04. Inclusive Education
Paper
New Comparisons. Methodological Approaches to Comparing Multi-Language Data from an International Systematic Review of the ICF and Education
Gregor Maxwell1, Ines Alves2, Marta Moretti3, Michelle Proyer4, Raphael Zahnd5, Patricia Soliz6
1UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway; 2University of Glasgow, UK; 3Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland; 4University of Vienna, Austria; 5University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Swizterland; 6Pan American Health Organization/ World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO)
Presenting Author: Maxwell, Gregor
This paper explores new boundaries relating to comparisons of German, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, and South African publications in a systematic literature review of research publications related to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (World Health Organisation, 2001, ICF) and education. New ground-breaking methodological approaches are required when comparing multi-language data from an international systematic review, similarly there are practical issues when working globally relating to cross-cultural understandings, work practices and time-zones.
This study is the outcome of a systematic literature review on the use of the ICF and its Children and Youth version (WHO, 2007, the ICF-CY) in the field of education and specifically education for children with disabilities, special educational needs and those requiring additional support in school. In 2010 Moretti, Alves, and Maxwell (Maxwell et al, 2012; Moretti et al., 2012) carried out a similar review and set the scene for how the ICF is used in the education field. In the intervening decade much has developed with the ICF and it is time for another measure of the situation. Throughout this paper we will refer the “ICF” as both the ICF (2001) and the ICF-CY (2007), unless otherwise specifically indicated.
The ICF is a bio-psycho-social classification framework developed by the World Health Organization based on a non-categorical approach to human functioning contextualizing the functioning of an individual in their current environment without the use of ‘traditional’ categories or diagnoses. The framework incorporates 'all components of health described at body, individual and societal levels’ (WHO, 2007). The ICF is intended for all people but is particularly applicable and appropriate for persons with disability.
The term education in this article means the “development of human potential...personality, talents and creativity as well as...mental and physical abilities” (United Nations, 2006) made in a formal context, usually a school or other setting in which the main aim is not medical or clinical rehabilitation. All education levels are taken into account, from early years, compulsory schooling, further education, and lifelong learning of persons with disabilities and those working with persons with disabilities in a formal educational setting. The educational environment or setting is of importance both in terms of setting the scene in which an activity occurs and as a factor that can facilitate or hinder participation in a setting. The environment can be represented as dimensions that relate to the availability, accessibility, affordability, accommodability and acceptability of the participation situation or experience (Maxwell, 2012). By investigating the educational environment, we can shed more light on effective inclusive practices by providing more accurate representations and measures of the participation of children.
The current paper explores the methodological challenges and consequences of carrying out an international, multi-lingual, cross-comparison in-depth review of the main findings from a systematic literature search. Data come from systematic database searches using selected search terms in different languages in national databases in the partner countries. Searches were carried out in Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, English, Afrikaans, German, and Mandarin.
The main literature review aimed to explore how the ICF is currently situated in the field of education in different global contexts with a specific focus on children with disabilities, Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those requiring additional support in school. With a comparison of how the ICF is applied a different levels and processes in various global contexts, this paper aims to:
- Explore the methodological consequences of carrying out an in-depth systematic review of the ICF and education in different global contexts.
- Describe the practical implications of carrying out the review.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWhile the main study itself aims to explore how the ICF is situated in the field of education in different global contexts, this paper focuses specifically on the final cross-country comparison.
A systematic review of the literature was carried out using database electronic searches performed during the second half of 2021 and in to 2022 analysing studies published from 2001 in English, German, Spanish, Afrikaans, Italian, Portuguese, and Chinese. Journal articles, books and book chapters, and reports were included in the initial search. Database search terms referring to the ICF components and education were combined. Each language required its own selection and refinement of search terms. The relevance of the chosen search terms was explored through discussions among the authors, with experts in the field, and expert research librarians. The search terms were chosen based on the focus of the study and current debate and were refined to include widely used variations and abbreviations. Search terms had to be related to the ICF (e.g. ICF, International Classification of functioning, environment*, personal factors, participation) and to education (school, education*, inclusion/inclusive, eligibility, goals, identification) and various abbreviations/ combinations of the phrase special education needs (SNE, SEN, “special needs”, Special Ed, SpecEd, SPED). The final searches were run after qualitative test searches to establish the suitability of the terms: four combinations of the search terms were initially trialled; however, difficulties arose relating to translating a number of the terms and concepts into the various languages involved in this study so the search string was condensed into one:
• ("ICF" OR “International Classification of functioning”) AND (school OR inclus* OR SNE OR SEN OR “special needs” OR Special Ed OR SpecEd OR SPED)
The string was translated into Italian, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Afrikaans, and Mandarin, and applied to various national databases. In each national context the selection of studies was then refined further using three protocols: inclusion and exclusion protocols at abstract and full text and extraction levels. Studies exploring the direct relationship between education and the ICF were sought.
A multi-lingual cross-comparison between countries was then carried out where descriptive summaries of the findings based on the extraction-level protocol were translated back into English in order to provide a common working language. Initial comparisons were piloted between two of the language groups (Portuguese and Chinese) before the addition of the other language groups occurred step-wise: German, Italian, South African, the Spanish.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsArticles were mainly published in special education journals. Overall, the most used ICF components are activity and participation, and environmental factors. The ICF is still used as a research tool, theoretical framework, and tool for implementing educational processes. Although the review does not report a high incidence of the use of the ICF in education, the results show that within certain local context (e.g. Portugal, Zürich, and Italy) the ICF model and classification have shown potential to be applied in education systems.
In terms of the methodological consequences of carrying out an in-depth systematic review of the ICF and education in different global contexts, this study highlights the viability of such an approach if suitable consideration is taken to language translation and cultural differences. A descriptive summary of the third protocol helped enable cross-comparisons.
Differences exist in cultural and linguistic understandings of things and awareness of which of these are being analysed is essential to ensure reliable data interpretation; different understandings of concepts such as disability, and personal or environmental factors are common. Diversity also varies as a concept across languages and cultures. Differences are also seen with the differing use of the ICF and whether the focus was on rehabilitation, intervention, or education. The ICF’s role in the discourse of the concept of inclusion within the field of education also varied considerably with contexts.
Practical implications mainly relate to the technology of working at a distance and the real challenge of time zones – people will have work early and late when trying to meet live and online with colleagues in Brazil, Europe, South Africa, and Asia!
ReferencesMaxwell, G. (2012). Bringing More to Participation: Participation in School Activities of Persons with Disability Within the Framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY). 16 Doctoral thesis, Comprehensive summary, School of Education and Communication, Jönköping. Available online at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-18079DiVAdatabase
Maxwell, G., Alves, I., and Granlund, M. (2012). Participation and environmental aspects in education and the ICF and the ICF-CY: findings from a systematic literature review. Dev. Neurorehabil. 15, 63–78. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2011.633108
Moretti, M., Alves, I., & Maxwell, G. (2012). A systematic literature review of the situation of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health and the international classification of functioning, disability, and health–children and youth version in education: a useful tool or a flight of fancy?. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 91(13), S103-S117.
United Nations (2006). UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, United Nations.
World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (2007). International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
“A lean agreement is better than a fat lawsuit” – The Trilemma of Inclusive Educational Assessments in Austria & Germany
Lisa-Katharina Moehlen
University of Vienna / Technical University Braunschweig
Presenting Author: Moehlen, Lisa-Katharina
7.02% of students are diagnosed as having special educational needs (SEN) in Europe (EASNIE, 2020). Germany thus represents the European average with 7.2% of students with SEN. Austria is below the average at 5.3%. This ranks both countries in the middle of the field. Nevertheless, the evaluation of the national action plans show that inclusive structures are neither comprehensively implemented in Austria nor Germany yet. Data as well as the evaluation results indicate that the ratification of the CRPD – by Austria in 2007 and Germany in 2009 – is thus not synonymous with the actual implementation of the right to inclusive education.
As all European countries, Austria and Germany operate with assessment strategies to categorize students regarding their abilities. The organization of (inclusive) education and learning in both countries indicate that school type and curriculum are determined based on categorizing students by disability. The procedure to examine SEN itself is an administrative act operated by the school authorities. Classification systems like ICD-10 are used that are primarily medical and deficit-oriented diagnostic instruments (Buchner & Proyer, 2020; Gasterstädt et al., 2021). Thus, the organization of education and learning is shaped by traditional disability categories rather than an inclusive understanding guided by fostering participation, empowerment, and self-determination (Florian, 2014; Prengel, 2016). Based on an inclusive understanding, both scholars and practitioners proclaim the organization of assessments that consider environmental factors, are conducted by multi-professional teams, and include inclusive classifications like ICF (Moretti et al., 2012; Sanches-Ferreira et al., 2014). This requires shifting the focus from diagnostics to pedagogics and thus organizational measures with bottom-up rather than top-down approaches.
It results in the trilemma of organizing (inclusive) education and learning regarding the impact of (1) (inter)national policy conditions, (2) the bureaucratically located top-down approach at the exo and macro level, and (3) inclusive bottom-up approaches at the micro and meso level. Researching this trilemma opens the following questions:
1) To what extent do SEN assessments organize inclusive education (in the German and Austrian school systems)?
2) To what extent is the idea of inclusive education reflected in the educational policy agendas for the organizational implementation of inclusive education in Germany and Austria?
The paper contributes to the broad debate on policy-making to implement inclusive education and resulting from this organizational implication to foster social inclusion and diversity, using Austria and Germany as examples.
Theoretically, Lipskys’ (1969, 2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy (SLB) Theory frames desk research. The theory deals with “how people experience public policies in realm that are critical to our welfare and sense of community” (S. xii). It is investigated by researching the micro level of how bureaucratical procedures are contextualized within the interaction of street-level bureaucrats (teachers and educators) and their clients (students). The research topic focuses on the SEN procedure and its impact on inclusive education and teaching. On this basis, Brodkin (2011, 2016) developed another perspective of SLB theory by focusing on the meso level and “those organizations and agencies that directly bring policies and programs to people” (p. 444). Both theoretical approaches are relevant for my work in order to triangulate the findings of the desk research against the background of a holistic systemic view.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper presents the central findings of my Ph.D. desk research. The desk research consists of a (1) Narrative Literature Review (NLR) and a (2) policy impact analysis.
(1) The NLR is an innovative method in educational research but and provides a suitable method for an overview of a wide range of interdisciplinary research (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Halász, 2019). It aims to map the research field rather than limiting on specific aspects. This allows a systemic overview on the nexus of inclusive and organizational research. The methodological focus lies on the existing narratives and theoretical implications that shape the interdisciplinary research topic. I used the database Scopus to start the review procedure. The search strategy aimed to review the intersection of inclusive education and organizational education across all levels of the school system. The search presented 292 papers. Following the research purpose, the selection criteria included a) English or German language, b) publishing date < 2007, c) theoretical, empirical, and methodological approaches on inclusive and organizational education, d) abstract. 57 papers met the inclusion criteria and were scanned by their abstract and full availability. Then, nine papers suit the research purpose. The research strategy switched to snowballing to identify further literature. The NLR does not limit to scientific literature but includes working papers, grey literature, etc. (Boyle et al., 2014). The literature corpus was expanded by 105 documents and now includes 114 relevant works.
(2) The policy impact analysis provides insights into policy-making for the implementation of (inclusive) assessment (Bandelow et al., 2022; Tatto, 2012). It constitutes school organization and frames pedagogic and didactic approaches as well as the understanding of inclusive education. The data set build ca. 75 policy papers from international, EU, national and federal states level from Austria and Germany. It includes key policy papers such as the CPRD, the SDGs, the EU Commission paper, national action plans, national school laws, and education laws to examine the legislative base for the implementation of (inclusive) assessment. It aims to uncover the social discourses and paradigms that underlie policy and administrative decision-making.
The triangulation of both methods provides a comparative overview of the current state-of-the-art across Europe, but also the two countries Austria and Germany. It builds a solid base to continue the research process with empirical data in the future.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsInitial results show that the theoretical nexus of inclusive and organizational education is very promising in terms of inclusive educational assessments. The NRL proved to be a suitable method for reviewing the state of the art. First identified narratives indicate that various perspectives frame the contradicting state of the art with overlapping top-down and bottom-up approaches. These perspectives are shaped by different ontological, epistemological, methodological origin that results in the crossover implementation of different approaches. It depends on the levels of implemenatation, the disciplines, but also individual actors and stakeholders. The domination of a perspective or an approach seems to be a question of politics but also depends the individual actors. Such ambiguous results reflect on the trilemma of implementing inclusive educational assessments in highly bureaucratized school systems in Austria & Germany. The policy analysis verfiy the assumption. It was found that neither Austria nor Germany have inclusive policies, as the laws date from the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, the central revisions also narrows the special education understanding instead of opening up to an inclusive understanding of CPRD. In a nutshell, the lean agreement is that the implementation of inclusive education depends by ideologically driven individuals or institutions, but better not risking a fat lawsuit aimed at systemic transformation.
ReferencesBandelow, N. C.; Hornung, J.; Sager, F. & Schröder, I. (2022): Complexities of policy design, institutional change, and multilevel governance? European Policy Analysis 8 (4), 366-369, doi: 10.1002/epa2.1164
Baumeister, R. F.; Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology 1 (3), 311-320. DOI: 10.1037//1089-2680.1.3.311.
Boyle, E. A.; MacArthur, E. W.; Connolly, T. M.; Hainey, T.; Manea, M. Kärki, A. & van Rosmalen, P. (2014). A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Computer & Education 74, 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.004.
Brodkin, E. Z. (2016). Street-Level Organizations, Inequality, and the Future of Human Services. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance 40 (5), 444–450. DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2016.1173503.
Buchner, T. & Proyer, M. (2020). From special to inclusive education policies in Austria – developments and implications for school and teacher education. In European Journal of Teacher Education 43 (1),83–94. DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2019.1691992.
EASNIE (2020). European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education: 2018 Dataset Cross-Country Report. Odense, Denmark.
Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? In European Journal of Special Needs Education 29 (3), 286–294. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2014.933551.
Gasterstädt, J.; Kistner, A. & Adl-Amini, K. (2021). Die Feststellung sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs als institutionelle Diskriminierung? Eine Analyse der schulgesetzlichen Regelungen. In Zeitschrift für Inklusion (4). https://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/551
Halász, G. (2019). Doing Systematic Literature Review - `Net Fishing´ or `Whale Hunting´? M. Honerød Hoveid, L. Ciolan, A. Paseka & S. Marques Da Silva (eds.). Doing educational research. Overcoming challenges in practice (91-113). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Moretti, M.; Alves, I. & Maxwell, G. (2012). A systematic literature review of the situation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-Children and Youth version in education: a useful tool or a flight of fancy? American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 91 (13), 3-17. DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31823d53b2.
Sanches-Ferreira, M.; Silveira-Maia, M. & Alves, S. (2014). The use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, version for Children and Youth (ICF-CY), in Portuguese special education assessment and eligibility procedures: the professionals’ perceptions. European Journal of Special Needs Education 29 (3), 327-343. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2014.908025.
Tatto, M. T. (2012).Learning and Doing Policy Analysis in Education. Examining Diverse Approaches to Increasing Educational Access. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
|
