European Journal of Special Needs Education

ISSN: 0885-6257 (Print) 1469-591X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

An inclusive classroom? A case study of

inclusiveness, teacher strategies, and children's
experiences

Claes Nilholm & Barbro Alm

To cite this article: Claes Nilholm & Barbro Alm (2010) An inclusive classroom? A case study of
inclusiveness, teacher strategies, and children's experiences, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 25:3, 239-252, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.492933

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2010.492933

Published online: 26 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6686

View related articles

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rejs20

Download by: [University of Malta] Date: 04 August 2017, At: 06:07

 European Journal of Special Needs Education
Vol. 25, No. 3, August 2010, 239–252

An inclusive classroom? A case study of inclusiveness, teacher

strategies, and children’s experiences
Claes Nilholma* and Barbro Almb
a
Department of Learning and Communication, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden;
bDepartment
of Education, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
(Received 17 June 2009; final version received 3 November 2009)
Taylor and Francis
REJS_A_492933.sgm

European
10.1080/08856257.2010.492933
0885-6257
Original
Taylor
302010
25
claes.nilholm@hlk.hj.se
ClaesNilholm
00000August
&Article
Francis
Journal
(print)/1469-591X
2010
of Special Needs
(online)
Education
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

A case study of what appears to be an inclusive classroom in Sweden is reported.

The group of children in the class studied was very heterogeneous: five of the 15
children had a disability diagnosis at the time of the study. One aim of the study
was to develop a methodology which can be used in order to investigate in what
sense classrooms are ‘inclusive’, especially as regards the point of view of the
pupils. It is argued that an explicit definition of characteristics of inclusive
classrooms and clear-cut methods to study those characteristics are necessary
prerequisites in order to reach valid conclusions concerning what teaching
strategies are central to inclusive processes. The data consist of interviews with
the teachers and children involved, sociograms, a questionnaire answered by the
children, notes from participant observations and poetry by the children. The
analyses suggest that the classroom seems to be inclusive, although it is
emphasised that this is not an all-or-none phenomenon, especially children’s
experiences are complex phenomena. It is argued that the teachers try to create a
learning community where differences are valued. Six teacher strategies emerged
from the data.
Keywords: inclusion; classroom; case study; disability; teacher strategies;
ADHD; Asperger; experience

The present paper reports on a case study of what appears to be an inclusive class-
room in Sweden. Given the long-term focus on inclusion it is rather astonishing that
so few in-depth analyses of inclusive processes in the classroom have been
attempted. Inclusion is a concept that can mean different things and necessarily
involves several dilemmas (Clark, Dyson, and Millward 1998; Norwich 1993;
Volonino and Zigmond 2007). The fact that children with disabilities attend ordinary
classes is a necessary but insufficient condition for inclusion. In order to talk about
inclusion, certain values are central (Carrington 2006; Booth and Ainscow 2002);
for example, the positive valuation of children’s differences (Oliver 1990) and that
children thrive in school. A positive valuation of difference seems to be particularly
hard to achieve (Göransson, Nilholm, and Karlsson, forthcoming). Also, the inclu-
siveness of learning goals depends upon whether they are attainable and reached by
children (cf. Dyson and Millward 2000). The need for studies concerning inclusive
processes in classrooms has been pointed out on several occasions (Florian 2008,
Flem, Moen, and Gudmundsdottir 2004), at the same time as it is becoming clear

*Corresponding author. Email: claes.nilholms@hlk.hj.se

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2010.492933
http://www.informaworld.com
 240 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

how hard it is to achieve inclusive processes in practice (Abbot 2007). Several

researchers suggest there is a risk that inclusion only involves moving special educa-
tional practices into the classroom (McLeskey and Waldron 2007). Some authors
even question whether progress is being achieved towards making education more
inclusive (Williamsson et al. 2006). Provided the risk that inclusion comes to mean
nothing more than moving children with disabilities into regular classrooms, it is
important to analyse in what sense studied ‘inclusive’ classrooms really are inclu-
sive according to specific criteria before turning to an analysis of the strategies and
methods used by the teachers and the experiences of the children. One aim of the
present study was to develop a methodological approach suitable to decide in what
sense a studied classroom is ‘inclusive’. Not least important, it is necessary to inves-
tigate the point of view of the pupils in order to reach conclusions about the inclu-
siveness of a particular classroom. An additional aim was to analyse the strategies
used by the teachers. Finally, a third aim was to conduct in-depth analyses of the
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

children’s experiences of the classroom.

Earlier research
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) synthesised the qualitative research of 32
surveys of co-teaching in ‘inclusive’ classrooms. Interestingly, the dominant co-
teaching role was discovered to be ‘one teaches, one assists’ and the classrooms were
characterised by traditional teaching: ‘…general education teachers typically employ
whole class, teacher-led instruction with little individualisation, whereas special
education teachers function largely as assistants’ (Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie
2007, 411). In an overview of both quantitative and qualitative studies of co-teaching
in ‘inclusive’ classrooms, Weiss and Brigham (2000) reached similar conclusions to
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007). However, there are studies outside of the
co-teaching tradition that suggest that other strategies such as, for example, coopera-
tive group teaching might be beneficial to inclusive processes (Slavin 1996; Swanson
and Hoskyn 1998).
Several researchers point out the importance of building a community within
the classroom in order to make education inclusive (Han, Ostrovsky, and Diamond
2006; Putney 2007). Soodak (2003, 328) suggests: ‘Philosophically and pragmati-
cally, inclusive education is primarily about belonging, membership, and accep-
tance’. However, Pijl, Frostad, and Flem (2008) found that children with special
educational needs were often not socially included, in that they were less popular,
had fewer relationships, and participated less often as a member of a sub-group.
Findings of social exclusion are common in the literature (Estell 2008; Nowicki
and Sandieson 2002), which often says that this lack of social inclusion arises
because choice of peers is based on similarity (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook
2001). In addition, social acceptance seems to differ between categories of pupils
with different disabilities (Garrison-Harrell and Kamps 1997; Pijl, Frostad, and
Flem 2008). It is also well known that children with special educational needs are
at risk of being educationally excluded in that they run an increased risk of poor
performance at school (Emanuelsson and Persson 2002; Persson 1998; Weiss
2004).
Earlier research thus suggests that what is called inclusion often leaves ordinary
teaching unchanged and only involves moving special educational practices into the
ordinary classroom. Consequently, it becomes important to analyse in what sense
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 241

studied classrooms are inclusive. As has been shown, educational and social inclusion
seems hard to achieve. If classrooms are found that can be shown to exhibit inclusive
features, it becomes very important to study what teachers do in order to accomplish
such inclusive features. Interestingly, there is a large literature regarding how to
accomplish inclusive schools and classrooms (Booth and Ainscow 2002). Eggertsdót-
tir and Marinósoson (2005) build their suggestions upon an empirical study of ‘inclu-
sive’ classrooms. However, the inclusiveness of the classrooms studied is taken as a
point of departure rather than as a focus of analysis. An additional problem with
manuals is that they often contain very long lists of advice. Further, it is not clear how
such advice has emerged out of empirical studies.
The contributions to prior knowledge of the present study are: (1) to construct and
test a methodology that rests on an explicit definition of inclusion and underscores the
importance of children’s experiences, which can be used in order to study the inclu-
siveness of classrooms. Methodology should thus in the present context be understood
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

as something that goes beyond pure method and encompasses both a notion of what
inclusion means and how it can be investigated empirically; (2) to provide knowledge
concerning teaching strategies that seem important for inclusive processes to occur;
and (3) to provide in-depth knowledge on children’s experience of inclusive
processes. The theoretical point of departure is a sociocultural approach (Lave and
Wenger 1991; Säljö 2000), which underscores the importance of paying attention to
characteristics of local practices in order to understand social forms of life such as, for
example, schooling. In a sociocultural perspective, attention is paid to communicative
processes and the concomitant negotiation of social reality. Consequently, it becomes
important to understand the views of different actors within a setting. In addition,
Lave and Wenger (1991) underscore the importance of studying local norms in
situated ‘communities of practice’.

The Swedish school system

Sweden has about nine million inhabitants. The school system rests on a rhetoric of
‘one school for all’, that is, a common school for all children in Grades 1–9 (7–16
years old). Goals for the Swedish school system are set by national authorities.
However, the means of achieving these goals are the responsibility of the 290
municipalities and the local schools. As in several other countries, accountability,
testing, and training of basic skills have become more significant in recent years
(Skolverket 2009). However, this tendency is not as evident as in the USA and the
UK. Until recently, grades were not awarded until eighth grade and national tests
were not taken until fifth grade. The rethorical notion of ‘one school for all’ does at
times fall short of empirical reality (Göransson, Nilholm, and Karlsson forthcoming).
About 10% of children in ‘ordinary’ school are not eligible for upper secondary
education. At any given point in time about 15–20% of the children receive special
support. Few children attend special schools, except for the 1.5% of school children
who attend special programmes for pupils with developmental disorders (a minority
of these children are integrated in ordinary classrooms) (Göransson, Nilholm, and
Karlsson forthcoming). A minority of the children outside the special schools and the
special programmes for children with developmental disorders receive additional
support in segregated settings. In total, about 3% of children receive their education
in segregated settings in the Swedish school system, although there are no exact
figures (Nilholm et al. 2007).
 242 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

The case study

The overall framework of the present investigation was a case study approach.
Flyvberg (2006) argues that case studies are necessary in order for a scientific
discipline to be effective. Case study analysis is especially suitable for complex
phenomena (Stark and Torrance 2007; Yin 2002). Inclusive education is one such
complex phenomenon that is well-suited to a case study approach. An important aim
of the study was to develop a methodology that makes it possible to study the inclu-
siveness of classrooms in a transparent way using an explicit definition of inclusion
that includes the experience of the pupils. This is a necessary step in order to ask
additional research questions concerning what teaching strategies seem to be benefi-
cial to inclusive processes and how these strategies impact on the experiences of the
children.
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

Setting and participants

The present case was chosen from eight settings investigated in a pilot study because
it: (1) seemed more inclusive; and (2) involved a very heterogeneous classroom. The
eight settings were chosen because they had a reputation of being inclusive in several
respects. Around 300 pupils (aged 7–12) attended the school in which the classroom
was situated. The buildings were fairly worn. Pupils were recruited from the surround-
ing area with mixed housing, that is, apartments which are rented or owned, small
houses, and some larger houses. The area was of low socioeconomic status. The
principal displayed a positive attitude towards inclusive education and democratic
schooling. The class which was the focus of the present case study was followed over
two years (Grades 5 and 6). The classroom was painted in light colors with plants on
the windowsills. The desks were positioned in a semi-circle to enable the children to
view each other and the teacher. A small table surrounded by chairs was positioned at
the teacher’s end of the classroom. The other end of the classroom was used as a
storage area for different kinds of materials.
There were two teachers in the class. Teacher A had the main responsibility for the
class and had taught them since first grade. Normally, she would have been replaced
in Grade 4 since she taught Grades 1–3. However, owing to her work with the class
she was asked to continue for Grades 4–6. Teacher B was a preschool teacher but was
asked to follow the class into Grade 1 and had stayed with the class since then. There
were 15 children in the class, of whom five had been diagnosed by child psychiatrists
in the Swedish psychiatric care for children and youth and one additional child was
diagnosed after the study. Teacher A described how she perceived the class when she
first met them at the time they were leaving preschool and entering first grade at the
age of seven:

That was my first meeting with them and at that time the preschool considered this group
to be a disaster. You know they had never seen anything like it and one felt that they
would not have a chance at school. (Teacher A)

At that point in time, the group was larger. One child subsequently moved to the
special school for children with developmental disabilities, two children moved to a
charter school, and some parents moved out of the area. A few new children entered
the class; among them a child who was later diagnosed with a neuropsychiatric disor-
der after the children started secondary schooling. At the time of the study, four of the
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 243

children had been diagnosed with neuropsychiatric disorders (two with Aspergers
syndrome and two with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]) and one
additional child had been evaluated as being on the borderline of being developmen-
tally disabled. Three of these children were one year older than the other children in
the class. Thus, the class was exceptionally heterogeneous with regard to child char-
acteristics. This is an important point, since inclusion involves teaching children with
varying characteristics. Some of these children would, in other circumstances, be
educated in more segregated settings. At the same time, the number of children was
smaller than usual and extra support was provided in the form of co-teaching with
Teacher B (and some minimal help from a special needs teacher). It should also be
pointed out that the inquiries which resulted in the neuropsychiatric diagnoses were in
three cases initiated by the school. Teacher A said that this was a way to secure
additional resources as well as to lessen the guilt felt by the parents.
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

Data collection
Firstly, the teachers, parents, and pupils were informed about the aim of the study,
they signed written agreements to participate, and were notified that they could drop
out of the study whenever they wanted to without having to provide a reason for their
decision. Furthermore, they were informed that the outcome of the study would be
published in a form which would keep the participants anonymous. Everyone agreed
to participate in the study.
A prerequisite to data gathering was to develop a methodology which rests on an
explicit definition of inclusion and underscores the importance of the experiences of
the children. Three criteria were used when analysing the inclusiveness of the class-
room. The extent of: (1) differences being viewed as ordinary; (2) all students being
part of the social community of the classroom; and (3) all students being part of the
learning community of the classroom. Interviews with children and teachers were
used in order to analyse their views of differences in the classroom. Questionnaires,
sociograms, and interviews with children were used in order to evaluate the level of
social inclusion. Being part of the learning community was evaluated using results
from national testing and using responses to some of the questions in the question-
naire. Thus, these data sources were used as part of the methodology that was devel-
oped in order to scrutinise in what sense studied classrooms are inclusive given the
aforementioned definition of inclusion. Interviews with teachers were used in order to
discern teacher strategies. In-depth analyses of the experiences of the children were
based on interviews and poems (see later). Participant observation as well as a
member check procedure described later were used in order to validate the data
sources mentioned previously. One of the researchers spent a total of 34 days observ-
ing class work during a period of about two years. Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the
data collection process.
The interviews were semi-structured and interview guides were used. In the inter-
Figure 1. Research timeframe from the beginning of Grade 5 until the end of Grade 6.

views with the teachers, central topics were the history of the class, teacher strategies,
and their views of the children. Interviews were conducted in the morning with all the
children (n = 15) individually in a room adjacent to the classroom. Moreover, some of
the children (n = 9) voluntarily provided poems that they had written in their ‘books
of reflections’. The interviews with the children were fairly short (about 10–15
minutes) and centred on similar topics to the ones in the questionnaire, such as how
the children felt at school, what their relationships were like, whether they had a best
 244 C. Nilholm and B. Alm
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

Figure 1. Research timeframe from the beginning of Grade 5 until the end of Grade 6.

friend, and so on. The observations in the classroom focused on teacher strategies,
teacher–child interactions, and class work in general; field notes were taken. The
questionnaire to be answered by the children was drawn up for the purposes of the
present study and contained 11 statements with yes/no alternatives. The two socio-
grams were created from the children’s responses to the instructions: ‘Choose four
friends who you would like to work with’ and ‘Choose four friends who you would
like to be with/play with’. Finally, the outcome of national tests taken in Grade 5 was
collected.

Data analysis
All interviews were transcribed by the second author. The parts of the interviews that
concerned children’s and teachers’ views of differences were analysed thematically
(cf. Braun and Clark 2006) by the first author of the article. Themes were reviewed by
the second author and compared to field notes resulting in a few changes. Question-
naires, sociograms, and interviews with children were analysed in order to evaluate
the level of social inclusion. Being part of the learning community was evaluated
using results from national testing and using responses to some of the questions in the
questionnaire as well as to questions in the children’s interviews. At the time of the
study, grades were not awarded until eighth grade. However, in fifth grade, children
take national exams in Swedish, maths, and English, and the results from these exams
were used to evaluate whether the children were part of the learning community.
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 245

The interviews with the teachers were analysed qualitatively by the first author in
order to discern strategies. All the strategies mentioned by the teachers in the inter-
views were noted and sorted into themes. These themes were reviewed by the second
author and compared to field notes resulting in few changes.
A member check (Creswell 2000) that applied to all the data involving the teachers
was used. Thus, the researcher not involved in collecting data conducted a follow-up
two-hour interview with Teacher A after the data had been analysed. In this way, facts
as well as observations and interpretations made by the researchers were systemati-
cally compared to the teacher’s understanding of the same events as reported in the
follow-up interview. Open questions were used in order to allow Teacher A to
describe events in her own words. This step led to some changes. The last step
involved both Teacher A and Teacher B reading a final draft of the article; this step
led to some very minor overall changes.
The final analysis was the in-depth analysis of the children’s experiences. Excerpts
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

from the interviews with the children are provided in order to illustrate the general pattern
of responses as well as some problematic aspects of some of the children’s experiences
of the classroom. This analysis was made by the first author and reviewed by the second
author. The poems were analysed thematically by the first author and the themes were
reviewed by the second author resulting in minor changes. Individual excerpts from
the interviews and poems are presented and analysed in order to provide a description
of the experiences of the children and to account for the complexities involved.

Results
An inclusive classroom?
View of differences
Two overarching themes were discerned: (1) viewing differences as an asset; and (2)
viewing differences as a problem. Almost all participants in the study provided state-
ments in the first category, that is, they expressed a positive view of difference.
However, some of them also provided statements belonging to the second theme,
viewing differences as problematic. A few of the children pointed out that other chil-
dren’s characteristics could be problematic and a couple of them viewed their own
characteristics as problematic. The teachers, on the other hand, alternated between
expressing that children’s differences were an asset and viewing them as individual
shortcomings, for example, as difficulties to think theoretically or understand instruc-
tions. However, the children as such were valued by the teachers, although the
teachers clearly recognised that some children had shortcomings in specific areas.

Social inclusion
The questionnaire revealed that children felt they were part of the class. All children
(n = 15) stated that they were content in the class, nearly always had someone to be
with during breaks, and that they felt secure. In addition, all children agreed with the
statements that their classmates listened to them during group work, that they them-
selves were good listeners during group work, and 14 out of the 15 children agreed
with the statement ‘I like to work together in a group’ (one child wrote ‘depends on
the subject’). In total, 10 out of 15 children did not agree with the statement ‘I like to
work by myself best’, while five wrote ‘at times’ or ‘depends’. None of the children
 246 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

agreed with the statements that they were afraid of someone in the class and that they
often felt alone. Thirteen of the children stated that they had a best friend in the class
and one wrote ‘kind of best friends’. Eight of the children stated that at times they felt
irritated and disturbed by someone else in the class.
The children answered the written questions: ‘Choose four friends who you would
like to work with’ and ‘Choose four friends who you would like to be with/play with’.
Since there were only minor differences between the responses to these two questions,
only the answers to the second question will be presented here. The resulting
sociogram indicated that three children were chosen twice, two were chosen three
times, five were chosen four times, four were chosen five times, and one pupil was
chosen seven times. The children who had a medical diagnosis at the time of the study
were on an average chosen 2.8 times (range 2–5), in other words, clearly below aver-
age. Furthermore, three of these five children with disabilities chose each other. To
sum up, the questionnaire and the sociograms indicate that the children on a general
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

level seemed to be content in the classroom, enjoyed working in groups, and no one
seemed to be socially isolated. However, the children with disabilities were on aver-
age picked less often as someone to be with/play with.

Inclusion in the learning community

As revealed by the answers to the questionnaire, the children seemed to feel involved
in the learning community of the class. However, four of the children in the study had
problems achieving the goals in fifth grade in one of the subjects, and one child did
not achieve the goals in any of the three subjects. As will be elaborated later, two of
the children perceived themselves as having problems learning. However, with addi-
tional help provided by the special needs teacher, four of the five children passed the
exams. Such help is allowed according to exam regulations. The exam results were
slightly better than those of other schools in the municipality. Teacher A had been
worried about the national exams and expressed some doubts in the interview about
the way she had been working. She also expressed sharp criticism towards the national
exams which she thought did not take the individuality of children into account and
thus might be a hindrance to more inclusive practices (cf. Goodman 2006; Lloyd 2008).
So in what sense was the classroom studied inclusive? Perhaps it is wise not to
view inclusion as an all-or-none phenomenon. Instead, classrooms can be more or less
inclusive. Taken in this sense of the word, the classroom studied could be considered
as inclusive to a great extent, especially considering the heterogeneous group of chil-
dren involved. Differences were largely viewed as ordinary and the students were to
a large extent part of the social and learning community of the classroom.

What strategies were used by the teachers?

The strategies below emerged from the analysis. For the sake of space, short
descriptions are provided:

(1) Adapt instruction to the individual needs of children.

(2) Provide clear frameworks in the form of:
(a) Ground rules, that is, everyone has the right to voice their opinion and
should respectfully listen to others’ opinions. This means that you must not
laugh at other people’s point of view. You do not have to agree on issues,
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 247

and it is natural and a good thing that people have different points of view
and are different.
(b) Clear planning of the school day and of what is expected of the children.
(c) Taking immediate action when problems arise.
(3) Utilise group activities in order to strengthen social processes and learning, for
example, outdoor activities (about 30–40% of the time in Grades 1–6
comprised outdoor activities). Altogether roughly 50% of the activities in the
class were conducted in groups, 15% consisted of whole-class instruction, and
30% individual work. The teachers decided on the composition of the groups.
The group activities involved play, cooperative problem-solving, and gather-
ing material to be used in class (e.g., the children made their own readers in
first grade by taking digital photographs and writing about the pictures). The
children also went to camps and held group and small-group discussions –
often involving controversial social issues, which seem to be rare subjects
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

even among older children in social science classes (Rossi 2006). In addition
there was a class council run by the pupils in which responsibilities (such as
being chairperson and secretary) were rotated. Teacher A said that team build-
ing was the most important goal during the first year, and less than usual atten-
tion was paid to reading and writing instruction. She also said that team
building was quite successful from early on.
(4) Create good relations with the parents, which involved letting them take part
in the goals of the schooling, and meeting them often – not only when problems
arise. Teacher A stated that she had never had problems with relations with
parents apart from sometimes the risk of getting too involved in family problems.
(5) Include talking and discussions in academic exercises, even in maths, and
encourage joint problem-solving.
(6) Respect the children, be positive and avoid confrontational relations, thus
never letting children lose face. This theme also involves always including the
possibility of choice and trying to provide positive feedback. Teacher A
expressed several times that ‘they are fine children’, which could be seen as an
expression of a general attitude towards the children.

Some of strategies 1–6 were said to be even more important regarding the children
with disabilities. In addition, these children were placed at a distance from each
other and often received extra support when activities changed. Also, more practi-
cal work was given to children who were described as not so good at theory. It
should also be pointed out that the teachers underscored the importance of the
small class size and the importance of sharing views on schooling and how to
divide the work among themselves. As shown, most of the work by the teachers
can be understood as finding a balance between creating a sense of community in
the group at the same time as taking each individual’s rights and needs into
account. While teacher A had the main responsibility of the teaching going on,
teacher B most of the time acted as a mediator between the children and the activi-
ties of the classroom.

The children’s experiences of the classroom

As stated previously, two of the children stated in the interviews that they felt that
their academic achievements were a problem. Both of these were children who had
 248 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

disabilities. In the middle of the interview, Jeff said the following in response to a
question concerning group work:

J: For example [pause] to work in a group? Well it’s, I really don’t know. I don’t think
school is fun in any way.
I: You don’t think so? Is it hard? Is it difficult?
J: Yes [sounds sad]
I: What is the most difficult thing? Can you name something?
J: What? What is most difficult? Probably math and then some other things.

Later in the interview, Jeff also suggested that he was not very good at writing. Bob
also had similar doubts about his capabilities. In addition, one girl, Anna, who was
also a child defined as in need of special support, was mentioned by several of the
other children in their interviews, because they felt that she was alone a lot of the time.
Most of these children said that they tried to invite her into their activities, but that she
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

often said no. Interestingly, Anna wrote about this topic in one of her poems:

Everyone is different really which I think is good.

Otherwise it would be boring.
You must be allowed to be who you are.
I am never alone, never feel that way,
even though the others seem to think so.
They don’t really know what I feel.

Anna did not seem to share the worries of her peers. Furthermore, the notion of how
to interpret social inclusion is shown in an interesting light by Anna’s poem. Can you
be socially excluded if you choose to be alone?
The children’s poetry comprised 20 poems written by eight of the children, including
three of the five children with a medical diagnosis. They ranged from one to four poems
per child and the poems varied between four and 20 lines. They are usually centred on
an ‘I’ – including reflections on who this ‘I’ was, and they almost always related to
activities and situations in school. Some of the poems concerned the class or school
situation. Some of the ‘I’ reflections involved problems, such as in Sue’s poem:

I think I am good at listening

at least that is what my friends say.
I do not talk so much myself
maybe that is because I am so good at listening.
But sometimes I think
I learn from the others,
but what do they learn from me?
Why do they not wonder what I think?

One problem in this poem concerned being a good listener, but not being listened to.
In Anna’s poem presented earlier, a similar problem concerned Anna’s feeling that
others perceived her as lonely. In Anna’s and other poems, the problem was dissected.
Anna argued for the right of being yourself, and she ascribed the perception that she
was lonely to others. Sue, on the other hand, ascribed the observation of not talking
much, to herself. She ended her poem with the rhetorical question: ‘Why do they not
wonder what I think?’. On the other hand, several poems celebrated the class and the
learning method itself. It seems that the poems in the reflection books provided the
children with an actual opportunity to reflect.
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 249

The children’s experiences as expressed in the questionnaires, interviews, and

poems, and as observed, suggest that the children were content in the class. This
observation was corroborated by several different data sources. In general, the chil-
dren seemed to enjoy the forms of work in the class and liked their peers. Also, the
ground rules of the classroom seemed firmly established among the children as
expressed by several children in the interviews and as seen in participant observations.
Interestingly, the interviews, observations, and above all the poems, revealed some
complexities that were not visible in the answers to the questionnaire.

Discussion
The critique raised by McLeskey and Waldron (2007) concerning the lack of explicit
definitions in the study of ‘inclusive’ classrooms suggested that such a lack is a threat
to the whole research area. The review of co-teaching by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

McDuffie (2007) illustrated the fact that too often classrooms are described as inclu-
sive when children with disabilities are placed there. The methodology used in the
present study makes it possible to scrutinise levels of social and educational inclusion
as well as whether differences are viewed as ordinary. One conclusion of the present
study is that in order to label a classroom ‘inclusive’, it is a necessary prerequisite to
use an elaborated methodology (not necessarily identical to the one used in the present
investigation). Moreover, classrooms should by no means be labelled ‘inclusive’ if we
do not have firm data regarding how children experience the classroom.
The teacher strategies discerned focus on all children with some modifications
with regard to the children with disabilities. The teaching pattern revealed in the
present study seemed to deviate from the general pattern described by Scruggs,
Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007). Children with disabilities in the present study
were to a larger extent involved in common activities and the co-teacher functioned
more as a mediator between the children with disabilities and the activities of the
classroom. This illustrates that we have to attend to studied classrooms as communi-
ties of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991; Säljö 2000) in order to understand what
inclusion means in a particular context. This is also interesting since the work meth-
ods in the classroom studied deviated to a large extent from what have become domi-
nating forms of work in Swedish classrooms; that is, whole-class teaching mixed with
individual work (Skolverket 2009). The classroom community described in the
present article appears to show both similarities with and differences to the one
described by Putney (2007). In both cases, the teachers provide some non-negotiable
ground rules. The classroom described by Putney seems to rely more on children
having formal roles in the classroom community, while Teachers A and B tried to
establish what could perhaps be called a more egalitarian classroom community.
Justice is, to quite a high degree, interpreted as the right to learn according to one’s
prerequisites; to feel secure as a member of the group (McLaughlin 2008); and the
right to have an opinion, to voice that opinion, and to be listened to (cf. Schultz
2008). Further, these strategies are echoed in the experiences of the children who to a
large extent seemed to appropriate (Wertsch 1985) the ground-rules of the classroom
and who appreciated group-work and felt secure in the classroom. Also, the work
forms seemed to be important according to the teachers (cf. Slavin 1996; Swanson
and Hoskyn 1998). Despite this, children with disabilities were less socially included
(cf. Pijl, Frostad, and Flem 2008; Estell 2008). However, it should be taken into
account that the general level of social inclusion of the class was high, as evident
 250 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

from, for example, the answers to the questionnaire. The fact that two of the children
displayed doubts about their academic competence is perhaps more problematic.
These observations raise the question of whether other teaching strategies could have
made the classroom even more inclusive. Of course, any answer to this question
would be speculative. However, the educational history of the children would have a
bearing on this issue. As stated by one of the teachers, the children seemed ill-
prepared for schooling. Thus, earlier intervention might have been beneficial for the
academic development of these children.
The teacher strategies discerned in the present study bear resemblance to strategies
stated to be favourable to inclusive processes in manuals concerned with how
inclusion should be accomplished (Booth and Ainscow 2002; Eggertsdóttir and
Marinósoson 2005). However, such manuals provide very long lists of strategies
(several which did not emerge in the data of the present investigation). The contribu-
tion of the present investigation when it comes to teacher strategies is to provide a
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

methodologically transparent analysis of the most important strategies that is firmly

grounded in an analysis of the level inclusiveness of the classroom studied. One might
ask to what extent the high teacher–child ratio is a necessary condition for the enact-
ment of strategies. Both teachers pointed out the importance of the small class size.
On the other hand, the class used to be larger and the teachers suggested that they
established the ground-rules and working methods of the classroom rather early on. It
should also be pointed out that children with ADHD and Asperger syndrome in the
Swedish context to an increasing extent seem to be educated in more segregated
settings where the teacher–child ratio is very high.
Finally, the importance of the experiences of the children has been pointed out
throughout the present article. Echoing Soodak (2003), we suggest that feelings of
belonging, membership and acceptance on behalf of the children are necessary prereq-
uisites in order to talk about inclusive classrooms. Thus, studies should report data
pertaining to these matters. Interestingly, interviews and poems revealed a more prob-
lematic picture than the questionnaire. In future research, we hope that the notion of
children’s experiences will be further scrutinised. After all, inclusion is supposed to
be in the best interest of these very children.

References
Abbot, L. 2007. Northern Ireland special educational needs coordinators creating inclusive
environments: An epic struggle. European Journal of Special Needs Education 22, no. 4:
391–407.
Booth, T., and M. Ainscow. 2002. Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation
in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology 3, no. 2: 77–101.
Carrington, S. 2006. Inclusive school community: Why is it so complex? International
Journal of Inclusive Education 10, nos. 4–5: 323–34.
Clark, C., A. Dyson, and A. Millward, eds. 1998. Theorising special education? Time to move
on? In Theorising Special Education, ed. C. Clark, A. Dyson, and A. Millward, 156–73.
London: Routledge.
Creswell, J. 2000. Qualitative inquiry and research design – choosing among five traditions.
London: Sage.
Dyson, A., and A. Millward. 2000. Schools and special needs – issues of innovation and
inclusion. London: Sage.
Eggertsdóttir, R., and G. Marinósson, eds. 2005. Pathways to inclusion – a guide to staff
development. Reykjavík, Iceland: Universtity of Iceland Press.
 European Journal of Special Needs Education 251

Emanuelsson, I., and B. Persson. 2002. Differentiering, specialpedagogik och likvärdighet. En

longitudinell studie av skolkarriärer bland elever i svårigheter [Differentiation, special
pedagogics and equality: A study of school careers among pupils with difficulties].
Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 7, no. 3: 183–99; English summary: 249–50.
Estell, D. 2008. Peer groups, popularity, and social preference: Trajectories of social function-
ing among students with and without disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41, no.
1: 5–14.
Flem, A., T. Moen, and S. Gudmundsdottir. 2004. Towards inclusive schools: A study of
inclusive education in practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education 19, no. 1:
85–98.
Florian, L. 2008. Special or inclusive education: Future trends. British Journal of Special
Education 35, no. 4: 202–8.
Flyvberg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12,
no. 2: 219–45.
Garrison-Harell, L., and D. Kamps. 1997. The effects of peer networks on social-communica-
tive behaviors for students with autism. Focus on autism and other developmental disabil-
ities 12, no. 4: 241–54.
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

Goodman, G. 2006. Preparing teachers for culturally and cognitively diverse classrooms.
What would Dewey say? Teacher Education and Practice 19, no. 4: 513–34.
Göransson, K., C. Nilholm, and K. Karlsson. Forthcoming. Inclusive education in Sweden? A
critical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Han, J., M. Ostrovsky, and K. Diamond. 2006. Children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities:
Supporting positive attitude development. Young Exceptional Children 10, no. 1: 2–11.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Lloyd, C. 2008. Removing barriers to achievement: A strategy for inclusion or exclusion?
International Journal of Inclusive Education 12, no. 2: 221–6.
McLaughlin, C. 2008. Emotional well-being and its relationship to schools and classrooms: A
critical reflection. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling 36, no. 4: 353–66.
McLeskey, J., and N.L. Waldron. 2007. Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic 42, no. 3: 162–8.
McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, and J.M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–44.
Nilholm, C., B. Persson, M. Hjerm, and S. Runesson. 2007. Kommuners arbete med elever i
behov av särskilt stöd – en enkätundersökning [Municipalities’ work with children in
need of special support – a questionnaire-based study]. Jönköping, Sweden: Jönköping
University Press.
Norwich, B. 1993. Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioners’ view.
Oxford Review of Education 19, no. 4: 527–46.
Nowicki, E., and R. Sandieson. 2002. A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes
towards persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disabil-
ity, Development and Education 49, no. 3: 243–65.
Oliver, M. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: McMillan.
Persson, B. 1998. Who needs special education? International Journal of Educational
Research 29: 107–17.
Pijl, J., P. Frostad, and A. Flem. 2008. The social position of pupils with special needs in
regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52, no. 4: 387–405.
Putney, L. 2007. Discursive practices as cultural resources: Formulating identities for individ-
ual and collective in an inclusive classroom setting. International Journal of Educational
Research 46, nos. 3–4: 129–40.
Rossi, J.A. 2006. The dialogue of democracy. Social Studies 97, no. 3: 112–20.
Schultz, B. 2008. Strategizing, sustaining, and supporting justice-oriented teaching. Democ-
racy and Education 17, no. 3: 8–19.
Scruggs, T.E., M.A. Mastropieri, and K.A. McDuffie. 2007. Co-teaching in inclusive class-
rooms: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children 73, no. 4: 392–416.
Skolverket. 2009. Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk grundskola? [What affects the results in
the Swedish mandatory school?]. Skolverket report 09:1127. Stockholm, Sweden:
Skolverket.
 252 C. Nilholm and B. Alm

Slavin, R.E. 1996. Education for all: contexts of learning. Lisse, France: Swets and
Keitlinger.
Soodak, L.C. 2003. Classroom management in inclusive settings. Theory into Practice 42, no.
4: 327–33.
Swanson, H.L., and M. Hoskyn. 1998. Experimental intervention research on students with
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational
Research 68, no. 3: 277–321.
Stark, S., and H. Torrance. 2007. Case study. In Research methods in the social sciences, 33–
40. ed. B. Somekh and C. Lewin. London: Sage.
Säljö, R. 2000. Lärande i praktiken – ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in practice – a
sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm, Sweden: Prisma.
Volonino, V., and N. Zigmond. 2007. Promoting research-based practices through inclusion?
Theory into Practice 46, no. 4: 291–300.
Weiss, M.P. 2004. Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse: More questions than answers.
Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 218–23.
Weiss, M.P., and F.J. Brigham. 2000. Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility:
What does the research support? In Educational interventions. Vol. 14 of Advances in
Downloaded by [University of Malta] at 06:07 04 August 2017

learning and behavioral disabilities, ed. T.E. Scruggs and M.A. Mastropieri, 217–45.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Wertsch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Yin, R.K. 2002. Case study research. Design and methods. Vol. 5 of Applied social science
research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.