99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Enhancing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices in Inquiry Based Laboratory Activity Approach towards Sustainable Science Education:A Critical Participatory Action Research Study
Azneezal Ar Rashid Bin Mohd Ramli, Mohamad Termizi Bin Borhan
UPSI, Malaysia
Presenting Author: Bin Mohd Ramli, Azneezal Ar Rashid
The research aims at enhancing pedagogical practices of developing professional development with science teachers through inquiry based laboratory activity approach towards sustainable science education in Malaysia. The research will further explore on possibility of collaboratively develop materials, ways of implement the teaching and learning materials and reveal the impact to participating teachers. Investigations are indeed about empowering children to apply knowledge, but it is essential that the teacher acts as a skilful mediator in the process (Gott et al.,1995). Hence the research centred on the following inquiries: 1) In what ways do participating teachers collaboratively develop, implement and evaluate the science teaching and learning materials that aligned with scientific literacy skills and sustainable issues? 2) To what extend does inquiry based laboratory activity influence science teacher’s to promote scientific literacy and sustainable issues in their classroom? The research is based on the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth proposed by Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002) that encompasses four domains of change in teachers' professional environment include the personal domain (comprising knowledge, beliefs, and attitude), the domain of practice (involving professional experi- mentation), the domain of consequence (related to student learning) and the domain of the culture of the school (related to student learning) (Willems & Bossche, 2019). The model suggests a non-linear and recursive process for teacher professional growth, capturing the dynamics among the different domains.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn accordance with a critical participatory action research as a research design (Kemmis et al., 2014), the research will be carried out in three consecutive qualitative stages. i) Reconnaissance involving focus group discussions (FGD) that establishing a public spheres with thematic analysis and respondent validation with democratic validity ii) Action plan (Planning and Enacting) involving researcher’ field notes, teaching and learning documents, reflective journals, conservations, video and audio recordings, structured observational notes/checklist and Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (Smith,2013) with expert validation, dialogic and process validity iiii) Reflecting involving focus group discussions and thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2014) with outcome validity. Based on the preceding steps, the study employs a variety of data collection methods. Eight teachers and eight groups of students (a total of 90 are expected) will be recruited (purposive sampling).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of this study will cast light on the current state of pedagogical practices in inquiry based laboratory activity approach towards sustainable science education in Malaysia. Research is required to unravel teacher’s understanding of inquiry based laboratory activity approach and their long-term professional development with sustainable issues related to the scientific literacy skills. As a results, the findings will pave ways for teachers to develop learning materials echos with national vision.
ReferencesAbd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88 (3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The Many Levels of Inquiry.Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
Bresser, R., & Fargason, S. (2023). Becoming scientists: Inquiry‐based teaching in diverse classrooms, Grades 3‐5. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032680620
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742051X(02)00053-7
Constantinou, C. P., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Rybska, E. (2018). What is inquiry‐based science teaching and learning? In O. E. Tsivitanidou, P. Gray, E. Rybska, L. Louca, & C. P. Constantinou (Eds.), Professional Development for Inquiry‐based Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 1–23). Dortrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐91406‐0_1
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. In John Dewey: The Later Works (12th ed., pp. 1925–1953). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
Feldman, A., Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2018). Teachers Investigate Their Work: An introduction to action research across the professions (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum.
Herbert, S., & Rainford, M. (2014). Developing a model for continuous professional development by action research. Professional Development in Education, 40 (2), 243–264.
Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research, 14(4), 459–476.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research.
Lewis, C. C., Perry, R., Friedkin, S., & Roth, J. R. (2012). Improving Teaching Does Improve Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 368–375.
McTaggart, R. (1998). Is validity really an issue for participatory action research? Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 4(2), 211–236.
Smith, J. A. (2013). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science (pp. 1–104). London: Oxford University Press.
Willems, I., & Bossche, P. (2019). Lesson study effectiveness for teachers’ professional learning: A best evidence synthesis. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies,8(4), 257–271.https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-04-2019-0031
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
"Developing of Educational Competence Among University Teachers in Lithuania: Regulations Vs. Reality."
Antanas Vitkauskas
Klaipeda University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Vitkauskas, Antanas
Topic description. The topic of my presentation is one part of my PhD thesis research on development of educational competence among university teachers in different cultural environment, which contains thematic content analysis of the regulations of Lithuanian universities and semi-structured interview which well be taken in the framework of the research. The primary stage of the research is thematic content analysis of all regulation documents about developing educational competence among universaity teachers in Lithuania.
The main research question of this presentation. HOW THE EDUCATIONAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM IN LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITIES COULD BE UPGRADED?
Additional (secondary) research question: what is the gap between the regulation texts and the real educational competence situation of the Lithuanian universities?
Relevance of the research. In the fast changing environment of the world educational processes the relevant concepts of the competence and educational competence are always changing (Lennon-Harmon, 2022; Enyon, Iuzzini, 2020; Carbone, 2021; Santoso, Lestari, 2019; Cebrian et al., 2020; Mahlanga, Moloto, 2022). So, despite there is a "common" theory backrounf like White (1959) and Chomsky's (1962) concepts of competence, this concept always can be updated to the current situation (Arifin, 2021). The definition of the educational competence is so flexible, that we are able to "compose" and/or interpretate this concept according to current situation: cultural, political environment, certain country, reagion or institution. This give a large potential for this research not only in Lithuanian, but also in very broad international context.
The practical relevance of the topic. Many higher education institutions (universities and colleges) of Lithuania have an absolutely formal syste, of educational competence development of the teachers/professor. Mostly it contains just a number of hours, which should be spent in specialized events. So, the practical significance of this research is to provide new model, how the educational competences system among university teachers couold be upgraded.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research contains two major stages:
I. Thematic content analysis of the documents of the Lithuanian universities, which regulate the system of developing the educational competence among the university students.
On the first stage this will be very common content analysis to know the main points, which part of educational competence regulations should be concentrated on in the next (interviewing stage).
During the content analysis of the regulatory documents the very modern Cardno (2018) approach will be used. This approach bases on using the regulatory document text as a practical tool. E.g., building proper questions "what this text could be used for". This is a very appropriate tool for concentrating on the MOST relevant points of the regulatory document text.
II. Collecting semi-structured interviews from the younger university teachers (up to 5 years of university teaching experience). The younger colleagues are more preferrable interviewed, because in Lithuania most of the educational competence developing regulations are provided for younger university teachers, i. e. those, who have less than 10 year university teaching experience.
After that the documents text analysis results will be compared to the interview content analysis results, the main "regulations vs. reality" will be described.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe main expected outcome:
Which certain points of the regulatory documents for developing educational competences among university teachers are really practically working for improving the educational competence training among the university teachers.
There will be also few secondary expected outcomes of the research.
1. The practically effective measures, described in the regulatory documents.
2. Less practically effective measures, which are described in the regulatory documents, but are not that practically effective for university teachers' educational competence development.
3. The key points, mentioned by interviewed university teachers, how university teachers' educational competences cuold be developed.
4. Summarizing results of the document analysis and interview thematic content analysis and building possibly effective upgrades on educational competence improvement measures.
ReferencesCarbone, A. (2021). The ripple effect: How the Australian Awards for University Teachers (AAUT) build and maintain excellence in teaching and learning across the nation. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(6), 12-17.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy Document Analysis: A Practical Educational Leadership Tool and a Qualitative Research Method. Educational Administration: Theory & Practice, 24(4), 623-640.
Eynon, B., & Iuzzini, J. (2020). Teaching & Learning Toolkit: A Research-Based Guide to Building a Culture of Teaching & Learning Excellence. Achieving the Dream.
Mahlangu, V. P., & Moloto, B. M. (2022). Strategic Competencies and Skills for Future University Leaders: Creating More Agile Universities. In Leadership and Management Strategies for Creating Agile Universities (pp. 169-181). IGI Global.
Santoso, A., & Lestari, S. (2019). The roles of technology literacy and technology integration to improve students’ teaching competencies. KnE Social Sciences, 243-256.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Implementation of Wellbeing Programs and Practices in a Primary School Context: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives
Lyle Righetti
UNSW, Australia
Presenting Author: Righetti, Lyle
The high rates of depression and suicide amongst teenagers highlights the need for more preventative mental health and wellbeing measures to be in place from an earlier age. Government initiatives such as wellbeing programs and practices are being implemented into schools. There has been considerable variance in their effects, however, likely due to factors relating to implementation (Durlak, 2016).
The purpose of the proposed study is to explore how wellbeing programs are being carried out in primary schools. The aim is to highlight the opportunities and challenges that teachers have with school-based wellbeing programs and how their related practices are perceived by students. Therefore, the research questions include:
- What student/teacher/school-level factors are associated with the implementation of well-being programs in primary schools?
The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (Cane et al., 2012) will be used as the theoretical framework for the study. The framework consists of 14 domains (1) Knowledge; (2) Skills; (3) Social/Professional Role and Identity; (4) Beliefs and Capability; (5) Optimism; (6) Beliefs about Consequences; (7) Reinforcement; (8) Intentions; (9) Goals; (10) Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; (11) Environmental Context and Resources; (12) Social Influences; (13) Emotion; and (14) Behavioural Regulation. These domains will be used alongside implementation fidelity indicators (Dane & Schneider, 1998) to understand barriers and facilitators to wellbeing program implementation.
By utilising the TDF and implementation fidelity indicators to explore teachers' and students' perspectives of wellbeing programs that have been implemented in schools, we can begin to understand what conditions are needed to increase the uptake of effective wellbeing programs and practices and explain why variance in implementation and effectiveness of programs occurs (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). A recent systematic review that was conducted to identify articles that explored teachers’ views and experiences of implementing mental health and wellbeing programs found only seven studies (Goodwin et al., 2023), two of which were conducted in Australia. Evidently, there is a need to explore this area as programs are increasingly implemented into schools. Furthermore, although behavioural interventions are often guided by theory, in practice they are often not or are only minimally (Michie & Prestwich, 2010). Similarly, studies identified in Goodwin and colleagues (2023) review lack a theoretical framework when constructing questions for teachers and analysis is often undertaken through exploration of themes that were discussed (e.g., in interviews), without attributing these themes to any framework. The authors recommend future research to adopt more robust methodological approaches. Providing a theoretical framework such as this will help to develop a better foundation for exploring and analysing teachers’ and students’ perspectives of wellbeing programs/practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research aims or questions will be addressed using a qualitative two-phase case study research design that will include semi-structured interviews and focus groups.
Primary school teachers and their students in K-6 classes at government schools in NSW, Australia will be invited if they have recently or currently implemented (e.g., within one school year) a wellbeing program. These methodology and target populations are appropriate to answer the research questions because they will enable an in-depth exploration of how current wellbeing program/s are perceived by teachers and students in NSW primary schools.
Specifically, qualitative data will be collected from teachers through in-person interviews and preliminarily analysed (Phase 1) before collecting data from their students via focus groups (Phase 2). This qualitative design will allow for the exploration of a phenomenon (wellbeing program implementation) from a teachers’ perspective through interviews, before confirming questions for focus groups with students. The synthesis of data from the two phases of the study will be undertaken at the time of interpretation of the results (after Phase 2). This design is suggested to be particularly suitable for implementation research as it provides a practical way to understand multiple perspectives and multiple types of outcomes (Peters et al., 2013).
To analyse the data, teacher interview transcripts will be read and considered in relation to the domains from the TDF and then attributed to one or more of the domains. Then thematic analysis will be undertaken as an inductive approach for the remaining data. The data will then be coded into barriers and facilitators to implementation. These barriers and facilitators may then be discussed in relation to teachers’ capability, opportunity, and motivation to interpret meaning from the interviews (Hsiegh & Shannon, 2005).
This data will then be used to develop and conduct student focus groups in the second phase. A similar approach will be undertaken for the student data, consisting of transcribing the recording, attributing the data to one or more domains, and then conducting a thematic analysis. Finally, the data will be triangulated with the interview data by using the previous frameworks and themes. For instance, students’ attitudes towards the program may be compared across schools and then triangulated with the teacher interview data by examining questions such as those relating to teacher’s social and environmental influences (e.g., to explore whether teacher/school-related factors may be associated with students’ attitudes towards the program).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBy exploring teachers' and students' perspectives of wellbeing programs that have been implemented in schools, we can begin to understand what conditions are needed to increase the uptake of effective wellbeing programs and practices and explain why variance in implementation and effectiveness of programs occurs (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). The TDF can be used to highlight specific domains such as knowledge, skills, environmental context and resources, social influence etc. that may impact the effectiveness of wellbeing programs. We may find, for example, that teachers lack sufficient time and are provided with inadequate support from colleagues or administration such as their principal. Furthermore, students’ perspectives such as their attitudes towards the program may be influenced by various factors such as their teachers’ prior beliefs and capability, optimism, and behavioural regulation. Highlighting such barriers to implementation may support understanding of where/how to allocate further resources towards wellbeing programs to improve future implementation.
ReferencesCane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation science, 7, 1-17.
Dane, A.V.; Schneider, B.H. (1998). Program Integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45.
Durlak, J. A. (2016). Programme implementation in social and emotional learning: basic issues and research findings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 333-345.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350.
Goodwin, J., Behan, L., & O’Brien, N. (2023). Teachers’ views and experiences of student mental health and well-being programmes: A systematic review. Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 1-20.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Michie, S., & Prestwich, A. (2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology, 29(1), 1.
Peters, D. H., Adam, T., Alonge, O., Agyepong, I. A., & Tran, N. (2013). Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. Bmj, 347.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
How to Research Inclusion in Elementary School in Cooperation with Pupils: Reflections from a Research Project in Norway.
Fenna Verkerk, Theresa Ristad
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Presenting Author: Verkerk, Fenna;
Ristad, Theresa
The starting point of this study is the belief that pupils are valuable resources for research projects on inclusion in elementary schools. Thus, the objective of this research project is to let pupils` voices be heard from the beginning so that their voices will contribute to designing the research project`s focus areas. They are, after all, the experts on their own experiences and views (Alderson, 2008). This research project is about our experiences as researchers with co-creating a research project with pupils about inclusion. We want to find out with the pupils what matters to themselves when it comes to inclusion in their school life. What do they experience as inclusive or exclusive practices? What is it that really matters to them? And how can researchers co-operate with pupils to explore these questions?
A lot of research has been conducted on different aspects of inclusive education in the educational field as reflected in many different literature reviews (Nilholm, 2021). However, the research that has been conducted is mostly theoretical and does not focus on the realization of inclusive education in different settings in practice (Göransson & Nilholm 2014). What is missing is the perception of children on defining inclusion in education (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018), and even more importantly how children experience inclusion in their daily lives (Mittler, 2000). As Mittler (2000) states “it is the day-to-day experiences of children in classrooms that define the quality of their participation” (p. 95). This highlights the need for a new research entry in the field of education on inclusion that is based on practical experiences, from pupil`s voices.
This is one of the reasons why some researchers have taken the step “inside” the school to investigate the concept of inclusion from the perspective of pupils. Adderley et al. (2015) highlight the importance of the pupils' perspective and that they can provide valuable insight into how teachers' practices can promote or hinder their experience of inclusion in the classroom. Messiou (2019) argues that pupils can become resources for change and the development of inclusive practices provided that they are listened to. Kleeberg-Niepage et al. (2022) describe in their study that pupils can provide important insight into success factors for inclusive practices at secondary school. In pupil-based investigations into how pupils themselves experience school, Arnesen (2020) found various examples of processes that pupils experience as including or excluding. Arnesen (2020) gained an insight into pupils' experiences both in terms of pupil-pupil relationships and teacher-pupil relationships, as well as how positive and negative cycles can be created in the social interaction at school (Arnesen, 2020). Tangen (2022) emphasizes that children are important voices in research and argues that listening to pupils' voices promotes inclusion. She suggests that a good school life can only be developed by seeing it from the pupils' own perspective (Tangen 2022). Uthus and Sivertsen (2023) have also found, through their studies in the field of practice, that teachers themselves demand a pupil-oriented perspective on inclusion.
These previously done research projects emphasize the importance of pupils' voices in research on inclusion in their school life. This project is about our experiences as researchers with using co-creating processes in the research field of inclusion and not about the empirical data that we collected. We want to focus on the co-creating process together with the pupils regarding inclusion while focusing on the following research questions:
Research questions:
-
How can researchers let pupils’ voices be heard regarding their experiences with inclusion at school?
-
How can pupils’ voices contribute to the design of a research project about inclusion in primary school?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research project is a “participatory research” project (Macaulay et al., 2011; Salsberg et al., 2015 in Askheim et al. 2019, p.15) where pupils are contributing actors. That means that our research is based on co-operation with pupils during the entire project. The researchers used two different methods to listen to pupils’ voices – a participatory workshop and photovoice.
Participatory workshop is a method used to generate knowledge on inclusion together with the pupils (Veale, 2005). The participatory workshop was designed to give the pupils an opportunity to take a role in the decision process. They could determine which topics they wanted the researcher to focus on regarding inclusion in school life. Additionally, they could express some thoughts on how they wanted the research to be conducted (Mason & Danby, 2011). Three groups of pupils and their teachers from three different primary school classes were included. The workshop took place during a school day. In total did 13 pupils participated, age range 6-11 years old. The workshop was not part of data collection. It was meant to be a collaborative brainstorming together with the pupils, to give the researcher a starting point for focus areas and research design in further research. The research settings differed for each workshop session. One session took place while the children were on a trip, one during lunch and one in the classroom. The workshop's experience formed the interview questions which will be asked in the follow-up interviews. This way, the pupils have contributed to research design and relevant interview questions about what is important to them from the start.
The method used to follow-up the participatory workshop was photovoice.
Photovoice is used as a method in this project, for engaging children in research by letting them take pictures of phenomena (Abma, Breed, Lips, Schrijver, 2022). This research method can be useful for documenting the meaning of inclusion and a sense of belonging for children from diverse backgrounds and for documenting everyday school life experiences since these can be difficult to explain verbally. The photovoice is followed up by interviews with the children who have taken the pictures. In this project, the pupils got the task to take pictures of places, objects, and persons (unrecognizable) that are important to them at school. This gave them the opportunity to express their views on what they think the research about inclusion should focus on.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn the participatory workshop, the pupils expressed that they wanted researchers to talk to them and ask them questions. The pupils also wanted the researchers to observe both pupils and teachers and how they interact. Our preliminary impression from the workshop is that this way of involving pupils from the start is very valuable. The things the pupils said during the workshop gave the teacher who was present information they did not have before. That, in turn, led to more conversations between teacher and pupils after the researcher had left. During those conversations the teacher uncovered forms of exclusion that they had not been aware of, and they started taking measures to improve the current situation for the pupils affected. In that way the workshop had an impact and led to development, even though no research data had been collected yet. From the coming research it is to be expected that we might uncover inclusive and exclusive practices that play a big role in the pupil's school life. We also assume that the pupils themselves will play a central role in finding potential solutions to challenges regarding exclusive practices.
Our preliminary impression from using photovoice is that the children feel heard by using this method. They are eager to tell the researchers about the pictures they have taken and have ownership to the pictures they took. This leads to fruitful interviews about different aspects of inclusion and exclusion in their daily school lives. These results are considered as very important for both the school setting but also for the different general defining process of inclusion seen by the pupils´ their viewpoints. This perspective from the children would not have been available to us if we had not asked the pupils what they think researchers should do at their school.
ReferencesAbma, T., Breed, M., Lips, S., & Schrijver, J. (2022). Whose Voice is It Really? Ethics of Photovoice With Children in Health Promotion. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211072419
Adderley, R.J., Hope, M.A., Hughes, G.C., Jones, L., Messiou, K. & Shaw, P.A. (2015). Exploring inclusive practices in primary schools: focusing on children’s voices. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(1), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.964580.
Alderson, P. (2008). Children as Researchers: Participation Rights and Research Methods. In P. J. Christensen, Allison (Ed.), Research With Children (pp. 292-306). United Kingdom: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964576-21
Arnesen, A.L. (2020). Pedagogisk nærvær – Skolen som inkluderingsarena og risikosone. Universitetsforlaget.
Askheim, O.P., Lid, I.M., Østensjø, S. (Eds) (2019). Samproduksjon i forskning – Forskning med nye aktører. Universitetsforlaget.
Göransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical shortcomings – a critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933545
Kleeberg-Niepage, A., Brehme, D., Bendfeldt, L.M. &
Jansen, K. (2022). What makes a good school? Perspectives of students at inclusive secondary schools in Germany. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2136772
Mason, J., & Danby, S. (2011). Children as Experts in Their Lives: Child Inclusive Research. Child Indicators Research, 4(2), 185-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9108-4
Messiou, K. (2019). The missing voices: students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8), 768-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1623326
Mittler, P. (2000). Working Towards Inclusive Education Social Contexts. David Fulton Publishers.mi
Nilholm, C. (2021). Research about inclusive education in 2020 – How can we improve our theories in order to change practice? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(3), 358-370.
Qvortrup, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International journal of inclusive education, 22(7), 803-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412506
Tangen, R. (2022). Elevenes stemmer i skolen – Elevkunnskap og skolelivskvalitet. (1.utg., 1.oppl.). Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Uthus, M., & Sivertsen, K. I. H. (2023). Samskapt kunnskapsutvikling om inkludering i en mangfoldig skole - med eleven i sentrum. I A. B. Emstad (Red.), Samskapt kunnskap i skole og lærerutdanning. Der praksis og forskning møtes (s. 180-199). Cappelen Damm Akademisk
Veale, A. (2005). Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods, 253-272.
|
