| Session | ||
04 SES 03 B: Resilience in Inclusive Education: Communication, Social Capital, and Instruction
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Establishing a Culture of Effective Communication in Education: Building Resilience and Fostering Well-Being in Times of Uncertainty EASNIE Presenting Author:The paper at hand is the second submission for the ECER in the context of the Learning from the Covid-19 Pandemic - Building Resilience through Inclusive Education Systems (BRIES) project of the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). This paper contains the final results of the project. Last year, in Glasgow, pre-liminary results have been presented. The guiding question was 'How can different stakeholders’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic be turned into an opportunity to build resilience and well-being in inclusive education systems?' Using a grounded approach (Charmaz 2014), effective communication in education emerged as one fundamental element to be addressed by decision‑makers to build resilience of all learners and ensure their well‑being in times of crisis (European Agency 2023). During the COVID‑19 pandemic, several countries published communication guidelines for different levels of stakeholders (European Agency 2022b). However, in the BRIES project, stakeholders still identified a lack of effective communication in education (European Agency 2023). This had a negative impact on the well‑being and resilience of stakeholders involved in the teaching‑learning process and on adequately addressing the needs of all learners. Consequently, the project focused on developing a guidance for establishing a culture of effective communication in education. This guidance was developed to encourage decision‑makers (school leaders, policy‑makers and public education authorities at all levels of governance, depending on specific national contexts) to reflect on communication structures and processes which were in place in their education systems during the pandemic. In particular, they are asked to determine how those processes could be improved. A well-established culture of effective communication supports an education system in regular times. In times of crisis, a well‑established culture of effective communication provides an essential basis for mitigating the impact of significant risk factors for learners including the impact of the crisis on their socio‑emotional well‑being and resilience. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used For data analysis, we used a grounded theory approach in the style of Kathy Charmaz (2014) and applied various methods of qualitative inquiry in three different phases of field research. Focus group discussions were used to start in the first phase of data collection. The emphasis was put on participants' experiences during the pandemic and priority areas they identified in relation to their needs in the context of education. In a second phase, following the theoretical sampling method (Corbin & Strauss 2015) we used a dialogic structure (Alozie & Mitchell 2014) to especially empower learners' and parents' voices (but also teachers' voices) while discussing with policy-makers (European Agency 2022a, Mangiaracina et al. 2021, Robinson & Taylor 2013, Siry 2020). In the third phase, participants exchanged in different stakeholder-levels and across different countries. For this purpose, groups were split up to maintain a reasonable size. In these mixed groups stakeholders discussed concepts that emerged from the previous discussions. They were given the opportunity to rank potential priority areas, exclude or add new ideas and discuss content, aims etc. in different small groups. The concept of constant comparison (Charmaz 2014, Clark 2005) guided us through the different steps of data collection and analysis. Emerging concepts and categories were analysed and discussed further, in case saturation was not reached. In the final step of data collection, different workshop tools allowing smaller group exchanges were used in face-to-face meetings (poster walks, world café approach etc.). Data collection focused on notes and outputs of the group exchanges (e.g. posters). The methods used led to a higher level and depth of exchange between all stakeholders. One hypothesis is that the small group discussions supported participants in reaching a consensus about a potential tool in the end. Based on the outcomes, the research team developed a guidance for effective communication in education. This guidance was based on a model for effective communication in education and the capability approach (Sen 2009). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings A well-established culture of effective communication in education supports the resilience and well-being of learners, teachers, and families. In times of crisis, this provides an essential basis for mitigating the impact of significant risk factors for all. The developed guidance can be used when a country/municipality/region/school aims to work on communication structures and processes to support the well-being and resilience of all learners, with the intention to create a culture of effective communication in place in regular times to be prepared for times of crisis. To be able to do so, decision makers (policy makers, school leaders or local authorities) should aim to: • identify gaps and challenges in existing communication structures and processes; • be able to address needs of all learners; • increase the well being and resilience of all learners. A culture of effective communication can only be a meaningful resource in education if all involved in the teaching-learning process are considered and participate. Decision‑makers therefore need to be able to identify communication processes that need improvement. The developed guidance provides the basis for initiating the search for communication structures and processes that require improvement. Having learnt from the pandemic, investing in effective communication in education contributes to the resilience and well-being of all learners. In a next step, the guidance is implemented in the different countries together with schools, regions and municipalities. A discussion on the experiences from the implementation will take in May 2024. The results of this discussions will be included in the presentation at the ECER. References Alozie, N. & Mitchell, C., 2014. Getting Students Talking: Supporting Classroom Discussion Practices in Inquiry-Based Science in Real-Time Teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 76(8), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.8.3 Bhan, S. & Julka, A., 2021. Disability Inclusive COVID-19 Response. Best Practices. unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378354 (Last accessed December 2022) Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). Sage Clark, A. E., 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks et al., Sage Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. L., 2015. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Fourth edition). Sage Couper-Kenney, F. & Riddell, S., 2021. ‘The impact of COVID-19 on children with additional support needs and disabilities in Scotland’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (1), 20–34 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2023. Building Resilience through Inclusive Education Systems: Mid-Term Report. Peer-learning activities to develop a tool to support educational resilience. (M. Bilgeri and M. Presmanes Andrés, eds.). Odense, Denmark European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022a. Voices into Action: Promoting learner and family participation in educational decision-making. (A. Kefallinou, D.C. Murdoch, A. Mangiaracina and S. Symeonidou, eds.). Odense, Denmark European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2022b. Inclusive Education and the Pandemic – Aiming for Resilience: Key European measures and practices in 2021 publications. (L. Muik, M. Presmanes Andrés and M. Bilgeri, eds.). Odense, Denmark European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2021. Key Principles – Supporting policy development and implementation for inclusive education. (V. J. Donnelly and A. Watkins, eds.). Odense, Denmark Mangiaracina, A., Kefallinou, A., Kyriazopoulou, M., & Watkins, A., 2021. Learners’ voices in inclusive education policy debates. Education Sciences, 11(10), 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100599 Messiou, K. & Hope, A. M., 2015. The danger of subverting students’ views in schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19:10, 1009-1021, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1024763 Silverman, D., 2016. Qualitative research (5th edition.). Sage Robinson, C., & Taylor, C., 2013. Student voice as a contested practice: Power and participation in two student voice projects. Improving Schools, 16(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480212469713 Siry, C., 2020. Dialogic Pedagogies and Multimodal Methodologies: Working Towards Inclusive Science Education and Research. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-BJA10017 Sen, A. 2009. The idea of justice. Harvard University Press. Soriano, V. 2016. ‘Young voices on inclusive education’, in A. Watkins and C. Meijer (eds.), Implementing Inclusive Education: Issues in Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education Volume 8. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Can a Student with Special Equational Needs Be Successful? Social Capital as a Source of Resilience 1MTA-DE-Parent-Teacher Cooperation Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; 2University of Debrecen, Faculty of Humanities Presenting Author:Students with special educational needs are a diverse group. Promoting their learning success is particularly challenging, even in practice for inclusive schools. At the same time, parents are often left alone with diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the focus of our paper is on the families of successful students with special educational needs and the networks around their families. Taking a positive approach, our paper did not seek to identify difficulties and barriers but to examine the resources that support learners with special educational needs who succeed (Honkasilta et al., 2019; Muir & Strnadová, 2014; OECD, 2011, 2021; Schuelka & Carrington, 2021). The theoretical basis of the paper is the theory of social capital and the sociological interpretation of resilience (Allan et al., 2009; Coleman, 1988; Muir & Strnadová, 2014; Pham, 2013; Vehmas, 2010). Our research question is: What are the differences in social capital between parents of successful students with and without learning, behavioural and emotional disorders, and difficulties (SEN B)? H1: Family social background helps both groups to become successful to the same extent (Haber et al., 2016; Kocaj et al., 2018). H2: School professionals help both groups to be successful to the same extent. Support: School professionals also play a role in the success of children with integrated learning problems in inclusive education (Honkasilta et al., 2019; Hornby & Kauffman, 2021; Pham, 2013). H3: Relationship networks within and outside the family help both groups to become successful to the same extent (Coleman, 1988; Epstein, 2018). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The sample included 1041 parents of 10-year-old children from 72 Hungarian inclusive schools, aged between 27 and 68 years. In total, 86% of the participants were women. The survey was conducted in January 2020, right before the pandemic. The sample was geographically (settlement type and region) and by school social composition representative of Hungary. The sample design used was stratified multistage sampling. In our analysis, we first conducted a factor analysis and attempted to isolate the dimensions along which family support is formed. The items we included in the factor analysis were based on Coleman’s social capital theory. As a second step, to explore the predictors of academic success, we had chosen the ordinal regression method, because our dependent variable has three values (0-1-2 achievements). We used separate ordinal regression models to examine predictors of academic success in the two subsamples of parents of students with and without SEN B. Independent variables were the following: parent-child multiple social capital index (which included the amount of quality time spent together, openness to school, and openness to a wider social network on the parental side), three family support factors (consultant child-raising network, emergency parental network, weekend child-raising network), social background index (which included educational level and labour market activity of parents, place of residence, and subjective financial situation). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our results show that students with SEN B come from families with lower socio-cultural backgrounds, while their multiplex social capital within the family is the same as that of their peers without SEN B. Previous research has made it clear that socio-cultural background has a strong influence on academic success. Our research findings show that, although this relationship holds for the group of children without SEN B, for those who do have SEN B, this effect is cancelled out, i.e., a favourable background does not provide an advantage, but high multiplex family capital does. Looking at the families’ child-raising networks, we find that there is no distinct separation between intra- and extra-familial networks and for both study groups, we see that the parents of more successful students can rely on larger family networks. However, the involvement of professional school helpers (teachers, psychologists, special educators) in child-raising does not reflect positively on academic success for students with and without SEN B. The main message of this paper is that we can confirm the view held by the literature, namely that responsibility cannot be placed on the family alone. Without a supportive network around the family, student achievement will decline. The problem cannot be reduced to a school-based issue. A school environment can be regarded as inclusive if it involves, and collaborates with, families, and helps parents support their children in the out-of-school environment to achieve common goals with the school (Brussino, 2020; Honkasilta et al., 2019; Koutsoklenis & Papadimitriou, 2021; Schuelka & Carrington, 2021). References Allan, J., Smyth, G., I’Anson, J., & Mott, J. (2009). Understanding disability with children’s social capital. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01124.x Brussino, O. (2020). Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), Article 1. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 397–406. Haber, M. G., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Rowe, D. A., Bartholomew, A. L., Test, D. W., & Fowler, C. H. (2016). What Works, When, for Whom, and With Whom: A Meta-Analytic Review of Predictors of Postsecondary Success for Students With Disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315583135 Honkasilta, J., Ahtiainen, R., Hienonen, N., & Jahnukainen, M. (2019). Inclusive and Special Education and the Question of Equity in Education: The Case of Finland. In M. Schuelka, C. Johnstone, G. Thomas, & A. Artiles, The Sage Handbook of Inclusion and Diversity in Education (pp. 481–495). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526470430.n39 Hornby, G., & Kauffman, J. M. (2021). Special and Inclusive Education: Perspectives, Challenges and Prospects. Education Sciences, 11(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070362 Kocaj, A., Kuhl, P., Jansen, M., Pant, H. A., & Stanat, P. (2018). Educational placement and achievement motivation of students with special educational needs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.004 Koutsoklenis, A., & Papadimitriou, V. (2021). Special education provision in Greek mainstream classrooms: Teachers’ characteristics and recruitment procedures in parallel support. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1942565 Muir, K., & Strnadová, I. (2014). Whose responsibility? Resilience in families of children with developmental disabilities. Disability & Society, 29(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.886555 OECD. (2011). Against the Odds: Disadvantaged Students Who Succeed in School. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/against-the-odds_9789264090873-en OECD. (2021). Supporting students with special needs: A policy priority for primary education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/d47e0a65-en Pham, Y. K. (2013). The relationship between social capital and school-related outcomes for youth with disabilities [PhD Thesis]. University of Oregon. Schuelka, M. J., & Carrington, S. (2021). Global Directions in Inclusive Education: Conceptualizations, Practices, and Methodologies for the 21st Century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091950 Vehmas, S. (2010). Special needs: A philosophical analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504143 04. Inclusive Education
Paper The Role of Instructional Quality and Language Distance on Immigrant Students’ Academic Resilience: Insights from PISA 2018 30 European Countries 1Centre for Educational Measurement, Faculty of Educational Science, University of Oslo; 2Department of Teacher Education and School Research, Faculty of Educational Science, University of Oslo; 3Centre for Research on Equality in Education, Faculty of Educational Science, University of Oslo Presenting Author:Introduction Academic resilience is typically defined as the ability of students from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve high academic performance (Rudd et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021). In resilient research, immigrant students, frequently from families with lower socio-economic status (SES) and struggling with cultural and language barriers in unfamiliar environments, are commonly identified as disadvantaged (Anagnostaki et al., 2016). Enhancing the academic resilience of immigrant students is crucial not just for their individual growth but also for the socio-economic and cultural dynamism of the countries they reside in. The growing population of immigrant students, particularly in European countries, has spurred heightened interest in identifying protective factors that foster academic resilience (Gabrielli et al., 2022; Özdemir & Özdemir, 2020). Recent focus has been on those factors that are malleable and related to the educational environment, including schools and teachers. While some studies have considered individual characteristics like language attitude and immigrant generation (e.g., Martin et al., 2022), there is a notable gap in understanding how the diversity in language and cultural backgrounds among immigrant students affects their academic resilience. To address this research gap, this present study investigates the influence of instructional quality on immigrant students’ academic resilience, while considering their intercultural communication competence and language distance between their native and host country languages. By doing so, it seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of how educational practices can be tailored to support the unique needs of immigrant students. This research is not only timely but also essential for informing educational policies and practices in increasingly multicultural European societies. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Methods To address the unique challenges faced by immigrant students, such as language barriers and the necessity to learn other subjects in a non-native language, this study employs data from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The 2018 cycle, with its primary focus on reading, provides a pertinent dataset for this investigation. The sample comprises 10,885 low-SES immigrant students, with an average age of 15.79 and 50.37% being female. These students were distributed across 1,778 schools in 26 member countries of the European Union (excluding Cyprus), in addition to three European Economic Area countries and the United Kingdom. This study adopted the conceptualization of academic resilience from Martin et al. (2022). It defines high achievers as students ranking in the top 25% in national reading performance and low SES backgrounds as those in the bottom 25% of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) within their respective country. Instructional quality is derived from student questionnaire, including questions about classroom management, supportive classroom environment, and cognitive activation. Intercultural communication competence is assessed through students’ ratings of seven statements related to cross-cultural conversation. Additionally, the linguistic distance between the language spoken at home and the PISA assessment language is calculated using a lexical-phonological measure of linguistic proximity developed in the context of the Automated Similarity Judgment Program (ASJP; Wichmann et al., 2022). For the analyses, multilevel probit regression was employed to investigate the effect of instructional quality, intercultural communication competence, and language distance on academic resilience at both student and school levels. The analyses were conducted using Mplus version 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) by employing the weighted least square mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimators. However, it is important to note that WLSMV does not support country-level clustering (e.g., “ Type = Twolevel complex ” command in Mplus) or multilevel multigroup models in Mplus. To address this limitation and explore variations across countries, we conducted a series of models where the country is treated as a covariate at the individual level. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary Results and Discussion The preliminary results show that all three aspects of instructional quality significantly predict academic resilience at the student level, but not at the school level. A similar trend is observed for student’s intercultural communication competence. In contrast, the impact of language distance on academic resilience is evident only at the school level. These findings imply that enhancing the instructional quality and intercultural communication competence at the individual level may be important for improving academic resilience, while addressing language distance may likely require broader interventions at the school level. Comparisons across countries reveal that Slovenia, Portugal, and Romania have the highest percentages of resilient immigrant students with 28.79%, 23.82%, and 18.52%, respectively. The influence of instructional quality and intercultural communication is relatively consistent across countries. However, the influence of language distance varies significantly at the school level. Luxembourg shows the strongest association (β = -.187, p = .000), while Spain demonstrates the weakest (β = -.103, p = .035). These findings underscore the importance of considering both individual and school-level factors in fostering academic resilience among immigrant students. References References Anagnostaki, L., Pavlopoulos, V., Obradović, J., Masten, A., & Motti-Stefanidi, F. (2016). Academic resilience of immigrant youth in Greek schools: Personal and family resources. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 377-393. Gabrielli, G., Longobardi, S., & Strozza, S. (2022). The academic resilience of native and immigrant-origin students in selected European countries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(10), 2347-2368. Martin, A. J., Burns, E. C., Collie, R. J., Cutmore, M., MacLeod, S., & Donlevy, V. (2022). The role of engagement in immigrant students’ academic resilience. Learning and Instruction, 82, 101650. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Rudd, G., Meissel, K., & Meyer, F. (2021). Measuring academic resilience in quantitative research: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 100402. Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W., & Brown, C. H. (2022). The ASJP Database (version 20). Ye, W., Strietholt, R., & Blömeke, S. (2021). Academic resilience: Underlying norms and validity of definitions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(1), 169-202. Özdemir, M., Bayram Özdemir, S. (2020). Why Do Some Immigrant Children and Youth Do Well in School Whereas Others Fail? Current State of Knowledge and Directions for Future Research. In: Güngör, D., Strohmeier, D. (eds) Contextualizing Immigrant and Refugee Resilience. Advances in Immigrant Family Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi-org /10.1007/978-3-030-42303-2_4 | ||