Inclusion explored through student voices within the framework of formal teacher-student conversations

ABSTRACT

A great deal of research has addressed the field of inclusive education. However, yet we know little about the phenomenon of inclusion explored though student voices. This qualitative study draws on data from a research-practice partnership in Norway, where the parties together developed a framework for the school’s formal teacher–student conversations to find out more about the students’ experiences of inclusion. As a result of inductive analysis of the voices of three students, we discovered a tension between each student’s current childlike lifeworld and a school system emphasising conformity and future academic achievement. Analysis revealed that there were several barriers to students expressing themselves during the conversations. Despite this, the students asserted their own capability and agency, guiding the subject of those conversations towards their own desires and needs. The findings suggests that teachers ought to be given the opportunity to increase their competency in what should be an ongoing process of listening to and acting upon student voices in inclusive education, potentially going so far as to become agents for change in the school system.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusive education
• teacher–student conversations
• student voices
• inclusive teaching practices

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS:

• SDG 4: Quality education
• SDG 10: Reduced inequalities

Introduction

In 1994, the UNESCO Salamanca Declaration (1994) stated that inclusive education (IE), in terms of offering equal opportunities and full participation for all students in regular schools, should be an issue of concern for all countries. Looking to Norway ‘education for all’ was part of the social democratic project after World War II and started to influence educational policy from the 1970s (Imsen, Blossing, and Moos 2017). Despite that IE has been high on the education agenda for decade, the progress toward inclusive practice in schools appears to lag behind (Nilholm 2021), and the interpretation of the concept varies widely (Ainscow and Sandill 2010). In this respect, the contribution of research to the field has largely focused on theoretical aspects (Amor et al. 2019), with top-down studies of inclusive practices, defined in advance through state or municipal programs, predominating (Chapman and Ainscow 2021). Because of this, exploring inclusive practices from the bottom up in local contexts is a potentially valuable approach (Chapman and Ainscow 2021). This kind of school-based research, particularly including the voices of the students themselves (Messiou 2017, 2019a), holds promise for helping in the development of theories about how teachers can create inclusive practices (Nilholm 2021, 367).

In this paper we present a study conducted in a research-practice partnership between a Norwegian public primary school and a group of researchers from a university. Through a collaborative approach emphasising dialog, reflective practice, and active student participation (Messiou, 2019a), the aim of the partnership was to explore inclusion and inclusive practices in the partner school, as characterised by a student body diverse in terms of ethnicity, religion, culture, language, and learning needs. As a starting point, all staff members were asked to write a log about what inclusion meant to them, in this specific school. When analysing the logs, it was found that the staff emphasised a psychological dimension of inclusion, systematically describing it as the students’ sense of belonging. The staff even divided it into four different sub-categories or ‘senses’: (1) a sense of relatedness to peers and teachers, (2) a sense of mastering learning activities, (3) a sense of mattering, and (4) a sense of agency (Uthus & Sivertsen, 2023). According to Nilholm (2021), such a theoretical appreciation of inclusion can be useful in giving operative meaning to teachers’ inclusive practices in schools. However, at this point, it was unclear how this concept could be applied in this particular school and partnership. To decide upon a starting point for further exploration, the partners met to reflect on the concept and determine the next step. During the meeting, one of the teachers suggested improving the school’s formal teacher–student conversational¹ framework in order to deal with the students’ experiences of inclusion in everyday school life and to explore the schools’ inclusive practices on this basis.

With this, the aim of the study presented in this paper was to gain knowledge about the phenomenon of inclusion through the voices of three students in formal conversations with their teacher.

The concept of student voices in inclusive education

Inclusion is a multifaceted phenomenon that operates at both macro, meso and micro levels (Schuelka and Engsig 2022). At a macro level, it encompasses ‘policy, the organisation and financing of the school system, teacher education, laws and regulations, and prevailing cultural ideologies’ (Nilholm 2021, 364). While exploring aspects at a meso level, local school context, teachers’ inclusive (and exclusive) practices and their interactions with the students are central. IE cannot be accomplished at the macro-level alone but must be embedded in day-to-day practices and interactions at the meso level, placing the students themselves at the centre (micro level). At a micro level it is not just the physical (regular classroom) and social (active participation) dimensions of IE that must be monitored, but also the psychological dimension, which address each student’s unique experience of being recognised by other members of the community and sense of school belonging (Qvortrup and Qvortrup 2018, 812).

Despite a vast body of research on IE, limited attention has been given to students’ own perspectives and experiences (Messiou 2017, 2019a). Of those that do centre the student, Adderley and colleagues (2015) have explored what may hinder students’ (ages 5, 7, and 9) sense of inclusion, discovering that the students set their own agenda, discussing social relational themes such as playtime, lunchtime, and friendship. Adderley et al. note that the students’ main interest in school may not even be what occurs in the classroom (Adderley et al. 2015, 112). In a similar vein, Lundqvist and colleagues (2019) followed 56 children (ages 5–7) for a three-year period in order to explore their views on what matters to them in school. They found that nine common themes emerged, all related to the children’s inner life satisfaction and well-being. Notably, the role of play seems to be crucial to the students, wherein they experience speed, excitement, physical challenges, participation in creative activities, and feeling autonomous and free. Other researchers have found that students highlight their need for stimulating educational activities, friendships, and play, as well as influence and less adult control (Allodi 2002; Einarsdottir 2010).

Einarsdottir (2010) found that students ages 6 and 7 expressed a preference for enjoying activities such as free time, recess, and playing with others, finding reading and mathematics difficult and boring. Considering the students experienced little influence with respect to what is done in school, the researchers reflect on the inconsistency between the Icelandic democratic model of education and local schools touched by globalisation and a market model of education. Similarly, Kleeberg-Niepage and colleagues (2022) discovered that the students’ own perspectives seemed to be undergirded by their concerns regarding submission to an overarching meritocratic and non-participative school logic.

According to Messiou (2019a), students’ voices are an important element if teachers are to improve their inclusive practice. In a study on 227 students’ perspectives on inclusion in primary schools, the fluid and complex nature of marginalisation is explored (Messiou 2006). While some students feel marginalised without anyone, someone, or everyone recognising it, others may be marginalised without admitting it or viewing it as marginalisation themselves, showing that the most important perspectives ‘ … are those of ‘insiders’, especially children themselves, since they are the ones who experience the impact of either inclusive or exclusive practices’ (Messiou 2006, 306). Based on this, Messiou (2006, 313) claims that greater dialogue between teachers and their students is itself a manifestation of being inclusive, defining such dialogues as ‘reciprocal interactions between participants that lead to authentic engagement with each other’s views, creating new meanings and further questions’ (Messiou 2019b, 310).

This concept of student voices in IE aligns with theories on children’s capability and agency (Bourke 2023; Norwich 2022; Tangen 2009) While capability approach, developed by Amartya Sen (citet in Norwich 2022, 6), emphasise the opportunities children are afforded to develop and live in accordance with what they have reason to value, agency is fundamental in determining and realising what is valued (Norwich 2022, 6). Children’s agency refers to their ability to understand their own experiences, act independently, and interact with and influence their surroundings (Tangen 2009). Recognising children’s capability and agency involves acknowledging that they are beings who already exist in their own right, and that they are social actors actively constructing and understanding their own experiences of childhood. This stands in contrast to viewing children as becomings, which means that they lack the universal skills and features of adults, and that childhood is simply a stage of development on the path to adulthood. However, as Uprichard (2008) notes, children are constantly being and becoming at the same time, with these two aspects interacting and complementing each other. Focusing on children’s becoming doesn’t imply that they are currently incompetent or incomplete. Rather, it requires that the adults around them anticipate their future capabilities and continually strive to determine and realise those. Children themselves also look forward to what they will become, which is an important part of being a child (Uprichard 2008, 306). Thus, agency of the being child is situated in the past, present and future, a perspective which invites practitioners and researchers to consider what children say in relation to agents of both being and becoming. According to the research of Tangen (2009), such a concept of time plays a pivotal role in students’ narratives about their school experiences. Interestingly she found that those students who were able to construct a positive narrative about their own experiences (despite the challenges they faced), had a more optimistic future perspective. Drawing on the theory of Koselleck (2004), she suggests that these students held a horizon of expectations for their future.

Student voices appear to be an obvious, if challenging, starting point for creating more inclusive practices (Messiou 2006, 314). For instance, power dynamics must be considered in the context of the complex interactions between situational structures and teacher–student relationships, where both overt and hidden domination can limit students’ voices and influence (Robinson and Taylor 2013). According to Article 12 in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UN CRC] (1989), teachers should practise systematically and consistently confirming every child’s right to express themselves and have their views given due weight in all matters affecting them (United Nations 2003, paragraph 53). According to Lundy (2007), this requires special attention to four key elements that must be developed in ‘teachers’ practices: space – referring students opportunities to express their views; voice – that students must be facilitated to do so; audience – the need for teachers to have the necessary skills to actively listen to students’ views; and influence – teachers appropriately acting upon students’ views. As stated in UN paragraph 12 (2003), giving due weight to students’ views requires actual change, which is much more complex and challenging than just listening. With this considered, Ainscow and Messiou (2018, 26) pose the question to the field of IE, ‘Are we prepared to listen and act on what we hear?’

Despite research focusing on student voices in IE, there is limited knowledge about what student voices actually express in interactions with their teachers. The next section explains more about the context of this study and how our research question was formulated with the aim of gaining knowledge about this issue.

The context of the study

In Norway almost all children attend the public schools (ages 6–15), with less than 1% receiving full time education in special schools or units (Directorate of Education and Training 2023). Additionally, the national curriculum places a high priority on students’ democratic participation in school and a newly proposed Education Act (Ministry of Education and Research 2019, 24) even devotes a full paragraph to student voices and influence.

As mentioned, the parties in this study developed the school’s formal teacher–student conversational framework to deal more specifically with the students’ experiences of inclusion in school. A conversational framework was created with five open-ended questions to the students, focusing on:

• – what they value in their time at school

• – what it is like to be them in diverse school environments

• – relations to peers and teachers

• – experiences in common learning activities in the classroom

• – experience of being heard and able to influence change in school

Additionally, follow-up questions for each of the five areas of focus were formulated: Can you tell me a bit more about it? Why do you think it's like that? If it feels challenging, how do you think it can be improved? A final question asked was, ‘If you had a magic wand, what would you do to make your everyday school life even better?’ It was also decided that the teacher should share with each student something the teacher appreciate about them.

Finally, the following research question was formulated to guide our study: Within the framework of formal teacher–student conversations that are focused on students’ inclusion experiences, what do students talk about?

Method

This study was registered at the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt) under the number 740555. One teacher and three students (and their parents) were informed about and voluntarily recruited for the study. The teacher held a degree in preschool education, a master’s degree in beginner training for primary school, and had almost 30 years of teaching experience. The students were all 7 years old: a girl given the name ‘Alva’ and two boys given the names ‘Nicholas’ and ‘Harry’. All participants were informed of their dual roles as both teacher and student in a natural setting (the conversations), and that the conversations also served as an empirical contribution to the research. Before the conversations began, all parties were reminded that their participation was voluntary and given the option to withdraw at any time. Each conversation lasted approximately 30 minutes and was audio recorded and transcribed.

Analyses

In the first phase of analysis, the researchers read the transcripts of the teacher–student conversations several times, focusing on the students’ entire stories, as revealed in the conversations. In this step, the researchers discovered some contradictions in the conversations according to what the students found interesting and enjoyable in school on the one hand, and what seemed to challenge them on the other. Reflections about this were noted, intended to ensure an open and holistic approach to the data (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber 1998). For the next phase, the researchers re-read the transcripts in order to identify key themes with underlying categories and codes (Miles and Huberman 1994). In this phase, the analysis centred on what appeared as ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ codes, according to the contradictions in the students’ statements discovered in the first phase. In this way, two categories emerged clearly, yielding new insight according to the research question. However, in the second phase we also discovered that parts of the data did not fit into the ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ coding system. As a result, a third category emerged, dealing with the students’ opportunities for sharing personal experiences in the conversations (and for these to be acknowledged by the teacher).

Results

In the framework of formal teacher–student conversations focusing on students’ inclusion experiences, the voice of three students could be understood in terms of the following three categories.

Tensions between student’s childlike lifeworld and the school’s demands to conform and do the right thing

When the students were asked about what they value with respect to their time at school, they highlighted activities such as spending time with friends, engaging in creative activities like arts and crafts, participating in physical education, and listening to the teacher read fiction to the class. They also enjoyed having fun, laughing, and climbing trees.

When asked about what she might do if given a magic wand, Alva expressed her preference for having fun with her favourite activity in everyday school life:

T:

If you had a magic wand, what would you wish for to make your everyday school life even better?

A:

I would make it so that everyone could go swimming in the pool and we could go to the water park every day!

T:

Yes, just imagine, that would be nice! We should have such a magic wand, shouldn’t we, Alva?

A:

Yes! Maybe then children could pay 1 money and adults could pay 2 moneys! Hahaha!

T:

Yes, so adults would have to pay more?

A:

Yes, just a little more!

T:

That’s a good idea!

Alva’s response, that she would use the magic wand so that everyone could go to the water park every day, shows that she values fun and leisure activities in school. Furthermore, the statement suggests that she sees herself as a part of the school community and wants her peers to join and have fun in the water park. Her idea that the price is almost for free indicate she would prevent students feeling excluded because of poverty, which is the case for many families in this school district. When she laughs spontaneously and loudly, happy in the present moment, it is as if she takes delight in the idea that there is a fundamental difference between being a child and an adult.

However, the students talk about being a child in a childlike lifeworld contrast with their stories about struggling with writing correctly and having pretty handwriting, learning numbers and counting, raising their hands before speaking, and sharing speaking time with others in class.

When Nicholas tells his teacher that he would prefer to play more at school, she struggles to appreciate what he is actually saying:

T:

What do you want for yourself then, going forward, so you’ll feel good at school?

N:

To play.

T:

Mmm … 

N:

playing!

T:

That you should get to play when you’re at ASP (After school-programme)?

N:

ASP … ?

T:

ASP, yes. And during your breaks, there should be time for playing, and that’s nice. Great!

While Nicholas spontaneously tells his teacher that playing at school is important for his well-being, the teacher seem to assume that playing is an activity limited to SFO and breaks. In communicating as she did, she implicitly informed him that school is really about learning. In so doing, the tension between the perspectives of Nicholas and the perspective of his teacher’s becomes obvious.

In this dialog, Alva tells her teacher that she finds writing difficult:

T:

You said that sometimes you find writing a little difficult. What do you want to write about when you get a little older?

A:

I want to write prettier letters, because I don’t think the letters I write are pretty enough and then the adults say that I have to erase them and write them again in a prettier way.

T:

Okay, what do you think about that?

A:

That it’s not fun.

Alva’s expression of frustration with the pressure to write in a way that is deemed pretty enough by adults highlights an emphasis on conformity in the school system. Despite the teacher encouraging her to focus on what she might like to write about in the future, writing letters that are pretty enough still remains Alva’s primary focus. Her experience of adults insisting she erase her letters, even if she tried her best to make them pretty enough, suggests that writing causes her distressing thoughts and emotions.

Listening to Harry, it becomes clear that his life circumstances challenge him to do the right thing in school:

T:

If you had a magic wand, what would you wish for to make your everyday school life even better?

H:

A signature from my parents in my homework folder every Friday!

T:

A signature from your parents in your homework folder?

H:

Yes, they always forget … and the folder it’s left at home … 

T:

You would have conjured up things you had forgotten, wouldn’t you? Quite clever! Imagine if we had done it that way, then it would have just been there!

In this dialog, Harry expresses his frustration about his parents forgetting to sign his homework folder every Friday. This can make him feel like he is not conforming to the norms of the classroom, and thus feeling a sense failure in comparison with his peers. However, when he is given a magic wand, this, of all things, is what he wishes for. Even if the teacher acknowledges his perspective and shows a willingness to understand his experience of forgetting things, she is not referring to the parents’ responsibility in what he finds difficult, or how to solve the situation.

Tensions between the students’ spontaneity and the school’s future orientation

Furthermore, the findings suggests that the student talks within the conversations was about what occupied them in the present moment, but also about a school culture characterised by future-oriented goals for their learning outcomes. This tension is prominent in the conversation between Harry and his teacher:

T:

So, is there anything else you want for yourself in the future?

H:

That I could have lots of bank cards … 

T:

Yes, but I’m really thinking about school. What do you want for yourself in school subjects?

H:

I want to have fun subjects!

T:

Okay, which subjects then?

H:

A subject where we could copy as much unemployment money as we wanted!

T:

Yes! So that’s your wish … it would be great if we could do things that way! But sometimes you find it a bit difficult to write? What do you want to write about when you grow up?

While Harry expresses his desire for bank cards, the teacher tries to redirect the conversation to focus on school, asking Harry what he wants for himself in his school subjects. When responds with a wish for fun subjects where he could ‘copy unemployment money’, the teacher initially goes along with it, perhaps trying to be empathic and humorous. Her response seems to indicate she understands that Harry’s underlying concerns may be related to his parents’ unemployment and poverty. Nevertheless, she changes the topic and wants Harry to reflect on his writing in the future.

Alva, on her side, asserts her right to define how to be smarter in the future, based on what she desires today:

T:

If we look ahead, you will soon finish second grade and move up to third grade. What do you think I can do to help you with your subjects?

A:

To become smarter.

T:

To become smarter? How can I help with that?

A:

By reading the book Northern Lights to us a lot, and then reading even more!

T:

Do you become smarter when someone reads fiction to you?

A:

Yes!

T:

Yes, I agree, you can learn a lot from it!

When the teacher tries to gather information on how she can help Alva achieving the long-term educational goals, Alva provides an answer that doesn’t pertain to school subjects as the teacher might have expected. Instead, Alva points out that she is getting smarter if the teacher continue to read from the fiction book to the entire class, just as she already does.

Sharing personal experiences

At least, the analyses revealed a space in the interactions within which the students shared personal experiences with their teacher:

T:

What happens if you have no one to be with? Can I make suggestions? Do you feel sad, disappointed, angry, or resigned?

N:

I feel resigned.

T:

OK, you feel resigned. What does that mean?

N:

I don’t know what that means.

T:

But still, that’s what you feel?

N:

Yes.

T:

Yes, could it be like (sigh); ‘Oh, I don’t know what to do now’, somehow?

N:

Yes.

T:

Yes, then you get a little resigned.

N:

And then I just go away.

T

Ok, do you go to those who would not be with you … or anyone else?

N:

I go to someone else. Or that’s what I want, but it doesn’t work because I don’t not have anyone else, so then I climb into a tree and start crying.

T:

Oh, so then you feel sad and resigned, yes. I understand that’s not a good feeling, Nicholas.

N:

No.

T:

No, but it’s not like that all the time, is it?

N:

No.

T:

No, it’s good to know. Anyway, is there something I can do?

N:

Yes. Help me?

T:

Help you, yes. In what way do you think I can help you?

N:

I can take a seat on the bench maybe? And then you know that I want you to ask the others if I can play with them?

T:

Yes, sure. Next time I see you sitting on the bench, I can help you!

In this dialog, the teacher tells Nicholas that she is aware that he may be experiencing social exclusion and that she wants to help him. By suggesting different feelings, he may have and clarifying what he means by feeling resigned, she shows an interest in understanding his emotions. When Nicholas says that he climbs into a tree and starts crying, the teacher responds with empathy and acknowledges that it is not a good feeling. This may make him feel valued and included in the present moment. Furthermore, the teacher reassures Nicholas that it is not like that all the time, which shows that she is trying to help him see that feeling excluded can be temporary and thus something that can be improved. Finally, when the teacher asks how she can help and agrees to his proposal, she indicates that she is willing to take action to help him feel included. It should be noted that Nicholas, on his side, seems willing to share his feelings and thoughts with the teacher, indicating that he trusts her and feels comfortable talking to her.

However, the student sharing of personal experiences turned out not only to be about what was said, but also about how the teacher made a space in which those experiences could be shared:

T:

Should I tell you what I appreciate about you?

H:

Yes.

T:

I like you because you’re always so positive.

H:

What does ‘positive’ mean?

T:

It means that you think things are okay and that you’re easy to make happy. And if you’re a bit annoyed or sad, we can easily fix it by talking together.

H:

Yes.

T:

There’s another thing about you, as well. You’re the world’s best singer.

H:

Oh yeah?

T:

Even if you sing the Lucia song from December thirteenth until next summer. Hahaha!

H:

Yes, haha!

Here, Harry demonstrates his confidence in the teacher by asking her to clarify what she means when she calls him ‘positive’. His question gives the impression that it is important to him that he understand exactly what she appreciates about him. When the teacher then confirms that she thinks he’s the world’s best singer, even if he sings the same Lucia song far too long after the Lucia celebration is finished, they both burst out laughing.

Discussion

The main purpose of our study was to gain new insights into the phenomenon of inclusion through the voices of three students, within the framework of formal teacher–student conversations. By situating our study within a local school context and developing a teacher–student conversational framework based in the school’s concept of inclusion, we found that the students’ experiences of both inclusion and exclusion were dynamically constructed and reconstructed in each student’s interaction with their teacher. Therefore, in line with Qvortrup and Qvortrup (2018), we suggest that students’ will always experience both inclusion and exclusion in ongoing processes in school.

Aligned with previous research (Adderley et al. 2015; Einarsdottir 2010; Allodi 2002; Lundqvist, Westling Allodi, and Siljehag 2019; Tangen 2009), student capability and agency emerged as being an important issue in this study. Many of the themes that concerned the students in this study differed from those of the teacher, and even what researchers so far have defined as inclusion. In particular, the students valued what was going on in their childlike world in the present: playtime, friendship, creativity, and stimulation, and even if the teacher tried to repeatedly reset the agenda, the students continued to focus on what mattered to them in the moment. This is similar to the study by Adderley and colleagues (2015) and confirm that students’ agency in IE can be understood as an ability to understand their own experiences, act independently, and influence their surroundings (Tangen 2009).

An important question, however, is whether the power dynamics shown in this study can make it challenging for students to express themselves and advocate for their needs and desires in school. As highlighted by Robinson & Taylor (2013), situational structures were found to have infiltrated the conversations, recognised as tensions between the students’ talk about their current childlike lifeworld on the one hand, and the school’s demands to conform and achieve future academic goals on the other. It also became evident that the imbalance in power between student and teacher was something the teacher could reduce through willingness to actively listen and respond to the students’ perspectives. Unless a teacher is prepared to be influenced by and act as a result of a student’s voice, they will not necessarily give the students a ‘voice’ (Ainscow and Messiou 2018). In fact, such a conversation can make things worse for a student, if they tell a teacher something that is of great personal importance to them, and the teacher fails to acknowledge or follow up on it.

Another interesting finding in this study suggests that the students’ inclusion experiences could be understood as a tension between their being as a child, and the school culture that requires them to conform and achieve the academic learning outcomes which, in the long-term, include becoming an adult. Two other studies of student voices in IE confirm such tensions in student perspectives of inclusion (Kleeberg-Niepage et al. 2022; Einarsdottir 2010). Since schools have a mandate to provide all children with equal opportunities for education, specified as future-oriented goals focused on academic learning and skills, tensions between students being and becoming will naturally arise. The question we need to ask is how strong or challenging this tension has to be. A shift in political values towards making education systems more efficient in terms of academic achievement has been recognised as a barrier to IE, both in Norway (Imsen, Blossing, and Moos 2017) and internationally (Ainscow and Messiou 2018). Nevertheless, as Uprichard (2008) explains, it isn’t necessarily a question of either students being or becoming in school, but rather of both interacting simultaneously. When the three students in this study were given the choice of what to use the magic wand for based on their past experience, their choice was done in the present, supposed to meet their projected future needs. This suggests that their capability was situated in past experiences, expressed in the present moment, about what they perceived as their own needs in the future. Seen this way, students becoming in school isn’t necessarily in conflict with their being. This perspective was also adopted by the teacher throughout the conversations in this study, as she recognised the students’ challenges in social and academic domains (making their past present) and simultaneously pointed to their opportunities to overcome these challenges in the future. For instance, supporting a student in recognising that he was experiencing both exclusion and inclusion at the same time may have had positive impact on the student’s self-concept and future capability and social agency. Thus, the findings in this study suggest that further explorations of methods for creating a balance between students’ being and becoming are a promising way to promote student experiences of inclusion in school.

Despite the fact that students’ voices within formal teacher–student conversations revealed several barriers to experiencing inclusion in school, the three conversations in this study turned out to be potentially inclusive experiences in themselves. As the students shared their personal experiences throughout the conversations, that the teacher (occasionally) actively listened and acknowledged the experiences made manifest her ambition to be inclusive (Messiou 2006, 313). However, this finding must be considered in light of the specific conversations developed, as they aimed to capture the students’ unique experiences of inclusion in everyday school life, and did not solely focus on academic learning (Uthus and Sivertsen 2023). Against this backdrop, these conversations had the potential to establish reciprocity in the teacher–student relationship, in accordance with Messiou’s definition of dialogue (2019b, 310). Both teacher and students appeared to be engaged with each other’s views, as they created new meanings and asked further questions together.

Conclusion

Similar to Messiou’s (2006) exploration of the fluid and complex nature of inclusion as students’ experiences of marginalisation, this study suggests inclusion as an insider phenomenon which is not fixed. After listening to the voices of three students, we suggest that inclusion can be understood as an ever-changing experience of both inclusion and exclusion, emerging in interactions between students and their teachers. What surprised us the most was that the students’ talk throughout the conversations seemed closely linked to the teacher’s accountability for the students’ future academic achievements. From this viewpoint, students’ experiences of inclusion in school (at a micro level), should not be explored as separate from, but rather as influenced by values of education, politics (at a macro level), local schools conditions and cultures, and teachers’ own commitments and practices (at a meso level) in line with Schuelka & Engsig (2022).

Nevertheless, the findings in this study illustrate that students have the capacity to set their own agenda. Based on Uprichard’s (2008) terminology, the subjective dimensions of inclusion in school may therefore be understood as temporary and based on the students’ capability situated in the past, present, and future. For the students to benefit from their capability, however, they must have a voice, and most importantly, their voice must be acted upon by their teacher, serving as the basis for actual change in teaching practices, as emphasised by UN paragraph 12 (2003), Ainscow and Messiou (2018, 26). Although this study did not focus on the teacher acting as a result of the students’ voices, there are many examples throughout the conversations of the significance of the teacher’s commitment in this regard. This confirms what the teachers defined as the purpose of the school’s formal teacher–student conversations: Students sharing their experiences of inclusion and exclusion with their teachers may provide a new opportunity for developing inclusive practices as an ongoing process in schools.

The study’s implications

With respect to the finding of power imbalance, our study identified sequences where the teacher had difficulty engaging with the students’ perspectives and allocating adequate time for the students to speak. It was the teacher who spoke the most and, at times, advanced the conversation too hastily, potentially overlooking the students’ desires and needs. This highlights the importance of teachers developing their competency in actively listening to and acting upon student voices as part of a process, in line with UN paragraphs 23 and 53 (2003). As outlined by Lundy (2007), such a process also encompasses the students’ right to express a view, in terms of both space and voice. Her point is that teachers’ practices of space and voice, on the one hand, and audience and influence on the other, are not linear or static. On the contrary she claims that ‘once the child is informed of the extent of influence, the process may begin again’ (Lundy 2007, 933) Thus, we contend that professional development can occur if teachers are given the opportunity to engage in cyclic and on-going reflections with other professionals on how they advocate (or not) for students’ capability and agency within the framework of formal teacher–student conversations. Such reflections should not only focus on how to acknowledge students as complete and competent beings, but on how to support the students’ ‘horizon of expectations’ as well, to use Koselleck’s phrasing (2004). However, just as the students set their own agenda in the face of an education system measuring outcome in the narrow terms of academic learning, we believe that teachers can do the same. As described by Cochran-Smith (2010), teachers should take part in common reflections to challenge their underlying assumptions about knowledge, power, and language, learning to be agents for change.

The limitations of the study

Due to a limited sample generalisations of the findings in this study must be carried out with caution. Nevertheless, the three children and their teacher highlight important aspects for further consideration, as it shows children can contribute to understanding their experiences of inclusion. The analyses revealed clear patterns and several aspects of the findings have been corroborated in another research. Since studies on student voices in IE are limited, and particularly with respect to how their voices emerge in interaction with their teachers, it is our hope that this study, despite its limitations, can constitute a valuable contribution to the field and inspire further research.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marit Uthus

Marit Uthus is an associate professor of special education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department for Teacher Education. Her work focuses specifically on special educational needs, special educators and inclusion.

Hanne Kristin Aas

Hanne Kristin Aas is an associate professor of special education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Her work focuses specifically on special educational needs and inclusion.

Notes

1 In Norway teachers are required by the Education Act (1998, § 3.7) to ensure formal teacher–student conversations to take place twice each year, normally focusing on the student’s well-being and learning in school. Exactly what the conversation should contain is up to each school or municipality to decide.