04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Mixed Ability Groups: Pros, Cons and Pupils
Christy Tenback1,2, Anke de Boer1,2
1University of Groningen, Netherlands, The; 2RENN4
Presenting Author: Tenback, Christy
In the global development towards inclusive education, more and more diversity within classrooms is expected. Teachers and school leaders choose to group pupils according to different variables, homogeneous on abilities of heterogeneous, so-called mixed-ability groups. In research ‘mixed-ability grouping’ means grouping by academic ability (For example Askew, 1995; Barker, 2003; Zakelj, 2013). In this study, we focus on grouping by educational needs among other variables such as age and academic level. We define a mixed-ability group as Grouping pupils mainly by assessing their educational needs. In the mixed-ability groups, the educational needs of the pupils vary, especially on the level of learning and development, social-emotional functioning, and communication (de Boer & Tenback, 2021). One can imagine that teaching such a mixed-ability group is a challenge for the teaching staff. In order to maintain a positive class climate and to ensure pupils feel included, teaching staff needs positive attitudes and a positively developed self-efficacy.
This study is conducted in the Netherlands, where we see these kinds of mixed-ability groups within schools for so-called specialized education. Different kinds of special education work together to integrate pupils and teaching staff in order to become an integrated school. We recognize this development as a step towards more inclusive education for all. Studying this development helps us to gain more insight into attitudes and self-efficacy of teaching staff within integrated schools and gives us a better understanding of the diversity within these classrooms, the benefits, and pitfalls according to the teaching staff, and the experienced class climate and perception of inclusion by the pupils. We try to answer the following research questions:
- What is the attitude and self-efficacy of the teaching staff of the mixed ability groups?
- What are the benefits and pitfalls of the mixed ability groups according to the teaching staff?
- How do the teaching staff estimate the educational needs of the mixed-ability group?
- Is there a relationship between the teaching staff's estimated educational needs of the mixed-ability group and the attitude and self-efficacy of the teaching staff?
- Which intensity of educational needs does the pupil of the mixed ability groups have, how do they experience the class climate, and what is their perception of inclusion?
- Is there a relation between the educational needs of the pupils of the mixed-ability group and their experienced class climate and perception of inclusion?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is part of a broader longitudinal study on integrated schools and is financed by The Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO) (project number: 405-18-750).
Six schools participated from all over The Netherlands. Sixty-six teaching staff members were included, including 48 teachers and 18 teaching assistants. They were asked to fill in a survey to measure attitude, self-efficacy, and the estimated educational needs of their group. The teaching staff was also interviewed to learn about the benefits and pitfalls of working with mixed-ability groups. Pupils in the age group 5-11 years were asked to fill in a survey in a one-on-one situation (N=169). We used adapted versions of the Perception of Inclusion Questionnaire (Zurbriggen, Venetz, Schwab, & Hessels, 2017) to measure the perception of inclusion of the pupils, and the Classroom Peer Context Questionnaire (Boor-Klip, Segers, Hendrickx, & Cillessen, 2016) to measure class climate. Files of the pupils were used to gain insight into their educational needs. Data from the second measurement were used.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThese are preliminary results. At the ECER conference, we will present the final results.
The teaching staff has neutral to positive attitudes towards inclusion and integration (M=3.36, SD=.30). The self-efficacy of the teaching staff is also positive (M=4.04, SD=.27).
Teaching staff considers the abilities of pupils to learn from each other as a benefit of the mixed-ability group. They talk about the opportunity to gain access to more expertise from different types of (special) education as an important benefit of working with mixed-ability groups for themselves. For parents is the benefit of mixed-ability groups that they do not have to choose a specific type of education. The pitfalls are considered the well-being of vulnerable pupils, and the pressure on teaching staff to cope with a wide diversity of pupils. The teachers estimate the educational needs of the group as “on a regular basis” to “intensive”. This means, that the pupils overall need a lot of near attention from the teaching staff. Overall, we see a negative relation between the estimated intensity of special educational needs and the attitudes of the teaching staff.
The pupils need the most support in the domains of learning and development (M= 4.4, SD= 1.0) and social-emotional functioning (M= 4.3, SD= 1.0). Pupils experience the class climate as positive (M = 2.43, SD =.32), and their perception of inclusion is also positive (M = 2.67, SD =.43). We do not find any relation between special educational needs, experienced class climate, and perception of inclusion.
ReferencesAskew, M. (1995). Recent research in mathematics education. In D. William (Ed.), Ofsted Reviews of Research (pp. 5–16). London: HMSO.
Barker, A. (2003). Bottom: A Case Study Comparing Teaching Low Ability and Mixed Ability Year 9 English Classes. English in Education, 37(1), 4–14.
Boor-Klip, H. J., Segers, E., Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2016). Development and Psychometric Properties of the Classroom Peer Context Questionnaire. Social Development, 25(2), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12137
de Boer, A., & Tenback, C. (2021). Op naar geïntegreerde onderwijsvoorzieningen: beleids- en praktijkonderzoek. Groningen.
Zakelj, A. (2013). The impact of level Education (Ability Grouping) on Pupils’ Learning Results. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 383–389.
Zurbriggen, C. L. A., Venetz, M., Schwab, S., & Hessels, M. G. . (2017). Validity of the Perceptions of Inclusion Questionnaire (PIQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Inclusive Education and Students without Special Educational Needs: Individual Differences in Academic Achievement, Social-Emotional Skills
Haoyan Huang1, Yunxuan Sun2, Yixin Zhang2, Yawen Huang3, Vesa Reponen3
1University of Helsinki; 2Beijing Normal University; 3Tampere University
Presenting Author: Huang, Yawen;
Reponen, Vesa
Background: Inclusive education plays a critical role in meeting the learning needs of all students, and preventing social exclusion. However, in many developing regions, its implementation is still insufficient in both width and depth. One of the critical barriers to the implementation is the parental and public worry that including students with special educational needs (SEN) would infringe upon the development of students without SEN. Although studies in developed regions observed neutral or even beneficial inclusion effects on students without SEN, these findings were less persuasive to raise social support in the developing regions, where poor materials and insufficient trained teachers are provided for inclusion. A further worry is that the neutral results can be attributed to the positive effects for some students and negative effects for others. However, few studies explore the distinctive inclusion effects due to individual features.
Objective: This study aimed to examine the association of inclusive education with academic performance (math, reading, arts) and social-emotional skills (15 skills from OECD 2021) of students without SEN. It further aimed to use person-oriented approaches to explore the distinctive inclusion effects due to types of SEN students in class, as well as gender, socioeconomic status and development level of students without SEN.
Method: 1155 10-year-old Chinese students without SEN from the OECD “Survey on Social-Emotional Skills” were selected using the Propensity Score Matching method (579 from non-inclusive class, 576 from inclusive class). 2-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (student nested in school) was employed to accommodate the structure of the SSES database. The model was estimated by Bayes estimator, default priors, and probit link. Quantile regression was used to analyze the inclusion effects in students’ different development levels.
Result: The analysis controlled students’ gender and socioeconomic status at the individual level, and average class size, rate of disadvantaged students and students with special needs at the school level. Results illustrated that (1) inclusive education had insignificant relations with academic performance, and had relatively slight but significant positive associations with students’ optimism, tolerance and sociability (β=0.07-0.08); (2) socioeconomic status positively moderated the associations of inclusive education with trust, tolerance and assertiveness, in which inclusion might have greater social-emotional benefits to those from higher socioeconomic status families; (3) inclusive education had a tighter linkage with optimism for students having a lower level of optimism (last 25-50%).
Conclusion: In line with studies in developed regions, this study indicated that in developing regions, inclusive education might not hinder academic achievement, and slightly benefit some social-emotional skills of students without SEN, regardless of inadequate experience, trained teachers and support. This result is stimulating for implementing inclusive education, despite the small effect size. Interacting with SEN students helps students without SEN better comprehend and accept the differences while reduce their prejudices. As a consequence, their tolerance and sociability are enhanced. Furthermore, they tend to feel better about themselves and develop stronger optimism through the comparison with SEN students in class.
However, some benefits of inclusive education are more targeted at the students from higher socioeconomic status. Their parents are more knowledgeable about inclusive education and show greater acceptance and support, deeply influencing their attitudes and behaviors toward SEN students. Additionally, the inclusion effect on social-emotional skills may differ due to the development level of specific skills, which needs further investigation.
Findings help holistically comprehend the role of inclusive education in 15 specific social-emotional skills, and its individual differences, and imply the potentially crucial individual factors for further studies. Findings also contribute to relieving parental and public worries, while raising more support for implementing inclusive education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSample
The sample came from the Survey on Social-Emotional Skills (SSES) database from OECD (2021). 10-year-old students from Chinese Suzhou were chosen and the 1:1 nearest neighbor and 0.01 caliper of Propensity Score Matching (PSM) without replacement was employed to reduce the selection bias and difference in sample size (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985). After controlling all 5 covariates, 579 students (49% boys and 51% girls) from non-inclusive classes and 576 students (43% boys and 57% girls) from inclusive classes were selected (see Appendix-A).
Measurement
Academic Outcomes compromised math, reading/language, and arts grades from the school registry exams.
Social-Emotional Skills were assessed as 15 facets of the Big Five and reported by students (see details in Appendix-B). All facets were measured by 3 items with 5-point Likert scales, and showed good reliability (OECD, 2021).
Inclusive Education was based on whether there were one or more students with special needs in class (0=non-inclusive class, 1=inclusive class). Special needs, reported by parents, were divided into 3 types of difficulties: (1) Physical and Sensory (i.e., hearing, vision, mobility), (2) Learning, (3) Behavior, (4) Social-Emotional.
Socioeconomic Status (SES) was composed of home possessions, parents’ occupational status and educational level, similar to PISA (OECD, 2019).
Gender was reported by students (0=boy, 1=girl).
Average Class Size was reported by school principals, ranging from “1 = 15 or fewer” to “9 = more than 50”.
The Rates of Disadvantaged Students and Students with Special Needs were reported by school principals (from 1 = less than 5% to 5 = more than 50%).
Analysis
Two-level hierarchical linear modeling (i.e., student-school) with Bayes estimator was conducted by Mplus 8.3 after the PSM sample selection. Three models were estimated: null model, covariates-only model, and random intercept model. The first two models were to estimate the variances of academic and social-emotional outcomes at the individual level, and the variances explained by covariates (R2). The last model estimated the effect and △R2 of inclusive education on academic and social-emotional outcomes, and explored the interaction of “inclusive×SES” and “inclusive×gender”. Continuous variables were grand mean centered, and binary variables were centered by effect coding (e.g., -0.5=boy, 0.5=girl). All models were converged and showed good model fits (PPP=0.42-0.52, the symmetry axis of Δχ2 95% PPI was close to 0; Gelman, 2014). In addition, quantile regression was finally employed to examine the inclusion effect in students’ different development levels.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThrough the results (see Appendix-C), we found slight but significant positive effects of inclusive education on optimism, tolerance and sociability (i.e., β=0.07-0.08, △R²≤0.01; Cohen, 1992). We also observed insignificant academic differences between inclusive and non-inclusive classes. Despite the limitation of the small effect, this discovery is stimulating for implementing inclusive education. It was consistent with studies in developed countries (e.g., Ruijs et al., 2010; Szumski et al., 2017), and further confirmed the benefits of inclusion to students without SEN from the regions lacking inclusion experience, supports and trained teachers.
Two mechanisms can explain the social-emotional benefits of inclusion. Interacting with SEN students, students without SEN can better comprehend and accept interpersonal differences, and develop fewer prejudices while more friendliness (Keith et al., 2015). Thus, their tolerance and sociability are enhanced. Furthermore, comparing themselves with SEN students, those without SEN tend to feel better about themselves (Ruijs et al., 2010; Marsh et al., 2019), fueling their optimism, and some students’ assertiveness.
Apart from general neutral or positive associations, some social-emotional benefits were more targeted at higher SES students (i.e., trust, tolerance and assertiveness). With better understanding of inclusion and its potential benefits, higher SES parents show greater acceptance, and encourage their students to actively interact with SEN students (de Boer et al., 2010; Leyse & Kirk, 2004). Additionally, a stronger linkage between inclusion and optimism was observed for those having a lower level of optimism (last 25-50%), which requires further investigation.
In conclusion, this study holistically examined the role of inclusive education in 15 social-emotional skills of students without SEN and explored critical individual differences, which helps further understand the inclusion impacts and implies future research direction. Additionally, findings could relieve parental and public worries, and raise more supports for inclusive education in China and other developing regions.
ReferencesCohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115-159.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2012). Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: A review of the literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(4), 379-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.723944
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (3rd edition). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Keith, J. M., Bennetto, L., & Rogge, R. D. (2015). The relationship between contact and attitudes: Reducing prejudice toward individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.07.032
Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(3), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912042000259233
Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., & Pekrun, R. (2019). Three paradoxical effects on academic self-concept across countries, schools, and students. European Psychologist, 24(3), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000332
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Paris: PISA,OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2021). OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills Technical Report. https://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/social-emotional-skills-study/sses-technical-report.pdf
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that “incorporate the propensity score”. The American Statistician, 39, 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
Ruijs, N. M., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. T. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2010.524749
Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21, 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Skills and Abilities of Pupils Taught in the Pro-inclusive Programme "Start Together" in the Czech Republic
Denisa Denglerová, Radim Šíp
Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic
Presenting Author: Denglerová, Denisa;
Šíp, Radim
The “Step by Step” educational program is an open didactic system that offers quality and comprehensive education for preschool and younger school-age children based on constructivist pedagogy and a respectful approach to the child. The programme is part of an international educational network and its ideas are applied in more than 30 countries around the world. One of the basic principles is common education for all. “Step by Step“ promotes diversity in schools and sees it as an integral and valuable part of society. It respects the needs of all children, regardless of their social or ethnic background and current ability level. It tries to build mutual trust, respect and cooperation.
The philosophy of “Step by Step” is based on the premise that each child is a unique individual with a rich inner developmental potential that must be supported by learning approaches that best suit the child, that develop the child as a whole person, and that motivate the child to continue learning naturally. The emphasis is on integrated learning (learning in thematic units) and cooperative learning (working in activity centres, project-based learning). The emotional aspect of the learning process is also taken into account, where it is assumed that the child learns new things better if the learning is also linked to an emotional experience. Thus, one of the priorities in the learning process is to create a supportive and stimulating environment where the child can move in a fearless and natural way, learn through his/her own practical activities, try new things, discover and test their validity and functionality without fear of making mistakes.
In the Czech Republic, the Step by Step programme is implemented under the name “Start Together”. Currently, 70 primary schools are teaching under it. The aim of our two-year research project was to evaluate the impact of “Start Together” on pupils.
The research question was set as follows:
What abilities, skills, knowledge or mental processes (necessary, applicable in life) in children are strengthened and developed by the constructivist approach to teaching in the Start Together programme?
On the basis of research of foreign and Czech texts, interviews with "Start Together" programme methodologists and our own observations of teaching in Czech schools focused on inclusion (Šíp et al., 2022), we came to several important areas of research. We have proposed a research design consisting of three distinct parts, which, however, intersect in the final interpretation and help to answer the research question in a more plastic way. These are an analysis of the National Survey of Pupil Achievement, quantitative research conducted in Start Together classrooms, and qualitative research conducted in these classrooms. These three parts are described in more detail in the Methodology section.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT SURVEY
In May 2022, the Czech School Inspectorate organised a national comparative testing of 5th grade pupils in all schools in the Czech Republic. The project presented here involved a comparative statistical analysis of the academic achievement in mathematics and Czech language of 5th grade pupils educated in the "Start Together" programme and outside it. Learning achievement is traditionally conceived as the solution of typical tasks in the subject under study (mathematics, Czech language) or the level of skill (e.g. reading comprehension). However, the nature of these tasks is such that they do not, by design, take into account any group aspects, which are key in the “Start Together” programme.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN START TOGETHER CLASSROOMS
In this part, the so-called softskills, which contribute mainly to the way knowledge and skills are formed and the way they are used in the long term, in which pupils are developed and supported in the Start Together programme, were investigated. Data collection was carried out in 24 classes (500 pupils) of 4th and 5th grades.
Children's self-concept was measured with the Piers-Harris 2 questionnaire. In addition, pupils' creative abilities were measured.
The My Class Inventory questionnaire in its Czech version created by J. Lašek was chosen to measure the social climate of the classroom. Due to time constraints, we asked only about the current situation.
We chose 2 instruments to measure emotional competences. The first one is the Emotion Recognition subtest of the IDS tool (Grob & Hagmann-von Arx, 2018). The second instrument selected for the emotional competence survey is the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, TEIQue-SF (Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, 2008). It is a trait emotional intelligence questionnaire, for which there is a Slovak version, and in the pilot phase we created a Czech version of the questionnaire and tested its comprehensibility for students.
The next concept to be investigated was motivation. Since there is no standardized questionnaire for this age group in the Czech Republic, we created and validated our own instrument based on Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
QUALITATIVE PART - ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
The aim of this part of the research was to understand the structure of the "Start Together" programme teaching, identifying recurrent patterns of behaviour, rules of operation, modes of communication, typical didactic resources and ways of working with the environment, based on an analysis of real classroom events.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA comparative statistical analysis of academic performance in mathematics and Czech language showed that pupils in “Start Together” classes did not have lower academic performance. This is important because there is still a prejudice in the general public in the Czech Republic that children from alternative schools have lower knowledge.
In our quantitative research we detected significant positive values related to children's intrinsic motivation, their creative abilities and the classroom climate in the “Start Together” programme. The results regarding emotional abilities appeared problematic. This is generally explained by the methodological complexity of measuring emotional skills.
It is generally assumed that there is a core set of so-called primary emotions that are mentally, behaviorally, or neuronally encoded. Therefore, most research designs attempt to detect emotions using presumed mental, behavioral, or neural coding. Nonetheless, research presented by Barrett (2006; 2017) shows that the recognition of these emotions is socially conditioned much more than scientists have assumed. Therefore, it is necessary to perceive the emotional setting of education as closely related to its social dimension. For this, however, the proper research method miss. Our combination of research methods focused on the broader field of "soft skills" seeks to fill this methodological gap.
In the qualitative part of the research, we combined two basic analytical methods - framework analysis and the construction of themes that emerged from the analyzed data. The framework analysis served to inform us about the expected themes; the construction of emerging themes allowed us to grasp those themes that were not anticipated. Comparing the results of the two analyses led to the final identification of the most important themes. These themes are: the community nature of teaching, the emphasis on reflection and self-reflection, modes of communication, differentiation of teaching, thinking in context, building a community of “Start Together” teachers.
ReferencesBarret, L. F. (2017). How Emotions Are Made? The Secret Life of the Brain. New York: Macmillan.
Barret, L. F. (2006). Are Emotions Natural Kinds?, Perspective on Psychological Science 1(1), 28–58.
Grob, A., & Hagmann-von Arx, P. (2018). Intelligence and Developmental Scales-2 (IDS-2). Bern, Switzerland: Hogrefe.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 263–275.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp 68-78.
Šíp, R. et al. (2022). Na cestě k inkluzivní škole. Interakce a norma [Towards Inclusive Schools. Interaction and Norm]. Brno: MUNIPress.
|
