The paper takes its departure point from research on school inclusion, conceived in its broadest definition as quality learning and full participation for all (Booth and Ainscow 2011). In particular, by applying a Conversation Analysis approach, the project aims at analyzing educational practices at the micro level of classroom interaction.

The relevance of the micro level in studies on school inclusion has emerged from two research lines. Firstly, difficulties in producing univocal findings on the efficacy of inclusive versus special schooling (Freeman and Alkin, 2000; Lindsey, 2007) has lead to development of the hypothesis that school aspects related to the micro level of classroom management might be more relevant in terms of efficacy than aspects connected with the macro level of school systems. (Lindsey 2007; Norwich & Kelly 2004). Secondly, research that takes its departure from inclusion as a human right (Stainback and Stainback 1990) has always concentrated on the development of instruments and methods that enhance inclusion in the school context, on the meso level of single school organization and on the micro level of classrooms.

Furthermore, the relevance of relationships on the micro level of inclusive classrooms has been underlined by several works, both internationally and nationally (for what concerns Italy). The Index for Inclusion puts the category “relationships” into the dimension “inclusive culture” at the basis for the other two dimensions of inclusive politics and practices. The assumption is that inclusive teaching and school organization only becomes authentically meaningful if interactions among persons at all levels are transparent, respectful and open (Booth and Ainscow 2011). A similar assumption has been stated in a model for inclusive didactics developed in Italy where the teacher-pupil relationship based on acceptance and esteeming is seen as the necessary basis for all other interventions (Ianes and Macchia 2008).

One of the possible ways of investigating educational relationships between teachers and pupils is the study of their interactions, as proposed by Conversation Analysis (Sacks, Schegloff  & Jefferson 1974; Sydnell & Stivers 2012). Within Conversation Analysis, a number of phenomena related to classroom interaction (cf. Fele & Paoletti 2003) have been described, such as for instance the classical initiation-response-evaluation triplet that characterizes the asymmetric communication between teacher and pupils (Mehan 1979; Weeks 1985; Margutti 2010). Further studies have also focussed on the topic of diversity management, analzising gender differences in reproach sequences (Tainio 2011), the way teachers formulate questions while examining non-native pupils (Grassi 2007) and handle the issue of participation in multilingual classes (Ciliberti 2003). On more general terms, scholars have started to adopt a holistic view of communication in the classroom by looking at how not only verbal language, but also the body – gaze, gestures, body movements –, space and the use of artefacts, can all contribute to the organization and deployment of interaction (cf. Koole 2007; Pitsch & Ayaß, 2008; Kääntä 2012, 2015).

Against this background, the specific goal of our paper, which investigates interaction between teachers and the whole class in primary school classes (grade 3), is the identification and description of communicative strategies that foster inclusion. Drawing upon results from previous analyses (cf. Demo & Veronesi 2016), particular attention will be hereby devoted to multimodality, that is, the interplay between verbal and non-verbal communication, and the way teachers’ use of diverse semiotic codes contribute to enhance inclusion. More specifically, the paper will focus on:

1.       teachers’ multimodal communication, as an indicator for providing multiple means of knowledge representation;

2.       teachers’ use of space and bodily positioning in the classroom, as an indicator of non-verbal individualized attention to pupils.

Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion. 3rd Edition, Bristol: CSIE. Ciliberti, A. (2003). Collaborazione e coinvolgimento nella classe multilingue. In: Ciliberti, A., Pugliese, R. & Anderson, L., Le lingue in classe. Discorso, apprendimento, socializzazione. Roma: Carocci, 123-142. Demo, H. & Veronesi, D. (2016). INSIDE. Teachers’ communicative practices for inclusive classrooms. Paper Presentation, ECER 2016, Dublin, August 24, 2016. Fele, G. & Paoletti, I. (2003). L'interazione in classe. Bologna: Il Mulino. Freeman, S. e Alkin, M.C. (2000) Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education settings. Remedial and Special Education 21/1, 3-18. Grassi, R. (2007). Interrogare l’allievo straniero: strategie di adeguamento all’interlocutore. In: Baraldi, C. (ed.), Dialogare in classe. La relazione tra insegnanti e studenti. Roma: Donzelli, 131-150. Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse 3(2), 166-186. Kääntä, L. (2015). The multimodal organization of teacher-led classroom interaction. In C. Jenks & P. Seedhouse (eds.), International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction (pp. 64-83). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Koole, T. (2007). Parallel Activities in the Classroom. Language & Education 21(6), 487-501. Ianes, D. & Macchia, V. (2008), La didattica per Bisogni Educativi Speciali. Strategie e buone prassi di sostegno inclusivo. Trento: Ericskon. Lindsay, G. (2007) Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstream, British Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 1-24 Margutti, P. (2006). “Are you human beings?” Order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education 17, 313–346. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lesson. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Norwich, B. & Kelly, N. (2004) Pupils' view in inclusion: moderate learning difficulties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal 30/1, 43-65. Pitsch, K. & Ayaß, R. 2008. Gespräche in der Schule. Interaktion im Unterricht als multimodaler Prozess. In Willems, H. (ed.), Lehr(er)buch Soziologie, Bd. II. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 959-982. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics of the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 50, 696-735. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds.) (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1990) Support networks for inclusive schooling: interdependent integrated education, “Baltimore”, MD: Paul H. Brookes 71-87. Tainio, L. (2011). Gendered address terms in reproach sequences in classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education 22, 330-347. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction. A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review 22, 271–296.