04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Identifying Protective and Risk Factors of Children with Learning Difficulties - An Instrument for Training Teachers of Special and Inclusive Education
Stephanie Lutz, Markus Gebhardt
University of Regensburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Lutz, Stephanie
Teachers in inclusive schools need a specific attitude or belief, knowledge or understanding, and also competencies to apply their knowledge in a practical setting (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022). To provide optimal support for children with learning difficulties, it is necessary that teachers are familiar with different concepts of disability (Gebhardt et al., 2022). The social concept of disability shows that, in addition to individual factors, risk factors and protective factors of the social setting play a role in support at school. Only when teachers know the individual-child-related factors, support in school can use the potential in the environment of the person. Following the model of resilience research, inhibiting factors and difficulties are referred to as risk factors and supporting aspects, while strengths and resources are assigned to the protective, supportive factors (Werner, 2020).
Problem-based learning (PBL) has positive effect on knowledge retention and application, changes in attitudes and enhancing future teachers' diagnostic competence (Wedel et al., 2022; Yew & Goh, 2016). Realistic portrayals of learners based on the experiences of experts in special and inclusive education were created and summarized in a casebook (Lutz & Gebhardt, 2021). When working with these cases, students were asked to take a comprehensive look at protective and risk factors in the learner as well as in the influencing environment, since interactions and interconnections occur between the child, the school, and the broader environment (Doblinger & Becker-Stoll, 2020; Lauth et al., 2014).
As an instrument, a text-based case was developed that included individual-child-related factors such as a child's academic performance, social, motivational, emotional, motor, cognitive and language skills. To integrate a social-systemic concept of disability, family and environmental factors were added to the case. By having students work on the case, the following research questions should be answered in the study at the first (A) and second (B) measurement point:
A1. How well do student teachers succeed in identifying protective factors and risk factors of a child with learning difficulties?
(Note: Identify means naming the factors mentioned in the case. This does not imply categorization or assignment.)
A2. What protective factors and risk factors are identified in the child's environment?
A3. What additional individual-child or social-systemic information not mentioned in the case is considered important by the students?
B1. Can more individual-child-related factors be assigned to categories after students have been instructed with PBL?
B2. Do students identify more social-systemic factors after PBL instruction?
B3. Do students ask for additional individual-child or social-systemic information after PBL instruction?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe present study has a pre-post design. At the first measurement point (A) in December 2022, a total of N = 33 special education teacher students in their first semester worked on a digitally presented realistic portrayal of a child with learning difficulties. To assess special education teacher students’ attitudes, we used a gender-unspecific abbreviation in the case (“S.”).
The students identified an average of 6.7 of 11 individual-child-related protective factors (M = 6.7; SD = 2.10) and 6.6 of 11 individual-child-related risk factors mentioned in the case (M = 6.6; SD = 1.73), which equals a solution probability of 60.8 % of the individual-child-related protective factors and 59.8 % of the individual-child-related risk factors.
In regard to social-systemic factors, students identified an average of 4.1 of 8 protective factors (M = 4.1; SD = 1.45) and 4.4 of 8 risk factors (M = 4.4; SD = 0.90). The solution probability for social-systemic factors was 51.5 % of the protective factors and 53.3 % of the risk factors.
On average, the students asked for 3.3 additional information.
After students will have worked with the PBL approach for one semester in the seminar, learning gains will be assessed at a second measurement point (B) in June 2023.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study aims to examine the effects of problem-based learning with realistic cases on special education students' diagnostic competence. The results at the first measurement point (A) indicate that students identify more individual-child-related factors than social-systemic factors. The results are consistent with findings from other studies (e.g., Gebhardt et al., 2022) that have demonstrated that first-year students are likely to have an individual-medical concept of disability.
The intervention with the PBL approach aims at increasing the special education students' focus on social-systemic aspects, but also on enabling them to assign individual-child-related factors to categories. This teaching method was chosen because the step-by-step learning activities in which students participate are quite similar to the diagnostic process (Wedel et al., 2019).
Potential enhancements to both the instrument and the intervention are subject to discussion (subsequent to measurement point B).
ReferencesDoblinger, S., & Becker-Stoll, F. (2020). Resilienz im Übergang vom Kindergarten in die Schule. In G. Opp, M. Fingerle, & G. J. Suess (Eds.), Was Kinder stärkt: Erziehung zwischen Risiko und Resilienz (4th ed., pp. 108–127). Ernst Reinhardt.
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2022). Profile for inclusive teacher professional learning: Including all education professionals in teacher professional learning for inclusion. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Profile_for_Inclusive_Teacher_ProfessionalLearning.pdf
Gebhardt, M., Schurig, M., Suggate, S., Scheer, D., & Capovilla, D. (2022). Social, Systemic, Individual-Medical or Cultural? Questionnaire on the Concepts of Disability Among Teacher Education Students. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 701987. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.701987
Lauth, G. W., Brunstein, J. C., & Grünke, M. (2014). Lernstörungen im Überblick: Arten, Klassifikation, Verbreitung und Erklärungsperspektiven. In G. W. Lauth, M. Grünke, & J. C. Brunstein (Eds.), Interventionen bei Lernstörungen: Förderung, Training und Therapie in der Praxis (2nd ed., pp. 17–31). Hogrefe.
Lutz, S., & Gebhardt, M. (2021). Fallbuch zum sonderpädagogischen Schwerpunkt Lernen: Praxisbeispiele in Inklusion und Förderschule in Bayern. Universität Regensburg. https://doi.org/10.5283/epub.46131
Wedel, A., Müller, C. R., & Greiner, F. (2022). Diagnostic cases in pre-service teacher education: effects of text characteristics and empathy on text-based cognitive models. Educational Psychology, 42(6), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2047615
Wedel, A., Müller, C. R., Pfetsch, J., & Ittel, A. (2019). Training teachers' diagnostic competence with problem-based learning: A pilot and replication study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102909
Werner, E. E. (2020). Entwicklung zwischen Risiko und Resilienz. In G. Opp, M. Fingerle, & G. J. Suess (Eds.), Was Kinder stärkt: Erziehung zwischen Risiko und Resilienz (4th ed., pp. 10–21). Ernst Reinhardt.
Yew, E. H., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-Based Learning: An Overview of its Process and Impact on Learning. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.004
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Training Needs for Social Inclusion: Teacher Perspectives
Francisco Núñez-Román, Carmen Gallego Vega, Alfonso J. García-González
University of Seville, Spain
Presenting Author: Núñez-Román, Francisco;
Gallego Vega, Carmen
Inequality indexes in Spain have increased in recent years, and it is possible to observe how the inequality gap has grown more rapidly due to the effects of the pandemic caused by COVID-19 (FOESSA, 2021). Similarly, the rate of population at risk of poverty in Spain is one of the highest among EU countries (EAPN, 2020). This situation is mirrored in Spanish schools: according to the 2018 Pisa Report, 36.4% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have low academic performance, compared to only 9.5% of students located in the first quartile of the socioeconomic index (OECD, 2021).
Educational institutions, therefore, have an important role to play in the fight against inequality and in promoting inclusion; firstly, as places where students from different socio-cultural and economic contexts can live together and, secondly, as a privileged place for the acquisition of tools that allow the most vulnerable students to escape from this situation of exclusion (UNESCO, 1994).
The educational challenge of social inclusion demands a teacher training process that provides future teachers with the skills required for educational inclusion. At any stage of education, it is necessary to have teachers well trained in inclusive education to meet the diversity of students (Medina García et al., 2020).
The aim of the research presented in this paper is to understand how inclusive education policies and practices are answered and represented by different social and educational agents in different social contexts from a multidisciplinary perspective. In particular, this research focuses on the policies of inclusion and exclusion that underpin the initial and in-service teacher training in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, (situated in the South of Spain), in the framework of a research project that analyzes the needs of inclusive education in three different regions of Spain. This research is also committed with increasing teachers' participation in both identifying and searching for solutions aimed towards a process of social transfer of knowledge, to increase the levels of social inclusion and the priorities to advance towards inclusion and equity.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe start from a participatory and collaborative research methodology, with references from different agents, social contexts and from a multidisciplinary perspective (Armstrong & More, 2005). The research project is developed in four phases. In the first phase, a report on educational inclusion/exclusion policies was prepared with the participation of specialized agents and professionals. For the elaboration of this report, a collaborative and multi-argumentative research and writing procedure has been followed, with descriptive approach and based on evidences (statistics, regional regulations, published reports, etc.) and other data gathered from primary sources (Kemmis et al., 2013). These reports have been used to focalize the research topics and to develop semi-structured interview guidelines for the different groups participating in the research. In this paper we will report on the work undertaken in this phase with a sample of teachers who were invited to reflect and narrate their experiences, beliefs and perspectives on how the current educational policy of the Andalusian community affected the initial training and in-service professional development on inclusive education.
From the data obtained in the descriptive phase of the report, maps of priorities against educational exclusion are being elaborated through a participatory research process. The final result of the research will be a set of social transference actions, which will achieve a scientific and social impact in favor of educational inclusion through training programs and transformation of educational contexts.
This paper presents the results of 6 interviews with primary and secondary school teachers about their training on inclusion/exclusion. A snowball sampling method has been followed. In all cases, they participated in an in-depth interview based on the aforementioned report, discussing and contributing new perspectives to it. Data analysis of the recorded interviews and narratives is being developed following a discourse content analysis (Mayring, 2000) which is, once developed, negotiated with the reporting agents.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary findings show that the teachers who were interviewed share a perception that reveals a series of political-administrative and training barriers that hinder the overcoming of situations of educational exclusion. In particular, one of the greatest concerns of the participating teachers was the limited training on educational inclusion/exclusion both in initial training and in-service professional development stage, which makes it difficult in many cases to recognize the students' circumstances of exclusion and to adopt the appropriate strategies and actions to promote their inclusion. On the other hand, it is also highlighted that the scarce training on educational inclusion/exclusion is usually focused on theoretical aspects but very far from the reality in schools, often being of low usefulness in daily teaching practice.
The information provided by teachers is reframing and making richer the regulations and questioning how they are applied in practice. Also their analysis, when cross-referenced with that of other participants, is showing how it is possible for professionals and agents with different educational backgrounds and working in different settings to collaborate in order to design a multi-perspective map capable of increasing our understanding and priorities of how to move forward in promoting educational inclusion.
ReferencesArmstrong, F. & Moore, M. (Eds.) (2005). Action research for inclusive education: Changing places, changing practices, changing minds. London: Routledge Falmer.
EAPN (2020). El estado de la pobreza. Seguimiento del indicador de Pobreza y Exclusión Social en España 2008-2020. Madrid: EAPN-ES https://www.eapn.es/estadodepobreza/ARCHIVO/documentos/informe-AROPE-2021-contexto-nacional.pdf
FOESSA (2021). Evolución de la cohesión social y consecuencias de la Covid-19 en España. Fundación Foessa – Cáritas Española Editores.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2013). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.
Medina-García, M., Doña-Toledo, L., & Higueras-Rodríguez, L. (2020). Equal Opportunities in an Inclusive and Sustainable Education System: An Explanatory Model. Sustainability, 12(11), 4626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114626
OECD (2021). Developments in individual OECD and selected non-members economies. Economic Outlook, Volume 2021 Issue 2
UNESCO (1994). Declaración de Salamanca y marco de acción sobre Necesidades Educativas Especiales. UNESCO.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Teachers’ Competencies in the Inclusive School of Norway.
Marianne Sandvik Tveitnes1, Silje Ims Lied2, Mirjam H. Olsen3
1University of Stavanger, Norway; 2Volda University College, Norway; 3UiT The Artic University of Norway
Presenting Author: Sandvik Tveitnes, Marianne;
Lied, Silje Ims
The purpose of this study is to examine the following research question: What characterizes teachers’ formal competencies related to inclusive education and special needs education in the Norwegian primary school?
In Norway, inclusive education has been a guiding principle for almost 20 years (Johnsen, 2020; Nilsen, 2010), and all pupils, irrespective of their background or individual abilities, has a legal right to education in the regular local school (Nes et al., 2018). When talking about “inclusive education” and “inclusive schools” in Norway, we therefore refer to local schools, which must provide for all pupils, regardless of social, cultural, and academic differences or disability. Furthermore, pupils who are unable to benefit satisfactorily from ordinary teaching have an individual right to special education. However, 15-25% of the pupils need additional help to achieve satisfactory learning outcomes (Nordahl et al., 2018). Haug (2020) has shown that “the average pupil receiving special education, as well as pupils with educational needs not receiving special education, express a far less favourable experience of school, compared to those who do not strive or receive special education” (Haug, 2020, p.312). Hence, there is reason to believe that many pupils could benefit from schools having teachers with special educational competencies in terms of preventive work, early identification, and implementation of adequate help (Olsen, 2021).
Teachers’ competencies have significant impact on educational quality (Baumert et al. 2010), but several studies has shown that regular teachers find it difficult to meet the needs of all their pupils (Persson and Persson, 2012; Allan, 2012). Thygesen et al. (2011) claim that in inclusive schools the diversity among pupils might lead to a need for specialist expertise beyond what general education teachers can provide. Olsen (2021) has suggested that formal competence special needs education makes teachers more positively disposed towards diversity. Good teacher competencies are crucial if all pupils are to benefit from both the academic, social, and cultural activities in an inclusive school (Dyssegaard et al., 2013), and specific expert knowledge is key to meeting the educational needs of all children (Florian, 2019). Furthermore, teachers who have studied special needs education for one year, experience a greater sense of security related to adapting the regular education than teachers without such training (Buli-Holmberg et al. 2015). Knowledge about teachers’ competencies related to inclusive education and special needs education are consequently of importance.
The theoretical framework is inspired by the three-tier model as explained in Sundqvist et al. (2019), a framework developed for structuring and systematizing educational support into 1) general support, 2) intensified support, and 3) special support, depending on pupils' identified needs. Keles et al (2022) shows that although this framework directs the pupils into different intervention tracks, it has been recommended as an approach to inclusive education since pupils might be “treated unequally in order to achieve equity” (Nes & Strømstad, 2006, p. 366). In this project we use this model to refer to different dimensions of special educational competencies, whereas level 1) refers to special educational knowledge on how to be proactive and prevent negative learning outcome (e.g. inclusive learning environment, universal design and early intervention), level 2) refers to special educational knowledge on how to address the needs of pupils who require additional support to benefit from primary intervention (e.g. pupils with reading difficulties), and level 3) to knowledge needed to provide education for those who have complex and/or permanent special educational needs (e.g. severe or rare disabilities).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is based on data gathered through two digital surveys forwarded to schools in more than 40 Norwegian municipalities across the country. The first survey was carried out in 2022, and a total of 3224 regular teachers in Norwegian primary school (age 6 – 15) responded. The second survey are to be carried out in another set of municipalities during the spring of 2023. We expect a similar number of respondents on the second survey, meaning that altogether this study draws on data from a solid sample of Norwegian teachers. The schools who are invited to participate are located in municipalities which participate in the national initiative Competence enhancement for special pedagogy and inclusive practice (Stokke et al., 2022). All municipalities have requested an analysis of their competence status, and all individual respondents participate based on informed consent. The project is approved by SIKT (https://sikt.no/en/data-protection-services).
In the surveys, the respondents are first presented with various questions and claims within three different areas: 1) inclusion, 2) interdisciplinary interaction and 3) organization and management and organizational development. Second, they are asked what kind of formal education they have, and whether they have formal training in special needs education. They are furthermore asked what kind of specific competencies they themselves possess when it comes to special needs education and inclusion. During the analytical process the specific special needs competencies that the teachers report will be organised in accordance with the three-tier model. We use SurveyXact (https://www.surveyxact.com/ ), as platform for dispatch and analysis, and further analyses have also been carried out in IBM SPSS. The analysis methods are primarily aimed at understanding the competencies across different groups, based on descriptive statistics (de Vaus, 2014), mainly frequency analysis and cross tables. We have also split some answers to get a more nuanced picture and crossed some variables to assess co-variation. These cross-tabulation analysis are tested for significance using the chi-square test. The analyses are ongoing.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe Norwegian teacher education has recently been altered from 4 to 5 years, now with an integrated master’s degree. However, few universities have a master program which includes special needs educational subjects. Consequently, relatively few new regular teachers possess knowledge regarding adaptation of education for pupils who need extra support (Olsen, 2021). It is therefore, expected to see a low or none degree of formal competencies related to special needs education amongst those who have recently graduated.
The preliminary findings indicate, that although many teachers have practical experience with teaching on all three levels in the three-tier model, relatively few have formal special educational competence. Whether this is an accurate picture remains to be seen.
We assume that teachers will report that the schools have competencies within general education, but less so for special needs education. We are interested to see whether the degree to which an individual has special needs competencies, affect the assessment of the collective competencies at their institution. Through the analyses, we will be able to shed light on what kind of competencies employees in the school believe that their institutions possess, and which are lacking. Furthermore, we will see how employees perceive this, based on own educational background, position at the school, as well as any regional differences.
It is important to establish knowledge about the characteristics of teachers’ competencies related to inclusive education and special needs education in order to evaluate whether or not the current model of teacher education in Norway sufficiently prepares teachers to work in a school where everyone is to be included, regardless of special education needs.
ReferencesAllan, J. (2012). Difference in policy and politics: Dialogues in confidence. Review of Disability Studies, 14-24.
Baumert, J., et al. (2010) Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180.
Buli-Holmberg, J., Nilsen, S. & Skogen, K. (2015). Kultur for tilpasset opplæring. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
de Vaus, D.A. (2014). Surveys in Social Research. Routledge.
Dyssegaard, C.B., Larsen, M.S. & Tiftikçi, N. (2013). Effekt og pædagogisk indsats ved inklusion af børn med særlige behov i grundskolen. Aarhus Universitet.
Florian, L. (2019). On the necessary co-existence of special and inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23:7-8, 691-704,
Haug, P. (2020) Inclusion in Norwegian schools: pupils’ experiences of their learning environment, Education 3-13, 48:3, 303-315,
Johnsen, B. H. (2020). From Historical Roots to Future Perspectives towards Inclusive Education. In B. H. Johnsen (Ed.), Theory and Methodology in International Comparative Classroom Studies (pp. 18-35). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Keles, S., ten Braak, D. & Munthe, E. (2022): Inclusion of students with special education needs in Nordic countries: a systematic scoping review, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
Nes, K., Demo, H. & Ianes, D. (2018). Inclusion at risk? Push- and pullout phenomena in inclusive school systems: the Italian and Norwegian experiences, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22:2, 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1362045
Nilsen, S. (2010). Moving towards an educational policy for inclusion? Main reform stages in the development of the Norwegian unitary school system, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14:5, 479-497.
Nordahl, T., et al. 2018. Inkluderende fellesskap for barn og unge. Fagbokforlaget.
Nes, K., & Strømstad, M. (2006). Strengthened adapted education for all—No more special education? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4–5), 363–378.
Olsen, M.H. (2021). A practical-theoretical perspective on the inclusive school in Norway. I N.B.
Hanssen, S.E., Hansen & K. Ström (Red.), Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the Development of Inclusion: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (s. 99–114). Routledge.
Persson, B. & Persson, E. (2012). Inkludering och måluppfyllelse. Liber.
Stokke, H.S., Tveitnes, M. S., Lied, S. I. & Olsen, M. H. (2022) KOSIP. Spesialpedagogikk 4/2022.
Sundqvist, C., Björk-Åman, C., & Ström, K. (2019). The three-tiered support system and the special education teachers’ role in Swedish-speaking schools in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(5), 601–616.
Thygesen, R. et al. (2011). Er generell pedagogisk kompetanse tilstrekkelig for å sikre en inkluderende skole? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift 95(2), 103–114.
|
