‘We’ve Kind of Become More Professional’: Swedish Teaching Teams Enhance Skills with Participation Model for Inclusive Education

Abstract

In this study, two teaching teams’ implementations of a conceptual model to support inclusive education were investigated. Focus group discussions with the teaching teams were conducted and the theory of organizational and occupational professionalism was used in the analysis. The result shows that it is possible to expand a teaching team’s professional skills by developing a common professional language and accessing vocabulary that supports their understanding of the multifaceted concepts of participation and inclusive education. To carry this out, teaching teams need both organizational professionalism, such as a supportive organization and time to meet, and occupational professionalism, such as meetings where they can discuss and reflect together and gain autonomy. The combination of lack of occupational professionalism and a strong organizational professionalism seems to limit the possibilities for professional development.

1. Introduction

The Nordic countries, like many other countries around the world, signed the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) thirty years ago, making a commitment to inclusive education. Since then, they have been striving to develop an inclusive school environment for all children, but without an agreement on the definition of inclusive education. Swedish government agencies suggest a participation model for schools and teachers to use to develop participation (The Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2018) and support inclusive education (Szönyi, 2020). This can be viewed as organizational professionalism (Evetts, 2013), in which the government steers the profession towards a specific model to support inclusive education. This differs from occupational professionalism, in which the professional group has a higher degree of autonomy.

This Swedish participation model has been used in research to observe and analyze participation (Edström, 2023; Melin, 2013; Östlund, 2012), but no study has investigated how pedagogues actually use it. Therefore, there is a need for case studies to put theories of inclusive education into practice (Nilholm, 2021; Keles et al., 2022), since there is a lack of empirical research on inclusive education and how theoretical ideas are implemented in Nordic countries (Buli-Holmberg et al., 2023). This article contributes to addressing this gap. The Swedish participation model was developed to match inclusive education (Edström et al., 2022) and was called The Participation Model (TPM). Two compulsory school teaching teams that implemented TPM and their professional development were investigated. In this study, implementation of TPM means that the teaching teams were introduced to the model as a means to developing students’ participation and inclusive education. They could decide themselves how to implement it in their work. This study highlights how the members of the two teaching teams describe and talk about their use of TPM. Its aim is to explore how the implementation of TPM in teaching teams influences their professional skills in inclusive education through the lens of professionalism theory.

2. Background

In this study, the concept of inclusive education is important. A Swedish participation model, here developed and called TPM, is central to this. This study was built on teaching teams’ professional development, so two views of professionalism are presented in this section.

2.1. Perspectives on Inclusive Education

In the field of inclusive education, there is an ongoing battle between the psychological paradigm and the sociological paradigm (Kinsella, 2020). This is in line with the special education dilemma of difference (Minow, 1985; Dyson & Millward, 2000), described as follows: ‘If one identifies groups of children, one risks stigmatizing them. However, if one does not identify groups of children, one risks neglecting children who need more support’ (Nilholm, 2006, p. 235).

The starting point for inclusion is often that a student or group of students in need of support are to be included in a mainstream setting. However, this view of the student in need can be challenged as a ‘euphemism for the failure of schooling to meet the needs of all children, it de-politicizes school failure and legitimizes the professional interest of special education workers’ (Kinsella, 2020, p. 1343). Kinsella suggests changes in schools, on the levels of both policy and practice, to meet the needs of all students. From this starting point, inclusive education suggests that ‘inclusion involves all pupils, i.e., inclusion means that all pupils should be participating socially and learn according to their prerequisites. Ideally, this would also involve the creation of communities in schools and classroom’ (Nilholm, 2021, p. 362). In this view, it is important that all students are the teacher’s responsibility and not left to other staff. ‘Unless the teacher takes responsibility for everyone, her/his practice is not inclusive’ (Kim et al., 2022, p. 1081).

Copying good examples from one school to another to achieve inclusive practice is not always successful since inclusive education has a strong alignment to context (Loreman, 2014; Persson, 2013). There is a consensus gap in the definition of inclusive education, which is often seen as a problem, but this may also be seen as a possibility for schools and teaching teams to find their own ways to develop inclusive education (Schwab, 2024).

Teaching teams’ skills in inclusive education are intended to be developed through the use of TPM. As inclusive education is a contested concept, it is important to clarify our definition. In this article, inclusive education refers to including students in all criteria of participation, as described in TPM. This can be summarized as each student’s opportunity ‘to be an active and accepted part of a context, together with others, with the possibility to have influence and to be listened to’ (The Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2018, p. 8 (translated from Swedish)). Here, TPM was used as a tool to develop inclusive education and was introduced to the teaching teams during the intervention.

2.2. The Participation Model

TPM, Figure 1, can be seen as a definition of participation developed to support inclusive education (Edström et al., 2022; Szönyi, 2020). It consists of six criteria that together lead to a high degree of participation: acceptance, accessibility, autonomy, belonging, interaction and involvement. Acceptance refers to other students’ subjective acknowledgement and respect, which makes it possible to cooperate, play and interact. Accessibility is a three-part criterion, in which physical accessibility involves access to the room and necessary objects, accessibility into meaning context involves understanding the intentions and meaning of an activity and sociocommunicative accessibility refers to students’ ability to understand others and make themselves understood. In a classroom context, accessibility thus means that students have access to the right study materials, understand what to do and how to do it, etc., to improve their learning. A student’s ability to make decisions about their own situation is covered in the autonomy criterion. The criterion of involvement is bipartite, consisting of engagement in motivation, to enjoy what they are doing, and in challenge, having opportunities in their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), meaning that activities are not too difficult and not too easy. The criterion of challenge was added to the Swedish participation model to better match inclusive education (Edström et al., 2022). Interaction refers to cooperation and communication with others. A high degree of interaction means that all students are seen as contributors to the common goal. Belonging consists of two different parts: formal belonging refers to the right and opportunity to be enrolled in and attend school, and informal belonging refers to the subjective feeling of belonging.

2.3. Professionalism to Improve Inclusive Practices

The educational system in Sweden is increasingly governed from an organizational perspective of professionalism (Göransson et al., 2018), which is common in many countries. For example, Algraigray (2023) investigated special educators’ situations in Saudi Arabia, which is described as strictly governed. He found that autonomy and possibilities for collaboration are important in supporting the development of inclusive practices and suggested a move in that direction. According to Göransson et al. (2018), this means that when the occupational group is able to make decisions within the group, it is more likely to work towards an inclusive practice, even though the context, in which the special needs educators are working, may also decide if they develop an inclusive practice. Göransson et al. (2018) mentioned organizational professionalism as follows: ‘Governance by hierarchical and bureaucratic controls seems to foster a deprofessionalization of the occupational role of [special needs educators], which risks being incompatible with the development of inclusive practices’ (Göransson et al., 2018, p. 571).

Van Mieghem et al. (2023) suggested that self-efficacy beliefs are important for school staff to be willing to include students with special needs in mainstream schools. Thus, the school staff’s positive experiences with inclusion were found to be more valuable than professional development initiatives in developing inclusive education. School staff also need an inclusive mindset, or to identify themselves as inclusive professionals: ‘Professional development, whether for general education or special education, should emphasize the development of inclusive teacher identity, professional competence, inclusive professional philosophy, autonomy, and reflexivity’ (Li & Ruppar, 2021, p. 56).

In different workplaces and in different occupational groups, professionals tend to have a shared professional language. It is important, for example, that pilots in a cockpit understand each other and that dentists and dental nurses use their codes. Professional language signals professionalism and efficiency. Gradén & Irisdotter Aldenmyr (2023) showed that research can contribute to teachers’ development of a professional language, understanding of their practice, and raising standards for their communication. The Swedish participation model was initially developed as a thought model to investigate and develop participation, and Szönyi (2020) described it as a joint language for understanding and describing participation. In this study, the development of professional language is viewed as a professional skill in itself, as a sign of professionalization and as an important part of the development of other skills, such as the ability to systematically support student participation and inclusive education.

2.4. Professional Development Through Collaboration

Learning communities in which teachers learn together, led and supported by an external expert, are a way to develop inclusive education (Brennan & Gorman, 2023). When teachers are given autonomy and can collaborate in a secure environment, they are able to make changes in a relatively short time (Brennan & Gorman, 2023). Learning communities have become a popular method of school development in Sweden and other countries. Bourke (2009) found that to develop an inclusive practice in a whole-school approach, collaboration through reflection on experiences and the sharing of knowledge and expertise was valuable. One important part of schools’ organization for inclusive education is teacher collaboration (Buli-Holmberg et al., 2023). Principals, who are in charge of the schools, could initiate such projects for staff. In these cases, it is important that they communicate this and that they involve their staff in the process from the beginning (Sahlin, 2023). Prior research has shown that school staff are motivated to support their students’ needs (Gunnþórsdóttir et al., 2024), and one literature review demonstrated ‘collaboration or collective agency as important for enacting inclusive education’ (Miller et al., 2020, p. 1171). In an Icelandic study, team teaching, collaboration, openness to diversity, inclusion as the norm, and ongoing dialogue with staff were identified as success factors in developing inclusive education (Gunnþórsdóttir et al., 2024).

3. Theoretical Framework

To analyze and understand how teaching teams implement TPM and its influence on their professional skills, professionalization and professionalism are important concepts. Professionalization is the process of development that leads to a regulated and controlled occupation in which workers become (and remain) professional (Evetts, 1999). In this process, pedagogues strengthen their profession and increase their inclusion skills.

Increasing student participation and developing inclusive education are in line with professionalization for teachers and teaching teams. Thus, the intervention in this study has the possibility of being a professionalization process. The two teaching teams in this study implemented TPM. To carry this out, they needed to take part in what could be seen as a learning community for professional development.

Professionalism is a changing concept and is thus hard to define. However, Evetts (2013) suggested occupational and organizational professionalism as two ways to interpret the concept. Occupational professionalism is recognized in practitioners’ autonomy and power: ‘The occupational value of professionalism is based on trust, competence, a strong occupational identity and cooperation’ (Evetts, 2013, p. 784). Further, occupational professionalism refers to the professions’ norms and values and are embedded in the professional practice, where the profession controls the work and methods (Evetts, 1999) allowing decision making based on the professions’ expertise and judgment (Evetts, 2013). This means that the practitioners themselves are in charge of their profession; for example, teaching teams may act independently, with the autonomy to act and make decisions and without specific control from authority and their principal.

Organizational professionalism, however, is top down and dependent on strong control from authorities (Evetts, 2013). This means that norms and values, including external regulation, work methods and standards, are decided by employers or government (Evetts, 1999). Managerialism has a significant role and focus on efficiency and control through managerial directives (Evetts, 2013). Practitioners are steered by authorities such as the principal or others above them, and their room for action and decision making is limited in the hierarchical structure. The frameworks for pedagogues in schools include national school law, curriculum and international statements, sustainability goals, and principals’ directions. Both occupational professionalism and organizational professionalism can coexist and are important, but the balance between the concepts may vary (Evetts, 1999).

These two views are helpful for understanding the professionalism and professionalization processes of teaching teams. During this intervention, indications of both kinds of professionalism were observed.

4. Methods

A qualitative research design was used to explore the two teaching teams’ implementations of TPM and how they influenced their professional skills in inclusive education. Focus group discussions (FGD) were used for data collection at the end of the intervention, where each of the teaching teams described what happened during the project. To understand the context of the FGD, a short presentation of the intervention preceded it. The intervention of implementing the participation model took place in two compulsory schools, with one teaching team in each school, and was facilitated by the first author.

4.1. Teaching Teams

The two teams were named Team Alpha and Team Omega. To participate in this study, a precondition was that the teaching teams were interested in developing student participation and inclusive education in class.

4.1.1. Team Alpha

Team Alpha consisted of four female teachers: one class teacher (CT), one teacher in physical education (PE), one resource pedagogue (RP), and one special educational needs coordinator (SP). The SP seldom met the students in the grade four class they had in common, as she worked all over the school and thus had limited opportunities to meet this class during the intervention. PE met the class at least twice a week, and the two others (CT and RP) met them on a daily basis.

Team Alpha was introduced to TPM and given the materials to study. Their principal wanted the team to join this project, and they were willing to learn new concepts, strategies and methods for developing participation and improving inclusive education. One teacher in Team Alpha admitted that she was instructed by the principal (but glad) to attend the project.

4.1.2. Team Omega

Team Omega consisted of three teachers in compulsory school: one female first (and class) teacher (FT) and two male (TA and TB) class teachers. They shared the teaching of two grade five classes, consisting of fifty students altogether. The teachers all met both classes and one another every school day, apart from when one of the teachers was absent from school and from three of the FGD meetings during this time. They worked equal amounts in class. The first teacher (FT) in Team Omega received information about the project and convinced the other class teachers to participate. Their situation allowed them to cover for each other in class when one of them was on leave, which was not the case for all teams in their school and would not be the case next year.

4.2. The Intervention

The intervention intended to develop and foster a higher degree of student participation. This study received ethical approval (DNR. 2023-06467-01), and before the intervention began, the participants gave written informed consent to participate. The first author introduced the pedagogues to the model in person in their schools (audio recorded meetings), in a two-hour session for each team. Publications about TPM (Edström et al., 2022; The Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2018; Szönyi, 2020; Szönyi & Söderqvist Dunkers, 2018) were distributed to the pedagogues for further reading at the first meeting. During the weekly meetings with the first author, the teaching teams shared their reflections on challenges at school and discussed how to increase student participation based on TPM. During these meetings, the first author acted as a facilitator to support the teams’ understanding of the criteria of TPM. However, the facilitator did not try to control how they implemented it.

5. Analysis

An FGD with each team was conducted on Zoom (video recorded meeting) by the first author at the end of the intervention. The recordings were transcribed and thematized using NVivo. Phase 1 of the thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was becoming immersed in the data, and the first author transcribed the FGDs, listened to the recordings, and read through the transcripts before the thematization in NVivo began. In phase 2, an inductive approach was applied to understand what the teaching teams made of the participation model during the intervention and what possibilities they saw for using it, and four initial codes were generated from the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006): time and meetings, mapping, language, and cooperation.

In phase 3, the codes were used as themes, and in phases 4 and 5, the codes were organized under the theoretical frameworks of organizational and occupational professionalism, respectively. The two teams’ situations differed in many ways, and the two views of professionalism were helpful for understanding these differences. Team Alpha operated mainly within organizational professionalism, while Team Omega was based more within an occupational view of professionalism, which is both important and helpful in understanding events during the intervention. Important quotations supporting the two views are presented in the Section 6 to validate the analysis. The results are presented under the themes of organizational and occupational professionalism.

6. Results

The aim of this study was to explore how the implementation of TPM in teaching teams influenced their professional skills in inclusive education through the lens of professionalism theory. The results show that both teaching teams were dependent on the governance of steering documents, such as the sustainability goals, the Educational Act, the curriculum, and local regulations and policy documents from their municipalities, which can all be seen as influencing the profession and their work towards inclusive education. However, the results of this study showed differences between the two teaching teams’ development of professional skills, depending on whether they were operating within organizational professionalism or also accessed an occupational perspective.

6.1. Organizational Professionalism

The members of Team Alpha were mainly governed by organizational professionalism. They were willing to develop students’ participation in class and their skills in inclusive education, but this was initiated by the school principal, who had instructed them to participate. This shows that the principal wanted to influence the teaching teams’ knowledge development in this direction as a way to professionalize them and increase their professional skills. In Team Alpha, they focused on participation as a whole and did not go deeper into the different criteria.

Team Alpha’s autonomy was limited by authorities, as the principal made the decisions, and this also seemed to affect their engagement. From the organizational view, the participants may have been waiting for the next steps and new directions from authorities, which may have affected engagement for Team Alpha. They were participating in line with the principal’s initiative, and the fact that they knew that, after this project time, their principal had new plans for next year made it difficult to see that it could continue: ‘There is a lot happening in school next year, so next school year, we’re going into some other new method to learn. But it would have been fun.’ (TJ, Team Alpha, FGD).

Similarly, for Team Omega, there were organizational changes that could have affected their autonomy. During the project, they received information on cutbacks in the municipality that would affect them, and they learned that they would be split into two different teams for the following year. Organizational professionalism, as a means of professionalization, affects the motivation of teams when they are accustomed to their principal changing the focus for development. This means that teaching teams’ autonomy and possibilities to make their own decisions for their professionalization are neglected, and that they miss access to profound knowledge due to time limits they cannot control. Team Omega mentioned a lack of time as something that hindered them in this project. It was also something they could not do much about, since they were not in charge of their time; they did not have opportunities to plan their time differently, in line with this organizational view.

An organizational view of professionalism can be both a challenge and an advantage. This governance from the principal seemed to influence the team members’ motivation and thus their professional development. At the same time, it may feel comfortable knowing that someone has a plan for their work. A sign of their lower degree of motivation was that Team Alpha developed a less profound understanding of participation and inclusive education; they spoke more broadly about participation and seldom used the words for the different criteria. For example, one member of Team Alpha stated, ‘Maybe that’s also a part of this circle? The food circle of participation … I don’t know’ (RP, Team Alpha, FGD). It shows insecurity when team members describe a situation and attempt to connect it to TPM criteria, and it appeared as though the professionalization process in relation to participation and inclusive education did not continue as they did not develop their professional language. Another example is when a team member described how she worked with the implementation:

Actually, I used most of this cooperative learning, which I see sort of fits in with TPM. Eh, since maybe I’m not looking at the actual model, which part is this? But I still think that, oh, just these parts, they also fit into TPM. So, it’s more that I kind of use the parts found in the cooperative, which is then also in TPM, than I might think about which parts are missing and what I need to add.

(CT, Team Alpha, FGD)

This demonstrates that she was not going deeply into TPM but trying to connect the new knowledge to her earlier experiences of cooperative learning, a popular method in (Swedish) schools today, as she recognized its similarities to TPM. This implies that her motivation was stronger in her work with the cooperative learning model, which she had already worked with and was familiar with, while TPM was just something she was instructed to use. Team Alpha expressed that they did not gain profound knowledge during this project, as seen in this quote: ‘Well, we had been under that iceberg. So now it’s like we’ve just been up on top and sniffed around a bit’ (PE, Team Alpha, FGD).

6.2. Occupational Professionalism

In contrast to Team Alpha, Team Omega shared the occupational professionalism view in many ways. They heard about the opportunity to attend the project, informed their principal and obtained approval, and decided together to join. This demonstrates their connection to occupational professionalism, as they themselves wanted to develop their professional skills in relation to participation and inclusive education. This also meant that their principal offered them the space to decide for themselves about their professionalization.

In Team Omega, they were specific about the TPM criteria they were discussing. This was evident when they described a school project in which their students worked on a joint school newspaper. As this was something the teachers in Team Omega thought was beneficial for student participation, they talked about it in the FGD. When they discussed this work, they used the vocabulary of TPM and were specific about which criteria they had in mind, using all the correct terms. One example is when they discussed which criteria they worked with most, using the terms belonging, accessibility, and interaction.

Yes, but maybe quite a lot of belonging. Because we have … not been involved in almost anything like that, so there has been a lot of focus on that. But also accessibility in different school subjects, to be able to be involved and do the same kind of tasks, although perhaps in a slightly different way, so it doesn’t become completely our own and it is also very social. So it’s probably both the interaction, but mostly belonging, socially. But there is probably also a little interaction with each other and so on.

(TA, Team Omega, FGD)

Team Omega used the TPM criteria freely in their discussion, and the vocabulary was part of their professional language, which they had begun developing in relation to participation and inclusive education. As some of the criteria were divided into two or three parts, they sometimes also specified the part they were addressing. One example is when teachers in Team Omega did not just speak of the criterion of involvement but also specified the challenge part within it. They seemed to have incorporated it into their language, so they were able to be quite specific about what was needed to increase participation in class.

FT: That is probably what the challenge is, I think. Involvement, challenge, that is also a difficulty that could be improved. We are good at finding solutions for the ones who are on a low level. But that is our next step; it could be to find the right challenges for those in need, for the high achievers.

TA: Exactly.

(Team Omega, FGD)

They did not just speak about involvement but specified the part of challenge within the criterion, which is a sign of their professionalization. They also described the outcome of the project as the new professional language they accessed and used in their everyday work at school. They all gave examples of this: ‘But then it was like it became a part of how we communicate around them’ (TA, Team Omega, FGD). They expressed that the concept was not new to them but that they now had a language for it.

FT: I think this model is so good because it has given us concepts about things that we already…

TA and TB: Mm [murmurs of agreement]

FT: … do and know and think about. But we haven’t thought of them in these terms. So we’ve kind of become more professional.

(Team Omega, FGD)

It was evident that they agreed on the importance of TPM in supporting the development of a common professional language. The members of Team Omega were aware of their professionalization during this process and demonstrated the importance of occupational professionalism in developing professionalization. They elaborated on what they meant by developing their professional language: ‘It is like a technical term to us. We learned words for what we already knew’ (TB, Team Omega, FGD). This can be interpreted as tacit knowledge developing into professional language. Team Omega discussed the possibility of sharing this language with their colleagues in the rest of the school: ‘We could have the same language and the same concepts, for example, at school’ (FT, Team Omega, FGD).

Team Omega made a joint future plan, even if their authorities and principal had plans for the following year that would affect them significantly. They used their autonomy to find their own solutions within the new framework. They may have been stuck in an organizational professionalism view, but they challenged it and came out on the occupational side instead. Team Omega reported that their principal wanted them to present TPM to their colleagues, indicating that the principal trusted them in their work. When they discussed how they could present it to their colleagues, they also appeared to value autonomy for their colleagues.

FT: I think that our initial way should be to just tell them briefly about the model, then show how we worked with it. But not to do more than that, and then if they are interested, that’s awesome.

TB: Mm.

FT: And then they can do it either in their own way…

TA: Exactly.

FT: … or choose to take our finished model.

(Team Omega, FGD)

Time emerged as an important factor in professional development and the opportunity to put theory into practice. Team Omega talked a lot about the value of time: time to meet, time to reflect, time that they were willing to spend, and lack of time. Team Omega had the opportunity to organize their time when they were all in school, since they were three teachers in two classes. Since they decided for themselves to develop participation and inclusive education, they found ways to organize their meeting time. This autonomy of the team seemed to be key to creating a deeper understanding of participation and inclusive education. They seemed to be in charge of their situation and could plan for the next school year. Even though the prerequisites were to be changed, which probably meant less time, they could still find opportunities to continue the work they had started. Unlike Team Alpha, whose motivation was influenced by organizational professionalism and changed based on directions from the principal, Team Omega took charge of their situation. This could be explained by acknowledging the importance of autonomy in gaining occupational professionalism. For example, Team Omega’s teachers discussed possibilities for future work and how they could continue to cooperate even if they were split into different teams.

TA: We may be four [teachers] next year. Years four and five, for example.

FT: Mm.

TB: That could work out really well, actually. Then, we could help each other as well, in some parts.

(Team Omega, FGD)

Another sign of occupational professionalism being connected to the teaching teams’ autonomy was their motivation to develop their work in participation and inclusive education. They used available tools, such as the school platform and a shared digital notebook, to incorporate TPM into their daily work by using TPM criteria to plan future work and lessons for their students.

7. Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore how the implementation of TPM in teaching teams influenced their professional skills in inclusive education through the lens of professionalism theory. The main findings of this study are that it is possible for a teaching team to implement TPM and, through this, develop a professional language, in line with Szönyi’s (2020) suggestion. The language increases the teams’ professional development, and their tacit knowledge of participation and inclusive education becomes apparent. The development of a professional language as a way to professionalize the teams had different results for the two teams based on their context within the organizational professionalism view versus the occupational view. The occupational view supported Team Omega in developing their professional skills and using TPM as a professional language. This shows the importance of the teaching team’s autonomy, power within the team, and the principal’s trust in the team for implementation and professionalisation. Team Omega was able to meet every day and have an ongoing dialogue around their students’ participation and inclusive education, and this was strengthened and supported by the new professional vocabulary TPM offered. This is in line with the claims of Gunnþórsdóttir et al. (2024) that collaboration and this kind of dialogue are important for developing inclusive education. In addition to trust from the principal, the organization of time and structure is also important and shows that organizational professionalism is valuable. It is a delicate issue for a principal to give the right support and offer autonomy for teaching teams.

The importance of autonomy for developing inclusive practices is in line with research by Göransson et al. (2018) and Brennan and Gorman (2023). Team Alpha was based in an organizational professionalism view and did not develop this profound understanding of TPM or a professional language. This team lacked autonomy and power, and this affected their occupational professionalism negatively. For example, they did not work as a team on a daily basis, and they were not able to organize their time, for themselves or as a team. This suggests that the organizational professionalism became dominant and influenced Team Alpha’s ability to develop a professional language; instead, they became passive and waited for governance from the principal, as they knew that new instructions were to come.

Occupational professionalism appears to be important for professionalization, as it makes it possible to collaborate and make decisions within the Omega team, in line with Algraigray’s (2023) views on professionalism in the development of inclusive education. This seems to support the development of professional skills as a professional language in team Omega. However, professionalization is not possible without organizational professionalism, as governance and support from principals are important for developing the profession within an actual framework. A lack of occupational professionalism, as in team Alpha, limits professional development in the sense that autonomy and power are reduced and organizational professionalism dominates. This means that the professionalization process is limited. For teaching teams, optimal professionalization appears to involve access to organizational and occupational professionalism in combination.

This study provides an example of putting theory into practice. It shows that a professional language can be accessed from theoretical ideas, such as TPM, to support teaching teams’ handling of multifaceted concepts such as participation and inclusive education. It is possible for a teaching team to develop professional skills in inclusive education and to adopt a language to handle the multifaceted concepts of participation and inclusive education. To develop these skills, both organizational and occupational professionalism are important. Thus, the combination of a strong organizational professionalism and lack of occupational professionalism seems to limit the possibilities for professional development. The strengths of this study were the use of focus groups discussions that offered rich joint perspectives from each team, as they could support each other and discuss their various views. The theory of organizational and occupational professionalism offered understanding, and the differences between the two teaching teams was a strength of this study. These differences provided richer results and a variety of organizational and occupational views. This study was limited to the teaching team members’ own descriptions of the implementation process, and other voices, such as the principals’, could have offered a richer picture. This could be investigated in future studies. Whether student participation and inclusive education improved as a result of the implementation of TPM is outside the scope of this study and further research on this topic would be informative.