Inclusion is one of the cornerstones of the contemporary education agenda (UNESCO, 2015) and ensures good outcomes for all learners (Ainscow, 2020). Still, kindergarten teachers might have low self-efficacy in applying inclusive education (see, e.g., Peck & Neeper, 2022). This might reflect their insufficient professional competence, which is one of the dimensions forming teacher agency (see Leijen et al., 2020). Teacher agency has been seen as an important contributor to implementing inclusive education by several researchers (see the scoping review by Miller et al., 2020). 

In our study, we focus on supporting kindergarten teachers’ agency using a long-term in-service training program where kindergarten staff are learning together. Leijen and colleagues (2022) have pointed out that agency can be increased during a collaborative inquiry-based in-service training course. Taking this into account, we have developed a long-term in-service training program emphasizing collaboration and inquiry-based practices to support kindergarten staff’s agency development in the domain of inclusive education. The aim of this study was to explore the improvement in participants’ agency during the in-service training program and assess change in the different dimensions of agency related to the implementation of inclusive education. More specifically, we formulated the following research question: How does kindergarten staff members’ agency change during the long-term in-service training program for kindergarten teams? Therefore, we evaluated kindergarten staff’s agency in applying inclusive education both before and after the program and hypothesized that their agency would increase. 

In a broad understanding, agency refers to the extent people can make decisions related to their lives (Biesta et al., 2015; Leijen et al., 2020). Teachers’ agency is considered a specific form of professional agency where they actively contribute to shaping their work and its conditions (Biesta et al., 2015). The ecological model of teacher agency that comprises three dimensions have developed by Biesta and colleagues (2015). Firstly, this model highlights that the achievement of agency is influenced by one’s past experiences, thinking patterns and action (iterational dimension). Secondly, decisions are influenced by one’s future orientation, including professional short-term and long-term perspectives (projective dimension); and thirdly, decisions are influenced by one’s everyday practice, including the cultural, material and structural conditions (practical-evaluative dimension) (Biesta et al., 2015). This model was somewhat adapted by Leijen and her colleagues (2020) in order to increase the practical relevance of the model to teacher learning settings (Leijen et al., 2020). This specified model was applied in our study.

Inclusive education is conceptualized as access to learning opportunities that support the rights of all learners and responding to the diversity of the needs of all learners through increasing their participation in everyday activities within their communities (UNESCO, 2009). In the development of the in-service training program and adapting the questionnaire for assessing teacher agency, we followed the model for the implementation of inclusive education (Nelis & Pedaste, 2020) that has been successfully applied in analyzing the inclusiveness of kindergarten activities (see Nelis et al., 2023a; 2023b). This model is rooted in the holistic approach where contemporary inclusive education is operationalized by 14 key characteristics on five levels of the education system. These 14 characteristics and five levels are the following: 1) child characteristics, physical inclusion, social inclusion, and psychical inclusion on the child level; 2) teacher characteristics and classroom practices on the teacher level; 3) family involvement and family support on the family level; 4) school culture and structural characteristics on the institutional level; and 5) policy and legislation, cooperation, resources and funding, and monitoring and evaluation on the state level.

Participants Purposeful sampling was used to select the kindergartens to the in-service training program. There was one selection criterion: voluntary participation in the inclusive education training program for kindergarten teams (the team would have to include 1–2 representatives from the management; 1–2 support specialists; and up to 5 teachers). A total of 50 participants from eight kindergartens attended the whole training program. The sample of this study was formed from those participants of the training program who responded to the pre- and post-questionnaire about agency. The pre-questionnaire was completed by 40 and the post-questionnaire by 28 participants. Both the pre- and post-questionnaire were completed by 24 participants. Data Collection The questionnaire about agency was developed based on a previously validated agency questionnaire (Leijen et al., 2021a) and the model of the implementation of inclusive education (Nelis & Pedaste, 2020) for data collection. The questionnaire was used to find out how kindergarten staff make decisions in implementing inclusive education. It contained a total of 74 statements. The statements were formed considering all three dimensions of agency and the key characteristics of all five levels of the model of the implementation of inclusive education. Data were collected in an electronic environment LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey Development Team, 2023). The pre-questionnaire was administered before the start of the program, and the post-questionnaire after completing the program to evaluate changes in kindergarten staff members’ agency during the long-term in-service training program for kindergarten teams. All participants were included in the study on a voluntary basis. The data were collected anonymously: the participants cannot be identified based on the responses. Each participant generated their own unique code that was known only to them. This allowed us to connect data collected in pre- and post-questionnaires. Data analysis First, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the three scales of agency dimensions, as well as the more specific aspects of these dimensions. Reliability analysis revealed that in all three main dimensions and eight more specific aspects, internal consistency was good (% > .8). Next, the compliance of the data with the normal distribution conditions was analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Some data were not normally distributed, and therefore, the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test was used to compare the data collected with the teacher agency questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the program.

It was found found that the long-term in-service training program for kindergarten teams supports a positive change in kindergarten staff’s agency for implementing inclusive education. This study has implications for increasing the kindergarten staff’s agency based on the ecological model of agency and for supporting the implementation of inclusive education in kindergartens considering the holistic model of inclusive education. More specifically, we suggest focusing not only on teachers’ competence but also on setting shared goals and building culturally, structurally and materially supportive environments for implementing inclusive education at five levels – child, teacher, family, institutional level, and policy level. The results of this study are also valuable for designing educational programs to support kindergarten teacher agency in their preparation during initial teacher training and in-service training. More specifically, we can recommend three key principles for designing teacher training to empower inclusive teachers and increase their agency – supporting team collaboration, developing professional discourses to reflect on and develop team members’ practices, and developing team members’ inquiry competencies. Teacher agency has been seen as an important contributor to implementing inclusive education by several researchers, and therefore, it is an essential factor for kindergarten teachers’ preparation.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325 Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., & Lepp, L. (2020). Teacher Agency following the Ecological Model: How It Is Achieved and How It Could Be Strengthened by Different Types of Reflection. British Journal of Educational Studies 68(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1672855 Leijen, Ä., Pedaste, M., & Lepp, L. (2022). Supporting teacher agency during a collaborative inquiry-based in-service teacher education course. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2132385 Miller, A. L., Wilt, C. L., Allcock, H. C., Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Ruppar, A. L. (2020). Teacher agency for inclusive education: an international scoping review. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1789766 Nelis, P., & Pedaste, M. (2020). Kaasava hariduse mudel alushariduse kontekstis: süstemaatiline kirjandusülevaade. [A model of inclusive education in the context of Estonian preschool education: a systematic literature review]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education 8(2), 138–163. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2020.8.2.06 Nelis, P., Pedaste, M., & Šuman, C. (2023a). Applicability of the model of inclusive education in early childhood education: a case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1120735 Nelis, P., Pedaste, M., & Šuman, C. (2023b). Kaasava hariduse rakendamine Eesti lasteaedades kaasava hariduse teoreetilise mudeli põhjal: juhtumiuuring. [Implementation of inclusive education in Estonian kindergartens based on the theoretical model of inclusive education: a case study]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 11(1), 48-74. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2023.11.1.03 Peck, N. F., & Neeper, L. S. (2022). Early childhood preservice teachers’ self-efficacy related to inclusion and professional roles via a co-taught field-based course. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 43(2), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1881662 UNESCO. (2009). Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. UNESCO.