14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Creating Parent Capacity in Cases of Selective Mutism.
Heidi Omdal
University of Agder, Norway
Presenting Author: Omdal, Heidi
Background. This paper draws on a capacity-building initiative preparing parents of nine selectively mute (SM) children to take the lead in their child’s change process, starting, gradually and in tiny steps, to speak in more situations and to more people, especially in school. A close home-school-cooperation and parents’ authority to negotiate with schools is urgent in SM cases. Aim and conceptual framework. The study investigates the possibilities and challenges in parents’ implementation of an authoritative parenting style (Baumrind, 1991; Snyder et al., 2013; Wentzel, 2002) in their interactions with the SM child. The innovation aims to strengthen parents’ capacity to promote social and emotional development in their child through the support of other parents in a parent guidance group, and from the researcher’s guidance. Methods. Egan’s problem-solving model (Egan, 2014) is used as a framework in the parent guidance group. Focus group-interviews in the parent group, and the parents’ written answers to questions arising from Egan’s skilled-helper model in between the meetings with parents form the data base of the project. Content analysis (Patton, 2002) is used to analyze the data. Common themes across families taking part are analyzed in NVivo (Richards, 2002). Results. A common theme among the families is how to find the right balance between supporting and challenging the SM child in communication with others. How to promote greater independence between children and parents is an urgent question from the project. Practical implications for parent-teacher-cooperation are highlighted.
Extended summary
Background
Early intervention and close cooperation with parents is crucial to prevent serious mental health problems in children with selective mutism (SM) (Omdal, 2008). Without any guidance from professionals with SM expertise, parents and professionals are potential risk factors for the child’s progress (Omdal, 2014). This paper considers the innovation process in a parent guidance group with nine SM families phasing-in an authoritative parenting style (Baumrind, 1991; Snyder et al., 2013; Wentzel, 2002) in interactions with their SM child.
Aim and conceptual framework
The SM child’s constant withdrawal from speech interferes with learning and social communication and gets more and more ingrained the longer it lasts (Omdal, 2007). Previous research suggests that SM parents tend to overprotect the SM child (Omdal, 2014; Omdal & Galloway, 2008). Thus, this group of children may have few coping experiences in the environment. We started a parent guidance group with nine families having a child with SM in 2017, holding six meetings where parents exchanged experiences and received guidance from the researcher. This study investigates the possibilities and challenges in parents’ implementation of an authoritative parenting style. Authoritative parents prevent over-dependency in interactions with their child (Baumrind, 1991; Snyder et al., 2013; Wentzel, 2002). Egan’s skilled-helper model (Egan, 2014) was used as a framework in the parent guidance. The model is organized in three steps: (1) the current picture; (2) the preferred picture; and (3) the way forward. Participants are encouraged to be active during the entire process of implementing goals, decisions, and actions towards a changed situation. Continuous evaluation throughout the process is necessary to reach valued outcomes. The study questions whether Egan’s skilled-helper model is adequate in phasing-in the principles of the innovation. Fullan (2016) emphasizes that a strong collective orientation strengthens participants’ motivation for change. Thus, an effective collaborative culture and common learning processes among parents and parents and teachers might increase capacity (Hargreaves et al., 2018; Leithwood, 2019).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper is based on the results gathered by the author during the first year of implementation. The results are gathered from: (1) focus group-interviews with the parents who were responsible for creating the capacity in each SM case in the parent guidance group; and (2) participating parents’ written answers to questions arising from Egan’s (2014) skilled-helper model in between the parent meetings. Content analysis (Patton, 2002) is used in the analysis. Common themes across cases are analyzed in NVivo (Richards, 2002). The parents gave their informed consent to participate, in accordance with the ethical guidelines given by The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH, 2016). We search for the participants’ ‘real world experiences’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018) as objectively as possible. Our goal is to interpret the actions and social world from the interviewees’ own perspectives (Bryman, 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA common theme among the families was how to find the right balance between supporting and challenging the SM child in communication with others. How to promote greater independence between the child and the parents is the main question from the project. The participants found it helpful to get support from other parents. They struggled at Egan’s (2014) third step, the action level. It was hard to implement the evidence-based principles of the innovation in their own situation. More supervision and support after the end of the project year was needed.
Theoretical and educational significance
In cases of selective mutism, capacity building is required to move from silence to speech. Parents are viewed as crucial change agents for the SM child. Practical implications for parent-teacher-cooperation are highlighted.
ReferencesBaumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, Lerner, R. M. & Petersen, A. C. (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of adolescence. (pp. 746-758.). New York: Garland.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage.
Egan, G. (2014). The skilled helper: a client-centred approach (10th ed.). Hampshire: Cengage Learning.
Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Wangia, S., Bacon, C., & D’Angelo, M. (2018). Leading from the middle: spreading learning, wellbeing, and identity across Ontario. Toronto, Canada: Council of Ontario Directors of Education.
Leithwood, K.A. (2019). Leadership Development on a Large Scale: Lessons for Long-Term Success. First edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, Sage Publications.
Omdal, H. (2014). The child who doesn’t speak. Understanding and supporting children with selective mutism. Kristiansand: Portal Academic.
Omdal, H. (2008). Including children with selective mutism in mainstream schools and kindergartens: problems and possibilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(3), 301–315. DOI: 10.1080/13603110601103246.
Omdal, H. (2007). Can adults who have recovered from selective mutism in childhood and adolescence tell us anything about the nature of the condition and/or recovery from it? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22 (3), 237-253. DOI: 10.1080/08856250701430323.
Omdal, H., & Galloway, D. (2008). Could selective mutism be re-conceptualised as a specific phobia of expressive speech? An exploratory post-hoc study. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13 (2), 74-81. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1475-3588.2007. 00454.x.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Richards, L. (2002). Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Melbourne: QSR International.
Snyder, J., Low, S., Bullard, L., Schrepferman, L., Wachlarowicz, M., Marvin, C. & Reed, A. (2013). Effective parenting practices: Social interaction learning theory and the role of emotion coaching and mindfulness. In R. E. Larzelere, A. Sheffield Morris & A. W. Harrist (red.), Authoritative Parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (s. 189-210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). (2016). Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology. Oslo: The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are Effective Teachers Like Good Parents? Teaching Styles and Student Adjustment in Early Adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00406.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Family Voices on Different Schooling Options
María-Esther Martínez-Figueira1, Isabel Fernández-Menor2, Silvia Sierra Martínez1, María Dolores Díaz Alcalde2
1University of Vigo, Spain; 2University of Sevilla, Spain
Presenting Author: Fernández-Menor, Isabel
This paper is part of a larger national study (PID2019-108775RB-C4) that aims to explore what we are missing in inclusive education. The paper understands inclusion as a common project based on social justice, democracy and the defence of social cohesion. However, it may be at risk for a variety of reasons. Often the concept of inclusion is used indiscriminately, polarising debates that pit professionals, families, the scientific community and the educational community against each other (Göranson and Nilholm, 2014; Norwich, 2008). In fact, there are normative regulations, studies and even legal claims that use inclusion to defend anti-inclusion solutions. Inclusive discourse runs the risks of being used to describe and legitimise exclusionary ways of doing things, what Slee (2018) describes as a misappropriation of inclusive education.
The fact that segregative and pseudo-inclusive practices persist in many countries and regions raises the question of the extent to which exclusionary attitudes, values and practices have been uncritically taken on board, when international and specifically European legislation advocates inclusion (Tawel, Emery, Daniels, Thompson & Porter, 2020). The frequent debate about whether or not any learner (no matter who or how they are labelled) has a right to be in inclusive education illustrates the weak penetration and understanding of the inclusive ideal in society and education.
Although many studies confirm the importance of the family-school relationship, the analysis of inclusion from the perspective of families is limited. Some studies developed in the European and international context have been warning for more than a decade of the persistent lack of recognition of the voices of parents in decisions about their children's schooling (De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert, 2010). Other studies looks specifically at families' perceptions and attitudes towards inclusion and at families' preferred mode of schooling (Paseka, 2020; Duhaney and Salend, 2000; Merrigan, 2021). These studies show different results on the preferences of families of children in vulnerable situations for inclusive or segregated forms of schooling (whether in inclusive schools, special educational classrooms, or special education schools). Based on these results, in this study we intend to analyze which schooling model is preferred for a sample of Galician families of students identified as having Special Educational Needs and with different schooling experiences. I addition it is aimed to know, what reasons lead them to make this choice between different school emplacements.
Spanish educational legislation, although it declares itself to be inclusive, considers, as in other contexts, student diversity from a contradictory perspective by proposing segregating educational options as inclusive.
The work presented was developed in a specific region: the Autonomous Community of Galicia. According to the Galician Institute of Statistics, there are 1,254 educational schools in Galicia, with different types of ownership and providing education from nursery education to university studies. The provision of special settings is high: there are 36 special education schools in this community (with 1.111 students) while there are 41 special education classrooms in ordinary public schools attending to 337 students.
The procedure for the schooling of students with SEN is based on a psycho-pedagogical evaluation and subsequent schooling report, carried out by the school's guidance department and, in extraordinary cases, by a Specific Guidance Team. In this way, the procedure and decisions on the schooling of students are governed by exclusively technical criteria, limiting the voice of families in the report to a simple consultation without decision-making capacity.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study assumes a qualitative research methodology with a participatory orientation. The broader study in which this work is framed aims to understand the functioning of the process of transformation and reinterpretation of educational policies considering the different agents that participate in their development. A large sample of participants belonging to different social and educational groups were involved in this process: families, associations, professionals in the field of educational policy, tutor and specialist teachers, guidance staff, management teams and students.
In this paper, we focus on the analysis of families' perceptions of their children's schooling decisions and their assessment of the best educational placement for their children. Specifically, nine families (fathers and mothers) selected according to snowball sampling participated.
The instrument used for data collection was the interview, of a conversational nature, supported by a form that acted as a mechanism to elicit the informant's reflection and thoughts on the object of study. The interview was designed based on a previous technical report developed by the research team. The topics addressed in the family interviews were: school participation, satisfaction at school, institutional representation of families, choice of school, economic costs, regulations and other educational spaces in which their children participate.
A content analysis combining a deductive and inductive approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) was carried out based on the interview transcripts. It started from a series of deductive categories, which gave way to inductive coding. The qualitative analysis software MAXQDA was used as a support. The information derived from the interviews was segmented into three broad categories: Barriers, Aids and Suggestions for Improvement. In this paper we focus on the three previous categories and specifically on the codes related to schooling models and the evaluation process followed to make the schooling decision.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe are currently at the stage of analysing the data obtained, although we perceive a certain tendency for families to identify some common barriers and gaps in how the policy and practice of inclusion is understood and being developed.
The opinion of the families interviewed was situated around the classic binomial of schooling: inclusive vs. special education school. Although inclusive schooling is the most desired placement for most families, when faced with their children's schooling they tend to opt for segregated settings. One explanation for this apparent contradiction between what is stated as desired and actual practice, according to families, is the disenchantment with the practical reality of inclusion. The lack of support, resources, teacher training, etc. is used to justify special schooling that is considered to be inclusive. This reveals a very simple and instrumental conception of inclusion and a lack of understanding of the idea of inclusion.
Another concern expressed by families is related to how family participation is limited and restricted in the legislation and in practice. It is denounced the lack of participation in the decision making when a special placement is proposed for a student. In this way it is qualified as a symbolic participation that does not fit with democratic and social-justice inclusive ideals.
This analysis suggests how the concept of inclusive education is often used loosely or superficially by focusing the development of inclusion on practical issues (necessary but insufficient such as placement or individual adaptations) without addressing its conceptual basis and the values that underpin it. Hence the conflicts, dilemmas and contradictory approaches taken by the participants in the study, which highlights the need to critically review and question the concepts and practices that are developed in the name of inclusive education.
ReferencesDe Boer, A., Pijl, S. P., and Minnaert, A. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 25, 165–181. doi: 10.1080/08856251003658694
Duhaney, L. M. G., and Salend, S. J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remed. Special Educ. 21, 121–128. doi: 10.1177/074193250002100209
Göransson, K., and Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings–a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 29, 265–280.
Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.”
Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, Inclusion and disability: international perspectives on placement. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23,4, 287-304
Merrigan, C., and Senior, J. (2021). Special schools at the crossroads of inclusion: do they have a value, purpose, and educational responsibility in an inclusive education system? Irish Educ. Stud. 40, 1–17.
Paseka, A., and Schwab, S. (2020). Parents’ attitudes towards inclusive education and their perceptions of inclusive teaching practices and resources. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 35, 254–272. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2019.1665232
Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429486869
Tawell, Alice & Emery, Hilary & Daniels, Harry & Thompson, Ian & Porter, Jill. (2020). Seeking a balance: Conversations with policy makers and influencers about intervening upstream to prevent school exclusions in the context of Covid-19 and beyond: Insights from the Excluded Lives 'Policy Conversations'.
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Inclusive Education at a Rural School in Northern India: A study on the multiple perspectives of students, parents, and teachers
Rashmi Rangarajan1, Umesh Sharma1, Christine Grove1, Delphine Odier-Guedj2
1Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 2Haute École Pédagogique du Canton de Vaud, Lausanne, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Rangarajan, Rashmi
Background
Inclusive Education (IE), as an international movement, has gained considerable momentum since the 1994 World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain. While IE policy, research, and practice has burgeoned across the globe, experiences from rural settings in the Global South remain marginalised and undervalued (Sharma et al., 2017; Taneja-Johansson et al., 2021). This has arguably left the field of IE rather underdeveloped (Sharma et al., 2017). For instance, in India, where this research study occurred, over 65% of the population resides in rural settings, with most students (aged 11-14 years) enrolled in government-run schools (Annual Status of Education Report, 2021). Yet, a significant proportion of the literature focuses on examining IE within urban private school settings (Taneja-Johansson et al., 2021).
Consequently, as an attempt to develop a more contextualised understanding of IE at a rural government school in Uttarakhand, India, we drew on the multiple voices of students, parents, and teachers. By focusing on different perspectives within a disadvantaged school, we have been able to develop a more nuanced view of IE that could be beneficial for researchers and practitioners across national and regional contexts. Importantly, we have built on an earlier presented paper during the ECER 2021 conference which focused on student voices (see also, Rangarajan et al., 2022).
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on a strengths-based approach to research with marginalised individuals and communities (Hamby, 2021). In using the strengths-based approach, we focused on the existing knowledge, skills, and potential of the participants (Tsey, 2019) by trying to understand their current and future aspirations, aspects of schooling that they most valued, and the role that their social contexts played (Rangarajan et al., 2022). Importantly, we attempted to centre the perspectives, experiences, and values of the participants by relying on the capability approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999) and intersectionality (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Crenshaw, 1991) as a theoretical framework.
The capability approach potentially provides an ethical common ground to conceptualise and examine IE by focusing on the purpose of inclusion (Reindal, 2010; Terzi, 2014). The purpose of IE is to develop a range of capabilities of all learners that they and their communities value (Reindal, 2010; Terzi, 2014). Capabilities can be defined as not just skills and subjects that students learn at school, but also the opportunities and freedoms to convert resources into valued outcomes (Nussbaum, 2011).
However, disadvantages in the school context are created through the intersections or mutually constructing facets of social division, like age, class, race, gender, rurality, and dis/ability (Collins & Bilge, 2016). For example, in India, it has been ascertained that already marginalised groups of children, based on their caste, geographical location, gender, religious affiliation, disability, and socio-economic class, disproportionately experience low participation and exclusion from, and at, schools (Balagopalan, 2022). These intersecting social positions of learners shape not only their capacity to navigate but also to negotiate social structures and relationships within and outside the school boundaries (Collins & Bilge, 2016). Therefore, intersectionality is a useful tool to understand learners’ lived experiences of marginalisation through the examination of both interpersonal and larger structural power relations (Beŝić, 2020).
Research Questions
The following research questions guided our inquiry:
- What are student (11-13 year olds), parent, and teacher perspectives on the most valued aspects of being in school and how shared are their views?
- What are student (11-13 year olds), parent, and teacher perspectives on how and the extent to which valued aspects of being in school are promoted?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA Participatory Research Approach
Our inquiry into the multiple perspectives of students, parents, and teachers is based on a participatory research approach (Hall et al., 2021). It was essential to value the participants of the research study as valuable and knowledgeable agents of IE (Rangarajan et al., 2022). Participatory research requires “working closely with participants to co-design and conduct research [by] building trust and nurturing close collaborations” (Hall et al., 2021, p. 2). In addition to the participatory research approach, we relied on a multiple perspective methodology (Vogl et al., 2019) to help build a nuanced understanding of IE by drawing on the views of ten students, seven parents, and four teachers.
The Participants
The school, where this study occurred, is in a remote and rural region of the northern Indian state, Uttarakhand. Fieldwork took place at the school between the months of January and March 2020 as part of the first author’s doctoral degree research work. The student participants were selected to represent various social groups and their intersections in the form of age, gender, caste, class, dis/ability, and the different villages they came from. Parents of the ten students were invited to participate in the study, of whom seven consented. The school had three teachers and one school leader who were together considered as the teacher participant group.
Data Generation and Analysis
The student participants, as co-researchers, made key decisions regarding how they generated data, discussed the data, and disseminated the conclusions of the study (Hall et al., 2021). Creative research methods (Kara, 2015) were adapted to include photographs, drawings and/writings to stimulate group discussions with the first author (Rangarajan et al., 2022). During the group discussions, following each creative activity, the student participants co-analysed their creations by focusing on how they created the images, what the images contained, and the messages they wanted to convey through the images (Rangarajan et al., 2022). All group discussions were voice and video recorded.
The parent and teacher participants took part in one-on-one in-depth semi-structured interviews with the first author. The interviews ranged in duration from 30-minutes to 2-hours each. All interviews were voice and video recorded. Following data generation and co-analysis processes, the first author manually translated and transcribed the recordings from Hindi to English. The transcripts were then triangulated and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) to generate coherent themes.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAnalysis of the generated data revealed that all the participants highly valued school to attain upward socio-economic mobility. They also valued school as a space where they experienced equality within a highly stratified village life, and where learners could develop diverse capabilities. However, participants also differed in their views, particularly between students and adult participants. Differences in views pertained to the purposes of school education, the pedagogical practices used, and around ideas of discipline. All the participants negotiated the different educational capabilities and outcomes they appreciated through their own experiences, beliefs, and values. Significantly, contextual forces of rurality and remoteness of the school, the increasing privatisation of school education, and the complex interactions between caste, gender, poverty, and dis/ability established obstacles in the way of realising valued capabilities and outcomes. Considering these findings, we will offer some ways in which school communities can be supported to practice IE by focusing on their existing strengths and efforts. We will also highlight the importance of listening to marginalised voices across contexts to build plural understandings of IE.
ReferencesAnnual Status of Education Report. (2021). Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2020 Wave 1. New Delhi: ASER. www.asercentre.org
Balagopalan, S. (2022). Introduction: Modernity, schooling and childhood in India: Trajectories of exclusion. Children's Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2073196
Bešić, E. (2020). Intersectionality: A pathway towards inclusive education? Prospects, 49, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09461-6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1300.
Hall, J., Gaved, M., & Sargent, J. (2021). Participatory research approaches in times of COVID-19: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1-15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/16094069211010087
Hamby, S. (2021). Strengths-based approaches to conducting research with low-income and other marginalized populations. In K. C. McLean (Ed.), Cultural methods in psychology: Describing and transforming cultures (pp. 76-108). Oxford Academic.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095949.003.0003
Kamenopoulou, L. (2018). Inclusive Education and Disability in the Global South. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kara, H. (2015). Creative research methods in the social sciences: A practical guide. Policy Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rangarajan, R., Odier-Guedj, D., Grove, C., & Sharma, U. (2022). ‘The school of our dreams’: Engaging with children’s experiences and hopes at a remote school in India. Children’s Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2124101
Reindal, S. M. (2010). What is the purpose? Reflections on inclusion and special education from a capability perspective. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 1-12.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Simi, J. (2017). Stakeholder perspectives on barriers and facilitators of inclusive education in the Solomon Islands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(2), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12375
Taneja-Johansson, S., Singal, N., & Samson, M. (2021). Education of children with disabilities in rural Indian government schools: A long road to inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1917525
Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing inclusive education: educational quality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.960911
The World Bank. (2021). The World Bank Data. The World Bank: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS?end=2021&locations=IN&start=2021&view=bar
Tsey, K. (2019). Working on wicked problems: A strengths-based approach to research engagement and impact. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22325-0
Vogl, S., Schmidt, E.-M., & Zartler, U. (2019). Triangulating perspectives: ontology and epistemology in the analysis of qualitative multiple perspective interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(6), 611-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1630901
14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Paper
Benefits of Inclusion for Families and Teachers: Diversity as an Opportunity and Source of Enrichment
Cecilia Simon1, Ángela Barrios2, Yolanda Muñoz-Martínez3, Teresa González de Rivera4
1Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain; 2Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain; 3University of Alcalá, Spain; 4Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain
Presenting Author: Simon, Cecilia;
González de Rivera, Teresa
A commitment to inclusive education would not need to be justified simply because it is a human right.Moving forward with inclusion also enhances the movement towards meeting the mandate of international commitments (see Objective 4 of the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development). However, there is evidence to show that learning in schools where the diversity of students, including students with disabilities, is welcomed and embraced has a positive impact on all members of the educational community (all students, professionals and families), on the school as a whole, as well as on the local community in which it is located (Kefallinou, et al., 2020).
With regard to teachers, this positive impact is reflected in improvements in both their professional performance (e.g. in their teaching methodologies - Hehir, et al., 2016 - or the way they collaborate with other teachers – Drossel et al., 2019) and their personal well-being (e.g. personal satisfaction or perception of competence – Jordan et al., 2010).
Regarding students, the presence of, for example, students with disabilities does not interfere negatively with the academic performance of their peers and if there is any impact on them it is positive (Hehir, et al., 2016; Alnahdi, 2019; Cologon, 2019). With respect to students with disabilities, significant positive impacts are also found both academically and socially (Kefallinou, et al., 2020). Hehir et al. (2016) concluded that there is evidence that even educational settings can confer short and long-term benefits for all students.
For families, when inclusive education works, their perception of personal and family well-being is positively affected (Cologon, 2019) and this is related to their partnerships with schools and teachers (Simón et al., 2022).
However, it is questionable whether these benefits are shared by the different members of the educational community and, more specifically, by the families of peers or teachers. In fact, the educational community is often unaware of the benefits of embracing diversity (UNESCO, 2020). According to the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022), for countries to move forward with the challenge of building increasingly inclusive environments, it is important to share a vision of what the meaning and sense of inclusion is. In this context, it is important to have evidence of the positive impact of inclusion, while recognising the different views on the subject (Dalgaard, et al., 2022; Gray et al., 2021).
Moreover, learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are commonly viewed as more challenging for an effective inclusive education than learners with other special educational needs (SEN) (Humphrey & Symes, 2013). For this reason, it is relevant to know the opinion of members of the educational community such as families or teachers in mainstream schools who, among others, teach students with ASD.
Therefore, the objectives of this study were a) to identify what benefits of inclusion are perceived by teachers and families at schools where students with ASD are enrolled, and b) to analyse the influence on this perception of variables related to the families (having children with and without SEN) or the teachers (age, experience and training).
In order to respond to these objectives, a mixed methodology was used. Families from different educational levels and teachers from 14 schools participated. To collect the information, a questionnaire on perceived benefits was used and in-depth interviews were carried out with teachers and families who have children with ASD.
The results show that both families and teachers identify benefits related to students with SEN, their peers and teachers. These results have relevant theoretical implications in the framework of analyses of the meaning and significance of inclusion as well as practical implications.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research has been developed through a mixed methodology following a concurrent triangulation strategy, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, 2014).
Quantitative part: a total of 323 families and 180 teachers belonging to 14 regular schools of different educational levels (from early childhood education to baccalaureate) participated.
All of these schools were involved in schooling students with ASD. These students spent over 60% of the time in the mainstream classroom. 50% of these schools were public and the other 50% were charter schools. The information was collected using the Questionnaire on the perception toward the benefits of inclusive education (Muñoz et al., in press; Simón et al., 2022). It consists of 16 items that evaluate 2 areas: benefits and losses for the classmates of the learners with SEN and for the teachers and the school. This questionnaire is filled up by indicating the level of agreement with the statements presented in the items based on a Likert scale with 4 options (1 = completely disagree, and 4 = completely agree).
For the analysis of the results, the statistical software SPSS was used (v25.0). Kolmogorov-Smirnoff tests were carried out to check whether they met the requirements for the application of parametric statistics. The results were positive, thus it was decided to use non-parametric tests. Mann-Whitney tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted.
Qualitative part: in-depth interviews were carried out with 22 families of pupils with ASD and 24 classroom and support teachers of these pupils of different educational stages.
The questions script for the interview was designed with the aim of analysing positive and negative aspects of the pupils with SEN schooling, taking into account peers, teachers and the school.
First all transcripts we read deeply. Inductive codes were then established in order to make sense of the information collected. In this way, we developed an inductive coding system that facilitated the compression of the gathered data (Miles and Huberman, 1994). To ensure the rigour of the analysis, all the information was analysed simultaneously by two researchers and contrasted later with another researcher of the team. Moreover, all the interviewees used the same question guide to perform the interviews (Braun and Clarke, 2008).
Ethical Aspects: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University (CEI-88-1654).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBoth families and teachers identify benefits for the students with disabilities themselves, their classmates as well as for the teachers and the school. There are important coincidences in this perception. Perceived benefits for pupils with SEN include being considered to be better prepared for the real world and having more opportunities to develop their academic competences and to nurture their personal and social development. Regarding the benefits identified for their peers without SEN these also involve being better prepared for the real world and having more probabilities of respecting and valuing human differences. In relation to the teachers, improvements in their teaching practice are noted, favouring that it reaches all pupils as well as greater collaboration with other teachers. Finally, regarding the school, they are considered to be better prepared to respond to the needs of all students. However, these perceptions vary according to related variables such as having or not having children with SEN, as well as factors related to teachers, specifically the experience of having been a teacher of students with SEN. Also, families with children with SEN have an even more positive perception than families without them.
Families talk about the constant fights and levels of strength they need to deal with, and schools came open about the need to embrace changes and improvements. It is also a great opportunity for the peers to understand other´s needs and for the school to understand the concept barrier and to overcome it for all students.
These results have relevant theoretical implications in the framework of the analysis of the meaning and significance of inclusion. Inclusive education in itself can become a lever for school improvement. In the same way, these results can be powerful evidence so as to improve the school in terms of being more inclusive.
ReferencesAlnahdi, G.H., (2019). The positive impact of including students with intellectual disabilities in schools: Children’s attitudes towards peers with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 85, 1-7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.10.00
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(12), 77-101.
Cologon, K. (2019). Towards inclusive education: A necessary process of transformation. Children and Young People with Disability Australia.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach. SAGE.
Dalgaard, N.T., Bondebjerg, A., Viinholt, B.C.A., & Filges, T. (2022). The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(4), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1291
Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., Ophuysen, S., & Bos, W. (2019). Why teachers cooperate: An expectancy-value model of teacher cooperation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(1), 187-208.http://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0368-y
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2022). Agency Position on Inclusive Education Systems (2nd edition). European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.
Gray, P., Norwich, B., & Webster, R. (2021). Review of Research about the Effects of Inclusive Education: A Summary. SEN.Policy Research
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education. Alana-Abt.
Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2013) Inclusive education for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in secondary mainstream schools: teacher attitudes, experience and knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580462
Jordan, A., Glenn, C., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). The Supporting Effective Teaching project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers' beliefs about disability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 259-266.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005
Kefallinou, A., Symeonidou, S., Meijer, C.J. W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. Prospects 49, 135–152.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2
Miles, M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 428-444). Sage.
Muñoz-Martínez, Y., Simón, C., & Fernández, M.L. (in press). How to Facilitate the Educational Inclusion of Students with Autism: Learning from the Experience of Teachers in Spain. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Simón, C., Martinez-Rico, G., McWilliam, R. & Cañadas, M. (2022). Attitudes toward Inclusion and Benefits Perceived by Families in Schools with Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05491-5
UNESCO (2020) Global Education Monitoring Report 2020.Inclusion and education: All means all. UNESCO.
|
