International Journal of Inclusive Education ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tied20 All ready for action in inclusive classrooms? Conceptions of the tiered support framework, professional roles, and collaboration among Finnish pre-service teachers Akie Yada, Piia Maria Björn, Pirjo Savolainen & Minna Kyttälä To cite this article: Akie Yada, Piia Maria Björn, Pirjo Savolainen & Minna Kyttälä (03 Nov 2025): All ready for action in inclusive classrooms? Conceptions of the tiered support framework, professional roles, and collaboration among Finnish pre-service teachers, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2025.2581766 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2581766 © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 03 Nov 2025. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20 All ready for action in inclusive classrooms? Conceptions of the tiered support framework, professional roles, and collaboration among Finnish pre-service teachers Akie Yada a,b,c,d,e,f, Piia Maria Björn g,h, Pirjo Savolainen a and Minna Kyttälä i aPhilosophical Faculty, School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland; bFaculty of Education and Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; cFaculty of Education and Psychology, Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; dFaculty of Social Science, Department of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; eCentre of Excellence in Learning Dynamics and Intervention Research (InterLearn), University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; fUniversity of Turku, Turku, Finland; gManagement, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; hManagement, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; iFaculty of Education, Department of Education, University of Turku, Turku, Finland ABSTRACT The idea of inclusive education became prevalent around the world. To implement inclusive education, some countries adopt a multi-tiered support framework to support children with special educational needs. Although Finland introduced this framework already in 2010, few studies have investigated how pre-service teachers understand its implementation and multi-professional collaboration. This study examined pre-service teachers’ conceptions of the multi-tiered support framework, professional roles, and collaboration in Finland. Data were collected from 139 pre-service teachers using questionnaires. Cluster analysis identified four pre-service teacher profiles: ‘Support knowing- doing gap’, ‘Support positive’, ‘Support negative’, and ‘Three- tiered support negative’, revealing a knowing-doing gap in the implementation of the support framework. Furthermore, the result indicates that some pre-service teachers were more critical of the multi-tiered support framework than of multi-professional collaboration, possibly due to the framework’s relative novelty. This study provides useful insights for developing pre – and in- service teacher education regarding inclusive education. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 8 November 2022 Accepted 23 October 2025 KEYWORDS Inclusive practices; tiered support framework; multi- professional collaboration; pre-service teacher; teacher education SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS SDG 3: Good health and well- being; SDG 4: Quality education 1. Introduction Inclusive education – including all students with educational needs in mainstream schools – has become a central issue to educational policies and practices internationally after the Salamanca Statement was published (Wermke et al. 2020). Each country has established various support systems to include children with diverse educational needs, and some countries (e.g. the United States (US), Netherlands, and Finland) © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. CONTACT Akie Yada akie.a.yada@jyu.fi Seminaarinkatu 15, PL 35, 40014, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2581766 have adapted a multi-tiered support framework (Björn et al. 2016; Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton 2012; Hingstman et al. 2021). For example, the US’s Individuals with Disabil- ities Education Improvement Act permitted educators to use the multi-tiered support framework called response-to-intervention (RTI) already in 2004, consisting of a four- step process to identify students’ educational needs (Fuchs and Fuchs 2005). Although there are some similarities in how each country implements the multi-tiered support framework, there are also large differences influenced by its cultural and socio-economi- cal contexts (Björn et al. 2016; 2018; Hingstman et al. 2021). Thus, it is extremely impor- tant to study inclusive educational support in a specific cultural context so that we can learn new approaches from each other (Artiles and Dyson 2005). Finland has implemented an inclusive education system that accommodates all stu- dents, regardless of their diverse backgrounds (Halinen and Järvinen 2008; Savolainen 2009). According to the Official Statistics of Finland (2018), 64.5% of students who receive special support were partly included in regular classrooms, and 21.3% of those students were fully included in Finland. Therefore, providing pedagogical support adapted to children’s diverse educational needs has become a part of teachers’ daily duties (Thuneberg et al. 2013). Although the multi-tiered support framework outlines the structure for supporting children with special educational needs (SENs), it has been indicated that teachers’ work is becoming more challenging due to increasing het- erogeneity in classrooms (Nislin et al. 2015; Ojala 2017). Teachers’ knowledge and skills in supporting children with SENs are assumed to be essential for effective inclusive practices. Previous research has indicated that teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge and teaching skills influence their beliefs and atti- tudes towards inclusive education, which further affects their teaching practices (Sharma and Jacobs 2016; de Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011). Given that the demanding nature of the work also affects novice teachers, several studies have underscored the importance of enhancing pre-service teacher train- ing, enabling them to confidently implement inclusive education early in their careers (Forlin, Kawai, and Higuchi 2015; Saloviita and Tolvanen 2016). A recent study by Kyttälä et al. (2022) demonstrated that Finnish pre-service teachers’ prior knowledge of special needs education was linked to their understanding of assessment, which is a critical component of the multi-tiered support framework. Furthermore, one element identified as lacking in pre-service teacher training is collaboration skills (Savolainen et al. 2012). Although multi-professional collaboration is emphasised as a key component of inclusive education in the national core curriculum (Finnish National Board of Edu- cation 2016), the current teacher training system rarely provides opportunities to explore what collaboration entails and how to implement it in school contexts (Malinen, Väisä- nen, and Savolainen 2012). Thus, it is essential to examine future teachers’ knowledge and skills of support for students with SENs to inform and improve teacher training pro- grammes. Training novice teachers to develop confidence in their ability to implement inclusive education before entering their demanding profession will further enhance their intention and actual behaviour in implementing inclusive practices, ultimately ben- efiting their students (Song, Sharma, and Choi 2019). The objective of this research is to explore how Finnish pre-service teachers under- stand the implementation of the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration. Specifically, using a quantitative approach, the study aims to investigate 2 A. YADA ET AL. pre-service teachers’ conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework, their conceptions of their future professional role as teachers in multi-professional collabor- ation, and their attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices. In addition, the current study intends to explore how pre-service teachers’ conceptions and attitudes together cluster into different patterns representing different profiles of pre-service tea- chers. The cluster analysis allows for the identification of sub-groups of pre-service tea- chers based on their perceptions, thereby enabling university educators to provide targeted training on inclusive education tailored to their specific profiles. 1.1. Three-tiered support framework in Finland In 2006, the Finnish Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture launched a steering group to develop a strategy for special education in basic education, including the devel- opment of assessment methods of SENs, legislation regarding special needs education, teacher education, and administrative procedures in special needs education services (Björn et al. 2018). This resulted in a new policy document, the ‘strategy for special edu- cation’ (Ministry of Education and Culture 2007), which was introduced in 2010 in par- allel with the amendment of the Basic Education Act (Parliament of Finland 2010) and implemented into practice in all Finnish schools in 2011 (Pesonen et al. 2015). The main idea was to start a new multi-tiered support system as part of an inclusive education framework consisting of three support levels: General support (Tier 1); Intensified support (Tier 2); and Special support (Tier 3). General support aims to provide tempor- ary help mostly in mainstream classrooms, including guidance and counselling, part- time special needs education, differentiation, remedial teaching, and cooperation between home and school (Björn et al. 2016; Finnish National Board of Education 2016). If general support is not sufficient, longer-term support in a specific domain, referred to as ‘intensified support’, is provided (Björn et al. 2016). At this level, a learning plan in a specific area, such as literacy skills, mathematics, or both, is made based on an educational assessment (Björn et al. 2016). While special needs education teachers are available at all levels of support in Finland, in tier 2, they play a crucial role in assessing students’ needs and planning their daily schoolwork in collaboration with classroom tea- chers (Björn et al. 2016). Finally, special support is offered when intensified support is not sufficient and the child needs long-term, multifaceted support. The tier 3 level requires extensive assessment by multi-professionals, administrative decision-making, and an individual educational plan (IEP) (Lakkala and Thuneberg 2018). In the new three- tiered support framework, a pedagogical approach is stressed rather than the previous emphasis on psychological and medical assessment, and early intervention with student welfare groups is recommended, including not only classroom teachers and special needs education teachers but also principals, school nurses, school psychologists, and school social workers (Thuneberg et al. 2014). Although a decade has passed since the implementation of the multi-tiered support, a recent study interviewed Finnish in-service teachers and found that the boundary and concept of intensified support are still unclear to them, and navigating between support levels is not straightforward (Nykänen 2021). Other studies have investigated the role of special education teachers in the implementation of the three-tiered support system in Finland (Paloniemi et al. 2023; Sundqvist, Björk-Åman, and Ström 2019). Sundqvist, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3 Björk-Åman, and Ström (2019) demonstrated that special education teachers play a key role, especially in the transition from intensified to special support. On the other hand, col- laboration between special education and classroom teachers, including shared knowledge and documentation, is more prominent in the transition from general to intensified support (Sundqvist, Björk-Åman, and Ström 2019). A study by Paloniemi et al. (2023) further indicated that special education teachers see pedagogical documents as useful tools to document pedagogical support and collaborate with classroom teachers. 1.2. Multi-professional collaboration and support Multi-professional collaboration as stated in the legislative documents (Ministry of Edu- cation and Culture 2007) and the national core curriculum (Finnish National Board of Education 2016) is one of the important elements to be implemented not only within the Finnish three-tiered support framework, but also as part of inclusive practices else- where. Classroom teachers, special needs education teachers, subject teachers, and other school staff could collaborate in various ways, including assessing students’ learn- ing outcomes, planning their schoolwork, executing actual support, co-teaching, and sharing professional skills and responsibilities (Björn et al. 2016; Kokko, Takala, and Pihlaja 2021). A systematic literature review of teacher collaboration by Vangrieken et al. (2015) found that the terminology of ‘collaboration’ remains ambiguous, and the concept was often used interchangeably with other terms, such as collegiality, professional (learning) communities, and teacher teams. For Friend and Cook (1990), the term ‘collaboration’ refers to ‘a style [of] direct interaction between at least two co-equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal’ (72). Moreover, Kelchtermans (2006) used ‘collaboration’ as a descriptive term, referring to the coopera- tive actions implemented by teachers to achieve job-related purposes. Apart from its high potential to support students’ learning, multi-professional collab- oration may also lead to disagreements and conflicts due to the different backgrounds or expertise of the team members (Jurkowski and Müller 2018). For instance, the study by Da Fonte and Barton-Arwood (2017) offers three potential barriers to implementing multi-professional collaboration: (a) management of time; (b) gaps in content knowl- edge; and (c) communication. Effective communication is crucial for successful multi- professional collaboration where teachers and staff of varying disciplines share their observations of student difficulties in different school settings with the aim of enabling those students to compensate for their difficulties (Dieker and Murawski 2003). Further- more, teachers’ attitudes towards multi-professional collaboration have a direct bearing on whether proficient collaboration can be achieved (Bush and Grotjohann 2020). Although discussion on multi-professional collaboration is increasing rapidly (Vangrie- ken et al. 2015), information on how pre-service teachers view multi-professional collab- oration is still limited in the literature (Hamilton-Jones and Vail 2014). 1.3. Knowing-doing-being framework in inclusive practices Teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and professional identity that are relevant to the teaching profession have been discussed in the knowing-doing-being framework 4 A. YADA ET AL. (Rouse 2006; Snook, Nohria, and Khurana 2012). ‘Knowing’ refers to the cognitive domain, including understanding of concepts, cognitive modelling, and framing (Snook, Nohria, and Khurana 2012). In the context of inclusive practices, knowing emphasises what teachers know about, such as teaching strategies, types of disabilities and SENs, assessment, and monitoring of students’ learning, and legislative and political contexts (Rouse 2006). ‘Doing’ is generally understood to mean the behavioural domain, that is, what teachers do in their classrooms (Rouse 2006). Here, it would be important for teachers to know how to use the aforementioned knowledge in day-to-day teaching practices, in other words, ways of ‘turning knowledge into action’ (Rouse 2006, 11). ‘Being’ represents one’s values, attitudes, and beliefs as a teacher (Snook, Nohria, and Khurana 2012). Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards inclusive education have been further considered as crucial factors for effective inclusive practice and thus studied widely in the field (Forlin et al. 2011; Savolainen et al. 2012; Yada, Tolvanen, and Savo- lainen 2018). These three domains do not work independently, rather they interrelate to each other. According to Pfeffer and Sutton (2000), the challenge of turning knowledge into action is called the knowing-doing gap. Although the knowing-doing gap has mainly been studied in management literature, the concept can be adopted in different fields, including edu- cation. For instance, several lines of evidence indicated that there is a gap between the- ories presented in teacher education programmes and actual teaching practices in schools (Allsopp et al. 2006; Everington 2013; Wahlgren and Aarkrog 2021). In light of pre- service teachers’ being, it has been demonstrated that pre-service teachers in Finland hold neutral attitudes towards inclusive education (Alnahdi, Saloviita, and Elhadi 2019). However, some studies have presented controversial evidence, showing that pre-service teachers have negative attitudes toward inclusive education, particularly regarding specific groups of students with SENs (Byra and Domagała-Zyśk 2022; Takala and Sirkko 2022). Furthermore, pre-service teachers’ belief in the capability to implement inclusive practices was significantly related to their resilience (Yada et al. 2021). Though there are many studies focusing on pre-service teachers’ views on inclus- ive education, few studies have investigated pre-service teachers’ perspectives and skills regarding the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration within the knowing-doing-being framework. 1.4. Context of the current study The present study was conducted as part of a teacher education programme in Finland. Teacher education programmes are organised by eight universities spread across Finland to provide equal educational opportunities (Malinen, Väisänen, and Savolainen 2012; Pursiainen et al. 2019). Studying in teacher education programmes is one of the most popular career passes in Finland, where only about 16% of candidates get into the programme for classroom teacher education (Finnis National Agency for Education 2019). The teacher education programmes offer various courses for pre-service teachers aiming to get a teaching certificate in either a classroom teacher, special needs education teacher, subject teacher, or guidance and counselling. Furthermore, in Finland, teacher education programmes generally take a research-based approach in order to educate the teacher as researcher (Malinen, Väisänen, and Savolainen 2012), and a master’s INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5 degree is necessary for obtaining an official teaching qualification since 1979 (Naukkari- nen 2010). Thus, every pre-service teacher who attends the programme requires a rela- tively demanding research orientation, including completion of both bachelor’s and master’s theses. However, there are some differences in the content of teacher education programmes for different teacher types such as classroom teachers, subject teachers, or special needs education teachers. Classroom teachers are required to have a master’s degree in education (300 ECTS credits), on the other hand, subject teachers can have a master’s degree in their major subjects, and they need to complete pedagogical studies (60 ECTS credits) in a teacher training institutes (Evagorou et al. 2015; Naukkarinen 2010). Special needs education teachers have a master’s degree in education (300 ECTS credits) specialised in teaching students with SENs, but it is also possible to become a special needs education teacher by completing professional competence courses (60 ECTS credits) after finishing any master’s degree programme (Naukkarinen 2010). This study was conducted as part of the project ‘Opettajien arviointiosaaminen oppi- misen, osallisuuden ja tuen toteutumisen edistämiseksi (OPA) [Developing teacher assessment skills to enhance learning, engagement, and interactions]’ funded by the Min- istry of Culture and Education for years 2018–2021. The project aims to promote various kinds of assessment practices. 1.5. Research questions The above review of the literature suggests that effective implementation of the three- tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration depends on how individ- ual teachers understand these and whether they have the necessary knowledge and belief in their ability to deliver them, and agree that the practices are useful for students. This research addresses the following research questions to investigate whether pre-service teachers considered themselves equipped to implement the three-tiered support frame- work and related multi-professional collaboration: (1) Is there any correlation between pre-service teachers’ (a) conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework, (b) conceptions of their future professional role as teachers, and (c) attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices? (2) What kinds of profiles are created for pre-service teachers based on the aforemen- tioned three constructs? (3) How do different pre-service teacher profiles differ with respect to background vari- ables (age, gender, major study subject, and number of credits)? 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants in this study comprised 139 pre-service teachers studying in a teacher education programme at one Finnish university. The participation and thus response rate of the questionnaire was 44%. Most participants were in the middle of their teacher education, i.e. in their third or fourth year of study (variation due to different teacher education programmes and timings of studies). Table 1 summarises the 6 A. YADA ET AL. participants’ demographics. There were 113 (81%) women and 26 (19%) men. These numbers correspond to the Finnish teacher population, of which 80% of classroom and full-time teachers are female (Paronen and Lappi 2018). 2.2. Procedure and research instruments Data were collected in a teacher education programme in Finland using a web-based questionnaire. A link to the questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. Prior to data collection, ethical consent was obtained through a consent letter that explained the voluntary nature of participation, the assurance of confidentiality, and that participation would not affect students’ course evaluations. Participant anonymity was ensured by refraining from collecting directly identifying information (e.g. names) and by assigning student numbers solely for the purpose of linking follow-up question- naires across time points. Confidentiality was maintained through secure storage and restricted access: the dataset containing student numbers is stored in encrypted form by the principal investigator, and only de-identified data were used in the analyses. Several scales were included in the questionnaire, although not all were selected for use in this study. The scales used were: (a) demographic questions related to participants’ gender, age, major study subject, and study credits (ECTS) so far gained for the particular degree; (b) questions regarding participants’ ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ (11 items); (c) questions regarding participants’ ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’ (8 items); and (d) questions related to participants’ ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’ (5 items). The scale items were developed by the authors for the present study based on previous research literature which covers the different concepts and roles of teachers in relation to providing support for students (Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker 2010; Grigor- enko 2009; Haager, Klingner, and Vaughn 2007; Ikeda and Gustafson 2002). The scale was first piloted with a small group of ten pre-service teachers, who were asked to provide feedback on the items in addition to completing them. Based on that sample, items with low reliability (i.e. scale α significantly below 0.6, if the item was included) were omitted from the final version of the scale. The items reflect critical underlying atti- tudes regarding the pre-service teachers’ readiness for inclusive practices. For example, the statement, ‘Support should be research-based only in special education services, Table 1. Demographics of the participants (N = 139). Contents Gender (%) Female: 113 (81%) Male: 26 (19%) Mean age (SD) 24.91 (4.88) Mean number of study credits (ECTS) so far gained for the particular degree (SD)1 15.24 (5.36) Study major (%) Classroom teacher: 51 (37%) Special needs education teacher: 8 (6%) Combination of special needs education and classroom teacher: 3 (2%) Subject teacher: 72 (52%) Combination of subject and classroom teacher: 5 (4%) Note. 1 As of November 7, 2022, the Study in Finland mentioned on its website that a total of 180 ECTS credits are required for a bachelor’s degree and 120 ECTS credits for a master’s degree in Finnish universities. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7 not in regular teaching (Note: coding reversed),’ directly reveals whether a pre-service teacher may need to engage more with literature and training on teaching diverse student groups. For the purposes of the present study, the scale was further examined using explora- tory factor analysis. ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ was intended to measure both pre-service teachers’ theoretical and procedural knowledge related to the Finnish three-tiered support framework. Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring was conducted to identify a factor structure of the scale. The analysis revealed that four items (i.e. items 1, 4, 6, and 8; see Appendices) had low cor- relation coefficients and communalities, and, thus, were omitted from the further analy- sis. The remaining 7 items showed a clear two-factor structure, which explained a total of 86.39% of the variance, with Factor 1 contributing 69.00% and Factor 2 contributing 17.40%. Five items load onto Factor 1, and it was labelled as ‘Knowing’ based on the knowing-doing-being framework (Rouse 2006; Snook, Nohria, and Khurana 2012). Two items were loaded onto Factor 2 and related to participants’ understanding of whether they know how to use the Finnish three-tiered support framework. This factor was named as ‘Doing’. The reliability of the remaining 7 items was α = 0.932. Reliability for each subscale was α = 0.957 for Knowing and α = 0.978 for Doing, respectively. ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’ was developed in order to assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge about a professional role as a teacher in multi-pro- fessional collaboration. Reliability analysis was performed, and three items (i.e. items 1, 3, and 7; see Appendices) were removed stepwise based on item/total correlation coefficients. After removing these three items, Cronbach’s alpha was improved to close to 0.6 (α = 0.561), which has been suggested as acceptable (van Griethuijsen et al. 2015). ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’ aimed to examine pre- service teachers’ cognitive attitudes towards multi-professional collaboration since cog- nitive aspects of attitudes were shown as related to one’s knowledge about an attitudinal object (van der Linden et al. 2015). The reliability of this five-item scale was α = 0.659, which is acceptable. Item descriptions translated into English are presented in the Appendices. All ques- tions except the demographic questions were answered on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 6 (I fully disagree – I fully agree). 2.3. Data analysis All analyses were carried out using SPSS version 26 (IBM 2016). Missing values accounted for 1.46% and the highest item accounted for 3.60%. Missing data were handled using the default procedure in the SPSS. For instance, the default handling of missing values in cluster analysis is to exclude cases with missing values from the analysis (i.e. using only complete cases). Listwise deletion carries the risk of biased results when data are not missing completely at random (MCAR). However, the amount of missing data in our dataset was small, and Little’s MCAR test confirmed that the data were missing completely at random (χ2 (13) = 11.966, p = .530). Analysis followed five steps: (1) firstly, correlation analysis was conducted between the identified two factors of ‘Con- ceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’, ‘Conceptions of future 8 A. YADA ET AL. professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’; (2) cluster analysis with the k-means algorithm was then implemented to identify the pre-service teachers’ different profiles. The partitioning method using the k-means algorithm was chosen because it is suitable for small – to medium-size data sets (Jiawei, Kamber, and Pei 2011). The analysis enables researchers to differentiate a set of data into homogeneous sub-sets (Jiawei, Kamber, and Pei 2011), here, partitioning pre-service teachers into groups that share similar characteristics based on the two factors of ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’, ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’. The mean scores of each variable were standardised for the analysis. The number of clusters was determined by checking the final solution of the hierarchical cluster analysis and by testing the 2, 3, 4, and 5 cluster solutions. The 4-cluster solution was determined as preferable because it is theoretically justifiable and supported by the result of the hierarchical cluster analysis; (3) a discriminant analysis was then carried out in order to evaluate the fit of the cluster solution; (4) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was next conducted to test the validity of the clusters; (5) finally, to inves- tigate whether there were differences among the cluster groups in terms of pre-service teachers’ background variables, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for par- ticipants’ age and number of study credits (ECTS) so far gained for the particular degree, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests were performed for gender and major study subject. 3. Results 3.1. Correlation analysis The relationship between the two factors of ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’, ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’ was investigated using Pearson’s cor- relation coefficient. Table 2 demonstrates that there were weak to medium positive cor- relations among the variables (Cohen 1988). 3.2. Clustering pre-service teacher profiles Cluster analysis was performed using standardised z scores of the means of ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ (two factors), ‘Conceptions of future pro- fessional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative prac- tices’. The cluster profiles are presented in Figure 1, and descriptive statistics for the four clusters identified by the k-means cluster analysis are presented in Table 3. In order to Table 2. Correlation coefficients among the four studied constructs (N = 139). 1. 2. 3. Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework 1. Knowing – 1. Doing .499*** – 1. Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher .354*** .272** – 1. Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices .268** .281*** .490*** Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9 compare the cluster scores, cluster means of each factor were identified as high if it is above the 75th percentile of the entire data set, as average if it is between the 25th and 75th percentile, and as low if it is below the 25th percentile. 3.2.1. Cluster 1: knowing-doing gap exists in conceptions of the Finnish three- tiered support framework Cluster 1 (N = 55) represents pre-service teachers with relatively high scores (slightly below 75th percentile) in ‘Knowing’, and average scores in ‘Doing’, ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collabora- tive practices’; this cluster was named the ‘Support Knowing-Doing Gap’, representing a Figure 1. Cluster profiles (N = 139). Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the four clusters (N = 139). Measure Support Knowing- Doing Gap (N = 55) Support Positive (N = 21) Support Negative (N = 28) Three-Tiered Support Negative (N = 35) M SD M SD M SD M SD F ηp2 Knowing .517 .319 1.085 .460 −.878 .870 −.750 .897 60.320*** .582 Doing −.002 .717 1.867 .616 −.610 .292 −.611 .362 98.761*** .695 Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher .048 .666 .755 .919 −1.131 .847 .383 .822 27.015*** .384 Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices −.213 .679 .939 .533 −1.212 .814 .717 .544 59.004*** .577 Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 10 A. YADA ET AL. subgroup of pre-service teachers whose scores in ‘Doing’ and ‘Knowing’ exhibit a gap between them. 3.2.2. Cluster 2: high in both conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework and conceptions and attitudes related to multi-professional collaboration Cluster 2 (N = 21) includes pre-service teachers with high scores in all the variables. Typical of pre-service teachers in this cluster were very high scores in ‘Doing’, and this cluster was named ‘Support Positive’, indicating that pre-service teachers in this group have knowledge of the three-tiered system, an understanding of how to implement it, a higher perception of their future professional role as a teacher, and more positive attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices. 3.2.3. Cluster 3: low in both conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework and conceptions and attitudes related to multi-professional collaboration Cluster 3 (N = 28) contains pre-service teachers whose scores in all the variables were low except ‘Doing’ (slightly above 25th percentile), particularly in ‘Conceptions of future pro- fessional role as a teacher’ and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative prac- tices’; this cluster was named ‘Support Negative’, representing a subgroup of pre- service teachers whose scores in all four constructs might indicate a need for further training in both the Finnish three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration. 3.2.4. Cluster 4: low in conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework but high in conceptions and attitudes related to multi-professional collaboration Cluster 4 (N = 35) consists of pre-service teachers with low scores in ‘Knowing’, average but relatively low scores in ‘Doing’ (slightly above 25th percentile), average scores in ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and high scores in ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’; this cluster was named ‘Three- Tiered Support Negative’, indicating that pre-service teachers’ scores were lower in relation to the Finnish three-tiered support framework and, thus, may need specific train- ing in it. 3.2.5. Testing validity of the cluster solution A discriminant analysis was conducted to test whether the data fit the cluster solution. Significant mean differences were observed for all the variables. Box’s M test indicated that the assumption of the equality of covariance matrices was violated; however, the log determinants were quite similar and, thus, this problem was not considered serious. The discriminate function confirmed the fit of the cluster solution (Wilks’ λ = 0.065; χ2 = 352.445; df = 12; p < .0001). The classification results revealed that 95.5% of respondents were classified correctly into the cluster groups. Next, MANOVA was performed to see the validity of the cluster solution. It was confirmed that the four cluster groups differed significantly on all variables (Pillai’s Trace = 1.599, F (12, 387) = 36.786, p < .001, ηp2 = .533; Table 3). Pairwise post hoc tests (Bonferroni) revealed that for ‘Knowing’ and ‘Doing’ all cluster group differences INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11 were statistically significant except the difference between clusters 3 (Support Negative) and 4 (Three-Tiered Support Negative). Regarding ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, cluster 3 (Support Negative) showed significantly lower scores than the other three cluster groups. Cluster 2 (Support Positive) showed higher scores than cluster 1 (Support Knowing-Doing Gap), although there were no significant differences between clusters 1 and 4, and 2 and 4. Regarding ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’, all cluster groups differed, although the difference between clus- ters 2 (Support Positive) and 4 (Three-Tiered Support Negative) was not statistically significant. 3.3. Testing relationships between cluster groups and background variables Finally, a one-way ANOVA and Fisher-Freeman-Halton test were conducted to examine whether pre-service teachers’ background variables (age, credits, gender, and major study subject) differ among the cluster groups. According to ANOVA, there were no statisti- cally significant differences among the cluster groups in age (F (3, 133) = .447, p = .720) and credits (F (3, 135) = .691, p = .559). In addition, the Fisher-Freeman- Halton tests revealed that there was no significant relationship between pre-service tea- chers’ gender and the cluster groups (p = .940). The relationship between pre-service tea- cher’s major study subjects and the cluster groups was statistically significant (p = .037). However, a cellwise residual analysis (García-Pérez and Vicente Núñez-Antón 2003) indicated that there was no statistically significant cell using a p-value of Bonferroni cor- rection. According to Table 4, the percentage of participants whose major study subject was a subject teacher or combination of subject and classroom teacher and who belong to cluster 2 (Support Positive: 7.8% from n = 77) was lower compared to the other cells, although it was statistically indicative (corrected p-value = .084). 4. Discussion The first research question examined whether the two factors of ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ (i.e. knowing and doing), ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collabora- tive practices’ associate with each other. The current study found that there were weak to moderate correlations among the variables. In this study, ‘Conceptions of future pro- fessional role as a teacher’ reflect pre-service teachers’ knowledge and understanding Table 4. Frequencies and percentages of major study subjects in different cluster groups (N = 139). Support Knowing- Doing Gap (N = 55) Support Positive (N = 21) Support Negative (N = 28) Three-Tiered Support Negative (N = 35) Classroom teacher (N = 51) 18 (35.3%) 11 (21.6%) 13 (25.5%) 9 (17.6%) Special needs education teacher or combination of special needs education and classroom teacher (N = 11) 4 (36.4%) 4 (36.4%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) Subject teacher or combination of subject and classroom teacher (N = 77) 33 (42.9%) 6 (7.8%) 15 (19.5%) 23 (29.9%) 12 A. YADA ET AL. of their role in multi-professional collaboration (i.e. knowing). Meanwhile, ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’ represent their values and beliefs as future teachers (i.e. being) (Snook, Nohria, and Khurana 2012). These results are in accord with previous studies indicating that knowing, doing, and being indeed are inse- parable from one another (Fives and Buehl 2008; Rouse 2006). Hence, bridging the knowing-doing gap alone may not be enough to prepare pre-service teachers for effective implementation of the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration. It is equally important to foster positive attitudes towards implementing inclusive principles and practices, as well as belief in their own skills and knowledge. The second question in this research was to identify pre-service teacher profiles as defined by the ‘Knowing’ and ‘Doing’ of ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’, ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’. In this study, the Finnish pre-service teachers were found to cluster into four different profiles: Support Knowing-Doing Gap (cluster 1, N = 55); Support Positive (cluster 2, N = 21); Support Negative (cluster 3, N = 28); and Three-Tiered Support Negative (cluster 4, N = 35). ‘Support Knowing-Doing Gap’, the largest group of the four, is characterised by relatively high scores for ‘Knowing’ regarding ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ and ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’, but lower scores for ‘Doing’ regard- ing ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’ and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’. These results support the idea of a knowing- doing gap (Pfeffer and Sutton 2000) among the Finnish pre-service teachers regarding the implementation of the Finnish three-tiered support framework. In accordance with the present result, previous studies have demonstrated that there is a key challenge for teacher educators to bridge the gap between theory and practices (Allsopp et al. 2006; Everington 2013; Kremsner 2023). Allsopp et al. (2006) indicated that strengthening the link between theory and practice requires close collaboration between universities and teacher-training schools, which in turn enables pre-service teachers to apply their univer- sity learning more effectively during practicum. Another study draws a similar con- clusion, suggesting that action research, where pre-service teachers conduct a research project during their practicum, can help narrow the gap between theory and practice (Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2018). Furthermore, they emphasised the importance of the opportunity for pre-service teachers to reflect on their teaching practices, focus on what they found important, and have their experience of using specific tools for pro- fessional development (Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2018). These practices may help Finnish pre-service teachers bridge the knowing-doing gap when implementing the three-tiered support framework. Further, our findings indicated that the knowing-doing gap among pre-service tea- chers is associated with lower attitudes (i.e. being) towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices. This result somewhat corroborates the findings of Ulvik, Riese, and Roness (2018), who suggested that action research projects, where pre-service teachers put research-based knowledge into practice, influenced their attitudes towards action research. The previous findings showed that pre-service teachers majoring in special edu- cation typically have more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Miesera et al. 2019; Takala and Sirkko 2022). In other words, the more knowledge they gain related to inclusion (i.e. knowing), the more positive their attitudes can become. In addition, the study by Tuncay INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13 and Kizilaslan (2022) indicated that pre-service teachers who had been in contact with students with SENs (i.e. can be considered as doing) had more positive attitudes than those with no experience. The results of our study further suggest that gaining knowledge and practical experience is not enough; bridging this gap is key to positively changing their attitudes. The importance of not only providing knowledge about inclusive edu- cation but also increasing opportunities to work with students with SENs, in relation to pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, was also indicated in the recent study by Takala and Sirkko (2022). As studied in previous research, positive attitudes toward inclusion might influence teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive education, which further affects their behaviour in accommodating students with SEN (Gülsün et al. 2023; Yang, Pang, and Sin 2024). The ‘Support Positive’ profile typically had high scores for all variables, in contrast to the ‘Support Negative’ profile, which displayed consistently low scores. These results were consistent with our findings from research question 1 as well as previous studies that have pointed out correlations between knowing, doing, and being (Fives and Buehl 2008; Rouse 2006). Finally, one of the most notable findings was the identification of the ‘Three-Tiered Support Negative’ profile among pre-service teachers. This group was characterised by relatively low scores for both ‘Knowing’ and ‘Doing’ regarding ‘Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework’, but higher scores for ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’ and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’. This result may be explained by the educational history in Finland, where multi-professional collaboration has been practiced since the 1970s when part-time special education was introduced to address heterogeneity in schools (Kivirauma and Ruoho 2007). Although the Finnish three-tiered support framework was implemented in teacher practice a decade ago in 2011 (Pesonen et al. 2015), it seems probable that its establishment is still an ongoing process. This accords with an earlier study indicating that RTI, which is a similar multilevel prevention system to the Finnish three-tiered support framework, has taken a long time to be implemented in the US (Fuchs, Fuchs, and Compton 2012). This may suggest that schools tend to change slowly, and old prac- tices persist. In other words, Finnish pre-service teachers may have observed multi-dis- ciplinary teachers and school staff collaborating during their own school years; however, the renewed three-tier support framework remains a relatively new concept to them. It can therefore be assumed that the concepts related to multi-professional collaboration, which was more familiar to the Finnish pre-service teachers, were more known, whereas those related to the three-tier support framework were less familiar to them. Future studies on the current topic using a qualitative approach may reveal a fuller picture of the gap between these two concepts. Regarding the third research question, the present study was designed to determine the relationship between pre-service teachers’ background variables (age, gender, major study subject, and the number of ECTS credits) and the four cluster groups. No significant differences were found in age, credits, or gender among the cluster groups. On the other hand, with respect to pre-service teacher’s major study subject, the analysis indicated that the relationship between their major study subject and the cluster groups was statistically significant. Yet, the cellwise residual analysis showed that there was no significantly different cell with a Bonferroni-corrected p-value. This inconsistency may 14 A. YADA ET AL. be due to the small sample size, especially of the pre-service teachers whose major study subject was special needs education teacher or a combination of special needs education and classroom teacher (N = 11), and a further study using a larger sample is therefore suggested. Although the difference was not statistically significant, when we compared the percentage of each cell, the relatively low number (7.8%) of pre-service teachers who major in subject teacher or a combination of subject and classroom teacher belong to the ‘Support Positive’ profile. This finding is consistent with evidence from a previous study which indicated that subject teachers used instructional strategies regard- ing inclusive education less frequently than classroom teachers or special education tea- chers in Finland (Saloviita 2018). This finding highlights the need to strengthen teacher education programmes for subject teachers, in which they can gain the necessary knowl- edge, skills, and beliefs to implement the three-tiered support framework and multi-pro- fessional collaboration. 5. Limitations First, the generalisability of these results is subject to certain limitations. For instance, the data were collected from one university in Finland using convenience sampling, and the sample size was rather small with a relatively low attrition rate. Further studies using a larger sample from different universities are therefore an essential next step in confirming the findings of this study. Moreover, the data had a low number of pre-service teachers with specific majors (i.e. whose major study subject was special needs education teacher or a combination of special needs education and classroom teacher). In a similar vein, pre-service teachers’ situations vary based on factors such as their study year, the amount of special needs education they have received, and previous work experience as a teacher, which were not considered in our analysis. Further research, including more participants from these specific majors with diverse backgrounds, will be necessary. Another limitation is that the two scales (i.e. ‘Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher’ and ‘Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices’) had acceptable but relatively low reliability. Such low internal consistency constrains the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn. Further work is required to develop reliable instruments to measure pre-service teachers’ conceptions and attitudes related to their professional roles. Finally, even though the quantitative data provided valuable insights, it did not fully capture the pre-service teachers’ perspectives on inclusive practices, particularly regarding the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration. Future studies utilising qualitative methods, such as interviews or observations, could offer a deeper understanding of pre-service teachers’ views on inclusive education. Implications and conclusion The findings of this study have a number of practical implications. First, the results of this study indicate that there was a knowing-doing gap in Finnish pre-service teachers regard- ing the implementation of the three-tiered support framework. Although Finland has put great emphasis on research-based knowledge to educate the ‘teacher as researcher’ (Malinen, Väisänen, and Savolainen 2012), the present study raises the possibility that pre-service teachers are struggling with turning this knowledge into actual practices – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15 or, at least, that this may take more time than envisaged. This finding has important implications for developing teacher education programmes, where pre-service teachers can gain not only theoretical knowledge (i.e. knowing) but also procedural knowledge (i.e. doing). One way to improve their, for example, collaboration skills is to organise a teacher education programme itself more inclusive, where pre-service teachers with different majors work together (Malinen, Väisänen, and Savolainen 2012) so that they could know each other’s expertise and orientation. Previous research suggests that only a small proportion of universities mandate a course on collaboration, despite the increasing adoption of co-teaching as a method for meeting the instructional and behav- ioural needs of diverse learners (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, and Hudson 2013). Thus, these improvements in the teacher education programme would further enhance their atti- tudes and self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in a collaborative way (Alsar- awi and Sukonthaman 2023). At the same time, continued efforts are needed to develop close collaboration between universities and practicum schools so that pre-service tea- chers could practice what they have learnt in terms of the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration in their teaching practicum (Allsopp et al. 2006; Ulvik, Riese, and Roness 2018). Second, the results of this study confirmed that the con- cepts of knowing, doing, and being were closely associated with each other. While pre- vious research (Allsopp et al. 2006; Wahlgren and Aarkrog 2021) has devoted much attention to bridging the knowing-doing gap, it is also important to strengthen pre- service teachers’ beliefs and attitudes (i.e. being) in teacher education programmes before beginning teaching, which is a demanding profession. There has been an increas- ing amount of literature on pre – and in-service teachers’ being, such as attitudes towards and beliefs in inclusive education (Forlin, Kawai, and Higuchi 2015; Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin 2012; Yada et al. 2021); however, a greater focus on how to connect knowing, doing and being could produce useful insights for developing the teaching profession. Furthermore, this research identified a pre-service teacher profile that is more negative towards the three-tiered support framework than multi-professional collaboration, which may be due to the novelty of the support framework. A reasonable approach to tackle this issue could be to place more emphasis on knowing, doing, and being with respect to the three-tiered support framework in teacher education programmes to ensure pre-service teachers are more familiar with it. Finally, according to the results, it seems possible that pre-service teachers who study to become subject teachers were less equipped to implement the three-tiered support framework and multi-professional collaboration. Since all kinds of teachers are required to implement inclusive education, ensuring appropriate training and support especially for pre-service teachers who become subject teachers should be a priority for teacher educators in the future. Inclusive education appears to impose new demands on teachers, as well as on teacher education programmes, which have not yet adequately adapted to these evolving require- ments. In Finland, although special education is a mandatory subject, the number of credits varies from 1 to 6 (Takala and Sirkko 2022), which might not be sufficient to ade- quately prepare pre-service teachers to effectively implement inclusive education. Greater efforts are needed to further study the perspectives and needs of pre-service teachers. A key policy priority should therefore be to plan and reform teacher education programmes to ensure the cultivation of resilient future teachers, regardless of the challenges they may face in their profession. 16 A. YADA ET AL. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This project was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [grant number OKM/JY/79/592/2018]. The work by Akie Yada was funded by The Centre of Excellence for Learning Dynamics and Intervention Research (InterLearn CoE) in the Research Council of Fin- land’s Center of Excellence Programme (2022-2029) (JYU-EDU/Aro 346120, JYU-PSY/Leppänen 346119, UTU/Korja 346121). Notes on contributors Akie Yada is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre of Excellence for Learning Dynamics and Intervention Research (InterLearn), University of Jyväskylä and University of Turku. She is a licensed public psychologist in Japan. Her research focuses on inclusive education, learning difficulties, educational psychology, and quantitative research methods. Piia Maria Björn started in the currrent position, as Vice Rector for Education at University of Lapland, Finland, in the beginning of year 2025. Prior to this, she served for a full five-year term as the Vice Rector for Education at the University of Turku (UTU), Finland. Her research is focused on learning, intervention research and teachers’ profession. Pirjo Savolainen is a lecturer in educational sciences at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research focuses on inclusive schooling, teacher competencies, and the sustainability of school- wide behavior support systems. Minna Kyttälä is a professor (inclusive and special education) at the University of Turku, Finland. Her research focuses on learning and its determinants, teacher professional competence, and pro- fessional collaboration. ORCID Akie Yada http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1944-6793 Piia Maria Björn http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0725-480X Pirjo Savolainen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6987-9728 Minna Kyttälä http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1489-2516 References Allday, R. Allan, Shelley Neilsen-Gatti, and Tina M. Hudson. 2013. “Preparation for Inclusion in Teacher Education Pre-Service Curricula.” Teacher Education and Special Education 36 (4): 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406413497485. Allsopp, David H., Darlene DeMarie, Patricia Alvarez-McHatton, and Elizabeth Doone. 2006. “Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice: Connecting Courses with Field Experiences.” Teacher Education Quarterly 33 (1): 19–36. Alnahdi, Ghaleb H., Timo Saloviita, and Ayman Elhadi. 2019. “Inclusive Education in Saudi Arabia and Finland: Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes.” Support for Learning 34 (1): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12239. Alsarawi, Aeshah, and Rumpasri Sukonthaman. 2023. “Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Self-Efficacy of Inclusive Teaching Practices.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 70 (5): 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1922992. Artiles, Alfredo, and Alan Dyson. 2005. “Inclusive Education in the Globalization Age: The Promise of Comparative Cultural-Historical Analysis.” In Contextualizing Inclusive INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17 Education: Evaluating Old and New International Perspectives, edited by David Mitchell, 37–62. London: Routledge. Avramidis, Elias, and Brahm Norwich. 2002. “Teachers’ Attitudes towards Integration/Inclusion: A Review of the Literature.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 17 (2): 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056. Björn, Piia M., Mikko Aro, Tuire Koponen, Lynn S. Fuchs, and Douglas Fuchs. 2018. “Response- to-Intervention in Finland and the United States: Mathematics Learning Support as an Example.” Frontiers in Psychology 9 (JUN): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00800. Björn, Piia M., Mikko T. Aro, Tuire K. Koponen, Lynn S. Fuchs, and Douglas H. Fuchs. 2016. “The Many Faces of Special Education within RTI Frameworks in the United States and Finland.” Learning Disability Quarterly 39 (1): 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715594787. Boer, Anke de, Sip Jan Pijl, and Alexander Minnaert. 2011. “Regular Primary Schoolteachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (3): 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089. Bush, Annika, and Norbert Grotjohann. 2020. “Collaboration in Teacher Education: A Cross- Sectional Study on Future Teachers’ Attitudes towards Collaboration, Their Intentions to Collaborate and Their Performance of Collaboration.” Teaching and Teacher Education 88: 102968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102968. Byra, Stanisława, and Ewa Domagała-Zyśk. 2022. “Multidimensional Assessment of Student Teachers’ Self-Esteem and Attitudes towards Inclusive Education and People with Disabilities.” Teaching Education 33 (3): 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2020. 1856065. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Da Fonte, M. Alexandra, and Sally M. Barton-Arwood. 2017. “Collaboration of General and Special Education Teachers: Perspectives and Strategies.” Intervention in School and Clinic 53 (2): 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217693370. Dieker, Lisa A., and Wendy W. Murawski. 2003. “Co-Teaching at the Secondary Level: Unique Issues, Current Trends, and Suggestions for Success.” The High School Journal 86 (4): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2003.0007. Evagorou, Maria, Justin Dillon, Jouni Viiri, and Virginie Albe. 2015. “Pre-Service Science Teacher Preparation in Europe: Comparing Pre-Service Teacher Preparation Programs in England, France, Finland and Cyprus.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 26 (1): 99–115. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9421-8. Everington, Judith. 2013. “The Interpretive Approach and Bridging the ‘Theory-Practice Gap’: Action Research with Student Teachers of Religious Education in England.” Religion and Education 40 (1): 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2013.745359. Finnish National Board of Education. 2016. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. Finnis National Agency for Education. 2019. Teachers and Principals in Finland 2019. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. Fives, Helenrose, and Michelle M. Buehl. 2008. “What Do Teachers Believe? Developing a Framework for Examining Beliefs about Teachers’ Knowledge and Ability.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2): 134–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001. Forlin, Chris, Chris Earle, Tim Loreman, and Umesh Sharma. 2011. “The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for Measuring Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions about Inclusion.” Exceptionality Education International 21 (3): 50–65. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682. Forlin, Chris, Norimune Kawai, and Satoshi Higuchi. 2015. “Educational Reform in Japan towards Inclusion: Are We Training Teachers for Success?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (3): 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.930519. Friend, Marilyn, and Lynne Cook. 1990. “Collaboration as a Predictor for Success in School Reform.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 1 (1): 69–86. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0101_4. 18 A. YADA ET AL. Fuchs, Douglas, and Lynn S. Fuchs. 2005. “Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A Blueprint for Practitioners, Policymakers, and Parents.” Teaching Exceptional Children 38 (1): 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800112. Fuchs, Douglas, Lynn S. Fuchs, and Donald L. Compton. 2012. “Smart RTI: A Next-Generation Approach to Multilevel Prevention.” Exceptional Children 78 (3): 263–279. https://doi.org/10. 1177/001440291207800301. Fuchs, Douglas, Lynn S. Fuchs, and Pamela M. Stecker. 2010. “The ‘Blurring’ of Special Education in a New Continuum of General Education Placements and Services.” Exceptional Children 76 (3): 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304. García-Pérez, Miguel A., and V. Vicente Núñez-Antón. 2003. “Cellwise Residual Analysis in Two- Way Contingency Tables.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 63 (5): 825–839. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0013164403251280. Grigorenko, Elena L. 2009. “Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 42 (2): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022219408326207. Gülsün, I., O. P. Malinen, A. Yada, and H. Savolainen. 2023. “Exploring the Role of Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education, Their Self-Efficacy, and Collective Efficacy in Behaviour Management in Teacher Behaviour.” Teaching and Teacher Education 132:104228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104228. Haager, D. E., J. Klingner, and S. Vaughn. 2007. Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention. Baltimore: Paul Brooks Publishing Co. Halinen, Irmeli, and Ritva Järvinen. 2008. “Towards Inclusive Education: The Case of Finland.” Prospects 38 (1): 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9061-2. Hamilton-Jones, Bethany M., and Cynthia O. Vail. 2014. “Preparing Special Educators for Collaboration in the Classroom: Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs and Perspectives.” International Journal of Special Education 29 (1): 76–86. Hingstman, Mariëtte, Simone Doolaard, Matthijs J. Warrens, and Roel J. Bosker. 2021. “Supporting Young Struggling Readers at Success for All Schools in the United States and the Netherlands: Comparative Case Studies.” Research in Comparative and International Education 16 (1): 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499920975984. IBM (The International Business Machines Corporation). 2016. “SPSS Statistics 24.0.” 2016. https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software. Ikeda, M., and J. K. Gustafson. 2002. “Heartland AEA 11’s Problem Solving Process: Impact on Issues Related to Special Education.” In Research Report No. 2002–01. Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency 11. Jiawei, H., M. Kamber, and J. Pei. 2011. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jurkowski, Susanne, and Bettina Müller. 2018. “Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classes: The Development of Multi-Professional Cooperation in Teaching Dyads.” Teaching and Teacher Education 75:224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.017. Kelchtermans, Geert. 2006. “Teacher Collaboration and Collegiality as Workplace Conditions. A Review.” Zeitschrift Fur Padagogik 52 (2): 220–237. Kivirauma, Joel, and Kari Ruoho. 2007. “Excellence through Special Education? Lessons from the Finnish School Reform.” International Review of Education 53 (3): 283–302. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11159-007-9044-1. Kokko, Marjut, Marjatta Takala, and Päivi Pihlaja. 2021. “Finnish Teachers’ Views on Co- Teaching.” British Journal of Special Education 48 (1): 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 8578.12348. Kremsner, Gertraud. 2023. “Becoming an Inclusive Teacher: Reducing Gaps in Theory and Practice through Inclusive Research.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 27 (10): 1148–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1882055. Kyttälä, Minna, Piia Maria Björn, Milla Rantamäki, Vesa Närhi, and Mikko Aro. 2022. “Assessment Conception Patterns of Finnish Pre-Service Special Needs Teachers: The Contribution of Prior Studies and Teaching Experience.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 37 (1): 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1853972. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 19 Lakkala, Suvi, and Helena Thuneberg. 2018. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Educational Reform Aimed at Inclusion.” Education in the North 25 (1–2): 295–319. Malinen, Olli-Pekka, Pertti Väisänen, and Hannu Savolainen. 2012. “Teacher Education in Finland: A Review of a National Effort for Preparing Teachers for the Future.” Curriculum Journal 23 (4): 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2012.731011. Miesera, Susanne, Jeffrey M. DeVries, Jana Jungjohann, and Markus Gebhardt. 2019. “Correlation between Attitudes, Concerns, Self-Efficacy and Teaching Intentions in Inclusive Education Evidence from German Pre-Service Teachers Using International Scales.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 19 (2): 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12432. Ministry of Education and Culture. 2007. “Special Education Strategy. Reports of the Ministry of Education, Finland, No. 47.” Helsinki. Naukkarinen, Aimo. 2010. “From Discrete to Transformed? Developing Inclusive Primary School Teacher Education in a Finnish Teacher Education Department.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10 (s1): 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01168.x. Nislin, Mari, Maiju Paananen, Laura Repo, Nina Sajaniemi, and Margaret Sims. 2015. “Working with Children with Special Needs in Finnish Kindergartens: Professionals and/or Specialists?” South African Journal of Childhood Education 5 (3): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v5i3.368. Nykänen, Helena. 2021. Veteen Piirretty Viiva: Opettajien Ja Rehtoreiden Kokemuksia Tehostetun Tuen Toteutumisesta Perusopetuksen Alakoulussa. Oulu: Oulu. https://oulurepo.oulu.fi/handle/ 10024/36825. Official Statistics of Finland. 2018. Special Education [e-Publication]. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Ojala, Terhi. 2017. Kun Perusopetuksen Oppilaat Oireilevat Psyykkisesti: Opettajien Kokemuksia [When Pupils Have Emotional and Behavioural Disorders in Comprehensive School: Teachers’ Experiences]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Paloniemi, Annukka, Jonna Pulkkinen, Eija Kärnä, and Piia Maria Björn. 2023. “The Work of Special Education Teachers in the Tiered Support System: The Finnish Case.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 67 (1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1983649. Parliament of Finland. 2010. “Laki Perusopetuslain Muuttamisesta [Act on Changing the Basic Education Act].” 2010. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2010/20100642. Paronen, P., and O. Lappi. 2018. “Finnish Teachers and Principals in Figures: Reports and Surveys”. Pesonen, Henri, Tiina Itkonen, Markku Jahnukainen, Elina Kontu, Tiina Kokko, Terhi Ojala, and Raija Pirttimaa. 2015. “The Implementation of New Special Education Legislation in Finland.” Educational Policy 29 (1): 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814556754. Pfeffer, J., and R. Sutton. 2000. The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Pursiainen, Jouni, Jarmo Rusanen, Eva Maria Raudasoja, Riitta Nurkkala, Terttu Kortelainen, Sauli Partanen, and Ilkka Peuna. 2019. “Selvitys Opettajankoulutuksen Rakenteesta Yliopistoissa [Report on the Structure of Teacher Training at Universities]”. Rouse, Martyn. 2006. “Enhancing Effective Inclusive Practice: Knowing, Doing and Believing.” Kairaranga 7 (June): 8–13. Saloviita, Timo. 2018. “How Common Are Inclusive Educational Practices among Finnish Teachers?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 22 (5): 560–575. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13603116.2017.1390001. Saloviita, Timo, and Asko Tolvanen. 2016. “Outcomes of Primary Teacher Education in Finland: An Exit Survey.” Teaching Education 28 (October): 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2016.1245281. Savolainen, Hannu. 2009. “Responding to Diversity and Striving for Excellence: The Case of Finland.” Prospects 39 (3): 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9125-y. Savolainen, Hannu, Petra Engelbrecht, Mirna Nel, and Olli-Pekka Malinen. 2012. “Understanding Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Education: Implications for Pre-Service and in-Service Teacher Education.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 27 (1): 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603. Sharma, Umesh, and Dt Kate Jacobs. 2016. “Predicting In-Service Educators’ Intentions to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms in India and Australia.” Teaching and Teacher Education 55:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.004. 20 A. YADA ET AL. Sharma, Umesh, Tim Loreman, and Chris Forlin. 2012. “Measuring Teacher Efficacy to Implement Inclusive Practices.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 12 (1): 12– 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x. Snook, S., N. Nohria, and R. Khurana. 2012. The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Song, J., U. Sharma, and H. Choi. 2019. “Impact of Teacher Education on Pre-Service Regular School Teachers’ Attitudes, Intentions, Concerns and Self-Efficacy about Inclusive Education in South Korea.” Teaching and Teacher Education 86:102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2019.102901. Sundqvist, C., C. Björk-Åman, and K. Ström. 2019. “The Three-Tiered Support System and the Special Education Teachers’ Role in Swedish-Speaking Schools in Finland.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 34 (5): 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1572094. Takala, Marjatta, and Riikka Sirkko. 2022. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusion in Finland.” Support for Learning 37 (3): 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12415. Thuneberg, H., J. Hautamäki, R. Ahtiainen, M. Lintuvuori, M. P. Vainikainen, and T. Hilasvuori. 2014. “Conceptual Change in Adopting the Nationwide Special Education Strategy in Finland.” Journal of Educational Change 15 (1): 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9213-x. Thuneberg, H., M.-P. Vainikainen, R. Ahtiainen, and M. Lintuvuori. 2013. “Education Is Special for All: The Finnish Support Model.” Gemeinsam Leben 21 (2): 67–78. Tuncay, Aysegul Avsar, and Aydin Kizilaslan. 2022. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Sentiments, Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education in Turkey.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 37 (2): 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1873524. Ulvik, Marit, Hanne Riese, and Dag Roness. 2018. “Action Research: Connecting Practice and Theory.” Educational Action Research 26 (2): 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792. 2017.1323657. van der Linden, Wietse, Anouke Bakx, Anje Ros, Douwe Beijaard, and Linda van den Bergh. 2015. “The Development of Student Teachers’ Research Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitude.” Journal of Education for Teaching 41 (1): 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.992631. Vangrieken, Katrien, Filip Dochy, Elisabeth Raes, and Eva Kyndt. 2015. “Teacher Collaboration: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 15:17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev. 2015.04.002. van Griethuijsen, Ralf A. L. F., Michiel W. van Eijck, Helen Haste, Perry J. den Brok, Nigel C. Skinner, Nasser Mansour, Ayse Savran Gencer, and Saouma BouJaoude. 2015. “Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science.” Research in Science Education 45 (4): 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6. Wahlgren, Bjarne, and Vibe Aarkrog. 2021. “Bridging the Gap between Research and Practice: How Teachers Use Research-Based Knowledge.” Educational Action Research 29 (1): 118– 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1724169. Wermke, Wieland, Gabriella Höstfält, Karsten Krauskopf, and Liz Adams Lyngbäck. 2020. “‘A School for All’ in the Policy and Practice Nexus: Comparing ‘Doing Inclusion’ in Different Contexts. Introduction to the Special Issue.” Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 6 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1743105. Yada, Akie, Piia Maria Björn, Pirjo Savolainen, Minna Kyttälä, Mikko Aro, and Hannu Savolainen. 2021. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Implementing Inclusive Practices and Resilience in Finland.” Teaching and Teacher Education 105 (September): 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2021.103398. Yada, Akie, Asko Tolvanen, and Hannu Savolainen. 2018. “Teachers’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy on Implementing Inclusive Education in Japan and Finland: A Comparative Study Using Multi-Group Structural Equation Modelling.” Teaching and Teacher Education 75:343–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.011. Yang, L., F. Pang, and K. F. Sin. 2024. “Examining the Complex Connections between Teacher Attitudes, Intentions, Behaviors, and Competencies of SEN Students in Inclusive Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 144:104595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104595. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 21 Appendices Conceptions of the Finnish three-tiered support framework (scale translated into English) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Disagree somewhat 4 Agree somewhat 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 1. Talking about problems is already a solution for problems in learning and school. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Pedagogical assessment and knowledge gained from it is a central feature of framework of support, so that the knowledge can be used for modifications on instruction and support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. A central feature of framework of support is systematical support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Support should be research-based only in special education services, not in regular teaching. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. A central feature of framework for support is following the effectiveness of support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. One cannot simultaneously use principles of inclusion and evidence-based support. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. One may utilise principles of the framework of support in general support, intensified support and special support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. It is important to recognise the learning styles of students, when planning evidence-based support and its implementation. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. It is possible to utilise the principles of the framework of support both in behavioural and learning-related situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. I know, how to use framework for support in upcoming teaching practice studies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. I know, how to use framework for support in work of teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Conceptions of future professional role as a teacher (scale translated into English) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Disagree somewhat 4 Agree somewhat 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 1. Classroom teacher needs to be able to give instruction to students receiving intensified or special support himself/herself alone. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Continued ) 22 A. YADA ET AL. Continued. 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Disagree somewhat 4 Agree somewhat 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 2. It belongs to the profession of special needs teachers to consult other professionals with issues related to support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. It belongs to the profession of special needs teachers to independently and alone assess the need for support and also implement the support. (Note: coding reversed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. It belongs as a possibility to the subject teacher’s role to give support according to the framework of support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. The best-fitting professional role for me will be consultative. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. The best-fitting professional role for me will be co-teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. The best-fitting professional role for me will be working independently. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. The best-fitting professional role for me will be working like an interventionist, according to the framework of evidence-based support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attitudes towards teachers’ work as collaborative practices (scale translated into English) 1 Strongly disagree 2 Disagree 3 Disagree somewhat 4 Agree somewhat 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 1. Multi-professional collaboration will be a central part of my future work as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Collaboration with the caregivers will be a central part of my future work as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. The principles of evidence-based support well fit my future work as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. It will be important to deal with all types of need for support regardless of type and amount of them in my future work as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I can consult my colleagues in questions related to support in my future work as a teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 6 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 23