Inclusive education is considered a human right for all children, not just students with disabilities or other ‘special needs’ (Davis et al., 2020; UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [CRPD], 2016). Based on the idea of ‘a school for all’, schools have acquired an increasingly heterogeneous student group. In order to accommodate students’ right to develop their learning potential, regardless of the conditions, broad teacher competence is needed in schools, including pedagogical and special pedagogical competence (Faldet, Knudsmoen & Nes, 2017).

Ainscow, Booth and Dyson (2006) point to two different approaches to inclusion that are common in schools. One takes a broad educational perspective on policy and practice and regards diversity as a basis for inclusion processes. The purpose of this is to develop a broader understanding of the need for diversity competence in teacher training, with the intention to safeguard student diversity in a school for all. The second approach has a narrow special needs education perspective. This approach takes children with special needs or impaired functioning as its starting point, where attitudes, ideas and practice are often linked to individual or categorical perspectives, and the focus is on the individual difficulties or injuries (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006). From this individual or categorical perspective, students are given the responsibility for the school’s challenges related to inclusive education (Bachmann and Haug, 2006).

Booth and Ainscow (2001) state that the central qualities of inclusive education are the recognition of diversity, perceived belonging and the feeling of being a natural part of the community (see also CRPD, 2016; Slee, 2019). According to UNESCO (2017), inclusion is the at the core of an education system that sees student diversity as an opportunity to democratise education. A key point in UNESCO’s (2017) guide is that the school’s practice should support all students’ participation and learning, and adaptation of teaching content and working methods is a necessity in inclusive schools to ensure that students achieve the best possible learning outcomes (UNESCO, 1994). To achieve the goal of inclusive education, the European Agency (2012) believes that teachers must work in a professional community.

Norwegian teacher education has recently gone through a reform from a four-year bachelor’s degree to a five-year master’s programme (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research [NMER], 2017), placing greater emphasis on research by including the requirement of an independent research-based master’s thesis to qualify as a teacher. Currently, many European teacher education programmes require or offer training in research in teacher education (Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019). Both Norwegian and international educational researchers emphasise that there is a need for more research on teacher education, especially on student teachers (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Strand & Kvernbekk, 2009).

The purpose of this study is to discuss the importance of diversity competence in teacher education, as teachers must follow the principle of inclusion both in their basic professional education and in their continuing professional practice (UNESCO, 2017). The research question is as follows: How do student teachers experience that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant for meeting a diverse group of pupils?

Although it is common to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches, new digital methods offer increased opportunities to combine quantitative logic and qualitative methods in digital research (Blaikie & Priest, 2019; Whiting & Pritchard, 2020). This has led to the ability to obtain both qualitative and quantitative empirical data through a digital web form from students in teacher education. The web form has been developed in connection with the national evaluation system and consists of a standardised form with questions that can be adapted for various subjects. We also made some adjustments to the web form to illuminate this study’s research questions. In Norway, pedagogy is a compulsory subject in teacher education, but it is optional to choose a specialisation in professionally oriented pedagogy. The informants in this study have chosen this specialisation in professionally oriented pedagogy in their third academic year. The data were collected from four student cohorts in the period 2019–2022. In total, 134 students completed the web form. The challenge with this type of anonymous data collection it that it does not provide the opportunity to go back to the informants for additional information. Thus, to obtain a richer database, we elected to conduct focus group interviews with selected students on this subject. A focus group interview consists of a group of individuals who have been chosen because they have something to offer to the research topic. It is a collective, relational and dynamic method where the researcher looks at statements, dialogue and interaction between the participants. It is a qualitative method where several people discuss a topic with a researcher, who leads and moderates the discussion (Barbour & Flick, 2007). Data are created and negotiated through interaction between the participants, which stimulates ideas, thoughts and opinions. The data were analysed using an inductive analytical approach, which is common in thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and finding patterns that are significant in the collected data, guided by the research question (Braun & Clarke, 2019).

The preliminary findings indicate that all 134 students who responded to the evaluation expressed that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant to the ability to work with a diverse group of students. Many students states that the subject should be compulsory for all students in teacher education: ‘It’s very strange that this subject isn’t compulsory for teacher training’; ‘I feel that everyone should have this subject’. Others referred to its relevance: ‘This subject is hugely relevant because it is about the diversity of pupils we will meet as teachers’; ‘I feel that everything we have learned in this subject is very relevant’. When we asked the students the extent to which they are able to use knowledge from the subject in their practical training, they all answered that they could link it together: ‘I have connected much of the theory with experiences and situations that have occurred in practice, and that I can experience later’; ‘I think much of this can be used and continued in practice. Especially when it comes to the teaching plan and how to adapt for an inclusive learning environment’. Another confirms this further: ‘This is a very relevant subject, with a practical angle’. Regarding the question of the extent to which students can link their experiences from practice to the teaching and learning outcomes, there was some disagreement among the students. Some expressed that they should be linked even more closely: ‘I think we have too little insight into practical teaching’; ‘We get little experience with special education and adapted training in practice’. However, some students expressed the opposite: ‘I can relate much of what I have seen in practice to things we have learned about in this subject’. These findings indicate that professionally oriented pedagogy is relevant for meeting a diverse group of pupils.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. Bachmann, K. & Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpasset opplæring. Høgskulen i Volda. Barbour, R. & Flick, U. (2007). Doing focus groups. SAGE. Blaikie, & Priest, J. (2019). Designing Social Research. Polity Press. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE), England. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Davis, J., Gillet-Swan, J., Graham, L. & Malaquias, C. (2020). Inclusive education as a human right. I L. Graham (Red.) Inclusive education for the 21st century. Theory, Policy and Practice (s. 79–99). Routledge. European Agency. (2012). Teacher education for inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. Faldet, A. C., Knudsmoen, H. & Nes, K. (2017). Spesialpedagogikkens plass i lærerutdanningen–med Hamar som eksempel. Oplandske Bokforlag Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 184 –205 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research [NMER]. 2017. Teacher Education 2025: National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d0c1da83bce94e2da21d5f631bbae817/kd_teacher-education-2025_uu.pdf Shulman. L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(9), 909–922. Strand, T. & Kvernbekk, T. (2009). Assessing the quality of educational research: The case of Norway. In Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education (261-277). Brill. Tomlinson. S. (2012). The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 267–286. UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. General comment No. 4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427.locale=en UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. https://www.european-agency.org/news/guide-ensuring-inclusion-and-equity-education Whiting, R. & Pritchard, K. (2020). Collecting Qualitative Data Using Digital Methods. SAGE