manual which was edited and extended by the research team as needed. The main analysis was computer-aided using the programme MAXQDA (Kuckartz and Rädiker 2019) and consensus coded. For this, the same videoclip was coded by two coders according to the code manual. Any sequence without coder agreement was then discussed until a consensus was obtained, according to which the passage was then newly coded (Richards and Hemphill 2018). Because the language of the video clubs was Swiss and Austrian dialects, the dialect-compatible coder from each country undertook first-round coding of the relevant video club, while the other coder undertook the second round of the same video club, to avoid losing linguistic subtleties. After each iteration, the coders met and discussed those sequences where agreement had not been reached. If agreement was still not reached, the discussion round was enlarged by consulting the project leaders.

The code manual comprised three main categories in line with the research question: actors, practice, and reflection. Each main category had various subcategories (see Table 1 for a detailed overview, and for more detailed descriptions see Appendix). The two main categories actors and practice, with their subcategories, were derived deductively from the literature. For example, the category actors can be found in Sherin and van Es (2009), while the various aspects of inclusive practice are described by De Vroey et al. (2016) and Booth and Ainscow (2002). Our understanding of inclusive teacher practices was relatively broad. They compassed, in line with Finkelstein, Sharma, and Furlonger (2021), organisational and motivational support, as well as assessment and monitoring. For the core of inclusive practices, we focused on Suter’s three categories (2019). The subcategories relating to teacher reflection were all created inductively by way of what teachers stated more generally or reasoned on a meta-level about inclusive teaching. For example, one teacher remarked that permanent support for children with special needs can also lead to negative salience in the classroom. In the individual video-club meetings, the reflection statements differed in each grade group; in the final cross-country meeting, the teachers in the two groups expressed similar reflection aspects. It is important to note that the subcategories under the reflection category were not grade-specific as such; aspects of the subcategories could have been observed in every grade.

Table 1. Video analysis categories.

	Noticing category	Definition	References
Actors	Class teacher	Actor in relation to the topic under discussion. Always double-coded with practice or reflection.	Sherin and van Es (2009)
	Students
	Special education teacher
Practice	Curriculum	Universal Design for Learning, pedagogy, and curriculum (adapted for students with special needs)	De Vroey et al. (2016); Schlüter, Melle, and Wember (2016)
	Enable	Students are enabled in relation to activities in class	Suter (2019)
	Involve	Students are involved in work, focusing, active participation and engagement
	Enhance	The students’ work is reinforced and made usable for the development of communicative competencies and problem-solving cooperation
	Classroom organisation	Routine and efficiency, peer-assisted learning and co-teaching, individualisation, self-instruction, organisation of the lesson and classes, organisation of the students (for example, in group work)	De Vroey et al. (2016)
	Assessment	Teachers’ perceptions in relation to the students’ learning level and/or (mathematical) thinking, reasoning and ideas	Sherin and van Es (2009)
	Engagement	Teachers’ perceptions in relation to students’ learning engagement
	Classroom climate	Emotional climate, informal peer support, social interventions by the teachers, positive image and acceptance, self-determination	Booth and Ainscow (2002); De Vroey et al. (2016)
Grade-specific reflection	General beliefs regarding teaching	Teachers reflecting on (inclusive) teaching lessons, supporting students, etc.	Inductive categories, no specific sources
	Improvement/ change/ alternatives	Proposals, changes or alternatives regarding teaching lessons or a specific situation noticed in the video clubs
Overarching reflection	Common understanding/ approach to inclusion	Teachers talking about their understandings of or approaches to inclusion, and practices	Inductive categories, no specific sources
	School system organisation	Discussions about the school system and organisation in both countries
	Classroom equipment/class size	Teachers talking about classroom equipment or class size
	No differences	Teachers noticing that they can’t see any differences between the grades
	Grade-specific differences	Teachers noticing grade-specific differences

As co-planning and co-teaching are flagged in the literature as important topics for inclusive teaching (Kuntz and Carter 2021), we also included the category teamwork in our code manual. However, because this category was not often noticed by the teachers, we do not include a detailed analysis here. We interpret this to mean that cooperation between the main teacher and special-needs teacher was going well.

Results

In the following, the results are presented separately for each of the three major categories. Although a time aspect is often mentioned in similar studies on noticing, we could not detect any significant changes in the categories over time. In this study, we focused on the differences between the two school levels. The frequencies of the categories in the three video clubs were summarised to make the results clearer. The final cross-national meeting was analysed separately in terms of frequencies. Apart from the frequencies for each category, the most important relations between the categories were determined as well. This provided further interesting insight into the content of teachers’ discourse in the video clubs.

Frequencies of the codings ‘actors', ‘practice', and ‘reflection'

Across all grades and meetings, the most discussed subcategory for actors was the subcategory students (Table 2). In grades 3–4, with 62.6%, students was clearly the most frequent of all subcategories of actors. In grades 5–7, the number of coded sequences was almost equal between students (38.1%) and special-education teacher (34.1%). Further, in the final cross-national meeting, the subcategory students was again the most prevalent (48.9%). Comparing the two school levels showed that in primary school the difference between students and the other two subcategories was greater than in secondary school or in the cross-national meeting. Finally (as can be seen in Table 2), out of the three subcategories general teacher was the least frequent in all grades and in the cross-national meeting. Overall, from the perspective of professional development it was pleasing that students and their learning were focused on the most. However, if we take the general and special-education teachers as one subcategory, it is striking that the result was less positive for the secondary-school group: there, the category teachers was the most mentioned (61.9%), while in primary school it was the other way round (only 37.3%).

Table 2. Frequencies of category actors for two grade levels and cross-national meeting.

Actors	Primary school Grades 3–4		Secondary school Grades 5–7		Cross-national meeting
	N	%	N	%	N	%
General teacher	43	16.7	49	27.8	29	21.5
Students	161	62.6	67	38.1	66	48.9
Special-education teacher	53	20.6	60	34.1	40	29.6
Total	257	100	176	100	135	100

Next, we turn to the frequencies of noticing within the category practice. Across all subgroups and subcategories, classroom organisation was the most noticed topic, with 26.3% in grades 3–4, 23.5% in grades 5–7 and 38.0% in the cross-national meeting (Table 3). It is important to note that the subcategory classroom organisation included, fundamentally, organisation by teachers. However, teachers sometimes asked the students to take over part of this responsibility, e.g. as part of group work (see also Table 1). The next most frequent categories for grades 3–4 were assessment (14.9%) and engagement (12.5%), whereas for grades 5–7 they were curriculum (19.8%) and engagement (18.2%). In the cross-national meeting, after organisation, the subcategories curriculum, assessment and classroom climate were the next most frequently discussed topics (10.9% each). It is striking that the three important aspects for inclusion – enable, involve and enhance – were not noticed as much as those just mentioned. Only for grades 3–4 did involve and enhance (10.2% each) seem to be of some importance. Furthermore, it emerged that curriculum was not mentioned so much (5.9%) for the lower grades, whereas for the higher grades, classroom climate (5.9%) and (especially) involve (3.7%) were not noticed frequently.

Table 3. Frequencies of category practice for two grade levels and cross-national meeting.

Practice	Primary school Grades 3–4		Secondary school Grades 5–7		Cross-national meeting
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Curriculum	15	5.9	37	19.8	14	10.9
Enable	21	8.2	16	8.6	9	7.0
Involve	26	10.2	7	3.7	11	8.5
Enhance	26	10.2	12	6.4	6	4.7
Classroom organisation	67	26.3	44	23.5	49	38.0
Assessment	38	14.9	26	13.9	14	10.9
Engagement	32	12.5	34	18.2	12	9.3
Classroom climate	30	11.8	11	5.9	14	10.9
Total	255	100	187	100	129	100

In the three local meetings the teachers reflected on different topics from the final cross-national meeting (Table 4). With respect to the two reflection subcategories, a difference could be observed in the grade groups. In the lower grades the subcategory improvement/change/alternative was clearly noticed more (78.6%) than the subcategory general beliefs regarding teaching (21.4%) – whereas in the higher grades it was the other way around. In view of absolute numbers, however, the frequency of codings for reflection was not especially expressive – but it is interesting that a change took place at a meta-level. By this we mean that reflections in the local meetings were thematically close to the video clips, the sequences shown, and the teachers’ own teaching. In the cross-national meeting, the teachers might also have reflected on their teaching or discussed specific improvements, but in fact they did not raise these topics at all. Instead, the teachers reflected at a meta-level, sharing their understanding of inclusion, its incorporation in the school system, and the policy framework in both countries.

Table 4. Frequencies of category reflection for two grade levels and cross-national meeting.

	Reflection	Primary school Grades 3–4		Secondary school Grades 5–7		Cross-national meeting
		N	%	N	%	N	%
Grade-specific	General beliefs regarding teaching	3	21.4	5	62.5	–	–
	Improvement/change/alternatives	11	78.6	3	37.5	–	–
Overarching	Common understanding of/ approach to inclusion	–	–	–	–	13	39.4
	School system organisation	–	–	–	–	9	27.3
	Classroom equipment/size	–	–	–	–	7	21.2
	No differences	–	–	–	–	1	3.0
	Grade-specific differences	–	–	–	–	3	9.1
	Total	14	100	8	100	33	100

Relations across the codings ‘actors' and ‘practice'

A second question for our research was whether there were specific relationships between the main categories actors and practice, based on frequencies. These relations are presented in Tables 5 and 6. To increase reader-friendliness, we represent the relationships symbolically as ‘strong', ‘weak' or ‘no entry' (If the relation between the categories practice and actors was very weak, there is no entry in the table).

Table 5. Code relations between the categories actors and practice across all meetings.

	Actor
Practice	General teacher	Students	Special-education teacher
Enhance		○
Classroom organisation	●	●	●
Assessment		●
Engagement		●
Classroom climate		○

Note: ●: strong relation; ○: weak relation.

Table 6. Code relations between categories practice and actors, by groups ‘grades 3–4' and ‘grades 5–7'.

	actor
	General teacher		Students		Special- education teacher
practices	Grades 3–4	Grades 5–7	Grades 3–4	Grades 5–7	Grades 3–4	Grades 5–7
Curriculum		○		○		●
Enhance			○	○
Classroom organisation	○	●	●	○	○	●
Assessment			●	●
Engagement			○	●
Classroom climate			○

Note: ●: strong relation; ○: weak relation.

Across all meetings, there was one practice to be found related to all three actors subcategories – namely, classroom organisation. For the other practice subcategories there were relationships only with students. For assessment and engagement there was a strong relationship – for enhance and classroom climate only a weak one. These results make sense, because the teacher is the main actor for classroom organisation only, while students are the focus of enhance, assessment, engagement and classroom climate.

The same analysis was conducted separately for the two grade groups, primary and secondary school. Interestingly, there were some additional findings. We observed some differences between the groups in the strength of the relations (Table 6). One important difference was found with classroom organisation, where the relation with general teacher and special-education teacher was strong for the higher grades, whereas for the lower grades it was weak. If, however, we look at the relationship with students, it is the other way round. How can we interpret this result? This category comprises organisation by the teacher and somewhat less by the students, and we can explain this difference by the fact that in the video club with the primary teachers the focus was much more on organisation by the students as part of group work. In the video club with the secondary school teachers, classroom organisation referred mainly to the teachers’ own actions.

The relation between engagement and the actor students was also different across the two grade levels: for grades 3–4 it was weak, for grades 5–7 strong. The secondary school teachers focused more on whether their students seemed motivated, which was probably not an issue among the primary teachers because the students showed generally high engagement during lessons.

In the other subcategories of practice, we see less or no variation between the two groups in the strength of the relation. For classroom climate, there was no notable relation for the secondary group, and only one for the primary group. Similar relations were to be found for enhance (where there was a weak relation with students for both groups), as well as for assessment (where the relation with students was strong for both primary and secondary groups). For curriculum, relations could be determined only for the secondary group. Interestingly, the teachers in the primary group did adapt curriculum content by creating exercises at three difficulty levels. However, they did not talk about this in the video clubs. If we consider that discussions may only be about things that do not work, this may explain why there were no relations between curriculum and actors for grades 3–4.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to show the frequencies and differences in the perception of inclusive education by teachers at different school levels, with specific attention to actors, teaching practice and reflection. Findings showed that in both grades 3–4 and grades 5–7 teachers focused largely on the students. The results insofar were encouraging, as students’ learning seemed to be the participating teachers’ focus, rather than the teachers themselves, as is often the case with fresh starting video clubs (Colestock and Sherin 2009). It was not surprising that general teachers were mentioned a little less than special-education teachers, given that video clips focused on the special-needs teachers’ students.

A less positive finding was that the important inclusive teaching practices enable, involve and enhance (Suter 2019) were not mentioned as often as hoped for, especially for grades 5–7. Only in grades 3–4 were involve and enhance noticed more frequently. One reason could be that the primary teachers were more used to applying heterogeneous small-group activities in their multi-grade classes. Many of the skills necessary to teach a multi-grade class effectively are similar to those needed for teaching pupils with special needs in any class setting (Tiernan, Casserly, and Maguire 2018). It may be assumed that there is still a need for professional development regarding inclusion practices. Although teachers can stage group work, there is a danger that the inclusion of the student with special needs in the joint learning setting will remains in the social domain, with subject learning disappearing from perspective.

Overall, the category classroom organisation was the most frequently noticed. This fits to some extent with the findings of Colestock and Sherin (2009), who mention that teachers, especially in initial meetings, focus their attention on issues of classroom organisation when they see themselves in videos. However, there was also a strong relation between classroom organisation and students, at least for the primary teacher group. Hence, the teachers seemed not only to focus on their own organisation, but also on the (group) organisation of the students themselves.

With this study we aimed to identify important aspects of inclusive lesson practices for both primary and secondary school levels, as research has suggested differences here (Gheyssens et al. 2021). Overall, teachers in our video clubs noticed similar aspects of inclusive teaching as in other studies (De Vroey et al. 2016). In the analysis, it is striking that some aspects seemed to be more salient for teachers than others. In primary school these were classroom organisation, assessment, engagement, and classroom climate. In secondary school they were classroom organisation, curriculum, engagement and assessment. It is important to note that classroom organisation is mentioned more than twice as frequently overall as assessment and engagement. This finding is in line with Meadows and Caniglia (2018), who report that their participating teachers noticed mainly time and classroom management, and not (as hoped for) students’ subject learning. It must be added that curriculum was more frequently discussed in the secondary then in the primary school video club, whereas classroom climate was a focus more for the primary teachers. Those results may be explained by the more subject-oriented teaching of secondary school teachers (OECD 2018), who perceive involvement with their pupils’ emotional life as less central to their task (Tatar 1998).

While the teachers’ reflections in the video clubs related to the recorded lessons viewed, in the final cross-national meeting teachers turned away from reflecting on the video clips, instead opening a discussion on inclusive education as such. As a result, despite differences in the country-specific videos, the teachers created a shared understanding across the two groups with the common goal of implementing inclusive education.

Overall, our analysis identified important categories, according to the literature, of inclusive teaching. However, one topic mentioned often as an important dimension of inclusive teaching – namely, teacher collaboration (Mulholland and O'Connor 2016) – was not really a theme of our video clubs. It was very surprising to us that the teachers neither talked much about this nor about challenges with regard to collaboration. A possible explanation could be that the teachers thought the facilitators expected them to focus on instruction and to leave teamwork aside. Another possibility could be that collaboration is working for the teachers who volunteered for this project, and that otherwise they would not have participated.

There are also some limitations to this study that should be noted. To start with, the sample was small and there were only three meetings of each video club. This means that, on the one hand, generalised statements carry a degree of uncertainty; and, on the other hand, we could not detect changes in noticing over time as for example in Sherin and van Es (2009). Another limitation is the different grades and school systems in the two video-club groups, which makes a direct comparison difficult. However, this was also an advantage to a certain extent, as we could analyse differences between two school levels even though the video clubs were in two different countries. Also, the two countries were represented by neighbouring regions with a shared understanding of pedagogy. Further, finding low frequencies in certain categories does not automatically mean that teachers did not notice this category; it could instead mean that it was not an issue for them and not noteworthy for further discussion. In addition, the frequency and what is noticed also depends on the selection of the lesson sequences, which the facilitator decided. Furthermore, although the facilitator held back from leading the discussion, their job was still to give a stimulus now and then to make the discussion productive. Thus, the facilitator also had an influence on the choice and frequency of topics. It remains a challenge for research to disentangle the effects of the participants and the facilitator when it comes to frequencies and developments over time.

What was found to be encouraging, and can be evaluated as a success of this PD project, is that all teachers supported – and acknowledged as a goal – removing obstacles for the participation of students with special needs in classroom activities. This was identified in our study as ‘peer support’ within the subcategory classroom climate, with a strong focus on the actor students from the start. On the other hand, we demonstrated that joint learning settings were not yet noticed in their full implementation. Adapting teaching practice (e.g. differentiating learning material) was to a certain extent already part of the teachers’ repertoire to enable students with special needs to engage in classroom activities. By contrast, support during joint learning sessions (e.g. individual scaffolding to involve all students or enhance their communication skills) still shows the need for professional development. It is likely that more guidance by a facilitator is needed so that participants in video clubs begin to notice opportunities for such support.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the International Bodensee Hochschule [grant number 868/19].

Notes on contributors

Alexandra Taras

Alexandra Taras holds a bachelor's degree in educational sciences and German linguistics. She has worked for many years in a nursery in leading positions and as tutorial assistant at a university. Now, she is working at the St.Gallen University of Teacher Education. Her research interests focus on special needs education, vulnerability, vocational training, and research with children.

Robbert Smit

Dr. Robbert Smit, Senior Researcher and lecturer at St.Gallen University of Teacher Education. Among his research interests are differentiated instruction and formative assessment.

Petra Hecht

Dr. Petra Hecht, Senior Researcher at the University College of Teacher Education Vorarlberg. Research interests in inclusion and teacher professionalization.

Marion Matic

Marion Matic, Bachelor of Education. Teacher at a primary school in Austria, has led inclusive classes. Committed to successful integration and inclusion in schools.

Appendix

Coding scheme

Table

	Noticing category	Definition	References
Actors	Class teacher	When teachers referred to the class teacher, students, or special-education teacher it was coded in this category. Relevant was not who was speaking, but about whom something was said. This category was always double-coded together with practice or reflection.	Sherin and van Es (2009)
	Students
	Special-education teacher
Practice	Curriculum	Reference to Universal Design for Learning, the target of which is that lesson content is made accessible for all students. Teachers talk about planning lessons in such a way that the participation of all students could be strengthened. Mentioning that the curriculum is adapted for students with special needs.	De Vroey et al. (2016); Schlüter, Melle, and Wember (2016)
	Enable	Students are enabled to join regular activities in class. Students receive exercises they can solve at their level. Support focuses on enabling the students to participate in group/class activities. Support regarding readiness to solve the task.	Suter (2019)
	Involve	Student support while working on a task. Teachers are attentive that all students are participating and involved in class activities. This also includes fostering all students’ engagement. Support focuses on the active collaboration of all students. This category also includes support for students while the teacher lets them repeat, share, or summarise topics.	Suter (2019); De Vroey et al. (2016)
	Enhance	Reinforcing students’ work and making it usable for others. Support for the development of communicative and cooperative competencies. Support for students’ reflection on work and ensuring progress for all students.	Suter (2019)
	Classroom organisation	This category covers various perspectives: Routine and efficiency: supporting students with a clear lesson format or classroom rules. Organisation of peer-assisted learning: teachers invite students to help each other and offer mutual support. Individualisation: teachers demonstrate outcomes and repeat instructions, organise the class to start their work. This category includes the organisation of the lesson and classes as well as the organisation of the students themselves (for example, in groups).	De Vroey et al. (2016)
	Assessment	This category includes teachers’ perceptions in relation to the learning and/or thinking level, students’ reasoning and conceptual understanding. This category was partly inductive, deriving from noticing statements about how the teachers perceive their students in their thinking, approach, learning, etc.	Sherin and van Es (2009)
	Engagement	This category includes the teachers’ perceptions about students’ learning engagement. It also includes statements that concern the working climate in the classroom, but regarding learning motivation. For example, when students were (not) enthusiastic, wanted to volunteer or seemed on task.	Sherin and van Es (2009)
	Classroom climate	This category covers various perspectives: Emotional climate: positive classroom climate, sensitivity and responsiveness (for example, when the teacher treats the students sensitively and teacher-student interaction is open and responsive). Informal peer-support: students supporting and standing up for each other, also in non-learning-related situations. Further examples: social interventions by the teachers, positive image and acceptance when the teacher puts students with special needs in a positive spotlight. Self-determination: the autonomy of students with special needs is respected by the teacher and students	Booth and Ainscow (2002); De Vroey et al. (2016)
Grade- specific reflection	General beliefs regarding teaching	This category includes general beliefs about classes and teaching lessons. When teachers reflected on (inclusive) teaching lessons, supporting students etc.	Inductive categories, no specific sources
	Improvement/change/alternatives	This category includes proposals or changes regarding lessons or a specific situation noticed in the video clubs. Alternatives in specific situations or in general are also coded in this category (for example, what could a teacher have done differently in a particular situation, or what could the teacher do differently in further lessons).
Overarching reflection	Common understanding of/approach to inclusion	When teachers talked about their understandings of or approaches to inclusion, and their practices – not related to a video-club sequence but in general.
	School system organisation	This category includes discussions about the school system (kindergarten, primary school) and its organisation in both countries.
	Classroom equipment/class size	When teachers talked about classroom equipment or class size.
	No differences	When teachers noticed that they could not see any differences between the grades (primary school and high school) in the videos.
	Grade-specific differences	When teachers noticed grade-specific differences in the video clubs.