This presentation builds on the findings of a critical systematic review that aimed to explore understandings and applications of inclusive pedagogies in the secondary school. We argue that inclusive pedagogies are complex and multifaceted and are also often conflated with other pedagogic approaches and discourses (for example, ‘differentiated learning’ and ‘student voice’), without a clear indication of what makes a particular pedagogy ‘inclusive’.

The fragmentation of inclusion is particularly evident in the different ways it is translated into pedagogic applications and decisions. Inclusive pedagogies are often conceptualised as both a set of strategies that aim to ensure access to learning for all students and as value principles that reflect particular views on inclusion; this is why they tend to be approached in diverse ways (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Lewis & Norwich, 2004). We use ‘pedagogies’ rather than ‘pedagogy’ in this presentation to acknowledge this complexity.

 The inherent contradiction of many influential approaches to inclusive pedagogies (with one example being Florian & Spratt, 2013) lies in the desire to respond to individual learner differences while avoiding treating students differently; it is difficult to imagine how both can be achieved at the same time. The basis of this assumption is an association between the recognition of difference and stigmatisation or isolation. This echoes the so-called dilemma of difference perspective on inclusive teaching in that recognising student difference might lead to stigmatisation; however, failing to recognise difference could lead to loss of opportunities and restrictions to participation. This dilemma involves the clashing of values that differentiation and inclusion are seemingly based on—especially if inclusion is seen to be about emphasising commonality and downplaying difference (Norwich, 2013).

 Another tension associated with inclusive pedagogies is with regards to the role of student voice in inclusion. Student voice offers unique opportunities for education, but it is also a contested matter and can be reduced to tokenism, the side-effect of a neoliberal drive for increased emphasis on consumer choice (Charteris & Smardon, 2019). Such arguments are also present in debates around educational ‘buzzwords’ such as student-centred learning (SCL). For example, the notion of ‘power-sharing’ between teacher and student has been shown to be the least supported and/or practical aspect of SCL (Bremner, 2021a, 2021b), with many constraints to implementation (Sakata et al., 2022).

These tensions and challenges, however, are not always acknowledged in the literature. Finkelstein et al. (2021), for example, discuss inclusive pedagogies as a set of practices organised across five themes: collaboration and teamwork, determining progress, instructional support, organisational practices, and social, emotional and behavioural support. The assumption is that ‘an inclusive teacher should essentially be competent in [these] five areas’ (p. 755). These five themes were also used by Lindner and Schwab (2020) in their systematic literature review that explored differentiation and individualisation in inclusive teaching.

In this presentation, we are particularly interested in secondary school as the focus on particular curricular areas and subjects, additional pressures for teachers and students derived from assessment and exams, and fewer opportunities for collaboration between teachers as a result of the compartmentalisation of the curriculum can make the implementation of inclusive pedagogies more challenging than at primary level (Hargreaves, 2005; Schwab et al., 2022).

This presentation, therefore, explores the following research questions:

• How are inclusive pedagogies in the context of the secondary school conceptualised in the research literature?
• With what other approaches do they overlap and what is the significance of this?

This systematic literature review ‘speaks to’ and builds on two previous literature reviews: one on inclusive practices (Finkelstein et al., 2021) and one on individualisation and differentiation (Lindner & Schwab, 2020). These reviews focus largely on mapping instructional and organisational practices that are conducted ‘in the name’ of inclusion, such as the provision and adaptation of materials and resources—as Lindner and Schwab assert, the ‘didactic method’ (p. 17) of teaching. This review instead takes a theoretical and discursive approach and explores the different ways in which inclusive pedagogies are understood by scholars, conceptualised, linked (or not) to theory and practice, and related to other discourses. This facilitates a deeper consideration of inclusion as an academic and practical field, including potentially shared and competing ideals and understandings. We also consider critically whether a systematic literature review can be an appropriate methodological approach to examine such a fragmented concept, in a context where systematic literature reviews are often seen as a ‘gold standard’ and have a growing presence in educational research (Haddaway et al., 2017). We developed a comprehensive search strategy following an initial scoping of the topic area and conducted the search in November 2022. We used the following databases, with search terms cross-searched in the title and abstract fields: British Education Index, Education Research Complete, ERIC, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Australian Education Index, and Web of Science. We refined our search results according to SCImago Journal Rankings, retaining those texts falling in Quartile 1 in at least one discipline as an indication of quality and rigour. Following the database search, results were combined into an Endnote X9 Library and duplicates were removed. The three authors (NB, GK, LS) conducted a pilot stage of title and abstract screening using the inclusion criteria with 25 texts to agree on screening decisions. We finally decided to include 13 papers - a number much smaller than initially expected. We developed a data charting form specifically for this review. The data charted included first author, date, country, journal, study design, methods, sample, school discipline/subject under focus, how inclusive pedagogies are conceptualised, theoretical underpinnings and overlapping pedagogical discourses. This process was completed by all three authors, following a pilot stage on several texts. The texts were coded for both semantic and latent content relating to ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive pedagogies’, using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019).

Almost all the included articles linked inclusive pedagogies to theoretical ideas, and, despite some commonalities (e.g. empowering student voice), there was fragmentation when it comes to how inclusive pedagogies were conceptualised and linked to practice. Inclusive pedagogies were also largely seen to be about all students (student diversity) and less about students with disabilities - and, even in the latter case, distinctions between ‘mainstream’ and ‘special’ were often challenged. Given this focus on students, it is then surprising that student perceptions of inclusive pedagogies were found to be still very little explored. Tensions associated with inclusion (e.g. between a focus on commonality/ difference or between attitudes/ practice) were to some extent acknowledged, but not in all cases. In addition, approaches to inclusive pedagogies were filtered through the lenses of particular subjects (e.g. music and PE) and were interpreted and re-imagined serving subject-related priorities and purposes. Inclusive pedagogies were also associated with other approaches seen as sharing similar philosophies and purposes; differentiation, UDL, co-teaching and SCL. Overall, we had the feeling that there was no clear direction for inclusive pedagogies either in terms of theory or practice, a paucity of new ideas with ‘established’ ways of thinking being recycled and little desire to engage with the tensions and struggles of inclusion. The findings also question the usefulness of systematic reviews in exploring fragmented topics, like inclusion/ inclusive pedagogies. It may be that to explore inclusion more flexible narrative review designs, such the one adopted by Thomas and Macnab (2022), might be able to capture more nuanced ideas, expansive terminology used, and a wider range of points of view. This though also requires a deeper engagement with inclusion and its tensions that is often less evident in much of the current literature base.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. Bremner, N. (2021a). The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education, and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education, 57(2), 159–186. Bremner, N. (2021b). What is learner-centered education? A quantitative study of English language teachers' perspectives. TESL-EJ, 25(2), 1–28. Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2019). The politics of student voice: Unravelling the multiple discourses articulated in schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(1), 93–110. Finkelstein, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2021). The inclusive practices of classroom teachers: A scoping review and thematic analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(6), 735–762. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119–135. Haddaway, N. R., Land, M., & Macura, B. (2017). A little learning is a dangerous thing: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environment International, 99, 356–360. Hargreaves, A. (2005). Extending educational change. International handbook of educational change. Springer. Lewis, A., & Norwich, B. (2004). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion: A pedagogy for inclusion? Open University Press. Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–21. Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing tensions and dilemmas in inclusive education: Living with uncertainty. Routledge. Sakata, N., Bremner, N., & Cameron, L. (2022). A systematic review of the implementation of learner-centred pedagogy in low-and middle-income countries. Review of Education, 10(3), e3365. Schwab, S., Sharma, U., & Hoffmann, L. (2022). How inclusive are the teaching practices of my German, Maths and English teachers? — Psychometric properties of a newly developed scale to assess personalisation and differentiation in teaching practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(1), 61–76. Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2022). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. Thomas, G., & Macnab, N. (2022). Intersectionality, diversity, community and inclusion: Untangling the knots. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(3), 227–244.