04. Inclusive Education
Paper
The Relationship Between Romani Students' School Dropout Tendency and Perceived Social Support and School Happiness
Ayse Kazanci-Tinmaz
ONDOKUZ MAY UNIVERSITY, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Kazanci-Tinmaz, Ayse
Equality of opportunity in education requires the equal provision of educational services to all segments of society. In this respect, countries legally guarantee equality of opportunity in education. However, not all individuals can benefit equally from the right to education, which is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual. Disadvantaged students need help with access to education and attendance at school. Especially, Romani students have significant educational problems (Alvarez, et al., 2016; Çiftçi, 2019; Díaz-Vicario, Asparó, & Ceacero, 2019; Kumcagiz et al., 2018; Okutan & Turgut, 2018; Sarıtaş & Çoban, 2022).
The main problem of Romani students is school absenteeism and dropout (Kumcağız et al., 2018; Mercan-Uzun & Tüm, 2015; Tor, 2017). Economic conditions and the perception of exclusion constitute an obstacle to education for Romani children (Ministry of Family and Social Policies, 2016; Çiftçi, 2019; Kumcagiz et al., 2018; Okutan & Turgut, 2018). Another obstacle is families who care less about their children and children's education (Çiftçi, 2019; Sarıtaş & Çoban, 2022). The inability to access qualified schools, the inadequacy of study environments, and the lack of people who can get support in their classes cause them to stay away from school (Genç, et al., 2015). For these reasons, these children prefer to start working early to help their families or marry at a young age. In other words, Romani children are both isolated from social life, and their poverty in the family continues in a cycle (Okutan & Turgut, 2018).
In order to prevent these problems, the factors that will bind them to the school should be investigated. This study focuses on the tendency to drop out of school, which is one of the most critical problems of Romani students. The research aims to reveal the relationship between the tendency to drop out of school and the social support students perceive from their families, teachers, and friends and their school happiness. This study will contribute to the literature as it focuses on the relationship between the variables that affect the school dropout of Romani children. Thus, scientific suggestions for Romani students will be presented regarding school-based practices and general education policies.
In this regard, the aims of the study are stated below:
1. What is the level of school dropout tendencies, perceived social support, and school happiness of Romani students?
2. Is there a significant relationship between the perceived social support and school happiness of Romani students and their tendency to drop out?
3. Are the perceived social support, school happiness, and demographic characteristics of Romani students a significant predictor of their tendency to drop out?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is a correlational survey model. The study's dependent variable is the tendency to drop out; the independent variables are perceived social support, school happiness, and some demographic variables. The research target population is Romani students studying at the secondary school level in a city in the northern part of Turkey. There are three schools in the Roman neighborhood in the research sample. The data collection tool used Personal Information Form, School Experiences Scale, Social Support Assessment Scale for Children, and Oxford Happiness Scale-Short Form. In the Personal Information Form, gender, age, grade level, number of siblings, birth order, parents' education level, and monthly income levels. The School Experience Scale was developed by Yorğun (2014) to measure students' school dropout tendencies. The scale is triple Likert type; there are seven dimensions and 25 items. The Social Support Assessment Scale for children was developed by Dubow and Ullman (1989) to evaluate how students perceive the social support they receive from their friends, families, and teachers. It was adapted into Turkish by Gökler (2007); there are 41 items on the scale, and it has three dimensions: teacher support, family support, and friend support. The Oxford Happiness Scale-Short Form was developed by Hills and Argyle (2002) and adapted into Turkish by Doğan and Çötok (2011). The scale is one-dimensional, and there are seven items on the scale.
SPSS 22 will be used to analyze the obtained data. After the preliminary analyses, the assumptions of each analysis will be checked. In the first question of the research, descriptive statistics such as arithmetic mean and standard deviation will be used; in the second question, either t-test and ANOVA from parametric tests or non-parametric equivalents of these tests will be used, depending on the assumptions. In the third question, the direction and level of the relations between the variables will be calculated with correlation coefficients. Finally, multiple linear regression analysis will test whether the independent variables significantly predict the dependent variable.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs a result of the research, Roman students' dropout tendencies, perceived social support, and school happiness is expected to moderate. A high negative correlation is expected between the perceived social support of Roma students from their teachers, families, and friends and their tendency to drop out. A high negative correlation is expected between school happiness and school dropout tendencies of Romani students. Another expected result is that school happiness has a mediating effect on the relationship between school dropout and the perceived social support of Romani students.
ReferencesAlvarez, A., Parra, I., Gamella, J. F. (2018). Why do most Gitano/Romani students not complete compulsory secondary education in Spain? Uncovering the view of the educational community using concept mapping. SHS Web of Conferences. DOI: 10.1051/ 201
Çiftçi, B. (2019). Opinions of teachers, students, and parents on the socio-economic difficulties experienced by Romany students in Terzibayiri in the Turkish education system. Master Thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
Díaz-Vicario, Asparó, A. C. & Ceacero, D. C. (2019). Factors that hinder access to and persistence in post-compulsory education: A challenge for vulnerable groups in Spain, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24(4), 401-423, DOI: 10.1080/13596748.2019.1654680
Doğan, T. & Çötok, N. (2011). Oxford mutluluk ölçeği Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(36), 165-172.
Dubow, E. F., & Ullman, D. G. (1989). Assessing social support in elementary school children: The survey of children's social support. J Clin Child Psychol, 18(1),52-64.
Genç, Y., Taylan, H. H., & Barış, İ. (2015). The perception of social exclusion and its role in the education and academic achievement of Romani children. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, (33), 79-97.
Gökler, I. (2017). Çocuk ve ergenler için sosyal destek değerlendirme ölçeği Türkçe formunun uyarlama çalişmasi: Faktör yapısı, geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Çocuk ve Gençlik Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi, 14(2), 90-99.
Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1073-1082.
Kumcağız, H., Özcan, Ö., & Şahin, C. (2018). Views of students, teachers, and parents on school absenteeism among Roman children and possible solutions. Okul Psikolojik Danışmanlığı Dergisi, 1(1), 54-85.
Mercan-Uzun, E., & Bütün, E. (2015). Causes of Romani children's absence from school and its effects on children. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 315-327.
Ministry of Family and Social Policies. (2016). Roman vatandaşlara yönelik strateji belgesi (2016-2021). Link: https://www.aile.gov.tr/duyurular/roman-vatandaslara-yonelik-strateji-belgesi-2016-2021-ii-asama-eylem-plani-2019-2021/
Okutan, E., & Turgut, R. (2018). Evaluation of child poverty in terms of Romani children, who are a different ethnic group. Avrasya Sosyal ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(8), 132-146.
Sarıtaş, S., & Çoban, U. (2022). On the sustainability of Roman children’s education: Case of Balikesir. Türkiye Sosyal Hizmet Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 128-142.
Tor, H. (2017). Teachers’ views on Romany children’s failure in schools. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 6(3), 91-98.
Yorğun, A. (2014). Examination of school dropout risk in high school students. Doctoral Thesis. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Engaging in Dialogues with Students: Valuing Diversity
Kyriaki {Kiki} Messiou
University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Messiou, Kyriaki {Kiki}
This paper focuses on knowledge and practices that can emerge through research that actively involves school students, and the potentials that this can have for transforming learning contexts and valuing diversity. Using illustrative examples from two international studies that involved both primary and secondary schools in five countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Portugal, Spain), the paper will argue that collaborative action research can be a way for fostering student diversity in school contexts.
Research involving schools is usually dominated by perspectives explored and brought to the surface by either university researchers, or those that are co-constructed between researchers and teachers. What is less common is having students in schools being part of such processes (Hadfield and Haw, 2001). This paper focuses on knowledge and practices that can emerge through research that actively involves primary and secondary school students, and the potentials that this can have for transforming contexts. In line with this Network’s Call, the paper will illustrate how involving school students in research can promote valuing student diversity within schools. Drawing examples from two interconnected international collaborative action research studies, the paper will address the following questions:
- How can students be actively involved in research in schools?
- How can such approaches promote valuing of diversity?
- What kinds of knowledge and practices emerge through such research?
Students’ voices, have been given a prominent role in research and in education, especially since the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (1989). However, Thiessen (2007) points out that a range of earlier educators and scholars had set the foundations for such a focus on students’ experiences, such as Pestalozzi in 1912, Dewey in 1916 and Montessori in 1966.
Nowadays, the term student voice is mostly associated with expressions of views, either through verbal or non-verbal means (Thomson, 2008). Mazzei (2009) argues that it is impossible to have voice fully captured in research, whilst St Pierre (2009) points out that participants’ voices in qualitative research may have been burdened with too much weight. At the same time, student voice has been linked to active and meaningful participation, and having an active role in decision-making processes (Cook-Sather, 2006).
Such involvement can be the result of initiatives where students have taken the role of student researchers, which in practice closely link to Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) principles: “(1) the collective investigation of a problem that directly addresses the needs of youth involved, (2) the reliance on marginalized youth knowledge that validates and incorporates their lived experiences, and (3) the desire to take collective action to improve the lives of oppressed youth.” (Desai, 2019, p.127).
Within such collective actions, the notion of dialogue can be a strong feature, between children and young people and their classmates, but also between adults (teachers) and students, which is the position adopted in this paper. In using the term dialogue, the definition of Lodge (2005) is adopted, who argues that this “…is more than conversation, it is the building of shared narrative. Dialogue is about engagement with others through talk to arrive at a point one would not get to alone” (p. 134). In other words, both teachers and students can arrive at decisions together, through engagement with different views and collaborative ways of working.
Collaborative action research was the methodology employed in the two interconnected studies (Author & another Author, 2015; Author et al, 2016; Author and another author, 2020), from which the examples of this paper are drawn. The discussion will focus on how collaborative action research involving researchers, teachers and school students can facilitate the development of inclusive thinking and practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe studies involved university researchers working collaboratively with teachers and children in 30 primary schools and eight secondary schools. Collaborative action research involves “different stakeholders functioning as co-researchers’ (p. 345, Mitchell, Reilly, & Logue, 2009). In this case, both teachers and school students took the role of co-researchers, using a specific approach: Inclusive Inquiry.
Inclusive inquiry involves three phases: Plan, Teach and Analyse, and a series of twelve steps included in a Levels of Use instrument. In practice, trios of teachers cooperated with students in their classes to find ways of including all children in their lessons, particularly those who are seen as ‘hard to reach’ in some ways (e.g. migrants, those having special educational needs, or others who are marginalised in schools). These students received training to become researchers, learning how to use research techniques to gather the views of their classmates.
Following the training, the student researchers collected and analysed their classmates’ views. The teachers then worked with these students to design a lesson, taking into account the views of all the children. The lesson was taught by one of the teachers, whilst the other teachers and children researchers observed, with a focus on the responses of class members. This was followed by a discussion to refine the lesson in the light of the observers’ comments and all children’s views who took part in the lesson. The process was repeated three times and at the end implications for practice were identified.
Dialogues amongst teachers and their students about how to make lessons more inclusive are a key feature of the approach. This dialogue uses differences of views amongst students and teachers, to challenge existing thinking and practices in ways that are intended to overcome barriers that are limiting the engagement of some learners.
Detailed lesson observations, interviews with the student researchers and discussions during the planning of the lessons, as well as after the lessons, between teachers and students were analysed collaboratively by the researchers, teachers and student researchers. ‘Group interpretive processes’ (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006) were used for analysis and interpretation. These processes established trustworthiness, using the member check approach recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1985). In addition, accounts of practice (a total of 783 pages) that were prepared collaboratively between researchers and teachers were analysed thematically.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings
Analysis of data highlighted how Inclusive Inquiry allowed students to be actively involved and take part in decision making in schools. At the same time, the approach facilitated teachers’ professional learning and transformation of practices within school contexts. Finally, through Inclusive Inquiry, different perspectives (those of adults and of school students) came together through a process of dialogue. This led to a better understanding of diverse perspectives, valuing diversity and the transformation of existing thinking and practices.
However, such approaches are demanding and require transformation of existing thinking and practices. As Fielding (2004) argues, “Transformation requires a rupture of the ordinary and this demands as much of teachers as it does of students. Indeed, it requires a transformation of what it means to be a student; what it means to be a teacher. In effect, it requires the intermingling and interdependence of both.” (p. 296). We know from earlier research that teachers may be sometimes reluctant to engage with the views of students (e.g. Kaplan, 2008; Author and another author, 2015), not accepting their ideas as being valid or worthy of attention. It could also be argued that much of the research relating to student voice runs the risk of marginalising certain voices, such as those of adults, in an effort to give weight to students’ views that have been traditionally marginalised. This has implications about how research is done, by whom and whom it benefits.
It will be argued that through collaborative action research we can explore future ways of working in schools and in research, and directly benefit potentially marginalised students, such as those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, those defined as having special educational needs, Travellers, etc.. At the same time, through such approaches we can facilitate efforts towards valuing diversity in research and in schools.
References(N.B. author’s references not included)
Ainscow, M., T. Booth, and A. Dyson (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London: Routledge.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). “Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform.” Curriculum Inquiry, 36 (4): 359–390.
Desai, S.R. (2019) Youth Participatory Action Research: The Nuts and Bolts as well as the Roses and Thorns, in K.K. Strunk and L.A Locke (2019) (Eds) Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fielding, M. (2004). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities, British Educational Research Journal, 30(2): 295– 311.
Hadfield, M. & Haw, K. (2001) ‘Voice’, young people and action research, Educational Action Research, 9:3, 485-502.
Kaplan, I. (2008) Being ‘seen’ being ‘heard’: Engaging with students on the margins of education through participatory photography. In Thomson, P. (Ed.) Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People. London: Routledge.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. London: SAGE.
Lodge, C. (2005). “From Hearing Voices to Engaging in Dialogue: Problematising Student Participation in School Improvement.” Journal of Educational Change 6: 125–146.
Mazzei, L.A. (2009). An impossibly full voice, A.Y. Jackson and L.A. Mazzei (Eds.) Voice in Qualitative Inquiry: Challenging Conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research. (45-62) London and New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009) Benefits of collaborative action research for the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 344- 349.
St Pierre, E.A. (2009). Afterword: Decentering voice in qualitative inquiry, in A.Y. Jackson and L.A. Mazzei (Eds) Voice in Qualitative Inquiry: Challenging Conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research. pp.221-236, London and New York: Routledge.
Thiessen, D. (2007) Researching student experiences in elementary and secondary school: an emerging field of study, in D. Thiessen, and A. Cook-Sather (Eds) International Handbook of Student Experience in Elementary and Secondary School (p. 1-77). Netherlands: Springer.
Thomson, P. (Ed.) (2008). Doing Visual Research with Children and Young People. London: Routledge.
United Nations (1989). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.
|
