99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Self & Environment – Introducing a New Model of Inclusive Subjects with the Example of Autism
Lukas Gerhards
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Gerhards, Lukas
Inclusive education is often times shaped by a model of students in teachers that reflects a binary understanding of function and dysfunction. Thus resulting in an understanding of subjects which comply to a norm and those who should be included in this group. Especially in schools medical models like DSM-V (Falkai et al. 2018) or ICD-11 (WHO 2019) are used to reference singe students, resulting in a pathologically based, stigmatizing view on individual students. Even more progressive approaches using social model of disability, like the ICF-Model (WHO 2001) show perspectives which conclude in a description of norms and deviation (Hirschberg 2018). Recognizing this we have to conclude that a truly inclusive understanding can’t be realized while describing differences in normative ways.
On the other hand the recognition of individual differences is needed in educational settings, to provide individualization and appropriate learning methods and materials to fit the individual needs of each student, providing ‘reasonable accommodations of the individuals’s requierments’ as UN-CRPD (2006, Art. 24) puts it. The issue of recognizing and reducing barriers depends on the description of individual needs, thus the description of differences.
The aim of this presentation is to introduce a new model, which includes everyone participating in an inclusive group. Starting from the discourse around neurodiversity, this presentation will include philosophical, psychological and neurological perspectives to introduce a model, which is capable of describing differences based on regular human variation, without stigmatization.
“Neurodiversity is the diversity of human minds, the infinite variation in neurocognitive functioning within our species.” (Walker 2014) This categorizes neurodiversity as another dimension of heterogeneity within the human species, tying it to other discourses like race, class or gender (Singer 2017). This means that neurominorities like autistic persons (I’m using this wording with respect to it’s self-chosen character in accordance to Walker (2016)) must also be seen as a regular variation of the human species. This perspective rules out any pathological description that frames autism as a deviation of a norm. The image of autism is first and foremost based on outside descriptions, founded in a socially constructed image of normality. Still neurological differences do exist within humankind and result in individual needs, especially in an environment like schools, which is primarily suited for the needs of neurotypical students – another overgeneralization, which can lead to inappropriate environments and obstacles to overcome for everyone.
This may result in barriers which must be recognized and dismantled (Boban and Hinz 2009). Still these barriers effect every person, not only neurodivergent. This is due to differences in sensory processing which are inherent to every person (e.g. Friston 2017; Newen 2013; Northoff et al. 2016). By developing a general model of sensory processing in context of Self (‘Selbst’) and environment we can describe individual differences, provide reasonable accommodations for each persons needs, and ultimately provide equity in inclusive education, as this perspective shifts the view from overgeneralization of a group to an individual recognition of inclusive subjects. This will be concluded in the presentation, by looking exemplary at autistic students in inclusive learning settings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presentation will feature the development of a model of Inclusive Subjects (‘Inklusive Subjekte’), by reinterpreting and combining approaches and findings from different fields.
The term inclusive subjects is used to emphasize the departure from binary thinking of norm and deviation or a fixed group and persons that shall be included.
Starting from the philosophical recognition of the relationship between a person and the environment (e.g. Plessner 1975) and the realization that perception is a reciprocal process (e.g. Eisler 2002; Soutschek 2011), between the environment and the person, this presentation will connect different findings on this topic.
Psychological and psychoanalytical approaches focus on the effects of the social environment on subjects. Authors like Kaplan-Solms et al. (2007) use psychoanalytical findings and connect them to modern knowledge about neurology. Neurophilosophical approaches (Friston 2017; e.g. Newen 2013; Northoff et al. 2016) go even a step further by treating all sensory impressions alike, to form an image of self and environment, which provides the insights, that (1) a subject is constructing it’s perception of the environment (and thus their relationship to the environment) based on their capabilities, experiences and neurological ‘wiring’ and (2) that this constructed perception must be different for every subject. This interconnects with the discourse around neurodiversity.
By taking Daniel Kahnemanns (2011) neurological two system theory into account to describe sensory processing, this presentation suggests a new model which is capable of describing differences between individuals without stigmatization, as differences are inherent to all.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe aim of this presentation is to provide a new model to describe (neurological) differences without stigmatization. This is especially relevant in the context of inclusive education as inclusion worldwide is often hindered by pathological thinking and an image of including one person into a preexisting group (e.g. an autistic student into a pre-existing class), instead of providing measures to facilitate participation for everyone. Still there is a lack of models to shape this way of thinking, as often times a description of differences leads to a comparison to artificial norms. By applying the suggested model it is possible to focus on reduction of barriers in the environment, to meet each individuals needs. This presentation will explore this by applying the model exemplary to autistic students in inclusive education, to provide insights into shifting perspectives, resulting in different pedagogical approaches.
The model distinguishes between Self and environment and focusses on the contact between the two. To do this the Self is once again separated into physical factors (body and senses) and Mind. The physical factors shape the possibilities to interact with the environment. The Mind however provides sensory processing, shaping the recognition of the environment, thus consciousness. All these factors of the Self provide the potential of different and individual sensory processing, so individual differences must not be seen pathologically but as a natural form of human variation.
ReferencesBoban, I., & Hinz, A. (2009). Der Index für Inklusion. Sozial Extra, 33, (9-10, 12–16). doi:10.1007/s12054-009-0078-4
Eisler, R. (2002). Kant-Lexikon. Nachschlagewerk zu Kants sämtlichen Schriften, Briefen und handschriftlichem Nachlaß (5., unveränd. Nachdr. d. Ausg. Berlin 1930). Hildesheim: Olms.
Falkai, P., Wittchen, H.-U., Döpfner, M., Gaebel, W., Maier, W., Rief, W., et al. (Eds.). (2018). Diagnostisches und statistisches Manual psychischer Störungen DSM-5® (2. korrigierte Auflage, deutsche Ausgabe). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Friston, K. (Serious Science, Ed.). (2017). Free Energy Principle, British Council. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIu_dJGyIQI. Accessed: 2 June 2020.
Hirschberg, M. (2018). Konzeptualisierungen von Behinderung in der ICF und der UN-BRK und deren Beitrag zur Verwirklichung des Rechts auf Arbeit. In G. Wansing, F. Welti, & M. Schäfers (Eds.), Das Recht auf Arbeit für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Internationale Perspektiven (1st ed., pp. 109–130). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow (First edition). New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Kaplan-Solms, K., Solms, M., Pfeffer, A. Z., Kranz, R., Turnbull, O., & Mojzisch, A. (2007). Neuro-Psychoanalyse. Eine Einführung mit Fallstudien (3. Aufl.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Newen, A. (2013). Philosophie des Geistes (C.H.Beck Wissen, 1. Aufl.). München: C.H.Beck.
Northoff, G., Vetter, J., & Böker, H. (2016). Das Selbst und das Gehirn. In H. Böker, P. Hartwich, & G. Northoff (Eds.), Neuropsychodynamische Psychiatrie (1st ed., pp. 129–145). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Plessner, H. (1975). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie (Sammlung Göschen, vol. 2200, 3., unveränderte Auflage, im Original erschienen 1975). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Singer, J. (2017). NeuroDiversity. The birth of an idea. Lexington.
Soutschek, A. (2011). Naturalismus und Skeptizismus. Eine Analyse naturalistischer Strategien gegen den Außenweltskeptiker (neue Ausg). Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities andOptional Protocol. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf. Accessed: 13 October 2022.
Walker, N. (2014). Neurodiversity: Some basic terms & definitions. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/. Accessed: 17 August 2021.
Walker, N. (2016). Autism & the Pathology Paradigm. https://neuroqueer.com/autism-and-the-pathology-paradigm/. Accessed: 14.10.22.
WHO. (2001). International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.
WHO. (2019). International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. The global standard for diagnostic health information. https://icd.who.int/en. Accessed: 9 June 2021.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
An Exploration of an Individualised Self-Regulation Programme using the Stress, Self-Regulation and Communication Framework (SSC) for Autistic Children
Cora Howe, Claire Griffin
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Ireland
Presenting Author: Howe, Cora
Kanner (1943) first used the term ‘Autism’, based on case studies he observed of a group of children who he remarked, differed considerably and uniquely from one another and therefore, deserved careful consideration of their differences. Eight decades later, researchers, like Bolte (2022) argue that frameworks currently used for diagnosing autism, namely the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5], American Psychiatric Association, 2013), do not reflect the individual differences and holistic profiles of autistic people. Considering Kanner’s (1943) original insights into autism within the modern 21st century’s diagnostic and intervention systems, this paper explores the context for supporting self-regulation in autistic children from an international lens. The paper also seeks to present a framework for supporting autistic children to develop self-regulation in an Irish context.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ([UNCPRD], United Nations, 2007) called for a human rights perspective on education for people with Special Educational Needs (SEN). From a human rights perspective, governments are called upon to remove barriers to the full participation of people with disabilities in society. This includes providing individual support to enable people with SEN to maximise their academic and social development (United Nations, 2007). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ([OECD], 2011) further argue that more support is needed to enable autistic people to develop autonomy and self-determination. Supporting the development of self-regulation is viewed as key to this goal (Nuske et al., 2021). Autistic people are significantly more likely to have challenges with self-regulation (Kuypers, 2011).
This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on self-regulation for autistic children in the Irish and international context. Further, drawing on international policy, and empirical and theoretical literature, it presents an ongoing teacher-designed intervention to promote self-regulation in autistic children in one Irish primary school. Using a case study design, the teacher researcher leading the study used the Stress, Self-Regulation, and Communication Framework (Binns, Hutchinson & Cardy, 2019) to offer an individualised programme for supporting self-regulation for autistic children over three months. Participants include six children with a diagnosis of autism in Ireland. Binns et al. (2019) capture the staged approach to the development of self-regulation in the Stress, Self-Regulation, and Communication framework. The model starts with supporting co-regulation where social partners support the child by pooling executive resources and adapting the environment as needed. The model then moves on to foundational self-regulation capacities, including teaching emotional literacy. Finally, the model focuses on developing autonomous self-regulation strategies where the children can identify causes of dysregulation and develop a toolbox to regulate their emotions. The framework can be individualised to children by adapting the pace, programme, and strategies used. Based on this framework, the primary research question of the current study is how autistic children in a special class in Ireland respond to an individualised self-regulation programme based on the Stress, Self-Regulation, and Communication framework.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA case-study design for supporting the individual development of self-regulation for children with autism is currently being implemented in an Irish context by the lead author. A case study design was chosen due to the difficulty in isolating the development of self-regulation and related interventions from their context (Swanborn, 2010). This is further echoed by design problems in studies that have attempted to do so, including minimum requirements for participants such as verbal intelligence measures and measures of cognitive functioning (e.g. Berkovits, Eisenhower & Blacher, 2017). The case-study design employed in this paper uses a multiple-embedded design to offer an in-depth exploration of each child’s response to the intervention and to help to understand common themes and individual differences.
The lead researcher is supporting the class teacher to teach self-regulation using an adapted version of the Stress, Self-Regulation, and Communication Framework (Binns et al., 2019). Firstly, the class teacher was supported by the researcher to help develop co-regulation strategies. This included documenting a sensory audit of the classroom and making environmental changes, and creating a sensory profile of each child. The class teacher is also being supported to teach a self-regulation curriculum which was adapted from the Zones of Regulation programme (Kuypers, 2011). This comprises six weekly one-hour lessons.
An inductive approach to data collection is being used in this study to address how findings from the case study can add to understanding the development of self-regulation. Findings from both quantitative and qualitative data from the case study will be presented in the paper. Quantitative data included teacher-, child- and parent-reported measures of self-regulation at baseline, post-intervention and at a 12-week follow-up. Teacher and parent-reported self-regulation were measured using ‘The Emotional Regulation and Social Skills Questionnaire’ (Beaumont & Sofronoff, 2008). Child-reported self-regulation was measured using ‘The Children’s Emotion Management Scale’ (Zeman, Cassano, Suveg, & Shipman, 2010). Qualitative data collected included descriptions of the classroom environment, pupils’ sensory profiles and semi-structured interviews with the teacher and parents. The data will be analysed using a reflexive approach to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsReflecting on Kanner’s (1943) original consideration of the differences presented in autistic children, the present paper will present findings that focus on the individual differences of autistic children in response to the self-regulation intervention. This may include when the intervention works best, for whom, and in what setting. The paper will also present the researchers' reflections on the research process within a reflexive paradigm (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The study aims to inform best practice for developing awareness about choosing and applying interventions to support the emotional, academic and social development of autistic children. This may have implications for developing international educational policy, and self-regulation theory.
ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Retrieved from: https://doiorg.ezproxy.frederick.edu/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Beaumont, R., & Sofronoff, K. (2008). A multi-component social skills intervention for children with Asperger syndrome: The junior detective training program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(7), 743-753.
Berkovits, L., Eisenhower, A., & Blacher, J. (2017). Emotion regulation in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 47(1), 68-79.
Binns, A. (2019). Applying a Self-Regulation and Communication Framework to Autism Intervention, Autism & Developmental Disorders, 17(2), 34–45.
Binns, A.V., Hutchinson, L.R. & Cardy, J.O., (2019). The speech-language pathologist’s role in supporting the development of self-regulation: A review and tutorial. Journal of communication disorders, 78, 1-17.
Bölte, S. (2022). A more holistic approach to autism using the International Classification of Functioning: The why, what, and how of functioning. Autism, 13623613221136444.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous child, 2(3), 217-250.
Kuypers, L.M. (2011). The Zones of Regulation ®: A curriculum designed to foster self-regulation and emotional control. San Jose, CA: Social Thinking Publishing.
Nuske, H.J., Shih, W.I., Sparapani, N., Baczewski, L., Dimachkie Nunnally, A., Hochheimer, S., Garcia, C., Castellon, F., Levato, L., Fischer, E. & Atkinson-Diaz, Z.L. (2021). Self-regulation predicts companionship in children with autism. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 1-11.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011). Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Tertiary Education and Employment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Swanborn, P. (2010). Case study research: what, why and how?. Sage: London.
United Nations (UN) (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Geneva: UN.
Zeman, J. L., Cassano, M., Suveg, C., & Shipman, K. (2010). Initial validation of the children’s worry management scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(4), 381-392.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Lived Body, Lived Room, and Professional Ethos: SENCOs’ Lived Experiences of Managing Inclusive Learning Environments in Swedish Upper Secondary School
Jonas Udd
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting Author: Udd, Jonas
Inclusion and the creation of inclusive learning environments have since the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994) been both a means to an end and a goal in itself to create equitable schools as well as equitable societies across the world (Ainscow, Slee, & Best, 2019). Moreover, inclusion might also be a central premise for schools to meet a rapidly growing diversity in the student demographic landscape in Europe (Dyson & Berhanu, 2012; Wolff et al., 2021). However, there is far from any concord within the research community on how inclusion should be defined or how to implement inclusion in schools (Florian, 2019; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). Therefore, the actual practice of creating inclusive learning environments is an area which merits further research.
Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) play a central part in implementing inclusion by creating inclusive learning environments for all students (Abbott, McConkey, & Dobbins, 2011; Cole, 2005; Göransson, Lindqvist, & Nilholm, 2015). Previous research has shown that qualitative positive relationships are central, even essential, for a successful SENCO profession and for SENCOs’ ability to create inclusive learning environments (Aspelin, Östlund, & Jönsson, 2021; Maher, 2016). However, how, and where this work is performed by SENCOs is an area of research which needs to be further explored to better understand how inclusion can be implemented and possibly contribute to meet a growing diversity in the student demographic in Europe and across the world.
Aim and knowledge interest
Considering the brief introduction above, the current study aims to explore how SENCOs in Swedish Upper Secondary School utilize lived body and lived room in their everyday worklife to create and manage inclusive learning environments. A further aim is to understand how professional ethos and agency is expressed in the participants lived experiences. This is explored using a lifeworld phenomenological approach studying the participants lived experiences of creating and managing inclusive learning environments.
Research Questions
(i) What are the SENCOs’ lived experiences of how lived body and lived room conduce and/or impede their agency in the creation and management of inclusive learning environments?
(ii) What are the SENCOs' lived experiences of professional ethos and how it conduce and/or impede agency in their everyday worklife when managing and creating inclusive learning environments?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology and Methods
The study utilizes a lifeworld phenomenological approach. To study peoples’ lifeworlds, to study their lived experiences of a phenomenon, one has to be empathetic, flexible and accommodative to the participants as well as to the phenomenon under study (Bengtsson, 2013). The methods in the study are chosen in relation to its aim and research questions, thereby enabling the researcher to be true to the phenomenon under study (ibid.). The methods in this study are semi-structured lifeworld interviews and reflective open-ended diaries (Kvale, Brinkmann, & Torhell, 2014; Wildemuth, 2017). Three interviews were conducted with each participating SENCO and between these interviews the participants wrote diaries on two occasions. These two methods of generating empirical material combined with the design of the study created opportunity to be empathetic, flexible, and accommodative towards the participants as well as to the phenomenon under study.
Nine participants were chosen for the study using purposeful sampling based on heterogenous characteristics (Patton, 2015). The heterogenous characteristics were that the participating SENCOs should work in small, medium, and large schools; in rural, suburban, and inner-city settings; at theoretical, vocational, and introductory programs and that they should have different lengths of work-experience as SENCOs. A further criterion for selection of the participants were that they currently should work as SENCOs at an upper secondary school. And, finally, the participants should have a Special Education Needs Coordinator’s degree according to SFS 1993:100, or later versions of the same degree.
The analysis of the empirical material was hermeneutical leaning on the work of Gadamer (2013), placing the study within a interpretative phenomenological tradition. The analysis was performed using the hermeneutical circular movement and was aided by phenomenological concepts such as lived room, lived body, intersubjectivity, intercorporality (Merleau-Ponty, 2014; Schütz, 1967), and attending to the face of the Other (Levinas, 1969).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsExpected Outcomes and early findings
Preliminary results in the study suggests that the ethical aspects of SENCOs work, how they attend to the face of the Other (Levinas, 1969), seems to be a central premise for the SENCO profession and for how they approach a diverse student demographic when creating and managing inclusive learning environments. The SENCOs lived experiences imply that agency and the ability to create and manage inclusive learning environments is anchored in as well as driven by a professional ethos which seems to stand at the heart of what it means to be a SENCO. This suggests that empathy, compassion, and the wherewithal to stand up for and defend every student’s dignity and unequivocal right to education are central existential aspects of the SENCO profession. Furthermore, the lived experiences of the SENCOs indicate that relational work seem to be rooted primarily in informal aspects of the SENCOs’ everyday worklife and that the setting for this work is spread out in the school building and beyond. These lived experiences of the participating SENCOs could be interpreted as defining characteristics of the SENCO profession which seem to exhibit distinct interspatial as well as intercorporal aspects (Merleau-Ponty, 2014). On top of this, the intercorporal aspects , seem to be important for SENCOs’ agency and ability to create and uphold qualitative intersubjective relationships (Schütz, 1967). In conclusion, the study’s preliminary results indicate that there is an intertwinement of interspatial, intercorporal, ethical and intersubjective aspects in the SENCOs everyday worklife. These aspects seem to constitute fundamental existential features of the SENCO profession. These existential features of the profession seem to enable the SENCOs to have agency to create inclusive learning environments. The inclusive learning environments might possibly establish opportunity to accommodate the needs of a diverse student demographic.
ReferencesAbbott, L., McConkey, R., & Dobbins, M. (2011). Key players in inclusion: are we meeting the professional needs of learning support assistants for pupils with complex needs? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(2), 215-231.
Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). Editorial: the Salamanca Statement: 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7/8), 671-676. doi:10.1080/13603116.2019.1622800
Aspelin, J., Östlund, D., & Jönsson, A. (2021). ‘It means everything’: special educators’ perceptions of relationships and relational competence. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(5), 671-685.
Bengtsson, J. (2013). With the Lifeworld as Ground. A Research Approach for Empirical Research in Education: The Gothenburg Tradition. Indo-Pacific journal of phenomenology, 13, 1-18.
Cole, B. A. (2005). Mission impossible? Special educational needs, inclusion and the re-conceptualization of the role of the SENCO in England and Wales. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), 287-307.
Dyson, A., & Berhanu, G. (2012). Special Education in Europe, Overrepresentation of Minority Students. In (Vol. 4, pp. 2070-2073).
Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8), 691-704.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2013). Truth and method: London
New York : Bloomsbury Academic.
Göransson, K., Lindqvist, G., & Nilholm, C. (2015). Voices of special educators in Sweden: a total-population study. Educational Research, 57(3), 287-304.
Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S., & Torhell, S.-E. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity : an essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Maher, A. (2016). Consultation, negotiation and compromise: the relationship between SENCos, parents and pupils with SEN. Support for Learning, 31(1), 4-12.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2014). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
Nilholm, C., & Göransson, K. (2017). What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(3), 437-451.
Schütz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
UNESCO. (1994, 7-10 June). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Salamanca, Spain.
Wildemuth, B. M. (2017). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (Second edition. ed.): Santa Barbara, California :
Wolff, C. E., Huilla, H., Tzaninis, Y., Magnúsdóttir, B. R., Lappalainen, S., Paulle, B., . . . Kosunen, S. (2021). Inclusive education in the diversifying environments of Finland, Iceland and the Netherlands: A multilingual systematic review. Research in Comparative and International Education, 16, 3 - 21.
|
