Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

Including Psychology in Inclusive Pedagogy: Enriching the

Dialogue?
Ruth Kershner1
1) University of Cambridge

th

Date of publication: June 24 , 2016

Edition period: June 2016 - October 2016

To cite this article: Kershner, R. (2016). Including Psychology in Inclusive

Pedagogy: Enriching the Dialogue?. International Journal of Educational
Psychology, 5(2), 112-139. doi: 10.17583/ijep.2016.2109
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2016.2109

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2

June 2016 pp. 112-139

Including Psychology in
Inclusive Pedagogy: Enriching
the Dialogue?
Ruth Kershner
University of Cambridge
Abstract
Inclusive education is a complex field of study and practice that requires good
communication and dialogue between all involved. Psychology has to some extent
been marginalised in these educational dialogues. This is, in part, due to
psychologys perceived heritage in the standardised testing that has been used to
support the educational segregation of certain individuals and groups of students.
Some have also expressed fundamental doubts about the prospects of investigating
human experience and education through scientific method in psychology. In this
paper I discuss the relationship between inclusive education, dialogue and
psychology, with a focus on the dialogic aspects of inclusive classroom pedagogy. I
analyse how a group of eight early career primary (elementary) school teachers in
England talk about inclusive pedagogy at the start their involvement in a one-year
research project on this topic. Their conversation suggests the strong presence of
psychological thinking, alongside the teachers other references to classroom
practice, childrens rights and social identities. Conclusions are drawn about the
need to include the heterogeneous field of psychology in the continuing dialogues of
inclusive education, while also considering new forms of psychology for inclusive
education.
Keywords: Psychology; inclusive education; pedagogy; dialogue; teachers talk; primary
(elementary) education

2016 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3591
DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2016.2109

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2

June 2016 pp. 112-139

Incluyendo la Psicologa en la
Pedagoga Inclusiva: Un
Dilogo Enriquecido?
Ruth Kershner
University of Cambridge
Resumen
La inclusin educativa es un campo de estudio complejo, que requiere de una buena
comunicacin y dilogo de todos los implicados. Hasta cierto punto, la psicologa ha
sido marginalizada de estos dilogos educativos. Esto se debe, en parte, a la
percepcin de que la tradicin de evaluacin psicolgica estandarizada ha servido a
la segregacin educacional de ciertos individuos y grupos. Hay quienes dudan de la
agenda de investigacin que pretende analizar la experiencia y educacin humanas
mediante el mtodo cientfico en psicologa. En este artculo, discuto la relacin
entre inclusin educativa, dilogo y psicologa, poniendo el foco en los aspectos
dialgicos de una pedagoga inclusiva. En el estudio particip un grupo de ocho
profesores en sus primeros aos de ejercicio docente en escuelas primarias de
Inglaterra. Especficamente, analizo la forma en que se los docentes se refieren a la
pedagoga inclusiva al comienzo de un proyecto de investigacin en el rea, de un
ao de duracin. Sus conversaciones sugieren una fuerte presencia de pensamiento
psicolgico, adems de referencias a prcticas de aula, derechos del nio e
identidades sociales. Las conclusiones apuntan a la necesidad de incluir el
heterogneo campo de la psicologa en los dilogos acerca de inclusin educativa. A
su vez, aparece la necesidad de considerar nuevas formas de psicologa para la
inclusin educativa.
Palabras clave: psicologa; educacin inclusiva; pedagoga; dilogo; habla de los docentes;
educacin primaria.

2016 Hipatia Press

ISSN: 2014-3591
DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2016.2109

114 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

nclusive education is so diverse and complex that those who are

engaged in research, practice and policy development may only
glimpse others at a distance, moving in all directions. Some may be
trekking purposefully towards the same destination as ourselves, while
others appear to be making a totally different journey. In developing
inclusive education we need to find a way to communicate with anyone who
is concerned with the rights and interests of all students learning in very
different social and educational contexts. This can sometimes be difficult
when peoples aims, values, knowledge and beliefs about inclusion can vary
so widely.
The central argument of this paper is that inclusive education is achieved
in dialogue with others. This is not just a case of finding ways to
communicate effectively, although that is important. It is also a matter of
engaging actively in the often challenging process of hearing different voices
and seeing different perspectives without necessarily reaching synthesis or
agreement (Wegerif, 2008). Inclusive education holds intrinsic tensions and
dilemmas that may not reach final resolution, although some sort of coherent
view is required for ethical and practical reasons (Norwich, 2014).
Compromise may be essential when individual human costs and benefits are
weighed up, but active dialogues need to continue in the system itself.
Psychological thinking and practice is commonly marginalised, ignored
or rejected in dialogues about educational inclusion. There are reasons for
this, not least because psychological research has been negatively implicated
in the practices of individual testing that have been used to justify certain
students educational separation and exclusion (Croizet, 2013; Greenstein,
2016; Thomas & Loxley, 2001). Thomas (2014) is concerned that scientific
knowledge may be valued over personal knowledge when questions arise
about why some children are not succeeding at school. Bridges (2013)
argues further that the scientific basis of much psychology can only ever
lead to a partial understanding of human experience and education.
Yet it seems odd to squeeze psychology out of research on inclusive
education. Inclusive education is inevitably concerned with a whole of range
of topics that have been investigated under the umbrella of psychology,
including:

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

115

the experiences of students and teachers in school

student identity, motivation and learning
classroom communication and relationships
school, home and community links
approaches to educational assessment
teachers pedagogical knowledge, practice and professional
learning
multi-professional communication and teamwork
the organisational operation of schools
and so on .
In this paper I am concerned with how a psychological perspective,
broadly defined, may contribute positively to the dialogic engagements of
inclusive education. This includes some implications for valuing new forms
of psychological thought and methodology.
Researching Inclusive Education
Recent studies of inclusive education have reiterated the need to take stock
of the field and examine what is actually happening in different practice
contexts. Smyth et al (2014), for instance, adopt an international
comparative perspective. They trace the implementation trajectories of four
European countries (Ireland, Austria, Spain and Czech Republic) moving
towards more inclusive education systems within a common international
UN and European policy environment. They conclude that
(w)hile there is apparently broad agreement at an international
level about what inclusive learning environments should look like,
there is considerably less agreement about how this can be
achieved at national and local community level. The range of
legacy interests, pressures and priorities operational in individual
education systems is inevitably shaping the manifestation of
enabling legislation as well as of provision within schools. (p.442).

This apparent lack of consistency in developing inclusive learning

environments is not entirely surprising, given the competing pressures

116 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

applying in local and national educational systems. There is a question of
system capacity here. Ainscow et al (2016) analyse how English primary
schools and teachers can respond to increasingly diverse populations of
learners. They comment on the relevance of three interlinked sets of factors
that apply within schools, between schools and beyond schools, bearing in
mind local demographics, economics, cultures and histories. This points to
the need for those in school to share practices with each other, developing a
common language to do so, and for schools to collaborate more widely with
each other, with community partners and researchers. Ideally it tips the
balance away from generic what works approaches towards the knowledge
that is grown in local school contexts.
This type of recent of work on inclusion not only raises questions about
the inherent power relationships and other constraints in complex
educational systems, it also highlights the conceptual challenges that can
hinder communication and dialogue. Researchers have long acknowledged
the conceptual difficulties in defining inclusion. In a recent review,
Gransson & Nilholm (2014) identify four different types of definition: the
physical placement of children with identified disabilities or in need of
special support in general education classrooms; meeting the
social/academic needs of these identified pupils; meeting the needs of all
pupils; and the creation of school and classroom communities which are
participatory, equitable and valuing of diversity. In conclusion, Gransson
& Nilholm remark from philosophical and political perspectives that: the
definitional problems indicate differences in beliefs about what schools can
and should accomplish. This brings the question of power into the analysis.
Who should decide what version of inclusion should be the goal of
schooling? (p.275)
In commenting on this work from his own experience of conducting an
earlier systematic review on how schools facilitate all students participation,
Dyson (2014) turns to the intrinsic difficulties of conducting research using
established methodologies when it remains unclear that inclusion can
actually be studied in this way. His concern is that: for many researchers,
inclusive education is not a set of practices whose effects can be evaluated,
but is a principle (or, more accurately, a set of principles) which is embodied
in different ways in different contexts. (p.282)

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

117

Dyson sees the consequences in research that is descriptive, celebratory

and exhortatory rather than convincingly evaluative. The associated danger,
in his view, is that inclusion research is inevitably limited in scope and
potentially stranded on the moral high ground without influence on
practitioners and policy-makers. This is where authentic dialogue is
required. The creative acknowledgement of a dialogic gap or difference in
perspectives is a prime source of meaning and creativity in a complex and
often problematic situations. As Wegerif (2007:28) puts it: (it) indicates a
challenging direction of development for individuals and society towards a
greater capacity for creative thinking and a greater capacity for learning to
learn, intimately linked to an ethics of openness to the other.
Psychologically this requires the co-ordination of different perspectives,
not just between people in conversation but in our own thinking.
Fernyhough (2016) remarks on this in his discussion of inner speech and
dialogic learning from a cognitive perspective: Thinking is a dialogue, and
human cognition retains many of the powers of a conversation between
different points of view (p.98).
Others agree that conversation is important as a basis for creativity and
problem-solving:
when people of any age are working together to create new ideas
and understandings, (t)hey use talk and joint activity to create a
shared resource of ideas that can be jointly considered, and a
framework for collected working that will enable their work to
progress. (Littleton & Mercer, 2013, p. 110)

I have deliberately presented this brief section with several quotes from
relevant literature, representing a (selective) range of perspectives. These
and other written voices influence our own thinking, and we in turn bring
new ideas to our conversations and writing about inclusive education. There
is an inevitable selection process involved in the attention and value given to
different speakers and forms of knowledge - we would otherwise be
overwhelmed with a cacophony of voices. We can, however, ask if the
selection of different points of view is random or systematic within our own
thinking and in the more formal processes of research, policy and practice
i.e. what forms of knowledge are valued and used, where and by whom?

118 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

Dialogues in and about Inclusive Education
It is hard to imagine an inclusive educational system without peoples
willingness to consider other perspectives and engage in productive
dialogue, including the political negotiations involved in setting political
priorities and education budgets. Inclusion depends on peoples capacity and
willingness to communicate across boundaries of geography, language,
professional priorities and personal concerns.
A wealth of research has turned towards a broadly dialogic perspective
on inclusion, with interests ranging from the uses of talk and dialogue as
means of involving marginalised communities in education to the means of
classroom learning and teaching for all students. This body of work
represents rather different perspectives on dialogue, informed by theoretical
debates such as those between followers of Vygotsky and Bakhtin (Wegerif,
2008). Some studies focus on the social and educational value of talk and
other forms of communication, generally following a social constructivist
model of joint activity and learning. Others look to the creation of meaning
within the contrasting discourses and alternative perspectives of human
relations. To give some examples: Flecha (2011) discusses a dialogic
sociology of education that emphasises the role of communities and human
agency in challenging unequal structures and practices in society. Everyday
processes are discussed and developed jointly between researchers,
practitioners, students, parents and other community members to implement
successful educational actions that help to overcome social inequalities.
One such action is seen in the adoption of heterogenous classroom groupings
designed to promote social interaction, dialogue and learning for all students,
including vulnerable minority ethnic populations, with the support of adult
community members (Valls & Kyriakides, 2013). Classroom conversation
has been acknowledged as key to inclusion in settings where some children
may be identified with special educational needs and disabilities (Berry &
Englert, 2005; N Bhroin, 2013), while Rajala, Hilpp & Lipponen (2012)
examine whether a form of exploratory talk known to support higher order
thinking is itself equitable and inclusive of different students. Studies have
also been conducted using interviews and discussions to gain better
understanding of students experiences of inclusion both during and after

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

119

their school experience (Adderley et al, 2014; Diez, 2010; Tetler & Baltzer,
2011).
Creating space for professional dialogue has been seen as central to the
development of inclusive schools (Howes, Grimes & Shohel, 2011) and
pedagogical innovation (Moate, 2014). Collaborative and inclusive practices
in schools have been promoted through dialogue, including a goal-directed
use of Socratic method designed to challenge teachers thinking and bring in
new practices (Tragoulia & Strogilos, 2013). It has been suggested that a
shared pedagogical vision is important for students and others to feel that
they belong to an inclusive school community (Hazel & Allen, 2013), but
one of the features of a (Bakhtinian) dialogic understanding of school
development is that it does not pre-suppose consensus in school about
provision required for students experiencing difficulty (Skidmore, 1999).
We can see from this brief selection of research that communication may
not only be required to argue for the development of inclusive education, but
communication and different forms of dialogue are ideally embedded in the
experience of inclusive education. This is particularly evident when
describing what inclusive education may look like in classroom practice with
reference to student learning. Sheehy (2013) refers to a review of pedagogies
and outcomes for the academic and social inclusion of pupils identified with
special educational needs in mainstream classrooms (Sheehy & Rix, et al.
2009), identifying the pedagogic features of an inclusive classroom as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Social engagement being intrinsic to the pedagogy

Flexible modes of representing activities
Progressing scaffolding of classroom activities
Authenticity of classroom activities
Pedagogic community

Sheehy (2013, p. 242) summarises:

this refers to the teacher facilitating cooperative group work,
using a variety of representations of problems to present and
discuss issues (Pupils) engage gradually with concepts and
develop the skills they need.(T)he teacher is part of pedagogic
community. They are supported by, and contribute to, a group who

120 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

have a shared view of what they are teaching and why they are
teaching it in a particular way.

This belief in the importance of classroom communication is supported in

other discussions of inclusive pedagogy, especially those that adopt a social
constructivist perspective on the collective experience of inclusive classroom
learning. Situated and distributed understandings of cognition, together with
opportunities for multimodal communication, point towards the
incorporation of purposeful, real-world classroom activities to engage
students and teachers in valuing each others experience, constructing
knowledge together and developing higher level cognitive skills (Kershner,
2009). Reviews of educational programmes designed for cultural and/or
linguistic minority students come to similar conclusions, as we see in Tharp
& Daltons (2008) account of the universal features of classrooms that
promote educational success for diverse and at-risk student populations.
Their standards to meet in classroom teaching include the following, with
the prospect of more to come:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Teachers and students producing together

Developing language and literacy across the curriculum
Making meaning connecting school to students lives
Teaching complex thinking
Teaching through instructional conversation

Tharp & Dalton (2008) remark that while the effects of this pedagogy
may be directly attributed to the means of assisting students performance
and promoting development, there are different strands of theoretical
thinking that offer further support. For instance, they suggest that culturalhistorical-activity theorys focus on relating the personal to the cultural with
a development orientation can be placed alongside a cognitive science
perspective on the efficacy of instructional dialogue and contextualisation
for prompting cognitive processing, improving conceptual retention and
reducing cognitive load.
In relation to these views of inclusive classroom practice we can further

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

121

acknowledge the essential social and emotional conditions of learning

(Noddings, 1992) as well as the importance of teachers beliefs and
strategies for teaching all students by responding respectfully to student
difference and rejecting deterministic beliefs about ability to learn (Florian
and Black-Hawkins, 2011). Thus, the essential notion of pedagogy within
inclusive pedagogy extends beyond the overt techniques and knowledge of
teaching to encompass the classroom relationships and educational purposes
that support all childrens learning. A teachers concern for the well-being
and flourishing of individual learners in class is accompanied by similar
concern for the whole class group. Inevitably these perspectives do not
always align or balance within and beyond each school but, as mentioned
above, consensus may not be necessary for a school to move forward.
While the communication between students and teachers in inclusive
classrooms and schools is well-established, less attention has been given
directly to how people talk about the concept of inclusive education itself.
We do not know a great deal about what may support or hinder productive
dialogue about inclusion when attitudes and beliefs can vary so widely. This
is not due to lack of attention to peoples thoughts on the topic, particularly
with regard to teachers. There is great research interest in teachers attitudes
to inclusion, for instance. A search of the British Education Index combining
attitude and inclusion and teacher resulted in 276 recent references at
the time of writing this paper, with empirical studies reported from across
the world. In comparison there seems to be less work on what happens when
teachers and others discuss their various ideas and concerns about inclusion.
In order to explore the ways in which dialogues about inclusion may
actually operate between people, I will turn next to an example of how
teachers who are interested in inclusion talked about it when focusing on
their pedagogical practice. What comes to the minds of teachers in such
conversations?
Talking About Inclusive Pedagogy
This discussion below occurred during a recent project that I have been
involved in with my Faculty co-investigator Dr. Kristine Black-Hawkins. A
group of eight primary (elementary) teachers in early career (within 1-3
years of qualifying) had joined a research project focusing on the

122 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

development of inclusive pedagogy. The year-long project included four
Faculty-based workshops for the teachers, as well as teachers classroombased inquiries and wider school-based discussions with the teachers, senior
leaders and pupils (Black-Hawkins and Kershner, in preparation). At the first
workshop the following discussion activity, which was devised and led by
Kristine Black-Hawkins was set up both as a social ice-breaker and as a
means of activating the teachers thinking and talk about inclusive
pedagogy. The teachers were asked to work in pairs to respond to four key
words written on large sheets of paper. These words were selected to
represent possible aspects or components of inclusive classroom learning
that could be meaningful to the teachers: BELONGING, LEARNING,
DIVERSITY, PARTICIPATION. (The term inclusion was deliberately
avoided at this point, partly in order to prompt and trace alternative ways of
thinking from the start of the project.) The tables were set out so that each
pair started with one of the words and then moved the next in the same order
on the facilitators signal. This continued until all the groups had made
written comments in response to all four key words and then returned to
their starting place for a final discussion. Each round of conversation was
just 2-3 minutes long and the whole activity was completed within 20
minutes. The conversations were audio recorded and then transcribed using
an intelligent verbatim style that omits repetitions and filler words.
There are different ways in which this sort of conversation can be
analysed, according to different purposes (Littleton and Mercer, 2013). A
linguistic analysis may focus on conversational acts such as questioning,
while a psychological analysis could be concerned with the communicative
relationship and thinking (e.g. collective reasoning, response to other
speakers, and discussion of particular topics). A cultural level could include
the conversational ground rules and the communicative principles that are
valued in that context (e.g. clarity, respect for others, and use of evidence).
My focus here is primarily at the psychological level, giving attention to the
teachers collective thinking, as represented in their conversations. The
research questions are open: How did these early career teachers respond to
the key words in their conversations? Are there any indications of
psychological thinking?

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

123

Here is an account of the five short conversations around the key word of
BELONGING. All are focused on ideas cumulatively written up on the
sheet:
Round 1: The first contribution comes from Teacher 1: 'So, feeling like
you're in a safe place'. The discussion then continues between the two
teachers in an affirmative and personal way:
Teacher 2: Yes, feeling like youre being in a safe place. That
everyone matters, everyone belongs, not just some people.
Teacher 1: Feeling like its a family, almost
Teacher 2: Yes, I definitely agree with that. Actually, my
headmistress came in and said, Oh, its like a little family in here.
She said that to my class.
Teacher 1: Sharing happiness, sharing things.
Teacher 2: Yes, thats good, sharing. If you feel excluded that
someone is actually going to be there, that you have support.

This part of the conversation focuses almost entirely on feelings, sharing,

supporting and ensuring that people are involved. It is only towards the end
of this first round that mention is made of academic learning, and the focus
here is on ensuring that learning tasks are appropriate for the children. The
teachers acknowledge that this is hard, though, especially if this leads to
dividing children into groups based on their attainment:
Teacher 1: Im just thinking that there are some children who
feel that they are in the wrong. So, we set them for maths and they
feel like, because theyre in the bottom group, they dont feel that
they belong there. So, academically they might belong there, but
they feel that theyre in the wrong place

Round 2: The next pair of teachers agrees that 'the safe place is
fundamental' and 'paramount'. As with the first pair the conversation turns to
their own classroom experience and the strategies they use to enhance
children's feelings of safety and belonging.
Teacher 3: I would definitely say in my classroom the safe
place is fundamental.

124 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

Teacher 4: Paramount, yes.
Teacher 3: Because in my room I know from last year that was not
the case for my children.
Teacher 4: Really?
Teacher 3: This year straightaway the anxieties that are coming in,
dont feel safe in their room. So, really trying to support that
feeling of belonging and scaffold them into feeling they belong in
that room.

Their conversation turns to the children's 'ownership' of the classroom

and how this can support their increasing independence as learners.
Teacher 4: Yes, I think that sounds good to me. I know it sounds
like your jargonistic way of approaching it, but the ownership of
the room, so they get to change the actual environment themselves.
So, when we develop the environment, we put in new things like
role play areas, they have a big say in that. As a result, it means
that its their room and its an environment that theyre not
surprised by coming in, only on a special day where we might have
done something for them. But its actually gradually becoming
theirs and theirs.
Teacher 3: Building onto that, if they feel they belong and that
classroom belongs to them, they become more independent as
learners.

The two teachers then read through the previous pair's notes, agreeing
with all that is written. They decide to add 'child-initiated' and 'being
welcome', which '...is something that we do quite well'.
The two teachers then begin to articulate their principles, although these
do not yet emerge clearly in their conversation
Teacher 4: Its a concept, a kind of philosophy for me, anyway,
beyond the things. I can see how the work comes into it, but, for
me, its very much your approach.
Teacher 3: Yes, psychological thing as well, because it can
become, if they feel youre in control of the whole space, it then
goes on a hierarchy as well, where theyre totally on balance.

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

125

This leads them to discuss question of 'voice' and 'control'. They touch on
the question of who retains the control in class, agreeing that this goes to the
teacher in the end. They agree that the concepts on the sheet are nicely
linked.
One also remarks further on the sharing notion already present on the
sheet: Teacher 3: Yes, and I think with sharing it could be sharing space as
well and sharing knowledge.
Round 3: The arrival of the third pair adds new reference to 'community'
and '...feeling that your ideas are valued as much as anyone else's'.
Teacher 5: Belonging? A sense of belonging? So, feeling as
though youre part of the class.
Teacher 6: Part of the community.
Teacher 5: And part of the wider community. Thats true. Feeling
that your ideas are valued as much as anybody elses.

They then turn their conversation to religion:

Teacher 5: Also, in terms of, if youre looking from an RE
(religious education) perspective, your sense of belonging and how
it differs, perhaps, from other people, how they see belonging, like
belonging to a religion. I dont know. Not just your community,
belonging to a faith.

Their brief discussion of faith groups leads them to consider any groups
and the implications for children '...who don't have friends, who feel like
outsiders, because of whatever reason'. They continue thinking about
belonging in terms of whether the feeling of belonging arises '...when you
share similar interests....or when you're taken seriously...that you matter..and
that you're cared for', bringing in an example from their own classroom:
Teacher 5: Yes. I think children want to belong, in the sense that
they want to have similar things that other children are having and
like similar things, maybe, links to friends. For instance, one girl in
our class decided she wanted to wear a different coloured pair of
tights, because her friend had them. She wanted to feel like she
belonged in that room.

126 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

Teacher 6: Yes. They do need to feel secure, then, dont they?
Teacher 5: Yes, maybe.

They conclude their conversation reflecting on the questions of security

and whether children want to stand out', noting in the end that
Teacher 6: Its not often a child really wants to stand out, is it?
Teacher 5: Similar interests. Yes, thats true.
Teacher 6: Its hard.
Teacher 5: But, then, is that something that we promote as
teachers, that everybody does one answer, maybe sometimes? I
dont know. Maybe thats promoted that everybody needs to be
doing a similar thing, like the behaviour management. So, maybe
thats belonging.

Round 4: The fourth pair of teachers are immediately attracted to what is

already written down about 'feeling safe', and one of them adds the word
'nurturing'. They then strike out in two directions: one teacher follows a line
of thinking about 'feeling that you can speak your mind' while the other
heads in the direction of learning (perhaps reflecting their conversation about
another key word encountered in previous rounds)
Teacher 7: I think if you belong somewhere you feel like you can
speak your mind.
Teacher 8: Yes, exactly. And you have to feel that you can belong
before you can participate or learn.

These teachers then continue to read and comment on the nearly full
sheet of ideas, adding their ideas about the need for respect and sensitivity to
children's different backgrounds. They take this further in reflecting on the
need to be sensitive when children are '... taken out of class to do things'.
Teacher 7 extends this point to reflect on the difficulties of integration
between environments. The teachers conclude by building on previous ideas
with a sense of completion on the sheet, adding references to peers, family
and friends. They check that mention has been of thinking youre valued
and having a voice. Their final contribution is to extend the general notion
of 'family' to consider the involvement of children's parents and the wider

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

127

community in school, noting the difficulties and dilemmas of control that

can arise:
Teacher 8: Yes, because in our school we struggle a lot with
getting parents in and doing stuff with the community, because
there is this big barrier. I guess its because the parents feel that
they dont belong in school, because theyve had a negative
experience of that. So, they dont really want to come in ever for
anything. If they do, they will want to be in and out as soon as they
can.
Teacher 7: Sometimes its difficult because the parents arent
allowed to come in, in the morning, but then we want to be like an
open school. So its that conflict.

Round 5: In the final round the first pair return to the sheet that they
started off, and they are asked to select one or two points to feed back to the
whole group. They comment first on the ideas that they like, such as 'childinitiated' and 'multiple voices'. They also identify ideas they don't understand
such as 'control' and 'hierarchy', which prompts further conversation and coconstruction as they try to work out what it could mean:
Teacher 1: I dont understand this one.
Teacher 2: I know. I dont understand control or hierarchy
either.
Teacher 1: I suppose you get the safe place by having control of
the classroom as a teacher, because, if the classroom is not under
control, then its not a safe place.
Teacher 2: I guess I dont think teachers can control the classroom.
I think teachers can
Teacher 1: manage it.
Teacher 2: Well, the children are only, at the end of the day, have
control over, really get control children. They choose to control
themselves.
Teacher 1: Yes, but thats still through how you set up and manage
that.
Teacher 2: Yes, exactly, how I manage it

In the end they select 'a safe place' as their 'favourite', remembering that

128 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

one of them had offered this idea originally. They complete their argument
as follows:
Teacher 1: Yes, exactly, how I manage it. Did you like that, a
safe place?
Teacher 2: I did it.
Teacher 1: I like that. I think thats probably my favourite one.
Im going to put a star beside it. I like that one. I do. I think that
is.
Teacher 2: Because I think all those other things are possible steps
from it. If a child chooses to participate, its because they feel safe.
Teacher 1: Yes, absolutely

This series of short conversations about belonging has been presented

in detail to demonstrate how rapidly and fluently the teachers built on each
others ideas within and between each short round of conversation. The
teachers talk has largely cumulative features, meaning that they mostly
accept others ideas and elaborate on them in an affirming way. They tend
not to adopt the questioning, critical evaluation or challenging approaches
typical of the exploratory talk that is associated more strongly with
collective reasoning and problem-solving (Littleton and Mercer, 2013). This
seems unsurprising given the nature of the activity and its role early in the
project. Indeed, Littleton and Mercer remark on the value of cumulative talk
in certain stages of joint creative activity (p.58).
The teachers bring different types of knowledge into the conversations,
often starting with what seems to be initial free word association and
extending to the inclusion of personal anecdotes, with occasional reference
to more formal theoretical ideas and terminology. They touch on many
psychologically relevant ideas, with particular reference to feeling safe,
feelings of belonging, feeling excluded, feeling in the wrong place,
childrens needs to feel secure, and so on. There are also theoretical
propositions, as when Teacher 3 connects childrens feelings of belonging
with becoming independent learners, Teacher 6 suggests that children do not
often really want to stand out, and Teacher 8 says you have to feel like
you can belong before you can participate and learn.
In all four key word conversations a great many ideas appeared in a very

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

129

short space of time. For instance, approximately 75 different ideas appeared

in the conversation about LEARNING, without counting repetitions (see
Table 1)
Table 1:
Ideas and concepts emerging in teachers conversations about LEARNING
Rounds of
Main ideas and concepts expressed by teachers in
conversation involving
conversation about LEARNING
teacher pairs (P1-4)
(not including repetitions within each round)
Round 1
(P1)

Knowledge; Lessons; Social and academic; Emotional;

Progress; Data; Talking; Collaboration; Life skills; Social skills;
Friends; Play

Round 2
(P2 had previously
discussed belonging))

Progress; Getting better; Understanding; Lifelong education;

Lifelong learning; Common sense; Feeling good about your
work; Pride in your work; Enjoyment; Self-efficacy its in your
control; From each other; Adults and pupils; Non-hierarchical;
Motivation

Round 3
(P3 had previously
discussed participation
and then belonging)

Building together; Safe environment for exploration;

Behaviour; Pressure (from management or Ofsted (i.e. school
inspection); Children knowing boundaries; Understanding their
realm; Developing personalities; Self-esteem; Accessing
learning; Engaging learning; Enjoyment and challenge

Round 4
(P4 had previously
discussed diversity,
participation and
belonging

In different ways; Participating; Learning in different forms

(like learning through play); Social learning; Kinaesthetic
learning; Visual; Stages of learning; Extend, extend, extend;
Learning support; Measuring learning; Feeling of belonging;
Enthusiasm; Learning how to learn; Being independent; Selfregulators; Learning to be a kind person; Us (teachers) learning;
Parents learning; Home life learning; Rote vs exploration;
Deeper understanding

Round 5
(P1 i.e. the original
pair, returning after
discussing diversity,
participation and
belonging)

Enjoyment; Every child matters; Life skills; Learning how

to learn; Meta-learning; Learning muscles: collaboration,
empathy, problem-solving, reasoning and meta-learning; Not
spoon-feeding; Independence and autonomy; Knowing how to
interact

130 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

When considered through a broadly psychological lens some interesting
questions may come up about all these conversations. One of the most basic
is to ask how the words themselves are being understood and used. It is
striking that different topics of conversation emerge in response to each key
word. The BELONGING conversation gave precedence throughout to
feeling safe, sharing, support and enjoyment, eliciting at least some of the
teachers beliefs about essential relational conditions for learning.
Connections to learning are acknowledged, mainly in terms of increasing
independence, and the discussion develops towards questions of ownership,
voice and control. In contrast, the DIVERSITY key word conversation
started with discussion about different religions, cultures, languages, and
socio-economic status. Reference is made to classroom learning, but in terms
of the relevance of ability, learning needs gifted and talented. Final
emphasis is given to understanding that people are different and unique.
The key word PARTICIPATION prompted initial conversation about
active learning in the classroom, choice, decision-making and active
participation in democratic school life, and the associated needs for
communication and understanding. The lengthiest discussion here was
actually about the dilemmas and limits of childrens active participation in
school. One teacher in an earlier round had described a no hands up policy
in her school, indicating that everyone is expected to participate in class
discussion chosen randomly by the teacher. A later pair, who had been first
in the BELONGING conversation above, comment on this point in Round 4:
Teacher 2: What do you think about this no hands up thing?
Teacher 1: What, whether its participation or whether its a good
idea?
Teacher 2: Is it participation, because actually isnt the teacher
forcing participation? Are the children choosing to participate or is
the teacher saying Im making you? You have a right to silence.

This debate continues for a while, with a final philosophical question: Is

a classroom a democracy or is it a dictator?
While I was reflecting on how these teachers responded to each other in
conversation, and bearing in mind the psychological focus of this paper,
certain words came to my mind, including: lexical and priming. These
are not areas of psychological research that I know much about, but I

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

131

suspected a vast research field. This led me to search psychological literature

(using the database PsycINFO) for research on lexical and priming
effects that could possibly offer insight into what happens when people talk
about inclusive pedagogy in this way, and I made a quick selection of
articles that caught my eye. These very different articles drew my attention
to such topics as: the effects of peoples beliefs about the person they are
talking to (Branigan, et al 2011) and the relevance of prior relationships
(Ahnert et al, 2013); the activation of real-world knowledge by specific
words (Hare et al, 2009); the different types of relationship between pairs of
words (Jones and Golonka, 2012); about effects of relevant knowledge on
the originality ideas generated in brainstorming (Rietzchel, Nijstad and
Stroebe, 2007); and the evolution of nurses concepts of hospital hygiene
over the course of training (Sals-Wuillemin, et al 2011). This rather
random set of studies refers to children and adults in different contexts
(several in laboratories), and there are no direct applications to inclusive
education. However, the process of searching certainly extended my
thinking in ways that I could decide to pursue if they seem helpful to
understand how people talk about inclusion, just as other lines of reading
could do the same for different purposes.
This section has raised questions about how people can share ideas and
come to understand each other in conversation. I have also touched on the
knowledge that can be incorporated and developed in dialogue both in direct
conversation with others and in virtual dialogue with published work. Both
seem relevant to understanding the foundations of constructive and
productive dialogue about inclusive education.
Conclusion: Inclusive Education, Dialogue and Psychology
In this paper I have begun to consider whether and how psychological
thinking may contribute to the dialogues essential for developing inclusive
education, with particular reference to classroom practice and teachers
thinking in inclusive pedagogy. This is intrinsically a dialogic process in that
its meaning and practices involve the engagement of different perspectives,
and it is likely to need continual rethinking and innovation. When
considering the experience of educational change, I would follow Fullan

132 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

(2007) in saying that there is no getting round the primacy of personal
contact for teachers to develop shared understanding, moral commitment,
trust and coping capacities. Teachers need to have one-to-one and group
opportunities to receive and give help and more simply to converse about the
meaning of change. (p.139).
Given the remaining disciplinary wars, it may be that the inclusion of
psychological thinking in this area is better expressed in terms of including
thinking that draws on ideas, information and knowledge that people who
define themselves as psychologists have also been concerned with over the
years. This could help to acknowledge common interests and avoid
disciplinary arguments. Boundaries around psychology can certainly add to
the difficulties of applying psychological knowledge in education, not just
because of the concerned skepticism about testing and scientific method
mentioned at the start of this paper. It can also be a problem if, as (Hick,
Kershner and Farrell, 2009, p. 4) suggest with regard to the extensive
educational adoption of concepts like learning style: The educational
usefulness of psychology comes to be determined by the success of nonpsychologists in applying snippets of psychological knowledge and
procedures that have somehow gained cultural value.
It is also important to see that psychological ideas can change over time,
sometimes with significant shifts in thinking. Sheehy (2013) points out that
psychologists themselves are a heterogeneous group, who adopt different
discourses and hold different beliefs that have direct influence on building
knowledge about inclusive education through research. This can have
methodological impact if new types of quantitative and qualitative evidence
gain weight and value. There may also be conceptual change, as we see in
Bruners (2012) reflections on the development of his lab-based work on
perception. He concludes that we each look at the world in ways that reflect
our situations, expectations, cultural orientations and capacities to construct
possible worlds that transcend biological constraints:
do our conventional psychological methods of research the
laboratory, the conventional interview, standardized tests, and the
rest do these take such considerations into account? A
psychologist can learn a lesson or two from the anthropologist, the
sociologist, even the historian. We will never understand human

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

133

behavior simply by studying it in vitro or out of context, without

taking account of the uneasy historical compromise that exists
between the Established and the Possible. (p.9)

There is of course existing research that establishes the relevance of

psychological theory for understanding likely components of educational
inclusion, such as Rose & Norwichs (2014) adoption of social
psychological theories of group processes and efficacy beliefs in looking at
the resolution of dilemmas in inter-professional work, to name just one. It is
also useful to refer to different psychological theories of learning,
development and individual difference when considering possibilities for
assessment, including psychometric, behavioural, developmental, cognitive,
constructivist, humanist, ecological and self-focused approaches (Bourke &
Mentis, 2014). We can be open to traditional forms and areas of
psychological research while also considering new directions for psychology
that will be particularly relevant to educational inclusion. This is likely to
involve psychologists in adopting critical approaches that start from social
justice principles, less defensiveness about the discipline, and more active
engagement in interdisciplinary approaches (Dyson and Howes, 2009; Hick,
2009).
In any case there may be no need to put a boundary around different
topics or imply disciplinary ownership. The field of inclusive education
seems to be a good candidate for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary
approaches to research and practice, and it is encouraging and exciting to
imagine that such work in the field of inclusive education too could lead to
new forms of research and new ways of thinking (Darbellay, 2014). Klein
(2014) remarks on the overlapping discourses of transdisciplinarity, from its
emergence in the 1970s, with a concern for imaging futures in the human,
social, technical and natural sciences. She draws attention to the
transdisciplinary imperatives of transcendence, problem solving and
transgression that play out in an eclectic mix of global and individual
projects, relating variously to the study of climate change, architecture,
poverty and so on. Education in general, and inclusive education
specifically, would seem to be thirsty for such initiatives. To take one
example, we might look at the conditions for productive dialogue at different
and complementary levels of analysis:

134 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

the power structures and social conditions influencing participation in

productive dialogue about educational inclusion
the means of communication, motivations and social relationships that
enable and prompt people to engage with each other to develop more
just and equitable educational systems
the use of tools to support dialogue, helping to articulate assumptions,
concepts and actions for inclusive pedagogy in particular contexts (e.g.
Florian, 2014)

In conclusion, I have argued that educational inclusion requires

conversations and dialogic engagement between all involved. I would add
that these face to face and written discussions are potentially enriched by the
incorporation of knowledge and understanding gained from relevant
psychological and transdisciplinary research that is itself inclusive.
Acknowledgement: My thanks to the teachers involved in the research
reported in this paper, to my colleague Kristine Black-Hawkins, research
assistant Linda Cooper and the British Academy/Leverhulme for funding the
project: Perspectives on diversity and belonging in primary classrooms:
supporting Early Careers Teachers in the development of inclusive
pedagogy.

References
Adderley, R., Hope, M.A., Hughes, G.C., Jones, L., Messiou, K., & Shaw,
P.A. (2014). Exploring inclusive practices in primary schools:
focusing on childrens voices. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 30 (1), 106-121. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.964580
Ahnert, L., Milatz, A., Kappler, G., & Schneiderwind, J. (2013). The impact
of teacher-child relationships on child cognitive performance as
explored by a priming paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 49 (3),
554-567. doi:10.1037/a0031283
Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Hopwood, L., & Thomson, S. (2016). Primary
Schools Responding to Diversity: Barriers and possibilities. CPRT

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

135

Research Surview 8 (new series). York: Cambridge Primary Review

Trust.
Berry, R.A.W. & Englert, C.S. (2005). Designing Conversation: Book
Discussions in a Primary Inclusion Classroom. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 28 (1), 35-58. doi:10.2307/4126972
Bourke, R. & Mentis, M. (2014). Self-assessment as an Insider Lens for
Learning and Assessment. In L. Florian (ed) The SAGE Handbook of
Special Education, 2nd Ed. (pp. 537-552). London: SAGE.
Branigan, H., Pickering, M.J., Pearson, J., McLean, J.F., & Brown, A.
(2011). The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs
with humans and computers. Cognition, 121, 41-57.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011
Bridges, D. (2013). The Proper Study of Mankind? In defence of the
Humanities against the exaggerated pretensions of scientific
psychology. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational
Research: The Attraction of Psychology (pp. 131-145). Dordrecht:
Springer.
Bruner, J. (2012). What Psychology Should Study. International Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1 (1), 5-13. doi:10.4471/ijep.2012.01
Croizet, J-C. (2013) On the fatal attractiveness of psychology: Racism of
intelligence in education. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.),
Educational Research: The Attraction of Psychology (pp. 33-51).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Darbellay, F. (2014). Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity:
Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style.
Futures, 65, 163-174. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.009
Diez, A. M. (2010). School memories of young people with disabilities: an
analysis of barriers and aids to inclusion. Disability and Society, 25
(2), 163-175. doi: 10.1080/09687590903534346
Dyson, A. & Howes, A. (2009). Towards an interdisciplinary research
agenda for inclusive education. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell
(Eds.), Psychology for Inclusive Education: New Directions in Theory
and Practice (pp. 153-164). Abingdon: Routledge.

136 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

Dyson, A. (2014). A response to Gransson and Nilholm. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 29 (3), 281-282.
doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933542
Fernyhough, C. (2016). The Voices Within: The history and science of how
we talk to ourselves. London: Profile Books/ Wellcome Collection.
Flecha, R. (2011). The dialogic sociology of education. International Studies
in Sociology of Education, 21 (1) 7-20.
doi:10.1080/09620214.2011.543849
Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) Exploring inclusive pedagogy.
British Educational Research Journal, 37 (5), 813-828.
doi:10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Florian, L. (2014). What Counts as Evidence of Inclusive Education?
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (3), 286-294.
doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933551
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gransson, K. and Nilholm. C. (2014). Conceptual Diversities and
Empirical Shortcomings: A critical analysis of research on inclusive
education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (3),
265-280. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.933545
Greenstein, A. (2016). Radical Inclusive Education: Disability, teaching and
the struggles for liberation. Hove: Routledge.
Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., & McRae, K. (2009).
Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111, 151-167.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.009
Hazel, C.E. & Allen, W.B. (2013). Creating inclusive communities through
pedagogy at three elementary schools School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 24 (3), 336-356.
doi:10.1080/09243453.2012.692696
Hick, P. (2009) Reframing psychology for learning within social justice
agendas. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & P. Farrell (Eds.), Psychology for
Inclusive Education: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 165176). Abingdon: Routledge.
Hick, P., Kershner, R. & Farrell, P. (2009). Introduction. In P. Hick, R.
Kershner & P. Farrell (Eds.), Psychology for Inclusive Education:

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

137

New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 1-10). Abingdon:

Routledge.
Howes, A.J., Grimes, P., & Shohel, M.M.C. (2011). Imagining inclusive
teachers: contesting policy assumptions in relation to the development
of inclusive practice in schools. Compare, 41 (5), 615-628.
doi:10.1080/03057925.2011.574969
Jones, L.L. & Golonka, S. (2012). Different influences on lexical priming
for integrative, thematic, and taxonomic relations. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 205, 1-17 (published 11 July 2012).
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00205
Kershner, R. (2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In P. Hick, R.
Kershner & P. Farrell (eds) Psychology for Inclusive Education: New
directions in theory and practice (pp. 52-65). Abingdon: Routledge.
Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourses of Transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the
future. Futures, 63C, 68-74. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.008
Littleton, K. & Mercer, N. (2013) Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Moate, J. (2014). Dialogic struggles and pedagogic innovation. Pedagogy,
Culture and Society, 22 (2). 295-314. 10.1080/14681366.2014.891641
N Bhroin, O. (2013). Questions to assess learning as a communicative
routine for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 40 (3),
114-123. doi: 10.1111/1467-8578.12031
Noddings, N. (1992). The Challenge to Care in Schools, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Norwich, B. (2014). Recognising value tensions that underlie problems in
inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44 (4), 495510. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2014.963027
Rajala, A., Hilpp, J., & Lipponen, L. (2012). The emergence of inclusive
exploratory talk in primary students peer interaction. International
Journal of Educational Research, 53, 55-67.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.011
Rietzchel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A. & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of
domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation
on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of

138 Kershner Psychology and Inclusion

Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 933-946.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.014
Rose, J. & Norwich, B. (2014). Collective commitment and collective
efficacy: a theoretical model for understanding the motivational
dynamics of dilemma resolution in inter-professional work.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 44 (1), 59-74.
doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.855169
Sals-Wuillemin, E., Morlot, R., Fontaine, A., Pullin, W., Galand, C., Talon,
D., & Minary-Dohen, P. (2011). Evoluation of nurses social
representations of hospital hygiene: From training to practice. Revue
europenne de psychologie applique, 61, 51-63.
doi:10.1016/j.erap.2010.06.001
Sheehy, K., & Rix, J.R.M. et al (2009). A systematic review of whole class,
subject-based, pedagogies with reported outcomes for the academic
and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in
mainstream classrooms. In Research Evidence in Education Library,
London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of
Education.
Sheehy, K. (2013). Educational Psychology and the Development of
Inclusive Education. The Routledge International Companion to
Educational Psychology, 235-245. London: Routledge. Published
online 19 July 2013.
Skidmore, D. (1999). Discourses of Learning Difficulty and the Conditions
of School Improvement. Educational Review, 51 (1), 17-28.
doi:10.1080/0141192990250506
Smyth, F., Shevlin, M., Buchner, T., Biewer, G., Flynn, P., Latimier, C.,
ika, J., Toboso-Martn, M., Rodrguez Daz, S., & Ferreira, M.A.V.
(2014). Inclusive Education in Progress: Policy evolution in four
European countries. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
29 (4), 433-445. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2014.922797
Tharp, R.G. & Dalton, S.S. (2008). Orthodoxy, cultural compability, and
universals in education. In J. Elliott & E. Grigorenko (Eds.) Western
Psychological and Educational Theory in Diverse Contexts (pp.5370). Abingdon: Routledge.

IJEP International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2)

139

Tetler, S. & Baltzer, K. (2011). The climate of inclusive classrooms: the

pupil perspective. London Review of Education, 9 (3), 333-344.
doi:10.1080/14748460.2011.616326
Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing Special Education and
Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Thomas, G. (2014). Epistemology and Special Education. In L. Florian (ed)
The SAGE Handbook of Special Education, 2nd Ed. (pp. 267-279).
London: SAGE.
Tragoulia, E. & Strogilos, V. (2013). Using dialogue as a means to promote
collaborative and inclusive practices. Educational Action Research,
21 (4) 485-505. doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.832342
Valls, R. & Kyriakides, L. (2013). The power of Interactive Groups: how
diversity of adults volunteering in classrooms can promote inclusion
and success of children of vulnerable minority ethnic population.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (1) 17-33.
doi:10.1080/0305764X.2012.749213
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic Education and Technology: Expanding the
space of learning. New York, NY: Springer.
Wegerif. R. (2008). Dialogic or Dialectic? The significance of ontological
assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational
Research Journal, 34 (3), 347-361.
doi:10.1080/13540602.2011.554704

Ruth Kershner is Lecturer in Psychology of Education and Primary

Education. University of Cambridge
Contact Address: Ruth Kershner. Faculty of Education University of
Cambridge. 184 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PQ. United Kingdom.
Email: [email protected]