Recent worldwide policies and agendas in the field of education and beyond (UN, 2015; World Bank Group, 2015) have made it clear that inclusive education is not a mission that solely regards students with special needs. It also encapsulates issues related to socio-economic backgrounds, ethnicity, gender and sexuality, religion, language, culture and any other factor that may lead to exclusion. Valuing diversity, guaranteeing equal opportunities and quality education for all have, thus, become priorities for action of the community at large, including the school, to guarantee wellbeing, prosperity, and sustainable development (UN, 2022). Against this backdrop, teachers have a fundamental role to play. Besides ensuring student academic achievement, they need to devise ways to facilitate the acquisition of transformative (OECD, 2019) and global (OECD, 2018) competencies. They are requested to be the catalysts of change by challenging the status quo in school communities; they are to embark on a development process that involves all stakeholders in a system-wide, whole-school reform and restructuring of the vision, mission, curricula, pedagogy, classroom practice, assessment and reporting, and extra-curricular opportunities.

The plethora of literature on teacher competency profiling (Caena, 2011) and on the proximal and distal variables influencing the implementation of inclusive practices (Biesta, Priestley & Robinson, 2015; Sharma & Mannan, 2015; De Boer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2011), substantiates the fact that meeting these goals is a complex task which requires careful planning, competent action, and constant reflection. Indeed, Shulman (2005) claims that the three fundamental dimensions for teacher professional development are the head (what teachers know), hands (what teachers do) and heart (what teachers care about). Within a constructivist perspective of the teaching-learning process, planning teacher education course programmes is not a straightforward undertaking, especially when targeting the development of values and attitudes. In fact, it is claimed that the latter often receives far less attention in teacher education (Shulman, 2005; Sharma, 2018). One of the key strategies to educate the heart is engaging in individual and reflective practice as it offers a myriad of opportunities to reflect on beliefs, concerns, opinions, and attitudes related, but not limited, to teacher identity, the profession, diversity and inclusion (Larrivee & Cooper, 2006; Ghaye, 2011).

This paper presents a qualitative study carried out to investigate the course participants’ opinions regarding a study-unit that proposed guided reflective practice using a strengths-based approach. The overarching aim of the proposed study programme was not only to engage in reflective practices but also to shift the focus from deficit-based to strengths-based approaches in order to be able to develop their skills in identifying resources, assets, and solutions even when faced with particularly challenging scenarios. The premise is that wellbeing depends on the individuals’ ability to take cognisance of their inner cognitive, affective, and motivational resources, identify the community’s assets, and capitalise these strengths in a harmonious manner to act proactively and bring about positive change. It is posited that endorsing such a viewpoint not only helps to promote an inclusive school culture, but also facilitates the acquisition of fundamental values and attitudes necessary to bring about change. To this end, the 30-hour programme drew on various theories, models and tools. These included: Antonovsky’s concept of salutogenesis (Mittlemark et al., 2022), Sen’s (1993) capability approach, the domains and indicators in quality-of-life models (Brown & Shearer, 1999; Schalock & Verdugo, 2002), asset-based community development (Russell & McKnight, 2022) and the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). The course participants had the opportunity to reflect on their beliefs, values and attitudes regarding concepts and issues inherent to diversity, inclusive education, teacher identity, and their role as change agents in the school community.

This study-unit was part of a 750-hour teacher education course programme, offered at the University of Salerno (Italy), for prospective learning support teachers. The unit was delivered between November 2022 and January 2023 in three classes whose number of students ranged between 125 and 176 course participants (N=419). Between April and May 2023, 15 semi-structured interviews will be carried out to collect data regarding the participants’ opinions on the approach used throughout the study unit and the different reflective activities proposed. The participants will be asked to participate on a voluntary basis. Six interviewees will be chosen from group 1 (n=176), five from group 2 (n=125) and four from group 3 (n=118). On the basis of these results, a questionnaire will be developed and administered to all the course participants at the end of the course, in June 2023. The conference presentation will focus on the outcomes of the interviews. These will be transcribed, and the data will be coded and organised using MAXQDA2020. A thematic analysis approach will be used following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) protocol.

The material produced during the various moments of guided reflective practice on key concepts such as diversity, the relationship between quality of life and inclusion, their narratives on their student encounters during their teaching practice, and their participation during group reflection was evidence of engagement and interest on the course participants’ behalf. Unsolicited oral and written feedback was also very encouraging. The aim of the interviews and the questionnaire at the end of the course is to shed light on the course participants’ opinions regarding the benefits of such approaches. On acknowledging that teachers are the primary agents that make the much-needed difference in schools and future generations, developing effective teacher education course programmes is fundamental. This research provides insight from the receivers’ perspective regarding the use of strengths-based reflective practices in teacher education.

Biesta G.J.J., Priestley M., & Robinson S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching. Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624­640. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325. Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion - Developing learning and participation in schools. CSIE: Bristol, UK. Braun V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brown R., & Shearer J. (1999). Challenges for inclusion within a quality of life model for the 21st Century. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22 (3), 180­194. Caena, F. (2011). Literature review teachers’ core competences: requirements and development. Education and Training Hematic Working Group ‘Professional Development of Teachers, pp. 1-28. Ghaye, T. (2011). Teaching and learning through reflective practice. A practical guide for positive action (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Larrivee, B. & Cooper, J. M. 2006. An educator’s guide to teacher reflection. Cengage Learning. http://cengagesites.com/academic/assets/sites/4004/Education%20Modules/gd%20to%20teach%20refl.pdf. Mittelmark M. B., Bauer G. F., Vaandrager L., Pelikan J. M., Sagy S., Eriksson M., Lindström B., Meier Magistretti C. (Eds.) (2022). The Handbook of Salutogenesis (2nd Ed.). Geneva: Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-04600-6. OECD (2018). Preparing our Youth for an Inclusive and Sustainable World. The OECD PISA Global Competence Framework. https://www.oecd.org/education/Global­competency­for­an­inclusive­world.pdf OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Conceptual Learning framework. OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030­project/teaching­and­learning/learning/ Russell C., & McKnight J. L. (2022). The Connected Community. Discovering the Health, Wealth, and Power of Neighbourhoods. Berrett­Koehler Publishers. Kindle Edition. Schalock R. L., & Verdugo M. A. (2002). Handbook on Quality of Life for Human Service Practitioners. Washington: American Association on Mental Retardation. Sharma, U., & Mannan, H. (2015). Do Attitudes Predict Behaviour – An (un)Solved Mystery? Foundations of Inclusive Education Research (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620150000006005. Sharma, U. (2018). Preparing to teach in inclusive classrooms. In Oxford research encyclopaedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.113. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998 Sen, A. (1993). Capability & Wellbeing. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 30­53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/9949. UN (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/ UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. World Bank Group (2015). Incheon declaration: Education 2030 – towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/167341467987876458/Incheon-declaration-education-2030towards-inclusive-and-equitable-quality-educationand-lifelong-learning-for-all