04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Freedom of Choice of Students with Special Educational Needs: Utopia, Hope, or Something that Should be Granted? Research-based Perspective
Magda Zelazowska-Sobczyk1,2, Agnieszka Andrychowicz-Trojanowska1, Urszula Markowska-Manista3
1Faculty of Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw, Poland; 2Institute of Sensory Organs, Kajetany; 3Faculty of Education, University of Warsaw, Poland
Presenting Author: Zelazowska-Sobczyk, Magda;
Andrychowicz-Trojanowska, Agnieszka
Every year in Poland more and more school students are being diagnosed with disabilities, e.g. dyslexia, autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, etc. which results in the growing need to meet their diverse special educational needs (SEN). The changes in the situation of Polish SEN school students started in the late 1970s. Since then the public awareness of SEN students has been slowly growing and they have been granted support at school and in specialised centers. Unfortunately, the support granted by the law is not enough: at schools and universities, SEN students have no freedom of choice of the educational materials (i.e. textbooks/coursebooks) or teaching methods that would be the most suitable for them. The real change in the situation of SEN school students in Poland dates back to 2009 and the introduction of the new core curriculum (Regulation of the Ministry of National Education 2008). Since 2017, in theory, all school students have to be diagnosed in their first years at school so as to be given a chance of early professional support if needed (Pawlak-Kindler 2016).
SEN school students group is not homogeneous and consists of, i.e., mentally disabled, physically disabled ones, those with IQ lower than average, those with disabilities related to senses (sight, hearing, etc.), with speech problems, those different because of their language, increasing numbers of children with experience of exile and migration (Górak-Sosnowska, Markowska-Manista 2023), as well as gifted and talented ones (Zawadzka-Bartnik 2010, Bogdanowicz & Adryjanek 2005, Lewis & Doorlag 1987, Selikowitz 2012, Brzezińska 2014). In our research, we concentrate on two groups: children with a certificate of SEN on the example of dyslexics and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ones and students without a certificate of SEN on the example of central auditory processing disorders (CAPD). Children from the certificate of SEN group are diagnosed and then given some institutional help, whereas the CAPD is not diagnosed and not given any support in Poland.
In our presentation, we will concentrate on our (scientific) protest (manifesto) against the indirect unequal treatment of some school students of different ages in the present Polish school system. Our research interest is related to research-based solidarity with and the fight for children human rights to sustainable and equal access to proper educational conditions (especially didactic materials and teaching methods and strategies) of school students with SEN who attend public schools in Poland. However, the problem is that the Polish educational system is based on the theory of integration, not inclusion, despite the fact that the issue of inclusive education is one of the priorities of contemporary educational policy. Integration can easily be done and manifested but inclusion is something those in need have to fight for (Zawadzka-Bartnik 2010). Usually, the fight is based only on passive resistance but with the help of our research findings, it can be materialise in the form of recommendations and implementation of inclusive approaches..
Our research questions were as follows:
- how big and diverse is the group of SEN school students who attend public schools in Poland?
- what kind of challenges are addressed by the representatives of SEN students and researchers dealing with this issue?
- what strategies and actions can be implemented to support them in looking for solutions of their problems?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research methods qualitative and quantitative (i.e. eye tracking; questionnaires, interviews).
The literature review gave us an overview of the problem in Poland. The total number of children with disabilities receiving special education in primary school was about 165,000 (5.3% of the total number of children in primary schools; in 2021 – 4.8%, in 2020 – 4.6%; Statistics Poland 2021, 2022, 2023), but it seems still to be not enough. In the study by Szumski and Firkowska-Mankiewicz (2010) no significant differences in academic achievements were observed between children in special, integrated, and regular schools “whereas in the West it is usually superior”. However, the pupils from special classes achieved slightly higher results than those from integrated and regular schools.
The first group (children with certificates of SEN) was represented by 120 school students (including 60 neurotypical ones). Our eye-tracking results show that in the case of dyslexic and ASD school students, the graphic layout of the didactic materials is of huge significance. A proper choice of colors, fonts (both types and sizes), spaces used, number, type, and location of pictures, etc. were identified in our research and it was proved that it can stimulate and influence the results achieved by the students. Their scan paths also show different ways of completing reading comprehension tasks and the consequences of it (Andrychowicz-Trojanowska 2018).
The second group, i.e. children without a certificate of SEN, was represented by CAPD students. It should be emphasised that according to ICD-10 that is still used in Poland, it is not possible to diagnose CAPD as a separate disorder, as it is in the case of dyslexia. Many authors underline the importance of supporting CAPD students (Czajka et al. 2021) in the learning process. In our speech, basing on a questionnaire study, we will briefly present the learning difficulties for school-aged students with CAPD and parental suspicion of these difficulties, as well as some important teaching and learning recommendations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll the above findings need to be popularised among school and academic teachers (especially teacher-activists), parents, and all those who are related to school systems and are involved with SEN children, teenagers, and adults. The reason to popularise them is the number of scientifically based findings that support the need to fight for equal chances for different SEN students and show easy and cheap solutions to support inclusion. Our findings promote inclusive education, solidarity, rights of SEN students and their active participation in the educational system, equality, and freedom of choice related to the way SEN school students are taught and help raising awareness of serious problems of SEN.
References•Andrychowicz-Trojanowska, A. (2018), Podręczniki glottodydaktyczne. Struktura – funkcja – potencjał w świetle badań okulograficznych [Glottodidactic textbooks. Structure – function – potential in the eye tracking research]. Warszawa.
•Bogdanowicz, M., Adryjanek, A. (2005), Uczeń z dysleksją w szkole – poradnik nie tylko dla polonistów [Dyslexic student at school – guidebook not only for teachers of Polish]. Gdynia.
•Brzezińska, A.I., Jabłoński, S., Ziółkowska, B. (2014), Specyficzne i specjalne potrzeby edukacyjne [Special and specific educational needs], (in:) “Edukacja” 2(127): 37–52.
•Czajka, N., Skarżyński, P.H., Skarżyński, H. (2021), Trudności dotyczące ośrodkowych zaburzeń przetwarzania słuchowego z perspektywy lekarzy, instytucji orzekających i pacjentów [Difficulties with central auditory processing disorders from the perspective of physicians, certification institutions, and patients], (in:) “Nowa Audiofonologia” 10(1): 53–57.
•Górak-Sosnowska, K., & Markowska-Manista, U. (Eds.). (2022). Non-inclusive education in Central and Eastern Europe: comparative studies of teaching ethnicity, religion and gender. Bloomsbury Publishing.
•Lewis, R.B., Doorlag, D.H. (1987), Teaching special students in the mainstream. Columbus.
•Selikowitz, M. (2012), Dyslexia and other learning difficulties. Oxford.
•Pawlak-Kindler, A. (2016), Wybrane narzędzia diagnostyczne u progu edukacji szkolnej [Chosen diagnostic tools at the beginning of school education], (in:) B. Niemierko, M.K. Szmigel (eds.), Diagnozowanie twórczości uczniów i nauczycieli. Kraków, 271–279.
•Regulation of the Ministry of National Education of 23 December 2008 on the core curriculum for pre-school education and general education in particular types of schools Accessed January 30, 2024. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20090040017/O/D20090017.pdf (in Polish).
•Statistics Poland. 2021. Disabled people in 2020. Accessed December 22, 2023. https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/living-conditions/social-assistance/disabled-people-in-2020,7,2.html.
•Statistics Poland. 2022. Disabled persons in 2021. Accessed December 22, 2023. https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/living-conditions/social-assistance/disabled-people-in-2021,7,3.html.
•Statistics Poland. 2023. Disabled persons in 2022. Accessed December 22, 2023. https://stat.gov.pl/en/topics/living-conditions/social-assistance/disabled-people-in-2022,7,4.html.
•Szumski, G., Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2010). Is Polish Special Education Effective? Academic and Socio-emotional Effects of Schooling in Special Integrated and Regular Schools, (in:) “The New Educational Review” 20(1): 248–260.
•Zawadzka-Bartnik, E. (2010), Nauczyciel języków obcych i jego niepełnosprawni uczniowie (z zaburzeniami i dysfunkcjami) [Teacher of foreign language and their students with disabilities (and dysfunctions)]. Kraków.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Students’ Perspectives on Inclusive Education Culture and Support at School
Lina Milteniene, Stefanija Alisauskiene
Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania
Presenting Author: Alisauskiene, Stefanija
Equity and inclusion have emerged as central pillars of the 2030 Agenda, highlighting the persistent unequal distribution of resources and opportunities (UNESCO, 2020). In response, many European governments are actively working to enhance the capacity of their education systems, striving to reach every learner and guarantee their full and effective participation, accessibility, attendance, and academic achievement. However, schools and education systems across Europe grapple with the formidable challenge of fostering an inclusive culture, establishing inclusive structures, and implementing inclusive practices (Booth & Ainscow, 2016). Notably, significant variations exist among European countries concerning the extent and quality of inclusion efforts.
Most often, the discussion around inclusion has centred on how teachers can promote inclusion of students with disabilities <…>. However, little is known about how students in inclusive classes perceive acceleration, despite the critical role that students play in the social inclusion of exceptional peers (Dare & Nowicki, 2018, p. 243).
In this presentation, we aim to share our research findings concerning the perspectives of students in Lithuanian comprehensive schools on the culture of inclusive education and the existing support systems. This presentation is part of a larger national research project (www.nsa.smm.lt/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PPP_modelio_ekspertinis_vertinimas_2021m..pdf).
Although many Eastern European countries, including Lithuania, have made progress in shifting their focus from a disability perspective to a needs-based education approach for students with diverse educational needs (Law on Education, 2011, article 2/2415), it remains apparent that inclusive education demands an even more adaptable and responsive system to cater to the diverse and often complex needs of individual learners (Booth, Ainscow, 2016; European Agency, 2011; Alisauskiene & Harju-Luukainen, 2021).Formos viršus To enhance the processes of inclusion in school development, extensive research is underway across various countries. Research advocate for actively listening to the voices of students, asserting that incorporating their perspectives not only leads to more insightful educational research and practice but also fosters richer and more authentic results, ultimately boosting student engagement (Mansfield, Welton, Halx, 2012; Spörer et al, 2020). A crucial aspect of fostering inclusive schools involves establishing a secure, accepting, collaborative, and stimulating community. Inclusive education involves establishing learning environments that prioritize equitable treatment for all students, ensuring they feel valued and supported across diverse learning situations. According to Booth and Ainscow (2016), it is imperative that all students in the school have the opportunity to contribute to identifying barriers and resources. Students themselves should have a central role in informing thinking, policies and practices in education. While aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the views of students are often notably absent from crucial discussions that directly impact them (Messiou, 2019). Hence, our aim was to reveal the perspectives of Lithuanian students concerning inclusive education and the corresponding support systems.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research presented employs a quantitative methodology, utilizing a survey questionnaire to collect data. The questionnaire is structured into three main parts:
- Demographic variables encompassing gender, school grade, information about learning achievements, and special educational needs;
- Scales featuring items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree);
- Open-ended questions.
It's worth noting that this presentation is a part of a broader national research project that employed a questionnaire with 10 scales. In this specific presentation, we focus on the analysis and presentation of data derived from one open-ended question ("What should be done at school so that every student feels good and gets support?") and four subscales, including:
- Supportive culture and well-being (6 items);
- Bullying and discrimination (4 items);
- Positive student relationships and support (4 items);
- Efficiency of support (9 items).
The quantitative data were processed using the SPSS 23.0 program. Data analysis encompassed both descriptive and multivariate statistical methods. To unveil the underlying structure of the research subject, factor analysis was employed. To identify statistically significant differences among respondents' answers, considering socio-demographic characteristics or other relevant indicators, independent samples Student's t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied. Additionally, Mann-Whitney or Kruskall-Wallis tests were utilized where applicable.
The information obtained from the open-ended question underwent processing through a content analysis approach. The questionnaire data were transcribed into text and meticulously reviewed by researchers. Subcategories and categories were formulated, and the most precise textual elements that illustrated and characterized these categories were selected.
For the study, a random sample was employed, and schools were selected through a random process. Electronic questionnaires were distributed to all students in grades 4-12 from the chosen schools (N=180). The research sample comprised 1291 students (N=1291).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe research findings reveal that a substantial majority of students appreciate the school culture. Primary school students particularly emphasize a supportive culture for well-being, while students in gymnasium (grades 9-12) perceive it as challenging. Students with special educational needs and high-achieving students tend to rate the culture of support and well-being more positively than their peers.
The overwhelming majority expressed having a few close friends at school, experiencing respectful communication from teachers, and being encouraged to assist one another. Concurrently, students underscored challenges in peer relationships at school, primarily associated with issues such as bullying, discrimination, and rejection. High school students (grades 9-12) and those with lower educational outcomes encounter bullying and discrimination at school more frequently than their counterparts. Nevertheless, students acknowledged receiving support from adults when facing difficulties at school. Additionally, students value the school's recognition and acceptance of each child and their family, along with an environment that is oriented towards meeting student needs. However, primary school students place a higher value on this aspect compared to older students in progymnasium and gymnasium.
Overall, students perceive the effectiveness of the support provided at school as satisfactory, with the most positive ratings given for information about support providers and whom to approach in case of emergencies. However, students rarely seek support from the school psychologist, social pedagogue, special pedagogue, and speech and language therapist. Primary school boys, especially those already receiving additional educational support, more frequently seek teacher support. On the other hand, girls and students with higher academic achievements tend to seek peer support.
In summary, the research provided students with a platform to articulate their perspectives and contribute in identifying both obstacles and resources, akin to Booth and Ainscow (2016). Furthermore, it served as a valuable resource for broader communities seeking evidence to enhance school culture.
ReferencesAlišauskienė, S.,Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Changes towards inclusion in the Lithuanian education system // Dialogues between Northern and Eastern Europe on the development of inclusion / edited by N. B. Hanssen, S.-E. Hansén, K. Ström. London: Routledge, 2021, 2021, p. 188-200, ISBN 9780367810368.
Booth T., Ainscow M. (2016). Index for Inclusion: a guide to school development led by inclusive values. Index for inclusion network.
Dare, L., Nowicki, E. (2018). Strategies for inclusion: Learning from students' perspectives on acceleration in inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education. Vol. 69, 2018, p.p. 243-252.
Mansfield K., C., Welton A., D., Halx M. (2012). Listening to Student Voice: Toward a More Inclusive Theory for Research and Practice. Advances in Educational Administration, Vol. 14, 2012, P. 21-41. Emerald Group Publishing, UK.
Messiou, K. (2019) The missing voices: students as a catalyst for promoting inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23:7-8, 768-781, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1623326
Spörer, N., Lenkeit, J., Bosse, S., Hartmann, A., Ehlert, A., Knigge, M. (2020). Students’ perspective on inclusion: Relations of attitudes towards inclusive education and self-perceptions of peer relations, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 103, 2020, 101641, ISSN 0883-0355.
UNESCO (2020). Global education monitoring report, 2020: Inclusion and education: all means all. Third edition. Published in 2020 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
UNESCO (2016). Reaching out to All Learners: a Resourse Pack to Supporting Inclusive Education. Defining inclusive education
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ibe-crp-inclusiveeducation-2016_eng.pdf
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
How Did We Get Here? Learners Vulnerable to Exclusion: Norwegian VET Students’ Experiences on Participation throughout their Educational Careers
Marieke Bruin
University of Stavanger, Norway
Presenting Author: Bruin, Marieke
In 2018, Roger Slee offered the following proposition: Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. His urgent message it that, after -and despite- many years of developing inclusive policies and practises, under its veil of benevolence the concept of inclusion in fact runs the risk of masking exclusionary practises, creating barriers to participation. This study explores the experiences of 17 students in upper-secondary vocational education and training (VET) in Norway, identified as vulnerable to exclusion, on their participation in the learning community throughout their educational careers. The study builds on a sociocultural framework that understands participation in social practises as learning (Säljö, 2016; Wenger, 1998). Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse (2017) state that students’ opportunities to participate depend on pedagogical responses to diversity. Equitable and inclusive practises therefore aspire to support students’ participation through actively combatting barriers to participation (Florian, Black-Hawkins, and Rouse (2017).
The Nordic countries are strongly committed to socially just education with the aim to create inclusive societies that sustain democracy (Nevøy et al., 2014). In Norway, the inclusive notion of a School for All has been central to educational policies for decades. A main principle is that schools must develop inclusive learning communities that promote health, well-being and learning for all (Ministry of Education, 2017). Historically, the Norwegian educational system has been built on the principles of providing equal access and participation for all, independent of background. This has in the past few years been increasingly challenged by neo-liberal tendencies characterised by standardisation and market-orientated competition, with an emphasis on learning outcomes as a quality indicator (Thuen & Volckmar, 2020). Consequently, inequality in Norwegian society increases (Knudsen, 2021), and after a yearly decrease of young people aged 15-29 not in education, employment, or training, this tendency has been changing since 2015. Norwegian statistics currently show a clear increase within the last few years (Statistics Norway), reflecting overall European statistics (Eurostat, 2023). Since the 1970s, a social policy goal of the European Union has been to implement strategies to break the cycle of disadvantage and inequality (Bruin et al., 2023). Still, following Ainscow (2020), many young people leave upper-secondary education without qualifications, leaving them vulnerable to exclusion from the labour market and citizenship. In this European context, Norway has a comparatively high level of young people without upper-secondary qualification, primarily former students in VET (Ministry of Education, 2019).
Within an educational system based on inclusive values, the question of how did we get here? bears to mind. With reference to Allan (2009), the young people’s experiences embody an expertise that requires to be acknowledged as such. Hence, the study explores the following research question: What are VET-students’ experiences on participation in the learning community throughout their educational careers in Norway?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used17 Students in vocational education and training, aged 16-29, participated in semi-structured, individual interviews (Kvale & Brinkman, 2015) about their experiences from primary, lower-secondary, and upper-secondary education. The students were elected to be interviewed because they were indicated by their teachers as vulnerable to exclusion. They were either in school, in apprenticeships, or had previously dropped out. Following Kvale & Brinkman (2015), the interviews did not follow a strictly predetermined sequence but were instead determined by the local context, as well as “the interviewer’s judgment and tact that decides how closely to stick to the guide and how much to follow up the interviewee’s answers and the new directions they may open up” (p. 130). The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The data will be analysed using narrative inquiry (Bruner, 1990, 1991, 1997; Riessman, 2008), with the aim to explore how the students’ narrative sense-making may influence their identities as a learner, and hence their motivation and participation in the learning community throughout their educational careers. Because of the planned narrative analysis, during the interviews the participants have been given “ample freedom and time to unfold their own stories and follow up with questions to shed light on the main episodes and characters in their narratives” (Kvale & Brinkman, 2015, p. 131). Hence, the interview guide kept a deliberate aim for flexibility to enable the participants to elaborate on what was important to them (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). Questions asked tapped issues concerning biographical information, learning at school or at the workplace, social and educational support at school and in the workplace, participation at school and in the workplace, thoughts about personal influence on school/work, and thoughts about the future (for a more detailed description, see Bruin et al., 2023). In narrative inquiry, the time aspect is a central issue, as anchored in the writings of Bruner (1990, 1996, 1997) and Riessman (2008); therefore, the interview questions followed a chronological structure of past, present, and future. Considering the research participants’ particularly vulnerable position, continuous research ethical considerations are prevalent in all phases of the research, from planning to reporting (Kvale & Brinkman, 2015). Core principles are informed consent, confidentiality, and the responsibility to do no harm (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsExpected outcomes: The students’ accounts can be interpreted as narratives of non-participation. The narratives describe why certain circumstances in upper- or lower secondary education came to pass due to earlier experiences in school. When talking about the past, the students express that due to being different (for instance because of health-related issues, special needs or bullying, or a combination) they experienced very early on in school extensive barriers to participation. These experiences influence later educational experiences, causing feelings of disconnection to teachers, peers, and curriculum. When talking about the present, in VET, the narratives of non-participation have changed into stories of belonging, being part of the learning environment, due to the teacher’s ways of combatting barriers to participation. Students experience to feel safe, acknowledged by teachers and peers. However, in the subsequent transition from school to the workplace a major challenge is that the institutional support that the students experience at school, in some cases seems to lack in the workplace, however not in all. Students working in a pedagogical environment (school/kindergarten) experience the support they need. Students working in non-pedagogical environments report getting too much responsibility, there seems to be little consideration for their needs as a learner and too high expectations of their independence, leading to stress and feelings of failure, and again experiences of disconnectedness and barriers to participation. It seems that the supervisors working in school/kindergarten have pedagogical competences inherent in their profession that supervisors in other professional contexts may lack.
The findings will be discussed in light of perspectives on social justice and equity, deliberating how an educational system that is supposed to be inclusive can do better, tackling “the smelly side of schooling” (Slee, 2018, p. 11) instead of covering it with a blanket named inclusion.
ReferencesAinscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7-16.
Allan, J. (2009). Provocations. Putting Philosophy to Work on Inclusion. In K. Quinlivian, R. Boyask, & B. Kaur (Eds.), Educational Enactments in a Globalised World. Intercultural Conversations. Sense Publishers.
Bruin, M., Tutlys, V., Ümarik, M., Loogma, K., Kaminskiené, L., Bentsalo, I., Väljataga, T., Sloka, B., & Buligina, I. (2023 - forthcoming). Participation and Learning in Vocational Education and Training - A Cross-national Analysis of the Perspectives of Youth at Risk for Social Exclusion. Journal of Vocational Education & Training.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1-21.
Bruner, J. (1997). A Narrative Model of Self-Construction. In S. J.G. & R. L. Thompson (Eds.), The Self Across Psychology. Self-recognition, self-awareness and the self-concept (pp. 145-161). The New York Academy of Sciences.
Eurostat. 2023. Young People Neither in Employment nor in Education and Training (NEET), by Sex and Age - Quarterly Data.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
Florian, L., Black-Hawkins, K., & Rouse, M. (2017). Achievement and Inclusion in Schools (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Knudsen, K. (2021). Utdanning og ulikhet. In S. Grønmo, A. Nilsen, & K. Christensen (Eds.), Ulikhet. Sosiologiske perspektiv og analyser (pp. 129–150). Fagbokforlaget.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interviews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE Publications Inc.
Nevøy, A., Rasmussen, A., Ohna, S. E., & Barow, T. (2014). Nordic upper secondary school: Regular and irregular Programmes – Or just one irregular School for all? In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic education model. ‘A School for all’ encounters neo-Liberal policy (pp. 191–210). Springer.
Ministry of Education. (2019). NOU 2019:2 Fremtidige kompetansebehov II – Utfordringer for kompetansepolitikken.
Ministry of Education. (2017). The General Part of the Curriculum Framework Promotion 2020
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Sage Publications, Inc.
Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn't Dead, it Just Smells Funny. Taylor & Francis.
Säljö, R. (2016). Læring - En introduksjon til perspektiver og metaforer. Cappelen Damm.
Statistics Norway. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/arbeid-og-lonn/sysselsetting/statistikk/tilknytning-til-arbeid-utdanning-og-velferdsordninger/artikler/trenden-er-brutt%2D%2Dflere-unge-utenfor-i-2020
Thuen, H., & Volckmar, N. (2020). Postwar school reforms in Norway. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
|
