04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Widening the Focus of School-Readiness for Children with Disabilities and Their Families
Paul Lynch
University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Lynch, Paul
Early childhood education and 'school readiness are considered to be significant phases of growth and development which influence outcomes across an individual’s entire life and provides an important period of opportunity and a foundation for lifelong learning and participation (World Health Organisation 2012). Over the past 15 years, global interest in promoting school readiness has increased significantly with emerging evidence for the effectiveness of combined sector programmes particularly if provided in the first 1000 days of life (Black et al. 2017). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006) affirm that all children have the right to develop to their full potential and that governments should guarantee that young children with disabilities receive high-quality education.
In this presentation, drawing on a systematic literature review, I will highlight the importance of the sociocultural context of development when researching children with disabilities drawing on sociocultural theorists to conceptualise the development of the young child with a disability (Skinner and Weisner (2007), Rogoff (2003), Artiles and Kozleski (2016). I will then draw on bioecological systems theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) to help unpack the different complexities that can arise when assessing the specific learning and care needs of a child with disability. ) Results from the systematic review will be used to compare some of the tensions that exisit on the use of the construct of 'school readiness'[ in relation to early childhood disability in UK, European and international countries.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe review comprised a list of search terms, eligibility criteria, appraisal of included studies, data extraction and data analysis. A data extraction form was used to record key background information about each study, including the location of the study, the sample size, duration of intervention as well as key findings and limitations. A thematic matrix was developed to ensure that all interpretations were thorough and consistent across the papers. This process ensured that the specific delineation of the categories was consistent and congruent with full agreement on the themes identified. We then carried out a thematic analysis to identify the main outcomes and contributions of the articles that made the final list for this paper on. The general framework for the review used the following procedures (Boland, Cherry, and Dickson 2017).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe review revealed that there are few papers that capture the contextual aspects of children’s early learning and development, such as their cultural background, linguistic diversity, impairment or disability (Lynch, et al. 2021). The influence of children’s culture and background are not always considered within instruments despite wide variation in global cultural values, practices and experiences. In addition, there are limited assessment instruments that examine the quality of the environment despite research (Yoshikawa et al. 2013; Ngoun et al. 2020) in many respects, the assessments did not take into account important individual and group differences in patterns of child development or allow for progression and continuity within and across different educational settings. I will make some recommendations on how to design inclusive early childhood education and school readiness through a bioecological systems model that places an emphasis on the importance of
engaging with different levels of support to ensure appropriate solutions are offered
to families who have children with disabilities within a complex ecology.
ReferencesArtiles, A. J., & Kozleski, E. B. (2016). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives. https://doi.org/10. 14507/epaa.24.1919.
Black, M. M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C. H., Andersen, C. T., Di Girolamo, A. M., Lu, C., et al. (2017). Advancing early childhood development: From science to scale. The Lancet, 389(10064), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.
Boland, A., M. G. Cherry, and R. Dickson. 2017. Doing a Systematic Review. London: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lynch, P. & Soni. A. (2021): Widening the focus of school readiness
for children with disabilities in Malawi: a critical review of the literature, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1965801
Ngoun, C., P. De Meyer, K. Baesel, R. Khoeun Khanna, and L. S. Stoey. 2020. “Cambodian Developmental Milestone Assessment Tool (cDMAT): Performance Reference Charts and Reliability Check of a Tool to Assess Early Childhood Development in Cambodian Children.” Early Human Development 141: 104934.
Skinner, D., & Weisner, T. (2007). Sociocultural studies of families of children with intellectual `disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 302–312.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: UN. Retrieved from www.un.org/disabilities.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2012). Early childhood development and disability: A discussion paper. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75355/1/9789241504065_eng.pdf
Yoshikawa, H., C. Weiland, J. Brooks-Gunn, M. Burchinal, L. M. Espinosa, W. T. Gormley, and M. J. Maslow. 2013. Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education. New York: Foundation for Child Development.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Family, Education and Inclusion of Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: first results.
Deseada Ruiz-Ariza1, María Esther Prados-Megías1, Analía E. Leite-Méndez2, Pablo Cortés-González2
1University of Almería, Spain; 2University of Málaga, Spain
Presenting Author: Ruiz-Ariza, Deseada;
Cortés-González, Pablo
This contribution presents the progress of a doctoral research project that aims to respond to the needs and possibilities that families have to meet and provide educational support to a son or daughter who was born with profound deafness and who has undergone cochlear implantation. According to various researchers (Bruin, 2018; Holt, Beer, Kronenberger, Pisoni & Lalonde, 2012), cooperation between different educational agents is vital for the comprehensive development of minors, with the family being a first-order entity. There are few studies in this regard, hence the importance of recovering the experiences of families to develop an inclusive education.
We can say that we are living in a unique moment in terms of medical and technological advances in the world of deafness that minimize the consequences of this disability in a society that culturally still needs to open possibilities for diversities.
One of the most notable advances is that referred to hearing. One is the hearing aid, which is an electronic device that amplifies sound and is placed behind the ear or inside the ear and is used for those who have mild or medium hearing loss. Parallel to the advances in hearing aids, in the mid-20th century important achievements were made in another type of prosthesis, the so-called cochlear implants (CI), for people with profound bilateral hearing loss. According to the Spanish Confederation of Families of Deaf People (FIAPAS), this device is recognized by the scientific community as one of the historical advances of the last century, which has changed the lives of more than half a million people in the world (... ), making it possible for deaf children to have better access to oral language at an early age and to the learning that derives from it.
Together with speech therapists, schools and health professionals, the involvement of parents with minors is considered a key to achieving the success of mentioned rehabilitation (Juan, 2016; Santana & Moreno-Torres, 2012). As Schlesinger points out (in Lutterman, 2009), the best predictor of literacy for these children is found in the linguistic interaction between parents/guardians and children, which he called the elusive “X factor”. This factor turned out to be of greater importance than social class, economic status of families or IQ.
On the other hand, article number 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNESCO, 2006), defines “accessibility as a necessary condition for persons with disabilities to be able to enjoy the same goods and services on equal terms. And in its article 24, it explains that "disabled people can access inclusive, quality education, on an equal footing with others and in the communities in which they live", therefore promoting access to this type of resource or interventions becomes essential to ensure the rights of people with disabilities.
Within this framework, this research seeks to deepen the understanding of the role of normal-hearing families with deaf children with CI and, in this way, attend to the different experiences, strategies and trajectories that ensure inclusion. It focuses on studying family contexts of CI users for two reasons: on the one hand, it is an autoethnographic study, since the doctoral student is the mother of an implanted child and, on the other hand, although many of the strategies and experiences can be similar to that of minors with hearing aids, many of the family knowledge networks move through different spaces since the type of prosthesis generates differences in care, in programming, and in the resources around them.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe main objective of this study is to recover the voices of the families that have children in their care with CI, to collect information, analyze it and make proposals for action to improve the lives of these people.
This article presents some results obtained from the first two years of research. The information is collected under different aspects: (1) in which parents have known the diagnosis of their sons and daughters; (2) the type of information and training provided by the staff who care for the families and the guidance offered to them; (3) to know the main methods that families have used to find out, how they have felt, what their needs are, how they have dealt with this disability together with the rest of the family members, what kind of difficulties they encounter on a daily basis and if these families have received training in this regard; (4) What kind of strategies do families use to communicate and educate with these boys and girls before and after the implantation of these electronic devices, and what strategies have they developed together with the teaching professionals who have been with these minors during the school stage?
This research project has its methodological basis in auto-ethnography (Denzin and Lincoln, 2012), recovering a narrative biographical approach (Clandinin, 2013), and from the approaches of inclusive research (Nind, 2017) that assumes certain principles and responsibilities towards research and co-investigators, which generates "research committed to the fight against exclusion, committed to processes of change and socio-educational improvement, participatory and collaborative with educational actors/agents and ethically committed" (Parrilla, 2013, p.7-8).
To this end, it is proposed to combine different techniques and strategies that allow us to approach the object of study, both from a panoramic dimension to the family reality of deaf children with CI in normal-hearing families, as well as a more specific approach to devices, practical experiences and their success strategies.
For this contribution, we take the first results of the autobiographical life story that will be woven with the collection of information with other families through an online questionnaire, all of this, as a first procedural phase of the project to propose a panoramic view of family experiences and thus give meaning to auto-ethnographic research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis of the information obtained in this first stage of this research project reveals that despite the existence of bibliographic references on strategies to improve communication with people who have these electronic devices (Juan, 2016; Santana and Moreno, 2012), families barely use them, since only 25% state that they take advice from such information. It is detected that there is a lack of information and advice from health professionals and speech therapists who are experts in the field. If the parents do not have the resources, the will, the motivation and the emotional strength to know and put into practice these strategies, the opportunities to hear and speak of these minors are reduced.
We must highlight the lack of training by professionals in the educational world to address strategies with people with IC. Currently, initial university training lacks specific training on these issues that we have been developing to inclusively address the reality of people with these devices. The information analyzed shows that families with this group of minors perceive a lack of motivation and training on the part of their sons and daughters' teachers. The family-tutor relationship is essential for improving academic and communication results with children with CI, although sometimes this depends on the level and economic resources, availability of time and family involvement, according to each family and social context.
Finally, it should be noted that, for there to truly be educational inclusion, it is considered necessary to create work teams made up of health professionals, speech therapists, programmers, teachers, and families, and these are the link between all of them, with the objective of rowing in the same direction, to generate spaces that can meet the needs of these minors.
ReferencesBruin, M. (2018). Parental involvement in children’s learning: the case of cochlear implantation parents as educators? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 601-616.
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Left Coast Press.
Denzin, N. y Lincoln, Y. (2012). Manual de investigación cualitativa. Gedisa.
Holt, R. F., Beer, J., Kronenberger, W. G., Pisoni, D. B., y Lalonde, K. (2012). Contribution of family environment to pediatric cochlear implant users' speech and language outcomes: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 3, 848-864.
Juan, E. (2016). Rehabilitación en implantes cocleares. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes, 27 (6), 834-839.
Nind, M. (2017). The practical wisdom of inclusive research. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 278–288.
Santana, R. y Moreno, I. (2012). Papel de la implicación familiar en el desarrollo del niño sordo con implante coclear. Biennale internationale de l’éducation, de la formation et des pratiques professionnelles, Paris, Francia. ffhalshs-00780718f
UNESCO, (2006). Orientaciones para la Inclusión: Asegurar el Acceso a la Educación para Todos, París, 2006, pp. 12 a 14
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Parent-Teacher Communication: What are the Experiences of Parents of Children with Specific Educational Needs?
Gemma Scarparolo
The University of Western Australia, Australia
Presenting Author: Scarparolo, Gemma
It is well established that educational outcomes and schooling experiences can be enhanced when parents are involved in and engaged in their child’s education (Wilder, 2014; Yotyodying & Wild, 2019). Communicating and working with parents is an important part of a teacher’s role, yet there is little published that shares parents’ experiences of these interactions (Ellis et al., 2015), especially the experiences of parents of children with specific educational needs (Paccaud et al., 2021). It has been reported that parents of children with disability can find it more difficult to communicate with teachers than parents of children without disability (Leenders et al., 2019); therefore, this is an important area for further research in the field of inclusive education. This aim of this qualitative study was to learn about the experiences of parents of primary school aged children with disability specifically relating to their communication, consultation and collaboration with teachers on relating to teaching and learning. The decision was made to compare the experiences of parents of children with disability in Australia and Ireland given the similar disability legislation and teacher professional standards in each country. In both countries, teachers are legally required to consult and collaborate with parents of children with disability in the educative process (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992, 2005; Houses of the Oireachtas, 2005). Furthermore, teachers in both countries are also expected to work with and communicate sensitively and effectively with parents in the educative process as part of meeting teacher professional standards (AITSL, 2017; Teaching Council, 2016). However, little information or elaboration is provided for teachers and schools about consultation or what effective communication with parents should look like. Therefore, it is understandable that communication and consultation between teachers and parents is variable given the lack of clarity and information for teachers about this important aspect of their role. While legislation and professional standards place an emphasis on teachers consulting and communicating with parents in the educative process, reviews of legislation in Australia have reported that parents often feel frustrated and excluded from decisions about their child’s education as well as feeling that their knowledge about their child and their disability is not valued by teachers or school leaders (DESE, 2021).
In this study, the decision was made to focus on the experiences of parents of children with the most common neurodevelopmental disorders (specifically autism spectrum disorder, attention hyperactivity disorder and specific learning disorders), as children with these disabilities have specific educational needs. The focus on parents of primary school aged children was chosen as it has been identified that parental involvement is especially important at this stage of schooling (Leenders et al., 2019). This study draws on literature from the fields of inclusive education, family-school partnerships, teacher professional standards, and parent voice to learn more about the experiences of parents of children with disability in both Australia and Ireland to inform teacher preparation and policy relating to this aspect of inclusive education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA qualitative research approach was adopted for this study as the aim was to learn about the different lived experiences of parents of children with disability and their interactions with their child’s teachers and school leaders. A qualitative interpretivist approach was taken in an attempt to make sense of the parents’ experiences and present a rich and descriptive account of this phenomena for the purpose of informing researcher knowledge and teacher practices relating to parent-teacher communication, consultation and collaboration in the field of inclusive education. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children with disability in Australia and Ireland to learn about their experiences relating to communication, consultation and collaboration with their child’s teachers. Interview questions were informed by relevant literature and developed based on the requirements of disability legislation and teacher professional standards. Institutional ethics was approved and participation in the study was voluntary. Purposive sampling was employed in each context and parents were invited to participate through parent support networks and parent advocacy groups. Interviews were audio recorded for transcription purposes and reflexive thematic analysis was the approach used for data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) given the interpretative nature of the study and the researcher's recognition of the reflexive nature of data analysis. Braun and Clarke’s (2022) six phases of analysis were followed, and both inductive and deductive analysis were used during coding, theme development and the finalisation of themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of this study support and enhance the literature published on family-school partnerships and inclusive education and addresses the complex and varied nature of consultation, collaboration and communication between teachers and parents of children with disability. Factors that impact consultation, collaboration and communication will be identified and discussed drawing on teacher professional standards, disability legislation and the research field of inclusive education. One of the findings of the study relates to the tension between what parents of children with disability want and expect for their child relating to learning, and what teachers say, do and are required to do. This tension will be a point for discussion in the presentation. The findings of this study will be of interest and relevance to teachers, parents, school leaders, teacher educators and researchers interested in inclusive education and family-family partnerships.
ReferencesAustralian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2017). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards
Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00125
Commonwealth of Australia (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767
Department of Education, Skills, and Employment (DESE) (2021). Final Report of the 2020 Review of the Disability Standards for Education 2005. https://www.education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005/resources/final-report-2020-review-disability-standards-education-2005
Ellis, M., Lock, G., & Lummis, G. (2015). Parent-Teacher Interactions: Engaging with Parents and Carers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.9
Houses of the Oireachtas (2004). Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2004/30/eng/enacted/a3004.pdf
Houses of the Oireachtas (2005). Disability Act (2005). https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/14/enacted/en/pdf
Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parental involvement to parental engagement: a continuum. Educational Review, 66(4), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.781576
Leenders, H., de Jong, J., Monfrance, M., & Haelermans, C. (2019). Building strong parent-teacher relationships in primary education: the challenge of two-way communication. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1566442
Paccaud, A., Keller, R., Luder, R., Pastore, G., & Kunz, A. (2021). Satisfaction with the collaboration between families and schools – the parent’s view. Frontiers in Education,6, 1-13. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.646878
Teaching Council (2016). The Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers. https://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/publications/fitness-to-teach/code-of-professional-conduct-for-teachers1.pdf
Tveit, A.D. (2009) A parental voice: parents as equal and dependent rhetoric about parents, teachers, and their conversations. Educational Review, 61(3), 289-300, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910903045930
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: a meta-synthesis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
Yotyodying, S., & Wild, E. (2019). Effective family-school communication for students with learning disabilities: Associations with parental involvement at home and in school. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100317
|
