04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Promoting School Attendance from the Students' Perspective
Helena Andersson
Malmö university, Sweden
Presenting Author: Andersson, Helena
Research topic/aim: The voices of students who do not succeed in school are not often heard, especially not the voices of students with problematic absenteeism (Ekstrand,2015). Listening to different students’ voices helps teachers and school leaders understand that the diversity in school is important in order to organize a school that is as good and meaningful as possible for all students (Fielding, 2001). This paper is based on an ongoing study trying to find factors to promote students ‘ school attendance. Problematic absenteeism in compulsory school can be seen as a contributing factor to students in year nine not achieving the goals for being admitted to a national program at upper secondary school, which in turn can lead to exclusion in adulthood (Andersson, 2017). Based on the Swedish National Agency for Education's publication (Skolverket, 2010) and the Swedish Schools Inspectorate's report (Skolinspektionen, 2016), students' school absenteeism is increasing. Research (Kearney & Grazcyk, 2020; Ekstrand, 2015) also highlights what is called a long-term problematic school absenteeism has also increased all over the world. Indications from school authorities and research show that many students with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) (Carlberg & Granlund, 2019) and students with anxiety (Cabo Dannow et al., 2020; Ingul & Nordahl, 2013) are in the group of students with problematic school absenteeism. Further Ekstrand highlights that there is a lack of qualitative research from students' perspectives, both in terms of promoting attendance and reasons for absence. In order to find ways to promote all students ‘school attendance, it is necessary to understand what makes students want to be in school. There are many different reasons why students want to be in school just as there are many different reasons why they do not want to be there. In this paper the focus therefore is on how to promote school attention. What do children and students in schools think is necessary to want to attend and learn in school. Research (Shochet et al., 2006) highlights the importance of that students have a feeling of belonging to school. When students feel that they belong to school, they also engage in their learning (Marinosson et al., 2014). Kearney and Graczic, (2014) put forward that to promote students school attention teaching has to be qualitative and the school leaders have to be aware of the importance of school culture and the organization has to be flexible.
The purpose of the paper is thus to highlight the students' voices about what they think will contribute to make them want to go to school. The students' voices are an important piece of the puzzle to know how schools can be organized to promote a high attendance, to make all students succeed and achieve their goals. The research questions are:
- What factors emerge as important for young people to want to come to school?
- How can the students' experiences contribute to the development of attendance promotion work in school?
Theoretical framework: The ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) as well as theories of engagement (Appleton, Christensen & Furlong, 2008) are possible approaches. In seeking ways to increase engagement in schools and to understand how to promote school attendance it is pivotal to understand and develop the different systems around the student
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethods/methodology (up to 400 words)
Semi structured interviews with students in grades F-9 (two students from each grade) were made. Students from eight different schools, Stallet Kungsgården (a stable, placed on the countryside) and the attendance team (placed outside of school) were invited to participate in interviews regarding what promotes school attendance and what can lead to school absenteeism. In the invitation, the students and their guardians received information about the study and about the opportunity to participate in the study through the students' mentors at the school. The selection was made by allowing the first two from each grade, the first two from Stallet Kungsgården and the first two from the attendance team who registered interest to their mentor, to participate. When the students registered their interest, they, and their guardians (in cases where the students were under 15 years old) gave their written consent to participate in the study. In all 20 interviews were made. To analyze the data, a content analysis will be used (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).
Since the voices of students with problematic absenteeism are not often heard, it is of great importance to give them voice. Although, there is a methodological difficulty to interview them. Students present in school want to be interviewed but the students that have difficulties being in school find it hard to participate also in interviews. Therefore, the interviews at Stallet Kungsgården and at the attendance team must be thoroughly planned. Besides the interviewer the students’ mentor will be present so the students feel secure. The interviewer is going to visit the students before the interviews start to be able to get to know the students and the settings, they are in.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsExpected outcomes
The main findings of the study so far, indicate that students express that the feeling of being safe (secure) at school, is an important factor for being able to come to school. There are also indications that teachers’ relational competence may improve students’ presence in school and thereby change failure into success for many students. Students in the study express that one of the most important things for them wanting to go to school is that they want to meet their friends. An overall outcome is that schools have difficulties in dealing with the diversity of students in mainstream classrooms. Since the relation between students’ school attendance and achievement is relevant, it could be of great importance for schools to listen to students’ voices to develop school practices.
ReferencesReferences
Andersson, H. (2017). Möten där vi blir sedda. En studie om elevers engagemang i skolan. Malmö: Holmbergs.
Appleton, J., Christenson, S and Furlong, M.J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical, conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools. 45(5) pp. 369-386
Cabo Dannow, M., Hoff Esbjørn, B., & Wollny Risom, S. (2020). The Perceptions of Anxiety-related School Absenteeism in Youth: A Qualitative Study Involving Youth, Mother, and Father. Scandinavian Journal of Educatiol Research. 64(1). Pp. 22-36.
Carlberg, L. & Granlund,M. (2019). Achievement and participation in schools for young adolescents with self-reported neuropsychiatric disabilities: A cross-sectional study from the southern part of Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 47(2), 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494818788415
Ekstrand, B. (2015). What it takes to keep children in school. Educational review. 67(4) s.
459-482.
Fielding. M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational change. 2, 123–141.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2):105-12.
Havik, T., Bru E. & Ertesvåg S. K. (2015). School factors associated with school refusal and truancy-related reasons for school attendance. Social Psychology of Education. 18:221–240 DOI 10.1007/s11218- 015-9293-y
Ingul, J. M., & Nordahl, H. M. (2013). Anxiety as a risk factor for school absenteeism: What differentiates anxious school attenders from non-attenders? Annals of General Psychiatry, 12(1), 25. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-12-25
Kearney, C. A. (2003). Bridging the gap among professionals who address youth with school absenteeism: Overview and suggestions for consensus. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 57–65.
Kearney, C. A. & Graczyk. P. A. (2014). A response to intervention model to promote school attendance and decreasemschool absenteeism. Child and Youth Care Forum. 43, 1-25.
Marinosson, G., Ohna, S.E. & Tetler, S.(2007). Delagtighedens Pedakogik. Psykologisk
pedagogisk rådgivning. Nr 30.
Skolinspektionen. (2018). Att skapa förutsättningar för delaktighet i undervisningen.
Skolverket (2010) School absence and the way back. Prolonged invalid absence in primary school from the perspective of the student, school and administration. Report: 341.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham D, Montague, R. (2006).School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: results of a community prediction study. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol.;35(2):170-9. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3502_1. PMID: 16597213
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Students Perspectives on Good Practice for Inclusive Teaching
Franziska Oberholzer
PH FHNW, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Oberholzer, Franziska
Since the 1990s, inclusion has been present in the international discourse as a guiding concept for the development of educational systems (Biewer & Schütz, 2016; Powell 2018; Zahnd, 2017). It first appeared prominently with the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994). Inclusive education in the sense of international law takes "its starting point from the rights of vulnerable and marginalized people [...], [argues] for their participation in all areas of life [...] and [aims] at a structural change of regular institutions in order to meet the diversity of conditions and needs of all users" (Biewer 2017, 204). Thus, valuating diversity and finding forms of teaching and learning sensible to all forms of diversity without excluding students is at the core of inclusive education.
Although the demand for inclusive education has already been on the international agenda for several decades, its implementation has so far been insufficiently accomplished worldwide (Köpfer, Powell & Zahnd 2021). The (insufficient) implementation can be observed on different levels of the education system, e.g. on the level of legal and educational policy requirements, in the design of schools or also on the level of teaching. This also applies to Switzerland, which has taken up the international demands, but has not implemented inclusive education with the utmost consistency. It is evident that despite prioritizing inclusive solutions, Switzerland still adheres to the separation of mainstream and special schools (Powell 2018). Beyond these fundamental problematics in the educational system, however, fundamental problems also emerge in the implementation of inclusive teaching and thus in the creation of learning spaces that welcome all forms of diversity and enable all students to learn together – inclusive publics schools remain a desiderata in Switzerland (Moser Opitz, 2014).
In the context of this broad problem area, this contribution focuses on first results of my field work as a PhD-student. The presented data was collected in a research project, entitled "Primary schools in the tension between inclusion and educational standards" (Wagner-Willi & Zahnd 2019), which aims to further develop inclusive teaching in Switzerland. The project is founded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and uses – besides other methodical approaches – a participatory research framework. Following the insight that the students perspective is crucial to the development of inclusive education (e.g. Buchner 2018, Florian & Beaton 2018), my dissertation is focusing on the student-perspectives collected in this project. In this context, the question is addressed to what extent the perspectives of the students can be used to identify good practice for (inclusive) teaching. This good practice should on the one hand allow all students to participate in the learning process and on the other hand enable the social inclusion of all students.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe project started with a research workshop for all students. During this workshop, the students are introduced to the different research methods (research diary (Wöhrer et al. 2017) and photovoice (von Unger 2014)). Likewise, the following research questions - with the dual focus of learning process and social participation – were introduced to the students as guiding questions for their research process:
- Are there any situations in which you have especially enjoyed learning or in which you have especially enjoyed learning something? (focus on learning together)
- Are there situations in which you especially feel comfortable in the class? (Focus on social participation)
- In which situation did you have difficulties or did you not understand what you had to do? (Focus on learning together)
- When are you not able to participate even though you would like to? (Focus on collaborative learning & social participation)
- What learning material (assignment sheets, tasks in the book, etc.) was not clear for you to understand or was difficult for you to figure out? (Focus on collaborative learning)
After the introduction to the project, the students were asked to collect data during the school day over the time span of one school year. On the basis of this data, regular (once a week to every two weeks) reflection meetings took place in small groups of 5-6 students each. In these, possible problems and irritations were worked out and the data was summarized together with me as researcher. The reflection meetings were recorded and then transcribed. In the dissertation project, the transcripts of these reflection meetings with the students are used as data for the analysis. In addition, I was engaged in participant observation in the field. The field notes from these observations were also used as data. Both – field notes and transcripts – were afterwards analyzed with Grounded Theory Methodology (Strauss & Corbin 1996). The focus, though, will be on the narratives of the students.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on empirical material from two classes which I accompanied during one school year each, I will show which irritations and problems are mentioned by the students and how these can be included in the further development of inclusive teaching. In particular, the data shows that the students experience a certain "lack of orientation" in everyday school life, which leads to mutual misunderstanding between students and teachers. Following Florian and Beaton (2018) as well as Buchner (2018), the first available data of the dissertation project shows the importance of students' perspectives in the further development of (inclusive) teaching. As a consequence, the dialogue between students and teachers seems to be of central importance for students to feel understood (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022).
ReferencesBiewer, G. (2017). Grundlagen der Heilpädagogik und Inklusiven Pädagogik (3. überarbeitete und erweitere Auflage Ausg.). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt (UTB).
Biewer, G., & Schütz, S. (2016). Inklusion. In I. Hedderich, G. Biewer, R. Markowetz, & J. Hollenweger (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion und Sonderpädagogik (S. 123–127). Julius Klinkhardt.
Buchner, T. (2018). Die Subjekte der Integration. Schule, Biographie und Behinderung. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
Florian, L., & Beaton, M. (2018). Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child. International Journal of Inclusive Education(22(8)), S. 870-884.
Köpfer, A., Powell, J. J., & Zahnd, R. (2021). Entwicklungslinien internationaler und komparativer Inklusionsforschung. In A. Köpfer, J. J. Powell, & R. Zahnd (Hrsg.), Handbuch Inklusion international. Globale, nationale und lokale Perspektiven auf Inklusive Bildung (S. 11-41). Opladen, Berlin, Toronto: Barbara Budrich..
Moser Opitz, E. (2014). Inklusive Didaktik im Spannungsfeld von gemeinsamem Lernen und effektiver Förderung. Ein Forschungsüberblick und eine Analyse von didaktischen Konzeptionen für inklusiven Unterricht. In Jahrbuch für Allgemeine Didaktik (S. 52-68). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Powell, J. J. (2018). Inclusive Education: Entwicklungen im internationalen Vergleich. In T. Sturm, & M. Wagner- Willi (Hrsg.), Handbuch schulische Inklusion (S. 127-142). Opladen/ Toronto: Barbara Budrich.
UNESCO. (1994). Final Report. World conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO.
von Unger, H. (2014). Partizipative Forschung. Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Wöhrer, V., Arztmann, D., Wintersteller, T., Harrasser, D., & Schneider, K. (2017). Partizipative Aktionsforschung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Von Schulsprachen, Liebesorten und anderen Forschungsdingen. Wiesbaden: Springer .
Wagner- Willi, M., & Zahnd , R. (2019). Primarschulen im Spannungsfeld von Inklusion und Bildungsstandards. Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz.
Zahnd, R. (2017). Behinderung und sozialer Wandel. Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel der Weltbank. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
Zahnd, R. & Oberholzer, F. (2022). Stolpersteien und Wegweiser auf dem Weg zu inklusiven Lernarrangements. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik: Nr. 12: Inklusive Bildung.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
The Friendship Networks of Students with Disabilities: A US Perspective
Christoforos Mamas1, Janka Goldan2
1University of California, San Diego, United States of America; 2University of Bielefeld, Germany
Presenting Author: Mamas, Christoforos
Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings has gained momentum worldwide since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). In the US, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) was reauthorized and, most recently, amended through the ‘Every Student Succeeds Act’ (ESSA, 2015). Due to these policy changes the number of students with disabilities, defined as those with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), in general education settings has constantly been increasing. As more and more students with IEPs are being included in general education classrooms, it is important to examine their social participation opportunities and identify if they are at risk of social isolation or exclusion within their classrooms.
The main purpose of the study is to compare the friendship networks of students with and without disabilities (defined as with IEPs). Particular attention is drawn to the question of whether students with IEPs maintain a lower social participation status than their peers. The focus of the social network survey was therefore on assessing students’ friendship networks and whether students with IEPs are nominated less often as friends (Friendship In-degree Centrality) and also, from their perspective, nominate fewer fellow students (Friendship Out-degree Centrality). In general, high in-degree centrality may show popularity (Frostad & Pijl, 2007) of a student whereas high out-degree may show increased social activity within a social network (Borgatti et al., 2018). In-degree is the sum of friendship nominations/ties received by each student and out-degree represents the sum of friendship nominations/ties sent out by each student. Furthermore, it was examined whether the two groups of students (with and without IEPs) differ systematically with regard to possible context variables (e.g. school performance, family background). Subsequently, to predict the friendship In- and Out-degrees of the students, regression models were calculated taking into account the hierarchical data structure.
Based on theory and the current state of research, the following hypotheses are examined:
1) Students with IEPs nominate on average less friends (out-degree) than their peers without IEPs.
2) Students with IEPs are less often nominated as friends (in-degree) compared to their peers without IEPs.
3) Hypotheses 1) and 2) still apply for regression analyses when controlling for confounding variables.
Social participation is a pressing issue in education since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) which called for full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings (Florian, 2008). Koster et al. (2009) defined social participation as the presence of positive social contact/interaction between students with disabilities and their classmates; acceptance of them by their classmates; social relationships/friendships between them and their classmates, and the students’ perception that they are accepted by their classmates. In the context of this study, the specific focus lies on one key theme related to social participation, which is the friendships of students with disabilities as compared to their peers.
In addressing social participation at the secondary school level, this study is driven by a social network perspective (Scott, 2017) and social capital theory (Putnam, 2001). The term social capital has been used to describe norms and certain resources that emerge from social networks (Ferlander, 2007). Scott (2017) argues that social networks are a particular form of social capital that individuals can employ to enhance their advantages or opportunities. A notion of social capital is that social relationships provide access to resources that can be exchanged, borrowed and leveraged to facilitate achieving goals (Moolenaar, et al., 2012). Therefore, classroom social networks built up through friendship ties or other relational ties may provide or impede access to social capital and social participation (Author et al., 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe sample comprises a total of 189 students (47.6% girls) across six classrooms in a highly diverse middle school in Southern California. A total of 40 (21.3%) students have an IEP. The largest group of these students has been identified as having a SLD (n = 23). A total of ten students have a SLI and seven have OD (e.g. Autism). On average, 57.8% of the students are of Hispanic or Latino origin, 25.7% are White Americans, 8% Asian Americans and 5.4% Black Americans. The remaining 3.1% of the students belong to a different racial/ethnic group. To approximate the socio-economic background of the students, the number of students receiving free or reduced-priced lunch was used. It turns out that 46% of the sample is not eligible for free or reduced lunch, 10.7% receive reduced-priced lunch and a total of 43.4% get free lunch. The descriptive results underline that this is a sample with an above-average proportion of students from underserved contexts. The proportion of students with a disability also appears to be higher than the state-wide average which is about 10%.
To assess the social participation of the students, we employed whole social network analysis (Author, 2019; Borgatti et al., 2018) to examine the friendship networks of the students. In a paper-pencil survey students were asked to check the names of as many classmates that are their friends. Based on this information, the two dependent variables ‘Friendship In-degree” (number of received nominations) and ‘Friendship Out-degree” (number of sent nominations) were included (Borgatti et al., 2018).
With the consent of the parents, the school provided various context variables about the students, including their race/ethnicity, their IEP status and, if applicable, the type of disability (‘No Disability”, ‘SLD”, “SLI”, ‘OD”). Also, it was indicated which students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, their latest GPA scores and their level of English language fluency (‘English Only’, ‘English Learner’, ‘Fluent upon entry’, ‘Redesignated’). Also the parental educational level was provided (‘Not High School graduate”, ‘High School graduate”, ‘Some college”, ‘College graduate”, ‘Grad School - Post Grad Training”).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsDescriptive results show that – on average – students with disabilities nominate 6 classmates as friends and are nominated themselves 7.25 times as friends of others. Nevertheless, they show lower scores compared to their peers without disabilities. Students without disabilities name 9.7 classmates as friends and are named as friends 9.5 times on average. The mean difference for the Friendship In-degree is statistically significant (t(42) = 3.27, p<0.05) whereas for the Out-degree it is not (t(40) = 2.93, n.s.). To examine the influence of IEPs on the friendship in-degree, an OLS regression with robust standard errors was calculated with the friendship in-degree as a dependent variable and the type of disability as an independent variable. At the students’ level, further control variables have been included in the model: highest educational attainment of parents, free and reduced lunch, gender, GPA scores, race/ethnicity and the English Language Fluency. In order to control for differences at class level, e.g. the class size and other unobservable differences, a dummy variable for the class was modelled. Preliminary results show significant effects for the disability categories ‘SLD’ and ‘OD’ on the friendship in-degree. Compared to students without disabilities, students with SLD have on average 2 friends less than their peers without disabilities. Students with OD have an average of 3.2 friends less than students without disabilities. The effect is also significant, although the group consists of 7 students only. The calculated model explains a total of 44.6% of the variance of the friendship in-degree of friendship networks. This study contributes to the gap in research at the secondary school level with regards to the social participation of students with disabilities in general education settings. The results may not be generalizable but offer significant insights into the social participation of highly diverse middle school students with disabilities.
ReferencesAuthor (2013).
Author et al., (2019).
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. Sage.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Public Law No. 114-95, S.1177, 114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress. gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Ferlander, S. (2007). The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta sociologica, 50(2), 115-128.
Florian, L. (2008). Inclusion: special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202-208.
Frostad, P., & Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(1), 15-30.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., & Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of students with special needs in regular primary education in the Netherlands. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 57(1), 59-75.
Koster, M., Timmerman, M. E., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. J. (2009). Evaluating social participation of pupils with special needs in regular primary schools: Examination of a teacher questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 213-222.
Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and teacher education, 28(2), 251-262.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Scott, J. (2017). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June. U. (2014).
|
