Becoming engaged in inclusive practices: Narrative reflections on teaching as descriptors of teachers' work engagement

Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Becoming engaged in inclusive practices: Narrative reflections on teaching as descriptors of teachers’ work engagement Marita Mäkinen* School of Education, University of Tampere, Åkerlundinkatu 5, 33014 Tampere, Finland

h i g h l i g h t s
Teaching stance contributes to teacher’s work engagement.
Transformational teaching characterizes rewarding work engagement.
Reflective practices are essential attributes of work engagement.
Collective efficacy plays a crucial role in developing inclusive teaching cultures.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 November 2012 Received in revised form 23 May 2013 Accepted 27 May 2013

The article presents an interpretive phenomenological inquiry into teachers’ work engagement regarding teaching aspects in recently reformed inclusive schooling in Finland. The study focused on asking about teachers’ teaching experiences and the type of work engagement they reveal. The participants comprised 97 pre-service and 72 in-service teachers. The results contribute by uncovering links between inclusion and work engagement. Findings include three phenomenological themes characterizing teaching in an inclusive setting: one-size-fits-all, didactic-pedagogical, and transformational teaching. The author discusses these themes in terms of teachers’ work engagement and improving teaching to better meet the needs of diverse students. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Work engagement Teaching Inclusion Reflection

1. Introduction Teaching has been described as complex work characterized by simultaneity, unpredictability, and multidimensionality (e.g., Clandinin, 1986; Doyle, 2006). Accordingly, the issue of developing more inclusive forms of education has led to increased challenges in teaching throughout the world (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Carrington & Holm, 2005; Hodkinson, 2009), and teachers struggle to respond to the needs of a diverse student population. Subsequently, interest in research on issues related to teacher efficacy (e.g., Kennedy & Smith, 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; VielRuma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010), work engagement, burnout, and intention to leave the teaching profession is growing (e.g., McCallum & Price, 2010; Parker, Martin, Colmar, & Liem, 2012; Weiqi, 2007). Perhaps due to different theoretical assumptions, these varied inquiry strands have rarely intersected regarding inclusive education.

* Tel.: þ358 50 5860693. E-mail address: marita.makinen@uta.fi. 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.005

Nevertheless, efforts to prepare teachers for inclusive classrooms have led to questions about the nature of teaching and teachers’ working conditions as a whole. Furthermore, teachers’ well-being must be taken seriously in their highly demanding and recently reorganized working conditions. Thus, teachers’ experiences in inclusive classrooms should be examined and interpreted through the lens of work engagement.

1.1. Focus of the study This article presents a phenomenological inquiry into teachers’ work engagement regarding lived experiences of teaching in an inclusive setting. The study had an interpretive goal (cf. van Manen, 1990) of developing a better understanding of teachers and their work through an examination of the lived experiences of daily practice. It addressed the following research questions: e What are teachers’ experiences of teaching in an inclusive setting? e What kind of work engagement do the reflections represent?

52

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

The disparities between the lived experiences of prospective and in-service teachers present a challenge in terms of developing teacher education and supporting in-service teachers in their ongoing professional development. An additional goal of this study was to search for a means to empower teachers to make expedient changes in their pedagogy by focusing on their work engagement, as they narrate their classroom experiences. Therefore, the study perspective is subjective (cf. Kvale, 1996), as inspired by the current literature on inclusion and work engagement. These philosophies are scrutinized and arguments developed for coupling inclusion and work engagement in the context of basic Finnish education. 1.2. Approach to inclusive teaching The main tensions that affect teaching in inclusive settings reside in how it is approached and what concepts are perceived as acceptable in the associated discourse. Inclusion is a debatable ideology that varies by country and may hold a wide range of meanings for politicians, researchers, educators, and parents (cf. Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006; Gao & Mager, 2011; Mäkinen & Mäkinen, 2011). In some countries, educational policy has promoted inclusive education as a method of educating disabled and non-disabled students within the same learning environment (Starczewska, Hodkinson, & Adams, 2012). In this case, inclusion relates to locational ideology; specifically, the idea that certain students simply being taught together is more important than the curriculum or attitudes to which they are subjected (Hodkinson, 2009). An alternative interpretation embraces inclusion as a notion of social justice and equal rights for all groups of people. In this case, inclusion is indicative of including individuals with special needs as well as differences in gender, ethnicity, culture, and social class (e.g., Ainscow et al., 2006; Forlin, 2010; Mäkinen & Mäkinen, 2011). Despite the best of intentions, both approaches are examples of cases where policy-driven development and philosophical thoughts may outpace the actual reality of inclusive teaching. Unquestionably, inclusion raises questions about the changing nature of teaching. However, the greatest challenge comes from the teachers themselves, their attitudes toward diversity, and the intrinsic value of learning as an end in itself. This study approaches inclusion as an educational process that connects firmly with the domain of teachers, students and their everyday needs. The most important question in this study is to what extent teachers appreciate inclusion as a process of reform and a paradigm shift in relationship to teaching and learning. Another critical issue concerning inclusive teaching is the increasingly heavy workload of teachers (e.g., Fernet, Guay, Senécal, & Austin, 2012; Santavirta, Solovieva, & Theorell, 2007). Although work overload has an obvious impact on teachers as individuals, Darling-Hammond (2003) noted that the greatest cost of teacher stress is its adverse impact on student learning and growth. Therefore, gaining an understanding of the processes that underlie teachers’ work is important to this study. 1.3. Teachers’ work engagement Engagement has become a frequently used buzzword in the vocabulary of educational research. The term has been defined differently in different contexts. It has been used to discuss the extent to which students are involved in learning activities (e.g., Chapman, 2003). In fact, engagement has a wide range of invisible elements, and its critical and complex nature is challenging to demonstrate. Nevertheless, student engagement in learning has been used as an indicator of teaching quality (cf.

Darling-Hammond, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Rothstein, 2010). In turn, work engagement is understood as an employee’s positive, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental persistence while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge, and absorption as being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In short, engaged employees have high levels of energy and are enthusiastic about their work. Nevertheless, the theoretical views on work engagement were previously influenced by the various models of work stress, which concentrate on the destructive consequences of occupational stressors on physical and psychological health. For instance, the personeenvironment fit model (Lazarus, 1991) proposes that the mismatch between person and work environment is key in influencing strain and consequent lack of well-being. Alternative models focus on the interaction between the psychosocial characteristics of work demands and control (e.g., Johnson & Hall, 1988; Karasek, 1979). However, these models have limitations in assumptions about job characteristics (which are oversimplified to some extent) and a narrow view of job control, which may not reflect the dynamic multi-stressor nature of modern working conditions (cf. Mark & Smith, 2012). In this study, I approached teachers’ work engagement accordingly with more recent views characterized as transactional models. Their foci are on the dynamic relationships between working environments and employees’ personal ways of experiencing work. Two examples of transactional models are the efforte reward imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996) and the job demandseresources (JDeR) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). The ERI model focuses on the reciprocity in which effort at work is compensated by appropriate rewards. A mismatch leads to stressful experiences (Peter & Siegrist, 1999). The JDeR model is the model most frequently used in empirical research (e.g., Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Fernet et al., 2012; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006), in which job demands refer to physical, social, or organizational work factors that require sustained psychological effort at work while job resources represent the factors that may help achieve work-related aims. Studies on teachers’ work engagement have shown consistent support for Demerouti et al.’s (2001) observations on the primary roles of job demands and resources in burnout. For instance, the interpersonal nature of teaching (e.g., Fernet et al., 2012; Pyhältö, Pietarinen, & Salmela-Aro, 2011) and classroom overload due to time pressure put teachers at high risk for being drained of emotional energy, which could lead to burnout (e.g., Høigaard, Giske, & Sundsli, 2011; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). Accordingly, studies suggest that school violence and students’ disruptive behavior could also have a strong negative impact on teacher well-being (Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007; McCormick & Barnett, 2011). Job resources, such as supervisory support and an innovative and social climate, are positively related to work engagement (Hakanen et al., 2006). Adequate resources help teachers cope with the emotional demands of teaching and affect work engagement (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Job resources also predict teachers’ in-role and extra-role work performance. In-role performance refers to the officially required outcomes and behaviors that directly serve the goals of the organization (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Extra-role performance (or contextual performance) includes discretionary actions that go beyond what is stated in formal job descriptions and that promote

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

the effective functioning of an organization without necessarily directly influencing an employee’s productivity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Bakker and Bal (2010) referred to engaged teachers’ inclination to perform well and their willingness to go the extra mile. Similarly, current findings for teacher efficacy have shown a direct relationship with job satisfaction (e.g., Kennedy & Smith, 2013; Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Teachers’ sense of efficacy is defined as beliefs about their ability to influence student learning outcomes (cf. Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), and job satisfaction is defined as a result of teachers’ perceptions of how well their work provides elements teachers view as important. Studies also indicate that job satisfaction influences teachers’ enthusiasm (Weiqi, 2007) and warm relations with students (van den Berg, 2002). Therefore, a resourceful working environment enhances teachers’ feelings of work engagement, creates confidence that goals can be accomplished, and fulfills the need to belong and focus on activities with real impact (Bakker & Bal, 2010; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti & Brummelhuis, 2012). However, teachers’ work engagement has thus far received limited attention in qualitative education research. Thus, the phenomenon lacks systematic study specifically from the perspective of teachers’ lived experience.

53

Although the teaching profession is highly respected with minimum teacher attrition rates, recent studies have shown high levels of burnout among Finnish teachers (Hakanen et al., 2006; Pyhältö et al., 2011; Santavirta et al., 2007). Therefore, teacher training pre-service and in-service is a significant concern in terms of improving teachers’ overall readiness to provide inclusive practices (cf. European Union, 2011; OECD, 2005). Accordingly, mainstream teachers are forced to regularly rethink what and how they teach. 2. Application of interpretive phenomenology The interpretative phenomenological approach offers a methodological setting that reveres the teachers’ experience to the fullest. The approach is based on Heidegger’s (1962/1927) and Gadamer’s (1975/1960) philosophical worldviews, and on the idea that people make meaning of lived experience from a perspective in which the conscious subject is related to a particular time and place. Thus, interpretive phenomenology, in its essence, is about explicating the real, imagined, empirically described and subjectively felt (cf. van Manen, 1990). This philosophy provides a solid foundation for discovering how teachers make sense of, and engages with, their recently reorganized work in inclusive teaching. I next examine several prevailing definitions to discuss the nature of narrative reflection.

1.4. Context of the study This study was conducted in Finland. The Finnish perspective offers an appropriate context for a study of teachers’ work engagement in an inclusive setting for several reasons. First, the positive results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) surveys (OECD, 2001, 2004, 2010) have shown that high performance can be combined with widespread equality, equity and individual instructional support. In fact, education has traditionally been seen primarily not as method for producing individual brilliant performers but as a mechanism for evening out social inequality (cf. Sahlberg, 2012; Skerrett & Hargreaves, 2008). This cohesion has been achieved through research-based teacher education programs and the output of high-qualified teaching professionals. The consequent rationale is that teaching is rated one of the most respected professions. Less than 10% of applicants are accepted into teacher education programs offering a master’s-level academic qualification. Therefore, the teacher supply is strong. Yet attrition has been estimated to be only 2.5% of teachers in their first five years of teaching, and the overall turnover rate is 14.5%1 (Nissinen & Välijärvi, 2011). The global pursuit of enhancing inclusion stated in the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) has been taken seriously in Finland. Thus, the current education policy has been updated according to global declarations (e.g., UNESCO, 2009). The amended legislation (Basic Education Act, 2010) has obviated the previous “twin-track system” of labeling “exceptional” students before they are entitled to receive individualized instruction, accommodations, and support most appropriate for their needs within special schools. The purpose of the reform is to focus attention on mainstream student-centered teaching and further reinforce the learning support mechanisms for all students (cf. Koivula, Lakkala, & Mäkinen, 2011). Thus, teachers should encounter and treat all students equally, regardless of their [dis]abilities, social class, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

1 In the United States (Martin, Sass, & Schmitt, 2012) and Australia (Manuel, 2003; Pillay, Goddard, & Wilss, 2005), the attrition rate is approximately 45 percent. In Europe, there are differences between countries regarding teacher retention and supply (Moon, 2007).

2.1. Narrative reflection Although the roots of reflection run through the work of many scholars ranging from Plato to Aristotle, Dewey’s creative insights are widely accepted as influencing the notions of reflection. Dewey (1944, 76) defined reflection as “reconstruction or reorganization of experience, which adds to the meaning of experience and which increases the ability to direct the course of subsequent experience.” Dewey’s description has been interpreted in relation to teaching, and several researchers have expanded and specified the definition. For example, Mezirow (1991) and Moon (1999) broadened Dewey’s idea through several insights: constructing the connection between reflection and learning and raising critical thinking as a core element of reflection. Mezirow (1991) linked the foundation of reflection with transformative learning, bringing additional depth and breadth to reflection conceptualization. Similarly, Moon (1999, p. 63) defined reflection as “a set of abilities and skills, to indicate the taking of a critical stance, an orientation to problem solving or state of mind,” and suggests four components (process, elaboration, purpose, and transformation) as the core of reflection. Mann, Gordon, and MacLeod (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the reflection definitions. The scholars have divided the notions of reflection into two dimensions: iterative and vertical. Although the iterative approach to reflection stresses active processes inspired by experience producing a new understanding (e.g., Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Schön, 1983), the vertical dimension (e.g., van Manen, 1977; Mezirow, 1991) offers a combination of different levels of reflection from surface to in-depth levels. In some reflection research, the iterative process is bound to the vertical dimension of reflection (cf. Kaasila & Lauriala, 2012; Luttenberg & Bergen, 2008; Mann et al., 2009). Breadth refers to the content and time frame of reflection, i.e., what one reflects upon, and how it deals with the past, present, and future. Depth refers to the reflection process that proceeds along certain levels or stages. Moreover, Mann et al. (2009) added, in line with Moon (1999), anticipation of challenging situations that stimulates reflection. In addition, in relation to the moral and ethical perspective on reflection, Valli (1997) defined reflective teachers, whom she says “look back on events, make judgments about them and alter their

54

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

teaching behaviors in light of craft, research and ethical knowledge” (p. 70). Overall, the approaches to reflection emphasize analyzing teacher experience to achieve deeper meaning and understanding of teaching and learning. Some scholars (e.g., Bruner, 1990; Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, 2006) have suggested “a narrative turn” in thinking about experience and reflection. For example, Bruner (1990) defined narrative as a system of understanding by which people organize their experiences in, knowledge about, and transactions with their social worlds. In this study, drawing on these scholars’ work, the narrative reflections represent teachers’ textual interpretations of their lived experiences, as every form of human awareness of lived experience is interpretive. 2.2. Participants The participants were 97 pre-service teachers (59 women, 38 men; mean age 34 years) and 72 in-service teachers (58 women, 15 men; mean age 49 years). The pre-service teachers were completing their subject teacher qualification for secondary and upper secondary school at a multi-disciplinary research university in southern Finland. The study was conducted in connection with two courses, “Didactic Practicum II” (DP II) and “Diversity in Education”. All participants were enrolled in both courses. The inservice teachers were gathered by email contact through the teachers’ union mailing lists of the 13 secondary and upper secondary schools in municipalities near the university. The schools represented a range of socio-economic and geographic areas as well as school types (nine lower secondary schools with students aged 13e16 and four upper secondary schools with students aged 16e19). The in-service teachers had worked in their profession for a minimum of 10 years.

between three and nine pages (500e4000 words). These writings provided a window through which to understand the essence of pre-service and in-service teachers’ experience of teaching. 2.4. Ethical considerations All participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study, and there was no dependency between the pre-service and in-service teachers and me as a researcher. The participants were assured anonymity and confidentiality, and they were told that, if they wished to withdraw, their writings would be destroyed and not analyzed. One pre-service teacher withdrew. My ethical responsibility to the participants was a serious consideration throughout the data collection, in the way the data were treated and interpreted and the results reported. A common principle of bracketing any preconceptions and own prejudices was, however, ambivalent, in this study. On one hand, I considered using a committed approach and intentionality toward the phenomenon crucial. On the other hand, it was significant to deem bracketing, in accordance with Munhall (1994), as a process of unknowing in which avoiding the assumptions that had emerged through the decade I had worked as a secondary school teacher before becoming researcher and teacher educator at the university. I recognized the risk of “better knowing” the participants’ lifeworld. Through reflection, I refused to accept the initial familiar meanings that emerged from the data before all possible meanings had been discovered. 2.5. Analysis

Van Manen’s (1990, 1997) suggestions about attributing importance to narrative writing as an activity was appropriate for this study. Therefore, the data were collected through the teachers’ written narrative reflections, which allowed the teachers to examine their lived experiences, biases, and assumptions about teaching. This activity gave an expanded scope to applying phenomenology as a method for collecting data and later uses various sources for interpreting teacher experience. Moon and Fowler (2008) stated that narrative writing is likely to involve a conscious purpose of reflection with an outcome specified in terms of learning, action, and clarification. Drawing on these scholars, the task assignment was designed to evoke participants’ thoughts, refresh their minds and memories, and enable them to write about important experiences. The phenomenological question, “what is the participant’s experience like?”, guided the task assignment. Both groups were asked to write a narrative essay on “Teaching, Learning, and Me.” The cover letter encouraged the teachers to recall and describe their essential lived experiences throughout their teaching careers: specific concerns including events, actions, feelings, and thoughts and what had caught the individuals’ particular attention in inclusive teaching. The pre-service teachers wrote their narratives during the DP II seminars, and the in-service teachers wrote the narratives at home and e-mailed them.2 The essay length varied

The keys to the analysis were insightful reflection and meaning making. Thus, for analyzing the data I applied van Manen’s (1990) interpretative dialogical technique and Moon’s (1999) view on the core components of reflection. Interpretative dialogue (van Manen, 1990, 1997) refers to the effort to shift the focus between parts and wholes of narrated texts. Through this technique, dependences between lived experience and its interpretation in terms of work engagement can be reached. Following van Manen (1990), the dialogical analysis engaged me in a circular journey that transformed the research from purely descriptive to intentional pedagogic research. To get a tangible grasp of how to work with the notion of reflection, I drew on Moon’s (1999) view on reflective action by introducing four key components of reflection and suggesting them as a tool for meaning making in developing professionalism. I recognized them as useful “meta-tools” for inventing and disclosing themes, motifs, and key words of teachers’ narrative reflections. Although the participants had narrated interpretations of their subjective, unique, and inconsistent lived experiences, I analyzed the reflections by searching the entire meanings and essences, as they became apparent. I thus aimed at communicating with the texts, allowing teachers’ personal experience to be brought to bear, and offering warranted interpretations of experience, which seemed to be shared. The iterative analysis consisted of close reading, organizing, thematic interpretation, and summarizing. First, I read the narratives thoroughly several times to obtain an overall familiarity and understanding. The meaning unit (i.e., narrative episode3) of organizing the data was determined as either a complete description of an individual’s lived experience or a brief notional

2 The mailing lists included a total of 606 teachers (spring 2010), but because the data were collected via a web form, the response rate was quite low. This limitation should be considered when interpreting the results presented later in the article.

3 The corpus contained 1069 narrative episodes including 671 pre-service teacher episodes and 398 in-service teacher episodes. During the analysis, ATLAS. ti software was used.

2.3. Data

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

statement. Each narrative episode characterized an interpretive experience and voice that a narrator had expressed. It is of note that the participants were not categorized in any slot, but the written episodes. In the organizing cycle, the commonalities, differences, and relationships arose between the meaning units; and they were emphasized and grouped by using Moon’s (1999) approach to reflection. In all, three reflection components emerged during the process, i.e., scoping processes, elaborating expressions and concluding analysis. The scoping processes targeted the lived experience content that teachers described. These narrative episodes may focus on narrow or broad lived experience of teaching practices, and varied from entirely superficial thoughts to deep reflections, as the following quotes exemplify: In mathematics and physics, it is important to perform things with a logical and rational order. (PRE-2) It is a wrong kind of growth to do only nice things. In that way, the human power and perseverance will not increase. No one will really get a free ride through learning processes, although the attempt can sometimes be huge. (PRE-61) I believe that everyone has a good world inside of them, and everyone is an evolving and learning being. Each person is unique, and the humanity is enough to give value to one’s existence. Each student is worth the effort and caring. Then, if the situation goes into a tight corner, I try to see, seek and appreciate the good parts of students. (IN-28) Elaborating experiences involved reflecting on experiences that clearly bothered the teachers or led to an uncomfortable situation. The elaborating episodes comprised six critical areas of concern (Fig. 1). Concluding analysis raised the experiences in which teachers described their methods for organizing and scrutinizing the instructional practices. Episodes were allocated into six action areas, and they reflected participants’ attempts to influence and generate actions despite existing problems. In all, the organizing cycle indicated that the reflection components were not located on vertical levels (cf. Mann et al., 2009); instead, the nature, depth, and breadth of the reflections were tightly intertwined. In sum, this

55

cycle offered first-order reflective themes across all participants, and providing guidelines for analyzing the text with more depth. The second process of interpretation followed. I moved back and forth between the overall narratives to reach a deep depiction and understanding of the essential elements of the teacher experience. The episodes were thus reclassified into vertical themes, which appeared to answer (instead the depth of reflection) the question “What kind of teaching stance do the narrative episodes espouse?” By teaching stance, I refer, in accordance with Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999, 2004, 2009), to the teachers’ teaching persona reflected in the episodes. Teaching stance is a combination of attitude, outlook, and character. The teaching stance thus described specific positions teachers took on knowledge, teaching and learning, and their relationships. Next, I reflected on whole text again, drawing a summary of what was depicted and highlighted. According to this summarizing cycle, three themes illustrating the teaching stance were positioned along the reflection components. The common threads of the themes were assessed by rechecking the meaning units and the quotes in their original data contexts. Finally, the analysis process raised three phenomenological themes, each partially interpreting the multifaceted nature of teachers’ work engagement. Fig. 1 displays the framework constructed during the analysis process. The narrative quotes substantiating the research findings are numbered and coded, disclosing the writer’s role as a pre-service teacher (PRE) or an in-service teacher (IN). The quotes have been translated from Finnish to English by the author. 3. Findings and discussion Research indicates that many teachers find that incorporating inclusiveness into their everyday teaching practices is a challenge and a source of anxiety. The perspectives of the teachers, as both individuals and professional educators, shaped the narrative episodes in this study, thus reflecting multiple traditions and assumptions about teaching and learning. The reflection components that emerged were not positioned solely according to the participants’ breadth of acting and storylines nor by the depth of their reflections. Indeed, this initial outcome required further analysis.

Fig. 1. Framework for emerging themes recounting the nature of teachers’ work engagement in an inclusive setting.

56

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

The participant’s work engagement appeared to manifest primarily in accordance with their individual stance toward teaching, which was directly related to their beliefs about teaching and learning in inclusive settings. The findings took the form of three phenomenological themes or approaches to teaching: one-size-fits-all, didactic-pedagogical, and transformational. The majority (55%) of the episodes represented examples of didactic-pedagogical teaching, 30% reflected one-sizefits-all teaching, and 15% were transformational teaching. It is of note that while only 10% of the episodes written by in-service teachers represented one-size-fits-all teaching, approximately the same percentage (11%) of the episodes expressed by pre-service teachers reflected transformational teaching. This quantitative distinction indicated that some differences in the experiences were due to the background of the individual participants and the length of time they had been in the teaching field. Despite the numerical disparity, the episodes were much alike phenomenologically. Therefore, instead of looking for the differences between the two teacher groups, the analysis directed the focus on the more subtle features of the phenomenological themes. In the following sections, each theme is discussed along with the emerging meanings, which are examined alongside the theoretical insights into inclusion and work engagement. Despite the narrative presentation style, individual teachers were not categorized phenomenologically.

3.1. Engaging in one-fits-all teaching The narrative reflections included three content areas: subject knowledge, teaching performance, and pedagogical authority. Subject knowledge appeared to be the most inspiring force for teaching, as shown in the following episodes: I have felt success when I have been able to describe the physical phenomenon with a clear blackboard image. (PRE-8) Every now and then, the students tell me that they are not motivated to study my subject. Usually, I say that it is their problem. It is not, indeed, my problem. Actually, it is not anything unusual that they do not consider the subject matter important. Sometimes, I have said that it is quite sad if they are not motivated. Because I represent the teachers of the older generation, I cannot even participate to the discussions concerning these like-or-not-like issues! (IN-6) The episodes refer to the teachers’ traditional, though seemly valid, preference to view subject matter as a highly valued property, which must be delivered to the students. This inclination led them to their greatest concern: how to accomplish this goal regardless of the imbalance between mastering the subject matter and managing the classroom. Despite subject matter competency, wellprepared materials, and effectively presented lessons: as the next quote illustrates, they did not feel confident or satisfied: I’ve been wondering, indeed, how I know my subject matter of school so badly. I must concentrate on using the right terms. I fail even with my well-practiced demonstrations. When I’m stressed, I might mix the wrong chemicals. My authority feels insufficient. If the students take the upper hand, it all ends up in chaos. (PRE-32) The problem is when I have prepared a new subject matter topic with questions and I try to give my instructions by making questions, but there is no definite answer to them. I feel irritated. I do think that a teacher’s main job is to teach. (IN-15) From a teaching stance, this discipline-based viewpoint aligns with Shulman’s (1986, 1999) early ideas, which maintained that

teachers should be “instructional coaches,” and Sockett’s (2007, 2008) interpretation of “scholar professionals,” as primarily having a deep understanding of the subject matter. In the traditional sense of the term, this orientation emphasizes academic teaching personas. Consequently, these teachers expressed summary ideas that criticized inclusive reforms. They focused mistrust on the renewed national legislation and stakeholders and they condemned their increasingly untenable working conditions. Two teacher participants explained: It is inhumane and wrong to require teachers to take responsibility for students’ learning for the sake of inclusive schools. In fact, I am going to need a school assistant myself if I get a student with special needs in my class. A normal classroom teacher does not have time to deal with all of a single student’s needs. I find it very important to establish conditions in which it is possible to teach. (PRE-50) Currently, our inclusive education system appears to be flexible in only one direction. Students, who have problems with schoolwork, in my opinion, are taken too much in consideration. I have the impression that this issue is not allowed to even be talked about out loud. (IN-3) Despite the unfavorable comments on inclusive education, the teachers seemed to regard the work associated with it as involving rather pragmatic and routine actions instead of reflective thinking (cf. Dewey, 1933). They paid little attention to the methods of supporting students in constructing their knowledge. In their opinion, the inclusive reform entailed interference with the respect for their autonomy. Little (1990) compounded this issue by arguing that the emphasis on teacher autonomy may nurture their implicitly idiosyncratic interpretations of what and how their students learn. In terms of work engagement, the teachers’ interpretations of the experiences indicated that when teachers feel unsuccessful in teaching, they may respond by using a denial defense mechanism as a way of reducing the subjective misfit between subject knowledge and pedagogical authority. Some teachers concluded that the teaching profession is neither what they had expected nor what they had been prepared for in their teacher education program. Nonetheless, it remained unclear whether they felt a mismatch between their efforts and rewards (cf. Peter & Siegrist, 1999), a mismatch between expectations and teaching reality, or a lack of adequate job resources (cf. Hakanen et al., 2006). It is possible that the participant teachers’ belief in teacher efficacy decreased due to the assumption that evocative teaching alone is the heart of a respectable teacherdthis may entail deep disappointments with the current reality of inclusion. Accordingly, recent research (e.g., Høigaard et al., 2011; Kennedy & Smith, 2013; Viel-Rume et al., 2010) supports the perspective that teacher efficacy and the rewards that individual employees experience (Peter & Siegrist, 1999) both have a direct effect on job satisfaction. This finding raises several risks in terms of work engagement. Teachers may not actually demonstrate a commitment to teaching; they may carry a low degree of reflection on teaching practices; some narratives uncovered an impossibility of seeing various job resources available through social contexts, which may entail low tolerance and cynicism. For pre-service teachers, this type of thinking may cause a reality shock when they begin their teaching careers (cf. Høigaard et al., 2011; McCormack & Thomas, 2003). Newly qualified teachers may realize that they are not adequately prepared. Studies have shown that this may increase attrition rates among teachers (Hanssen, Raaen, & Østrem, 2010; Shakrani, 2008).

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

3.2. Engaging in didactic-pedagogical teaching Descriptions of this theme focused mainly on two issues: how to capture students’ interest in the subject matter and how to face student diversity. The following quote exemplifies this high sensitivity to the student learning experience: Teachers run their curriculum through with an aim to get things “covered.” Would it be more relevant to stop the run against the clock and concentrate on each issue for as long as it really takes so that students really get exciting experiences that promote learning? (PRE-89) The teachers seemed to value student differences as an ordinary part of teaching practice and attempted to see class material and activities from the students’ perspective. In terms of bothersome experiences, the episodes revealed teachers’ worries about identifying diverse students and their needs and coping with instructional alternatives. The teachers described the challenging experiences and feelings they had encountered: “It was a horrible feeling when the student couldn’t understand the matter and I couldn’t come up with any new insight into or way to perform the matter” (PRE-40). Finally, the teachers’ conclusions focused on the pedagogical nature of different types of subject matter to be taught, learning instructions, and individual and collective student needs as the next quote exemplifies: I miss the most research-based practical tools for those learning situations in which a student cannot concentrate or cannot understand what he has just read, or when the students behave aggressively. I have tried all the methods, for instance, Brain Gym, photos, theatre, and multiple exercises for emotional expression, among other things. But none are sufficient. (IN-29) From a teaching stance, these descriptions position teachers as facilitators of students’ learning activities: “Teaching is focusing on students’ learning instead of teaching. This is the most revolutionary thing I have understood during this teacher training program” (PRE-10). The quote shows how the ideas within inclusive teaching are captured through the ways teachers succeed in designing day-to-day learning practices. Consequently, as the episode above (IN-29) articulates, being a good teacher requires various evidence-based instructional practices. According to Sockett (2007), this kind of perception refers to the notion of “clinician teachers,” who need to be equipped with the relevant upto-date knowledge, instructional skills, and an understanding of the way students learn. Such views are partially consistent with Chevellard’s (2007) interpretation of didactic teaching as being encapsulated in three questions: “what,” “how,” and “why.” The first question relates to subject knowledge, the second to teaching methods, and the third to the aims of the activity and the purposes of the subject within the social and cultural contexts of education as the following pre-service teacher describes: I want to shed light on the mystery of natural sciences with a variety of means. It is important to point out its experimentalism. Physics is not only equations and formulas, but also modeling of natural phenomena. It provides useful tools to model everyday things, or at least should. With them, they may have the option to move on if their souls call for it. Perhaps I will succeed in picking some of them up on the science network. (PRE-11) The episode also addresses Shulman’s (1986, 1987) description of pedagogical content knowledge that represents teachers’ ability to transform subject matter into pedagogy by constructing learning experiences that organize the knowledge in light of particular contexts

57

and students. The teachers, indeed, seemed to face many conflicting challenges in their teaching practices that are, as Creese and Leung (2003) argue, selectively inclusive and ambiguously exclusive at the same time. In everyday practices, the pedagogical conditions take place very unpredictably, and decisions are thus chosen implicitly and mixed. The episode “Closest to my heart are those students who show warning signs and symptoms to express to you that there is something going wrong with one’s life” (IN-36) raised Sockett’s (2007) notion of teachers as “nurturer professionals.” Therefore, teaching appeared to be, on one hand, a type of “multi-agency activities” that entailed a joint affliction among teachers, the absurdity of encountering all students’ needs concurrently. On the other hand, some teachers had adopted a reflective perspective on teaching that they perceived was applicable to any teaching situation that arises. Due to an intention to nurture and effectively teach students with a deep sense of duty, teachers seemed to internalize instructional and disciplinary challenges as personal failures. Thus, the teachers perceived instructional disappointments as their own limitation of professional ability and continuously seeking alternative practices to prove, as an in-service teacher wrote: I have often wondered why on earth I chose this kind of chaotic profession. It is extremely difficult to keep the weak students on track. I get exhausted when I don’t find any workable solution. I know my limits, and I get very tired. Especially after a hectic day at school, I wonder if I can make it until retirement age. (IN-54) The risk here occurred only once they had observed and reflected their actions through judging lenses. Despite attempts at maintaining a strong studenteteacher relationship and a commitment to teaching, these teachers felt that they could not cope with students’ behavioral challenges. In inclusive teaching, there seems to be a risk that the teachers might find themselves at an impasse. To avoid this “dead-end”, Ainscow and Sandill (2010) argue that enhancing inclusion is not about adopting workable methods or technologies but involves social learning processes within school communities. In terms of work engagement, the results show the characteristics behind the described didactic-pedagogical teaching. The episodes reflected vigor and absorption (cf. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli et al., 2002) as well as feelings of inadequacy and inefficacy to cope with the challenges they have experienced in their career despite positive attitudes toward students and teaching. The findings are in line with the theory of the “dark side” of work engagement (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011), which suggests that being highly engaged can have detrimental consequences for the individual. 3.3. Engaging in transformational teaching Episodes here focused mainly on two overlapping worldviews, considerations of learning as a human activity and the teachers’ role in fostering good dispositions. I think that the school’s mission is not to fill the children with information as efficiently as possible. The most unforgettable learning experience for me was the commemoration ceremony the day after the M/S Estonia sank. Classroom lights were turned off, and only candles were burning. The teacher gave us an assignment to try to imagine that we were one of the passengers on the ship. In an afterthought, these kinds of moments have been the most important matters of learning. All in all, I try to arrange the classroom in a way that enhances positive feelings and give students opportunities to discuss in a low-pressure climate. (PRE-26)

58

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

This thought reflects a strong intrinsic motivation to throw oneself enthusiastically into students’ learning processes. However, it did not mean that teaching would not be demanding. Many teachers were deeply concerned, in particular about how to make an impact on students’ attitudes and beliefs and how to contribute to collaborative practices within the learning community. The next quote represents this endeavor: I teach mathematics at a secondary school. It is a great feeling to see students’ secret potential. I remember one class in which many students’ schooling had gone sour. It was due to many reasons, not due to the school or me. Then I decided to express my confidence in math all costs. Little by little, they began to have faith in themselves, too. We all felt tangible joy when they achieved success on exams. Bit by bit, I was a part of this small community. I felt so joyful when I discovered that I had gained a sense of belonging and participation with these young people. By Christmas, many had found an internship. The students’ own confidence in the future was rising, and a place for each was emerging. (IN-35) These episodes demonstrate how sensitivity in teaching is not a sentimental conferring of emotion but a combination of trust, confidence and faith in students and a deep admiration for their strengths, learning, and ability to change. These teachers positioned themselves as champions of fair play, equality, and desegregation, among others. Sockett (2007, 2009) seems to be talking about similar teachers when he characterized them as “moral agent professionals” by referring to personal moral values as social justice, tolerance, and openness, which are stressed to enhance the quality of life (cf. Osguthorpe, 2008). As the teachers above exemplify, the empowering teaching stance meant constant pursuit of enhancing the social dynamics of learning and an inclination to deal with the ambiguous tensions between despair and confidence. The episodes gave an impression that the words and actions were of great consequence. Teachers believed in the students’ natural state to continuously learn. The episodes thus reflected a strong perseverance, which emerged in willingness, for instance, to work for a long period with students who were struggling. The teachers also seemed to be less critical of and frustrated with students’ mistakes; rather, the teachers celebrated even small learning steps. Although the teachers felt unconfident, for instance, in managing the physical and mental stress in classroom, they tended to shift challenges to a positive way as the following in-service teacher depicts: Challenging moments are those when we have large and noisy groups and students are climbing the walls. Then we teachers usually sit down and completely rethink how to proceed with the class. I like to plan out-of-school activities. Often these days shift in the end into extremely nice experiences. (IN-66) The narratives reflected that the teachers had made a solid distinction between worrying and problem solving. They talked about searching for ways to embrace the challenges of meeting their students’ needs and creating environments that make learning possible. In all, the teachers concluded that they had committed to an inclusive culture due to their willingness to be involved in movements for social justice. The perception reflects the culture of inclusion according to which the basis of schooling lies in the collaborative practices of the school community concerning teachers, principal, students, parents, and stakeholders as the following quote describes: Above all, our school could be characterized by a strong atmosphere of pedagogical risk-taking. It means that we carry out a lot together, although we have knocked our heads against a brick

wall. Still, with much laughter. The school has a strong collegial and collaborative atmosphere. The principal has had a tight role in building it. I collaborate everyday with the special needs teacher, with people on the well-being service team and parents. Sometimes the work is exhausting, but the work brings experiences of success through strong collegial support. I remember one of the older colleagues reminded me: “The moment you step into the classroom, you’ve got to abandon all thoughts concerning your private life”. All educational settings focus on the teacher’s strict attendance. (IN-10) The idea here reflects the fundamental paradigm shift toward the culture of inclusion (cf. Ainscow & Sandill, 2010) in which students’ diverse learning, background, and behavior characteristics are maintained as normal and vigorous. Moreover, the episodes gave a reason to interpret that these teachers tended to be not only professionally vital but also intellectually curious inside and outside the classroom. Intellectual stimulation seemed to be a substantial need. One in-service teacher wrote: Within our team, we have had very thought-provoking talks about values, goals, and pedagogies. I can tell them even about the tough days in my class. In our meetings, you really have to think about yourself as a teacher and as a human being and why it is that we do this job. (IN-9) However, these descriptions did not reflect a rejection or avoidance of considering critical aspects of teaching. Nonetheless, some episodes expressed different degrees of anger. Teachers were angry mostly at the injustices their students have to endure, including racism and dismissive comments by other students, teachers, parents, or stakeholders. Some of the participants were confused about current school policies made by “administration far from school realities” (IN-18). Nevertheless, the teachers seemed to be able to anticipate challenges and reflect on their work with curiosity instead of judgment. The teachers recognized that in addition to caring that promotes a sense of belonging for students, colleagues’ caring is significant for teacher well-being. The teachers seemed to agree with Shulman and Shulman’s (2004) idea that teachers should be more capable of learning from their own and others’ experiences through active reflection on their actions and their consequences. Zeichner and Liston (1996) argue that teachers should reflect on not only how to solve a particular practical problem in teaching but also on the aims and values that guide their work. In terms of engagement, these teachers’ interpretation of teaching can be summarized as engagement in life-changing activities in collaborative processes to change school cultures. Moreover, this finding indicates the connection between work engagement, decision authority and extra-role performance. The results point, in line with Bakker and his colleagues (Bakker & Bal, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Brummelhuis, 2012), the significance of such a school community, which respects and takes teachers’ own initiatives, voices, and demands for themselves actively into account. In all, the study adds to the literature by showing that teachers with high levels of vigor, dedication, and absorption seemed to mobilize such an autonomy, which was supported by colleagues and reported opportunities for further development through work. This proactivity can then be defined as a satisfying and workrelated state of mind with attention to collective efficacy introduced by Bandura (1997) instead of self-efficacy. To sum up, the key characteristics of this empowering work engagement can thus be described as a combination of intellectual and reflective capacities, commitment to teaching and learning, mindful actions, and openminded thinking dispositions. Moreover, transformational teaching communicates closely with the school community by

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

demonstrating the features of organizational citizenship introduced by Bakker et al. (2012). These features entail an attentive, alert, and caring state of mind focusing on students. 4. Limitations of the study Several limitations must be addressed. The first one concerns the low response rate among in-service teachers. Although preservice teachers’ narratives were included in the course activities, which ensured a complete response rate, the in-service teachers’ narratives collected via a web form led to a low (16%) response rate. I assume that the teachers’ intensive work and hectic schedules may have contributed to the unwillingness to do this extra work, which required sitting down, recalling, and writing. In addition, the low response rate may stem partly from the teachers’ reluctance to reflect on their work by writing. However, aware of the selective and biased sampling, I considered the data. Another limitation involved data collected the same year the amended legislation (Basic Education Act, 2010) was passed. Although inclusion reform was a topical issue in common parlance, the implementation process had just been started by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. Municipalities all over Finland had just joined the work by developing new practices at schools and in-service teacher training (cf. Mäkinen, Pantzar, & Merta, 2010). Moreover, inclusive education being redesigned in the current teacher education was examined in this study (Mäkinen, Nikander, Pantzar, & Saari, 2009). In fact, none of the episodes referred to new support mechanisms. Implementing inclusive practices is obviously a long-term effort. It would be beneficial to repeat this study and compare the findings with a similar data set and methods in several years. The final limitations concern methodology and thus me as the researcher. This type of idiographic approach to subjective experience has not been applied thus far in work engagement research. Hence, although objectivity is not an issue in phenomenological research, the challenge was explicating all the essential meanings in the phenomenon. The researcher’s preconceptions and thoughts were filtered in any case through the research. As I mentioned earlier, the methods of bracketing my presuppositions needed serious consideration. Through sensitive reflection, I attempted to restrain myself from routinely applying my known prejudices, and to be open to the participants’ lived experience. However, at the very center of my professional and research interests is the intention to educate teachers to meet the rapidly changing world and maintain faith in the future. This made me sensitive to empowering aspects of work engagement. Nevertheless, one sign of constructive bracketing was that my own understanding of the phenomenon was reshaped and enriched as the study progressed. The study also confirmed the value of written reflection, for the participants and the researcher, as a learning tool of effective professional development. 5. Concluding ideas By interpreting teaching from the perspective of work engagement, positive and fulfilling job satisfaction versus exhaustive and destructive job dissatisfaction can both be identified. Based on the findings, this study makes four contributions. First, the results reflect that approach to teaching is influenced by more than just years of teaching; it is also influenced by what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2004, 2009) have defined as a teaching stance or belief system. It reveals teachers’ deep-rooted sentiments about the role that education can play, about explanations for variations in student learning and emotional attitudes, prejudices, and feelings regarding other people. It is not clear whether the source of the teaching

59

stance is the outcome of socialization processes or a reflection of life experiences. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that teachers shape their pedagogy through their teaching stance. Indeed, teaching stance appears to be a long-term issue that determines the characteristics of work engagement. Further research is needed to show how a teaching stance is adopted by teachers and how it could be developed. Second, the results revealed three phenomenological themes that characterized teaching in an inclusive setting: one-fits-all, didactic-pedagogical, and transformational teaching. One-fits-all teaching indicated persistent historical patterns of teaching and reflected reasonable reluctance to reflect on experiences, and make connections with personal theories of practice and the current reality of inclusion. This view shared a decreased belief in teacher efficacy with didactic-pedagogical teaching. This result is troubling because, according to earlier research (e.g., Høigaard et al., 2011; Kennedy & Smith, 2013); teacher efficacy has a direct effect on job satisfaction. From a didactic-pedagogical perspective, ambiguity between student-centered and subject matter-centered teaching with demands of inclusive teaching characterized their position as teachers. The tendency to internalize all pedagogical, subject matter, and disciplinary challenges as personal failures seems to be a challenge to teacher efficacy. Therefore, multi-agent activities, overcritical reflections, and a deep sense of duty may drive teachers to stress and strain. Earlier research has made a similar point. There is evidence that absorption, combined with strong dedication, along with a high energy level in overwhelming teaching conditions, may lead to job burnout (e.g., Bakker et al., 2011; Fernet et al., 2012; Hanssen et al., 2010). Although teachers with a didactic-pedagogical outlook on teaching have a higher risk for burnout than the teachers do in the first category, because of their deep commitment to the profession, they have a lower risk of quitting teaching. This may be unfortunate for their teaching performance and job satisfaction. Rewarding work engagement appeared to be characterized by transformational teaching. The more intellectually and emotionally engaged the teachers were, the more deeply they positioned themselves as champions of justice, equality, and desegregation. They had concluded that they cannot be mere recipients of inclusive reform packages but they must be active partners in the process of changing the schools. These teachers argued that although policy can influence the nature of their work, individual teachers must construct their own understandings of the policy from personal, professional, and social standpoints. Third, since they suggest that the main characteristics of work engagement is that it is beneficial for the individual and the working community and that it is expected to influence how individuals do their work and fulfill their work tasks, the findings support the recently proposed models of work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010). Consequently, in conjunction with Bandura’s (1997) views, the transformational approach refers to the crucial role of collective efficacy in developing inclusive teaching cultures. As Putney and Broughton (2011) suggested, this means that focusing on collective efficacy, while working toward collective goals, can draw attention both to shared expectations and to how teachers relate to each other. The teachers in this study raised the “old-fashioned wisdom” of the whole community being responsible for the upbringing of the students. Fourth, as the analysis process implied, reflection is an essential attribute not only for favorable inclusive teaching (cf. Conway, 2001; Kaasila & Lauriala, 2012) but also for work engagement. The analysis suggests that for teacher reflection to be transformative, it must be both broad and deep, while also being closely related to the moral values of teaching. A crucial issue is how the transformative reflections on teaching can be identified, expressed,

60

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61

and enhanced. Rodgers (2006) convincingly criticized reflection on experience as having recently suffered from a loss of meaning. She argues that by being used so casually, reflection has lost its ability to be seen. Similarly, Kilminster, Zukas, Bradbury, and Frost (2010) argued that the original concept of reflection, as a tool of critical practice, has been inverted to become a vehicle for control. According to this study, there is a risk of perceiving reflection as a vehicle of self-reproach and that comes with draining teacher efficacy. Therefore, reflective practices, accompanied by work engagement, should be considered a crucial issue in teacher education and in-service teachers’ professional lifelong learning. Although these findings cannot be generalized, the reflective practices through self-caring can be used as background information when empowering teachers in inclusive educational practices. Additional research is needed to elaborate these findings by further examining the relationships between reflective practices, collective efficacy, and work engagement.

References Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge. Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). The big challenge: leadership for inclusion. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 846e851). Manchester: Elsevier. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4e28. Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance. A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189e206. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309e328. Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis, L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 555e564. Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274e284. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Basic Education Act (2010/642). Finlex. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2010/ 20100642. van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577e625. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carrington, S., & Holm, K. (2005). Students direct inclusive school development in an Australian secondary school: an example of student empowerment. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 155e171. Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment. Research & Evaluation, 8(13), 1e7. Chevellard, Y. (2007). Readjusting didactics to a changing epistemology. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 131e134. Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35e75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 149e303. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge, and university culture. In International handbook of self-study and teacher education practices. London: Kluwer. Academic Publishers. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2e14. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed.). (pp. 477e487) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Conway, P. F. (2001). Anticipatory reflection while learning to teach: from a temporally truncated to a temporally distributed model of reflection in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 89e106. Creese, A., & Leung, C. (2003). Teachers’ discursive constructions of ethno-linguistic difference: working with inclusive policy. Prospect, 18(2), 3e19. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6e13.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world. Report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy of Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands e resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499e512. Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 147e163). New York: Psychology Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In C. Evertson, & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issue (pp. 97e125). US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. European Union. (2011). Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy. Official Journal of the European Union, C 70, 1e3, 4.3.2011. Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: the role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 514e525. Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches. New York: Routledge. Gadamer, H. G. (1975/1960). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer, D. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1960). Galand, B., Lecocq, C., & Philippot, P. (2007). School violence and teacher professional disengagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 465e477. Gao, W., & Mager, G. (2011). Enhancing preservice teachers’ sense of efficacy and attitudes toward school diversity through preparation: a case of one U.S. inclusive teacher education program. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 92e107. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495e513. Hanssen, B., Raaen, F. D., & Østrem, S. (2010). Det heseblesende lærerarbeidet e om nyutdannede læreres mestring av yrket [The breathless teaching work e newly educated teachers mastery of the profession]. In P. Haug (Ed.), Kvalifisering til læraryrket (pp. 295e314). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag. Heidegger, M. (1962/1927). Being and time (J.M.E. Robison, Trans.). San Francisco: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1927). Hodkinson, A. (2009). Pre-service teacher training and special educational needs in England 1970e2008: is government learning the lessons of the past or is it experiencing a groundhog day? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 277e290. Høigaard, R., Giske, R., & Sundsli, J. (2011). Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education. iFirst article: 1e11. Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78(10), 1336e1342. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2012). How do pre-service teachers’ reflective processes differ in relation to different contexts? European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 77e89. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285e308. Kennedy, S., & Smith, J. (2013). The relationship between school collective reflective practice and teacher physiological efficacy sources. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 132e143. Kilminster, S., Zukas, M., Bradbury, H., & Frost, N. (2010). Introduction and overview. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kilminster, & M. Zucas (Eds.), Beyond reflective practice: New approaches to professional lifelong learning. London: Routledge. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741e756. Koivula, P., Lakkala, S., & Mäkinen, M. (2011). Teacher education for inclusion country report e Finland, inclusive education in action. Retrieved May, 20, 2013. from http://www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/teacher-education-forinclusion/country-info. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewe (Ed.), Journal of Social Behavior and Personality: Vol. 6. Handbook on job stress [special issue] (pp. 1e13). Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509e535. Luttenberg, J., & Bergen, T. (2008). Teacher reflection: the development of a typology. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(5e6), 543e566. McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2010). Well teachers, well students. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 4(1), 19e34. McCormack, A., & Thomas, K. (2003). Is survival enough? Induction experiences of beginning teachers within a NSW context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 125e138. McCormick, J., & Barnett, K. (2011). Teachers’ attributions for stress and their relationships with burnout. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(3), 278e293.

M. Mäkinen / Teaching and Teacher Education 35 (2013) 51e61 van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205e228. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press. van Manen, M. (1997). From meaning to method. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 345e369. Mäkinen, M, & Mäkinen, E (2011). Teaching in inclusive setting: towards collaborative scaffolding. La nouvelle revue de l’ adaptation et de la scolarisation [The Training of all Teachers in Diversity of Pupils.]. Review of Adaptation and Schooling, 55(3), 57e74. Mäkinen, M., Nikander, E., Pantzar, T., & Saari, A. (2009). Inklusiivinen erilaisuus kasvatuksessa [Inclusive Diversity in Education]. Finland: Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University. Mäkinen, M., Pantzar, T., & Merta, J. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion in Finland. Inclusive Education in Action (IAE). Retrieved August 13, 2012, from http://www. inclusive-education-inaction.org/iea/index.php?menuid=25&reporeid=214. Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595e621. Manuel, J. (2003). ’Such are the Ambitions of Youth’: exploring issues of retention and attrition of early career teachers in New South Wales. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 139. Mark, G. M., & Smith, A. P. (2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 25(1), 63e78. Martin, N., Sass, D., & Schmitt, T. (2012). Teacher efficacy in student engagement, instructional management, student stressors, and burnout: a theoretical model using in-class variables to predict teachers’ intent-to-leave. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 546e559. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moon, J. (1999). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning. London: Routledge. Moon, B. (2007). Research analysis: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: A global overview of current policies and practices. UNESCO. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001516/151685E.pdf. Moon, J., & Fowler, J. (2008). ‘There is a story to be told.’; a framework for the conception of story in higher education and professional development. Nurse Education Today, 28(2), 232e239. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475e480. Munhall, P. (1994). Revisioning phenomenology: Nursing and health science research. New York: NLN Publications. Nissinen, K., & Välijärvi, J. (2011). Opettaja- ja opettajankoulutustarpeiden ennakoinnin tuloksia. University of Jyväskylä. Finnish Institute for Educational Research. Research reports, 43. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) 2000. Paris: Author. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Author. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. OECD. www.oecd.org/ publishing/corrigenda. Osguthorpe, R. (2008). On the reasons we want teachers of good disposition and moral character. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 288e299. Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. (2012). Teachers’ workplace wellbeing: exploring a process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 503e513. Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (1999). Chronic psychosocial stress at work and cardiovascular disease: the role of effortereward imbalance. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(5e6), 441e449. Pillay, H., Goddard, R., & Wilss, L. (2005). Well-being, burnout and competence: implications for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 21e31. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513e563.

61

Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom efficacy: the teacher’s role as community organizer. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 93e105. Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2011). Teacher working-environment fit as a framework for burnout experienced by Finnish teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(7), 1101e1110. Rodgers, C. (2006). Attending a student voice: the impact of descriptive feedback on learning and teaching. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 209e227. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175e214. Sahlberg, P. (2012). Finnish Lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S., & Theorell, T. (2007). The association between job strain and emotional exhaustion in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 213e228. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293e315. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71e92. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Shakrani, S. (2008). Teacher turnover: Costly crisis, solvable problem. IN: Michigan State University, Educational Policy Center. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502130. pdf. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4e14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1e22. Shulman, L. S. (1999). The skills of helping: Individuals, families, groups, and communities. Itasca, IL: Peacock. Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257e271. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27e41. Skerret, A., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly standardized reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913e945. Sockett, H. (2007). The moral and epistemic purposes of teacher education. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting. IN: Chicago. Sockett, H. (2008). The moral and epistemic purposes of teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 45e65). London: Routledge. Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as virtues. The complexity of the construct. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 291e303. Starczewska, A., Hodkinson, A., & Adams, G. (2012). Conceptions of inclusion and inclusive education: a critical examination of the perspectives and practices of teachers in Poland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(3), 162e169. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783e805. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: Author. UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: Author. Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: a description of teacher reflection in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67e88. Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D., Jolivette, K., & Benson, G. (2010). Efficacy beliefs of special educators: the relationships among collective efficacy, teacher selfefficacy, and job satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(3), 225e233. Weiqi, C. (2007). The structure of secondary school teacher job satisfaction and its relationship with attrition and work enthusiasm. Chinese Education and Society, 40(5), 17e31. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching e an introduction. Mahwah: New Jersey.