04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Open Plan Learning Spaces: an enabler or challenge of Inclusive Education?
Foteini Pasenidou, Dr Deborah Price, Dr Deborah Green
University of South Australia, Australia
Presenting Author: Pasenidou, Foteini
Although, UNESCO (2019) calls for schools to become “welcoming spaces … where respect and appreciation for the diversity of all students prevail” (pp. 11, 15), students are challenged in their presence, participation and achievement in education. The World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE) drawing on data collected from over 160 countries reported that 80% of students living in rural areas in low-income countries transition to secondary school settings as opposed to 91% of students living in urban areas (UNESCO, 2022). Moreover, PISA 2018 reported on student perceptions of discrimination by their teachers on the grounds of gender, ethnicity and advantaged or disadvantaged backgrounds (OECD, 2020). The report indicated lack of guidance and teachers being challenged with creating inclusive environments for all students (OECD, 2020). Prior to that, PISA results showed that 23% of students in Australia felt like outsiders reporting a low sense of belonging and scoring lower in science than students who did not experience like they did not belong in their school, indicating that their sense of belonging impacted on their achievement (OECD, 2017). Additionally, despite “the importance of the representation and participation of the youth of today in decisions concerning their education and their future (UNESCO, 2019, p. 17), student voice in research related to their education is missing (Gillett-Swan & Osborne Burton, 2022). The abovementioned data demonstrates inclusive education being “approved and valued”, but not fully accepted or implemented, “just not right now, or not right here” (Price, 2017, p. 157). However, emerging research has evidenced the transformative role of architecture in promoting students’ inclusive education.
Architecture defined as space students “move through, exist in and use” (Meier, 1984, p. 1) has been identified for its role in enabling student movement and transitioning to different activities (Love, 2019; McAllister & Maguire, 2012), as well as student learning and achievement (Everatt et al., 2019; Hughes & Morrison, 2020). However, architecture has also been evidenced for challenging students’ inclusive education with inaccessible school spaces being reported (i.e., Ackah-Jnr & Danso, 2019). Nevertheless, students’ experiences are rarely reported, rather data exploring the intersectionality between inclusive education and architecture has been collected from educators alone (i.e., Love, 2019) and/or parent/carers (i.e., Wijesekera et al., 2019). Informing the intersectionality of architecture with inclusive education, this case study in a primary school setting in metropolitan South Australia reports on student and educator experiences of teaching and learning within open plan spaces, planned to accommodate two teachers and 40 students approximately.
The overarching research question and subsidiary questions that underpinned the study were as follows:
- What role does architecture, inclusive of physical, social and semantic space play in students’ inclusive education?
- What are student, parent/carer and educator (school community members) understandings and experiences of inclusive education?
- What do students identify to be the key elements in the school’s architecture that promote their inclusive education?
Theoretical framework
Practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) explores “how some particular sets of sayings (language) come to hang together with a particular set of doings (in activity, or work) and a particular set of relatings (e.g., particular kinds of power relationships or relationships of inclusion or exclusion)” (Mahon et al., 2017, p. 8). By employing a practice architectures theoretical lens, the current study explored three dimensions of space: physical, semantic and social space enabling or challenging the enactment of inclusive education in a primary school context. Although the practice architectures theoretical lens enabled the exploration of the internal complexity of the school, this presentation will report on some of the material-economic arrangements in the physical space of the school, the open plan spaces.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedStudents’ potential to contribute to deep understandings have led to research epistemologies shifting from engaging students as “recipients” and “data sources”, where their perspectives are only acknowledged, to “co-researchers” in participatory processes of “collective creation and iterative improvement” (Barbera et al., 2017, p. 105; Fielding, 2001, p. 136). However, participatory approaches are scarcely employed in qualitative studies raising the question about the potential challenges associated with this form of research. On the spectrum of participatory approaches resides the participatory co-design methodology, which was adopted in this qualitative case study of a primary school in South Australia.
Aiming to identify the role of architecture in students’ inclusive education ten students from Reception, 21 Year 4 students, 34 educators (two school leaders, 21 teachers, 9 staff members who did not specify their role, one Education Support Officer and one teacher/numeracy support staff member), and three parents/carers participated in the study. Data was collected through surveys, focus groups and visual participatory co-design methods, including auto-photography, digital and hand-made storybooks, and digital construction models using Tinkercad. Additionally, 14 students from Year 4 (aged 9-10) were invited as co-researchers as “experts of their experience” (Castro et al., 2018, p. 3), collecting and coding data through auto-photography and focus groups. Thematic analysis was employed combining inductive and deductive approaches driven by a practice architectures lens (Kemmis et al., 2014). In contributing to the research field of inclusive education, listening to all students’ experiences was prioritised because “any student might experience marginalisation in a school context, regardless if they are falling in any particular group deemed to be at risk of marginalisation or not” (Messiou, 2014, p. 602). Relinquishing control to allow and facilitate student-driven research by having students as co-researchers promoted student learning, student empowerment and generation of authentic data, informing enablers and challenges of inclusive education in the school’s architecture.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDrawing on findings from students and educators, open plan spaces, such as double classrooms and the library were identified as a critical material-economic arrangement in the school architecture. Informing open plan spaces as an enabler of inclusive education, according to one educator, ‘open learning classrooms’ were identified for ‘promot[ing] collaboration amongst the children’, whereas another educator supported that ‘double classrooms help students socialise and interact with lots of different peers’. Open plan spaces were also reported as challenging students’ inclusive education. As educators identified, ‘Double classrooms are noisy environments for children with sensory needs, who can be hyper-stimulated by sounds’, ‘children often comment on the loudness and not being able to concentrate’. However, according to the students, these ‘large spaces’ enhanced their accessibility, movement, socialisation and overall participation in their learning, thus enabling their inclusive education. Students expressed their preference towards open plan learning spaces such as the oval or the curiosity centre sharing that ‘it’s fun there. It has a lots of space. You can see the sun and stuff and you can run around’, ‘it’s a larger space and people can go there’. Another Year 4 student in their auto-photography explained that they felt included in the hall ‘because my friends and I go there in recess and lunch. It is warm and has a lot of space’. Educators in this study experienced the school architecture as both an enabler and a challenge of students’ inclusive education, similarly reported by Everatt et al. (2019) as a way towards maximised adoption of space-related innovations. The focus of this presentation is to discuss the implications of these findings for students’ education informing educators’ knowledge of enabling and challenging material-economic arrangements in innovative, open, versatile and multi-functional spaces, thus improving future innovative learning spaces and global inclusive education initiatives.
ReferencesAckah-Jnr, F. R., & Danso, J. B. (2019). Examining the physical environment of Ghanaian inclusive schools: How accessible, suitable and appropriate is such environment for inclusive education? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(2), 188-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1427808
Barbera, E., Garcia, I., & Fuertes-Alpiste, M. (2017). A co-design process microanalysis: Stages and facilitators of an inquiry-based and technology-enhanced learning scenario. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(6), 104-126.
Castro, E. M., Malfait, S., Van Regenmortel, T., Van Hecke, A., Sermeus, W., & Vanhaecht, K. (2018). Co-design for implementing patient participation in hospital services: a discussion paper. Patient education and counseling, 101(7), 1302-1305. Everatt, J., Fletcher, J., & Fickel, L. (2019). School leaders’ perceptions on reading, writing and mathematics in innovative learning environments. Education 3-13, 47(8), 906-919. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1538256
Everatt, J., Fletcher, J., & Fickel, L. (2019). School leaders’ perceptions on reading, writing and mathematics in innovative learning environments. Education 3-13, 47(8), 906-919. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1538256
Gillett-Swan, J. K., & Burton, L. O. (2022). Amplifying children’s voices: Sustainable Development Goals and inclusive design for education and health architecture. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1-5. doi:/10.1080/17549507.2022.2148742
Hughes, J. M., & Morrison, L. J. (2020). Innovative learning spaces in the making. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00089
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Springer.
Love, J. S. (2019). Studio teaching experiments – spatial transitioning for autism schools. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 13(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2018-0019
Mahon, K., Kemmis, S., Francisco, S., & Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In K. Mahon, S. Francisco, & S. Kemmis (Eds.), Exploring education and professional practice (pp. 1-30). Springer.
McAllister, K., & Maguire, B. (2012). Design considerations for the autism spectrum disorder‐friendly Key Stage 1 classroom. Support for Learning, 27(3), 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2012.01525.x
Messiou, K. (2014). Working with students as co-researchers in schools: a matter of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(6), 601-613. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.802028
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III):
Students’ Well-Being.. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI):
Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World?, . https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en.
Price, M. (2017). Un/Shared Space. In J. Boys (Ed.), Disability, space, architecture: A reader. (pp. 155-172). Routledge.
UNESCO. (2019). Final report: International forum on inclusion and equity in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372651
UNESCO. (2022). World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE). https://www.education-inequalities.org
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Space as Facilitator of Educational Inclusion. Ethnographic Research with Children's Participation
Inmaculada González Falcón, María del Pilar García Rodríguez, Inmaculada Gómez Hurtado, José Manuel Coronel Llamas, Katia Álvarez Díaz
University of Huelva, Spain
Presenting Author: González Falcón, Inmaculada;
García Rodríguez, María del Pilar
One of the current challenges still consists of providing organisational frameworks that enable and structure inclusive education in schools. This need is also evident in Early Childhood Education. Unfortunately, it is increasingly common to find schools that do not respect children's learning rhythms, needs, transition periods or their own voices (Pontiveros, 2011). The prevailing educational approach is more focused on the curricular requirements of later educational stages, often adopted by corporatist interests or the logic of the market per se. Many children do not find a response to their interests, rights and needs in today's pre-schools. Instead of stimulating their capacities, exclusion processes are favoured from the first contact with formal education.
Previous works have analysed the importance of school places and spaces as physical, but also relational and contextual elements in the organisation of school work (Vanacore, 2020) and the promotion of inclusive education (Grande and González-Noriega, 2015). The ECER 2018 constituted a specific network in which the forms of inclusion and exclusion fostered by school spaces were analysed (Marques-Da Silva, 2018). It was thus emphasised that the different dimensions of the school's spaces not only help to transmit its cultural identity but also its pedagogical identity (Bondioli, 2016). The space is, in fact, constituted as a facilitator of the teaching-learning, inclusion and participation processes of the educational community (Striano, 2020). In Spain, teachers note that school spaces are the obstacles that most hinder their inclusive practices (Arnáiz, Escarbajal and Caballero, 2017). Despite this, in our country it continues to be one of the least researched elements, beyond ensuring the accessibility of certain groups and making adaptations to specific areas of the school (Striano, 2020).
This paper attempts to explore in depth how the organisation of school spaces favours educational inclusion from early childhood, understood as a process that goes beyond the deficit perspective. In this sense, a model of school spatial organisation is advocated, aimed at enhancing children’s possibilities and capacities, taking into account the characteristics and needs of all of them. At the same time, we are committed to making children's voices visible and to articulating inclusive educational and educational research processes that encourage children's participation. As stated by Booth, Ainscow and Kingston (2007, p.3): “Inclusion in Early Childhood Education is as much about the participation of professionals as it is about children’s involvement. Taking part means playing, learning and working in collaboration with others. It involves making choices and expressing an opinion about what we are doing. Ultimately, it has to do with being recognised, accepted and valued by oneself.” Play, learning and participation therefore stand out as key elements of children's educational inclusion. And, along with education and free expression, they are fundamental children's rights. (Cuevas-Parras, 2022) that must continue to be defended (Aguilar, Recio and Macías, 2019). As Tonucci (2012) stresses, it is urgent to ensure that children can participate and propose solutions to issues that affect them. Among them, the design and configuration of the school spaces they inhabit and which enable them, to a greater or lesser extent, to play, relate and learn.
For all these reasons, this contribution aims to analyse how school spaces favour inclusion in Early Childhood Education, without losing sight of how children experience these spaces and what contributions and suggestions they promote for their design and transformation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA research design is chosen in line with the principles of child inclusion and participation (Ceballos-López, Susinos and García-Lastra, 2018). Children are considered as cultural subjects capable of expressing, through different languages, their needs, interests and proposals. The project follows a qualitative and ethnographic research methodology through a multiple case study. A total of eight schools and educational centres of the first and second cycle of Early Childhood Education in different provinces of Andalusia (Spain) were selected, in which participatory research processes are to be implemented (Bondioli, 2016). The aim is to promote processes of reflection focused on identifying the best possible options for children’s inclusion through the design and organisation of the educational space. The voices of teachers and educators in schools, families and children themselves will be analysed. The research techniques to be used will include document analysis, participant observation and interviews and focus groups in the case of adults. For the research with children, the mosaic perspective advocated by Clark and Moss (2005) will be adopted, opting for photo-voice, photo-elicitation, drawings and observations with video and other media of children's interactions in the school’s different spaces and environments. Qualitative data analysis software, such as MAXQDA, will be used to analyse the information, although other visual data analysis software will also be applied (Banks, 2007). In this sense, we will leverage programs such as the WEBQDA software to take advantage of the large quantity and quality of data provided by audiovisual tools such as photographs, videos and drawings (Rodrigues, Souza and Costa, 2017).
To ensure the rigour of the research, among other issues, the principle of saturation will be taken into account to finalise the fieldwork and the triangulation of sources, instruments, agents and researchers will be used. Ethical issues will also be ensured. In this regard, special attention will be paid to safeguarding the physical and emotional safety of the participating schoolchildren and to catering for their various needs and well-being.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis project was part of the research proposal advocated by González-Falcón (2021) in her candidacy for the post of full professor at the University of Huelva. It is currently being evaluated by the educational research group DOCE (HUM-668) and submitted for external funding. We hope to be able to present initial results at the ECER in August 2023.
The intention is to contribute to the generation of greater scientific knowledge on the influence of space on educational inclusion in early childhood, a subject that has not yet been explored in Spain. In addition to providing new evidence and references to advance in the design of research proposals and methodologies that take children’s participation into account, both in the second cycle of Early Childhood Education and in the first cycle (0-3 years).
On the other hand, the project will help to define guidelines for the design of inclusive educational spaces in Early Childhood Education based on legislation, research and educational practice in Andalusia. It will be possible to draw up specific proposals on the dimensions and categories of analysis of the educational space and research with visual techniques and pedagogical documentation.
Finally, it is expected to contribute to the definition of different improvement actions in the participating schools, with an impact on educational reality and practice.
ReferencesAguilar, P. O., Recio, R. V., y Macías, D. T. (2019). Escuchar las infancias para construir escuelas con sentido educativo. En A.S., Jiménez-Hernández et al. (Coords.), La convención sobre los derechos del niño a debate 30 años después (pp.330-344): Consejo Independiente de Protección de la Infancia. CIPI Ediciones.
Arnáiz, P., Escarbajal, A. y Caballero, C. (2017). El impacto del contexto escolar en la inclusión educativa. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 10(2), 195-210.
Banks, M. (2007). Using Visual Data in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousan Oaks, CA.
Bondioli A. (2016). Pratiche riflessive nella formazio-ne in servizio: il ruolo mediatore degli strumenti di valutazione di contesto. RELAdEI. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Infantil, 5(4), 57–69.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M. y Kingston, D. (2007). Index para la inclusión. Desarrollo del juego, el aprendizaje y la participación en educación infantil. CSIE.
Ceballos-López, N., Susinos-Rada, T. y García-Lastra, M. (2018). Espacios para jugar, para aprender. Espacios para relacionarse. Una experiencia de voz del alumnado en la escuela infantil (0-3 años). Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia), 44(3), 117-135.
Clark, A. y Moss, P. (2005) Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children. National Children’s Bureau Enterprises Ltd.
Cuevas-Parra, P. (2022). Multi-dimensional lens to article 12 of the UNCRC: A model to enhance children's participation. Children's Geographies, 1– 15.
González-Falcón, I. (2021). Proyecto docente e investigador. Concurso-aposición a Titular de Universidad, plaza nº 6. Departamento de Pedagogía. Universidad de Huelva.
Grande, P. y González-Noriega, M. G. (2015). La educación inclusiva en la educación infantil: propuestas basadas en la evidencia. Tendencias pedagógicas, (26), 145-162.
Marques Da Siva, S. (2018). (Coord). Researching spaces in education through ethnography, making space for a future forum. European Conference on Educational Research. Bolzano, Italy.
Pontiveros, R. (2011). La organización de los espacios y del tiempo. Criterios para una adecuada distribución y organización espacial y temporal. Ritmos y rutinas cotidianas. Innovación y experiencias educativas, 38, 5-9.
Rodrigues, A. I., Souza, F. N. y Costa, A. P. (2017). Análise de Dados Visuais: Desafios e Oportunidades à Investigação Qualitativa (Carta Editorial). Revista de Pesquisa de Qualitativa, p. no prelo.
Striano, M. (2020). Progettare gli spazi educativi. Coordinate pedagogiche e didattiche. En R. Vanacore, y F. Gómez-Paloma (Coord.), Progettare gli spazi educative. Un aproccio interdisciplinare tra pedagogia e architettura (pp.11-24). Anicia
Tonucci, F. (2012). Apuntes de educación, 1994-2007. Graó.
Vanacore, R., y Gómez-Paloma, F: (2020). (Coords.), Progettare gli spazi educative. Un
aproccio interdisciplinare tra pedagogia e architettura. Anicia.
|
