The power of ordinary moments: how classroom interactions shape inclusion

Across Pakistan, classrooms are full of moments that last only for seconds but shape children’s learning far beyond the lesson. These everyday interactions are also where Gender Equality, Disability and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) commitments are either translated into practice or quietly undermined (Sapon-Shevin, 2010). A teacher who waits for a hesitant child communicates that effort is valued. Another who rushes a student, signals that some learners are worth less time than others. Such interactions in classrooms are ordinary, but they are not neutral. They are the micro-sites where gender, disability, caste, class, religion and language hierarchies are reproduced or disrupted.

This nationwide study Science and Mathematics Instructions and Learning Outcomes (SMILO) involved observations of 436 teachers across 96 schools in Pakistan. Drawing on real-classroom observations and collective reflections, the analysis examined how teachers’ everyday words, gestures and decisions supported or restricted classroom interactions. Evidence argues that inclusion and exclusion in classrooms are not discrete events but interdependent and mutually reinforcing processes (Bhutta et al., 2026). These processes reflect the social hierarchies that children carry into school, sometimes gendered, sometimes religious, sometimes linguistic, sometimes tied to perceived ability, but always relational. From the perspective of implementation science, the focus is not only on what works, but on how evidence-informed practices are adopted, adapted, implemented and sustained in real-world settings. Through this lens, these classroom interactions reveal how GEDSI is achieved through the continuous decisions teachers make and the support systems that enable those decisions to become routine.

In Pakistan’s multicultural and multilingual context, these micro-interactions matter profoundly because they shape children’s sense of belonging long before assessments do. They also reveal what becomes possible when teachers use their authority to create learning spaces where every child, especially those most likely to be marginalised, feels a sense of belonging.

Moments of social inclusion in everyday classroom interactions

One might ask how interaction shapes social inclusion. The answer lies in the contrast between the response a student needs and the response they receive. For instance, in one classroom, a girl worked slowly through a mathematics problem. Before she could finish, the teacher interrupted: “Go, you take too much time.” The lesson moved on, but her participation did not. This was not simply a comment about speed; it communicated who is allowed to think aloud, who must perform competence instantly and whose learning is worth waiting for. Such moments often fall hardest on girls, children with disabilities and those perceived as ‘struggling’ learners. These examples also show why implementation cannot rely on one-off teacher training. Teachers need ongoing opportunities to reflect on their classroom interactions, receive feedback and adapt their practice if inclusive behaviours are to become routine.

In another classroom, a boy reversed two digits. His peers pointed it out and the teacher responded calmly: “He knows how to solve it; he just mixed up the numbers.” The reassurance was small but meaningful. It signalled that mistakes are part of learning, a message not always extended equally across students, especially those from minoritised groups.

Other interactions revealed how social identity shapes belonging. In one lesson, two children were addressed not by their names but as “you… non‑Muslims sitting there.” In another, a child was told that ignorance “runs in your family”, drawing on caste-coded and class-coded assumptions. These comments were not isolated slips; they reflected broader social hierarchies that enter the classroom with both teachers and students and become labels that follow children.

The data also highlight classrooms where teachers enacted social inclusion with quiet consistency. They invited quieter students to speak, checked whether the class was ready to move on, and responded to errors without humiliation. These actions did more than create a positive climate, they redistributed voice, visibility and value in ways that expanded who felt able to participate.

In this sense, every moment of teacher talk is a moment of GEDSI practice. Viewing classroom interactions in this way shifts GEDSI from being an abstract policy commitment to an implementation challenge. It also highlights why monitoring classroom practice is critical for understanding whether inclusion is actually taking place.

What stood out across classroom observations?

Classroom interactions showed how everyday teaching could leave some children out. Sarcasm and scolding made children feel judged for struggling to learn, while teachers gave more attention to those sitting at the front. Children sometimes repeated teachers’ hurtful comments about their classmates. Physical punishment and being sent out of class also limited opportunities to learn.

Other interactions helped children feel included. Teachers encouraged them to try answering, helped them learn from mistakes and checked everyone’s progress. These examples showed the importance of giving every child attention, support and respect.

Evidence, gaps and lessons for moving forward

These patterns of social exclusion, whether tied to gendered expectations, religious identity, language, caste, disability or perceived ability, can feel deeply rooted. But evidence from Pakistan shows that these patterns can shift when teachers are supported through structured, relational and iterative approaches. This is where implementation science becomes essential. It recognises that teachers work in complex environments where practices need to be adapted rather than simply replicated. Continuous learning, feedback and adaptation are therefore central to embedding inclusive teaching at scale.

Research from Pakistan highlights that social inclusion in classrooms can be strengthened through several strategies. Rather than relying on awareness-raising alone, the evidence points to implementation approaches that make inclusion observable in daily practice: regular coaching, cluster‑based teacher meetings, peer observation, structured reflection on classroom interaction and participatory pedagogies that support wider student voice and belonging (Durrani et al., 2017). A policy analysis report outlines the structural conditions required for inclusive schooling, such as integrating inclusive training into teacher professional development, recruiting a more diverse teaching workforce, and emphasising moral and social values in classroom practice, but notes that these remain largely at the recommendation stage (Niaz & Fatima, n.d).

More specifically, the Oxford Policy Management (OPM) Inclusive Education Brief highlights the scale of exclusion and the urgent need for teacher support, flexible pedagogies and school-level adaptations, yet shows that these needs are not systematically addressed in current practice (Oxford Policy Management, n.d.). The Participation in Inclusive Education Inclusive Education Framework similarly emphasises the importance of teacher preparation, classroom adaptation and community engagement, but acknowledges that these elements have not been embedded across mainstream schools (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011). Instead, these documents collectively outline the conditions for implementation with intersectional design, GEDSI-sensitive monitoring, inclusive participation in programme design and gender-diverse implementation teams. In a nutshell, Pakistan has the policy language, but not yet the implementation systems.

What works in similar contexts

Although Pakistan has not yet implemented large‑scale interventions explicitly designed to strengthen GEDSI practices in classrooms, evidence from similar contexts shows what becomes possible when teachers are supported through structured and relational approaches. Programmes that improved inclusive practice did so not by asking teachers to transform everything at once, but by helping them make small, supported shifts in their everyday interactions. For example, the Demo-G (demonstration with gender perspective) initiative within the Language and Learning Foundation programmes in India demonstrated how regular, non-judgmental feedback on classroom talk helped teachers notice who they called on, whose mistakes they affirmed and whose voices remained unheard. Through simple routines, brief reflection conversations, peer observation and opportunities to rehearse alternative responses, teachers gradually replaced exclusionary habits with more inclusive ones. Over time, these micro-changes accumulated into more equitable participation, stronger relationships and a classroom climate where previously silent students began to speak. This is implementation science in action, where small yet supported shifts in everyday practice scale into meaningful change. Rather than assuming that a single training workshop changes practice, these approaches recognise that meaningful implementation depends on ongoing support, feedback and opportunities for teachers to adapt their practice over time.

Conclusion

When we look closely at these classrooms, it becomes clear that the work of GEDSI is neither abstract nor distant, it lives in the smallest gestures, the tone of a correction and the patience in a pause. This research brings such everyday practice of GEDSI into focus. And that is precisely why there is hope. If exclusion is produced in ordinary moments, then inclusion can be too. Pakistan does not need to wait for a perfect system to begin; it needs to invest in the teachers who shape children’s daily experiences and build the implementation structures that help them make inclusive choices consistently.

These findings identify concrete priorities for teacher support, for instance, recognising who is overlooked, responding constructively to mistakes, challenging discriminatory language and managing disruption without excluding children from learning. For operationalising these practices, teachers could be provided with opportunities including coaching, peer observation and structured reflection, although their effectiveness would need to be evaluated.

References

Bhutta, S. M., Ansari, A. N., Ahmad, S., & Nimarta, W. (2026). Exclusion or inclusion? An analysis of teachers’ words and actions in Pakistani classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 30(12), 3902–3924. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2612111

Durrani, N., Halai, A., Kadiwal, L., Rajput, S. K., Novelli, M., & Sayed, Y. (2017). Education and social cohesion in Pakistan. Project Report. UNICEF. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uos.23442392

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2011). Participation in inclusive education: A framework for developing indicators. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/participation-in-inclusive-education-a-framework-for-developing-indicators_Participation-in-Inclusive-Education.pdf

Niaz, L. & Fatima, T. (n.d.). May we speak: Policy Recommendations on Inclusive Education in Pakistan. https://csjpak.org/publications/May-We-Speak_-Policy-Recommendations-on-Inclusive-Education-in-Pakistan.pdf

Oxford Policy Management. (n.d.). Leaving no one behind: Inclusive education for children with disabilities in Punjab: Policy brief. Oxford Policy Management. https://www.opml.co.uk/sites/default/files/migrated_bolt_files/policy-brief-inclusive-education-for-children-report-final.pdf

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2010). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive classroom communities. Corwin Press.

Singh, S. (2026). From reflection to routine: embedding gender responsiveness in foundational learning. What Works Hub for Global Education. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-WhatWorksHubforGlobalEducation-BL_2026/006