Worldwide teachers are working with increasingly diverse groups of students in inclusive practices. This calls for teachers to have opportunities to engage with inclusive education theories, policies, and examples of practice through their professional education, both initial education and professional development.  

Teachers report that they are not prepared to teach diverse groups of students (Óskarsdóttir, 2014). They believe that they need more knowledge about different disabilities, learning difficulties, behavior problems and how to work with learners with diverse language backgrounds. However, the problem is not the lack of inclusive education being addressed in the teacher education program; the problem is a lack of consensus on how to prepare teacher students to work in inclusive settings. Some courses at the University of Iceland (UI) respond to inclusive education with a focus on knowledge of various learning disabilities, while others focus on building teacher competences in practice to be effective for all learners (Guðjónsdóttir & Óskarsdóttir, 2020). This can also be seen in schools, different understandings bring different responses (Cochran- Smith & Dudley-Marling, 2012; Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Florian & Pantić, 2017). 

Courses offered at UI will continue to emphasize different aspects and build on different theoretical approaches (Forlin & Chambers 2011). However, each course should be seen as a piece in the puzzle of a complete teacher education that prepares teacher students for their role in the inclusive education system. This can be achieved by enabling student teachers to build their personal working theory, choose pedagogical approaches and to take a disciplinary stance. 

The purpose of this research was to gain an insight into how teacher education can respond to the call for preparing teachers to be responsive, see themselves as agents of change, with the values, knowledge and beliefs that allow every learner to succeed. The aim was to cast a light on important issues in the preparation and ongoing professional development of teachers and student teachers. Our research question was: What kind of learning environment in teacher education would push our students to take a stance and responsibility towards inclusive practices? 

The graduate course in this study is grounded in a pedagogy that integrates professional knowledge about teaching, learning and child development, and involves an ethical and social commitment to all students. Analyzing and interpreting data from the course, we will discuss how professionals are enlightened to realize their theoretical and pedagogical stance and be critical. 

The theoretical framework for this paper centers around inclusion, inclusive pedagogy, teachers’ professional identity and teachers’ education pedagogy. Inclusion can be realized when teachers see themselves as agents of change, with the values, knowledge and attitudes that allow every student to succeed (UNESCO, 2020). Preparing teachers reflects the standards and qualifications in each country's context. But a common theme is that education systems are moving away from focusing on the learner as a problem and towards “identifying barriers to learning and participation and providing anticipatory responses, planning for all learners up front” (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2015, pp. 14–15). 

The distinction of pedagogy employed in an inclusive school is that it is based on the ideas of equity and a fundamental change in how teachers approach and think about pedagogy:

• From a focus on traditional, individualized approach to learner diversity that begins by preparing for most pupils and then offering something additional (special) to some learners identified as having special needs.
• Towards an inclusive pedagogical approach that begins with the learning of everybody, focusing on how to create rich learning opportunities and make them available to all learners so that everybody can participate in the classroom community (Black-Hawkins, 2017).

The S-STTEP methodology was our frame to examine a course on inclusive pedagogy in teacher education; to think about and discuss our practice in collaboration (Tidwell and Staples, 2017). We, as researchers and teacher educators, focus on inclusive pedagogy through the critical and collaborative lens of self-study (Bodone et al., 2004). The critical focus was employed to reveal the position of dominant practice to support us in becoming more conscious of both the transformation that takes place and the process that leads to that transformation (Pinnegar and Hamilton, 2009). Participants  We are two teacher educators researching our teaching. About 60 diverse students attend the course each year (students in their initial teacher education, graduate students, pre-school-, compulsory- or secondary level teachers, students that are distance or on campus). At the beginning of the term, we introduce our self-study to all participants and invite the ones interested to participate. Data sources and analysis The data was collected over four academic terms (2017–2021) and consisted of our research journal, students’ tasks, TOC (ticket out of class) and the course schedule, lesson plans and presentations. To ensure trustworthiness we analysed the data individually and in partnership aiming for transparent and systematic data analysis (Wolcott, 2001). The methods for transforming the data into findings, provided explanatory and meaningful insights into our practice (LaBoskey, 2004). Through the first stage we employed document analysis and made a list of the learning activities, looking for evidence of how we teach about inclusion and to work with diverse groups of students. During the second stage we analysed, through the lens of inclusive education and professionalism the projects, online discussions and TOCs. The third stage involved analysis of our personal journals. During the final stage we focused on interpreting our collective analysis to gain an in-depth understanding and transparent view of how we support participants in creating inclusive practices.  Ethical issues  We followed ethical standards for research, the Act on Personal Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data (No. 90/2018) together with the University Code of Ethics (2014). To ensure that our research was ethically sound, we discussed the research plan with all participants at the beginning of each term and asked the willing participants to sign an informed consent form regarding our data collection. The anonymity of participants was ensured by giving them pseudonyms and de-identifying the data.

The data indicates that students have different understandings of inclusive education. To begin with, participants are asked to read selected texts and participate in online discussion exploring their understanding of inclusive education. Through their discussions we analysed the understanding and worked from that point. Often students express that “the idea of inclusive education is beautiful and kind, but it does not work in schools” as Hulda, a student teacher, wrote in online discussions. In response, we work with participants on tasks that gradually move them to view inclusive education from a different angle and understand their responsibility in implementing it. Thus, as the course proceeds, a transformation can be witnessed in participants’ understanding of inclusive practice and pedagogy. Many state that their views and knowledge of the practical aspects of organizing inclusive schools have developed as they progressed through the course. Andri admitted that:  In my work I have been about to give up and sometimes wonder whether a student belongs in a traditional school system. After this course, my attitude is different, and I believe it is possible to work with all individuals […] but you need to be solution-oriented and open-minded.  Our interpretation is that the pathway from the beginning to the end of the course is not linear. In our learning environment multiple paths can be taken based on the needs, interests, and resources each participant brings to the course or choose to reach their destination. As student teachers travel along these diverse pathways, they are supported to become critical and creative problem solvers and be aware of their professional identity. Their chosen pathways support them in exploring how they can influence teaching and learning and become involved in the reconstruction of inclusive practice in Iceland which offers rich learning opportunities available to all learners (Black-Hawkins, 2017).

Black-Hawkins, K. (2017). Understanding inclusive pedagogy. In V. Plows and B. Whitburn (Eds.), Inclusive education (pp. 13–28). Sense publication. Cochran-Smith, M., and Dudley-Marling, C. (2012). Diversity in teacher education and special education: The issues that divide. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112446512 Bodone, F., Guðjónsdóttir, H., and Dalmau, M. C. (2004). Revisioning and recreating practice: Collaboration in self-study. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, and T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 12, pp. 743–784). Kluwer Academic Publishers. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2015). Empowering teachers to promote inclusive education. Literature review. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. Florian, L. and Pantić, N. (2017). Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Policy, practice and research. In L. Florian and N. Pantic, (Eds.), Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Issues for research and practice (pp. 1–5). Springer International Publishing. Forlin, C. and Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850 Guðjónsdóttir, H. and Óskarsdóttir, E. (2020). ´Dealing with diversity´: Debating the focus of teacher education for inclusion. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 95–109. DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1695774 LaBoskey, V. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, and T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 12, pp. 817–869). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lög um persónuvernd og vinnslu persónuupplýsinga [Act on personal data protection and the processing of personal data] No. 90/2018 Óskarsdóttir, G. (2014). Starfshættir Í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar. [Teaching and learning procedures in Icelandic compulsory schools in the beginning of the 21st century]. Háskólaútgáfan. Pinnegar, S., and Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-study of practice as a genre of qualitative research: Theory, methodology, and practice. Springer. Tidwell, D., and Staples, A. (2017). The collaborative process in educators’ self-study of practice. In M. C. Dalmau, H. Guðjónsdóttir, and D. Tidwell (Eds.), Taking a fresh look at education (pp. 89–111). Brill Sense. UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718 Vísindasiðareglur Háskóla Íslands. [University of Iceland's Code of Ethics] (2014). https://www.hi.is/sites/default/files/atli/pdf/log_og_reglur/vshi_sidareglur_16_1_2014.pdf