926976

research-article2020
TESXXX10.1177/0888406420926976Teacher Education and Special EducationLi and Ruppar

Article
Teacher Education and Special Education

Conceptualizing Teacher
2021, Vol. 44(1) 42­–59
© 2020 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Agency for Inclusive Education: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A Systematic and International DOI: 10.1177/0888406420926976
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420926976
journals.sagepub.com/home/tes
Review

Lingyu Li1 and Andrea Ruppar1

Abstract
Teachers can and should play a powerful active role in promoting societal inclusion and equity
for all learners. There is an emerging interest among teacher education scholars in teacher
agency and its importance; however, a theoretical and empirical understanding of teacher agency
remains elusive. The purposes of this systematic review are to synthesize existing theories of
teacher agency and summarize factors enhancing or constraining teacher agency for inclusive
education. Implications for teacher education, professional development, and future studies
were discussed. The electronic databases Academic Search Premier, Education Research
Complete, ERIC, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for articles published until January
2019. Nine empirical studies were identified to inform the three-dimensional (i.e., iterational,
practical-evaluative, projective) and temporal-relational nature of teacher agency, with inclusive
teacher identity, professional competence, inclusive professional philosophy, autonomy, and
reflexivity as its five core aspects.

Keywords
teacher agency, inclusive education, international study, systematic literature review

Teachers are considered the most important reform (Pyhältö et al., 2014); (f) agency in the
agent affecting the development of educa- challenge to racial hegemony in schools
tional policy, implementing policy inside their (Allen, 2015); (g) the impact of teacher agency
classrooms, and directly shaping learning on professional learning, retention, and par-
conditions for students (Anderson, 2010; ticipation in school change (Anderson, 2010);
Fullan, 1993; Priestley et al., 2012). Because and (h) the role of agency in negotiating and
of this, teacher agency has become a focus of reshaping professional identity (Buchanan,
international research in teaching and teacher 2015; Vähäsantanen, 2015). These findings
education (Priestley et al., 2012; Vähäsan- identify the multiple ways teacher agency is
tanen, 2015). Previous research on teacher shaped in contexts and can affect change.
agency has focused on (a) personal attributes Empirical research, however, has barely
that seem conducive or coercive to teacher
agency (Biesta et al., 2015; van der Heijden 1
University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA
et al., 2015); (b) contextual factors that shape
agency (Connolly et al., 2018); (c) agency in Corresponding Author:
carrying out curriculum reform (Priestley Lingyu Li, Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and
Special Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison,
et al., 2012); (d) agency in the practice of pol- 461 Education Building, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison,
icy (Robinson, 2012); (e) agency in the imple- WI 53706, USA.
mentation of large-scale national educational Email: [email protected]
Li and Ruppar 43

probed into the relationships among teacher education movement to take an intersectional
agency, social justice, and inclusion (Pantić, and cultural-historical standpoint to fore-
2015, 2017a; Pantić & Florian, 2015). ground equity in the international inclusive
Teachers play a significant, agentic role in education agenda. Although debates about the
changing existing education environments to definitions and practice of inclusive education
meet diverse needs of all learners (Pellicano around the world are beyond the scope of
et al., 2018). There is a growing consensus on this article, we adopted a broad definition of
embracing inclusive education worldwide, but inclusive education as a process of challeng-
there is a lack of knowledge on how to accom- ing barriers to participation and learning for
plish deep and sustained commitments to all students, including students with special
inclusiveness with equity as its core (Kozleski needs (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013).
et al., 2009). This gap between the high expec-
tations of inclusive education policy and the
low levels of implementation places great chal-
Teacher Agency
lenges on special education teachers who have Teacher agency is considered under-theorized
been encountering issues like ongoing staff and variously construed in the education
shortages, high turnover rates, an increasingly reform literature. Conceptual models of
diverse student population, and high-stakes agency have been developed by drawing on
testing-based accountability. Understanding broader theories of human and professional
the relationship between teacher agency and agency (Priestley et al., 2012). The concept of
inclusion would help policy makers and human agency is rooted in social science
researchers develop a support system for both (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). It has been
in-service and pre-service special education widely theorized to address individual and
teachers. It also acknowledges special educa- social change, including worldwide urgent
tion teachers’ roles as active decision makers problems (Bandura, 2018; Biesta & Tedder,
and school change contributors. 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998).
Priestley et al. (2016) summarized three
major approaches to conceptualizing human
Inclusive Education agency: “agency as variable, agency as capac-
By definition, inclusive education aims to ity and agency as phenomenon” (p. 20). The
enhance access, participation, and outcomes first approach falls in the binary structure–
for all diverse student populations who have agency debate. Agency is discussed as a vari-
been traditionally excluded from formal edu- able against structure, questioning whether
cation (Kozleski et al., 2014). Given different agency or structure plays a more important
cultural, historical, political, economic, and role in social and education reforms. The sec-
social contexts across different countries and ond approach to human agency uses social-
regions, global understanding and implemen- cognitive models, which views agency as a
tation of inclusive education is far from cohe- property or capacity residing in individuals
sion and coherence (Artiles & Dyson, 2005). (Priestley et al., 2016). Similarly, Bandura
In practice, inclusive education generally (2018) proposed three main properties of
focuses on students with disabilities and pro- human agency: forethought, self-reactiveness,
gram placement, which requires students to and self-reflectiveness. Acknowledging the
meet specific kinds of qualifications for limitations of exclusive focus on individual
enrollment (Kozleski et al., 2014). As demon- agency, he broadened this theoretical frame-
strated by Artiles et al. (2016), neglecting the work to discuss three dimensions of human
intersectional nature of dis/ability can create agency: individual, proxy, and collective. He
inequities for other marginalized groups. The claimed that this dynamic mix of different
“dual nature of disability as an object of pro- agentic dimensions is cross-culturally appli-
tection and a conduit for exclusion and dis­ cable. This approach, however, runs the risk
advantage” (p. 778) requires the inclusive of blaming individuals or individual groups
44 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

for new policy failure or unsatisfactory stu- agency for inclusive education in existing
dent outcomes (Van de Putte et al., 2018). research, and (c) summarize factors that have
A third major approach to agency is the been identified to affect teacher agency for
sociocultural theoretical approach (Priestley inclusive education. The following research
et al., 2016). Emirbayer and Mische’s concep- questions guided this review:
tualization of agency from a sociocultural
perspective has been the most influential Research Question 1: How is teacher
approach in the study of agency (Philpott & agency theorized in the inclusive education
Oates, 2017). Emirbayer and Mische (1998) literature?
built on Giddens’s (1984) theory of structura- Research Question 2: What aspects of
tion that emphasizes the actor’s intentionality, teacher agency for inclusive education are
capacity in exercising agentic actions, and the examined?
consequences produced. They reconceptual- Research Question 3: What factors sup-
ized human agency as “a temporally embed- port and/or constrain teacher agency for
ded process of social engagement” (p. 963), a inclusive education?
dynamic interplay among the “iterational”
element (experience from the past), the These research questions also informed the
“projective” element (an orientation toward review methods presented below.
alternative possibilities in the future), and the
“practical-evaluative” element (an engage-
ment of the past and the future at the moment).
Method
Moreover, they argued that the structural con- To identify empirical articles for this system-
texts themselves are temporal and relational atic review, we conducted four levels of
along the flow of time. Drawing from Emir- searching. To begin, we read secondary
bayer and Mische’s (1998) “chordal triad of sources—handbook chapters, reviews, and
agency” (p. 971), Biesta and Tedder (2007) conceptual articles—to gain a broad under-
argued that agency is not a fixed individual standing of the issues. We found that empiri-
capacity but a “quality of the engagement of cal studies on teacher agency for inclusive
actors with temporal-relational contexts-for- education are limited in scope. Therefore, we
action” (p. 146). They proposed to take an purposefully determined broad search and
ecological perspective to understand the selection criteria. First, there was no restric-
achievement of agency. Later, Eteläpelto et al. tion on the time or the place of publication.
(2013) conducted a critical review on pro­ We selected all existing studies conducted in
fessional agency and proposed a “subject- any country. Second, the source of publication
centered socio-cultural perspective” (p. 45) to was limited to peer-reviewed, English only
recognize an individual’s intentional subjec- journals. Book chapters, technical reports,
tivity. To sum up, human agency has been presentations, dissertations, and briefs were
variously conceptualized as individual capac- excluded. Third, study participants must
ity and choices, a mutually constitutive and include teachers, either general or special edu-
interdependent relationship between individ- cation teachers, who advocated for inclusive
ual capacity and contexts, and contexts only education for all learners, especially learners
determined act. with disabilities. Fourth, only primary or sec-
As Pantić (2015) pointed out, empirical ondary data-based empirical articles were
analyses of teacher agency require conceptual selected. Literature reviews, editorials, or
clarity and appropriate variables constituting papers that adopted solely a conceptual point
teacher agency. This international and system- of view were excluded. Fifth, this review only
atic literature review aimed to (a) explore a included articles that offer some explicit ways
comprehensive and clear way of theorizing to conceptualize or theorize teacher agency.
teacher agency for inclusive education, (b) As Priestley et al. (2016) criticized, the term
identify empirical units of analysis of teacher teacher agency has been used implicitly as an
Li and Ruppar 45

interchangeable term to teacher resilience or inclusive education that have been examined
teacher autonomy. To better understand (Research Question 2), we analyzed all the
teacher agency in its own term with distin- articles according to their units of focus, such
guishing natures, this review intentionally as teacher competence, teacher autonomy, or
excluded articles that related to similar ideas teacher collaboration. The teacher agency
(e.g., teacher autonomy or teacher resilience) conceptual model proposed by Pantić and
but did not provide any conceptual framework Florian (2015) served as a starting point. In
of teacher agency. the model, Pantić and Florian (2015) argued
Then, we conducted a systematic search of that teacher agency consists of four aspects:
four electronic databases, Academic Search sense of purpose, competence, autonomy, and
Premier, Education Research Complete, reflexivity. To identify factors that support
ERIC, and PsycINFO, systematically. We and/or constrain teacher agency for inclusive
used two levels of search terms. The Level 1 education (Research Question 3), we further
search term was teacher agency. Level 2 analyzed the articles by referring to Priestley
search terms were inclusive education or et al.’s (2016) conceptual model that discusses
inclusion or special education. Conducted iterational elements, projective elements, and
with the same combinations of search terms, practical-evaluative elements.
the initial search yielded 374 from Academic
Search Premier, 437 Education Research
Complete, 332 from ERIC, and 234 from
Results
PsycINFO. After eliminating duplications This section provides descriptive information
and reading the titles and abstracts, 20 peer- about the findings of the selected studies.
reviewed journal articles were identified. Table 1 presents research designs, theoretical
Next, a hand search of 15 peer-reviewed jour- approaches, and research focuses of each
nals online yielded two OnlineFirst articles. empirical article. Table 2 illustrates all
Online journals included Action in Teacher explored aspects of teacher agency for inclu-
Education, American Educational Research sive education and corresponding agentic
Journal, Disability Studies Quarterly, Equity actions. Figure 1 demonstrates the temporal,
& Excellence in Education, Exceptional Chil- relational, and contextual nature of teacher
dren, International Journal of Inclusive Edu- agency and the interactions among the influ-
cation, The Journal of Special Education, encing factors. In general, studies demon-
Journal of Teacher Education, The New Edu- strated the three-dimensional (iterational,
cator, Teachers College Record, Teachers and practical-evaluative, projective) and tempo-
Teaching: Theory and Practice, Teacher ral-relational nature (Emirbayer & Mische,
Education and Special Education, Teacher 1998) of teacher agency with inclusive teacher
Education Quarterly, Teaching and Teacher identity, professional competence, inclusive
Education, and Urban Education. Finally, professional philosophy, autonomy, and
ancestral searching was conducted using ref- reflexivity as its five core aspects.
erence lists from a seminal book by Priestley The nine empirical studies were published
et al. (2016) and recent reviews located 12 within the past decade, confirming a surging
additional empirical articles. In total, 34 full- interest in teacher agency within the context
text articles were read, and nine empirical of inclusive education. Pantić (2017a) argued
articles met all selection criteria. that this phenomenon was driven by the
To identify various theories of teacher increasing emphases on equity and the recog-
agency in the inclusive education literature nition of teacher power in literature. Five out
(Research Question 1), we examined the of the nine (56%) studies used qualitative
selected articles based on their theoretical method designs, involving interview data and
approach: agency as a variable, agency as a observation data for rich qualitative descrip-
capacity, and agency as a phenomenon. To tion. Two studies used quantitative method
identify various aspects of teacher agency for designs, involving assessment scales with
46
Table 1. Summary of Empirical Studies.

Author and Research Theoretical Aspects of teacher

year method Participant approach Theorization of teacher agency agency Influencing factor Country
Themane and Qualitative Eight teachers who Sociocultural Something achieved through an Attitude, decision Material condition, South Africa
Thobejane interview, were identified approach interplay of personal capacity, making, school policy and
(2018) observation, as champions of the structure, social contexts, knowledge, procedure, social/
document inclusive education and material conditions by teacher identity cultural context
analysis in their schools by means of which teachers can
their principals purposefully and constructively
make a difference in the
educational achievements and
other social needs of learners
Naraian and Qualitative Seven novice special Sociocultural Collective social process Attitude, Personal history, The United
Schlessinger focus group, education teachers approach that permits teachers’ collaboration, collegial relationship, States
(2018) interview who graduated creative responses when curricular school policy and
from a critical upholding commitments to decision making, procedure
disability studies- inclusion within a culture of knowledge,
informed teacher performativity teacher identity,
education program self-reflection
Wang et al. Quantitative 2,549 Chinese Sociocultural Teachers’ capacity or power to Resource seeking Collegial relationship, China
(2017) scaled survey inclusive education approach actively make everyday choices material condition,
teachers about situation-appropriate professional
and context-specific inclusive experience,
pedagogies, intentionally take school policy and
actions, and strategically initiate procedure
changes
Pantić (2017a) Mixed-method 14 teachers from an Sociocultural Teachers’ context-embedded Attitude, Collegial relationship, Scotland
scaled inclusive primary approach practice and enactment of their collaboration, material condition,
survey, school beliefs and values of inclusive decision making, school policy and
interview, education and social justice knowledge; procedure
observation teacher identity,
self-reflection
(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)

Author and Research Theoretical Aspects of teacher

year method Participant approach Theorization of teacher agency agency Influencing factor Country
Heikonen et al. Quantitative 284 inclusive Sociocultural Capacity that enables teachers to Collaboration, Professional Finland
(2017) scaled survey schoolteachers approach intentionally and responsively self-reflection, experience,
manage their own learning to transformative student–teacher
enhance student learning in the practice relationship
classroom
Lyons et al. Qualitative 68 participants from Social- Individual and collective capacity Attitude, Collegial relationship, Canada
(2016) focus group, four inclusive cognitive to produce an inclusive learning collaboration, material condition,
interview schools (including approach community with shared efficacy, teacher school policy
teachers, parents, knowledge, skills, and synergy identity and procedure,
students, school among members student–teacher
personnel) relationship
Mu et al. Mixed-method 1,761 special Social- Capacity to actively plan, Collaboration, Not examined China
(2015) interview, education teachers cognitive initiate, execute, and perform resource seeking
scaled survey in Beijing primary approach volitional actions and behaviors
and junior high to facilitate their inclusive
schools pedagogy
Naraian (2014) Qualitative Teachers, students, Sociocultural Situated resistance to inequitable Collaboration, Collegial relationship, The United
interview, school staff from approach schooling systems and agentic curricular school policy and States
observation, five schools/ work against practice that decision making, procedure, social/
document classrooms perpetuates norms of ability knowledge; cultural context,
analysis teacher identity student–teacher
relationship
Naraian (2013) Qualitative Non-governmental Sociocultural An oppositional engagement Attitude, Collegial relationship, India
interview, organization approach within their everyday schooling assessment material condition,
observation, educators who contexts to negotiate the decision making, professional
document managed to place benefit of inclusive education, collaboration, experience,
analysis students with to work against practice that curricular decision school policy and
disabilities in perpetuates norms of ability making, teacher procedure, social/
inclusive schools identity cultural context

47
48 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

Table 2. Aspects of Teacher Agency for Inclusive Pedagogical Practice.

Agentic actions of inclusive pedagogical practice

Aspects of teacher agency (context-bounded action)
Inclusive teacher identity • Promoting equal status in collaborative teaching partnership
(professional roles, moral roles, • Embracing ambiguity in the role of inclusive education
and motivation) activists
•• Acting as school system developers and decision makers
Professional competence • Actively developing knowledge about inclusive pedagogy
(knowledge and practice of • Having insatiable desire for more knowledge and training
inclusive pedagogy with social • Seeking professional development workshops
equity as its core) • Adapting their prerequisite pedagogy for inclusive practice
• Intersectional understanding of ability/difference within
inclusive pedagogy
• Modeling a disposition to social justice
• Creating extracurricular space for relationship building with
students
• Creating mutual supporting space among students to foster a
sense of belonging
• Tailoring curricular but still ensuring students’ competence in
taking high-stakes exams
•• Providing testing accommodations
Inclusive professional philosophy • Having a positive attitude toward inclusive education
(attitudes and perceptions • Understanding student achievement as always contingent on
toward teaching, learning, and social contexts and home situations
ability) • Possessing strong convictions of the significance of social-
emotional growth for academic learning
• Regarding instruction as a reciprocal process
•• Challenging deficit views of fixed ability
Autonomy • Constructing a supportive ecology within schools
(individual and collective efficacy, • Collaborating with neighboring schools, communities, and
decision-making power, and families
active collaboration with other • Co-planning and deciding curricula
actors) • Committing to building trustworthy relationships with
students
• Committing to building trustworthy relationships with
colleagues
• Willing to enter collision with others
• Having high levels of confidence, control, and resilience
• Challenging problematic school culture and the principal’s
leadership
•• Challenging problematic broader education policy and
sociocultural contexts
Reflexivity • Reflecting on their own practices and environments in
(constant reflection, monitoring, seeking to accommodate all learners
and regulation of one’s own • Constantly monitoring of their own actions with respect to
actions and social contexts) their commitments
• Simultaneously seeking ways to manage discursive dissonance
• Articulating practical professional knowledge and justifying
actions
•• Making sense of the structures and cultures in their schools
as sites for social transformation

Source. Adapted from Pantić and Florian (2015).

Li and Ruppar 49

Figure 1. Factors influencing teacher agency.

Source. Adapted from Priestley et al. (2016).

large populations of participants. For exam- approach. In the sociocultural theoretical line,
ple, Wang et al. (2017) used the Teacher Pro- agency is studied as a phenomenon and con-
fessional Competence Scale to measure ceptualized as a temporally embedded process
teacher agency and professional skills with of social engagement. Teacher agency is not a
2,549 Chinese inclusive education teachers. fixed internal property that can be transported
Two studies used mixed-method designs by across contexts, but an ongoing achievement
collecting both qualitative and quantitative when actors engage in intentional interaction
data to study context-bound agency and to with the contexts (Emirbayer & Mische,
seek a large-scale impact on policies and prac- 1998). For example, Wang et al. (2017) theo-
tice changes. All the empirical investigations rized teacher agency as teachers’ capacity or
chose some aspects of teacher agency as the power to actively make everyday choices
units of analysis. These nine studies were con- about situation-appropriate and context-­
ducted in the following countries: Canada, specific inclusive pedagogies, to intentionally
China, Finland, India, Scotland, South Africa, take actions, and to strategically initiate
and the United States. Therefore, the selected changes. On the contrary, the social-cognitive
studies depicted various inclusive education theory emphasizes the psychosocial function-
pedagogies adopted in various cultural and ing properties of human agency, seeing agency
social contexts. as individual and collective capabilities to
shape and to be shaped by their sociocultural
environments and life courses (Bandura,
Theorization of Teacher Agency 2018). For example, Lyons et al. (2016)
Seven out of the nine (78%) articles claimed to defined teacher agency as an individual and
adopt a sociocultural approach to theorizing collective capacity to create an inclusive learn-
and defining teacher agency, while two (22%) ing community with shared knowledge, skills,
articles claimed to adopt a social-cognitive and collaboration among members. They
50 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

regarded individual and collective efficacy into a curriculum co-planner. In this way,
as the foundation of human agency. There is inclusive educators can use the ambiguity of
no clear-cut between these two theoretical their roles as an opportunity to position them-
approaches. Both approaches acknowledge the selves in ways that support equal partnership
roles of the agentic actors and contexts to dif- in decision making.
ferent extents.
Professional competence. Professional compe-
tence refers to teachers’ knowledge and prac-
A Conceptual Framework for Agency
tice of inclusive education pedagogy with
in Inclusive Education social equity as its core (Heikonen et al.,
A conceptual framework informs different 2017; Mu et al., 2015; Naraian, 2014; Naraian
agentic aspects and actions as units of analy- & Schlessinger, 2018; Pantić, 2017a; Themane
sis. Table 1 shows that collaboration (78% of & Thobejane, 2018). Some critical agentic
the articles), inclusive teacher identity (67% actions found in the studies are intersectional
of the articles), attitude (56% of the articles), understanding of ability/difference within
and decision making (56% of the articles) are inclusive pedagogy, modeling a disposition to
the most examined aspects of teacher agency social justice, creating extracurricular space
for inclusive education. Knowledge (44% of for relationship building with students, creat-
the articles) and self-reflection (33% of the ing mutual supporting space among students
articles) attract great attention as well. Two to foster a sense of belonging, and tailoring
studies focused on teachers’ engagement in curriculum but still ensuring students’ compe-
resource seeking and both were conducted in tence in taking high-stakes exams (see Table 2
China. Using the findings from all the nine for more agentic actions). For example,
articles, we expanded and adapted Pantić and Themane and Thobejane (2018) found that
Florian’s (2015) conceptual model to study agentic teachers would actively seek training
teacher agency for inclusive education. In the in inclusive education knowledge and skills
expanded and adapted conceptual model (see so that they can accommodate all learners by
Table 2), inclusive teacher identity, profes- providing universally designed learning prac-
sional competence, inclusive professional tices and build on students’ strengths and
philosophy, autonomy, and reflectivity are the interests. In this way, inclusive educators can
five core aspects of teacher agency for inclu- see their teaching knowledge and skills as a
sive education. result of lifelong learning rather than a fixed
capacity out of habit.
Inclusive teacher identity. Inclusive teacher
identity refers to teachers’ professional roles, Inclusive professional philosophy. Inclusive pro-
moral roles, and motivation (Lyons et al., fessional philosophy refers to teachers’ atti-
2016; Naraian, 2013, 2014; Naraian & Sch- tudes and perceptions toward teaching,
lessinger, 2018; Pantić, 2017a; Themane & learning, and ability (Lyons et al., 2016; Nara-
Thobejane, 2018). Studies demonstrate that ian, 2013; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018;
inclusive educators usually engage in the fol- Pantić, 2017a; Themane & Thobejane, 2018).
lowing agentic actions: promoting equal sta- Agentic inclusive educators usually have a
tus in their collaborative teaching partnership, positive attitude toward inclusive education,
embracing ambiguity in the role of inclusive understand student achievement as always
education activists, and acting as school contingent on social contexts and home situa-
system developers and decision makers. For tions, possess strong convictions of the sig-
instance, Naraian and Schlessinger (2018) nificance of social-emotional growth for
pointed out that in relationships with general academic learning, and regard instruction as a
education teachers in co-teaching classrooms, reciprocal process (see Table 2 for more agen-
special education teachers could remake their tic actions). For instance, instead of helping
peripheral role as a behavior interventionist students adapt to the existing schooling
Li and Ruppar 51

structure, inclusive educators address barriers more agentic actions). For instance, inclusive
embedded in the school’s institutional organi- educators would constantly reflect on what
zation or broader social structures. They works and what does not work, what underly-
redistributed or provided information about ing powers play a role, and how to take advan-
funding to facilitate access to higher levels of tage of available resources and supports to
education (Pantić, 2017a). In this way, inclu- privilege the potential of students. In this way,
sive educators can re-medicate and disrupt inclusive educators can become aware of their
troubled power hierarchies related to dis/abil- own limitations and implicit bias, and there-
ity, race, social class, gender, and other social fore initiate change-oriented actions.
identities.
Factors Influencing Teacher Agency
Autonomy. Autonomy means individual and
collective efficacy, decision-making power, Eight out of the nine (89%) studies explored
and active collaboration with other actors the contextual factors that can support and/or
(Heikonen et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2016; Mu constrain teacher agency for inclusive educa-
et al., 2015; Naraian, 2013, 2014; Naraian & tion (see Table 1). All articles acknowledged
Schlessinger, 2018; Pantić, 2017a; Themane the temporal and relational nature of teacher
& Thobejane, 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Impor- agency, and they mainly discussed structural,
tant agentic actions demonstrated in the studies cultural, and material factors influencing
are challenging problematic broader educa- agency for inclusive education. For instance,
tion policy and sociocultural contexts; chal- conflicts among education policy, sociocul-
lenging problematic school culture and principal tural contexts, and teachers’ own perceptions
leadership; constructing a supportive ecology of learning and teaching were examined in
within schools; collaborating with neighbor- seven (78%) studies. Teachers’ previous pro-
ing schools, communities, and families; or fessional experience was discussed in three
building a trustworthy relationship with stu- (33%) studies, showing how teachers’ past
dents (see Table 2 for more agentic actions). learning and teaching experience influenced
For example, Naraian (2014) argued inclusive their current practices and visions of their own
educators would challenge ability-based mea- and their students’ future (Heikonen et al.,
surement or the discourse of teaching func- 2017; Naraian, 2013; Wang et al., 2017).
tional skills only to students with moderate to Emirbayer and Mische (1998) proposed
significant disabilities. Furthermore, they pri- that human agency is a dynamic interplay
oritized knowing individual students through among the “iterational” element (experience
their diverse everyday experience and situat- from the past), the “projective” element (an
ing students’ present learning within their orientation toward alternative possibilities
undetermined future. In this way, inclusive in the future), and the “practical-evaluative”
educators can create a space that allows for element (an engagement of the past and the
collective engagement in equity-oriented future within the current moment). Priestley
transformative practices. et al. (2016) incorporated this theoretical
approach and proposed an ecological perspec-
Reflexivity. Reflexivity refers to constant tive to understand factors influencing the
reflection, monitoring, and regulation of one’s achievement and exercise of teacher agency.
own actions and social contexts (Heikonen Using the findings from the nine selected
et al., 2017; Naraian & Schlessinger, 2018; articles, we adapted and expanded Priestley
Pantić, 2017a). Studies show that agentic et al.’s (2016) ecological model (see Figure 1).
inclusive educators constantly reflect on their Figure 1 shows that teacher education expe-
own practices and environments to accommo- rience, professional development experience,
date all learners, monitor their own actions and years of teaching experience with students
with respect to their commitments, and man- with disabilities are the most studied itera-
age discursive dissonance (see Table 2 for tional elements. Practical-evaluative elements
52 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

involve structural, cultural, and material fac- conceptual framework is used to theorize
tors. Structural factors refer to schools’ organi- teacher agency, to explore the main aspects of
zational setup or broader education system teacher agency and the factors influencing
structures. Cultural factors are the ideation of the formation and exercise of teacher agency.
values, discourse, or beliefs. The most com- Implications for teacher education and pro-
monly discussed cultural elements are broader fessional development for inclusive educa-
societal views of disability, heavy-duty tion are discussed as well.
accountability mechanisms, the culture of per-
formativity, and ambiguous roles of special Theorizing Teacher Agency for
education teachers. Material factors consist of
human and material resources, physical space,
Inclusive Education
and technology. Projective elements are dem- The adapted conceptual framework follows
onstrated by teachers’ visions of their students sociocultural theory, which treats teacher
in mainstream higher education institutions, agency as a result of the interplay among indi-
inclusive job employment, independent living, vidual teachers’ capacity and environmental
and visions of their own professional work conditions, and the interaction of teachers’
around inclusive education. past experience, current practice, and future
orientations (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). An
understanding of teacher agency as a phenom-
Discussion enon instead of a fixed capability avoids blam-
In the current discourse of social justice and ing individual teachers for some disappointing
equity, the agentic role of teachers has gained education outcomes (Priestley et al., 2016). An
increasing attention. A growing number of explicit way of theorizing teacher agency for
scholars requested the public to acknowledge inclusive education can help future empirical
teaching as a highly valued profession and studies treat teacher agency as “an analytical
to see teachers’ power in fighting for better category in its own right—with distinctive
learning conditions and quality resources for theoretical dimensions and temporally vari-
all learners (Alter, 2013). Inclusive education able social manifestations” (Emirbayer &
teachers play a major role in creating equita- Mische, 1998, p. 963). In addition, the critical
ble environments for students who have long disability study framework provides a critical
been systematically marginalized due to abil- lens to understand inclusive education. It
ity and other sociocultural identity markers. reconceptualizes the disability identity as a
Promoting teacher agency not only allows social, cultural, and political phenomenon
teachers to practice a higher level of profes- while still acknowledging neurological, bio-
sional decision making but also to see agency logical, cognitive, or psychological aspects of
as a key component of teacher professional- disabilities. It brings the lived experiences and
ism (Priestley et al., 2016). The importance of knowledge of the disability community to the
teacher agency is clear, but how to conceptu- center and encourages educators, scholars, and
alize teacher agency for inclusive education is policy makers to resist the dominant discourses
challenging. of ability and differences (Ashby, 2012).
In the above section, to understand teacher Drawing from the empirical studies and the
agency for inclusive education, we refer to critical disability study framework, we defined
empirical evidence from the selected articles teacher agency for inclusive education as a
and draw inferences from Pantić and Flori- temporal, individual, and collective engage-
an’s (2015) conceptual model and Priestley ment (Priestley et al., 2016) in active decision
et al.’s (2016) ecological approach to develop making on curriculum, assessment, and every-
a more specific conceptual framework with day inclusive education practice, mediated by
two components (see Table 2 and Figure 1). given educational contexts, to negotiate the
In this section, we further discuss how the benefit of inclusive education and to work
Li and Ruppar 53

against practices that perpetuate norms of abil- autonomy in the discourse of collaborative
ity and differences (Naraian, 2013). teaching between general and special educa-
tion teachers in the United States. They found
Aspects of Teacher Agency for that when inclusive education teachers
encountered conflicts between their figurative
Inclusive Education identity as equal curriculum decision makers
The first component of the adapted concep- and their school-designated identity as policy
tual framework (see Table 2) demonstrates followers, agentic teachers exercised agency
different aspects and relevant agentic actions in strategic ways by building trusting relation-
of inclusive education teachers. This literature ships with their colleagues as well as their stu-
review regards different aspects of teacher dents. They adopted and adapted top-down
agency as the temporal units of analysis that practices and negotiated the high-stakes test-
can guide empirical studies in designing tools ing centered school culture with their own
for data collection and data analysis. For roles as activist inclusive educators.
instance, Mu et al. (2015) focused on inclu- Inclusive professional philosophy and
sive education teachers’ intentional support reflexivity were explored by Pantić (2017a)
and resource-seeking actions within the and Naraian (2013). Conducting a study in a
under-resourced and under-staffed Chinese primary school in Scotland with 14 teachers,
inclusive education context. Guided by the Pantić (2017a) found that agentic inclusive
focuses, they designed a questionnaire to teachers tended to prioritize students’ well-
measure the collaboration and resource- being and learning needs. They regarded stu-
seeking aspects of teacher agency. There are, dents’ achievement as always contingent on
however, no universal measurement tools the social contexts and home situations, and
applicable to all teachers who are teaching in strongly believed that social-emotional growth
various social, cultural, and even local con- is significant for academic learning. These
texts—nor should there be any such tools. teachers actively engaged in building relation-
Studies analyzed in this review demon- ships with students because they regarded
strate that agentic actions of inclusive educa- instruction as a reciprocal process. Naraian
tion teachers differ in type and extent within (2013) worked with inclusive educators in
different contexts. For instance, Themane and India where inclusive education privileged
Thobejane (2018) found that rural South Afri- placement over the quality of learning. Teacher
can teachers’ agentic orientations were not agency was manifested in tacit oppositional
manifested in resource seeking as found by engagements. For example, teachers there did
Mu et al. (2015), but in cultivating profes- not openly challenge the heavy-duty account-
sional competence (e.g., inclusive education ability education mechanisms or the high-
knowledge or pedagogical skills) and collabo- stakes testing-based performance culture. They
ration skills. The lack of material resources exerted efforts in tailoring curriculum to meet
was considered pervasive and insoluble students’ learning needs while still ensuring
among these rural South African teachers. students’ competence in taking in-state exami-
Despite the challenging teaching conditions, nations. They believed that students with dis-
inclusive education teachers there sought out abilities can and should enter mainstream
innovative ways to implement inclusive edu- higher education institutions. When it comes
cation. They adopted multiple approaches to to working with students with significant
presenting knowledge and assessing student intellectual disabilities, teachers there had to
performance. They engaged in a wide collab- make compromises according to the available
oration network with other teachers, teaching resources. Meanwhile, they constantly moni-
assistants, parents, and neighboring schools. tored and regulated their own assumptions of
In another example, Naraian and Schlessinger learning and ability, and cultivated positive
(2018) focused on professional roles and attitudes toward inclusive education.
54 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

Reflexivity matters because unexamined and informs teacher education and profes-
assumptions embedded in the institutional con- sional development for inclusive education.
texts can contribute to the perpetuation of ineq-
uitable educational outcomes for some learners The iterational dimension. In the iterational
(Allen, 2015). Pantić (2017a) found out that dimension, individual teachers’ past personal
some inclusive educators demonstrated beliefs and professional experience has been shown
about teachers’ critical role in promoting social to play a role in shaping teacher agency. For
justice and in removing the barriers to accessi- instance, in Naraian and Schlessinger’s (2018)
bility to and participation in education; how- study, only one inclusive education teacher
ever, they still regarded students and their worried about the disproportionate placement
families as vulnerable and worked to help them of students of color in special education. His
adapt to the required standards and norms. agentic orientation toward an intersectional
Without reflecting on their underlying assump- understanding of ability derived from his own
tions about schools as politically neutral set- learning experience as a Black male student.
tings that provide equal opportunities for all, Although it is not guaranteed that every cul-
educators would view special schools or self- turally and linguistically diverse teacher will
contained classrooms as a more appropriate be effective with students of color and auto-
placement for students’ well-being and safety matically know how to teach students of color
concerns, and see dis/ability as natural, fixed, in special education (Sleeter, 2001), this
and obvious (Broderick & Lalvani, 2017). empirical evidence, to some extent, speaks to
In all, everyday agentic actions of inclu- the importance of diversifying the teaching
sive education teachers are well explored in population and promoting culturally and lin-
the selected studies. Some aspects of teacher guistically responsive pedagogy among all
agency that proved to be salient among certain teachers. In the same study, all the participants
teachers can be invisible to others. Chinese had prior working experience in nonprofit
inclusive education teachers might actively organizations. They worked as a former
engage in resource and support seeking (Mu school paraprofessional, a community activist,
et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2017), while Finnish or an artist advocate. They all demonstrated a
inclusive education teachers might commit to sophisticated repertoire for reconciling disso-
building trusting relationships with students nance and challenges in their day-to-day
and in reflecting on their own practices and work. This evidence validates the importance
environments to accommodate all learners of teacher education and professional devel-
(Heikonen et al., 2017). Together with the opment in developing teachers’ capability in
local contexts, the adapted conceptual frame- responding to dilemmas, problems, and
work can function as a guide for future empir- conflicts in their everyday working sites. In
ical studies. It can also help teacher education addition, this iterational aspect implies that
and professional development programs recruiting teachers from other professional
design curricula and learning goals related to fields or exposing teachers to various profes-
inclusive teacher identity, professional com- sional learning experiences may enhance
petence, inclusive professional philosophy, teacher agency for inclusive education.
autonomy, and reflexivity.
Practical-evaluative dimension. The inclusive
Factors Influencing Teacher Agency education movement itself is mediated by
various local contexts. The most discussed
for Inclusive Education factors include the official purposes and
The second component of the adapted con- mechanisms of public education, the societal
ceptual framework (see Figure 1) identifies understanding of abilities and other sociocul-
the factors affecting the formation and exer- tural differences, and the distribution of intel-
cise of teacher agency for inclusive education, lectual, human, and material resources (Artiles
Li and Ruppar 55

et al., 2011). These structural, cultural, and school settings that are constrained by their
material mediating forces fall into the practi- structural, cultural, and material resources.
cal-evaluative dimension in shaping teacher For example, teachers would benefit from
agency for inclusive education. These factors learning skills in emotion and stress regula-
may not have similar impacts on teachers’ tion, and interpersonal relationship building
everyday inclusive practices in different coun- within and beyond school. This practical-
tries. Cross-national comparison from this evaluative dimension also demonstrates that
review showed that there is a shared global teacher education policy should not empha-
norming of education (Artiles et al., 2011) size only teacher quality, which mainly
that grants the promise of inclusive education focuses on an individual teacher’s capacity,
to some and not others. For instance, deficit without addressing the contextual factors that
views of disabilities and differences, heavy- might constrain or support teachers’ perfor-
duty accountability school mechanisms, and mance. In addition, teacher education pro-
the over-emphasis on high-stakes testing were grams should adopt assessments of teacher
identified in all the countries, except Finland, capacity within the context where they prac-
involved in this review. Teacher participants tice inclusive education. Promoting teacher
mentioned that they had to constantly tackle agency is not simply the work of teacher edu-
tensions between top-down mandates and cation or professional development training
their day-to-day inclusive education practices. (Priestley et al., 2016). It also requires a
These school policies and norms play a pow- broader systematic change to address social,
erful role in shaping actions and discourses, as cultural, and structural dimensions of the
well as in determining whose voice is heard education system.
and recognized. For instance, Naraian and
Schlessinger (2018) purposefully recruited Projective dimension. The projective dimen-
special teachers who showed a commitment sion is not extensively explored in the
to reconceptualizing disability as a social con- selected studies. Only Naraian and Schless-
struct rather than biological deficits within the inger (2018) discussed relevant factors in an
individual. They showed that these teachers’ explicit way. They argued that teachers’
agency for inclusive practices did not simply everyday inclusive education practices are
derive from decontextualized teaching skills mediated by their visions of their students in
acquired from teacher education programs but mainstream higher education institutions,
was significantly mediated by school norms inclusive job sites, and inclusive communi-
and expectations, collegial relationships, ties. Everyday inclusive education practices
interactions with students, and sensemaking are also mediated by teachers’ aspirations for
of their professional experience. their own professional work around inclu-
Another well-recognized structural ele- sive education. Wang et al. (2017) discussed
ment relates to the relationship within and briefly the projective agentic orientations.
beyond schools. Lyons et al. (2016), Naraian They provided an example of how, in the
(2014), and Pantić (2017a) all demonstrated face of the forthcoming standardized com-
the effects of collective efficacy in collabo- petitive test for high school enrollment that
rating with families, school colleagues, and determines the schools’ and teachers’ reputa-
other professionals. Teacher participants in tion, many middle school inclusive educators
Lyons et al.’s (2016) study commented that were not able to enact their agentic work for
collective effort shifted teaching as a solitary inclusion. The projective dimension illus-
practice to collaborative work, which greatly trates the importance of developing teachers’
enhanced their motivation and resilience. imagination and ability to visualize alterna-
This evidence speaks to the importance of tive futures for themselves and their students
preparing and supporting teachers in acquir- (Priestley et al., 2016). It also demonstrates
ing skills and strategies in navigating various the importance of preparing teachers to hold
56 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

a strong inclusive education ideology, a skills, sophisticated repertoires for reconciling

social–cultural understanding of ability, and dissonance, and creativity in pursuing extra-
self-efficacy. Each of these factors affects curricular space for students. Finally, teacher
teachers’ visions of the future. education and professional development
should develop teachers’ imagination and
ability to visualize alternative futures for
Implications for Teacher Education
themselves and their students. A projective
and Professional Development world with multiple alternative possibilities
This systematic literature review has four pri- can encourage teachers to take new actions
mary implications for teacher education and and set new goals for themselves and their
professional development. First, teacher edu- students as well. This projective orientation
cation and professional development, whether affords teachers a critical examination of their
for general education or special education, own efforts in challenging and resisting the
should emphasize the development of inclu- discourses on schooling and dis/ability and in
sive teacher identity, professional compe- interrogating notions of normalcy and differ-
tence, inclusive professional philosophy, ence. To achieve this goal, teacher education
autonomy, and reflexivity that are outlined in programs should incorporate disability studies
the conceptual framework (see Table 2). There perspectives and critical theories to all
is no single unchanging set of core aspects required courses and assignments. Ashby
and characteristics that make up inclusive (2012) and Oyler (2011) showed possibilities
education professionalism. Therefore, when and outcomes of using disabilities studies and
assessing teacher quality, teacher education critical frameworks as guiding principles for
programs should consider the school settings designing teacher education programs for
where different capacities are required and inclusive education. For instance, organizing
encouraged. Second, teacher education and discussions on ability identity and ability-
professional development should prepare biased assessments can help inclusive educa-
teachers to respond to dilemmas, problems, tors build ability consciousness.
and conflicts in their everyday working sites
strategically. Inclusive educators should know Limitations and Directions
how to take advantage of available human and
material resources within and beyond schools
for Future Research
to constantly challenge policies and practices This systematic literature review has outlined
that put inclusive education at risk. Kozleski empirical evidence and adapted Pantić and
et al. (2013) examined the tension between Florian’s (2015) conceptual model and Priest-
teacher preparation theory and the context- ley et al.’s (2016) ecological approach to
bounded everyday school life. They argued understand teacher agency for inclusive edu-
that to bridge the gap between action and ped- cation as an emergent phenomenon in prac-
agogy of inclusive education, schools need tice. Inclusive education teachers’ agentic
new generations of teachers who can “engage work is shaped by the interplay of structural,
in critical discourse around the issues of cultural, and material factors, as well as their
belonging, marginalisation, power and privi- experience, current everyday practices, and
lege and their impact on student outcomes” future orientations. Because teacher agency
(Kozleski et al., 2013, p. 157). Third, tradi- for inclusive education, however, is a new
tional teacher education programs can con- topic, the number of empirical articles identi-
sider recruiting students who have experience fied in this review is small, and some research-
in other professional fields or by providing ers authored more than one study in this
interdisciplinary professional learning experi- review. An exclusive selection of articles that
ences. Working with people from diverse explicitly use the term teacher agency might
backgrounds can help develop collaborative also limit the scope of works identified in this
Li and Ruppar 57

review. In addition, the conceptual framework ORCID iD

proposed in this review aims to identify Lingyu Li https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6830-
appropriate units of analysis to examine dif- 353X
ferent aspects of teacher agency for inclusive
education; however, in deconstructing teacher References
agency into its constituent parts, there is a risk References marked with an asterisk indicate empir-
of adopting one-dimensional or misleading ical studies included in the review.
views of agency (Priestley et al., 2016). For Allen, Q. (2015). Race, culture and agency:
instance, Wang et al. (2017) claimed to under- Examining the ideologies and practice of U.S.
stand teacher agency via a sociocultural teachers of Black male students. Teaching and
perspective, but they used “multi-indicator Teacher Education, 47, 71–81. https://doi.
scales” to gauge and quantify teacher agency, org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.010
making it a variable and studying the relation- Alter, T. (2013). It felt like community: Social
ship between agency and professional skills. movement unionism and the Chicago teach-
The above limitations call for more theo- ers union strike of 2012. Labor, 10(3), 11–25.
https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-2149461
retical and empirical studies exploring vari-
Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and
ous approaches to conceptualizing teacher (net)working for change: Support-seeking and
agency for inclusive education. Most of the teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools.
reviewed studies are small-scale, short-term Harvard Educational Review, 80(4), 541–573.
qualitative studies. Therefore, longitudinal https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.f2v8251
empirical studies on a larger scale are neces- 444581105
sary to uncover the temporal and relational Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects
nature of teacher agency. Local contexts of protection, enduring nodes of difference:
should be taken into consideration when con- Disability intersections with “other” differ-
structing explicit definitions of teacher ences, 1916 to 2016. Review of Research
in Education, 40(1), 777–820. https://doi.
agency for inclusive education and deciding
org/10.3102/0091732X16680606
appropriate units of analysis. Finally, teach- Artiles, A. J., & Dyson, A. (2005). Inclusive edu-
ers’ perspectives on the development and cation in the globalization age: The promise
use of their own agency are lacking, as are of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In
examinations of pre- and in-service teachers’ D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive
development of agency. Therefore, as Pantić education: Evaluating old and new interna-
(2017b) proposed, a mixed-method, longitu- tional perspectives (pp. 37–62). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203606803
dinal study that uses a set of tools designed
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. R.
collaboratively by researchers and practitio-
(Eds.). (2011). Inclusive education: Examining
ners can reconcile the need for research rigor equity on five continents. Harvard Education
and generalizability. In turn, teacher educa- Press.
tors will be better prepared to shape the agen- Ashby, C. (2012). Disability studies and inclusive
tic development of teachers and promote a teacher preparation: A socially just path for
sustained commitment to inclusive education teacher education. Research and Practice for
throughout their careers. Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079691203700204
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of
human agency: Pathways and reflections,
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of toward a psychology of human agency:
interest with respect to the research, authorship, Pathways and reflections. Perspectives on
and/or publication of this article. Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
Funding Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015).
The author(s) received no financial support for the The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers
research, authorship, and/or publication of this and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/
article. 10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
58 Teacher Education and Special Education 44(1)

Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and of special education: Two volume set (2nd
learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecologi- ed., Vol. 1, pp. 231–250). SAGE. https://doi.
cal perspective. Studies in the Education of org/10.4135/9781446282236.n16
Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.108 Kozleski, E. B., Gonzalez, T., Atkinson, L.,
0/02660830.2007.11661545 Mruczek, C., & Lacy, L. (2013). Teacher
Broderick, A., & Lalvani, P. (2017). Dysconscious education in practice: Reconciling practices
ableism: Toward a liberatory praxis in teacher and theories in the United States context.
education. International Journal of Inclusive European Journal of Special Needs Education,
Education, 21(9), 894–905. https://doi.org/10 28(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856
.1080/13603116.2017.1296034 257.2013.778114
Buchanan, R. (2015). Teacher identity and agency *Lyons, W. E., Thompson, S. A., & Timmons,
in an era of accountability. Teachers and V. (2016). “We are inclusive. We are a team.
Teaching, 21(6), 700–719. https://doi.org/10. Let’s just do it”: Commitment, collective effi-
1080/13540602.2015.1044329 cacy, and agency in four inclusive schools.
Connolly, M., Hadfield, M., Barnes, Y., & Snook, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
J. (2018). The accommodation of contested 20(8), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603
identities: The impact of participation in a prac- 116.2015.1122841
tice-based master’s programme on beginning *Mu, G. M., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., Feng, Y.,
teachers’ professional identity and sense of Deng, M., & Liang, S. (2015). An Enquiry
agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, into the professional competence of inclu-
241–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018 sive education teachers in Beijing: Attitudes,
.01.010 knowledge, skills, and agency. International
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is Journal of Disability, Development &
agency? American Journal of Sociology, Education, 62(6), 571–589. https://doi.org/1
103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086 0.1080/1034912X.2015.1077934
/231294 *Naraian, S. (2013). Dis/ability, agency, and con-
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., text: A differential consciousness for doing
& Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? inclusive education. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(3),
Conceptualizing professional agency at work. 360–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12014
Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. *Naraian, S. (2014). Agency in real time? Situating
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001 teachers’ efforts toward inclusion in the con-
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become text of local and enduring struggles. Teachers
change agents. Educational Leadership, 50(6), College Record, 116(6), 1–38.
12–17. *Naraian, S., & Schlessinger, S. (2018). Becoming
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: an inclusive educator: Agentive maneuverings
Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity in collaboratively taught classrooms. Teaching
Press. and Teacher Education, 71, 179–189. https://
*Heikonen, L., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.012
A., & Soini, T. (2017). Early career teach- Oyler, C. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive
ers’ sense of professional agency in the class- and critical (special) education. Teacher Edu­
room: Associations with turnover intentions cation and Special Education, 34(3), 201–218.
and perceived inadequacy in teacher-student https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411406745
interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Pantić, N. (2015). A model for study of teacher
Education, 45(3), 250–266. https://doi.org/10 agency for social justice. Teachers and
.1080/1359866X.2016.1169505 Teaching, 21(6), 759–778. https://doi.org/10.
Kozleski, E. B., Artiles, A. J., Fletcher, T., & 1080/13540602.2015.1044332
Engelbrecht, P. (2009). Understanding the dia- *Pantić, N. (2017a). An exploratory study of
lectics of the local and the global in education teacher agency for social justice. Teaching
for all: A comparative case study. International and Teacher Education, 66, 219–230. https://
Critical Childhood Policy Studies Journal, doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.008
2(1), 15–29. Pantić, N. (2017b). Reconciling rigour and impact by
Kozleski, E. B., Artiles, A. J., & Waitoller, F. collaborative research design: Study of teacher
R. (2014). Equity in inclusive education: A agency. International Journal of Research &
cultural historical comparative perspective. Method in Education, 40(4), 329–344. https://
In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1113250
Li and Ruppar 59

Pantić, N., & Florian, L. (2015). Developing teach- Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the
ers as agents of inclusion and social justice. stream of change: Understanding educational
Education Inquiry, 6(3), 333–351. https://doi. change and teachers’ professional identities.
org/10.3402/edui.v6.27311 Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1–12.
Pellicano, L., Bölte, S., & Stahmer, A. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006
The current illusion of educational inclu- Van de Putte, I., De Schauwer, E., Van Hove, G.,
sion. Autism, 22(4), 386–387. https://doi. & Davies, B. (2018). Rethinking agency as
org/10.1177/1362361318766166 an assemblage from change management to
Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017). Teacher agency collaborative work. International Journal of
and professional learning communities: What Inclusive Education, 22(8), 885–901. https://
can learning rounds in Scotland teach us? doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412514
Professional Development in Education, van der Heijden, H. R. M. A., Geldens, J. J. M.,
43(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941 Beijaard, D., & Popeijus, H. L. (2015).
5257.2016.1180316 Characteristics of teachers as change agents.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2016). Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 681–699.
Teacher agency: An ecological approach. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044
Bloomsbury Academic. 328
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade
K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum mak-
of professional development research for
ing: Agents of change and spaces for maneuver.
inclusive education: A critical review and
Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191–214. https://
notes for a research program. Review of
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x
Educational Research, 83(3), 319–356. https://
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2014).
doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905
Comprehensive school teachers’ professional
*Wang, Y., Mu, G. M., & Zhang, L. (2017).
agency in large-scale educational change. Journal
Chinese inclusive education teachers’ agency
of Educational Change, 15(3), 303–325. https://
within temporal-relational contexts. Teaching
doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9215-8
and Teacher Education, 61, 115–123. https://
Robinson, S. (2012). Constructing teacher agency
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.009
in response to the constraints of education
policy: Adoption and adaptation. Curriculum
Journal, 23(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.10 Author Biographies
80/09585176.2012.678702 Lingyu Li is a doctoral student in the Department
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for cul- of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Educa-
turally diverse schools: Research and the over- tion at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her
whelming presence of whiteness. Journal of research focuses on special education teachers’
Teacher Education, 52(2), 94–106. https://doi. agency in advocating inclusive education services
org/10.1177/0022487101052002002 for students with intensive support needs.
*Themane, M., & Thobejane, H. R. (2018).
Teachers as change agents in making teach- Andrea Ruppar is an associate professor of spe-
ing inclusive in some selected rural schools of cial education at the University of Wisconsin–
Limpopo province, South Africa: Implications Madison. In her research, she examines the indi-
for teacher education. International Journal of vidual and social factors affecting teachers’
Inclusive Education, 23(4), 369–383. https:// decisions about curriculum and inclusion for stu-
doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1434690 dents with significant support needs.