780171

research-article2018
EER0010.1177/1474904118780171European Educational Research JournalWeiss et al.

General Submission

European Educational Research Journal

How to teach students with

1­–20
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
moderate and severe intellectual sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474904118780171
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118780171
disabilities in inclusive and special journals.sagepub.com/home/eer

education settings: Teachers’

perspectives on skills, knowledge
and attitudes

Sabine Weiss
Department of Education and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

Reinhard Markowetz
Department of Education and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

Ewald Kiel
Department of Education and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany

Abstract
The present study investigated the requirements for teaching students with moderate and severe
intellectual disabilities in inclusive and special education settings, emphasising the skills, knowledge
and attitudes that teachers need. Drawing on investigative group discussions with teachers and
principals, qualitative content analysis was used to categorise these skills, knowledge and attitudes.
Key requirements in teaching this student population include skills to implement individualised and
differentiated teaching, as well as creating individually adapted learning materials. Leadership and
counselling abilities are also required in order to ensure successful collaboration between different
actors by clarifying roles and hierarchies and negotiating work distribution and expectations. The
teacher–student relationship should be characterised by an attitude of appreciation, openness
and, in particular, a focus on the positive, regardless of the student’s behaviour, requiring a
balance between closeness to the student and an appropriate distance. Finally, it is important
when teaching this student population to care for one’s own mental and physical health over
the longer term. The article concludes by discussing target-oriented strategies and measures for
teachers’ work practices and further education to strengthen the requisite skills, knowledge and
attitudes, particularly with a view to inclusion.

Corresponding author:
Sabine Weiss, Department of Education and Rehabilitation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Leopoldstraße 13,
80802 München, Germany.
Email: sabine.weiss@edu.lmu.de
2 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

Keywords
Attitudes, collaboration, content analysis, differentiation, group discussion, inclusion, moderate
and severe intellectual disability, teacher education

Introduction
In many European countries, students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities are increas-
ingly taught in inclusive settings for part or all of the school day (see European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education, 2012). However, depending on the country-specific school system
and the severity or type of disability, many of these students also continue to attend special schools.
Teachers in both inclusive and special education settings report high levels of stress and a number
of stress-inducing factors that adversely affect their wellness, job performance and, ultimately,
student outcomes (Billingsley, 2004; Emery and Vandenberg, 2010; Hinds et al., 2015; Jennings
and Greenberg, 2009; Shen et al., 2015). In particular, regular teachers complain of lacking exper-
tise in inclusive education, especially when dealing with behaviour they perceive as difficult,
because it often leads to situations they find difficult to control (see the reviews by Avramidis and
Norwich, 2002; de Boer et al., 2010; see also Florian and Rouse, 2009; Savolainen et al., 2012).
In light of these issues, the present study seeks to analyse the requirements for teaching students
with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. Following the triangle of knowledge, skills and
attitudes going back to Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956), which is also the core of some
European Union programmes and research contexts (e.g. practices for teacher education:
Hollenweger et al., 2015; European Commission/Education and Training 2020 Working Group,
2011), this study emphasises the skills, knowledge and attitudes teachers need. The empirical study
is based on investigative group discussions with teachers and principals. The statements in the
group discussions were subsequently categorised by qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2000). The final part of this article summarises the results and illustrates
how they can contribute to develop target-oriented strategies and measures for both regular and
special needs teachers’ working practices and (further) education – also with the longer-term goal
of facilitating inclusive schooling for the target group of students with moderate and severe intel-
lectual disabilities.

Teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual

disabilities: developments and findings
To begin, it seems important to outline some illustrative developments and findings from the exist-
ing literature.

Students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in inclusive and special
education settings: definition and country-specific background
The term ‘intellectual disability’ encompasses a wide spectrum of types, characteristics and degrees
of severity. The present study focuses on students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities
which are ‘characterised by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive
behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills’ (Schalock et al., 2007:
118). In Germany, where the study is conducted, ‘moderate and severe intellectual disabilities’ is a
category of education; respectively, a certain area of special needs which is related to limitations in
functioning (conceptual, social, practical) as just described (see KMK, 1994). This category is also
Weiss et al. 3

related to the support measures students receive. One example for such a measure is an assistant
supporting a student in class (also in order to enable inclusive schooling). In Germany only a small
proportion (8%) of students with moderate and severe disabilities are taught in inclusive settings
(Klemm, 2015; see also Fischer and Markowetz, 2016). It is worth noting that the German school
system has a highly specialised special education field, with different types of inclusive and special
education settings as well as specific support according to the type of disability (see Markowetz
and Jahn, 2016; KMK, 1994).There are different schools for students with special educational
needs (hearing or visual disabilities, intellectual disabilities, etc.).

Students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in school

Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities is very demanding in terms of education,
support and development (e.g. Hallahan et al., 2012; Wehmeyer and Shogren, 2017). This applies
to both inclusive and special education settings, where teachers must cope with a range of para-
doxes, contradictions and difficult situations (Norwich, 2013). Both regular and special needs
teachers emphasise this heavy burden (e.g. Hinds et al., 2015; Jennings and Greenberg, 2009; Shen
et al., 2015). In particular, regular teachers complain about insufficient training and a lack of
knowledge about dealing with behaviours they perceive as difficult in day-to-day school life (e.g.
de Boer et al., 2010; Savolainen et al., 2012). Regular teachers complain about insufficient insight
in working practices. Special needs teachers feel better qualified (e.g. Pool Maag and Moser Opitz,
2014), but they also report problems – for example, in planning lessons in inclusive classes. In
general, teachers’ stated concerns and attitudes differ significantly with the nature and severity of
the disabling condition (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002).
Despite an overall increase, the number of students with moderate and severe intellectual disa-
bilities in inclusive settings remains small (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive
Education, 2012; see also Fischer and Markowetz, 2016). But the divergent research findings in
this area reflect low case numbers and inconsistent methodological approaches. Additionally,
research on such topics as learning outcomes among students in different school settings remains
limited. A few studies report better learning outcomes in inclusive classes (see the review of
Freeman and Alkin, 2000), but long periods of stagnation and erratic progress in the learning pro-
cess distort the validity of the results and confound interpretation (Maikowski and Podlesch, 2009).
Given the limited body of research and the low inclusion rate, this student population demands
greater attention, in terms of both research and school practices.

Demands and challenges

As previously mentioned, one of the challenges most frequently reported is the behaviours teachers
perceive as difficult (Hinds et al., 2015; Kokkinos and Davazoglou, 2009). Many (meta)studies
have demonstrated empirically that moderate and severe intellectual disabilities are often related to
emotional and behavioural difficulties (Dekker et al., 2002; Einfeld and Tonge, 1996); in particular,
severe forms of disability, language ability limitations and family disturbances are associated with
higher rates (Hulbert-Williams and Hastings, 2008; Koskentausta et al., 2007). Teachers complain
about behaviours such as kicking, beating, pulling each other’s hair and spitting; refusal; irritating
behaviours such as screaming or stereotyping; damaging or destroying objects; and anxiety, agita-
tion and sexualised behaviour (Chadwick et al., 2008; McClintock et al., 2003). Such behaviours
are described in inclusive as well as special education settings and cause irritation and anxiety
because teachers and students are unused to them (Weiss et al., 2017). Many teachers have reported
being unable to calm such students or to reduce their behavioural difficulties. As a consequence,
4 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

many teachers and students refuse to interact with children or adolescents they perceive as aggres-
sive and frightening, and this is one key aspect of why the inclusion of this student population is
failing (Weiss et al., 2017).
The difficult learning preconditions of students with moderate and severe intellectual disabili-
ties require continuing collaboration among many disciplines. But in the area of cooperation and
exchange, tensions are stressed. However, often diverging ideas about the ‘right’ attitude to and
handling of such students’ behaviours can lead to friction, conflict and rivalry (Friend and Cook,
2003; Rice et al., 2007). Similar factors influence school–parent interaction; although studies
reveal some degree of mutual satisfaction, there is also evidence of the potential for conflict, mostly
in relation to differing opinions about student support and behaviour, responsibility, reliability and
trust (Gwernan-Jones et al., 2015; Lake and Billingsley, 2000; Lasater, 2016). Unclear definition
of responsibilities and hierarchy conflicts can also disturb decision-making processes and informa-
tion disclosure in (interdisciplinary) collaboration (Dallmer, 2004; Friend, 2000). In many cases,
teachers express discomfort and anxiety about engaging in collaborative activities (Johnson, 2010;
Wilhelm, 2017). Special needs teachers feel mostly (better) prepared for this demand; collabora-
tive teaming is part of their professional image and much more developed. However, many regular
teachers are unused to multidisciplinary collaboration (Friend and Cook, 2003).
As moderate and severe intellectual disability encompasses different characteristics and degrees
of severity, learning materials and teaching and learning activities must match students’ individual
needs within special education or inclusive settings (Scruggs et al., 2012). Literature reviews have
documented strong evidence supporting the use of systematic instruction (Browder et al., 2009;
Morse and Schuster, 2004), but that instruction must be individually and differentially imple-
mented for each student (Markowetz, 2016; Tomlinson, 2014). Although fine in theory, it is very
challenging in practice to run a highly differentiated classroom. Differentiated instruction requires
flexibility, both in teaching approach and in adjusting the regular curriculum to meet students’
needs (Obiakor et al., 2012), and it requires teachers to assemble multiple sets of materials.
Successful differentiation is especially difficult in inclusive classes involving students across a
very wide performance range, and there is evidence that regular teachers do not feel qualified to
address these diverse learning needs (McTighe and Brown, 2005).

Research questions and objectives

As illustrated, the demands and tensions of teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual
disabilities highlight the complexity and challenges teachers must deal with, with repeated evi-
dence that teachers and future teachers feel somewhat or completely unprepared. This is especially
true of regular teachers in inclusive settings, who complain about insufficient insight related to a
lack of knowledge, skills and strategies (de Boer et al., 2010; Savolainen et al., 2012). Special
teachers also express concern with regard to issues such as handling emotional and behavioural
disturbances (Hinds et al., 2015; Kokkinos and Davazoglou, 2009).
The present study addresses these needs by seeking to identify the skills, knowledge and atti-
tudes that contribute to success in teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabili-
ties. The central research question, then, is as follows: what skills, knowledge and attitudes are
necessary to teach students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities?
The study’s overall objective is to contribute to the development of target-oriented strategies
and measures in this context. These should support professionals and future professionals when
teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities, thus supporting inclusion the
of that student population.
Weiss et al. 5

Method
Project and research context
The present study is part of the research project ‘Demand Analysis for the Teaching Profession’ at
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich in Germany. The overall goal of this project is to identify
the skills, knowledge and attitudes that teachers need in order to cope with the demands and ten-
sions in their professional area. In particular, the present study focuses on those teaching students
with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in both inclusive and special education settings.
The practical aim is to develop ideas and measures to address identified demands and tensions for
both teachers and students, and to support the progressive inclusion.

Sampling, data collection and procedure

In order to identify the skills, knowledge and attitudes that teachers need, investigative group dis-
cussions were conducted. Group discussions focus on identifying the opinions and attitudes of a
whole group in terms of collective patterns of orientation. Group members of equal status discuss a
special topic (Payne and Payne, 2004). Group discussions also focused on an empirical analysis of
social subsystems, collective phenomena and supra-individual behaviour (see Barbour, 2007;
Morgan, 1997). Statements in group discussions that conjointly determined a collective pattern of
orientation were deemed to be valid, because group discussions are not the origin of a collective
pattern, but the discussions provided the necessary room for articulating patterns explicitly. Group
discussions are supposed to show structures and phenomena beyond the particular discussion group,
and, when conducted properly, they are about experiences and the collective orientation pattern of
large social groups (Bohnsack, 2000). The participants influence each other through their answers
to the ideas and contributions during the discussion. The moderator stimulates discussion with com-
ments or subjects (Krueger, 1994). Group discussions allow the interviewer to study people in a
more natural conversation pattern than typically occurs in a one-to-one interview. It offers the
opportunity to interview several respondents systematically and simultaneously (Babbie, 2011).
Moreover, they can be used as an occasion for participants to learn from one another as they
exchange and build on one another’s views, so that the participants can experience the research as
an enriching encounter (Romm, 2015). In contrast to the quantitative approach, group discussions
permit verbal legitimation and clarification by experts. Furthermore, more opinions emerge in group
discussions than in solely quantitative inquiries as a result of mutually stimulating conversation.
The total sample included 20 teachers and 20 principals who were experienced in teaching stu-
dents with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities. We work with teachers and principals,
because changing the school system and school practices must explore the local knowledge and
perceptions of those who are the agents of change – in this case, teachers and principals (see
Bergold and Thomas, 2012; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005). Half of the principals and teachers are
working in special education settings, the other half are teaching in inclusive classes for either part
or all of the school day. The recruitment was initiated through an announcement made by the head
of the project ‘Demand Analysis for the Teaching Profession’ and was then forwarded to the rele-
vant departments in the school administration. Teachers and principals were invited to take part in
group discussions at the Ludwig-Maximilians University. The criterion for the sample is multi-
annual practical experience in the area of moderate and severe intellectual disabilities at school.
The range regarding the practical experience is from six to 35 years. During the selection process,
care was taken to include participants from different schools and regional areas to avoid a regional
agglomeration (see Lamnek, 1998).
6 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

The teachers and principals were divided into twelve discussion groups with three to four par-
ticipants each (see the considerations regarding group size by Adler and Clark, 2008; Morgan,
1997). Regarding grouping, the discussion groups were arranged to comprise participants from
different schools in order to achieve more diverse and broader argumentations and information
(Agar and MacDonald, 1995); hence, teachers as well as teachers and principals did not know each
other. Moreover, we used the criterion of practical experience to compose the groups. The group
discussions lasted for two hours. The course of each discussion was thematically structured follow-
ing the research questions: what skills, knowledge and attitudes are necessary to teach students
with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities?
Each discussion group was moderated by an experienced moderator currently active in teacher
education. Prior to the group discussions, the moderators were trained using a guideline. The skills,
knowledge and attitudes were documented on paper. During the discussions, the participants were
asked for explanations, justifications and examples.

Analysis, interrater_reliability and validation

The analysis was oriented toward qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000; see also Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005). The goal of content analysis is to reduce the material so that the fundamental
content remains and to obtain through abstraction a straightforward corpus that retains an image of
the raw material (McTavish and Pirro, 1990; Weber, 1990). The statements from the participants
were ordered into categories with the help of the MAXqda program (MAXqda, 2011). For analy-
sing the material, a list was drawn up that describes each category by explanations and examples.
This list also includes overlaps and distinctions between categories. The categories were integrated
and the results ordered. Each category is named after the skill, knowledge and attitude contained
therein. The categories could be structured in higher-level areas; therefore, the displayed results
follow an order underlying in the raw material (see Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Patton, 2002). The
categories were linked with corresponding justifications and examples in order to explain and to
illustrate them.
The inter-rater reliability (IRR) was calculated to verify the quality criteria. The aspects speci-
fied by participants were completely doubly encoded by two researchers. Two other researchers
supported the analysis. The calculation was conducted by MAXqda. Consensus was reached when
at least 80% of the relevant passages were identically encoded. In the literature, a reliability coef-
ficient of .70 overall is seen as satisfactory (Bos, 1989: 212). Altogether, 443 relevant statements
were encoded. Only a few statements could not be integrated in the category system. This applies
if an aspect is too vague or too general for the meaning to be understood. An example is ‘concepts’
(GE_LE_6), whose exact content and significance could not be clarified. The IRR was initially .82
for all categories altogether, with 363 of 443 possible matches. In some categories, it was less than
.80. In order to improve this, the protocols of the group discussion were reconsidered and a com-
municative validation process was performed (see Kvale, 1995, 2007). The focus of this process
was on the categories with an IRR < .80. By revising the categories, a higher degree of selectivity
as well as a higher IRR could be reached (.87 with 387 of 443 possible matches; see Table 1). This
procedure can be illustrated with an example. In the present study, the idea of ‘being creative’
arises in different contexts.

•• The category Teaching individualised and differentiated relates to creating specific, tailored
and sometimes creative learning opportunities for the individual student: ‘When we explain
the number system to a student and he has problems understanding it … I take coloured
pencils and demonstrate it. You have to be creative’ (GE_LE_6).
Weiss et al. 7

•• The category Using humour and situation comedy describes the interaction with students,
as, for example, in the context of de-escalation: ‘“Come on, let’s get lost and drink a caipi-
rinha”. If the situation totally escalates, phantasies and being creative offer a way out to
finish the work’ (GE_LE_5).

Results
Category system and codings
All categories can be ordered in terms of four higher-level areas (see Table 1): Teaching and school
life (82 statements); Cooperation with different actors (182 statements); Professional ethos and
dealing with the students (93 statements); and Strain, coping and reflection (86 statements). These
categories are described in more detail below.

Table 1.  Category system.

Codings total corr non IRR

Teaching and school life 82 73 9 .89
Creating learning opportunities 30 27 3 .90
  Teaching individualised and differentiated (20) (18) (2) (.90)
  Creating learning materials (10) (9) (1) (.90)
Having knowledge about (moderate and severe) intellectual disabilities 13 13 0 1.0
Giving structure 15 12 3 .80
Managing time effectively 13 11 2 .85
Developing the school further 11 10 1 .91
Cooperation with different actors 182 158 24 .87
Cooperating in a multidisciplinary team 105 89 16 .90
  Working collaboratively (32) (29) (3) (.91)
  Negotiating roles and responsibilities (31) (25) (6) (.81)
  Showing leadership ability (29) (24) (5) (.83)
  Making compromises (13) (11) (2) (.85)
Networking with extracurricular support systems and other schools 23 20 3 .87
Cooperating with the parents 16 15 1 .94
Counselling 38 34 4 .89
Professional ethos and dealing with the students 93 80 13 .86
Balancing and closeness and distance 16 14 2 .82
Focusing on the positive 11 10 1 .91
Being open-minded and accepting 16 13 3 .81
Being empathic and appreciative 20 17 3 .85
Using humour and situation comedy 30 26 4 .87
Strain, coping and reflection 86 76 10 .88
Taking care of one’s own health 23 20 3 .87
Keeping calm 14 12 2 .86
Reacting flexibly and spontaneously 21 20 1 .95
Being capable of making decisions 13 11 2 .85
Being self-reflective 15 13 2 .87
Total 443 387 56 .87

total: discussants’ statements in total; corr: statements which were consistently assigned to a category by both encoders
(‘correlating’); non: statements which were not consistently assigned to a category by both encoders (‘non-correlating’);
IRR: inter-rater reliability.
8 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

Teaching and school life

Categories related to teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in every-
day school life are marked by contrasting opinions and show a field of tension. Some teachers
shared the view that ‘students should learn in school and that teaching respectively imparting
knowledge is “the core business”’ (GE_AB_3). But, in contrast, others stressed that imparting
knowledge is clearly subordinate to social aims. These two poles become especially obvious where
students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities attend regular schools; as one teacher
stated, ‘for primary school teachers in regular schools, the focus is on imparting knowledge. I think
it is more important to establish a reward system for the behaviour with the child’s involvement’
(GE_LE_4).
The largest category (30 statements) is Creating learning opportunities, which relates to
Teaching individualised and differentiated (20 statements) because ‘each student has different dis-
abilities, individual and differentiated planned guidance for the individual student is necessary
throughout the year’ (GE_LE_5). Significantly, the participants offered a very specific description
of differentiation; relating it mainly to organisational processes rather than to knowledge to be
conveyed, teachers and principals characterised differentiation as steady improvisation in
approaches to the learning subject with the objective of ‘avoiding any period of idling’ (GE_
AB_1), as no student should need ‘to wait for a learning offer’ (GE_LE_4). In implementing dif-
ferentiation, one important condition was Creating learning material (10 statements) tailored
individually to students’ individual learning prerequisites. Successful differentiation was seen to be
based on multiple sets of materials that students could use at any time, again preventing idling.
However, teaching this student population (implementing differentiation) is also associated
with the field of tension regarding Having knowledge about (moderate and severe) intellectual
disabilities (13 statements). Knowledge, for example, is defined as ‘clinical pictures, and responses
to questions such as “How is intellectual disability defined, and what symptoms and behaviour
patterns are associated with it?” and “What is autism?”’. At first glance, such knowledge appears
deficit-oriented. But a closer look in the statements in the group discussion showed that such
knowledge regarding clinical pictures and behaviour patterns also included students’ talents,
strengths and potentials. The tension is that having knowledge is a shared responsibility of many
actors: teachers and other professionals need to develop a shared knowledge by collaborative team-
ing so that all team members are able to profit. This demand may be a source of conflict (see the
following section).
Giving structure (15 statements) supports the learning process by structuring students’ daily
routine (GE_AB_2): ‘It is necessary to maintain a balance between strictly enforcing structures
and routines and concurrently “going along with the students”’ (GE_AB_1). Planning these indi-
vidual learning processes requires Managing time effectively (13 statements) at the level of the
individual teacher. At the school level, the requirement is Developing the school further (11 state-
ments), a field of tension which has a specific meaning. The term ‘school development’ means
rather a long process, it refers to many small and practical innovations related to problems that
need to be quickly resolved: ‘If a student refuses to go by bus, new ways must immediately be
found’ (GE_AB_1).

Cooperation with different actors

Cooperating in an interdisciplinary team is the largest category overall. All group discussions
stressed cooperation as a fundamental principle of teaching students with moderate and severe intel-
lectual disabilities in both inclusive and special education settings. But they also stressed different
Weiss et al. 9

tension fields and conflicting situations. The 105 statements relate to different facets concerning
tensions within this category. Working collaboratively (32 statements) characterises the ability to
collaborate with many different professions in the school: ‘Teaching students with moderate and
severe intellectual disabilities means close cooperation in a team with school assistants, educators,
nurses and other professionals for the whole day’ (GE_LE_6). However, interdisciplinary coopera-
tion is marked by role conflicts and role diffusion, which are often caused by diverging attitudes and
views on education. There are hierarchical structures, for example, where a teacher is a nurse’s
supervisor, but that fact is difficult to enforce if a nurse is older and professionally more experienced
than a young teacher. Therefore, hierarchies are often softened and Negotiating roles and responsi-
bilities (31 statements) and Showing leadership ability (29 statements) become significant:
‘Sometimes, you need to show clear leadership in performance reviews’ (GE_EL_4); ‘Especially in
an interdisciplinary team, teachers quickly have to make other staff members aware that teachers
have the main responsibility and therefore the leadership. Otherwise, the team might fall by the
wayside. Teachers have to show a certain authority’ (GE_AB_2). Balancing this field of tension
between leading and allowing autonomy requires Making compromises (13 statements), which is
also part of leadership ability, in that ‘compromising is the ability to deal constructively with con-
flicts’ (GE_LE_6).
Networking with extracurricular support systems and other schools (23 statements) includes
the ability to involve support systems such as speech therapists, physiotherapists, psychiatrists, day
care centres, career counselling and local authorities. In most cases, these networking activities
again highlight the tension field of diverging goals and expectations, when many different actors
are involved: ‘Each partner sees things differently and has different expectations. And all partners
work with the child’ (GE_AB_3). Here, again, cooperation ability means negotiating a common
core of agreements, strategies and goals and balancing tensions between the partners.
Cooperating with the parents (16 statements) also entails diverging goals and expectations,
especially in situations where parents enforce inclusive schooling of their child against teachers’
recommendations. It is, therefore, a difficult but essential facet of cooperation to accept parents’
decision-making autonomy and to show appreciation for their decisions (GE_LE_4). In particular,
cooperation with parents and external support systems requires Counselling abilities (38 state-
ments): ‘This competence is based on listening and on providing opportunities’ (GE_AB_2) – to
the parent and to external actors. Effective, target-oriented counselling involves rapid contact with
parents and support systems (GE_LE_5). Inclusion increases the need for counselling – for exam-
ple, with regard to students’ behaviour and interaction with teachers and other students. But, again,
the question arises whether every teacher needs to possess counselling abilities, or if this demand
is, again, a shared responsibility.

Professional ethos and dealing with students

The professional ethos is characterised by a specific overarching tension: Balancing closeness and
distance (16 statements). This is an immanent attribute of the teaching profession itself, but in the
context of the present study, it has a special significance. ‘It is the “physicality” of the work - for
example, it is difficult when children smell bad or salivate’ (GE_LE_5). The relationship between
closeness and distance is influenced by nursing activities such as wiping students’ mouths or toilet-
ing. This kind of physical activity complicates distancing or otherwise makes closeness difficult.
As a result, many participants described distancing as a cognitive process: ‘I experience many dif-
ficult situations. I need to draw a line using my mind’ (GE_AB_1). Many regular teachers high-
lighted distancing as very challenging, as they are unused to behaviours such as spitting, biting or
screaming, or to essential nursing activities.
10 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

In the view of both teachers and principals, Focusing on the positive (11 statements) is impor-
tant: ‘I need the attitude “Every change is progress”. The smallest change makes it worthwhile to
continue working and to support the students’ (GE_LE_3). This perspective conflicts with the view
that the core business of school is to impart knowledge: ‘On the one hand, the attitude, and on the
other hand, the lesson … an ongoing contradiction’ (GE_AB_1). For regular teachers in particular,
it is difficult to focus on the positive if students fail to meet performance targets in class and exhibit
the spitting, biting or screaming behaviours mentioned earlier. However, teachers and principals
agreed that ‘even if a student is totally annoying, it is important to acknowledge situations that
reflect something positive. In particular, students who have failed every time in the past need
appreciation: “We are happy that you are here in our school”’ (GE_LE_6). Other essential facets of
the ethos are Being open-minded and accepting (16 statements) and Being empathic and apprecia-
tive (20 statements). These relate to the statement ‘Any behaviour is useful’ (GE_LE_5); as a
result, empathy is seen as the ability ‘to put oneself in the students’ position to understand the
motives for the behaviour’ (GE_LE_6). Both aspects are, in turn, linked to the balance of closeness
and distance. A professional understanding of the reasons for escalating behaviour leads to a reali-
sation: ‘Okay, that behaviour is not aimed against me’ (GE_LE_6).
The professional ethos is supplemented by a dimension that is explicitly part of this higher-level
area of teacher–student interaction: Using humour and situation comedy (30 statements). This
category entails a positive relationship with students and represents a de-escalation strategy: ‘I
always have two options: to be annoyed or to use situation comedy, weeping or reacting with
humour’ (GE_AB_1). Fantasies, humour and situation comedy strengthen the relationship with
students because ‘if I allow funny situations in class, I can perceive students as humorous’ (GE_
LE_5). Humour makes exhausting situations (more) bearable: ‘Our school building gets mouldy,
and sometimes you do not get along with a child for a longer period … “let’s take it easy … Come
on, let’s get lost and drink a caipirinha”’ (GE_LE_5). Using humour also contributes to balancing
closeness and distance (GE_LE_4).

Strain, coping and reflection

The following categories characterise the skills and attitudes that contribute to teachers’ everyday
work in both inclusive and segregated classes. All discussion groups consistently stressed further
fields of tension: balancing, on the one hand, students’ needs and, on the other hand, Taking care
of one’s own health (23 statements). This field of tension is strongly associated with the overarch-
ing demand of balancing closeness and distance. An appropriate and healthy balance is to be found
between addressing students’ and one’s own needs. Stress resistance and reliability (‘nerves of
steel’ (GE_LE_6)) were seen to support one’s ability to withstand the multiple challenges, which
sometimes go beyond school (GE_AB_2). Staying healthy and reliable was understood to involve
fending actively for oneself; without conscious recovery, time outs, work–life balance, well-being
and performance would decline. Regular teachers, in particular, often encounter unexpected events
leading to high levels of stress. As mentioned earlier, fending for oneself means distancing oneself
– not only from students and their behaviour, but sometimes from the work itself: ‘I need to draw
a clear line. I will not go along with it any longer’ (GE_LE_5).
For these reasons, teachers need skills to deal with difficult situations, contradictions and ten-
sions. According to participants, Keeping calm (15 statements) is very important. Not all problems
and contradictions can be resolved immediately, and very often there are no (good) solutions, as, for
example, when system constraints impede useful solutions, or when the needs of different individu-
als clash. Calm is a strategy for distancing oneself effectively from burden and workload. But keep-
ing calm is sometimes difficult to realise, because some situations are hard to endure. As a further
Weiss et al. 11

requirement, Reacting flexibly and spontaneously (21 statements) means ‘to always be prepared for
anything; you may need to abandon all your plans because students are mostly infle-xible’ (GE_
LE_5). This is challenging for all teachers, but especially for those in inclusive settings who are not
used to deviating from their plans to that extent. Reacting flexibly includes Being capable of making
decisions (13 statements) and Being self-reflective (15 statements). Self-reflection means ‘to ques-
tion oneself and one’s own work’ (GE_LE_5), but in the present context there is also a special
interpretation. Teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities is based on ‘deal-
ing with power, and teachers have the power to initiate progress but also to impede’ (GE_LE_5). In
this sense, being reflective means responsibly balancing this potential power.

Discussion
Key points for teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities
The results of the group discussions can be summarised as key points for teaching in both inclusive
and special education settings. Some of the key points also affect the political dimension, for exam-
ple, regarding resources.

1. Key skills for implementing individualised and differentiated teaching include preventing
idling by ongoing improvisation, continuously offering learning opportunities so that no
student has to wait, and creating diverse and individually adapted learning materials.
2. As cooperation inside and outside the school often leads to conflict and is influenced by
divergent opinions, leadership and counselling abilities are required to ensure successful
collaboration between different actors by clarifying roles and hierarchies and by negotiat-
ing work distribution, expectations and needs.
3. The teacher–student relationship must be based on appreciation, openness and, in particu-
lar, a focus on the positive, regardless of the student’s behaviour; to achieve that, distance
and closeness to students must be balanced.
4. In the longer term, teaching this student population requires one to take care of one’s own
mental and physical health.

From these key points, strategies can be derived for teachers’ work and training to better prepare
teachers and future teachers to engage with students with moderate and severe intellectual disabili-
ties in inclusive and special education classes. Any such strategies and measures must respond to
teachers’ concerns and desiderata regarding resources, training and qualifications, and to the need
for progressive development of inclusion. These strategies include the following:

1. Individualised and differentiated teaching requires training (and further training) of teach-
ers to adopt different learning approaches and to create diverse learning materials.

There are contrasting opinions about what the objective of the lesson should be when teaching
students with moderate and severe disabilities. Some teachers and principals emphasised the
importance of social topics, reflecting the findings of several studies (Snell and Brown, 2011;
Westling and Fox, 2009). Others considered that imparting knowledge was the school’s ‘core
business’. Here, there were obvious differences related to school setting, as teachers in inclusive
classes tend to place greater emphasis on the knowledge to be conveyed. This finding may be
explained by the fact that many teachers have little experience with students with severe disabili-
ties; only a small percentage of this population attends inclusive settings, sometimes only for a
12 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

few hours each week (see European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2012).
There is, however, some agreement, as both positions stressed the creation of individualised and
differentiated learning opportunities as a key skill for teachers. In this context, Hoover and Patton
(2004) identified two types of competence that teachers need in order to differentiate curriculum
and instruction, both of which are compatible with the two positions as discussed. The first relates
to development and implementation, including curriculum development; curricular issues; plan-
ning by age, grade and learning style; and ensuring that content, materials, instructional strategies
and instructional settings are appropriately related. The second type of competence involves
adapting strategies, developing materials relevant to student needs, modifying and adapting
instruction, and the use of cognitive strategies and study skills in relation to the curriculum. The
latter is exactly what teachers and principals in the present study discussed; strategies for indi-
vidualised and differentiated lessons not only refer to subject knowledge but to preventing idle-
ness through ongoing improvisation, adopting different learning approaches and creating diverse
learning materials. However, it must be pointed out that there is no precise specification of what
exactly teachers identified as idleness.
From these results, some conclusions and measures for teacher education as well as administra-
tion and policy arise. Teachers and future teachers need to be introduced to the objectives and skills
of differentiated teaching. In particular, professionals in inclusive settings are often unused to dif-
ferentiated and individualised lesson planning and keeping students with different learning precon-
ditions constantly engaged for several hours each day. Teacher training and education programmes
must, therefore, emphasise strategies for planning and developing differentiated lessons and learn-
ing materials (see Markowetz, 2016; Tomlinson, 2014). That means, on a structural level, that a
comprehensive range of low-threshold training offers have to be planned and provided, and exist-
ing training programs need to be adjusted and enlarged accordingly. Additionally, the findings of
the present study suggest that teachers in inclusive classes need to be supported in their efforts to
prevent students from idling or waiting during lessons while the teacher attends to other students,
or when a student is unable to follow the current lesson. The availability of multiple sets of materi-
als enables teachers and other professionals (such as para-educators) to quickly create a learning
opportunity to prevent idling. This, in turn, requires further training and support by experienced
colleagues or special education teachers to develop sets that meet the needs of students. Structural
resources to implement such strategies offer, on the one hand, financial leeway for schools in order
to independently purchase materials that are tailored to the specific needs of the individual student.
On the other hand, professionals such as assistants need to be available quickly and easily to sup-
port inclusion and, in particular, differentiated learning.

2. Strengthening leadership and counselling abilities contributes to teachers’ successful in-

school collaboration and cooperation with different extracurricular actors and
parents.

Collaborative teaching increases students’ learning opportunities, reduces stress on the individual
teacher and impacts teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes (Abbotsford, 2014; Hollingsworth, 2001).
Moreover, collaborative problem-solving is central to the success of inclusive schooling (Kugelmass
and Ainscow, 2004). For that reason, many researchers have emphasised the importance of devel-
oping collaboration, negotiation and collaborative problem-solving skills to meet students’ support
needs (e.g. Carroll et al., 2003; Griffin et al., 2006). Traditionally, teaching has been characterised
as a lonely profession, as many teachers worked in isolation from their professional colleagues
(Rosenholtz, 1989). However, current developments in the inclusion and teaching of students with
Weiss et al. 13

special needs generally require close and collaborative agreements in relation to joint goals, atti-
tudes and educational issues, as well as cooperation with special education teachers and para-
educators. Moreover, it should be noted that educating children and youth with complex needs
goes hand in hand with extracurricular service providers. Close and collaborative agreements also
include support systems from welfare, therapeutic and medical institutions, etc. (Griffin and
Pugach, 2007; Miller and Stayton, 2006; Otis-Wilborn et al., 2005).

Collaborative planning and working is associated with many advantages. It facilitates the imple-
mentation of support systems such as ‘positive behaviour support’ (e.g. Bambara and Kern, 2005;
Dunlap and Carr, 2007) where student misbehaviour impedes academic and social learning goals, and
there is evidence that such support systems can positively change behaviours. Moreover, collabora-
tive working could address the demand of counselling. Teachers consider counselling skills as impor-
tant, but discussion is needed on the issue of whether intensive counselling tasks are part of teachers’
demand profile. Counselling parents could be a shared responsibility of different professionals in a
team that all professions could contribute to. But planning such individualised problem-solving and
counselling processes for each child and adolescent according to the setting (inclusive or special
education) demands intensive cooperation, especially between general and special educators.
Participants in the present study referred to tensions, conflicts and unclear responsibilities in collabo-
rating with different actors that often disturb decision-making processes and information disclosure
(see Friend and Cook, 2003; Rice et al., 2007). This raises two important issues: teachers’ leadership
behaviour in day-to-day school work; and introducing teachers and future teachers to teamwork.
To be able to work together in an interdisciplinary team, accomplishing one’s individual role
while collaborating towards a common goal, teachers need to demonstrate leadership abilities.
Clarifying responsibilities and hierarchies according to transparent rules prevents role conflicts
and rivalry and strengthens synergy effects. Peus and Frey (2009) postulated a number of princi-
ples of effective and appreciative leadership that also apply to school leadership – for example,
providing meaning and vision; transparency through information and communication; participa-
tion and autonomy; constructive feedback, positive appreciation; personal growth; optimal stimu-
lation by means of goal setting; and being a role model.
Given the increasing number of students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in
inclusive classes, teachers and teacher candidates need specific training and practice in ‘how to
work, communicate, and collaborate’ (McCormick et al., 2001: 130), as well as how to lead.
Administration need to think about principals’ training in the context of inclusion. To date, teacher
education programmes have often failed to deliver ‘strategies for clarifying roles and building col-
laborations in formal and informal ways’ (Otis-Wilborn et al., 2005: 149), and experienced teach-
ers are often afraid of losing autonomy (Johnson, 2010; Wilhelm, 2017). Training and programmes
for teachers and future teachers should, therefore, place greater emphasis on interdisciplinary in-
school cooperation with different professions, including educators, nurses, para-educators and
other professionals (speech therapists, physical therapists, etc.). The collaborative allocation of
tasks within a multidisciplinary team should result in synergy effects. Hence, programmes should
also encourage reflection on professional images to incorporate cooperation. Training courses and
teacher education more generally should also emphasise counselling abilities in the context of
parental work (Lake and Billingsley, 2000; Russell, 2004). Moreover, teaming processes could be
accompanied by supervision; thus, respective resources need to be provided.

3. Teachers need support to balance closeness and distance to the students and to focus on the
positive.
14 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

Teachers and principals deemed openness, appreciation and a focus on the positive to be essential
attitudes (see Hallahan et al., 2012; see also Key Principles of the European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education, 2011). However, even teachers in special education settings noted
that these attitudes are sometimes difficult to maintain, and regular teachers in inclusive classes
may have difficulty in adopting them. Behaviours such as kicking, beating, pulling other’s hair or
spitting are often perceived as aggressive, and the same applies for unbearable screaming. This is
particularly true for regular teachers who stress irritation or even anxiety and refusal, especially if
their attempts to deal with that behaviour fail. However, such behaviours in students with moderate
and severe intellectual disabilities may not involve intentional malice (Meyer and Penz, 2002), as
such students may have no other way of reducing their stress-related tensions. But this is difficult
to understand for professionals with little or no relevant experience in special needs education. In
this context, balancing closeness and distance is an important requirement that may be impeded by
physical symptoms such as body odour, salivating or enuresis that students with severe disabilities
sometimes display.
As attitudes are stable constructs (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), attitude change is generally an
extended and mentally challenging process that often prompts individual, internal or in-house resis-
tance. Among the possible ways of initiating and supporting such change, there is evidence that
further qualifications and practical experience of students with special needs can improve teachers’
attitudes to inclusion (e.g. Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; de Boer et al., 2010). To become familiar
with this student population, future teachers should, therefore, be exposed to inclusive classes and
to students with severe disabilities at an early stage in teacher education. On a structural level,
opportunities of work shadowing should be created or extended. Further training also plays a sup-
portive role, as, for example, in addressing escalating behaviour, which is one of teachers’ main
concerns in this context (Lindsay, 2007; MacFarlane and Woolfson, 2013; Mand, 2007; Wagner
et al., 2006). The group discussions in the present study revealed strategies used by experienced
teachers and principals that could be included in teacher training programmes. One example is the
use of humour and situation comedy for de-escalation and to balance closeness and distance.

4.  Teachers need support to care about their own mental and physical health.

In line with the broad body of evidence (Hinds et al., 2015; Jennings and Greenberg, 2009; Shen
et al., 2015), teachers and principals in the present study reported a high burden. In both inclusive
and special education settings, professionals complain mainly about behavioural disturbances
(Hinds et al., 2015; Kokkinos and Davazoglou, 2009); in inclusive classes, teachers feel additio-
nally burdened by having to balance the needs of students with and without special needs. In resist-
ing stress, an attitude of calm is considered important. However, as mentioned earlier, attitudes are
stable and change only slowly, if at all (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). For this reason, it is difficult to
encourage calm through training. Nevertheless, teachers and principals identified the need to take
conscious care of one’s own health, and both research and practice highlight measures and strate-
gies that could be implemented at different levels, both in school and in teacher education or fur-
ther education. It is also a task for policy, specifically administration, to implement a range of
health-related offers for both teachers and principals. This includes supervision to support teachers
and other professionals in dealing with difficult and strenuous situations, as well in balancing
closeness and distancing from students, parents and work in general. This also includes individual
counselling offers. Therefore, easily and quickly accessible counselling staff is necessary.
At the individual level, teachers need to balance work and leisure time, as relaxation and lei-
sure activities contribute to distance from work and workload, supporting recovery. As both are
Weiss et al. 15

associated with well-being and health (Sonnentag et al., 2008), as well as with professional effi-
ciency and work engagement (Kühnel et al., 2009), recovery skills and strategies should form part
of teacher education and further education. Relaxation programmes have proved especially effec-
tive in this regard (van der Klink et al., 2001). At the school level, as noted previously, collabora-
tive work has a health-promoting effect (Johnson and Johnson, 2003) through the division of
labour and exchange. In the longer term, issues of resourcing at the organisational level must be
discussed, as complex demands and high burden in the absence of sufficient resources and grati-
fication can lead to discontent and negative effects on health (Siegrist, 1996).

Methodological limitations
The moderated group discussions revealed skills, knowledge and attitudes that can contribute to
success in teaching students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in inclusive and
special education classes. The particular advantages of this method, such as picking up other par-
ticipants’ arguments and opinions, and inquiries by the moderator (see Kitzinger, 1995) contribute
to sharpening the focus. Where participants reveal multiple understandings and meanings, multiple
explanations of their behaviour and attitudes are more readily articulated (Lankshear, 1993). One
example relates to the special meaning of ‘differentiation’ as described in the Results section; a
quantitative approach (based, for example, on a questionnaire) cannot adequately address such
specific meanings and valuable insights.
The present study also has some limitations, including the well-known difficulties related to
group discussions. For instance, it is possible that some teachers did not dare to state their opinions
openly, especially if these were provocative, unusual or contrary to the general consensus.
Additionally, some participants may have been confused by contradictory opinions or overwhelmed
by dominant participants. In such circumstances, fear of exposure can result in socially desirable
answers (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982). To mitigate this concern, the groups were composed of
teachers from different schools to counteract fears of exposure to one’s own peers.

Research desiderata and next research steps

It is rather difficult to bring teachers of special and regular education together, because both con-
texts differ in some aspects. For this reason, a next research step could be to sharpen and enhance
the profiles of teachers in different working contexts. Aspects such as teacher education and pro-
fessionalisation, working conditions, different types of inclusive classes, etc. could be taken into
account. Moreover, the group discussions reveal some findings on teaching students with severe
disabilities that differ from other publications such as Snell and Brown (2011), Thousand et al.
(2015) or Giangreco (2017). It is possible that country-specific differences – differences in school
systems and teacher education – play a role. For this purpose, as a further research step, such dif-
ferences could be taken into consideration and studies could compare different countries and
school systems with regard to aspects such as instruction and collaborative work.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
16 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

References
Abbotsford AM (2014) Teachers’ self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about the inclusion of
students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality Education International 24(1): 18–32.
Adler ES and Clark R (2008) How it’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Agar M and MacDonald J (1995) Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organization 54(1): 78–86.
Avramidis E and Norwich B (2002) Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the litera-
ture. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17(2): 129–147.
Babbie E (2011) The Basics of Social Research. 5th ed. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Bambara LM and Kern L (eds) (2005) Individualized Supports for Students with Problem Behavior. New
York: Guilford.
Barbour R (2007) Doing Focus Groups (Book 4 of The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit). London: SAGE.
Bergold T and Thomas S (2012) Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion.
Forum Qualitative Research 13(1). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/arti-
cle/view/1801/3334 (accessed 22 March 2017).
Billingsley BS (2004) Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research
literature. The Journal of Special Education 38(1): 39–55.
Bloom BS, Englhart MD, Furst EJ, et al. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Bohnsack R (2000) Gruppendiskussion [Group discussion]. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E and Steinke I
(eds) Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch [Handbook of Qualitative Research]. Reinbek: Rowohlt,
pp.369–384.
Bos W (1989) Reliabilität und validität in der inhaltsanalyse [Reliability and validity in content analysis].
In: Bos W and Tarnai C (eds) Angewandte Inhaltsanalyse in Empirischer Pädagogik und Psychologie
[Applied Content Analysis in Empirical Education and Psychology]. Münster, New York: Waxmann,
pp.211–228.
Browder DM, Ahlgrim-Delzell L, Spooner F, et al. (2009) Using time delay to teach literacy to students with
severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children 75(3): 343–364.
Carroll A, Forlin C and Jobling A (2003) The impact of teacher training in special education on the atti-
tudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education
Quarterly 30(3): 65–79.
Chadwick O, Kusel Y and Cuddy M (2008) Factors associated with the risk of behaviour problems in adolescents
with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52(10): 864–876.
Coffey A and Atkinson P (1996) Making Sense of Qualitative Data: Complementary Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dallmer D (2004) Collaborative relationships in teacher education: A personal narrative of conflicting roles.
Curriculum Inquiry 34(1): 29–45.
de Boer A, Pijl SPJ and Minnaert AEMG (2010) Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review
of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 25(2): 165–181.
Dekker M, Koot H, von der Ende J, et al. (2002) Emotional and behavioural problems in children and ado-
lescents with and without intellectual disability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43(8):
187–198.
Dunlap G and Carr EG (eds) (2007) Positive behavior support and developmental disabilities. In: Odom
SL, Horner RH, Snell ME, et al. (eds) Handbook of Developmental Disabilities. New York: Guilford,
pp.469–482.
Eagly AH and Chaiken S (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers.
Einfeld S and Tonge B (1996) Population prevalence of psychopathology in children and adolescents with
intellectual disability: II. Epidemiological findings. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 40(2):
99–109.
Emery DW and Vandenberg B (2010) Special education teacher burnout and ACT. International Journal of
Special Education 25(3): 119–131.
Weiss et al. 17

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2011) Key principles for promoting quality in
inclusive education. Available at: https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Key-Principles-
2011-EN.pdf (accessed 16 June 2017).
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2012) Special needs education. Country data
2012. Available at: www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/sne-country-data-2012/sne-coun-
try-data-2012 (accessed 6 March 2017).
European Commission/Education and Training 2020 Working Group (2011) Literature review. Teachers’ core
competences: Requirements and development. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/
repository/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/teacher-competences_en.pdf (accessed 23 June 2017).
Fischer E and Markowetz R (2016) Schulische Inklusion: Paradiesmetapher und/oder langer Weg zu einer
inklusiven Schule? [Inclusion in school: metaphor of paradise or long way to an inclusive school sys-
tem?] In: Fischer E and Markowetz R (eds) Inklusion im Förderschwerpunkt Geistige Entwicklung
[Inclusion in the area of intellectual disabilities]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, pp.13–30.
Florian L and Rouse K (2009) The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive
education. Teaching and Teacher Education 25(4): 594–601.
Freeman SFN and Alkin M (2000) Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in
general education and special education settings. Remedial and Special Education 21(1): 3–18.
Friend M (2000) Myths and misunderstandings about professional collaboration. Remedial and Special
Education 21(3): 130–134.
Friend M and Cook L (eds) (2003) Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals. 4th ed. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Giangreco MF (2017) Expanding opportunities for students with intellectual disability. Educational
Leadership 74(7): 52–57.
Griffin CC and Pugach MC (2007) Framing the progress of collaborative teacher education. Focus on
Exceptional Children 39(6): 1–12.
Griffin CC, Jones HA and Kilgore KL (2006) A qualitative study of student teachers’ experiences with col-
laborative problem solving. Teacher Education and Special Education 29(1): 44–55.
Gwernan-Jones R, Moore DA, Garside R, et al. (2015) ADHD, parent perspectives and parent–teacher rela-
tionships: Grounds for conflict. British Journal of Special Education 42(3): 279–300.
Hallahan DP, Kauffman JM and Pullen PC (eds) (2012) Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special
Education. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hinds EL, Jones B, Gau JM, et al. (2015) Teacher distress and the role of experiential avoidance. Psychology
in the Schools 52(3): 284–297.
Hollenweger J, Pantic N and Florian L (2015) Tool to upgrade teacher education practices for inclusive edu-
cation. Available at: http://pjp-eu.coe.int/documents/1473702/8927135/Tool+to+Upgrade+Teacher+Ed
ucation+Practices+for+Inclusive+Education/0cf28c1b-4f95–49ab-9fd3-de77b772ffed%20 (accessed 23
June 2017).
Hollingsworth HL (2001) We need to talk: Communication strategies for effective collaboration. Teaching
Exceptional Children 33(5): 6–9.
Hoover JJ and Patton JR (2004) Differentiating standards-based education for students with diverse needs.
Remedial and Special Education 25(2): 74–78.
Hsieh H-F and Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research 15(9): 1277–1288.
Hulbert-Williams L and Hastings R (2008) Life events as risk factor for psychological problems in individuals
with intellectual disabilities: A critical review. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 52(11): 883–895.
Jennings PA and Greenberg MT (2009) The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence
in relation to child and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research 79(1): 491–525.
Johnson B (2010) Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not good for others. Educational Studies 29(4):
337–350.
Johnson DW and Johnson RT (2003) Training for cooperative group work. In: West MA, Tjosvold D and
Smith KG (eds) International Handbook of Organizational Groupwork and Cooperative Working. West
Sussex: Wiley, pp.167–184.
18 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

Kemmis S and McTaggart R (2005) Participatory action research. Communicative action and the public
sphere. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, pp.559–603.
Kitzinger J (1995) Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 29(311): 299–302.
Klemm K (2015) Inklusion in Deutschland – eine bildungsstatistische analyse [Inclusion in Germany –
an analysis]. Available at: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/
GrauePublikationen/Studie_IB_Klemm-Studie_Inklusion_2015.pdf (accessed 4 June 2018).
KMK (1994) Empfehlungen zur sonderpädagogischen Förderung in den Schulen in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland [Recommendations on special needs education in Germany]. Available at: www.kmk.org/
fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2000/sopae94.pdf (accessed 15 May 2017).
Kokkinos CM and Davazoglou AM (2009) Special education teachers under stress: Evidence from a Greek
national study. Educational Psychology 29(4): 407–424.
Koskentausta T, Iivanainen M and Almqvist F (2007) Risk factors for psychiatric disturbance in children with
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability 51(1): 43–53.
Krueger RA (1994) Focus Groups: The Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Kugelmass J and Ainscow M (2004) Leading inclusive schools: A comparison of practices in three countries.
Journal of Research in Special Needs Education 4(3): 3–12.
Kühnel J, Sonnentag S and Westman M (2009) Does work engagement increase after a short respite? The role
of job involvement as a double-edged sword. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
82(3): 575–594.
Kvale S (1995) The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry 1(1): 19–40.
Kvale S (2007) Doing Interviews (Book 2 of The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit). London: SAGE.
Lake JF and Billingsley BS (2000) An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special
education. Remedial and Special Education 21(4): 240–251.
Lamnek S (ed) (1998) Gruppendiskussion. Theorie und Praxis [Group Discussions]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Lankshear AJ (1993) The use of focus groups in a study of attitudes to student nurse assessment. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 18(12): 1986–1989.
Lasater K (2016) Parent-teacher conflict related to student abilities: The impact on students and the family-
school partnership. School Community Journal 26(2): 237–262.
Lindsay G (2007) Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 77(1): 1–24.
MacFarlane K and Woolfson LM (2013) Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children
with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education 29(1): 46–52.
Maikowski R and Podlesch W (2009) Kinder und Jugendliche mit geistiger Behinderung in Grundschulen
und in der Sekundarstufe [Children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities in primary and sec-
ondary schools]. In: Eberwein H and Knauer S (eds) Handbuch Integrationspädagogik: Kinder mit
und ohne Beeinträchtigung lernen gemeinsam [Handbook Inclusive Education]. Weinheim: Beltz,
pp.249–359.
Mand J (2007) Social position of special needs pupils in classroom: A comparison between German special
schools for pupils with learning difficulties and integrated primary school classes. European Journal of
Special Needs Education 22(1): 7–14.
Markowetz R (2016) Theoretische Aspekte und didaktische Dimensionen inklusiver Unterrichtspraxis
[Theoretical and didactic concepts in inclusive classes]. In: Fischer E and Markowetz R (eds) Inklusion
im Förderschwerpunkt Geistige Entwicklung [Inclusion in the area of intellectual disabilities]. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, pp.237–286.
Markowetz R and Jahn K (2016) Germany. In: Wehmayer ML and Patton JR (eds) Handbook of international
special education. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, pp.281–295.
MAXqda (2011) Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Berlin: VERBI Software.
Mayring P (2000) Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Research 1(2). Available at: https://www.
qualitative-reserach.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/0 (accessed 4 June 2018).
Weiss et al. 19

McClintock K, Hall S and Oliver C (2003) Risk markers associated with challenging behaviors in people with
developmental disabilities: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 47(6):
405–416.
McCormick L, Noonan MJ, Ogata V, et al. (2001) Co-teacher relationship and program quality: Implications
for preparing teachers for inclusive preschool settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
36(2): 119–132.
McTavish DG and Pirro EB (1990) Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity 24(3): 245–265.
McTighe J and Brown JL (2005) Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is détente possible?
Theory Into Practice 44(3): 234–244.
Meyer H and Penz P (2002) Tatsächlich und vermeintlich aggressives Verhalten von Schülerinnen und
Schülern mit geistiger Behinderung [Aggressive behaviour of students with intellectual disability].
Sonderpädagogik 32(374): 190–199.
Miller PS and Stayton VD (2006) Interdisciplinary teaming in teacher preparation. Teacher Education and
Special Education 29(1): 56–68.
Morgan DL (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morse TE and Schuster JW (2004) Simultaneous prompting: A review of literature. Education and Training
in Developmental Disabilities 39(2): 153–168.
Norwich B (ed) (2013) Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education: Living with Uncertainty.
London: Routledge.
Obiakor FE, Harris M, Mutua K, et al. (2012) Making inclusion work in general education classrooms.
Education and Treatment of Children 35(3): 477–490.
Otis-Wilborn A, Winn J, Griffin C, et al. (2005) Beginning special educators’ forays into general education.
Teacher Education and Special Education 28(3–4): 143–152.
Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Payne G and Payne J (2004) Key Concepts in Social Research. London: SAGE.
Peus C and Frey D (2009) Humanism at work: Crucial organizational cultures and leadership principles. In:
Spitzeck H, Pirson M, Amann W, et al. (eds) Humanism in Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp.260–277.
Pool Maag S and Moser Opitz E (2014) Inklusiver Unterricht – grundsätzliche Fragen und Ergebnisse einer
explorativen Studie [Inclusive teaching – fundamental issues and findings from an explorative study].
Empirische Sonderpädagogik 6(2): 133–149.
Rice N, Drame E, Owens L, et al. (2007) Co-instructing at the secondary level: Strategies for success.
Teaching Exceptional Children 39(6): 12–18.
Romm NRA (2015) Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of indigenous ways of knowing:
Some examples from South Africa. Forum Qualitative Social Research 16(1). Available at: http://www.
qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2087 (accessed 9 February 2018).
Rosenholtz S (1989) Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman.
Russell F (2004) Partnership with parents of disabled children in research? Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs 4(2): 74–81.
Savolainen H, Engelbrecht P, Nel M, et al. (2012) Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in
inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of
Special Needs Education 27(1): 51–68.
Schalock RL, Luckasson RA, Shogren KA, et al. (2007) The renaming of Mental Retardation: Understanding
the change to the term Intellectual Disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 45(2): 116–
124.
Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA and Marshak L (2012) Peer-mediated instruction in inclusive secondary social
studies learning: Direct and indirect learning effects. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 27(1):
12–20.
Shen B, McCaughtry N, Martin J, et al. (2015) The relationship between teacher burnout and student motiva-
tion. British Journal of Educational Psychology 85(4): 519–532.
Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 1(1): 27–41.
20 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

Snell ME and Brown F (2011) Instruction of Students with Severe Disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Sonnentag S, Binnewies C and Mojza EJ (2008) “Did you have a nice evening?” A day-level study on recov-
ery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(3): 674–684.
Sudman S and Bradburn NM (1982) Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thousand J, Villa R and Nevin A (2015) Differentiated Instruction: Planning for Universal Design and
Teaching for College and Career Readiness. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tomlinson CA (2014) The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
van der Klink JJL, Blonk RWB, Schene AH, et al. (2001) The benefits of interventions for work-related
stress. American Journal of Public Health 91(2): 270–276.
Wagner M, Friend M, Bursuck WD, et al. (2006) Educating students with emotional disturbances: A national
perspective on school programs and services. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 14(1):
25–41.
Weber RP (1990) Basic Content Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Wehmeyer ML and Shogren KA (eds) (2017) Handbook of Research-Based Practices for Educating Students
with Intellectual Disabilities. New York: Routledge.
Weiss S, Markowetz R and Kiel E (2017) Herausforderungen im Förderschwerpunkt geistige Entwicklung
aus Sicht von Lehrenden – eine Analyse mit der Methode kritischer Ereignisse [Challenges in working
with students intellectual disabilities. A critical incident analysis]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik 9(3):
258–276.
Westling DL and Fox L (2009) Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Wilhelm T (2017) Shared Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Author biographies
Sabine Weiss is an associate professor for school education at the department of Education and Rehabilitation
at Ludwigs-Maximilians University Munich in Germany. Her main research interests are inclusion, career
motivation and teachers’ health.
Reinhard Markowetz is chair for special needs education at Ludwigs-Maximilians University Munich in
Germany. His main research interests are inclusion, education for students with challenging behavior and for
students with autism and vocational rehabilitation. He is a member of the Munich Center for Learning
Sciences (MCLS) and a member of the scientific committee for the research project “Inclusive Education in
Development Cooperation – Applied Research on Inclusive Design of Educational Systems of the Federal
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development” in Germany.
Ewald Kiel is chair for school education and director of the department of Education and Rehabilitation at
Ludwigs-Maximilians University Munich in Germany. His main research interests are school development,
inclusion and intercultural education. He is author of many expertises, scientific articles and books as well as
member of many editorial boards.