The practices and processes that practitioners believe will enable access to school can frequently constrain such access (Rix, 2025). It has, for instance, long been realized that even seemingly obvious and widely adopted approaches such as the use of images or simplifying language are problematic (E.g: Crisp & Sweiry, 2006). The contested nature of simplification was seen as an important area for research in the 20^th Century. For example, there were those who argued that it does not enhance comprehension, as measured by ability to answer questions, retain information over time, and recall important aspects of content (Chalke 1958; Klare 1963), whilst others claimed that simplified texts can increase comprehensibility (Tweissi 1998). The issue of language simplification has tended to focus upon adults reading a range of simplified texts; young people who are learning to read; people with English as an Additional Language (EAL); and a range of individuals with identifiable learning difficulties. The issue of images has been a separate strand of research. For example, how the use of tables and graphs can affect exploratory learning (Velic & DeCaro, 2025) and how abstract and concrete visual representations can affect science education (Zheng et al, 2022). Both simplified language and images have also been explored in connection with assessment and examinations at all levels of education.

Evidence from the United Kingdom, suggests that teachers working with a diverse and complex learning population, provide simplified language materials to their students (Barnard & Burgess, 2001; Rix, 2004, 2006), using images alongside less-complex language. They use these materials at times across the whole class and at others with a range of pupils, including those with learning difficulties and those who have EAL (Rix, 2006). A more recent study from Finland (Zi, 2021) reported text-modification strategies used by the teacher participants working with students in a second language. The desire to simplify is also encouraged through guidance on plain language and ‘good writing’ in textbooks or on websites. These often recommend writing shorter words in shorter sentences, paragraphs and sections, using only essential technical words, and positive, active, personal language. It is not uncommon for guidance to teachers to advocate readability formulas too (e.g: the Fog index, the Flesch Reading Ease index and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score) which are available within Microsoft Word, and have been recommended for decades in textbooks (eg Lewis, 1990; Ellington & Race, 1993) and more recently on websites (https://readable.com/; https://textinspector.com/).

Despite the evidence of the use of these materials, much of which is anecdotal, there is virtually no research into teacher-produced materials and how they are used in everyday classrooms. The author of this paper is one of the few researchers to have done work in this field and this was in the United Kingdom in the early 2000’s. The importance of such a potentially prevalent approach is underlined by the variability that is evident across classrooms too, with teachers often using seemingly contradictory approaches (Huang, 2021) or not sticking to their own teaching plans (Capel et al, 2019). In this context the author was very interested when he heard anecdotally that the approach and the lack of research was also evident in Norway, where he is teaching.

This paper reports on a pilot study that aims to consider:

• Do teachers in Norway use teacher-produced materials?
• Who do teachers use teacher-produced materials with?
• What form do these materials take?

This pilot study has been undertaken as slow research (Nørgård et al, 2024). This first phase followed the same procedures as the author had undertaken in their 2006 study. A survey was sent out to 19 primary schools and 17 secondary schools who had a working relationship with Inland Norway University. They were asked to have a brief discussion and fill in a questionnaire at their next staff/department meeting. The surveys were sent to head teachers as at a primary level they would have regular access to whole school staff meetings, and at secondary level would best know which meeting would involve a cross section of teachers and support staff. There survey was in 4 parts The first part asked about support materials people tended to use when teaching a topic to a person identified with special needs. The second part asked about support materials people tended to use when teaching a topic to a person with Norwegian as a second language. The third part asked people what they felt was the best approach to use. The final part gave them a chance to make some general comments. These provided for responses under three headings, Class Teachers, Class Support Staff and Total. This approach prohibits giving a precise breakdown beyond categories of who attended meetings, nor which individuals held which views. The intention was to gain an overview of staff perceptions rather than a detailed insight into individual views. It was recognised, too, that such an approach may place pressure on attendees to conform to the predominant feeling within the meeting. This could result in a slightly unbalanced response, but this would still demonstrate the view around which people cluster to conform. The arrival of COVID stopped this survey in its tracks. There were responses from a small number of schools followed by a hiatus in education generally. The second phase of this pilot study was therefore begun in 2023. This involved a survey based on the same questions with students on a Masters programme and 2 interviews with 2 teachers (in 2024 & 2025) to explore their use of these materials. Interviews were responsive, extended conversations (Rubin and Rubin 2004). Analysis of the closed questions involves descriptive statistics, whilst the open responses and interviews will be thematically analysed using an approach derived from grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 2008).

The first phase received responses from 46 teachers and support staff from partner schools. This showed that over 58% of them use worksheets produced by staff at the school as their primary means of supporting learners identified with special needs and those identified with Norwegian as a second language. Others use them with a similar population, but less often. The analysis of the second and third phases is still to take place. These will be combined with the open responses from the first phase of surveys. We are anticipating some insights into teacher motivations and beliefs about the value of the approach they take. Consideration will also be given to the wider implications of these findings, the reasons why this field of research is relatively unexplored and what further research might be needed.

Barnard, C. and Burgess, J. (2001) Secondary Inset in the Mainstream Education of Bilingual Students in England, Journal Of In-Service Education, 27, 2, 323-352 Chalke, J. 1958. Readability: An appraisal of research and application. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research, Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Ellington, H., and P. Race. 1993. Producing teaching materials. London: Kogan Page Klare, G. 1963. The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Lewis, R. 1990. How to write flexible learning materials. Coventry, UK: National Council for Educational Technology. Nørgård, R.T., Bosanquet, A., Grant, B.M. (2024). The Slow Scholar in the Accelerated University: Slowness as Solidarity. In: Gibbs, P., de Rijke, V., Peterson, A. (eds) The Contemporary Scholar in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Rix, J. (2009) 'A model of simplification: the ways in which teachers simplify learning materials',Educational Rix, J. (2025). This is What We Should (Not) Be Doing. In Theorising Exclusionary Pressures in Education: Why Inclusion Becomes Exclusion (pp. 113-125). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Rix, J. 2004. Building on similarity – A whole class use for simplified language materials. Westminster Studies in Education 27, no. 1: 57–68. Rix, J. 2006. Simplified language materials – Their usage and value to teachers and support staff in mainstream settings. Teaching and Teacher Education 22, no. 8: 1145–56. Rubin, H., and I. Rubin. 2004. Qualitative Interviewing – The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Studies,35:2,95 — 106 Tweissi, A. 1998. The effects of the amount and type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 11, no. 2: 191–204. Velic, L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2025). Exploring a Problem Before Instruction Using Graphs versus Tables. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 47). Zheng, R., Cordner, H., & Spears, J. (2022). The impact of annotation on concrete and abstract visual representations in science education: testing the expertise reversal effect. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 18. Zi, Y. (2021). An evaluation of the approaches to text modification used by lower secondary CLIL teachers in Finland. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 14(2), 235-262.