Norway has traditionally put inclusive education high on the agenda in their schools related to both practice and laws (Maxwell & Bakke, 2019). New teacher education reforms in Norway focus on subject specialization and research-based knowledge (Jakhelln et al., 2019). Antonsen et al. (2020) confirm however that there is a gap between inclusive education and the general teacher community. New teacher education programmes inadequately prepare early career teachers (ECTs) to work inclusively with Tveitnes and Hvalby (2023) finding a lack of inclusive education is problematic for ECTs and their mentors. However, the Norwegian master-based education is supposed to educate ECTs with the ability to develop their competence, reflect and collaborate with others (Jakhelln et al., 2019).

A positive connection between ECTs and students is important for teaching (Hattie, 2008). Norwegian ECTs experience many classroom challenges particularly when handling a varied student and parent group (Antonsen et al., for review). Teachers’ relational work also requires the handling of a broader range of learners from skilled students to behavioral problems (Rudkjoebing et al., 2020) and also to address themes from social, personal or health education (Nic Gabhainn et al., 2010). There are similar calls in Norway for teaching about life mastery (Lauritzen et al., 2021) and abuse and sexual harassment (Goldschmidt-Gjerløw, 2022). Given that teachers have many and contradictory discursive demands and relational tasks to solve in work (Spicksley, 2022), a novel relational approach to inclusive and relational education may help them in carrying out work.

Relational thinking is an educational practice that equalizes learning and well-being (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, 2016). Florian et al. (2017) highlight that a teacher’s ability to act relationally impacts developing a more inclusive pedagogy. A relational thinking and approach to special education and adapted education shifts the focus from instrumental thinking such as having clear recipes and solutions, to what Florian and colleagues suggest as "a more nuanced and relational way of considering how schools can respond to difference is needed." (Florian et al., 2017, p. 27). For teachers, a relational approach involves the ability to question their assumptions and increase their own insight into the relationship between their behaviour and underlying thoughts and feelings whilst simultaneously giving an understanding of the individual student’s perspective (Aspelin, 2014, p. 240). Relational thinking thus means that inclusive education should both contribute to and be the result of an education system that provides a reasonable opportunity for all children to be active agents in their own learning (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, 2016). Previously, Amartya Sen’s (1985) Capability Approach was used in research on the integration of disabled people (Reindal, 2009) and inclusion and special education (Terzi, 2014). A capacity-based approach can engage children, teachers, and families in principle, and in practice recognize differences, rather than shortcomings. One disadvantage of relational thinking is that the term becomes somewhat ambiguous because of its links to social ideology, human values​, and principles of integration, inclusion, and normalization. However, a relational approach can lead to the development of policy and practice that clarifies the processes required to develop capabilities and appreciating functions and the types of resources required to generate relationally inclusive environments. There is therefore need to investigate how ECTs with a master-based teacher education can become agents for developing relational thinking in their practice to work with inclusion and relations in their teaching (Pantić & Florian, 2015). The research questions:

1)     How do ECTs express their learning regarding aspects of inclusive and relational teaching in their first five years in practice?

2)     How are aspects of relational thinking expressed by ECTs about their teaching practice in their first five years of practice?

This paper presents data from the RELEMAST and STEP studies. The RELEMAST study constitutes a longitudinal examination of master-based teachers in Norway, through employing semi-structured interviews Kvale (2008). A cohort of 27 Early Career Teachers (ECTs) were interviewed after their first, third, and fifth year of professional practice. The research design was constructed to create a multifaceted understanding and more in-depth and nuanced approach to the investigation (Maxwell, 2013). Participants in the study were individuals who had recently completed an innovative five-year research-based master's program in teacher education, tailored for both primary and lower-secondary schools. The initial interview protocol for the ECTs comprised open-ended inquiries aimed at elucidating perceived professional strengths and the challenges encountered during their inaugural year. Subsequent interview guides, corresponding to the third and fifth years within the profession, expanded the scope to encompass questions pertaining to inclusive education and relational pedagogy, while continuing to solicit candid reflections on challenges and strengths. The selection of informants was strategically determined to reflect the diverse array of school environments to give a representative sample that shows variance in contextual experiences. The STEP study included semi-structured interviews with 7 principals, 8 mentors of newly educated teachers, 8 newly qualified teachers and 14 colleagues from eight case schools. The schools were selected from all over Norway based upon a criterion that they had a positive induction system for NQTs. As such we were initially interested in successful experiences. Informants were also asked about the ECTs professional strengths and challenges, as well as what kind of support they needed during their first year of practice. These data contribute with a wider perspective on ECTs as their colleagues were also informants. For both studies interviews ranged from 30 to 60 minutes, were audio-recorded, and subsequently transcribed verbatim to preserve the integrity of the data. The analytical process was underpinned by a reflective thematic analysis, adhering to the six-phase framework as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2022). The STEP study includes a survey were 532 teacher students in their fourth year as students responded regarding questions about how prepared they were for teaching both inclusively and for a varied student group. This data is analysed and presented descriptive. The survey included open questions in which many students wrote about the challenges they expected to meet regarding inclusive and relational teaching. These qualitative data were analysed reflective thematic.

After working one year in the profession most ECTs have challenges in solving relational and inclusive education, and this is supported from the views of ECTs themselves and mentors as well as colleagues and principals. However, the ECTs value relational work with the students as it is important for creating a positive learning environment. ECTs after working three and five years reveal diverse results related to relational and inclusive education. In general, the challenges weaken, initiating that the NQTs learn relational thinking strategies for inclusive and relational education during their work as teachers in collaboration with colleagues or the support system. Some highlight how they have worked over a long period with relational thinking in their class to succeed in establishing positive relations with their students. A few ECTs with a lot of work related to inclusive education find this work demanding. In the results we will elaborate factors that promote or hinder the development of relational thinking. All the ECTs clarify that the teacher education cannot prepare them for all tasks in work, but still around a third of the ECTs highlights after five years in work that they still feel that their education could have prepared them more in regard of knowledge about inclusive education and for handling the relations of students, also in regard for the supporting system and home-school collaboration. In the end we discuss why some ECTs seems to develop relational thinking in their work, while others do not. As new laws for handling students regarding abuse and social inclusion are introduced in Norway, the findings still confirm that ECTs need more theoretical knowledge about relational thinking in their education. Some ECTs and colleagues also advocates for more social education or psychology in teacher education.

Antonsen, Y., Maxwell, G., Bjørndal, K. E. W., & Jakhelln, R. (2020). «Det er et kjemperart system» – spesialpedagogikk, tilpasset opplæring og nyutdannede læreres kompetanse. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7918 Antonsen, Y., Portela Pruaño, A., Stenseth, A.-M., & Skytterstad, R. (for review). Early career teachers’ beliefs and managing of work intensification in Norway and Spain Journal of Educational Change. Aspelin, J. (2014). Beyond individualised teaching. Education Inquiry, 5(2), 23926. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v5.23926 Dalkilic, M., & Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2016). Re-framing inclusive education through the capability approach: An elaboration of the model of relational inclusion. Global Education Review, 3(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1114861.pdf Florian, L., Hawkins, K. B., & Rouse, M. (2017). Achievement and Inclusion in Schools. Routledge. Goldschmidt-Gjerløw, B. (2022). Exploring Variation in Norwegian Social Science Teachers’ Practice Concerning Sexuality Education: Who Teachers Are Matters and So Does School Culture. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(1), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869072 Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (1 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332 Jakhelln, R., Eklund, G., Aspfors, J., Bjørndal, K., & Stølen, G. (2019). Newly Qualified Teachers’ Understandings of Research-based Teacher Education Practices − Two Cases From Finland and Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1659402 Lauritzen, L.-M., Antonsen, Y., & Nesby, L. (2021). «Jeg er så veldig redd for hvordan jeg påvirker elevene.» Utfordringer og muligheter i undervisningen av folkehelse og livsmestring i norskfaget. Acta Didactica Norden, 15(1). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/adno.7848 Maxwell, G., & Bakke, J. (2019). Schooling for Everyone: Norway's adapted approach to education for everyone. In M. C. H. Beaton, D. B. Maxwell, G. & J. Spratt (Eds.), Including the North: A comparative study of the policies on inclusion and equity in the circumpolar north. Lapin yliopisto http://hdl.handle.net/11374/2288 Nic Gabhainn, S., O'Higgins, S., & Barry, M. (2010). The implementation of social, personal and health education in Irish schools. Health Education, 110(6), 452-470. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654281011087260 Pantić, N., & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Education Inquiry, 6(3), 27311. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.27311 Reindal, S. M. (2009). Disability, capability, and special education: Towards a capability‐based theory. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250902793610 Rudkjoebing, L. A., Bungum, A. B., Flachs, E. M., Eller, N. H., Borritz, M., Aust, B., Rugulies, R., Rod, N. H., Biering, K., & Bonde, J. P. (2020). Work-related exposure to violence or threats and risk of mental disorders and symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health, 46(4), 339-349. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3877