Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Soldovieri, Antonia
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Students with learning differences or neurodivergences (e.g., autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities) require additional supports such as differentiated instruction, one-on-one learning supports, sensory or teaching tools, and other accommodations to successfully be included both academically and socially (Hornby, 2014; Valle & Connor, 2019). A theoretical shift towards neurodiversity-affirming perspectives (the idea that neurological diversity is a natural and beneficial phenomenon in society) has entered scientific discourse across the last fifteen years, school policy, curricula, and classrooms in Canada (Armstrong, 2015; Barnes, 2019; Pellicano & Stears, 2011). Research has shown that there continues to be a lack of inclusion for neurodivergent students, and that physical inclusion in the classroom does not guarantee experienced inclusion; the feeling of benefitting from instruction, forming meaningful connections with others, and being part of their classroom culture. When experienced inclusion is lacking, learning suffers (Chen & Patten, 2021). A focus of current research is on how academic inclusion (e.g., differentiated instruction or accommodations to materials) can be promoted or is limited to older populations. There is little existing work which addresses inclusion in younger populations or explores how educators promote inclusion outside of specific social-emotional interventions (Sokal & Sharma, 2013). This critical gap in the literature has tangible impacts for neurodivergent students’ experiences of schooling. The present study explored how primary school educators conceive of neurodivergences in the classroom environment, understand their role in facilitating a safe and welcoming environment for all learners, and use strategies for promoting inclusion of neurodivergent learners. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) interviews with educators teaching Kindergarten to Grade 3 in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver and with under 10 years of teaching experience were analyzed towards this goal. IPA analysis revealed that educators felt their training was neither sufficient, comprehensive, nor practical enough to adequately prepare them to teach diverse learners. However, they employed a variety of strategies to promote inclusion, such as relationship building, subtle inclusion efforts, modeling inclusion and self-acceptance, fostering neurodiversity-affirming conversations, using inclusive language with students and parents, and community building. Educators also reported a strong motivation and sense of duty to include neurodivergent students.
THINKING, TALKING, TEACHING: HOW PRIMARY SCHOOL EDUCATORS FACILITATE NEURODIVERSITY-AFFIRMING CLASSROOM PRACTICES TO SUPPORT STUDENTS’ INCLUSION by Antonia Soldovieri B.Sc., University of Toronto, 2021 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (School and Applied Child Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2024 © Antonia Soldovieri, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the thesis entitled: Thinking, Talking, Teaching: How Primary School Educators Facilitate Neurodiversity-Affirming Classroom Practices to Support Students’ Inclusion Submitted by Antonia Soldovieri in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In School and Applied Child Psychology Examining Committee: Laurie Ford, Associate Professor, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, UBC Supervisor Erika Fundelius, Assistant Professor, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, UBC Supervisory Committee Member Melanie Nelson, Assistant Professor, Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education UBC Additional Examiner iii Abstract Students with learning differences or neurodivergences (e.g., autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities) require additional supports such as differentiated instruction, one-on-one learning supports, sensory or teaching tools, and other accommodations to successfully be included both academically and socially (Hornby, 2014; Valle & Connor, 2019). A theoretical shift towards neurodiversity-affirming perspectives (the idea that neurological diversity is a natural and beneficial phenomenon in society) has entered scientific discourse across the last fifteen years, school policy, curricula, and classrooms in Canada (Armstrong, 2015; Barnes, 2019; Pellicano & Stears, 2011). Research has shown that there continues to be a lack of inclusion for neurodivergent students, and that physical inclusion in the classroom does not guarantee experienced inclusion; the feeling of benefitting from instruction, forming meaningful connections with others, and being part of their classroom culture. When experienced inclusion is lacking, learning suffers (Chen & Patten, 2021). A focus of current research is on how academic inclusion (e.g., differentiated instruction or accommodations to materials) can be promoted or is limited to older populations. There is little existing work which addresses inclusion in younger populations or explores how educators promote inclusion outside of specific social-emotional interventions (Sokal & Sharma, 2013). This critical gap in the literature has tangible impacts for neurodivergent students’ experiences of schooling. The present study explored how primary school educators conceive of neurodivergences in the classroom environment, understand their role in facilitating a safe and welcoming environment for all learners, and use strategies for promoting inclusion of neurodivergent learners. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) interviews with iv educators teaching Kindergarten to Grade 3 in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver and with under 10 years of teaching experience were analyzed towards this goal. IPA analysis revealed that educators felt their training was neither sufficient, comprehensive, nor practical enough to adequately prepare them to teach diverse learners. However, they employed a variety of strategies to promote inclusion, such as relationship building, subtle inclusion efforts, modeling inclusion and self-acceptance, fostering neurodiversity-affirming conversations, using inclusive language with students and parents, and community building. Educators also reported a strong motivation and sense of duty to include neurodivergent students. v Lay Summary While students with diverse learning needs are in most cases placed in general education classrooms, it remains unclear whether efforts to foster true feelings of inclusion as part of a classroom community are made. Understanding how teachers perceive differences in how students learn and process information (neurodiversity) in the classroom, as well as their teaching practices to help all students feel included is important in understanding how students might experience the classroom, and if they feel included. In the present study, educators’ teaching Kindergarten to Grade 3 in the Vancouver Lower Mainland were interviewed and their perceptions of neurodiversity were explored, as well as their perspectives of the formal training they received to prepare them for inclusive teaching. Through qualitative analysis, it was found that educators felt their training was not sufficient, comprehensive, nor practical enough to adequately prepare them to teach diverse learners. However, they employed a variety of strategies to promote inclusion, such as relationship building, subtle inclusion efforts, inclusive language with students and parents, and community building. Educators also reported a strong motivation and sense of duty to include neurodivergent students. vi Preface This thesis is the original, unpublished, independent work of the author, Antonia Soldovieri, under research supervision from Dr. Laurie Ford. The graduate student was responsible for the data collection, the analysis, and writing components of the present study. This research study involved human participants and was reviewed and approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) under certificate H23-000815. Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the current study nor in the writing of the study findings. vii Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………....vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Researcher Positionality ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Rationale for the Proposed Study .......................................................................................... 6 1.4 Definition of Key Terms ....................................................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Neurodiversity. ............................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 Neurodivergent. .............................................................................................................. 8 1.4.3 Neurotypical. .................................................................................................................. 8 1.4.4 Neurodiversity-Affirming. .............................................................................................. 9 1.4.5 Additional Learning Needs or Learning Differences. .................................................... 9 1.4.7 General Education Classrooms. ...................................................................................... 9 1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.2 The Neurodiversity Movement ........................................................................................... 12 2.3 Moving Beyond Mainstreaming and Towards Experienced Inclusion ............................... 14 2.4 Pragmatics of Inclusion and “Meaningful Access” for Diverse Learners .......................... 15 2.5 Neurodiversity Affirming Teaching Practices .................................................................... 18 2.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 3: Methodology............................................................................................................. 21 3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Epistemology ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Purpose and Research Questions......................................................................................... 22 3.4 Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis ............................................................................ 22 3.5 Procedures ........................................................................................................................... 24 viii 3.5.1 Ethics Approval. ........................................................................................................... 24 3.5.2 Recruitment and Screening. .......................................................................................... 24 3.5.4 In-Depth Interviews and Transcription ......................................................................... 27 3.6 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 28 3.6.1 Overview. ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.6.2 Detailed Participant Descriptions ................................................................................. 32 3.6.3 Alex. ............................................................................................................................. 32 3.6.4 Beth. .............................................................................................................................. 32 3.6.5 Catherine ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.6.6 Dan................................................................................................................................ 33 3.6.7 Elli. ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.6.8 Farah. ............................................................................................................................ 34 3.7 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 35 3.8 Ensuring Study Rigor .......................................................................................................... 37 3.8.2 Close Analytical Reading ............................................................................................. 38 3.8.3 Bracketing ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.8.4 Researcher Journal ........................................................................................................ 39 3.8.5 Peer Debrief .................................................................................................................. 40 3.8.6 Data checks by research supervisor .............................................................................. 40 3.8.7 Independent audit ......................................................................................................... 40 3.8.8 Member Reflections ..................................................................................................... 41 3.9 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 4: Results....................................................................................................................... 42 4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 42 4.2 Theme 1: My Training Did Not Prepare Me ....................................................................... 43 4.2.1 Subtheme 1: Theoretical and Unrealistic...................................................................... 44 4.2.2 Subtheme 2: In Some Ways You Can Never Be Ready. .............................................. 47 4.2.3 Subtheme 3: Doing My Best ........................................................................................ 48 4.3 Theme 2: Inclusion Through Community ........................................................................... 50 4.3.1 Subtheme 1: Building Inclusive Classroom Culture .................................................... 50 4.3.2 Subtheme 2: Importance of Connection ....................................................................... 52 4.3.3 Subtheme 3: Leaning on My Community .................................................................... 53 ix 4.4 Theme 3: Inclusion is Subtle and Gradual .......................................................................... 55 4.4.1 Subtheme 1: Undercover Inclusion Work .................................................................... 55 4.4.2 Subtheme 2: Strategic Access to Supports ................................................................... 58 4.4.3 Subtheme 3: Flexibility in Approach and Expectations ............................................... 61 4.4.4 Subtheme 4: Inclusion Takes Time .............................................................................. 63 4.5 Theme 4: Language Use ...................................................................................................... 65 4.5.1 Subtheme 1: Developing Neurodiversity Vocabulary .................................................. 66 4.5.2 Subtheme 2: Fostering Inclusion Conversations .......................................................... 70 4.5.3 Subtheme 3: Talking with Parents ................................................................................ 71 4.6 Theme 4: Wanting to Do More ........................................................................................... 73 4.6.1 Subtheme 1: Recognizing What Is in My Control ....................................................... 74 4.6.2 Subtheme 2: Insufficient Resources ............................................................................. 76 4.6.3 Subtheme 3: Emotional Limitations ............................................................................. 79 4.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 80 Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 82 5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 82 5.2 Discussion of The Present Study in the Context of the Literature ...................................... 82 5.3 Significance of the Present Study........................................................................................ 85 5.3.1 Educators’ responses to self-identified skill and knowledge gaps. .............................. 85 5.3.2 Importance of language ................................................................................................ 86 5.3.3. Importance of relationships ......................................................................................... 87 5.4 Limitations of the Present Study ......................................................................................... 87 5.5 Strengths of the Present Study ............................................................................................ 88 5.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 90 5.6.1 Pre-service Training ..................................................................................................... 90 5.6.2 In-service Training ....................................................................................................... 91 5.7 Considerations for Future Research .................................................................................... 92 5.8 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 93 References .................................................................................................................................... 94 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 103 Appendix A. Screener Survey Questions ............................................................................ 103 Appendix B. Background Survey Questions ....................................................................... 104 x Appendix C. Interview Questions ....................................................................................... 106 Appendix D. Recruitment Advertisement ........................................................................... 107 Appendix E. Consent Form ................................................................................................. 108 xi List of Tables Table 1. Participant Demographics………………………………………………………….… 41 Table 2. Themes and subthemes………………………………………………..………………53 xii Acknowledgements I would like to thank the participants of the study for their openness, interest, engagement, and generosity with their time and sharing about their experiences. Educators’ commitment to supporting neurodivergent learners and students with learning differences is an inspiring and crucial foundation for inclusion to occur. Further, my utmost gratitude to my Principal Investigator and supervisor, Dr. Laurie Ford, for our conversations about the project, your advice and feedback throughout the process, and your ever-encouraging attitude towards this project. Thank you to Dr. Erika Fundelius, for being on my committee and your invaluable advice and feedback as this work was developed and underwent committee review. Thank you to Dr. Melanie Nelson for agreeing to join my committee as the arms-length examiner, which is one of many ways in which you have supported and enrichened my learning and training in the School and Applied Child Psychology program. Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to my cohort; Anisa, Hira, and Min, for being on this journey together and for encouraging one another when things felt difficult and the research we had undertaken felt more ethereal than feasible. I appreciate you all very much. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview Inclusion is a socially and culturally specific concept which often refers to participation in and access to educational and social settings, as well as opportunities. How inclusion is conceptualized within a culture directly informs individual and systemic actions and efforts to enact it. As such, establishing a shared understanding of what inclusion means in our culture is essential to exploring the experiences of those who lack it, and identifying issues to be addressed in order to create positive change. When looking to education, rhetoric, and policy about how students, such as those with learning needs or differences are to be included in the classroom, the suggestions are a product of current understandings of neurodiversity and social, learning, or behavioral differences. Changes in scientific understandings of neurodiversity, advocacy efforts, and voices of neurodivergent people (den Houting, 2019), as well as trends in local policy have contributed to important developments in this area in recent years. Early roots in the disability movement, such as changes to the disability rights movement in the United States, advocacy for improved rights for autistic adults in independent living contexts, or efforts to remove harmful segregation policies for students with behavioral needs in schools (Kapp, 2020) have played an important role in moving inclusion forward, expanding cultural understandings of diversity in (dis)ability, and increasing acceptance. Even earlier, changes to United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to include the rights of disabled individuals, and the many decades long fight to establish greater quality of life for those with disabilities have laid the groundwork for the Canadian movement to grow (Stein, 2015). These changes are interdisciplinary, spanning educational, medical, political, and occupational realms to better address the needs of those with neurodivergences and other 2 disabilities while also recognizing their strengths. In recent years, a strong need for new inclusion practices have been identified, which reframe differences in ability as natural diversity (hence neurodiversity), and establish neurodivergence as something to be celebrated and accommodated rather than segregated or mainstreamed (Chapman & Botha, 2022). Neurodiversity relates to differences in how individuals process information and learn best (Both et al., 2024). As such, efforts to embrace neurodiversity-affirming perspectives have been particularly relevant to the field of education (Sharma, 2020). In schools, students with a vast spectrum of learning needs and preferences are tasked with learning a prescribed curriculum. In the same vein, teachers are tasked with teaching to a diverse group of students in a way that works for all. Conceptualizing what neurodiversity-affirming teaching, an approach which celebrates neurodivergences and promotes inclusion specific to students’ needs and abilities could look like has created a resurgence in conversation about how to best support learning differences in schools. However, while neurodiversity-affirming terminology and attitudes have entered mainstream media and public discourse, educational policy and teacher trainings do not consistently or comprehensively explore inclusive teaching (Lewiecki-Wilson et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2014). Thus, it is possible that educators may be missing important tools to adequately support their neurodivergent students, and in turn, students may be lacking the support they need to be socially and academically engaged in their classrooms. 1.2 Researcher Positionality As the researcher of this project, I am keenly aware of my privileged position entering an area of study in which systematically disadvantaged, excluded, and under-supported students play a central role as the population of study. With this in mind, I acknowledge my intersecting identities, my personal experiences in school systems, and my own educational journey up to 3 present day and how it has informed this work. My own learning experiences and work in classrooms throughout my life inherently influenced how I understand concepts such as inclusion (in particular experienced inclusion; a term which is not yet in the literature to my knowledge), conversations with participants, and data analysis. I am a 26-year-old, cisgender female who is queer, white, and a settler on British Columbian soil and in Canada. I grew up in a middle-class family and have had familial support throughout my educational journey. I identify as neurotypical, meaning that I tend to fit the norm of how individuals are expected to learn and function in daily life. Educational settings tend to be tailored to support my learning and succeeding in these contexts has been an important part of my goals and identity beginning at an early age. Much of my sense of community has fostered through the classrooms I have learned in and with other students alongside whom I could connect, learn, and grow. I have been fortunate to be able to (for the most part) follow along in class and understand materials, making my experiences in school systems largely positive. I acknowledge that neurotypicality inherently confers privilege as a student, researcher, and member of society. I also understand that I cannot fully understand the experiences of students for whom challenges in the classroom arise as a result of neurodivergences, nor their experiences of inclusion (or lack thereof). Since adolescence I have been passionate to learn about how to foster positive learning experiences for others and myself. I tutored my neighbors, wrote diagrams and homework schedules to help myself learn, and loved to find different ways to represent different mathematical or scientific concepts we were learning in school. My employment, mentorship, and volunteer experiences have led me again and again to work with neurodivergent youth both in classrooms and private settings. I believe my tendency to seek out these experiences to be an 4 indicator of my strong belief in supporting diverse learners and promoting equitable access to learning spaces for all. During my time working as a behavior interventionist, I saw students removed from classrooms for struggling to sit still, being restricted to the back of the room because they asked too many questions and be rejected from school admissions processes due to neurodivergences not impacting their academic performance. At other times, I saw students be empowered to demonstrate their learning in ways which worked for them, witnessed students supporting each other’s learning needs and preferences, and saw teachers advocate for additional resources to be developed for students who needed them. Classrooms are as diverse as the learners which inhabit them, and I have seen teachers adapt, solve problems, and foster inclusion even when time and resources were scarce, and needs were profound. These experiences have informed my interest in inclusion and have motivated me to contribute to expanding literature in this area of research. My recent educational journey has also contributed to the development of this work. I currently study at the University of British Columbia, where I am beginning the first year of my Ph.D. in School and Applied Child Psychology. It is not possible to separate my educational and training experiences from my lens as a researcher. Knowing this, I also wish to recognize that while my program has a social-justice focus, I am influenced by a western framework of research and neurodiversity; both of which are rooted in medical models of understanding disability that exclude, control, and infantilize those who are different or divergent. I recognize that western inclusion practices are not the only way, nor do they benefit all individuals or groups in the same way. The idea of a “disability” itself is a colonial construct which imbues differential disadvantage and exclusion depending on additional intersecting identities such as gender, class, race and/or Indigeneity, and socio-economic status (Native 5 Women’s Association of Canada, 2018; Quinlan, 2018). The term and culture behind it must continue to evolve through further exploration and advocacy. It is also important to note that differences or “disabilities” are not necessarily conceptualized in the same way across cultures, and so subsequent approaches to support may look different. For example, Indigenous cultures in Canada (and many in the United States) tend to use language related to gifts and differences, and the term disability is not used (Ineese-Nash, 2020; Yellowhorse, 2023). Recent teachings which I have received from Indigenous knowledge holders, communities, and training are expanding my understanding of how learning can occur and what it can look like, and the utility of terms like “disability” in informing supports or care. I am hopeful that schools may allow us to do some of this work, however I am keenly aware that Canadian education systems have a dark history and have contributed to violence and exclusion for longer than they have been working on inclusion. Indian Residential schools systematically destroyed Indigenous culture through the forced removal, institutionalization, and murder of Indigenous children, the intergenerationally destructive effects of which continue to be felt. Even today, Indigenous children are overrepresented in inclusive education, a statistic which carries colonial legacies of systemic inequity in resources and care and a racist pathologizing of Indigenous ways of life, culture, and beliefs (Jane, 2024; Yee & Butler, 2020). Work in the area of education has the potential to (and so, must strive to) introduce and champion new ways to include and serve minoritized populations, promote inclusion, and dismantle ableist, racist, sexist practices and systems. It is with these ideas, historical contexts, and goals mind that I enter this research project. By exploring potential systematic gaps in educator training, and individual educators’ experiences and feelings of preparedness, I hope to draw attention to ways in which our 6 education system fails to support neurodivergent students, thus opening up possibilities for positive change. I also hope to spotlight educators as champions of inclusion; highly adaptable even when under resourced, and as front-line workers who strive to make inclusion happen for their students, day-to-day. 1.3 Rationale for the Proposed Study The present study is a response to a need for further study of neurodiversity and neurodiversity-affirming practices in education. Canadian curricula and school systems have undergone immense and fast-paced changes in recent years, including in their approaches to inclusion (Hargreaves, 2014). As collective understandings of neurodiversity grow, approaches to evidence-based practices in teaching and educator training must also adapt to reflect it. New, neurodiversity-affirming research in education is needed to support current and future generations of teachers in creating welcoming classroom spaces and prevent harm for diverse learners. Understanding how to support our youngest neurodivergent learners, e.g., those in elementary school is of particular interest to me and less researched. British Columbia, and specifically the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, is an ideal setting for this research. Schools in the province are becoming rapidly more diverse along racial, ethnic, and learning difference-related facets of identity, and schools are tasked with adapting to meet a range of learning needs. Gaps in performance and inclusion are being observed. Compared to other groups, students with learning differences are completing their schooling at lower rates (75.5% compared to 85%). It has been established that school attendance and completion are related to engagement, with factors such as understanding of material and social connectedness as protective factors (Government of British Columbia, 2019). Systematic differences in school engagement and inclusion as a result of cognitive or behavioral differences may have 7 downstream effects on students’ educational achievements and later life outcomes (Moreira et al., 2015; Purcell et al., 2006) thus presenting a social justice issue meriting further exploration. The role of teachers in understanding inclusion efforts is critical. Perhaps unsurprisingly, educators’ knowledge of and training in neurodiversity-affirming teaching practices and their attitudes towards students with additional learning needs show a robust positive association (Frizzell, 2018), whereby teachers ascribe more importance to inclusion when they have received some form of training about it. While educators do identify the importance of fostering an inclusive classroom environment, many report concerns about their preparedness and the support they can receive to implement inclusive teaching practices (Kiely et al., 2015; Metsala et al., 2019). Only a small portion of courses required in most teacher education programs are related to effective teaching of diverse learners in regular classrooms (D’Intino & Wang, 2021; McCrimmon, 2015), creating a potential gap in educator preparedness for the day-to-day support of neurodivergent students. Understanding the ways in which primary school educators facilitate a neurodiversity-affirming classroom environment is of particular interest. Early experiences in kindergarten provide the critical foundations for academic skills as well as social skills and feelings of community (Hamre et al., 2013). During this time, young children spend the majority of their waking hours working and playing alongside their peers, with many experiencing a structured learning environment for the very first time. As such, primary school teachers play an important role in both socializing and instructing young learners such that they may continue to thrive in an academic environment. In this new learning environment, the neurodiversity inherent to any classroom quickly becomes apparent, through students’ difficulties following along in class, differences in communication and sensory preferences and needs, and the need for additional 8 supports for academic and social activities. These differences demonstrate a need for adaptations, additional supports, and instruction which is inclusive of the different ways in which students prefer to learn. 1.4 Definition of Key Terms 1.4.1 Neurodiversity. The word neurodiversity is increasingly entering the mainstream. The term stems from neurological diversity (Chapman, 2021). Neurodiversity is used to describe the natural variances in the ways individuals’ minds operate and understand the world. The described biological diversity, sometimes resulting in differences in how individuals understand, interact with, and experience the world around them, is viewed through a strengths-based lens in most contexts, rejecting the idea that there is one way for a brain to process information or learn (Kapp, 2020). 1.4.2 Neurodivergent. Neurodivergent is used to describe individuals and brains which differ from the norm in their cognitive, also in some cases, their sensory and social tendencies and capacities (Chapman, 2021; Stenning, 2020). While this term does still rely on its’ referent; neurotypical, a constructed neurological norm, it is often used in social justice and advocacy contexts as an empowering umbrella term referencing the existence of some shared experiences of individuals who consider themselves to be different from what society expects in how they think and experience the world (Rosqvist et al., 2020). 1.4.3 Neurotypical. Neurotypical describes individuals with neurological development and subsequent cognitive functioning, information processing, and sensory capacities resulting in behavior, engagement in the world, and ways of thinking that align with social norms and expectations. 9 Norms of behavior, physical spaces, institutions, and society have been described by autism scholars as neurotypical in their structure, expectations, and imposed standards of normalcy and humanness, in particular in the field of education (Belmont, 2020). 1.4.4 Neurodiversity-Affirming. Neurodiversity-affirming is a term which describes spaces, practices, and perspectives which not only accept but also celebrate neurodivergences, positioning neurodivergent folks as important contributors to society and as having unique strengths and skills. Neurodiversity-affirming perspectives seek to reject deficit-based conceptualizations of individuals who do not fit the norm, moving away from language related to dysfunction, disorder, while also reclaiming other terms such as disability (Fenton & Krahn, 2007; Robson & Ne’eman, 2008). 1.4.5 Additional Learning Needs or Learning Differences. For the purposes of the current study, terms such as learning differences or additional learning needs are used as broad descriptors for students who require support, differentiation, or accommodations in order to succeed in the classroom. Given that not all learning differences are formally identified (e.g., through a diagnosis and/or designation), these terms may refer to students with adhd, autism, learning disabilities, with subsequent social, academic, or behavioral challenges or support needs (Bryant et al., 2019). 1.4.7 General Education Classrooms. The general education classroom is taught by an educator who may or may not have expertise in teaching neurodivergent learners. General education classrooms are structured according to standardized curriculum specific to region, from which accommodations can be developed to serve students with additional learning needs. 1.5 Summary 10 The language which a society uses to explain and give meaning to phenomena in the world is both explanatory and prescriptive of its attitudes, both implicit and explicit, which surround it. The use of neurodiversity-affirming language, which normalizes differences in how people think and learn, marks an important shift in how we understand disability and seek to include it. In education, the growing recognition of neurodiversity and the emergence of neurodiversity-affirming teaching practices are a promising step in a direction where students with learning differences inherent to the classroom are given the support they need to grow, learn, and enjoy their time at school. 11 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 2.1 Overview The purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of the literature surrounding current practices for supporting diverse learners and educators’ perspectives on inclusion. “Neurodiversity-affirming teaching” is presented as one contemporary perspective and approach to inclusion which is utilized throughout the present study. To provide context, the epistemological and historical underpinnings of the term neurodiversity are discussed as they relate to historical trends within inclusion practices, educational policy, and disability advocacy. Current perspectives on inclusion are presented as historically and culturally specific outcomes of these efforts and evolution of our understanding of neurodivergence and disability. Educators’ practices and beliefs about inclusion, which inherently impact how it is enacted in the classroom, are discussed within the literature. An effort is made to identify and differentiate between physical inclusion (being included in the classroom space where possible) and experienced inclusion (being part of the classroom community and meaningfully accessing learning and social connection) for neurodivergent learners. Lastly, how educators understand the concept of neurodiversity, whether they received training to meet diverse learning needs, and how they utilize neurodiversity-affirming teaching practices in their classrooms are discussed, as educators’ role in promoting inclusion is a focus of the present study. Further the challenges of meaningful and beneficial inclusion for students with learning differences are presented. The chapter concludes with an explanation of critical role of primary school educators in fostering inclusion through a neurodiversity-affirming classroom culture, as it relates to the identification of learning differences, development of supports, 12 promotion of inclusive attitudes, and early understandings of neurodiversity and difference for students. 2.2 The Neurodiversity Movement The neurodiversity movement places emphasis on the natural neurological diversity that exists in the human population (Botha et al., 2024; Chapman, 2021). Across arenas of academia and practice, its’ proponents have identified the need to replace disease-based models of disability with a paradigm that breaks down dichotomies of ability (Goodley, 2014), views differences not as deficits or conditions to be cured (Shmulsky et al., 2022), and calls into question the ableist criteria for meaningful living, contribution, and functioning of individuals in the world (Detzer, 2017; Rentenbach et al., 2017). Given the implications of neurological and cognitive differences for learning, the neurodiversity movement has been particularly relevant to the field of education. Neurodiversity-affirming discourse has grounded advocacy efforts in finding equitable inclusion practices for individuals and creating a pedagogy which values diversity, emphasizes personal strengths, and highlights the capacity and right to learn for all individuals (Acevedo & Nusbaum, 2020; Armstrong, 2015). The concept of neurodiversity-affirming teaching has emerged on the heels of the inclusion movement in education, which is premised on the idea that students with additional learning needs benefit most from being educated in regular classrooms as opposed to segregated specialized programs or classes. Inclusion of neurodivergent learners in general education classrooms is intended to provide equitable access to education for all. In practice, teachers have mixed feelings about inclusion (Valeo 2008; Woodcock & Woolfson, 2019) and recognize that specific features of classrooms and the learner’s individual needs must be considered when evaluating the utility of blanket inclusion (Curtin & Clarke, 2005; Davis & Florian, 2004). 13 In more recent years, scholarship which calls into question the utility of the inclusion model of education has proliferated, demonstrating ways in which, if implemented inappropriately, it can enhance feelings of exclusion (Wang, 2019) and result in reduced benefit or even harm for the individual or their classmates, depending on the nature of the learning needs and associated difficulties. As such, consideration of the learner’s individual learning history, academic and social strengths and challenges, as well as classroom and educator resources available must be considered (Pitt & Curtin, 2004). Criticisms of mainstreamed education, in tandem with major developments in disability theory and scientific understandings of neurological underpinnings of disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities have generated an urgent need to better support diverse learners in ways which both address individual needs in affirming ways, and adhere to requirements and limitations of schools and classrooms (Curtin & Clarke, 2005). Instead of quieting the noise of neurodivergence and seeking to rehabilitate diverse learners or students with additional learning needs or differences, it is precisely this noise which can tell us about how supports for diverse learners can be improved (Juvonen et al., 2019). Given important developments in societal understandings of neurodiversity, it is critical to consider their impact, if at all, at early levels of schooling where students are experiencing formal instruction for the first time. The efforts of the neurodiversity movement largely focuses on advocacy for older students and adults, and uses language which nuances concepts of disability, inclusion, and challenges of ableist systems and practices. At the primary level, ableism may not be topic students, educators, or school staff are actively discussing. Nonetheless, neurodivergent students are likely to be experiencing the impacts of ableism and discriminative attitudes, even at a young age. As such, understanding how teachers perceive the 14 presence of neurodivergences in the classroom as well as their roles and abilities in promoting inclusion of neurodivergent learners is an important area of research. 2.3 Moving Beyond Mainstreaming and Towards Experienced Inclusion Neurodivergent learners have the right to experience meaningful inclusion, both in terms of access to instruction and of social belonging. Active participation in classrooms is predictive of future academic achievement, and is facilitated by feeling comfortable engaging with peers, and understanding the material being taught (Naples & Tuckwiller, 2021; Voekl, 2010). Similarly, relationships between individuals’ mental health and their academic achievement have been found (Ladd et al., 1999), providing further context for the importance of feeling a part of the school community in order to benefit from the learning and social opportunities. Critical to comfort and mental health are feelings of being included and valued in the classroom environment (Reyes et al., 2012). Importantly, benefits of horizontal relationships (where both parties have similar status and power, such as most peer relationships (Frostad & Pijl, 2007) have been observed, a dynamic which may be difficult when behavioral and cognitive differences are at play (Warner, 2020). On the other hand, when positive and consistent interactions are fostered between students with disabilities and typically developing peers, attitudes towards neurodivergent peers improved (Gonçalves & Lemos, 2014). Establishing an inclusive classroom which is supportive and collaborative in nature and equitable in its treatment of students plays a critical role in fostering positive relationships between all students regardless of abilities (Boswell, 2020). In order for educators to be able to foster inclusion, an understanding of neurodiversity, learning differences, and acceptance of both must be established. Further still, educators must first possess inclusive attitudes themselves, as well as be able to access the tools to teach about such 15 concepts effectively (Griffiths, 2020; Krischler et al., 2019). A study by Gonçalves and Lemos (2014) explored inclusion attitudes towards diverse learners amongst students in grades 6 to 12 using cognitive-affective attitude and the Social Goals Scale. Attitudes towards diverse learners varied along axes of gender, social competence, and age of respondent, whereby girls and older respondents reported fewer negative attitudes towards their neurodivergent peers, and students with better social skills (as perceived by their peer raters) were rated more favorably. Most importantly, students with greater and more consistent in-class interactions with neurodivergent peers reported better attitudes. This emphasizes the importance of inclusion in providing shared classroom experiences and exposure which can act as the foundation to social relationships, and thus, meaningful inclusion in classroom and school community. The importance of social inclusion in the classroom to student wellbeing as it relates to diverse learners, and various student, peer, and educator factors must be considered when finding ways to improve classroom culture to be neurodiversity-affirming (Frostad & Pijl., 2007; Pitt & Curtin, 2004). 2.4 Pragmatics of Inclusion and “Meaningful Access” for Diverse Learners A critical misunderstanding in conceptions of inclusion in education is the idea that it must entail full participation regardless of the nature of the student’s learning needs and differences. Given the vast diversity in neurodivergence, asking all students to conform to expectations of the general education classroom is overly simplistic, misguided, and has the potential to cause harm (Goodall, 2018; Hamovitch, 2006). Across history, individuals with disabilities were segregated through institutions, then in separate wings on school campuses. Institutions often had poor teaching conditions and relied on abusive practices for managing behavior. Later, diverse learners were then taught in segregated classrooms within schools, categorized based on perceived ability (O’Brien & Bonati, 2018). Following systemic 16 segregation, mainstreaming practices were introduced, whereby all students were placed into the same classrooms with minor or no accommodations made to instruction despite vast differences in need and ability (Graham-Matheson, 2011). Today, inclusion has more subtle, context-dependent meanings, where attitudes toward neurodiversity have generally become more accepting, yet remain limited (Kapp, 2020). Values of inclusion, however, must meet the realities of the classroom space, and the often-limited resources and training available to educators and schools should be considered when working to make diverse learners feel welcome at school (Sokal & Sharma, 2013). For example, asking a student with intellectual disability (ID) to participate in sentence writing practice when they may be early on in their ability to print letters may cause frustration. Similarly, requiring a student with attention hyperactivity deficit disorder (ADHD) to participate in carpet time and sit quietly to listen to a story may be difficult for them and disruptive for other students. For some students, inclusion might look like attending certain classes and spending time engaging in one-on-one support with a teacher or school-based professional in another space for the rest of the school day. For others it may include attendance to all classes with frequent breaks or access to fidget toys (Murphy, 2022). Inclusion should aim to include learners utilizing ways that works for them, making accommodations and adjustments to instruction, curricular content, and the physical space to promote comfort, meaningful access to learning, and enjoyment in attending school (Mirfin-Veitch et al., 2020). The term inclusion, as it is used in this work, refers to a wide range of practices and strategies which strive to find ways for neurodivergent learners to benefit from being and learning in general education classrooms depending on their particular needs, interests, and abilities (Krischler et al., 2019). A dissertation study from Detzer (2016) which followed a Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology explored educators’ self-proclaimed needs in supporting students with 17 autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in general education classrooms through survey and focus group methods. In the study, 25 educators were administered a survey exploring self-perceived skills in teaching autistic students and support from administration. Respondents were then invited to participate in a 2-hour training session on the topic. Nine educators chose to participate in the training session and subsequently participated in a focus group to discuss the training’s efficacy. Teacher provided feedback on existing resources to support their teaching to neurodivergent students such as those with ASD, and shared feelings of preparedness in supporting neurodivergent students. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized in data analysis. Pre- and post-test measures were collected to determine if the training provided was helpful. Participants reported the benefits of training specifically areas tailored to working with neurodivergent students, such as better understanding emotional, behavioral, and cognitive aspects of ASD, preparedness to address behaviors, ways to teach academics, and understanding of the social model of disability (Detzer, 2016). The participants further reported a need for curricular adjustments to align with autistic cognition, –differences in thinking and learning due to neurodivergence-, in order to best support students’ learning. The study highlighted the benefits of specialized training for teachers in addressing and supporting neurodivergence in the classroom, and the importance of making appropriate accommodations for students for their specific learning needs. Similarly, in their study exploring teachers in training’ attitudes toward inclusion of diverse learners, Killoran and colleagues (2013) find that soon-to-be educators held significantly more positive attitudes towards inclusion once having completed an inclusive education course. Teachers expressed feeling more prepared and confident in their ability to include students, reported fewer stigmatizing attitudes towards students’ behaviors that did not align with the 18 environmental expectations of the classroom as well as expressed stronger beliefs that inclusion does not pose disadvantage for either diverse learners nor their neurotypical counterparts. Pre and post-test measures were applied for teachers-in-training to demonstrate that both training received, and educator attitudes play critical roles in setting the stage for the kind of classroom diverse learners will be entering, and ultimately how welcomed students may feel. 2.5 Neurodiversity Affirming Teaching Practices In order to facilitate a neurodiversity-affirming classroom environment, teachers may tailor their instructional approach, develop and encourage individualized learning goals (Juvonen et al., 2019), facilitate social integration and inclusion (Hamre & Pianta 2003), as well as establish the ways in which neurodiversity and subsequent learning differences are understood and talked about in the classroom. Rentenbach et al. (2017) among others argue that in addition to their instructional practices, neurodiversity-affirming educators successfully create an environment where students with additional learning needs can develop their existing strengths and aren’t excluded from learning new skills due to initial differences in behavior or skills (Wang, 2019). In a quasi-experimental design study with two classrooms of Grade 1 and 2 students (N=24), Naples and Tuckwiller (2021) explored the benefit of strengths-based approach through a strengths safari; a psychoeducational program designed to teach neurodivergent students about their own skills and promote their growth. Both individual factors and classroom factors (i.e., gratitude and optimism) were built into short activities in the classroom several times a week for four weeks as part of a larger study. Educators were also given strategies for fostering students’ individual strengths, encouraging help-seeking, and promoting participation. Measures of executive functioning and psychological functioning at school were taken both pre- and post-19 intervention from educators and the students themselves. The researchers found that executive functioning has improved for students in the intervention group, suggesting that directed supports, psychoeducation for students about their own skills, and options for positive participation in a classroom were of benefit. In addition to having appropriate classroom supports available, the social interactions and culture of a classroom are important for inclusion efforts. Both student-student and teacher-student relationships can perpetuate anti-affirming attitudes in the classroom (Juvonen et al., 2019; Frostad & Pijl, 2007), and thus an appropriate intervention would address the inclusiveness of both instruction and culture; with attention to the ways in which both implicit and explicit communication and teaching from educators informs students’ attitudes about neurodiversity and learning differences. The rejection of functional labels (i.e., high or low functioning), scaffolded, collaborative group work, and setting classroom rules and goals are some examples of how neurodiversity-affirming classrooms can be structured (Boswell, 2020; Juvonen et al., 2019). While some studies do address educators’ beliefs about inclusion, almost none focus on their beliefs and attitudes about neurodiversity broadly, nor their roles as educators to facilitate a neurodiversity-affirming classroom space (Kiely et al., 2015; Killoran et al., 2013). 2.6 Summary In sum, the neurodiversity movement is beginning to have an important effect on the classroom and introduces important nuances as to the different ways students learn. Primary school classrooms are the first formal learning environment for many students, making it all the more important to foster an inclusive and neurodiversity-affirming space wherein differences are celebrated and not minimized nor excluded. The state of neurodiversity-affirming educator 20 training in Canada is unclear, and existing work suggests many educators feel underprepared and ambivalent about their skills for managing general education classrooms with diverse learners as their students. Due to limited resources (e.g., time, financial, knowledge-based) to create neurodiversity-affirming classrooms, a greater understanding of what teachers do in the classroom to circumvent barriers is needed. Further, a more nuanced understanding must be developed of how educators understand their role in relation to neurodivergences in their classrooms beyond providing adjustments to instruction and encompassing the language used to describe learning differences, adjustments to physical classroom spaces, and fostering of community between peers. 21 Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1 Overview In this study, an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis approach was used to explore Kindergarten to Grade 3 educators’ training and teaching experiences related to working with students with learning differences. How educators perceive their own experiences and efforts to create neurodiversity-affirming learning spaces was also be explored. Survey methods were used to screen and recruit participants as well as collect contextual information about individuals’ training experiences and teaching practices. Individuals who met the inclusion criteria outlined in the screening survey were invited to participate in a virtual in-depth interview. Educators’ experiences were queried and then interpreted by the researcher to explore how inclusion is taught and promoted at the primary level. In this chapter the epistemology, purpose, research questions, methodology, and procedures (data collection and analysis) for the study are outlined. 3.2 Epistemology In the western context in which this research was undertaken, neurodiversity is a social construct used to describe a vast continuum of differences which have shared meaning for individuals and groups. The term is culturally and historically specific, and part of a continually evolving understanding of individual differences in thinking and experiencing the world (Kapp, 2020). The use of terms like neurodiversity, neurodivergent, and neurodiversity-affirming, are processes of meaning-making which have both arisen from and given voice to the lived experiences of individuals and groups. In turn, these terms influence how neurodivergent individuals’ identities are understood within a socio-political context, systems, and institutions such as education. Given the social and cultural undercurrents of neurodiversity studies and our current understandings of neurodivergence and disability as defined by culture and environment, 22 social constructionism forms the basis of this work. Social constructionism posits that meanings within society are created rather than inherent, and thus can change over time as collective attitudes shift (Andrews, 2012). Similarly, how educators understand neurodivergence, their role in creating inclusive classrooms, and their own subsequent teaching practices are examples of meaning making and co-constructed within teaching and training spaces. As such, specific, self-reflected, and self-perceived meanings are generated by educators in interviews in order to explain their social realities and lived experiences. No one definition of neurodiversity-affirming teaching may be possible to identify within the scope of this study or at all, especially given the diversity which comprises the neurodiversity spectrum. 3.3 Purpose and Research Questions The purpose of this study was to understand how teachers perceive their training to have helped them support neurodivergent learners in their classrooms, as well their perspectives on their own lived experiences of trying to promote inclusion through teaching. Through interview methods, a rich understanding of educators’ lived experiences was generated to understand their perspectives on neurodiversity and inclusion. The research was guided by the following research questions: 1) What training did educators receive to prepare them to support diverse learners in the classroom? 2) What do educators perceive neurodiversity-affirming teaching to look like? 3) How do educators understand their role in promoting inclusive classroom spaces? 3.4 Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis 23 An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach guided this work with the goal of exploring educators’ experiences in promoting inclusion for diverse learners in classrooms. IPA is well suited for exploring the meanings individuals construct as a product of their particular context, generating a rich, experiential account of lived experience as told by the individual themselves. Its’ phenomenological roots suggest that a rigorous exploration of individual experiences (in IPA, by the individuals themselves) can reveal important core qualities of these experiences which span across individuals. How educators understand neurodiversity and their role in promoting it was of interest, as well as the language educators used to describe it. While IPA does not intend to generalize beyond the participants involved, the newness of neurodiversity-considerations in classrooms makes this work important and perhaps relevant to other areas of service and support provision, broadly. In IPA there is an effort to understand a phenomenon in its own terms, allowing participants’ voices to generate meanings and explanations as opposed to imposing preconceived theory or assumptions onto their lived experiences. Given the relative newness of the idea of neurodiversity-affirming teaching in education, and the neurodiversity movement itself, imposing pre-conceived standards, ideas, or judgments onto how educators should approach affirming teaching may be inappropriate. Highlighting educators’ own language-use and interpretation of their skill set and strategies to support diverse learners may give rise to new understanding of affirming teaching and what neurodivergence looks like and means in a primary classroom context (Smith et al., 2022). Fine-grained data analysis procedures are used in IPA to interpret participants’ lived experiences as embedded in their context. This framework aligns well with the study of meaning making processes which occur in the classroom; a space which is inherently bound by physical, 24 social, and temporal qualities such as school and classroom characteristics, the students within it, supports available, and educator attitudes and perspectives on neurodiversity. Each educator’s experiences were unique. Given the complexity of general education classrooms and the importance of educator factors in making a classroom work for diverse learners, a qualitative and highly detailed methodology is needed to capture the topic for this work. In order to provide this context while also focusing on the unique characteristics of each participating educator, this study utilized a short online survey to query educator characteristics such as demographic information, their training experiences related to neurodiversity, and background in education. This component of the study provided a broad understanding of educators’ orientation to teaching and neurodiversity. Specifically, and as per an IPA approach, addressed how educators make meaning of their training experiences, perceived preparedness to engage in neurodiversity-affirming teaching practices, as well as day-to-day teaching strategies that promote inclusion. 3.5 Procedures 3.5.1 Ethics Approval. Ethics approval for the current study was obtained through the Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB) at the University of British Columbia. BREB Contact information for the researcher and Principal Investigator was provided to all participants as part of the consent process. 3.5.2 Recruitment and Screening. Participants were recruited using a digital flyer through email listservs specifically targeting educators or other school-based professionals, and through social media, including community Facebook groups and forums for British Columbia educators and Instagram. An identical version of the flyer was physically posted on public noticeboards in school 25 neighborhoods. Snowball sampling (i.e., word of mouth) was also utilized, whereby educators who were administrators of Facebook groups or forums for BC educators were encouraged to share the flyer with their community. The researcher also recruited through their own contacts (e.g., circulating the flyer within their university department, requesting colleagues to share the flyer with their communities, reaching out to educators in her own community, etc.). On both the digital and physical flyer, participants scanned a Quick Response (QR) code to access the Screening Survey, which would initiate the recruitment process. From here, participants who met inclusion criteria were contacted by the researcher through email to complete the Background Survey and schedule their in-depth interview. The flyer included a section informing potential participants that while their participation could remain anonymous (e.g., through the use of a pseudonym, keeping their camera off, not sharing identifying details of their workplace) engagement with recruitment materials (e.g., liking, sharing, or commenting on posts) they would be publicly associated with the post and thus with the study. Further, sharing information (e.g., sharing a personal email address or sharing information about the school at which they worked) may also compromise their anonymity. Potential participants were invited to complete a Screening Survey (Appendix A) to assess if they met criteria for inclusion. The survey was administered through Qualtrics and served to assess respondents’ eligibility for the study. Two questions were used to identify possible bots (i.e., “what color is the sky?” or “what is 2 + 2?”). Participants were then directed to the Screening Survey questions. The survey included embedded validity measures provided by Qualtrics, such as ensuring that the response time to questions matched with the expected time for a human respondent to read and comprehend a question, flagging repeated attempts to 26 complete the survey from the same IP address, as well as ensuring that the location of the respondent aligned with geographical criteria for inclusion. Respondents whose response styles or meta-data indicated a non-human respondent (e.g., a “bot”) were directed to the end of the survey. If respondents provided responses which indicated that participation would not be appropriate (e.g., teaching for longer than 10 years, or not teaching in the Vancouver Lower Mainland), they were directed to the end of the survey and notified that they could not be invited to join the study at this time because they did not meet the study criteria. The survey concluded by asking respondents to provide an email address at which the researcher could contact them in order to invite them to participate in the interview. If participants met inclusion criteria, they were sent the link to a Background Information Survey (Appendix B). The survey was used to establish a rich context to describe the training and teaching experiences of the educators in the study. The researcher sent the survey link privately, via email, to minimize the circulation of the link to non-eligible participants. Questions on the Background Survey asked about educators’ years of teaching experience and the prevalence of neurodiversity-affirming or inclusive practices in their mandatory teacher training. Educators were also asked if they believed their training was sufficient and if they had sought out additional training surrounding supporting neurodivergent learners on their own time and/or at their own expense. The survey intended to construct broad understanding of the state of educators’ training in the present day as it relates to diverse learners for this sample, as well as establish a personal context for educators participating in the in-depth interview. The last page of the Background Survey prompted educators to share their preferred contact information and availability for an interview. 27 At the end of the survey, participants were asked to indicate their availability for the virtual interview. The consent letter was sent electronically to participants together with confirmation of their interview, scheduled for their preferred date and time. A one-page description of the study was provided as part of the consent letter, followed by a signature page. The signature page also noted that each person who participated in the interview portion of the study would receive a thirty dollar gift card to a store of their choosing (e.g., Starbucks, Dollarama, etc.) as a thank-you for their time and participation. In addition to the written consent obtained before the interview via the consent letter, verbal consent was obtained again upon beginning the interview and documented in each transcript. Before beginning the interview, the researcher reviewed the consent letter with each participant, gave them the opportunity to ask questions, and informed all participants of their right to withdraw from the study at any time up to the completion of the final analysis. Participants were also informed that withdrawing from the study would not impact their ability to receive the thirty dollar gift card in order to ensure that they would feel free to withdraw without penalty if they felt uncomfortable or no longer wanted to participate for any other reason. The researcher informed participants of the interview being recorded and transcribed for coding purposes. The stages of the research study were outlined, as well as how participants’ data would be used was also reviewed. 3.5.4 In-Depth Interviews and Transcription As the final component for study participation, in-depth interviews were scheduled. Interviews were between 40 and 90 minutes and took place through the UBC Zoom platform. Participants could select if they preferred both video and audio or just audio interviews (e.g., leaving their cameras off). They could also provide a pseudonym if they wished to further protect their identity. 28 Semi-structured interview questions (Appendix C) explored educators’ lived experiences teaching neurodiverse classrooms and fostering inclusive learning spaces for their neurodivergent students. In particular, educators were asked to reflect on their own experiences during their formal training as well as their current perception surrounding their role in promoting inclusion. Educators’ day-to-day inclusion-related teaching practices were also explored together with the researcher. As these meanings and the lived experiences which underscore them are highly personal, follow-up questions based on participants’ responses were at times introduced in order to be better understand individuals’ perspectives. As such, all participants used the same interview schedule, with the freedom to ask additional clarifying questions where needed. All recordings were password protected and stored on the University of British Columbia OneDrive. Automatic captioning was used for each interview recording and then cleaned using a desktop program with a Canadian server (e.g., Microsoft Word). The researcher reviewed each transcript, referring to the audio recording, in order to fix any errors in the transcript. All identifying information was removed from the document, such as the participant’s name or identifying information about their current place of work (e.g., location, school name, etc.). The transcripts were then password protected and stored on the secure University of British Columbia OneDrive. A key allowing the researcher to identify which transcript belonged to each participant was stored in a separate, password protected document on a local folder on UBC OneDrive. 3.6 Participants 3.6.1 Overview. 29 Participants for the study were primary school educators in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, British Columbia (i.e., Greater Vancouver area, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore, and Belcarra). Given known cohort effects for teacher training models (Kemmis et al., 2013) and changing understandings of neurodiversity within education (Mirfin-Veitch et al., 2020), educators with under 10 years of teaching experience were recruited for the study to promote some homogeneity in the training and teaching context they were likely to have received. Participants were educators currently teaching at Kindergarten to Grade 3 levels to further ensure some degree of sample homogeneity recommended for IPA studies (Smith et al., 2022), and to establish common ground regarding the curricular and teaching demands as well as developmental stage of students the participants are teaching. Focusing specifically on early primary ages was of interest, given learning differences are frequently apparent at this time, but supports may not yet be in place, introducing unique challenges for educators when navigating how to best foster inclusive classrooms for students with learning differences. Eight Kindergarten to Grade 3 educators who had under 10 years’ teaching experience and were employed in the Vancouver Lower Mainland participated in the study. Seven participants identified as cisgender women, and one identified as a cisgender man. All participants had proficiency in English allowing them to engage in the conversation without the use of an interpreter and could share about their experiences. Seven participants taught in a public-school setting and one participant taught at a private school. Six had received their Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), and two had completed a master’s degree in addition to their B.Ed. Two identified as neurodivergent and six did not. Of the educators interviewed, two identified as a member of a marginalized community. In terms of their training, two reported that their training relating to inclusive teaching was sufficient to allow them to promote inclusion in 30 their classrooms, while six indicated that their training had been adequate. Only one participant reported they had not received any training related to inclusion through their current teaching position. However, seven reported they sought out additional training; either on their own time, through their own funds, or both, to learn about inclusion of neurodivergent learners. Table 1 provides a description of the participants. 31 Table 1. Participant Descriptions Name 1 Grade Taught School Setting Education Received Years Teaching Experience Member of Marginalized Community Identifies as Neuro-divergent Inclusion Training Sufficient (overall) Inclusion Training Received (current position) Additional inclusion training Alex K Private BEd 4-5 N N Y Y Y Beth 3/4 Public BEd 2-3 N N N Y Y Catherina 1/2 Public MA 2-3 N N N Y Y Dan 3 Public BEd 1-2 N N Y Y Y Elli 1 Public BEd 1 Y N N Y Y Farah K Public BEd 1 N N N Y Y Gigi K Public BEd 7-8 Y Y N Y Y 1 Pseudonyms were chosen by the researcher to protect participants’ identities 32 3.6.2 Detailed Participant Descriptions 3.6.3 Alex. Alex has been teaching Kindergarten at a private school for one year. She completed her Bachelor of Education 3-4 years ago in Ireland. Upon completing her degree, she immediately entered the teaching profession as a substitute teacher. It was her first-year teaching in Canada at the time of the study. Alex did not identify as a member of a marginalized community nor as neurodivergent. She indicated that the training she had received to support neurodivergent learners was sufficient in preparing her for teaching. This included taking mandatory specialized courses in special education during her teaching degree, learning about neurodiversity as part of the general curriculum in her degree, and doing her own personal research about learning differences. 3.6.4 Beth. Right after completing her BEd, Beth was assigned to teach a split grade -3 & 4- and has been doing so for 3 years. Beth did not identify as a member of a marginalized community nor neurodivergent. and believes that her training to support neurodivergent learners was not sufficient. Mandatory specialized courses about inclusive education were offered during her teaching degree as well as some information about working with neurodivergent learners through general courses. Beth also reported that she benefitted from school wide trainings and advice from other educators. 3.6.5 Catherine. Catherine teaches a split grade (Grades 1 and 2) in a public school and has been doing so for 5-6 years. She earned her master’s degree 7-8 years ago in literacy education, in addition to her teacher training. In her master’s degree in literacy education, Catherine learned about 33 working with students who have learning disabilities and adapting materials for different kinds of learners. Catherine did not identify as a member of a marginalized community nor neurodivergent. Similarly to other educators, she shared that she did not believe her training to support neurodivergent learners was sufficient when she was studying to become a teacher. Her master’s degree offered her additional insights into teaching practices for inclusion, which she reported to be grateful for and relies on often in her teaching. To bolster her training further, Catherine also pursued professional development opportunities through her school as well as on her own time, such as workshops. She also learned about supporting diverse learners from general courses as part of her teaching degree, her own research, and advice from other educators, which she found to be particularly helpful. 3.6.6 Dan. Dan is a Grade 3 teacher of just over 1 year and who received his bachelor’s degree in education 3-4 years ago. He did not identify as part of a marginalized community or as neurodivergent. On the Background Survey, Dan indicated that he believed his training to support neurodivergent learners helped to prepare him to teach in a classroom, and that he was overall satisfied with the offerings of his training program. He also spoke to the invaluable support he received from other educators and the helpful collaborative problem-solving strategies his school staff adopted to address specific students’ needs across subjects. Dan also reported benefiting from school-wide trainings to further his understanding of neurodivergent learners once starting his first teaching position, as well as mandatory specialized and general courses which contained information about the topic while he was in his training to become a teacher. 3.6.7 Elli. 34 Elli is a Grade 1 public school teacher with one year’ experience working with students in this grade. Though she originally studied to be in the sciences, she discovered her love of teaching and decided to undertake training to make it her career. She earned her bachelor’s degree in education one year ago and immediately began teaching. Elli also did not perceive her training to work with neurodivergent learners was sufficient for doing inclusive teaching in the classroom. To support her own professional development in this area, Elli shared that she found information shared about working with diverse learners shared during general courses in her teaching degree, professional development opportunities and research in her own time, school-wide trainings, advice from other educators, and taking courses about inclusion on weekday nights helpful Elli identified as a member of a marginalized community. She did not identify as neurodivergent. 3.6.8 Farah. Farah earned her bachelor’s degree in education about one year ago and has been teaching in a Kindergarten classroom at a public school since then. Farah did not identify as a member of a marginalized community or as neurodivergent. Farah indicated that her training to support neurodivergent learners was not sufficient and perceived it left her unprepared upon starting to teach. Farah received advice from other educators about how to foster inclusion but has not pursued other opportunities to receive further training in this area in order to support her teaching in the absence of training. 3.6.9 Gigi. Gigi was one of the more experienced educators in the sample, having received her training just under 10 years ago and with 7-8 years of experience teaching Kindergarten. She taught older grades before this for 2-3 years. Reflecting back on the beginning of her career as a 35 teacher, Gigi did not feel as though the training she received was sufficient for promoting inclusion and working with neurodivergent students and expressed frustration about this. To remedy her self-identified skill gap, Gigi reported that she sought out professional development opportunities and training both through her school and on her own time. She also engaged in personal research and relied on advice from other educators to help find strategies to support diverse learners., Belonging to a marginalized community, and Gigi also identified as neurodivergent. 3.7 Data Analysis The Background Survey results were summarized using basic descriptive analysis using NVivo coding software for open-ended questions. For multiple choice survey questions participants’ responses were summarized and the descriptive statistics were used to inform interview questions and provide context to later IPA analysis of the conversations. Data analysis in IPA is highly detail oriented and draws upon the language used by participants to understand their own lived experiences of a phenomenon, which is then further interpreted by the researcher. The 6-steps of data analysis in IPA outlined by seminal researchers Smith et al. (2022) were followed in the present work, and all data analysis was completed in the qualitative coding software NVivo, which allows for the identification of themes and subthemes both within and across transcript files for different stages of the analysis. The 6 steps of data analysis utilized for the study are: 1) Immersion (Reading and Re-reading), 2) Exploratory Noting, 3) Constructing Personal Experiential Statements, 4) Constructing Personal Experiential Themes and Subthemes, 5) Clustering of Personal Experiential Themes and Statements across Participants, and 6) Constructing Group Experiential Themes and Subthemes 3.7.2.1 Immersion in the Data (Reading and Re-reading) 36 The researcher began data analysis by immersing themselves in the data by reading and rereading the transcripts. Exploring data at the micro-level, such as words, phrases, and ideas occurring within one interview is the first step of analysis. Initial impressions, thoughts, questions, and ideas were noted by the researcher at this stage. This close reading allowed the researcher to begin to develop a rich understanding of the participants’ self-perceptions of their own experiences and begin to lay foundations for later interpretation (Smith et al., 2022). 3.7.2.2 Exploratory Noting Next, the researcher completed the exploratory noting stage of IPA analysis, whereby patterns of speech, meanings created, and specific ideas discussed were documented and written about to begin the process of interpreting what matters to the participant and why. This was also completed using NVivo software. Connections between participants ideas and experiences, the language used to describe inclusion and learning differences, as well as repeated phrases or themes are examples of the content of this noting stage. 3.7.2.3 Constructing Personal Experiential Statements The third stage of the analysis included constructing Personal Experiential Statements (PESs); which drew upon different areas of the interview to interpret a participant’s experience of the phenomenon of interest (i.e., teaching diverse learners) more holistically and directly from the interview. Here, the researcher gleaned what was important to educators in their individual context based on the interview itself (i.e., direct quotes or paraphrase) and the researcher’s interpretation of the data. 3.7.2.4 Constructing Personal Experiential Themes and Subthemes 37 Next, Personal Experiential Themes were created (PETs), wherein the previously created PESs were organized based on common themes and ideas to form organic groupings. Groupings were created and labeled using a theme name. 3.7.2.5 Clustering of Experiential Themes and Subthemes In the fourth stage of analysis, the PES’s constructed in the previous stage were woven together, across participants, to develop an interpretation of participants’ experiences according to possible themes inter-individual patterns. Personal Experiential Statements (PESs) were grouped according to similarity across participants to begin identifying common ideas within the sample which would later become a group-level theme. Direct reference was made to the parts of the transcript previously used to create the individual-level themes (PETs) to ensure that all analysis was rooted in the participants’ words and experiences. 3.7.2.6 Constructing Group Experiential Themes and Subthemes Group Experiential Themes were developed across participants based on possible patterns of convergence which existed in individuals’ interpretations and ideas. Below these, subthemes were created based on more nuanced differences in how educators spoke about or conceived of their experiences. Despite the diversity of educators’ possible training and teaching experiences, common themes around strategies for supporting diverse learners, and common struggles emerged (Smith et al., 2022). As per IPA procedures, themes were noted if the data itself spoke to them, and participants’ experiences were centered throughout. From these efforts, a rich, qualitative account describing educators’ experiences and meaning-making of neurodiversity-affirming teaching was created. 3.8 Ensuring Study Rigor 38 Ensuring rigor is an important feature of qualitative research to ensure the credibility of the results (Tracy, 2010). Efforts were made to create rich descriptions of participants’ experiences and ideas which were accurate and in-depth representations of the study sample. A variety of approaches were used to help ensure the rigor of this study, including: 1) close analytic reading of participants’ words, (following the steps of IPA data analysis outlined by Smith et al., 2022, attending to divergence and convergence, and constructing a compelling, unfolding narrative; see Nizza et al., 2021), 2) bracketing, 3) utilizing a researcher journal, 4) peer debriefing, 5) data checks by the principal investigator, and 6) an independent audit. Together, these strategies provided opportunities for the researcher to reflect on the progress and interpretation of participant data. 3.8.2 Close Analytical Reading Multiple rounds of close readings of participant transcripts served to inspire the researcher to consider the content of what is said and initial themes and reflections about participants reports of their own experiences. Further close reading of transcripts to identify themes within and across participants was conducted. Close readings of the transcripts and iterative noting were completed multiple times until the researcher believed they could identify any more initial thoughts or observations. 3.8.3 Bracketing Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis endorses a critical stance of the researcher towards their own inquiry process and interpretation. This required the researcher to identify preexisting meanings and experiences related to the phenomenon of interest, and then bracketing them; placing them to the side to allow participants’ unique meanings to become visible (Creswell, 2013; Smith, 1996). This feature of IPA was particularly important for this work, as 39 the researcher is in frequent connection with the research population and inevitably possesses their own experiences and beliefs which are brought into the data analysis process. Bracketing was ensured primarily through the researcher journal, whereby the researcher continuously reflected on their experiences interviewing participants, areas of similarity and differences, and possible areas where bracketing would be important in later data analysis stages. Lastly, participants were offered the option to review the final themes identified by the researcher once compiled to allow the opportunity to correct possible misunderstandings and clarify meanings if misinterpreted. The researcher considered participants’ additional contributions and clarifications in the data analysis process, both as added data in their own right, and as an added level of participant self-interpretation and understanding of their own lived experiences. The six stages of IPA data analysis were applied to any written contributions from participants provided upon reviewing the themes. 3.8.4 Researcher Journal In addition to its significance for the researcher’s process of bracketing described above, the use of a researcher journal played a critical role in the interpretation of the data on a conceptual level, as well as a way for the researcher to interrogate their own reactions, interpretations, and ideas which emerge from interactions with the data and participants. For example, if particular participants had more shared experiences with the researcher, this was noted and the researcher journaled about potential impacts of this reaction on their analysis before beginning their analysis of the participant’s data. This aided the development of themes within and between participants which were rooted directly in the data and, while inevitably somewhat impacted the researcher’s interpretation (as per IPA; Smith et al., 2022) would hold close to what was said in the interviews. The researcher documented first impressions from the 40 interviews and explored these ideas in-depth at every stage of analysis. The researcher journal served to document questions for discussion in the peer debrief, in meetings with the principal investigator, as well as reflect broadly on the research process throughout their first larger qualitative research endeavor. It also served as a planning tool and a platform for interpretation and amalgamation of participant data and themes to take place. 3.8.5 Peer Debrief Given the invaluable support and learning which the researcher has been privileged to benefit from and contribute to during their master’s degree thus far, the researcher engaged in discourse with their peers regarding the progress of this study and the impressions they gathered from interviews. These debriefs occurred both formally (e.g., during lab meetings) and informally (during co-writing sessions) with other master’s and Ph.D.-level qualitative researchers to receive alternative perspectives and guidance for procedural choices made in the data collection and analysis process. Themes identified by the researcher were discussed with colleagues, as well as decisions about sampling and data saturation (i.e., if more participants are needed, and if the makeup of the sample was appropriate). 3.8.6 Data checks by research supervisor In addition to peer debriefs, the researcher met with the research supervisor on multiple occasions to seek consultation about recruitment, IPA data analysis, and to receive feedback about identified themes. 3.8.7 Independent audit Ongoing reflection on the part of the researcher is critical in IPA, whereby the choices, interpretations, and questions which emerge throughout the research process are made explicit and transparent for consumers of the research and those involved (Smith et al., 2022). Smith and 41 colleagues call this an “independent audit” (p. 153) which traces the research process from start to finish. A community member (i.e., peer) with familiarity with IPA completed this audit as part of the project. This strategy was intended to review choices made about sampling, discuss and confirm the appropriateness of decisions made related to sampling, and ensure representations (i.e., quotations and themes) of participant data in the write-up of research results are locatable in transcripts and linked the themes which the researcher identified. Anticipating the independent audit also promoted accountability on the part of the researcher to ensure their procedural decisions were defensible and accurately documented throughout. 3.8.8 Member Reflections Following checks by the Principal Investigator as well as peer debrief, and independent audit, participants were sent a brief summary of the themes from their interviews and were given an opportunity to provide feedback. This provided additional assurance that the researcher had understood and represented their experiences accurately and allowed for additional input and clarification to be given. Of the seven participants interviewed, none contributed additional information or felt the need for corrections to be made to the researcher’s interpretation of the data. 3.9 Summary An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis approach was used to explore how elementary school educators understand their training in and use of neurodiversity-affirming teaching practices in order to support students with diverse learning needs. This chapter summarized the recruitment and data collection procedures used towards this goal, as well as the researcher’s efforts to establish and maintain rigor. 42 Chapter 4: Results 4.1 Overview In this chapter the research findings of the current study are presented using the relationship of themes emerging throughout participant interviews. Five general themes emerged in relation to the three research questions posed in the study (Table 2). Within these themes, which explore educators’ experiences of inclusion-related trainings, understandings of neurodiversity, and strategies for inclusive teaching, 16 subthemes emerged. Each general theme was an important and frequently discussed facet of educators’ experiences during their training and teaching related to working with neurodivergent learners. Subthemes provided further context to the nuanced, complex, and often ambivalent nature of participant’s perspectives on their experiences, as well as their attempts to make sense of them. Together, these themes addressed the following research questions: 1) What training did educators receive to prepare them to support diverse learners in the classroom? 2) What do educators perceive neurodiversity-affirming teaching to look like? And 3) How do educators understand their role in promoting inclusive classroom spaces? 43 Table 2 Themes and subthemes identified through data analysis Theme/Subtheme Research Question Theme 1: My Training Did Not Prepare Me 1 Subtheme 1: Theoretical and Unrealistic Subtheme 2: In Some Ways You Can Never Be Ready Subtheme 3: Doing My Best Theme 2; Inclusion Through Community 2, 3 Subtheme 1: Building Inclusive Classroom Culture Subtheme 2: Importance of Connection Subtheme 3: Leaning on My Community Theme 3: Inclusion is Subtle and Gradual 2 Subtheme 1: Undercover Inclusion Work Subtheme 2: Strategic Access to Supports Subtheme 3: Flexibility in Approach and Expectations Subtheme 4: Inclusion Takes Time Theme 4: Language Use 2, 3 Subtheme 1: Developing Neurodiversity Vocabulary Subtheme 2: Talking with Parents Subtheme 3: Fostering Inclusion Conversations Theme 5: Wanting To Do More 3 Subtheme 1: Recognizing What’s in My Control Subtheme 2: Resources Subtheme 3: Emotional Limits 4.2 Theme 1: My Training Did Not Prepare Me Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences during and after their formal teacher training, and the level of preparedness they felt upon entering the field. Many reflected on shortcomings of their formal training in preparing them for real-world classrooms as well as shortcomings of their current schools to provide further education and support on the topic of neurodiversity. Educators’ emotional experiences in teaching are explored in a related yet distinct theme entitled Emotional Limits, below (section 4.6.3). The following subthemes emerged under this theme: 1) Theoretical and Unrealistic, 2) Some Ways You Can Never be Ready, and 3) Doing my Best. 44 4.2.1 Subtheme 1: Theoretical and Unrealistic. While all educators reported that they had received some form of training during their teaching degree, a common thread in their experiences was that it focused on theory rather than practical applications of skills. Further, educators reported that their training relied on the use and implementation of supports and resources which their actual classrooms lacked; painting an ideal image of a classroom that did not match the reality of most schools. For many, their first experience in a school was surprising and disappointing. Gigi said “I would love to see more. Sort of, I don't know more training on, on the reality of the classroom as opposed to the philosophy of the classroom”, further stating “A lot of it is very much philosophy, theory. Some practical, but a lot of it's also predicated on having an ideal learning environment and ideal funding models, which you probably aren't actually getting”. In reality, educators found classrooms to be more complex and under-resourced than their training had led them to believe. In an example given by Farah from a conversation with her students where she was helping them reflect on their out-of-seat behavior, she recalls saying: “OK, so students, how, how do you think you did this morning?” And they'll say like, “Oh, I didn't do very well”, like, and so they're cognitive of it, but it's if you do that follow up right? Because if it's not there, [the skill is] just lost. But again, you know, it's raining outside and now you have to get 19 kids all dressed. Ohh, and now student A, he's already out the door and you forgot to do the chart. And you're like, yeah, and it's, yeah. Again, like kind of doing the best you can given all the things. In their training, working with students who have neurodivergences was a topic which was often broadly talked about but lacked omitted practical strategies educators could apply: 45 We learned a lot about how to teach certain subjects and then we learned a lot about social, emotional learning and of course, differentiation like how to, like, support different learners, but not really like specifically like how to help someone who has ADHD or like, how to help someone who has, a student with autism. (Beth) Gigi shared a similar statement, saying that in addition to learning about specific strategies to support diverse learners, having training about how to balance the needs of multiple learners in the classroom at once would have been very useful: I think it would be nice if there was more, sort of, I don’t know, a bit more comprehensive training in what to actually expect and how, how to address it? Because I think there's a lot of theory and sometimes it's you might learn about obviously, neural development, certain designations like autism or FASD or, you know, executive dysfunction type things, ADHD. But actually, when you're in the classroom and you've got multiples of this happening. Educators further shared that their training did not prepare them for the complexities of working within school systems, such as referral processes, understanding Individual Education Plans (IEPs), or how to collaborate with other school-based professionals like Learning Support Teachers (LST). Elli reported that she felt like she had to “get a lot of help from the LST people” and “had to work with them a lot to sort of get an understanding of where the student was at, and to help me with understanding their IEPs because for me not having any of that background I had to do a lot of legwork on that” (Elli). Farah indicated that while her training program did give her some neurodiversity training, it was more like an afterthought than a topic which would later be critical to her everyday teaching practice: 46 I'm sure a lot of teachers say this, you don't get prepared at all for it. I, I remember going through the program and all of my colleagues were so angry that like we ... Why are we learning about this now when we're so burnt we're not? Educators conceived of their teaching journey as an ongoing process which continued after their teaching degree had ended. Upon entering their schools, several reported that while they knew they needed more support, they were afraid or embarrassed to ask for it or shared that their school did not welcome these requests. For example, Catherine shared that when she entered her first teaching position: The principal was lovely, but I think she got my recommendations from my faculty associate who said that I was great and very successful, so there was also this piece of, I think, expecting I was, like, she was told that I know what I'm doing now so I’ve got to just keep that up. So, I think I just put a smile on my face and, and pushed through. And I really just survived. Reflecting on her experiences as a new teacher in a large and relatively less community-oriented school culture, Gigi indicated that it would be helpful to have: More training on, on the reality of the classroom as opposed to the philosophy of the classroom and, and, and more sort of, This is what's going, this is what you're going to be experiencing because I know that teachers have a huge attrition rate within the first few years. Masses of teachers leave the profession because I don't think we are really adequately prepped for what you're about to walk into and just how hard it is. (Gigi). For several, these perceived shortcomings in their own training led them to seek further information either within or outside of their program. Elli is currently completing a special education course from a Canadian university in her spare time to bolster her skillset. Others read 47 about neurodiversity in their spare time, choose professional development opportunities through their schools or externally, or seek out mentorship from knowledgeable school-based professionals in their community. 4.2.2 Subtheme 2: In Some Ways You Can Never Be Ready. Several of the participants spoke to an interesting contradiction which they experienced as part of their teaching journey; feeling as though their training was not enough to prepare them, but also at the same time sensing that it is inherently impossible to be fully prepared for teaching, irrespective of your experiences and skills. The idea that no training program could fully prepare them for the realities of the classroom was woven throughout their interviews, such as when Alex shared that “It's where I learned the most, you know, just from experience,” and Dan, who stated that his ability to work well with diverse learners “Came from experiences along the way.” It's kind of a lot, uh, yeah stuffed into the two years. But yeah, it was good. And I suppose we had, we had a special-ed modules within that course. Then things like that. But I don't know from my own experience like I, I feel like getting into the classroom, you know, and get on through work experience and work placement with work. You kind of learned the most and just exactly, yeah. (Alex) Educators believed that they learnt the most when working directly with students; delineating between reading and writing about neurodiversity and actually carrying out the supports in the classroom. Further, participants often emphasized the importance of maintaining an openness to learning more even once in their teaching roles: I wish I like had more experience and I like learned more. I know I'm like in the beginning of my career and I'm going to learn like I learned so much every day, but I 48 wish that there were more, like, interventions. And I wish that I could, it’s, it’s always like sitting down and reading and writing, but really you learn when you're there. (Farah) Participants also pointed out that formal training, while helpful, cannot encapsulate the complexity of a classroom entirely, regardless of its’ comprehensiveness. Each classroom is comprised of a group of unique learners with learning differences, preferences, and needs which all interact, such as “All those students that have different needs and not just like neurodiversities, but like high incidence students too, right, that have, like, behavioral needs” (Elli). As such, teachers adapt and problem solve to support their students, considering multiple co-occurring needs within and between individual learners; “It's been a really big learning journey for me, but nothing, nothing compares to actually being in the classroom and actually getting to meet those students because everybody has a different way of learning” (Elli). Teachers spoke at length about their experiences during and after their training programs as a continuous journey of learning and adapting. 4.2.3 Subtheme 3: Doing My Best Given the perceived limitations of their training, a prominent theme in the interviews was the practice of “doing your best” to make things work in a non-optimal teaching environment. Educators reported trying to adopt an attitude of “Using your experience, I suppose, and just trying your best to cater for all of these learners” (Alex), through acceptance of their situation, and using a process of trial and error to find the right supports for a student until they found something that worked. Several teachers spoke about the pressure to “get it right” and do a good job, suggesting that they had adjusted over time to have become more realistic about what they could offer students, and just do their best. 49 But I think also for me personally, like I've come to a point where I have to kind of detach and not worry so much … a teacher can only do so much like I can't solve every single problem, so I just do my best to kind of teach things in a general sense and, like, create a culture of inclusion and like we work together like, you know, we're kind to each other and stuff like that. (Beth) Trial and error came up in all the interviews conducted as important to inclusion as an important process for identifying effective supports. In particular, educators spoke about getting to know the individual learner and their needs: And so you're just kind of like trying to get by trying to get by but like trying the strategies that you can and that you know and you do and it is a learning experience. You pick up a lot of different strategies that you might not have thought about before but at the same time, you're like, okay, well, this one didn't work with this one. So, what else can I do right? (Elli) This process of trial and error to figure out what works for a student was experienced as frustrating by some of the participants, but largely because they wished to find ways to effectively help their students. Farah stated that strategies might “last a week and then next week I have to find something new” (Farah). Similarly, Dan centers being patient as central to his role as a teacher and when trying new things with students: It will never be easy at your first trial. I’ve tried so many different strategies with different students. I think it, it, takes patience, a lot of patience for you to work with such a diverse body of students. You need to be able to see beyond the present frustration or difficulty. 50 For other educators, the ability to try new ideas and strategies out was experienced as empowering and exciting. Finding the right tool to support a student after a period of trial and error felt like a success, and helped educators continue to have an open mind to try new things. Farah described a scenario working with a student to find a way to help him express his ideas, wherein she tried various options: “It's not just writing, it's also OK, let's go use our hands and show me with, with like loose parts or if you can't write it, just tell me and I'll write it for you” (Farah). Similarly, Beth spoke about a recent success with a neurodivergent student in her classroom: So, I think that that was really like an aha moment for me of, you know, like thinking outside of the box of what you can do. You kind of, I don’t know how I would put it, but like not stick to the status quo, like try out different things, like a teacher that really influenced me during my training, she said that, like, in teaching, we just kind of throw things at the wall and see how it lands. And so that was for me, one of those things that, you know, I just gave him a puppet and I was like, go, go see how this works. Just entertain the kindergarteners. That really helped him regulate and kind of get back to work. 4.3 Theme 2: Inclusion Through Community All participants spoke to the importance of community when working with neurodivergent learners. Participants described the value of accessing for themselves as well as facilitating for others a welcoming and accepting culture of learning. The following three subthemes were identified: 1) Building Inclusive Classroom Culture, 2) Importance of Connection, and 3) Leaning on My Community. 4.3.1 Subtheme 1: Building Inclusive Classroom Culture 51 The importance of fostering an inclusive classroom culture, physically, emotionally, and academically, was a theme across participants. Ensuring students are comfortable, willing to come to class, and believe that “this is my classroom. I should be here … Nobody is left out.” (Dan). According to educators, this is achieved through community; whereby all learners share common understanding of inclusion and actively work to include others. In this way, the relational nature of ensuring that students (regardless of abilities) feel that they are a valued member of their classroom community was described. For example, Farah spoke about inclusion as a community practice which is enacted by all learners, saying “We're not just including the student, but we're also kind of doing work so that the rest of the classroom is doing their part.” Specifically, the importance of establishing emotional safety was talked about by several participants. Encouraging students to talk about their feelings, ask questions, and make mistakes was described as central to this effort; and was built into the school day: We start every single day with a sharing circle, so every child goes around, and we talk a lot about feeling words and they know the vocabulary so everyone and it's to share how they feel. So that's also a time where the whole class can not only practice good listening and connecting with their friends but practice that piece of like empathy and, and making those connections. (Catherine) In addition to fostering an emotionally safe and accepting classroom environment, several educators spoke to the value of making the physical classroom space and instruction more inclusive for students with learning differences. This might include providing adaptations to how information is presented, where “you're just thinking, OK, how am I displaying the information? So, is it it's? It's both words, but it's also pictorial. But then it's also verbal” (Farah), as well as 52 “Creating a classroom environment where all of your students feel like they can achieve something in your classroom like they're welcome in your classroom, that you see them for who they are and not for what they know” (Elli). 4.3.2 Subtheme 2: Importance of Connection In addition to promoting a neurodiversity-affirming classroom environment, most of the educators interviewed spoke about the importance of building relationships between student and teacher to facilitate belonging and engagement. One facet of this involves demonstrating to students that their ideas and interests are valued, as described by Beth: I think by doing that, but also connection, like really having those one-on-one conversations and showing interest even if I'm not interested. It’s like really a way for them to, to feel that affirmation, like, OK, it's OK that, you know, I'm obsessed with trains. I have one kid who's obsessed with trains And like, even though I don't really care, like I, I really try hard to make him feel seen and to feel cared for. So I notice that he's more able to be open about who he is and not so like closed off, so yeah. Catherine also saw her role in neurodiversity-affirming teaching to involve caring for the student to create emotional safety and belonging. She and others suggested that this practice supported both the learning and the emotional regulation of students with behavioral challenges, allowing for greater classroom engagement. Dan also explored this idea, suggesting that trying to build “friendships” with his students, and seeking to understand them in order to provide tailored supports: “At least let me know the background they're coming from, they're coming from. So, in a way I know OK, I can actually make this class welcoming or try to bring into the classroom their experiences outside of the classroom” (Dan). Elli, who works as a TOC (Teacher on Call), 53 talks about the difficulties associated with not having these relationships and specialized knowledge about her students: You haven't been with them all year long. And so like, I'm just kind of going by, OK, like, this is how they're acting right now, right? So some of the strategies I have for, like dealing with something, might be completely like off base because I don't have that information. In this way, the focus of inclusion and neurodiversity-affirming teaching in several of the interviews shifted away from supporting students academically and towards building foundations of trust and care first, through connection: You know, those cliche things, like, make a relationship. It really is huge, and it really does matter. So, if those, especially students who have extra challenges, they need to know that you care, and they need to know that you love them beyond just wanting to be their teacher. So, like, I've had really tough students in the last couple of years, but creating those relationships has made a huge difference and just know that it might not be perfect. (Alex) For Alex and others, this process of relationship building was vital for helping students feel included in their classrooms and safe with their teacher, providing foundation for further learning and social connection. 4.3.3 Subtheme 3: Leaning on My Community When speaking about their efforts to foster inclusion, educators spoke about the need for and benefit of collaborating, consulting, and seeking support from other educators at their respective schools. Having a community of experienced teachers to lean on was experienced as a facilitative factor in the inclusion of neurodivergent students. Educators, when faced with 54 adapting to their workplace and learning to understand the resources and systems available to them, spoke about their colleagues as providing invaluable expertise as well as emotional support, such as Catherine, who said “Just to kind of make me feel like I wasn't crazy because I really was like, if this is teaching, I don't know if I can do this for the next 30-40 years”. Several other teachers also spoke to the overlap in emotional support and professional conversations: I'm still a pretty new teacher in comparison to a lot of my colleagues, so, and just talking to them with anything and you know just being quite open and even how silly a question might sound. Just you know, asking them for advice or just uhm, just chatting to them or venting to them about concerns. (Alex) All participants shared at length about the value of learning from others’ experiences, stating that “most of what I've learned so far has been from colleagues,” (Beth) and that colleagues provide learning opportunities which formal training may not have. “You get into the work field and you're just like, that's when you're learning. When you're, you're in it and you're learning it by yourself or with other colleagues” (Farah). Similarly, educators shared difficult experiences where they did not have the support they needed, and it affected their teaching and the quality of the support they could provide. Catherine spoke about how she now encourages new teachers to ask for the kind of help she believed she lacked upon first beginning her teaching career: I just keep telling her to go and, and ask for help and ask for those resources because what I did is I stayed quiet and then no one really knew that I was having a hard time. So, ask for the help about how to include these kids and. Yeah, I think that that's the biggest one because there's always someone with an idea or someone who can lend you a little bit of time. 55 In reflecting on their experiences, all participant indicated the importance of community in conversations about inclusion as a facilitator of learning, a source of emotional support, and an opportunity for collaboration. In relation to the research question of educators’ perceived role in promoting inclusive classroom spaces, building a sense of community amongst students was found to be very important; whereby they modeled inclusion through relationships with their students, as well as establishing values of acceptance, empathy, and connection within their classroom culture. Educators also spoke to the third research question of the current study as part of this theme: showing interest in their students’ passions, checking in with students about their needs, and providing adaptations to learning materials to support students’ learning preferences and needs were found to be central to inclusive teaching. 4.4 Theme 3: Inclusion is Subtle and Gradual In their stories about efforts to promote neurodiversity-affirming classrooms through teaching, educators consistently described gradual and subtle efforts and strategies as central to their inclusion efforts. While participants undoubtedly possessed and were influenced by ideals of inclusion throughout their training and in their wishes for their students, participants also recognized small actions and adjustments occurring over time as important for supporting their students. Focusing their efforts in these areas was experienced as a benefit to their teaching. The following subthemes emerged: 1) Undercover Inclusion Work, 2) Strategic Access to Supports, 3) Flexibility in Approach and Expectations, and 4) Inclusion Takes Time. 4.4.1 Subtheme 1: Undercover Inclusion Work Participants spoke about their inclusion practices as undercover strategies and efforts which would benefit students without their knowledge. This involved benefit without highlighting the learning need itself, monitoring students’ perceived differences in learning and 56 behavioral functioning during early stages of identification, and scaffolding students’ experiences of the classroom and with their peers to promote engagement and skill building. Subtle inclusion efforts such as these were perceived by educators to incur benefits to the whole classroom, gather information when they weren’t sure how to support a student, and support students while also maintaining their feelings of independence. Dan spoke about the importance of observing students in order to understand their needs, the first step in “subtle inclusion”, and critical for effectively providing supports later “You have to be really observant. You really need to go the extra mile to understand them to teach them” (Dan). Beth described a similar approach, whereby she would monitor student behaviors before intervening or referring for support or assessment. For Alex, this was a process of differentiating between developmentally appropriate behaviors and, as she called them, “quirks” and neurodivergence. She relied on other information sources in her community to develop her understanding of the students without directly approaching them or their families: I have a few right now, but I am quite concerned about. You know, socially they've been showing some difficulties, but also academically and I think that, you know, talking to past teachers like they're grade two or grade one or kindergarten teacher. Hmm. In those years, it's kind of like, oh, well, they're just little. But then in grade three, it starts to become a lot more apparent, like, oh, that kid is a little bit different or, you know, they move a bit differently or they may move their hands a bit differently or talk differently or have very specific interests, so. (Beth) Alex also spoke about subtle ways to watch over and provide subtle support in the classroom, considering how her attention to specific students could in turn make their peers more away of differences: 57 Just not to not to make the child feel different because you know they do. Like, even in kindergarten, they do. They, they know, you know, are they so - even in that instance like with the child who was speaking about before - While I know he, more often than not, needs one-to-one support in the classroom to keep him on task or keep him focused. I try not to like, sit myself beside him. You know, I try to maybe it's just a thing that I walk past more, more often than I do to others. Or, you know, I circle around him a little bit more, but, um, yeah. Lastly, several educators spoke about the function of universal supports (supports which are given and are of benefit to all students, regardless of risk or need) for subtle inclusion efforts in their classrooms. For example, Gigi spoke about structuring her schedule to give movement breaks throughout the day; a practice which benefited students who struggled with attention, while also catering her whole class’s enjoyment and learning. It's also um, fun things, and they can use their bodies, dance, whatever and I think it's really important with especially with neurodivergent learners to have just small intense learning chunks scattered in the day. Where you can kind of blitz it really quickly, like with a with a, a really good mentor text story, or a really good song, or really good and then give them a break and then follow it with a little bit of an extension on that or whatever. Similarly, Dan purposefully integrated activities which would highlight strengths of students he suspected to be neurodivergent or were struggling academically due to a learning difference. For Dan, this was a natural way to promote connection, appreciation, and teamwork between different learners. It also could help to highlight strengths and provide opportunities for success for students who were experiencing some difficulty: 58 When you're in a classroom all the time, there is this marked difference. OK, we are fast learners. We are slow learners. But when they can face like the real world together and they understand that life is beyond, and life is beyond just how you are in class. And sometimes you realize that this low learner in a class might actually be a, a fast problem solver out there. Yes. So, when they realize that, OK. He's slow in class, but he's he can actually solve problems well in a different way, it shows everyone’s strengths. (Dan) Alex spoke to the importance of providing subtle social supports in order to help neurodivergent students feel like a part of their community. Doing explicit social activities, which all learners would benefit from and providing additional social scaffolding by pairing students based on personality, capacity to support their peers, and potential to work together. Especially trying to, maybe in ways umm, unbeknownst to them, like when doing games like, you know, being like purposeful in who I pair children with or who I group them with, and again, it’s not all down to academics like, you know, down to, you know, in like a social way for, you know, this child I think this would be good for, you know, this child that they might feel comfortable chatting to them and ways like that. 4.4.2 Subtheme 2: Strategic Access to Supports Educators reported several strategies to capitalize on potential opportunities for support to “make them count”, considering various factors such as limited resources, developmental milestones, early intervention, and requirements to have gathered sufficient evidence to make a case for additional support. Given that participants were all teaching Kindergarten to Grade 3, several spoke to their important role in early identification of learning needs, as well as their experiences navigating the ambiguity of neurodiversity at a young age given that “That early stage is quite sensitive as 59 well because they're so young … you're kind of, you're just, you're just taking monitoring everything constantly, I suppose” (Alex). Gigi said, “Working in a K room is interesting because we are often fully triaging undiagnosed things, like we're often the first ones to really notice that there might be something going on there” (Gigi). Like several other educators, Gigi shared that she would consult with other educators to confirm they also observed a difference in a student. Waiting until they had a better understanding of the nature of a student’s need was a common thread across interviews, particularly given that “There is a neurodivergent student in every classroom. But some of them are just undiagnosed, so we don't have any idea” (Farah). Once a consistent and noticeable learning need was identified, most participants explicitly endorsed early prevention practices; providing support for learning differences while students were young to reduce the risk of later, more pronounced difficulties: I just want to be like, let's just give the support now, like, why don't we give the kids need counseling, counseling, why don't we give the ones who need assessments? Because we see the issues now and it's like that pound of - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care. (Catherine) Educators also spoke to the specialness of early grades when teaching inclusion. For example, participants described younger students as more impressionable, accepting, and kinder than older students, and thus well-prepared to learn about neurodiversity and be taught an affirming and empathetic attitudes. Elli described a scenario where a classroom she was in as a TOC had been taught responsibility, acceptance, and helpfulness for their classmate, who was visually impaired: There weren't things on the floor that they had routes where they would normally walk type of thing. Umm. Chairs are pushed in all the time, and then there were a few students that like. They would help her, like learn. They would like, take her hand and they would 60 say this is I'm so and so, and they would like help her do like texture feeling and stuff like that. Sensory stuff. And so I was like, really impressed by those students that day because I was like, wow, like, you guys really learned that … Yeah, you can definitely tell, mhm, when they've when they've had those expectations and those talks around, the actual learning need. (Elli) Catherine also shared the importance of early neurodiversity teachings to pave the way for more inclusive classrooms down the road, contributing to the idea of strategic inclusion efforts occurring early on in students’ educational journey. She stated that being helpful and accepting came quite naturally to the students she worked with in younger grades: I think that they're just sponges and they're easily moldable and we can just say, you know, these, these are great things because everyone's different. Our brains work in different ways, and that's good. And they'll just listen to us and trust us maybe. However, she followed by saying that this learning was time sensitive, building foundations of acceptance in later grades when students may be less empathetic or open-minded: And kids are really good about that because we talk a lot about those differences. But when you get to a certain point and there's been zero intervention and in grade four or five, if those quote unquote rude comments continue, then peers actually end up turning away. So it's a really tough conversation to have with parents. Educators’ efforts towards neurodiversity-affirming and inclusive classrooms were understood by participants to require strategy and understanding of when and how inclusion lessons should be delivered for the greatest effect and supports put in place. This involved capitalizing upon constraints educators faced, such as students’ developmental trajectories, the amount of evidence 61 they had gathered to advocate for supports, and social dynamics around differences which become more prominent with age. 4.4.3 Subtheme 3: Flexibility in Approach and Expectations Educators spoke about the importance of flexibility when practicing neurodiversity-affirming teaching, both in terms of how they taught their students, as well as the expectations they had about what learning should look like. They described that finding what works for them and their unique group of students was an ongoing journey. In an earlier excerpt from her interview, Beth spoke about how “not sticking to the status quo”, and allowing for innovative strategies to emerge in the moment helped her work with diverse learners. Gigi shared a similar example, whereby allowing older students with learning difficulties to mentor her younger students benefitted their learning while also helping them practicing social skills: Yeah, so that's where you can go towards like the big buddy, little buddy. You know, you can partner say with like an intermediate class and hopefully those big kids will help walk and get them through it. And then that's also good social skill building for both for both grades actually, because it gives the older kids the opportunity to be like leaders. In addition to practicing flexibility on how material was completed, several educators spoke about the value of following students’ lead when teaching. Elli shared that her flexibility surrounding when and where work was completed throughout the day allowed students to pick tasks they were interested in and work at their own pace. Flexibility was also related to the expectations educators had for their students’ work completion. In his explanation of how he approaches work with “fast” or “slow” learners, Dan emphasized learning quality over speed, suggesting: 62 It could, could be sometimes sitting down with them and trying to explain more from the class to make sure that they understand it, yes. And sometimes I might simplify the class like, like bring it down a bit, a bit further to their level. And I make sure I give ample examples. Like multiples, like example A is example B is example C, D and until each student I'm in the class understand. (Dan) Or Elli, who emphasized getting all students to a baseline level of understanding on a topic and honing in on the important information first, but also offering lots of options for extra activities for students working at a faster pace: So, for instance, I have one kid that's like you, you can maybe get three sentences out of him at most in 20 minutes, but I have some kids that can write a full story in 20 minutes so, so I'll, I'll, right, yeah, let them know and I'll say, okay, like you guys can finish these pages up to here, right? And the other people, this is all that's really required, and I don't look for more from them. I'm just looking for this is these are the things, the skills that I wanted you to kind of get out of it. Gigi agreed, stating that students’ wellbeing is just as important as learning academic content, and thus she tries to balance engagement and understanding in her teaching, adjusting depending on her unique group of students that year: Sometimes [it’s] really just cherry picking what's important versus what's not. Like, we have a curriculum, it's, it's a comprehensive curriculum … There really is times when you just go “what's actually very important?” and what can kind of just go and push aside for now because if you try to do all of it too much too fast, you just completely overload kids, including neurotypical ones. 63 Being willing to adapt their expectations for students learning preferences, pace, and needs was a perceived benefit for the educators in this study. Making changes to their teaching approach while also questioning their own biases about what “good” teaching looks like, educators were able to offer new ways for their students to learn and grow. 4.4.4 Subtheme 4: Inclusion Takes Time Educators spoke about inclusion as an ongoing process as opposed to a final state or goal they could reach. They spoke to the time required to foster a safe learning environment for their students, as well as the time required to implement supports, and the necessity for patience and planning ahead when working with neurodivergent learners. For example, Catherine spoke about how she knew the process of getting an assessment for a student would be long, so while she preferred to implement more supports sooner, she felt that the best course of action would be to gather evidence which could be used in the assessment of the student later on. This practice of “investing” up front from educators was present in several of the interviews: I have a little girl who I think also might be on the spectrum, but it presents so differently with girls. So, I'm trying to be very careful and just take a lot of data. I prefer to just, but there it's just such a long wait right now that I think it might not happen this year. This information or data collected by teachers over time was perceived as a highly important practice, particularly in the absence of formal supports, diagnoses, or designations. Catherine spoke about how documentation was a form of planning ahead; whereby next year’s teacher would enter the classroom with background information about the student to help facilitate better supports. Conversely, Elli spoke about the downsides of not having this preparation done, not having developed her own knowledge of a student, or not having access to this kind of information about a student: 64 As a TOC, it's really hard because you don't have all that background information. You haven't been with them all year long. And so like, I'm just kind of going by, okay, like, this is how they're acting right now, right? So, some of the strategies I have for, like dealing with something, it might be completely like off base because I don't have that information. You're only limited to what the teacher provides you in their notes, right? And some notes can be lovely and wonderful in a whole book, and some notes can be nothing. Similarly, Alex shared about how documentation of students’ challenges throughout the school year was most helpful when communicated between teachers in a school. Sharing her expertise on a student’s needs and preference with the next teacher who would be working with them allowed for a continuity of supports and approaches across school years. In her experience, this continuity helped to ensure students could experience success in their transition to a new classroom and saved the next teacher time. It also provided her with a rationale to invest time and energy into developing in-depth knowledge of a student and their needs, even if only working with them for one year, as she could use it to help the next teacher working with them. You're going to link, already linking in with the teacher for next year or linking in the LRT for next year, just to kind of…Because that's one thing I just I really find important to make sure that the like the transition because you know you spend all year getting to know students, getting to know what works for them and what doesn't work and developing all these strategies and stuff. And then for you know, going on to a new class, new teacher, you're just like that all that wasn't, yeah – you know they don't have to start fresh. You know, they, they have an idea of. Yeah, what works, what doesn't, and so on. (Alex) 65 Lastly, educators spoke about the time required to develop an understanding of a student and establish an accepting and kind classroom culture. Dan spoke at length about the importance of having patience as a teacher when working with neurodivergent students and their peers, fostering collaboration and mutual understanding over multiple opportunities to work together on projects and activities. Similarly, Gigi described the foundational nature of the start to the school year in establishing inclusive values and practices in her classroom: “I spend the first probably two months of school and it's just as long as it takes; just building a classroom community of “everyone here is included and invited and safe” (Gigi). In a similar way, this investment helped to create a more affirming environment in the long run. Educators described various strategies for neurodiversity-affirming teaching in their interviews, and experienced inclusion work to be a gradual and subtle effort of engaging diverse learners in the classroom over time. Participants pointed to the importance of strategically planning when and how support could be given when considering individual, family, and school-related factors, and the time it takes for inclusive practices and attitudes to be fostered. As such, educators’ inclusive teaching practices extended beyond direct interactions with the student to include advocacy for supports behind the scenes, communication with parents, and considering school-wide resources to support learners. The concept of the time it takes to “do inclusion” appeared pertinent, as educators also spoke at length about how they felt they never had quite enough time to do all the things they were expected to do in a day. Instead, inclusion was felt to be a cumulative effort comprised of small adjustments, planning ahead, and slowly getting to know each learner and their needs. 4.5 Theme 4: Language Use 66 Each participant interviewed shared about the importance of the language we use to talk about neurodiversity and learning differences. Educators spoke about their efforts to find good, accurate, and respectful language to talk about learning differences in the interviews with the researcher, as well as when finding affirming ways to talk about learning differences with students and parents across various settings. Educators reported being unsure in how to best describe neurodivergences to different audience and were cautious and intentional in their language-use in an effort to promote understanding and acceptance. The following subthemes were identified as part of this theme: 1) Developing Neurodiversity Vocabulary, 2) Talking with Parents, and 3) Fostering Inclusion Conversations. 4.5.1 Subtheme 1: Developing Neurodiversity Vocabulary Participants discussed their experiences supporting neurodivergent students to understand themselves and their learning needs better through language. This related to giving students vocabulary through which they could communicate their differences to other students and adults, practice self-advocacy to get their learning needs met, and find self-acceptance by normalizing terms related to neurodivergence and using terms such as “differences” in place of “deficits”. For example, Alex and several others talked about how they just “don’t want them to have a negative outlook, or you know, just because they, they learn in a different way doesn't make them any less than anyone else you know” (Alex). Another important theme which emerged was that giving students vocabulary to talk about their learning differences could help them understand themselves better, and as a result engage with the classroom in a new way. Catherine said: We have a lot of goals around self, self-regulation, but advocating for self-regulation, so not just in the classroom, but with the music room, when you go to the library, and 67 making sure that you can say you know “my body needs to walk right now, I can't sit right here” rather than just being afraid to say anything sitting there and then wiggling too much and getting in trouble. So that's just the beginning of advocating that can happen later on. But I think that when you're older, it just really helps to know what exactly why your body is, or your brain is in a certain way. Similarly, Beth discussed her success when helping students develop the vocabulary to get their emotional needs met, something which she has experienced as an even greater contributing factor for classroom engagement than the learning need itself: We really try hard to promote like emotional regulation and emotional vocabulary, and we have different programs that we use to kind of teach kids self-management skills. But I would say that the neurodivergence plays like more of a secondary role when it comes to like peer interactions and students academically like getting work done. Several participants talked about the challenges associated with explaining neurodiversity to younger students in a way they could understand. For example, Farah shared “the way you speak to a child, K to Grade 7, it's it should be the same. Maybe different words are being used because it like at a cognitive level, it needs to be explained more simply. But a child should know.” Others also pointed to the benefits of using simple, broad language so as not to over-focus on an individual student and to normalize learning needs as a normal part of the classroom. Relatedly, Elli shared: At really primary levels, it's hard. I feel like it's harder for them to comprehend that like, oh, this student gets an iPad and I don't kind of thing and that's because of their learning needs. So usually if like I don't know if the teacher has told them about different learning needs, I'll just say, look, everybody learns in their own different way, right? 68 For the majority of educators, introducing neurodiversity-related language into the classroom resulted in a new form of self-responsibility, advocacy, and understanding of learning tools which did not exist in the classroom culture before. “Having kiddos understand their own learning needs is important” (Farah) and is something which can be fostered through conversations and modeling with individual students and through explicit group lessons. They're at the point now at six and seven years old, where if a new student – I actually did have three new students come in the last couple of months - but when they come and they try to take a tool, they say you don't need that tool, you can sit and listen quietly. You don't actually need to use that, but other friends might need that. And then if they say that's not there, they say, well, no, you don't need it. So like it's a tool for those who need, so there's been a lot of conversations. (Catherine) Several educators reported similar experiences, sharing that it can help to normalize learning differences in a classroom space when terms such as “learning tools” are introduced. Farah gave an example of how she navigated these opportunities to teach students neurodiversity-related language in her classroom, such as “sometimes I'll be like “Student A,” Like his brain works differently than ours. And this tool helps him, where for me it just it would distract me if I had it in my hands. And that's why he uses it as a tool to help” (Farah). Other educators experienced much more apprehension when talking about learning differences, such as Gigi, who said “I tend not to too explicitly. Like you know “this person is this way because of X”, because that can be a bit like here's the spotlight on this child” (Gigi). Teachers shared that they had to navigate both the neurodivergent student’s self-perceptions, as well as other students’ perceptions of the child at the same time during these conversations, introducing an additional layer of complexity. 69 Catherine spoke about how students knowing and understanding their diagnosis or learning difference can, in her experience, promote both self-advocacy and self-empathy often carrying this language into their experiences with other students in their classes: I always ask parents whether they're going to share their diagnosis with the child, and every time it's been shared, I've seen it be empowering and I haven't. And I've seen the child want to advocate for themselves even further because they know that it's just their brain being different, and that's what we say. Or I say, you know, everyone's brain is different. She further shared about her own experiences in discovering language to describe her mental health, and how she applies the empowerment she experienced to her teaching and work with students in the current day: And I think I thought something was wrong with me and that and that I was having like physical problems or something wrong with my heart and all of this, and I always got referred to like doctors for my stomach because I had stomach aches and no one knew it was. So there was that piece of I would get all this medication for my stomach and it would never help. And then finally when I found out what it was, it actually made me feel so empowered and I could read about it and I could understand and I could seek the support I needed, so that's just from my personal experience, but I feel like it's so powerful. Using language to explain, normalize, and empower students with and without learning differences was a highly personal topic for several of the educators interviewed. For many, finding the right language felt important and held potential for a more inclusive classroom environment. Themes around “differences not deficits”-language, self-advocacy, and tailoring 70 neurodiversity-lessons and developmentally appropriate language were present in most interviewee’s experiences and stories. 4.5.2 Subtheme 2: Fostering Inclusion Conversations In addition to navigating direct teaching and conversations about learning differences with their students, educators spoke about their experiences scaffolding and facilitating conversations between students about fairness related to supports given for those who need them. Finding ways to support these student-to-student conversations, particularly those between students with neurodivergences and their presumed to be neurotypical peers, was experienced as a delicate balance between empowering students to work things out on their own while also giving support to use affirming language and intervening when disagreements arose. For Gigi, this meant helping students differentiate between equity and equality, and the reasons that supports might be given to some but not others, carefully choosing her words: it's finding a way to explain it in a way that's like inclusive but non-judgmental, and doesn't bother the students, but also helps the other kids feel okay about the fact that they're not getting this like special treatment because they're very obsessed with, like, equality and fairness at that point. Like “if they get it, I can get it and everyone should get it, ‘cause that's fair.” Versus you already, you don't need this. So I kind of will talk to them sometimes about, what do people need? What kind of thing? And I find in my experience in my school, the kids are very understanding for the most part. Others, such as Catherine, explained that adding their personal humor to a situation and finding concrete examples to illustrate inclusion concepts was helpful, stating that “early on, framing the tools has helped those conversations” , and that “fairness” is not really a helpful concept in understanding learning differences, because “Yes, it's not fair that student C gets to sit in the this 71 special chair, but it's also not fair for student B that his brain works differently than student A” (Farah). Catherine recalled a conversation with students toward the end of the school year where she explained that: In an ideal world, yes, you would all get a little cushion. It would be adorable, and you would have fun sitting, but you can't. And the main one, I think that sticks is you don't need glasses because they don't want glasses. But another child needs them to see. So, if they say can have the wiggle cushion and then I say no, that's being used by those students. But do you want these glasses that he's wearing? And we have the relationship where I can do that at this point and then they start laughing. Protecting learning tools and supports as intended only for those who need them was another area of discussion for educators and a difficult conversation to navigate. Educators indicated that they wanted to support students when needed but also worried about maintaining the tools’ function. The scary thing with that is you have to be careful because sometimes they could see that as a reward. And then they might want to do that all the time. And it's like it's, it's not a reward, it's something to help you. Just because you're misbehaving, I don't want to let you go outside. (Farah) Overall, educators often spoke of the importance of providing supports in a way that students understood their rationale for doing so as well as the function of the tool itself. This involved scaffolding conversations between students, explaining the difference between equality and equity, and using language which helped students to identify and talk about learning tools and supports. 4.5.3 Subtheme 3: Talking with Parents 72 Participants also spoke about language use in the context of conversations with parents. For all those who shared on this topic, finding the right words to communicate to parents about their child’s learning differences felt consequential and sensitive, whereby the wrong words or actions could scare a family and cause them to not pursue further supports or assessment. These interactions required consideration of potential biases and parents’ fears about their child being different. Several educators spoke about their efforts to provide evidence that a student needs support to parents who feel apprehensive, “Because you don't wanna, you don't wanna miss-address it and, and potentially come at it in a in a, in a way that's not actually going to help” (Gigi). One strategy educators felt to be helpful was to avoid “clinical” language like diagnostic labels unless necessary with parents: We never use the word because we're not, we can't diagnose it, but it got to the point where they really needed to be very clear about it, and I'm talking to mom. And she's now admitted to taking him to pediatrician, and him having ADHD. So that's I think that's as far as she'll go for now. Maybe she needs another person to say it next year. (Catherine) When speaking about “labels” related to learning differences, Catherine further expressed that “Some parents are very much against it. But I think that that's just a piece, a piece where they're afraid of a label.” Gigi also talked about this, stating that “Some parents are absolutely they have no idea that there's an issue or they do, but they don't really, they're hoping it will go away kind of, once they get to school and maybe grow up a bit, which is often not the case” (Gigi). Understanding the reasons parents might not be willing to engage in these conversations was important to educators and informed the language they used. I try to have the conversations very gently with parents and just say, you know, I know and, and just observable behaviors, like, I noticed they got really frustrated at a friend or I 73 noticed that they're reversing letters or whatever it is, and after having several of those conversations, then I would, and I always the first time plant the seed about school based team because I think it's intimidating about like having all of us sit, principal and learning sports teacher and El teacher and all of us at a table with them, yeah…So I think once I plant that seed and then have more conversations and then I go back to remember that thing I said, well, let's bring them to team and see how we can support. (Catherine) Participants shared that using affirming, accurate, and inclusive language was central to neurodiversity-affirming teaching and classroom culture. With parents, neurodiversity conversations helped to set parents’ expectations for their child’s learning needs and opened doors for more supports to be given. Educators’ facilitation of these conversations with students functioned to develop an understanding of learning differences and the role of supports (e.g., learning tools, extra attention from adults) in their classroom community. In this sense, educators acted as interpreters; describing learning differences in ways which students and parents could understand and accept. Several of the participants described a sense of duty when it came to talking about learning difference, with students and with families, and expressed caution and care when doing so. 4.6 Theme 4: Wanting to Do More Teachers expressed a strong desire and motivation to further expand their inclusion practices, such as gaining new skills and strategies and learning more about neurodiversity. Neurodiversity-affirming teaching, as explored in the third research question of the study, was an iterative, ever-evolving goal which teachers perceived to be part of their practice as teachers. Given this consistent effort to be more inclusive, and given the limitations on inclusive teaching explored above, educators also expressed the importance of understanding their own emotional 74 limitations, accepting the impact of systemic barriers on feasibility of neurodiversity-affirming teaching, as well as financial and/or resource-related challenges. For participants, this awareness helped to reduce pressure, disappointment, and stress and focus on the things they could do to help their students. The following subthemes were identified: 1) Recognizing What’s in my Control, 2) Insufficient Resources, and 3) Emotional Limits. 4.6.1 Subtheme 1: Recognizing What Is in My Control Educators spoke at length about their experiences trying to advocate for supports for students with learning differences and the systemic barriers they experienced in doing so. Most prominently, participants spoke about a lack of funding within their schools, and the feelings of frustration and discomfort this added to their experiences as teachers. Elli spoke about how the needs at her school strongly outweigh available funding: There's a couple classes where there hasn't been [an educational assistant], and there should be because there have been, there's either behavioral students or there's like somebody that you really require, like, you need constant attention on because maybe they like leave or they run around the room or something like that. Or they might do something dangerous. … But it has a lot to do with the funding too, and some classes only get, you only get an EA for like a quarter of the day for instance, and you might have 5 designations in there, so yeah. Educators also spoke about the difficulties associated with long waitlists and delays in service provision, processes which they perceived as out of their control yet impacted their ability to support students. For example, Gigi shared her experience of both empathy and frustration when trying to help families understand the need for their child to access supports, that “That can be 75 the hardest barrier is, is the amount of time it takes for sometimes families to, to get on board with it. That could take years, to be honest.” A temporal element to inclusion work was observed across most interviews and was reflected at each stage of an educators’ inclusion efforts. This refers to planning for the future, strategic timing related to implementing supports, and working with a student and school staff over several years to determine best practices and supports, requiring patience, foresight, and organization. Once families had agreed to pursue additional supports, educators often would still have months of classroom time where they were waiting on more information. Educators were creative in these settings, as previously explored in the subtheme Doing My Best, (section 4.2.3) “While you might not have a diagnosis, like, you are kind of just you're catering just for the needs of the child, you know, it doesn’t, you don't have to have a diagnosis on paper” (Alex), however, in the time it takes to complete an assessment and have results be communicated to the school, teachers are often left with no support until documentation is in place: It's very, it's very difficult. I usually like I, for instance, my friend who's a K teacher I was seeing for her yesterday, and she doesn't have any in her class, but she definitely has students that I'm pretty sure they are going to need additional supports. She has about five that I think are getting tested at the moment, and she has about four that are behavioral. (Elli) Educators spoke about how they had to address certain learning differences sooner, depending on the nature of the need. For several, this was a necessary but uncomfortable choice they indicated that they were compelled to make. For example, Beth talked about how students with externalizing behaviors tended to receive more attention from other school-based professionals, 76 while those with less noticeable difficulties were deprioritized, even after she had flagged them as needing extra support: A lot of times, like our school-based team will only take the situation seriously if they're disruptive. So, like, I have one girl that I suspect is on the spectrum, but of course it's harder for girls to be diagnosed and a lot of times they just kind of see the kids that are like lower, lower needs. I don't know what the right term is, but like the kids that need less attention, they kind of get put on the back burner I would say, like the situation isn't taken as seriously unless they're like super disruptive, or if they run away. Similarly, Gigi spoke about her experience with a student requiring intensive support. Despite her intentions to support his learning, she reported she had to focus on just keeping him in the classroom until she received more resources that could help: He has one-on-one support and he's again very complex. He's at times violent. He's low verbal, he's got a whole gasket of things going on that ultimately the people who are with him are mostly there to, to follow him. If he runs out and, and to try to redirect him if he's, you know, doing something like throwing, or you know, but, ultimately not really, not really helping him be successful at school. 4.6.2 Subtheme 2: Insufficient Resources Educators also expressed significant frustration at the lack of support for their teaching and their classrooms, posing a serious barrier to inclusion. This theme emerged as distinct from their wishes to do more for their students (Subtheme 1), as it related directly to a need for more human resources specifically. Educators directly experienced the impacts of having insufficient support on their ability to have their students’ emotional and learning needs be met. 77 Support in the form of an additional adult was more valuable than any physical tool her school could give her, according to Farah; “Like I don't want the, I don't care about the Smart Board. I don't care about the, the little loop art, if I have another person in there it makes a difference” (Farah). This support, according to educators, should be skilled and consistent “I think the -what I would want for them honestly would be much more comprehensive, skilled classroom support” (Gigi). Farah shared “-It just makes such a huge difference when you have two teachers in the classroom, you can do so much more to help” and recalled a situation where she struggled to meet her students’ needs on her own: And just even little things like, when there’s two kids crying, I can't go to them, so having both children having their difficulty heart and addressed and the tools given to them that they might need and not seek in that moment, whether it's like a calming, like a coloring book with like calming breathing in it, or whether it’s going for a walk I can't do two at once, and usually if I can't then one escalates. (Catherine) This lack of support was directly related to students’ quality of learning and wellbeing in the classroom. It was clear across interviews that inclusion requires one-on-one support and relationship (as described earlier, in Theme 1, which focused on relationship-building), which educators found to be very difficult when teaching on their own. This was largely due to lack of funds to access external supports, lack of available skilled supports, or other systematic barriers to accessing them, such as in Catherine’s experience, who shared “There was no EA because no one had an official designation. So that adds just an extra layer of, you know, difficulty”. Educators expressed that they felt deeply affected by these issues, expressing guilt and frustration related to this, such as Beth, who said: 78 I feel like I could be a good resource if I had more time to support them and to sit with them and connect, because I, I truly believe that connection like helps so much in so many different ways like, making someone feel seen like that's just, yeah. So many of them are missing that. Alex and Gigi’s experiences highlighted additional nuance within this subtheme, whereby both educators and their in-class support (when present) also suffered from being under-resourced, such as Gigi, who shared: And so, I think we, we kind of have created this situation where people who really have the least amount of educational training are being thrown into the most complex situations and it's dangerous for them because they get they get burnt out very quickly and, and they are far more likely to be hit or punched or kicked or bitten or spat on just through proximity and frequency (…) And so my wish list, my genie wish would be to have the people who are supporting those students being much more trained and skilled at what it is they’re doing and how and how to not only deescalate the student or follow the student or give the student breaks, but also how to really work with them in a way that's going to help them succeed to some degree within, within their abilities spectrum in their education. As opposed to just kind of what a lot of people would say is just babysitting them is what we're seeing. Alex reflected on her early years in teaching and the experiences she had during that time, saying: When I'm looking back at even my previous two years, I did not have access to those supports, which, looking at it, it was normal to me, but now looking at it, it's kind of like those kids were not being supported in, you know the ways that they should have or 79 could have been. And, and just down to like, yeah, having the support, having the time to do this for them and I suppose. On the whole, all educators spoke to the importance of collaboration when giving student support, and most directly expressed a strong need for more skilled and consistent in-class supports. According to participants, this would benefit both the students and the adults in the class in terms of learning and wellbeing. 4.6.3 Subtheme 3: Emotional Limitations In lieu of the difficulties educators reported in supporting students’ learning needs, several participants spoke about the importance of recognizing their own limitations and actively trying to avoid burning out. This was distinct form other subthemes in that limitations were not related specifically to their skills and training, but to the level of energy and effort they felt they could give without causing harm to themselves. For Gigi, this looked like: Knowing when it's time to just say I, I don't think I can really do much beyond this, for the student in this specific thing right now, so I think I'm just going to let them be, kind of. I think which, which no one likes to do, because that's when you, you feel like you're not doing your job. Beth explained that her mental health had improved significantly since she tried to adopt the perspective that she would what she could only so much to support her students, as opposed to the “pressure [educators put] on ourselves to be these miracle workers and to solve all these problems” (Beth). Alex shared a similar sentiment, stating that “recognizing when a situation is beyond your skill set and not feeling defeated about it. But also kind of knowing what you can do” (Alex). In this way, teachers explained their experiences with burnout and “compassion 80 fatigue” (Elli) as a process of skill building; learning to recognize when they need to step away and take care of their own needs and feelings. Gigi shared a similar idea, stating: One of the most important things to know is when It's just sort of, it is what it is and it's not a hill to die on and, and, and learning how to co-regulate and try to stay deescalated yourself. She further shared that the choice to “step away” was not only for her benefit but also her students’ benefit, as her ability to support their needs required her to be focused and calm enough to do so: And definitely like knowing when you just need to walk away, right? Like there are times like because you can accidentally get into a battle of wills without really realizing it, and, or you, you can feel like you're just getting frustrated, you're getting annoyed, you're getting mad is when it's time to just be like, yeah – just leave it and walk away because it's just you're going to make it worse, right now you know. And, and having that, I think, being able to self-reflect on am I helping right now or no not really. Educators felt that neurodiversity-affirming teaching, while being a personal goal and practice, was inevitably impacted by external limitations of time, resources, and a need to maintain personal well-being. Educators felt it was important to recognize these challenges and work within them in order to prevent burnout, despite strong investment in doing as much as possible to support their students within their role. 4.7 Summary In this chapter participants experiences and thoughts as they relate to the three research questions of the current study was reported. Underlying their experiences shared in interviews, educators felt they had been underprepared for teaching in an inclusive manner, and were forced 81 to develop their own strategies, seek out their own training, and rely on others to learn while already in their teaching positions. Their training experiences were perceived to be overly theoretical and broad, and yet educators reported a common perspective that they were “doing their best” and learning on the go in order to support their neurodivergent students in the classroom. Educators’ perceptions of what neurodiversity-affirming teaching is and their role in promoting inclusion were closely connected. Creating community was central to participants’ self-perceptions of their role as teachers, and inherent to inclusive classroom spaces. Through stories of their personal experiences, educators described their role as educators to involve fostering inclusive attitudes in their students, connecting with diverse learners and providing direct support, and the use of affirming language when talking about learning differences. Neurodiversity-affirming teaching was experienced as gradual, subtle, and occurring over time and through sustained effort, a practice which educators approached with dedication, intentionality, and care. 82 Chapter 5: Discussion 5.1 Overview The aim of the current study was to explore Kindergarten to Grade 3 educators’ perceptions of their training and teaching experiences related to working with neurodivergent learners, such as students with learning differences or disabilities. The study used an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis methodology to build an in-depth understanding of how educators felt their training had prepared them to teach in diverse classrooms, their efforts to promote inclusion of neurodivergent learners, and their understandings and self-reflections of their neurodiversity-affirming teaching strategies day-to-day. In this chapter the implications and significance of the study findings for educators at both pre-service and in-service stages of their teaching careers situated within existing literature is presented. Significant themes and messages which emerged through participants’ experiences at individual, classroom, and school levels are discussed. Limitations and strengths of the study as well as recommendations for future research and practical changes and supports for teachers are presented. 5.2 Discussion of The Present Study in the Context of the Literature The findings of the current study have implications for our understanding of the participants’ experiences of their training and the knowledge gaps they perceived themselves to enter their teaching roles with. While existing research has explored educators’ beliefs about students with additional learning needs, their self-efficacy regarding their ability to teach to diverse classrooms, and formalized inclusive programming separately, few studies explore the nuances of informal, everyday inclusive teaching and use of innovative strategies. Further, little is known about how educators see their role in promoting inclusion in the classroom through teaching. 83 In the present study, participants shared that they felt largely unprepared to work with neurodivergent learners through the teaching they had received. This finding reflects existing research in this area, which suggests that training for inclusive teaching is treated as a specialization rather than a critical practice for all classrooms. As a result, specific inclusive education-focused courses are not always accessible (e.g., educators not specializing to become Learning Resource Teachers can still enroll) or available (e.g., that specific courses are offered consistently or at all) to teachers in training, resulting in a lack of preparation to support students (McCrimmon, 2015). Educators in the present study reported having difficulty accessing courses and feeling the need to seek out training on their own time. Interestingly, many studies link teachers’ knowledge about learning differences as well as their feelings of self-efficacy to their attitudes towards diverse learners, whereby educators who have greater knowledge and self-perceived skills feel more positively about inclusion (Krischler et al., 2019). However, all participants in the present study were strongly motivated to promote inclusion and support their students, despite their self-perceived skill and knowledge gaps. In fact, several participants shared that early on in their teaching careers, they worked harder to gain skills and strategies for inclusion in response to their low self-efficacy. Thus, the results of this study thus allow for an expanded understanding of how educators make sense of their roles as teachers. Rather than observing more negative attitudes towards students with additional learning needs, as previous literature suggests (Russell et al., 2022), educators internalized their self-perceived skill deficit and actively sought out additional information and resources to better support their students. Similarly to results from existing research, such as Gunn & McRae’s (2021) survey of early career educators in Alberta, participants in the present study largely did not feel as though 84 their administration required this additional work from them, yet they continued to perform it. The in-depth nature of IPA allowed for some explanation for this paradox, whereby educators described a strong, self-imposed sense of duty to provide inclusive teaching which led them to dedicate personal time and resources towards learning new inclusion-related skills. This finding reinforces the need for improved neurodiversity-related training to be embedded into teacher training programs which has already been cited in the literature by others. Interestingly, and as an extension to existing scientific research in this area, it was found that even educators who did receive some training felt that being truly prepared for inclusive teaching may not be possible; explicitly citing the importance of learning from experience and in the classroom setting in addition to formal training. Thus, a further implication of the study is to provide support for educators in early years of their teaching careers, as discussed in greater detail in the recommendations section below. Administrators, school-based professionals such as speech and language pathologists, school psychologists, learning resource teachers, and others with specialized knowledge about learning differences may provide assistance and information about individual supports and support teachers in identifying individual students’ learning needs. A further goal of the present study was to understand educators’ perspectives of what neurodiversity-affirming teaching looks like day-to-day. Much of the literature explores how instructional strategies, accommodations, and modeling acceptance can promote inclusion, yet fewer studies explore the social nature of inclusion. This includes teaching and classroom qualities which allow neurodivergent students to engage in their classroom community and form peer relationships. Literature in this area is continuing to expand as part of a trend towards neurodiversity-affirming research and school practices. Indeed, Bolourian et al.’s more recent study explores American educators’ perceptions of the importance of positive peer relationships 85 in inclusive classrooms (2022). The present study adds to the literature in its’ exploration of educators’ efforts to both directly and indirectly support relationship building as one facet of their inclusive teaching. Participants reported indirectly supporting the development of peer relationships by facilitating conversations about inclusion at the classroom level, as well as giving neurodivergent students language to advocate for their needs with others. Moreover, several cited that they felt their role was also to form trusting and accepting relationships with neurodivergent students themselves. This was perceived to be foundational to inclusion, as it would allow students to ask for help, be comfortable expressing themselves, and enjoy coming to school. In summary, the present study both reflected and expanded upon existing literature surrounding educators’ perceptions and practices of inclusive teaching. Notably, the study demonstrated how both indirect and direct approaches to inclusion were used by the participants, the importance of interpersonal relationships, as well as educators’ response to their perceived lack of training, which is explored in greater detail below. 5.3 Significance of the Present Study The current study holds significance in its potential to expand our understanding of educators’ efforts towards inclusive teaching. The following three areas of significance are explored below: 1) educators’ responses to self-identified skill and knowledge gaps, 2) the importance of neurodiversity-affirming language for inclusion, and 3) broader understanding of how educators react to and navigate systems-level barriers to inclusion. 5.3.1 Educators’ responses to self-identified skill and knowledge gaps. The significance of the present study is in its potential to expand our understanding of educators’ experiences in their journeys of inclusive teaching. Unlike other studies, which draw 86 links between teachers’ lack of knowledge and training related to inclusive teaching and negative attitudes towards inclusion (Killoran et al., 2013), this study demonstrated that educators were proactive in addressing their self-identified knowledge gaps rather than adopting negative attitudes. Participants reported seeking out specialized professional development opportunities, using their own funds and free time to engage in extra-curricular training activities, and investing time, money, and energy into experimenting with various strategies for supporting students in the classroom. While previous research might suggest that educators who felt unprepared for inclusive teaching may have more negative attitudes towards neurodivergent students or doubt the feasibility of inclusion practices (Sokal & Sharma, 2013), the current study suggest that educators perceived it to be their duty as teachers to learn how to better support their students and actually engaged with the subject matter more. 5.3.2 Importance of language Conversations about teacher training and in-school support provision often lead to discussions about system level changes and policy reform. These are undeniably critical components of fostering greater inclusion of diverse learners, however, fail to address educators’ immediate needs or offer easily implementable strategies for the classroom. A significant finding of the present study is the strong value educators placed on the use of inclusive language and explicit teaching about neurodiversity within their classroom communities. Using neurodiversity-affirming language when explaining learning differences, negotiating conflicts between students, and presenting materials was reported by participants to foster an inclusive classroom environment for all students, regardless of learning need. Educators shared that giving students language to describe their own needs, advocate for supports, communicate with other students, and understand classroom values such as respect, acceptance, and non-judgement were critical to 87 their inclusive teaching practices. This finding is significant for several reasons; it establishes shared understanding about neurodiversity which students can carry forward even as their classroom environments and supports change, it promotes self-understanding and self-advocacy, and it requires minimal resources and time when embedded into everyday learning. As such, this study may shed light on the little ways in which inclusion can be promoted, even amongst educators who do not have extensive training in this area. 5.3.3. Importance of relationships The current study provides novel insight into the importance of relationship building in promoting inclusion, according to educators. All participants of the study experienced their relationship-building efforts with neurodivergent students to be important for fostering a foundation of trust, establishing good communication, and modeling acceptance for other students in the classroom. Unlike existing work in this area, which focuses on peer-to-peer relationships and perceptions as contributing factors to neurodivergent students’ feelings of inclusion, the present study provides a teacher’s perspective and demonstrates how foundational values of care and respect translate into opportunities for connection and teaching about inclusion. This finding offers an additional, accessible avenue through which inclusion can be fostered despite limited resources. It also places educators at the center of inclusion conversations as models of acceptance, which their students can learn from. 5.4 Limitations of the Present Study The current study was limited by its sampling methods, which were exclusively digital (e.g., virtual flyers and social media posts) or posted only in certain neighbourhoods which were accessible to the researcher. All participants were connected to the study through virtual means, indicating that using physical flyers was not successful. This may have limited the diversity of 88 experiences, as participants belonging to similar groups (e.g., age, gender, teaching interests) may have more easily accessed the recruitment materials due to their membership status in virtual groups such as Facebook groups or listservs. A wider range of avenues for recruitment may have diversified the sample. A second notable limitation of the study is that it was advertised using specific wording such as “neurodiversity-affirming teaching” which may not be familiar to all educators even if, in practice, their teaching is inclusive of students with learning differences or neurodivergences. As a result, it is possible that only certain educators felt the study would be relevant to them. Further, given the worries expressed by participants that their teaching was not neurodiversity-affirming enough, it is also possible that this wording could have led to potential participants feeling as though they would not qualify, despite efforts to be inclusive. Lastly, the importance of having neurodivergent voices actively heard and involved in research about neurodiversity and neurodiversity-affirming practices and care cannot be understated. Only one of seven participants in the study identified as neurodivergent. This is a limitation in principle, as the study itself does not focus on the experiences of neurodivergent educators. However, having perspectives of individuals with lived experiences with neurodiversity participate may have diversified the ideas discussed, resulted in different strategies (based on personal experiences) being explored and discussed, and would potentially have resulted in recommendations which neurodivergent individuals themselves have found to be helpful from their perspective as past students and current educators. 5.5 Strengths of the Present Study Several strengths give this study the grounds to claim some contribution to existing neurodiversity and education-related research. First, the study addressed a previously under-89 researched population and contextualized it within cultural trends of teaching and perspectives on neurodiversity. Working with educators who recently began their teaching careers (e.g., have less than 10 years’ experience) captures the experiences of professionals who have completed their training but are still learning to work in their roles. Many existing studies focus on pre-services teachers’ attitudes before and after an inclusion training or intervention or choose to include teachers of all levels of experiences, leading to results which do not capture in-depth the widely cited and intensive “learning curve” of entering a teaching position and adapting to a classroom environment. Educators who received training in recent years are also likely to have received various teaching models and theories about neurodiversity as the phenomenon has entered mainstream culture and scientific understanding more heavily in the past decade (Kluge, 2024; Summer et al., 2024). However, neurodiversity-related teacher trainings are still inconsistent. This cultural and training context has important implications for the support students receive and the resources and strategies educators have available to them to provide this support. As such, the current study is unique in that, rather than exploring the effects of specific inclusion trainings or teachers’ general attitudes about neurodiversity, it seeks to understand what educators perceive, experience, and believe about their role in promoting inclusion in the absence of consistent training standards. A further strength of the study lies in its alignment between methodology (IPA) and topic. Given the lack of support and training educators reported related to neurodiversity-affirming teaching, self-reflection, questioning, doubt, and problem-solving was inherent to every participant’s efforts to support neurodivergent learners. Educators shared rich lived experiences which they had gone through and had been forced to reflect on as part of the development of their teaching practices in the absence of guidance and training, which lent itself 90 well to IPA. These included evaluating which strategies were effective, considering their own knowledge gaps, and reflecting on their own skills, resources, and training experiences. Using an IPA methodology allowed the researcher to explore these self-perceptions and apply a further layer of interpretation, made possible through rich conversation and fluid movement between ideas, experiences, and topics educators brought into their interviews. As such, the study is strong in its’ exploration of educators’ interpretations of their own experiences through rigorous coding and in-depth analysis, facilitated by the topic itself and the methodology used to investigate it. 5.6 Recommendations 5.6.1 Pre-service Training A clear theme which emerged throughout the study was that educators perceived that their training had not adequately prepared them to effectively support neurodivergent learners in their classrooms. Training was found to be overly theoretical, reliant on models of learning which assume neurotypicality, limited in comprehensiveness, or omitted entirely. Educators reported that neurodiversity-related courses and content were treated as “specialty courses” or “specialty units” rather than the reality of most classrooms and were not always accessible to teachers-in-training who were interested in learning. These findings communicate the importance of promoting accessibility of neurodiversity-related courses and trainings for teachers during their pre-service years, as well as the need for more neurodiversity-affirming professional-development opportunities. Further, neurodiversity can no longer be treated as a specialty topic given its prevalence in classrooms and the high level of support needed to support some neurodivergent students. Instead, it can be understood as an ongoing and ever-evolving effort to support individual learning needs in ways which work for the student. 91 Educators should be exposed to strategies which do not require extensive materials or training during their teaching degrees. Adaptations and modifications to curricular materials rather than external resources or materials educators must purchase should be emphasized. Various types of neurodivergences may be explicitly discussed, and models of support reflect typical classroom sizes, resource availability, and demands faced by educators throughout the school day. 5.6.2 In-service Training Educators also spoke to the strong need for greater supports during their first years of teaching, as well as the benefits of having other knowledgeable educators to ask for advice on providing supports and navigating school systems. Given that schools vary vastly in the resources available to provide educators support, recommendations should be developed by the school community and its educators. Finding ways to promote communication and resource sharing between educators and administrators is an important potential avenue for continued learning after educators have entered their teaching roles. “Mentor educators’” time investment should be appropriately acknowledged to incentivize collaboration and prevent greater burnout. When asked about strategies for providing support to neurodivergent students, educators also spoke to the importance of long-term planning and strategic implementation of supports based on school resources, family readiness, student need, and student developmental trajectory. Several educators spoke to the importance of good record keeping, information tracking, and communication between previous and future teachers working with a student. Having an understanding of what supports have been tried, what has worked, as well as unique student needs and learning preferences can save educators time and effort by potentially reducing the “trial and error” period when addressing a learning need. This labor should be recognized and 92 compensated by administrators, and formal systems for appropriately and securely storing and sharing information should be implemented at a school-wide level. Lastly, the concept of neurodiversity-affirming teaching should be understood as an ever-evolving effort which looks differently depending on educator and school resources, student needs, and current understandings of neurodivergence (backed by research and lived experiences of neurodivergent communities). Educators spoke at length about their self-perceptions of their skill, knowledge, and resource deficits. Several expressed guilt, frustration, and self-judgment, despite committing personal time and resources towards fostering inclusive classrooms and supporting students. This study aims to highlight the “day-to-day”, self-driven, and creative efforts of educators in promoting inclusion in the absence of adequate training and supports. As such, the researcher hopes to encourage teachers to celebrate their strengths and hard work in this area. 5.7 Considerations for Future Research An important next step for the study of inclusive teaching is a program evaluation which explores inclusion-related content in Canadian training programs. Standards related to neurodiversity-related training are inconsistent, resulting in teachers entering their positions with insufficient skills. With a clearer perspective on gaps in training programs, advocacy for change can take place, benefitting both educators and the students they support. Further, school psychologists are well-situated to support educators to implement neurodiversity-affirming and inclusive strategies for support, classroom management, and communication through indirect services such as consultation and appropriate recommendations. They may also foster neurodiversity-affirming perspectives on students by intentionally using inclusive language during school-based team meetings (and providing feedback to others not using inclusive 93 language during these meetings, in report writing, and during any contact with educators during assessment or intervention activities. Educators’ experiences of training and teaching related to neurodivergent learners were explored in this study. As discussed, a common theme which emerged from the interviews was the importance of using neurodiversity-affirming and inclusive language with students. However, given inconsistent training standards, future research should explore the language used by educators when teaching students about inclusion. This may serve to provide educators with practical strategies for facilitating conversations related to inclusion for various age groups and audiences. Further, neurodivergent students’ perspectives should be considered when exploring what is experienced as neurodiversity-affirming for them. 5.8 Summary The purpose of this study was to explore how Kindergarten to Grade 3 educators perceived their training to have prepared them for working with neurodivergent learners, as well as their understandings and day-to-day practices related to inclusive teaching. In-depth interviews, analyzed though Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis methodology, explore seven BC educators’ self-perceptions and lived experiences of this phenomenon. Findings suggested a need for greater neurodiversity-related trainings, in-class supports, and practical strategies which educators can employ as part of their efforts to support diverse learners. Importantly, despite the challenges they faced, participants in the study communicated a strong sense of duty to be inclusive, were motivated to find creative ways to support their students, and a desire to make change. 94 References Acevedo, S., & Nusbaum, E. (2020). Autism, neurodiversity, and inclusive education. Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/nwn8 Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? The Grounded Theoretical Review, 11(1). 39-46 Armstrong, T. (2015). The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17(4), 348–352. https://doi.org/gq78 Barnes, C. (2019). Understanding the social model of disability. In Watson, N., Roulstone, A., & Thomas, C. Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies. (pp. 14-31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429430817 Belmont, M. (2020) In Rosqvist, H. B., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. (pp. 109-124). Routledge. https://doi.org/nxtn Bolourian, Y., Losh, A., Hamsho, N., Eisenhower, A., & Blacher, J. (2022). General education teacher’s perceptions of autism, inclusive practices, and relationship building strategies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, 3977-3990. https://doi.org/gq3kw3 Boswell, R. S. (2020). Neurodiversity, inclusive pedagogy and the need for peer support in postsecondary education (Thesis). Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/43108444/Neurodiversity_Inclusive_Pedagogy_and_the_Need_for_Peer_Support_in_Postsecondary_Education Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. (2024). The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594. https://doi.org/nxx7 95 Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Smith, D. D. (2019). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6). 1360-1372. https://doi.org/gmwnhz Chapman, R., & Botha, M. (2022). Neurodivergence-informed therapy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology. (65). 310-317. https://doi.org/g7wwhj Chen, Y., & Patten, K. (2021). Shifting focus from impairment to inclusion: Expanding occupational therapy for neurodivergent students to address school environments. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 73(3) 1-7. https://doi.org/nxtp Curtin, M., & Clarke, G. (2005). Listening to young people with physical disabilities’ experiences of education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(3), 195–214. https://doi.org/dbhw8f Davis, P., & Florian, L. (2004). Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: A scoping study. Queen’s Printer. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6059/1/RR516.pdf den Houting, J. (2019). Neurodiversity: An insider’s perspective. Autism, 23(2), 271–273. https://doi.org/ggb3z9 Detzer, A. (2017). Neurodiversity in the classroom: Pilot of a training resource for teachers educating autistic inclusion students in a general education setting. [Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University]. Retrieved from: https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/360 D’Intino, J. S., & Wang, L. (2021). Differentiated instruction: A review of teacher education practices for Canadian pre-service elementary school teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(5), 668–681. https://doi.org/nxtq 96 Fenton, A., & Krahn, T. (2007). Autism, neurodiversity and equality beyond the “normal.” Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2(2), 1–6. Frizzell, A. A. (2018). The inclusive classroom: Perceptions of general and special educators’ preparedness to meet the needs of students with disabilities (Publication No. 10904484) [Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Frostad, P. & Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/d6vnhf Gonçalves, T., & Lemos, M. (2014). Personal and social factors influencing students’ attitudes towards peers with special needs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 949–955. https://doi.org/gmf6zm Goodall, C. (2018). Inclusion is a feeling, not a place: A qualitative study exploring autistic young people’s conceptualisations of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(12), 1285–1310. https://doi.org/npfz Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge. https://doi.org/nxtr Government of British Columbia. (2019, September 12). Education by the numbers. https://news.gov.bc.ca/29424 Graham-Matheson, L. (2011). How did we get here? A brief history of inclusion and special education needs. In Cornwall, J., & Graham-Matheson, L. (Eds.) Leading on inclusion (pp.7-21). Routledge. https://doi.org/nxts 97 Griffiths, D. (2020). Teaching for neurodiversity: Training teachers to see beyond labels. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, (8), 56-59. Gunn, T., & McRae, P. (2021). Better understanding the professional and personal factors that influence beginning teacher retention in one Canadian province. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2(3). https://doi.org/nxtt Hamovitch, B. (2006). Hoping for the best: “Inclusion” and stigmatization in a middle school. In Books, S. (Ed.), Invisible children in the society and its schools (3rd ed., pp. 263-281). Routledge. https://doi.org/nxtv Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2003). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/fcr7xg Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/669616 Hargreaves, A. (2014). Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices, PreK-12. Guilford Publications. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. Springer. https://doi.org/hr6b Ineese-Nash, N. (2020). Disability as a colonial construct: The missing discourse of culture in conceptualizations of disabled Indigenous children. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 9(3), 28-51. https://www.doi.org/10.15353/cjds.v9i3.645 98 Jane Jr, C. P. (2024). Disability interpretation from colonial insight to Indigenous spirituality: A Ihanktonwan Dakota and Chickasaw realization. In Ward, J. (Ed.) Indigenous Disability Studies. Routledge. https://doi.org/nxz6 Juvonen, J., Lessard, L. M., Rastogi, R., Schacter, H. L., & Smith, D. S. (2019). Promoting social inclusion in educational settings: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 250–270. https://doi.org/gjk2pt Kapp, S. (2020). Autistic community and the neurodiversity movement: Stories from the frontline. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/jkz2 Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2013). Changing practices, changing education. Springer Science & Business Media. Kiely, M. T., Brownell, M. T., Lauterbach, A. A., & Benedict, A. E. (2015). Teacher’s beliefs about students with special needs and inclusion. In Fives, H., & Gregoire Gill, M. (Eds.). International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 475-491). Routledge. Killoran, I., Woronko, D., & Zaretsky, H. (2013). Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/ggmp69 Kluge, I. (2024) Disability in education from a neurodiversity standpoint: A multi-article dissertation [Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University]. Retrieved from: https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/1017/ Krischler, M., Powell, J. J. W., & Pit-Ten Cate, I. M. (2019). What is meant by inclusion? On the effects of different definitions on attitudes toward inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 34(4). 632-648. https://doi.org/gj478f 99 Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70(6), 1373–1400. https://doi.org/bhtj5c Lewiecki-Wilson, C., Dolmage, J., Heilker, P., & Jurecic, A. (2008). Two comments on “Neurodiversity.” College English, 70(3), 314–325. McCrimmon, A. W. (2015). Inclusive education in Canada: Issues in teacher preparation. Intervention in school and clinic 50(4), 234-237. https://doi.org/f62qzz Metsala, J. L., & Harkins, M. J. (2020). An Examination of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inclusive education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/nxx8 Mirfin-Veitch, B., Jalota, N., & Schmidt, L. (2020). Responding to neurodiversity in the education context: An integrative literature review. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Moreira, P.A., Bilimória, H., Pedrosa, C., Pires, M.D., Cepa, M.D., Mestre, M.D., Ferreira, M., & Serra, N.I. (2015). Engagement with school in students with special educational needs. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 15(3) 361-375. Murphy, K. (2022) Supporting the wellbeing of children with SEND: Essential ideas for early years educators. Routledge. https://doi.org/nxws Naples, L., & Tuckwiller, E. (2021). Taking students on a strengths safari: A multidimensional pilot study of school-based wellbeing for young neurodiverse children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13). 10.3390/ijerph18136947 100 Nizza, I. E., Farr, J., & Smith, J. A. (2021). Achieving excellence in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Four markers of high quality. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/gjz6hc O’Brien, P. & Bonati, M. (2018). From Institutionalisation to Inclusion. In O’Brien, P., Bonati, M., Gadow, F., & Slee, R (Eds.), Studies in Inclusive Education, 42. (pp. 3-19). MyBook. https://doi.org/nxx9 Pellicano, E., & Stears, M. (2011). Bridging autism, science, and society: Moving toward an ethically informed approach to autism research. Autism Research. 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.201 Pitt, V., & Curtin, M. (2004). Integration versus segregation: The experiences of a group of disabled students moving from mainstream school into special needs further education. Disability & Society, 19(4), 387–401. https://doi.org/c2pmrt Purcell, M. L., Turnbull, A., & Jackson, C. W. (2006). Linking Early Childhood Inclusion and Family Quality of Life: Current Literature and Future Directions. Young Exceptional Children, 9(3), 10-19. https://doi.org/bmbs8d Quinlan, L. (2018). Accessibility and disability for Indigenous women, girls, and gender diverse people: Informing the new federal accessibility legislation. Native Women’s Association of Canada. https://shorturl.at/rVo4C Rentenbach, B., Prislovsky, L., & Gabriel, R. (2017). Valuing differences: Neurodiversity in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(8). https://doi.org/ggb5xs Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700–712. https://doi.org/gcm24q 101 Rosqvist, H. B., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. (2020). Neurodiversity studies: A new critical Paradigm. Routledge. https://doi.org/jkz9 Sharma, M. (2020). Neurodiversity in education: Celebrating differences and embracing strengths. Global international research thoughts. 8(1), 16-19. Retrieved from https://girt.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/view/39 Shmulsky, S., Gobbo, K., & Vitt, S. (2022). Culturally relevant pedagogy for neurodiversity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 46(9), 681–685. https://doi.org/nxwt Stenning, A. (2020). Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing. In Rosqvist, H. B., Chown, N., & Stenning, A. Neurodiversity studies: A new critical paradigm. (pp. 109-124). Routledge. https://doi.org/jkz9 Sokal, L., & Sharma, U. (2013). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International. 23(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v23i1.7704 Stein, M. (2015). Disability Human Rights. In West, R. (Ed.) Nusbaum and Law. (pp. 4-49). Routledge. Summer, B. B., Morton, H. E., Buchanan, K. A., Gould, K. (2024). Moving from disorder to difference: A systematic review of recent language use in autism research. Autism in Adulthood, 6(2). https://doi.org/nxwv Thompson, S. A., Lyons, W., & Timmons, V. (2014). Inclusive education policy: what the leadership of Canadian teacher associations has to say about it. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/nxww 102 Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/dckn7n Valeo, A. (2008). Inclusive education support systems: Teacher and administrator views. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 8–16. Valle, J. W., & Connor, D. J. (2019). Rethinking Disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/nxwx Voekl, K. E. (2010). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/c42x7r Wang, C. C.-T. (2019). Neurodiversity and the B.C. secondary science curriculum: Intersections and diversions [Dissertation Submission, University of British Columbia]. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/71073. Open Collections. Warner, H. (2020). Special needs students, service providers, and educators: How teachers perceive the effects of service provider type on special needs students in the general classroom [Doctoral dissertation, Carson-Newman University]. Woodcock, S. & Woolfson, L. M. (2019). Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic supports and barriers toward inclusion. International Journal of Educational Research. 93. 232-242. https://doi.org/gprvz6 Yee, N. L., & Butler, D. L. (2020). Decolonizing possibilities in special education services. Canadian Journal of Education, 43(4), 1071–1103. https://shorturl.at/SMuvq Yellowhorse, S. (2023, June 18). Indigeneity and Disability: The teachings of our ancestors and being in relation towards harmonious outcomes. Disability Visibility Project. https://shorturl.at/toH7O 103 Appendices Appendix A. Screener Survey Questions Screening Questions 1. Are you currently a certified teacher in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver? (e.g., Greater Vancouver area, Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Anmore, and Belcarra). (Please choose one) ☐Yes ☐No (direct survey to “The End”) 2. Are you currently a classroom teacher in a Kindergarten to Grade 3? (Please choose one) ☐Yes ☐No (direct survey to “The End”) 3. Do you have under 10 years of experience as a teacher teaching in classrooms? (Please choose one) ☐Yes ☐No (direct survey to “The End”) 4. Are you interested in participating in a study about BC educators’ experiences teaching students with diverse learning needs? (Please choose one) ☐Yes (direct survey to Consent Cover Letter and Consent) ☐No (direct survey to “The End”) 104 Appendix B. Background Survey Questions Background Survey 1. In what type of school do you currently teach? (Please choose one) ☐ Public ☐ Private ☐ Other, please specify: ____________________ 2. What grade(s) do you currently teach? ☐ Kindergarten ☐ Grade 1 ☐ Grade 2 ☐ Grade 3 ☐ Split Grade 3. How long have you been teaching the grade you currently teach? (Please specify in number of years) Drop down menu with options: 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 9-10 4. What is the highest degree you have completed? ☐ Bachelors (e.g., BEd, BA, BS) ☐ Post Baccalaureate Diploma or Certificate ☐ Master’s Degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEd) ☐ Specialist Degree (e.g. EdS) ☐ Doctoral Degree (e.g. EdD, PhD, PsyD) 5. How long ago did you complete your training to become a teacher? __________________ Drop down menu with options: 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 9-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20 or more 6. Do you identify as part of a marginalized group or community? (e.g., race, ethnicity, disability, gender) (Please choose one) ☐Yes ☐No ☐ Prefer not to say 7. Do you identify as neurodivergent? (e.g., Autistic, a person with a diagnosis or self-diagnosis of ADHD, learning disability, cognitive differences) ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Prefer not to say 105 8. Do you believe that your training was sufficient to supporting neurodivergent learners in your classroom? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ I’m not sure 9. What training have you received specifically to support neurodivergent or special needs learners in your classroom? (check all that apply) ☐ Specialized courses during my teaching degree (mandatory) ☐ Specialized courses during my teaching degree (elective) ☐ General courses during my teaching degree with information relevant to diverse learners ☐ Pro-D through employment ☐ Pro-D during my own time ☐ Personal research ☐ School-wide trainings ☐ Advice from other educators ☐ None ☐ I’m not sure ☐ Other, please specify 106 Appendix C. Interview Questions Interview Questions 1. Tell me about your training experiences that prepared you for becoming a teacher. 2. In what ways do you believe your training prepared you to teach students with diverse learning needs? 3. How do learning differences show up in your classroom? 4. Tell me about what inclusive teaching looks like to you. 5. In what ways do you promote inclusion in your classroom? 6. What are some ways that you support students with learning differences in your classroom? 7. If you could change one thing about your classroom to make it more inclusive, what would that be? 8. Tell me about your experiences teaching students with diverse learning needs. 9. How do you talk about neurodivergences and learning differences or needs with your students? 10. How do you talk about neurodivergences and learning differences or needs with your students? 11. Are there ways you think students can best be taught about what learning differences are? 12. Do you have anything you would like to add that we have not discussed? 107 Appendix D. Recruitment Advertisement Recruitment Advertisement 108 Appendix E. Consent Form Consent Form 109
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
School and Applied Child Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Ford, Laurie
Thinking, talking, teaching : how primary school educators facilitate neurodiversity-affirming classroom practices to support students' inclusion
Text