04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Developing a UDL Attitude across the Academy – Joining the dots.
Mary Quirke, Conor Mc Guckin, Patricia McCarthy
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Presenting Author: Quirke, Mary;
McCarthy, Patricia
If we look deeply enough, we should be able to see the developing story of inclusion unfolding across our academies in educational research, research processes, and identify how we as researchers connect with developing practice. But is the story unfolding as we think it is?
The literature shares a story of past and present thinking, experiences, and outcomes, while also sharing views, emotion, and concerns. Expressions, terminologies, style, and tone build a story and inform learners and future practitioners – but is the story of “inclusion in education” connected with the contemporary world of learning and participation in our academies?
How much attention are we paying to the growing depth and breadth of the conversation that is “inclusion” and how it relates to the topic of “inclusive education” as we know it? The story of disability in education is evolving and while this is resulting in a change across the literature in terms of language, concepts, approaches and moreover tone, it is acknowledged that defining “inclusion” in education is complex (Griffin & Shevlin 2011; Shevlin & Flynn 2011) .
This paper presents the story of inclusion in an educational research journey. In the first instance, a zero result in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that the first author carried out as part of her doctoral research flagged the difference in terminology, language, tone, and approach across the different texts. The development of an “Inclusion as Process” (Quirke, Mc Guckin, & McCarthy, 2022) reflexive method allowed an exploration regarding what we perceive to be a disjointed and disconnected literacy within this area.
The apparent shift in language as Special Education shifted to Inclusive Education approaches and a further shift again as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) theories (Rose & Meyer, 2006) and thinking emerged was observed. Moreover, much of the literature on “inclusion” in education remains focused on disability and while there has been a move away from the “disabling” approach of the medical model (McCarthy & Shevlin, 2017 ) it raised the question as to whether a legacy of this thinking still lingers in the field of education and poses the interesting question – “is this a risk for the “inclusion” we seek today?”
While the language and terminology continue to evolve with new words and expressions continuing to develop, this presented another consideration – are the inclusive approaches as framed by the UDL approach being adopted on our own campuses, aligned with our approaches in inclusion in education?
UDL is shifting the focus to “designing” and is an approach that results in a significant change from previous approaches to disability. But as we engage with UDL, do we also need a more balanced and nuanced approach to “inclusion” if we are to teach, research and practice it. As we engage with more contemporary theories and relate them to our own academic practice how do we authentically place a diversity of learners, including learners with a disability, at the center of our own academic work?
Is it time to perhaps reconsider our own contributions to the body of literature and facilitate a shared understanding of terms, language and embrace an awareness of the reader, while appreciating the effect on “professional practice”. While this asks for change – if we fully appreciate and develop inclusion across education, we need to recognised the inbuilt legacy from previous practice and theoretical foundations that may in fact be hindering future development, even in our midst. Is it time to acknowledge the wider discourse that is happening across higher education in relation to the concept of “inclusion” itself?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur challenge originated from a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) that the first author was completing as part of her doctoral research. The program of research set out to explore (i) the utility of a Universal Design for Learning approach to (ii) Career Guidance theory and practice, within (iii) a philosophy of educational and social inclusion. Despite well developed and nuanced inclusion/ exclusion criteria and search strings, the SLR realised a result of zero!
Whilst initially the results of the SLR were viewed as a negative result, the development of the “inclusion as process” approach enabled a reframing and re-understanding of the central issue. “Inclusion as Process” is a method that acknowledges the relationship between “inclusion” and “educational research” and “inclusive methods” - it is about constantly designing for inclusion, in an ethical and authentic manner, when engaging in contemporary educational research (where “inclusion” remains a central focus).
“Inclusion as process” identified that the issue was related to the definition and understanding of the term “inclusion” in research. This is of fundamental importance, because all empirical work is determined and constrained by the operational definition of inclusion applied by the researcher(s). In common methodological terminology, we often refer to this as the problem of comparing apples and oranges – i.e., whilst both share so much commonality, they are also quite different.
On a parallel – we explored practices of inclusion evolving across higher education where colleagues adopted a UDL approach. We engaged in a wider discourse asking “how broad is the concept of inclusion?” (Lindner 2020, P. 17).
Engaging with colleagues across the academy while simultaneously exploring the literature allowed a picture of a UDL attitude to emerge for academia.
There is a resistance to accept any “new way” of thinking. If we as researchers and academics are to promote “inclusion in education”, we need to value and accept individual and cultural difference and “avoid segregation and discrimination as we meet specialized educational needs. A start in this direction is to change the language and the lens through which we view inclusion.” (Sliwka 2010, P. 1).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
The challenge for researchers that explore “inclusion in education” is that theory often inherits from the past and can be based in traditional learning and experience. As Freer (2021) states “Negative attitudes toward disability threaten the very nature of inclusive education”. How much you are vested in your own message of “inclusion” and “special education” matter? Can you be “held back” by the thinking behind more traditional approaches to inclusion and disability and have a “blind spot” to some literature?
New approaches including UDL can find themselves at risk of being disregarded, or framed by disability and special education theory and practice and as such not realise the aspirations espoused in the original Universal Design approach for product and architecture? In essence - is the current approach to “Inclusion” at risk of being framed by a literature and approach that needs to change? Literature and approaches that we use in our classrooms to inform educational practice across the system.
Engaging in such a reflection will enable a reach on the UN Sustainable Goals and particularly the goal of developing “quality education” to ensure accessible education and training at all levels (UN 2018).
ReferencesFreer, J. R. (2021). Students’ attitudes toward disability: A systematic literature review (2012–2019). International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-19.
Griffin, S., Ed, M., & Shevlin, M. (2011). Responding to special educational needs: An Irish perspective. Gill & Macmillan.
Lindner, K. T., & Schwab, S. (2020). Differentiation and individualisation in inclusive education: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-21.
McCarthy, P., & Shevlin, M. (2017). Opportunities and challenges in secondary education for blind/vision-impaired people in the Republic of Ireland. Disability & society, 32(7), 1007-1026.
Quirke, M., Mc Guckin, C., & McCarthy, P. (2022). How to Adopt an “Inclusion as Process” Approach and Navigate Ethical Challenges in Research. Sage Publishers.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Shevlin, M., & Flynn, P. (2011). School leadership for special educational needs. Leading and Managing Schools, 126-40.
Sliwka, A. (2010). From homogeneity to diversity in German education.
United Nations, The 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals: An opportunity for
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Experts by Experience in a Central East European University: Dialogic Spaces as Bridge Between Self-advocacy and University Knowledge Practices
Leyla Safta-Zecheria, Loredana Marcela Trancă, Bălăuță Dănuț, Jurca Andra Maria, Borca Claudia-Vasilica, Lazăr Theofild-Andrei
West University of Timisoara, Romania
Presenting Author: Safta-Zecheria, Leyla
Expertise by experience has been a recognized and legitimate form of knowledge production in disability studies for several decades. However, the question of linking the dominant modes of knowledge production in the university to expertise by experience of people with disabilities has been limited to the fields of social work (Skilton, 2011; Wilken et al, 2020) and disability studies (Kearns & Carton, 2020). In a seminal essay, Vasilis Galis (2011) linked the potential of lived experience of disability to contribute and shape the ontological politics of disability to the normalization of ‘research in the wild’ (Calon & Rabeharisoa, 2003). Despite its rather stigmatizing denomination, ‘research in the wild’ is a form of researching outside of universities and research centers done in hybrid collectives that bring together researchers and people who are directly concerned with the condition or situation under study. How relevant is such an approach to transforming the university towards a more inclusive academic space?
In our exploration, we wish to reflect on the modalities and potentialities of producing knowledge in a hybrid form within the university in a context of dialogic learning. In this, we will reflect on a participatory action research process that brings together students with disabilities and researchers working from a social work, a special education and a policy disciplinary background on disability in higher education.
The initial focus of the project has been on understanding how the Covid-19 pandemic was experienced by students with disabilities from the perspective of their academic participation. The rationale behind choosing the topic was motivated by the fact that remote online or blended higher education has increased the access of people with disabilities to higher education (Renes, 2015). With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic through the mainstreaming of emergency remote teaching and learning (Hodges et al 2020) in universities, we wondered whether the academic access and participation of students with disabilities may be enhanced by this context. At the same time, we asked whether since the switch from face to face education to emergency remote teaching and learning had been done overnight, accessibility needs of students with disabilities were not neglected in the fast process of transition (Meleo- Erwin et al 2021). Thus we wanted to construct a dialogic space in which together with students with disabilities to explore what barriers and opportunities remote learning had brought to their lives?
This dialogic space was influenced by a Freirean approach (1996), seeking to understand collectively and articulate a project for what a more inclusive post-pandemic university can look like (for a similar approach, pre pandemic see also Morina et al 2016). In this investigation what was significant to us was to create a space within the university in which students with disabilities expertise via experience would meet the academic expertise of faculty working on disability inclusion from educational and social work perspectives in order to produce knowledge oriented towards transforming the university. In the following, we would like to present one of the concerns that emerged as part of our project, namely the ways in which in this participatory action research project dialogic learning occurred as a basis for knowledge production. We do this by seeking to answer the research question: How did practices of dialogic learning facilitate knowledge circulation between participants in a participatory action research project aimed at transforming the university towards a more inclusive university?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn order to better grasp this question, we invited students with disabilities from all programs of our university (a public Central East European University) to participate in a photovoice workshop (Wang & Burris, 1997) in which to present their experiences with remote higher education during the Covid-19 pandemic – focusing on barriers and opportunities of remote learning.
Photovoice methodology involves asking participants to document their everyday lives and experiences through photographs that are then shared and discussed with the group with view of organizing exhibitions to inform a wider public and policymakers. We launched an open call for interested students with disabilities through our universities mailing list channels, as well through snowballing to students that were close to the team. Around eleven students signed up initially, of which 8 remained with the group throughout the entire research process (February - December 2022 – initial phase). As at the onset of our research, academic activities were still being carried out remotely due to the risk of Covid-19 virus spread, we decided to organize virtual photovoice workshops (Call-Cummings & Hauber-Özer, 2021) to protect the health of all participants. Initially, photos were uploaded to a shared document with captions and then discussed in online meetings via conferencing software. As face to face classes were resumed in April 2022, we decided to continue the workshop in a hybrid manner – participants could join physically in a face to face setting or online through videoconferencing software (April - December 2022).
We also adapted photovoice methodology for the participation of the mixed group of eight students of which half had visual impairments, and two of which were blind. Photovoice research with people with disabilities is widespread, however, these forms of research often include people with intellectual and learning disabilities (e.g. Poove et al., 2014, Booth & Booth, 2003), rather than people with visual disabilities. This is due to the concern of researchers to not exclude participants with visual disabilities due to privileging sight over other senses (Mitchell et al., 2016). In our approach we adapted photovoice methodology by focusing on visual communication – meaning that we invited students to focus on what they would like someone else to see from their daily lives. We also offered to provide assistance in taking photographs if they required it. Moreover, we worked to render dissemination processes accessible.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe initial analysis of images and transcripts of three focus group type discussions as part of the photovoice workshop, as well as eight interviews conducted individually with the participants and one meeting for member checking purposes, where we presented our initial interpretations to the team of students with disabilities for validation have been completed. In this process, one of the topics that came up regularly was the ways in which participants (both students and researchers) learned from each other in this process. Pointing to how dialogic learning can occur through a participatory action research project based on photovoice methodology and valorizing the expertise by experience that students with disabilities have.
In this regard, dialogic learning in the project happened: (1) Between participants about navigating barriers within the university; (2) Between student participants and those who assisted them in taking photographs about their needs and the barriers they face (3) From student participants to researchers about what other people in the university should learn about disability; (4) From student participants to researchers about how the university is experienced from the perspective of people who have a disability, (5) From participants to researchers about the limits of our academic knowledge and know-how as academics working on disability related issues and (6) Together about how to change the university.
Most learning was done by researchers –thus expertise by experience of students with disabilities can enrich the academic community and through joint awareness-raising and policy advocacy activities. The processes of dialogic knowledge production also reproduced hierarchical divides between participants, while challenging them. In our paper we will reflect on the implications of our findings for work in other universities in Europe.
ReferencesBooth, T., & Booth, W. (2003). In the frame: Photovoice and mothers with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 18(4), 431-442.
Call-Cummings, M., & Hauber-Özer, M. (2021). Virtual Photovoice: Methodological Lessons and Cautions. Qualitative Report, 26(10).
Callon, M., & Rabeharisoa, V. (2003). Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities. Technology in society, 25(2), 193-204.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). Continuum.
Galis, V. (2011). Enacting disability: how can science and technology studies inform disability studies?. Disability & Society, 26(7), 825-838.
Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning.
Kearns, P., & Carton, S. (2020). Disabled activists’ involvement in developing and delivering disability studies at St Angela’s College, Sligo, Ireland. In The Routledge Handbook of Service User Involvement in Human Services Research and Education (pp. 229-238). Routledge.
Meleo-Erwin, Z., Kollia, B., Fera, J., Jahren, A., & Basch, C. (2021). Online support information for students with disabilities in colleges and universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability and Health Journal, 14(1), 101013.
Mitchell, C., de Lange, N., & Nguyen, X. T. (2016). Visual ethics with and through the body: The participation of girls with disabilities in Vietnam in a photovoice project. In Lulia Coffey, Shelley Budgeon & Helen Cahill (eds) Learning bodies: The body in youth and childhood studies. Spinger, 241-257.
Moriña, A., Lopez-Gavira, R., & Molina, V. M. (2017). What if we could imagine an ideal university? Narratives by students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 64(4), 353-367.
Povee, K., Bishop, B. J., & Roberts, L. D. (2014). The use of photovoice with people with intellectual disabilities: Reflections, challenges and opportunities. Disability & Society, 29(6), 893-907.
Renes, S. L. (2015). Increasing access to higher education through e-learning. in B. Gradinarova (Ed.). E-learning-Instructional design, organizational strategy and management. doi: 10.5772/59896
Skilton, C. J. (2011). Involving experts by experience in assessing students' readiness to practise: The value of experiential learning in student reflection and preparation for practice. Social Work Education, 30(03), 299-311.
Wilken, J. P., Knevel, J., van Gijzel, S., Jongerius, E., Landzaat, C., & Nur-Voskens, I. (2020). Lessons of inclusive learning: the value of experiential knowledge of persons with a learning disability in social work education. In The Routledge Handbook of Service User Involvement in Human Services Research and Education (pp. 385-402). Routledge.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Social Factors in Access and Equity for Low SES Students in Higher Education: Experiences of Alumni in Indonesia
Mega Wanti, Renate Wesselink, Harm Biemans, Perry den Brok
Wageningen University, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: Wanti, Mega
The importance of social factors on access and equity in higher education based on the views of students, lecturers, and managers at the university is evident (authors, 2022b). In the present study, we want to understand the role of social (f)actors in more detail and discuss the role and mechanisms of social factors based on successful alumni views (former Bidikmisi recipients) and their experiences during their studies. Authors (2022a) identified that social factors appear to be crucial factors in (both) access and equity in higher education, however, how these factors contribute to students’ success and interact remains still largely unknown. Therefore, the present study intends to look at the role and effect of social factors (provided by family, peers, teachers, and lecturers), starting from the time before entering university (access) and during the process of studying at university (equity).
Social support plays a crucial role in access and equity in higher education and refers to the role of family (parents and other family members), peers (in both high school and university), teachers, and lecturers (authors, 2022a). Support provided by these actors is different from one student to another student. Therefore, the present study aims to provide a detailed explanation of which, how, and to what extent support provided by these actors has influenced access and equity in higher education of individual alumni according to their own perceptions.
The main research question of this study is as follows; (i) What roles do social factors play in access and equity for LSES (Bidikmisi alumni) in the Indonesian university context?, (ii) What do we learn more about the role of social factors when asking successful Bidikmisi alumni for their experiences?
The notion of social support in the context of higher education is significant as all students regardless of race, gender, or social class must cope with the transition from high school to and through college (Evans et al., 1998); subsequently, transitioning from one environment to another can be considered a stressful life event and social support can serve to aid in a student's ability to cope with said stressors (Carter-Francique, Hart, & Cheeks, 2015). Social networks are, however, often conceptualized rather loosely, with little attention to the varieties of networks and the different forms of support they may provide (Ryan, Sales, Tilki, & Siara, 2008).
Understanding how a person's social networks can provide social support and benefit with regard to access and equity in higher education for low SES students might increase their chances for successfully starting and completing university education. Rodriguez & Cohen (1998) conveyed three functions of social support, namely instrumental, informational, and emotional. Instrumental support involves the provision of material aid, for example, financial assistance. Informational support refers to the provision of relevant information intended to help the individual cope with current difficulties and typically takes the form of advice or guidance. Emotional support involves the expression of empathy, caring, reassurance, and trust, and provides opportunities for emotional expression.
These social support functions - emotional, informational, and instrumental - from Rodriguez & Cohen are used in recent research on the role of social support (see Vekkaila, et al, 2018; Lloyd-Jones, 2021; Hernandez, et al, 2021; Saefudin, et al 2021). Therefore, this study uses Rodriguez & Cohens approach to social support to analyze the role of social factors to support access and equity in higher education for LSES students. These categories might be helpful in understanding the role of social factors for LSES students in Indonesia who receive Bidikmisi at a deeper level. While most findings on this topic discuss government policies and financial support (authors, 2022a) and GPA (authors, 2022c).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMETHOD
this study using qualitative approach by interviewing alumni that received the Bidikmisi grant. Bidikmisi is a financial assistance program for students from low-socioeconomic status (LSES) who have outstanding academic report.
Participants
The participants were approached for in-depth interviews. To find alumni of Bidikmisi recipients, we contacted university staff who managed the Bidikmisi program and we asked them to mention Bidikmisi alumni who could be approached as potential respondents and fit the research criteria.
From the staff, we obtained six names (including phone numbers and current jobs). We contacted potential respondents using WhatsApp chat and asked their permission to be respondents. After the prospective respondents agreed, we asked for the interview time. Interviews were conducted through WhatsApp calls (voice recordings). After completing the interview, we transcribed each voice recorder and then summarized the results.
Interviews
Data were collected via semi-structured interviews to explore the participants’ experiences. The interview scheme was designed based on our prior study about the role of social factors (Authors, 2022b) for access and equity in HE.
Analysis
Based on the previous review study (authors, 2022a), social factors were distinguished in the role of family, peers, teachers, and lecturers. However, in this study, based on the different experiences of each respondent, we also added other actors who played a role to support access and equity if they emerged from the interviews.
First, all the collected responses were classified to each social factor and based pre-university life and university life. Second, it was checked if there were other (f)actors mentioned in the interviews. Third, the transcript from each respondent was read carefully to get information about which (f)actors play a role and how each (f)actors work to support access and equity in higher education. Lastly, the information collected in the third stage was assigned to a category of social support i.e., emotional, instrumental, informational.
Validity and reliability
To validate respondents' answers, during the interview, the interviewer summarized the social factors that played a role and the form of support provided. At the end of the interview, the interviewer asked the respondent, to confirm the summary. The first author and second reviewer (research assistant) checked between voice recordings, transcriptions, and the summary to ensure each respondent's answer.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFamily plays an important role in the pre-university life of each alumni (access), this can be seen in all three forms of support provided (emotional, instrumental and informational). However, we need to emphasize that family in this study provides both positive and negative support. The positive effect for example, the older sister plays a role to encourage her younger siblings to continue studying at the university by providing information about how to apply for the university. In contrast, negative effects refer to unsupportive behavior such as parents who didn’t allow their children to go to the university.
Teachers in high school also provide support in three forms: emotional, informational, and instrumental support. High school staff in this study played a role in providing predominantly emotional and informational support.
Lecturers in this case refer to the role of lecturers in guiding thesis by provide emotional, and instrumental support. Peers in university contribute to providing emotional, informational, and instrumental support. University staff, especially those who manage bidikmisi have a role in providing instrumental support. The role of the local government in providing instrumental support in the form of student dormitories. OMDA (student organization from the same region) surprisingly provides all forms of support to students from LSES backgrounds especially in the beginning of university life.
This study confirms previous research on the role of social factors on access and equity in higher education (authors, 2022b) which mentions the role of social factors consisting of family, high school teachers, peers, and lecturers. In addition, the results show additional social factors that contribute to access and equity in higher for LSES students including administration staff in high school, student organizations in the university, scholarship or student office staff in the university, and the role of local governments.
ReferencesAuthors, 2022a
Authors, 2022c
Carter-Francique, A. R., Hart, A., & Cheeks, G. (2015). Examining the value of social capital and social support for Black student-athletes’ academic success. Journal of African American Studies, 19(2), 157-177.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBnto, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass Inc., Publish
Hernandez, D., Jacomino, G., Swamy, U., Donis, K., & Eddy, S. L. (2021). Measuring supports from learning assistants that promote engagement in active learning: evaluating a novel social support instrument. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-17.
Lloyd-Jones, B. (2021). Developing competencies for emotional, instrumental, and informational student support during the COVID-19 pandemic: A human relations/human resource development approach. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(1), 41-54.
Rodriguez, M. S., & Cohen, S. (1998). Social support. Encyclopedia of mental health, 3(2), 535-544.
Ryan, L., Sales, R., Tilki, M., & Siara, B. (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672-690.
Saefudin, W., Sriwiyanti, S., & YUSOFF, S. H. M. (2021). Role of Social Support Toward Student Academic Self-Efficacy In Online Learning During Pandemic. Jurnal Tatsqif, 19(2), 133-154.
Vekkaila, J., Virtanen, V., Taina, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2018). The function of social support in engaging and disengaging experiences among post PhD researchers in STEM disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1439-1453.
|
