04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Seeing Me, Seeing You: Partner-Led Co-creation of Resources to Represent Disability in Education Settings.
Clare Uytman, Sian Jones, Catriona Rennie
Queen Margaret University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Uytman, Clare;
Jones, Sian
This research is set against a background which sees increasing access to mainstream schools among children with disabilities across Europe (e.g., Schwab, 2020). Yet, in spite of this, bias against disabled children is widespread among non-disabled school aged children (e.g., Trepanier-Street et al., 2011).
Research suggests intergroup contact (i.e., interaction between social groups) is beneficial for children since it improves social relations between individuals from different groups (e.g., Bagci, et al., 2014). For example, research shows that reading in a book that someone from your group has a friendship with someone from another group (i.e., extended contact) is enough to improve children's attitudes towards disabled children (see Cameron et al., 2011). This finding has implications for the inclusion and peer acceptance of disabled children in mainstream schools. Specifically, it suggests that increased representation of disability, increasing children’s contact with disabled children will promote positive responses from non-disabled children towards their disabled peers in mainstream settings.
In this vein, previous research has indicated that contact in the form of a brief pop-up exhibition and associated resources and activities in schools could similarly change children’s views and discourse in positive ways around disability (Uytman et al. 2022). These resources have been mapped to the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence Experiences and Outcomes (Education Scotland, 2019) and tested in five Scottish Schools with 312 children aged 7-11 years. Findings were in line with adult-participant research, showing that art exhibitions positively portraying disability can challenge discrimination and marginalization of disabled people and engage learners in an exploration of ableism in our societies (e.g., Eisenhauer, 2007). Along these lines, responses to the exhibition from children showed that even in schools not visited by a disabled researcher, children were significantly more likely to say that they knew someone with a disability after the exhibition and activities. Knowing someone with a disability was associated with more positive attitudes towards disability (for example ‘At school, I would talk to a disabled child I did not know’) Children’s stories also indicated a change in their discourse towards the social model of disability: Ken and I are going to go Go karting! He is so much better than me because he uses his wheelchair everyday. He is so cool. My friend Ken is the best (in writing a story about a disabled Ken doll).
Whilst the resource pack for schools is effective in its current state, discussion and feedback from teachers, children and other stakeholders throughout the project highlighted the need for their further development in order to increase their usability. Co-creation of resources is increasingly recognized as critical in popular media, leading to a shift towards inclusive processes of both exhibition curation and artistic intervention (Sandell, 2007). To enable co-creation, focus groups sought views from a range of perspectives towards enhancing the accessibility of the resources. We account for accessibility from a practical perspective (i.e., the ease with which school staff can access and use the resources within an educational setting) but also from an inclusive education perspective, to ensure that all learners are able to use the resource regardless of any impairment. With this in mind, the current research took the reach of a pop-up exhibition and resources a step further in its evaluation – to look at ways in which the resources themselves may be improved through close consultation with key parties. Our objectives were twofold; to examine (1) responses of children towards the resources and (2) to explore key stakeholders’ perceptions.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSetting up a series of online and face-to-face focus groups, the project asked disabled children, aged 7-11 years (accompanied by parents), educators and other key stakeholders (e.g., disabled adults, charity representatives, parents of disabled children) about their opinions of the resources as they stood, and about how they could be made both more classroom-friendly, and accessible. Ten participants from each group were recruited via charities, social media and Education networks. Focus groups were arranged with 4-6 participants in each group and were facilitated by two researchers. Each focus group was intended to last for two-hours, allowing time for breaks as needed. Children were accompanied by their parents, who facilitated communication as needed but every effort was made to ensure that the children were participating fully in the focus groups.
Prior to taking part participants were sent a full copy of the resources, including images used in the exhibition, the full set of activities and mapping to the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence. This comprises a 41-page PDF document intended for use in schools with activities and additional information for teachers. Participants were invited to review the pack and respond to a single question in advance of the focus groups: What would be a really good activity to help children understand more about disability? Answers could be given via text, drawing or voice recording and submitted to a secure online dropbox. These answers formed the basis of the initial focus group discussion which continued with discussion of the resources, the language used, and how these could be improved in terms of representation, accessibility and utility.
Data from focus groups were analysed thematically to identify aspects of both satisfaction and suggestions for development. These suggestions will now be incorporated into the ongoing development of the resources before being made freely available to teachers and educators via a not-for-profit social enterprise.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPrevious findings have shown that existing resources and pop-up exhibition positively affect how children understand, talk about and react to disability. However, there is an awareness of the limitations of the resources in terms of accessibility and utility in a mainstream classroom setting. This study focused on the priorities and needs of the groups most likely to be using these resources in order to maximise their potential. The adaptations suggested through consultation with these participants encourage us to think about the way in which resources and activities are presented to children. We are also encouraged to consider how both disabled and non-disabled children interact with them and to ensure that they are as accessible and as engaging as possible.
The language used around discussion of disability is of critical importance. A previous study (Uytman et al, 2022) found a prevalence of medical model understanding in the language used by children to discuss disability before accessing the resources (disability seen as something that needed to be fixed and requiring help from others). Following the exhibition and activities language use moved to a more social model understanding (with discussion of the need for a more accessible environment, and positive examples of achievement). The current study allowed for this focus on language and other aspects of presentation of the resources to be discussed directly and translated into accessible and practical school resources. With the implementation of the third edition of the National Framework for Inclusion in Scotland (Scottish Universities Inclusion Group, 2022) and a focus on broader right-based approach to inclusive education across Europe (Schwab, S. 2020, European Agency, 2022), it is ever more important that schools have access to appropriate resources which allow for a focus on positive representation of disability in order to move schools towards successfully fully inclusive practice.
ReferencesBagci, S. C., Rutland, A., Kumashiro, M., Smith, P. K., & Blumberg, H. (2014). Are minority status children's cross‐ethnic friendships beneficial in a multiethnic context? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12028
Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Turner, R., Holman Nicolas, R., & Powell, C. (2011). " Changing attitudes with a little imagination?: Imagined contact effects on young children? s intergroup bias. Anales de psicología, 27 (3)
Education Scotland (2019). Curriculum for Excellence: experiences and outcomes. Retrieved from: https://education. gov. scot/Documents/All-experiencesoutcomes18. pdf.
Eisenhauer, J.(2007) Just looking and staring back: Challenging ableism through disability Performance Art, Studies in Art Education, 49(1), 7-22, DOI: 10.1080/00393541.2007.11518721
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022. Legislative Definitions around Learners’ Needs: A snapshot of European country approaches. (M. Turner-Cmuchal, ed. and A. Lecheval). Odense, Denmark
Sandell, R. (2006). Museums, prejudice and the reframing of difference (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203020036
Scottish Universities Inclusion Group (2022) The National Framework for Inclusion, 3rd ed. Edinburgh, UK: The General Teaching Council for Scotland. Retrieved 24 January 2023 from: https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/national-framework-for-inclusion/
Schwab, S. (2020). Inclusive and Special Education in Europe. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 24 Jan. 2023, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1230.
Trepanier-street, M. , Hong, S. , Silverman, K. , Morris, L. R. K. A. T. L. & Morris, T. L. (2011). Young Children with and without Disabilities: Perceptions of Peers with Physical Disabilities . International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education , 3 (2) , 117-128 . DOI: 10.20489/intjecse.107949
Uytman, C., Jones, S.J., Rennie. C., Sartore, V. & Fallon, T. (2022, September 14-15). Using representative toys to influence attitudes of Scottish children to disability. [Conference Presentation]. British Psychological Society Psychology of Education Section Annual Conference 2022, Oxford, UK.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Connectedness: An Under-utilised Resource for Inclusion
Annie Gowing
The University of Melbourne, Australia
Presenting Author: Gowing, Annie
School connectedness (SC) has established itself over the past two decades as an important concept in prevention research around adolescent risk behaviour, first gaining a conceptual profile in the 1990s when Resnick and colleagues named it as a protective factor for a range of health-compromising behaviours. Since these studies SC has continued to generate research interest in the fields of education and health, further consolidating its place as a protective factor for young people by decreasing the likelihood of certain health risk behaviours such as suicidal ideation, violence, substance abuse and early sexual debut.
This mixed methods study explored the meanings of being connected to school, how this process was understood by students and staff and shaped by school and individual factors. This approach foregrounded the voices of young people and teachers and their understandings of the experience of connecting to school. Such an approach is unusual in SC research which continues to be dominated by quantitative, survey-driven studies.
Using a qualitatively driven mixed methods approach within a social constructionist epistemology this study was framed by two research questions:
- What are the meanings of being connected to school?
a) How do students understand their connectedness to school (what makes school a place they want tobe)?
b) How do teachers and other staff understand students’ connectedness to school?
- What factors are associated with students’ connectedness to school?
Five hypotheses regarding factors associated with SC were also tested. Three hypotheses related to a student’s knowledge of their school prior to commencing their attendance and whether this knowledge or greater familiarity with the school influenced SC. A third hypothesis related to a student’s involvement in the decision to attend the school and whether making the choice themselves or in collaboration with their parents influenced SC. A fourth hypothesis concerned whether starting secondary school with peers from primary school reduced the relational discontinuity that can accompany the transition to secondary school (Coffey, 2013). The final hypothesis related to whether the distance a student lives from school influences SC.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis mixed methods study utilising qualitative and quantitative data collection methods within a concurrent triangulation design (Cresswell, et al., 2003) was conducted at a co-educational secondary college in Melbourne, Australia.
Data collection methods included a student questionnaire, student and staff focus groups and student diaries. The student questionnaire drew on comprehensive SC research and consisted of 109 items in eight sections, containing 64 single response items, 23 multiple response items, and 21 open questions. The questionnaire also contained a visual analogue scale (VAS), asking students to indicate their level of connectedness on a horizontal line with the anchor points being ‘not connected at all’ and ‘very connected’. The questionnaire was completed by 206 students and 12 student focus groups and 11 staff focus were conducted. Twelve students kept dairies over a three-week period. There were 336 student participants drawn from each year level and 71 staff participants representing the different faculties and administrative and leadership roles in the school.
Questionnaire data were examined using both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. SC provided the dependent variable in the study and was derived from two sources. Each participant’s connectedness response on the VAS was converted into a rating from Very Low (0-2) to Very High (9-10) and this rating was cross-tabulated against the independent variables in the questionnaire to identify significant associations. SC was also derived by summing up the scores attributed by the participants to five questions in the questionnaire based on the School Connectedness Scale (Resnick et al., 1997)
The qualitative data, drawn from open items in the questionnaire, focus groups, and diaries were thematically analysed in accordance with the six steps identified by (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Both qualitative and quantitative data sets were analysed separately and results from each set were integrated during the analysis phase to identify areas of convergence or divergence (Terrell, 2012).
The questions that guided this study were both exploratory and confirmatory and the questionnaire was designed to serve both purposes. The inclusion of the VAS provided a means for students to identify their level of connectedness to school and this then provided the dependent variable against which a range of key independent variables as identified in the research on SC could be assessed. The instrument yielded qualitative data through the inclusion of open questions, inviting participants to provide extended responses to questions regarding their views about Woodlands College.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSC emerged from this study as a multi-dimensional, socio-ecological concept, placing the individual in relationship with others within the school and beyond. Three hypothesised associations between SC were supported: collaborative decision making with parents about selection of school, prior knowledge of school and proximity of residence to the school.
Findings indicated that students understood their connectedness to school through the experiences of a dynamic and complex crosshatching of opportunities within relational, learning and extracurricular spheres of school life. Their understandings consolidated the importance of student-teacher relationships and extracurricular participation, elevated the importance of peer relationships, and established the role of institutional relationships and school as a place of community as key elements.
The practice implications from this study pivot around the relational climate of schools. This study provided a view of young people with eroded SC. School for them provided less access to adult support, less relational connection to teachers, less engaging teaching, and less enjoyment in being at school. They felt less well, perhaps unsurprisingly. Most of these factors are within the sphere of school influence, with the possible exception of health status, but even on this account schools can be active players in establishing home-school partnerships and in the provision of robust health and wellbeing practice frameworks (Michael, Merlo, Basch, Wentzel, & Wechsler, 2015; Scottish Health Promoting Schools Unit, 2004). The pathway to building SC for all young students is through the relationships which underpin the educational enterprise of schools. According to this study, SC will flourish in schools with opportunity-rich environments with relationally inclusive, supportive and respectful climates which offer a niche for all young people.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., . . . Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. JAMA, 278(10), 823-832. Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed-methods research methodologies. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 254-280.
Coffey, A. (2013). Relationships: The key to successful transition from primary to secondary school? Improving Schools, 16(3), 261-271.
Cresswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Adanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michael, S. L.,Merlo, C. L.,Basch, C. E., Wentzel, K. R., Wechsler, H. (2015). Critical Connections: Health and Academics. Journal of School Health, 85(11), 740-758.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., . . . Udry, J. R. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. JAMA, 278(10), 823-832.
Scottish Health Promoting Schools Unit. (2004). Being Well, Doing Well: A framework for health-promoting schools in Scotland. Scottish Health Promoting Schools Unit, Dundee.
Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed-methods research methodologies. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 254-280.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Collaboration Strategies Among Teachers for the Inclusion of Vulnerable Students Through Cooperative Learning Teams
Jose Ramon Lago, Gemma Riera Romero
Uvic-UCC, Spain
Presenting Author: Lago, Jose Ramon;
Riera Romero, Gemma
The content of this communication is part of a project that takes as a reference the Goals for sustainable development found in Goal 4 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. Goal 4 is Quality Education, this means “guarantee inclusive, equitable and quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. At the same time, the Project takes as a reference the UNESCO International Commission on the Futures of Education Report 2021, which states that "we need a new social contract for education to repair injustices while transforming the future" and the document “REIMAGINING OUR FUTURES contract for education TOGETHER” in which five proposals for the renewal of education are specified, some of which are very close to our project. Specifically in the first when it is stated that "Pedagogy must be organized around the principles of cooperation, collaboration and solidarity", the third proposes "Teaching must be further professionalized as a collaborative effort where teachers are recognized for their work as producers of knowledge and key figures in education and society”, and the fifth conclusion “Schools must be protected educational sites due to the inclusion, equity and individual and collective well-being that they support, and also reinvented to better promote the transformation of the world towards more just, equitable and sustainable futures”. The backgrounds to the objective of the study, and theoretical references used in the project, have been the contributions of: Daniels and Parrilla (1998) Support between teachers for teaching with SEN students and other needs. Ainscow's (2016) research on joint reflection on the practices developed. And the research on how it promotes collaborative professional development by Hargreaves and 0'Connor (2018). And some of our work on facilitation to introduce improvements in inclusion. On the other hand, the research by Baines et al. (2015) the Interdependence Theory developed by Johnson and Johnson (2009, 2016), the "Team Model" proposed by Slavin (1991, 2011, 2014) some suggestions from Ashman and Gillies (2013), Lago and Pujolàs (2008 , 2018), Pujolàs, Lago and Riera (2015) in our previous work to develop the program "Cooperate to learn, learn to cooperate". The research carried out by the Research Group on Attention to Diversity (GRAD) of the University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, since its constitution in 1999, has been oriented towards investigating how cooperative learning can contribute to improving inclusive educational practices. The reports of the different projects developed highlighted the importance of research around two intertwined axes: support between teachers for the development of cooperative learning and support to eliminate barriers for the inclusion of the most vulnerable students in cooperative learning teams. . These two axes give rise to the development of a project of the Ministry of Science and Innovation, entitled: "Collaboration between teachers in the development of Cooperative Learning for the most vulnerable Inclusion" (PID2021-128456NB-I00). In said communication we present a first phase of the project, which consists of the elaboration of a collaborative analysis model between teachers, linked to the first axis of the project previously exposed. The research objectives are the following:
Objective 1. Observe and analyze the collaboration of teachers in the planning of support for cooperative teams for the inclusion of students
Objective 2. Analyze together with the teaching staff the observations and data collected on practices in cooperative teams with students at risk of exclusion
Objective 3. Identify the criteria and strategies for joint work and decision-making
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe objectives of our research point to the need to adopt a qualitative methodology, multiple case analysis and action research (Parrilla, Raposo & Martínez, 2016), in which the contributions of the participants, in our case the participating teachers, are the ones that build the conclusions of the investigation. The Research Team is made up of 6 researchers from different Universities in Spain and 12 professors from different educational centers in different territories, which will be coordinated by the University professors.The data collection instruments are the following (Juan, Lago and Soldevila, 2020):
a. Planning support for a cooperative team with students at risk of exclusion and Improvement Issues
b. Video recordings of 10 minutes of cooperative teamwork sequences in 1 hour of class.
c. ”Guideline for the Analysis of Support for the Cooperative Team” prepared by each teacher.
d. "Guidelines for the analysis of the preparation of Improvement Proposals".
Data analysis criteria that we understand will allow us to achieve the objectives.
Objective 1. Observe and analyze the collaboration of teachers in the planning of support in cooperative teams for the inclusion of students.
- Criterion 1.1 Identify similarities and differences between the plans.
- Criterion 1.2 Analyze priority contents for joint analysis, debate and the criteria for change and improvement.
- Criterion 1.3 Analyze the agreements for the modification of the schedules.
Objective 2. Together with the teachers, analyze the observations and data collected on practices in cooperative teams with students at risk of exclusion.
-Criterion 2.1 Analyze coincidences and divergences in tasks, modeling interventions and support for cooperative teams.
- Criterion 2.2 Analyze educational practices to support cooperative teams with students who encounter more barriers
- Criterion 2.3 Identify the type of Improvement Issues and the link with the observations presented
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs we have previously commented, we are still in the first phase of the project..
Some of the preliminary data of this first cycle are.
Regarding the first research question 1
- When the needs of students regarding classroom activities are analyzed, it is easier to identify tasks and supports for cooperative learning than when the only thing that is provided is the type of disability or disorder of the students.
- In the joint analysis, having a previous and shared analysis and discussion plan and having someone do the discussion guide is very useful to identify and specify improvements adjusted to the difficulties encountered.
- In the analysis of the recordings, it is observed that clear general criteria of the objectives of the recording and more detailed instructions are needed on what type of moments of the learning sequence of the class should be recorded.
- When assessing the feasibility of improvements, it is recurrent that it is considered easier to agree with teachers from another school that shares an educational model than with some teachers from the school itself.
Regarding the second research question 2
- Doing the modeling of cooperative learning tasks in the team with the students who encounter barriers than other teams is more useful for all the teams in the class and also for the teams where there are more students who encounter barriers.
- Tasks for all cooperative learning teams should have 2-3 different difficulty levels, and there may be some differences between teams.
- The teacher's support in cooperative learning teams with students who find barriers would be directed to the classmates of these students.
ReferencesAinscow, M. (2016b). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in education: Possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(2), 159–172
Arévalo, E. (2022). Reimaginar juntos nuestros futuros: Un nuevo contrato social para la educación. (2021). Informe de la Comisión internacional sobre los futuros de la educación. UNESCO. Sumario. Warisata - Revista De Educación, 4(12), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.33996/warisata.v4i12.967
Ashman, A., & Gillies, R. (Eds.). (2003). Cooperative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in Groups (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203465264
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2015). The challenges of implementing group-work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with Special Educational Needs. Special issue of Education 3-13, 43, 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.961689
Hargraves, A. O’Connor M.T (2018) Collaborative Professionalism : when teaching together means learning for all.
Juan, M.; Lago, J. R.; Soldevila, J. (2020). Construir el apoyo a la inclusión dentro del aula con equipos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Ámbitos de Psicopedagogia y Orientacion. Nº 53 (3a. época) noviembre 2020 p. 22-33
Lago, J.R., Pujolàs, P., Riera, G. (2015).El aprendizaje cooperativo como estrategia para la inclusión, la equidad y la cohesión social de todo el alumnado. A R. M. Mayordomo i J. Onrubia (coords),El aprendizaje cooperativo(pp, 49-84). Barcelona: Editorial UOC.
Parrilla, M.A., Raposo, M. y Martínez, M.E. (2016). Procesos de movilización y comunicación del conocimiento en la investigación participativa. Opción, 32(12), 2066-2087.
Pujolàs, P. (2008). Nueve ideas clave: El aprendizaje cooperativo. Barcelona: Graó.
Pujolàs, P., Lago, J.R. (2018) Aprender en equipos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Madrid: Octaedro.
Slavin, Robert (1991), “Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning”, Educational Leadership, vol. 5, núm. 48, pp. 71-82.
Slavin, Robert (2011), “Instruction Based on Cooperative Learning”, en Richard Mayer y Patricia Alexander (eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction, Nueva York, Taylor & Francis, pp. 344-360.
Slavin, Robert (2014), “Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement: Why does group- work work?”, Anales de Psicología, vol. 30, núm. 3, pp. 785-791.
|
