Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:56 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 03 B: Student voice for inclusion
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Experience, Voice, and Agency: A Systematic Literature Review of Student Agency for Students with Disabilities University of Illinois Chicago, United States of America Presenting Author:This paper presents a systematic literature review of the student agency for students with disability in the international literature from 2015 to 2025. After the student voice was formally recognized in UN-CRC (1989) as the capability of one’s expressing their views, student voice has been tied to being an agent of school change initiatives, where students actively participate in shaping their learning experiences and engaging in dialogue to facilitate meaningful school transformation (Messiou et al., 2025). Before these epistemic changes, although a shift toward child-centered pedagogy is noted ambiguously in the Salamanca Statement (1994), educational outcomes for students with disabilities and inclusive education rely on collaboration with adults, such as teachers, administrators, and families. This heavy focus on adult involvement overlooked discussions of student agency and relational capacities in transforming practices within existing power dynamics (Bahou, 2012). Since that time, the concepts of student agency have been explored in inclusive and special education as well as disability studies in education through different perspectives, such as students as contributors (Carrington et al., 2007; Koritsaris, 2022; Messiou, 2017), their roles as change agents (Messiou et al., 2025; Narayan, 2011), their perspectives and views (Shogren et al., 2015), and their position as boundary crossers (Bal et al., 2014; Ko et al., 2021). Agency is considered a key learning objective within pedagogies and curriculum in action (Smith et al., 2022) and building a critical lens for community change (Durand et al., 2025). To better understand this paradigmatic change in inclusive education and how student agency for students with disabilities is scholarly exercised, conceptualized, and transformed over time, we asked the following questions:
The review discusses a critical gap between the contemporary emphasis on student agency in inclusive and special education and how empirical studies move from its rhetorical status of experience and voice as an instrument to its enactment, mediation, and development within learning and curriculum objectives. By synthesizing methodological, conceptual, and empirical trends, this paper aims to explore the paradigm shifts and future directions of student agency in the field of inclusive education. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer the research questions, the systematic literature review methodology is conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Page et al., 2021). We included 5 databases: ERIC, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Web of Science, and Education Research Complete. Regarding the inclusion criteria, student agency for students with disabilities had to be a focus of the publication, and these studies had to include students with disabilities or focus on students with disabilities or special educational needs. The publications also had to be empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals, published in English, and with full text available. To capture the scholarly work on agency as represented by the term 'voice,' various terminologies are included to broaden the search beyond just the term 'agency.’ Since scholars might vary in their conceptualizations of "inclusive education" and "student agency", we also included studies that used terminology (e.g., intersectionality, marginalized students, students with diverse needs, low achievers). Additionally, studies had to include an indication or exploration of disability or special needs or provide a justification for inclusive education. We excluded (a) theoretical studies, book chapters, conference abstracts, review articles, editorials, dissertations and (b) publications, and that were not in English and available in full text, (c) publications that involve students beyond high school and that focus on higher education settings, college education context (d) publications that do not discuss on student agency, as well as those that do not address or report on inclusive or special education contexts (e) studies that address adults with disabilities. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings 25 research studies were analyzed to examine trends in international special and inclusive education research on student agency for students with disabilities between 2015 and 2025. While the first four-year period between 2015 and 2019 yielded only 8 studies (32%), research focus on student agency in special and inclusive education amplified in the second half of the decade. Of the 25 included studies, 17 (68%) were published between 2020 and 2025. The distribution includes journals that focus on special education and inclusive education (n = 9). 44% of the studies (n = 11) were published in journals focused on special and inclusive education. Although research is heavily skewed toward Western contexts, particularly North America and Europe, it has received global focus; across 10 countries, and 1 cross-country study has been conducted among five European countries (Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Spain) and England. However, of the research studies, only 3 countries from the global south are included in this review. This may be because only English publications were included in this review. Our results have methodological implications for explaining trends in student agency. Research on student agency for students with disabilities focuses on upper elementary and secondary contexts, with limited samples in early childhood (Pre-K) settings. Our results discuss the scholarly focus on qualitative research designs and various data-collection methods. Our results shows that the concept of agency is compounded with and explored through related constructs such as voice, experience, and self-determination. While sociocultural and critical frameworks are evident, we discussed that the ways in which student agency is enacted and understood in the research studies are mediated by different frameworks of disability and inclusive education such as the medical model of disability, the social model of inclusive education, and the socio-cultural model of disability. References Bahou, L. (2012). Cultivating student agency and teachers as learners in one Lebanese school. Educational Action Research, 20(2), 233–250. Carrington, S., Allen, K., & Osmolowski, D. (2007). Visual narrative: A technique to enhance secondary students’ contribution to the development of inclusive, socially just school environments–lessons from a box of crayons. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 8-15. Cochran-Smith, M., Craig, C. J., Orland-Barak, L., Cole, C., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2022). Agents, agency, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(5), 445-448. Durand, E. S., González, T., & Bertrand, M. (2025). “We want to help our community”: fostering youth civic agency in a third space. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–17. Koritsaris, J. (2022). Nurturing Student Agency: Pedagogical Structures Emerging Through Co-Teaching (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago). Ko, D., Mawene, D., Roberts, K., & Hong, J. J. (2021). A systematic review of boundary-crossing partnerships in designing equity-oriented special education services for culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 412-425. Messiou, K., de los Reyes, E. J., Potnis, C., Dong, P., & Rwang, V. K. (2025). Student voice: bringing about change in primary schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–16. Narayan, V. (2011). Learner-generated content as a pedagogical change agent. Ascilite: Hobart Tasmania, Australia. Shogren, K. A., Gross, J. M., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Francis, G. L., Satter, A. L., Blue-Banning, M., & Hill, C. (2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities, 40(4), 243-260. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June 1994. Unesco. UNICEF. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Dialogic and Monologic Assessment: Student Voice in Two Upper-Secondary School Contexts 1: University of Akureyri; 2: University of Iceland Presenting Author:This study examines how students perceive and enact their voice in assessment across two upper-secondary schools in Iceland. Through dialogism, drawing on Bakhtin's distinction between monologic and dialogic discourse, it asks whether students function as recipients of verdicts or as participants in meaning-making about their learning. The research question: How do students experience and navigate their voice in assessment practices across two contrasting upper-secondary school contexts?
Assessment for learning (AfL) foregrounds formative practices: clarifying learning intentions, eliciting evidence, providing feedback that moves learners forward (Wiliam & Thompson, 2007). Yet research shows that AfL implementation often becomes technical and superficial, reducing students to passive recipients of teacher judgments (Swaffield, 2011; Klenowski, 2009). Cook-Sather (2006) argues that student voice is not merely about students speaking. It requires their perspectives being present and carrying power. Voice demands both opportunity to speak and conditions under which speech is taken seriously. Without such conditions, participation becomes tokenism. Bakhtin's (1981) monologism describes discourse presenting a single authoritative perspective as final truth, closing down alternative meanings. In assessment, monologic practices position grades and feedback as endpoints with no space for student response. Dialogism assumes that meaning emerges through meetings of multiple voices. Grades and feedback become starting points for conversation, not endpoints. This extends Swaffield's (2011) reminder that assessment derives from the Latin assidere—to sit beside. The teacher sits with students to understand how they learn (Marshall & Drummond, 2006). Feedback is not transmission but exchange. To speak, for Bakhtin (1986), means anticipating an answer that shapes assessment outcomes. When assessment is dialogic, students reveal confusion, take risks, seek help. Their contributions matter. When assessment is monologic, students perform compliance (Torrance, 2007). They seek approval from others instead of developing their own evaluative capacity. Torrance warns that students become consumers of learning objectives rather than active agents in learning can undermine the spirit of AfL, which is to support learner autonomy. We also examine how assessment interacts with autonomy. Upper-secondary schools increasingly offer flexibility, different formats, task choices. Such flexibility lets students demonstrate competence in multiple ways. But it demands self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2002). Without dialogic support, flexibility produces a paradox: students choose, but nobody responds to those choices as if they matter. Drawing on dialogism and student voice, we analyse how pedagogical context shapes whether voice functions as participation or compliance. Rather than treating inclusion as a property of instruments, we examine it as a quality of a ongoing dialogue in the classroom.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This qualitative case study examined student experiences of assessment in two upper-secondary schools in Iceland. The schools were selected to represent contrasting approaches within the same national system. One has developed project-based teaching and flexible assessment, while the other follows conventional structures but has engaged in formative assessment development. Both schools offer academic and vocational programmes and serve students from varied backgrounds. This contrast allows analysis of how pedagogical context shapes student voice within shared policy frameworks. Data were collected through focus group interviews. Focus groups were chosen because peer interaction can reveal how students talk about and make sense of assessment together (Braun & Clarke, 2013). One focus group of six to eight students was conducted at each school. Participants were recruited through teachers and represented different study programmes. Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes and were conducted in Icelandic by the authors. Questions explored how students experience grades and feedback, how they perceive communication about assessment, and whether they feel their voice matters in assessment decisions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021). This approach treats themes not as entities waiting to be discovered but as patterns constructed through the researcher's active engagement with what participants said. Analysis moved through phases: familiarization, initial coding, constructing candidate themes, reviewing against data, and defining final themes. The dialogic framework informed but did not predetermine coding. We remained open to patterns that complicated or extended our expectations. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Findings: Students described a spectrum where assessment either functioned as an authoritative "verdict" that silenced participation, or as a starting point for conversation that invited meaning-making. The findings indicate that trust is a prerequisite for students to "act", to take intellectual risks and reveal uncertainty. Finally, the study suggests that flexibility alone does not guarantee autonomy; without dialogic support, students often drifted toward the "path of least resistance" rather than engaging in deep learning Conclusion: This study speaks to the conference theme: Whose knowing counts? In assessment, this question becomes concrete. Whose voice carries authority when learning is evaluated? Under what conditions can students contribute to meaning-making about their own progress, rather than simply receiving verdicts? The two schools operate under the same national curriculum. Yet they have developed different assessment cultures, producing different conditions for student voice. Iceland's small system makes this visible. Shared policy frameworks generate different local practices. This dynamic is relevant across European contexts where competency-based curricula meet diverse school cultures, a tension increasingly documented as assessment reform spreads. Our findings suggest that student voice in assessment depends on whether assessment functions dialogically. When it does, students reveal uncertainty, ask questions, take risks. Their contributions shape what happens next. When assessment remains monologic, students perform compliance. They wait for verdicts. They stop speaking as learners and start speaking as grade-receivers. References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: "Student voice" in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646 Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with Assessment for Learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615638 Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838 Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701591867 Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Erlbaum. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Pupils as Knowledge Producers: Approaching the Topic of Social Exclusion in its Interconnection with Teaching Organisation and Practice 1: PH Freiburg, Germany; 2: PH FHNW, Switzerland Presenting Author:In literature, phenomena as social exclusion and bullying is primarily conceived as a process among peers (Košir & Pivec 2026; Berger & Caravita 2016), to which teachers respond by “ignoring, tolerating, intervening or even supporting“ (Wilde 2020: 88 [transl.]; Migliaccio 2015). Although school context characteristics, e.g. the performance pressure, are included into the assessment of the cause (Puschmann 2020), it is less common that teaching practices of professionals are considered to be immediately influential. Especially the factor of teaching organisation is only discussed marginally as a cause (Wachs & Schubarth 2022): In this regard, particular emphasis is placed on the relevance of facilitating social and cooperative learning for the development of positive relationships (van Ryzin & Roseth 2019). Our own findings support the latter but also raise more fundamental points with regard to teaching practices: The general concern here is that pupils' irritations and uncertainties in school life do not remain unaddressed. This applies not only to situations related to learning tasks but also to social interactions and other everyday school situations in which pupils may experience disorientation. In such moments, pupils should have access to supportive others who can help them make sense of the situation and work through challenges (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2025; Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024): As part of the empirical material collected in the project “Primary Schools in the Field of Tension between Inclusion and Educational Standards“ (Wagner-Willi & Zahnd 2020), funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), pupils reported unequal and therefore unfair practices in the provision of assistance by teachers, which strongly hinders their own ability to act. Insofar as help in completing tasks became a limited resource, pupils began to observe and evaluate each other critically. In this regard, they became competitors – as illustrated by the following pupils‘ quotes: Hasan: “… and then, I always see Kristina [pupil], how she just raises her hand and Mr Halbstatter [special needs teacher] comes straight away and tells her the answer. She disturbs the class all the time, in maths, in English and also in science and social studies. […]“ Francesco: “… What is unfair is that when I raise my hand to ask a question because I don't understand something, Ms Schneider [class teacher] still goes to the other children first. And in the end, I could not do anything for the whole lesson because I had a question […].“ (Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024: 74 [transl.]). This shows how, despite systems implemented for this purpose (such as signs for registering in order to request help), pupils were unable to engage in interactions with teachers – and consequently formed a community against those who received preferential treatment. However, this did not remain confined to the classroom but also had an impact on peer culture due to its conflictual nature – and evolved then from here in circular movements back to the classroom. The punishment systems subsequently implemented by teachers, such as so-called consequence sheets (given to parents), only exacerbated the situation as the pupils copied this approach in their class council meetings: Matteo: “I think the class council should resolve the dispute, but it is actually causing the dispute. Take the issue with the groups, for example: If Arian [pupil] has a conflict with someone, he tells his classmates and then they all write a note against the person he is arguing with […].“ (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022: 21 [transl.]) On these grounds, this article addresses the methodological question of how the circular processes – similarly observable in two cases, in which pupils become not only victims but also perpetrators, can be made visible. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Addressing the methodological question mentioned above, a combination of qualitative research styles involving different data collection and analysis methods was employed in this study (Wagner-Willi & Zahnd 2020). With the aim of conducting an initial analysis, the Documentary Method rooted in the Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge (Bohnsack 2018) was first used – with its central instrument of group discussions (Papke & Wagner-Willi 2024). The guiding principle here is to allow self-sustaining discourses, with as little intervention as possible from the researchers, so that the pupils can freely reveal their centres of relevance and experience. In order to uncover the underlying collective and habitualised knowledge, the following sequence analysis focuses not only on what is said, but also on how interactions among the pupils are organised (ibid.). Accompanied by analyses of videotaped lessons, this ensured a deep insight into the microcosm of each classroom. Centring more explicitly on the course of pupils’ experiences, a Participatory Research approach was employed in order to explore pupils’ perspectives on learning and social participation in everyday classroom practices (Wöhrer et al. 2017; von Unger 2014). In this respect, pupils were introduced to the research process and the methods through workshops. Afterwards, they collected data independently during their school day using research diaries and smartphones to record picvoices. The latter refers to a method of giving photographs a voice – and thus making subjective impressions tangible. Subsequently, these materials were discussed in weekly reflection meetings with the academic researcher, enabling pupils to articulate and reflect upon their experiences. While teachers’ perspectives were also included, the analytical focus lied on pupils’ perspectives and their narratives of everyday school life (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022). Insofar as they were involved not only in collecting the data but particularly in evaluating it, they became (co-)researchers alongside the academic staff. As part of the participatory lesson development that followed, they also played an active role, for example in addressing processes of social exclusion (ibid.). While the procedure within the framework of the Documentary Method provided access to pupils’ shared orientations in relation to the guiding questions, the longer-term presence in the field on behalf of the Participatory Approach made it possible to follow how processes of social inclusion and exclusion unfolded or changed in everyday classroom life. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Matteo: “[…] Everyone wrote notes against him, even though it wasn't true. But they just wanted to be cool and argue with him too, and it was like bullying.“ Researcher: “You looked at that with Ms Schneider [class teacher] [...]. But today was very exciting because there were no more notes. […] Do you feel that there is less arguing now?“ Matteo: “[…] I think they now understand that writing notes always leads to more arguing.“ (Zahnd & Oberholzer 2022: 21 [transl.]) By placing pupils‘ perspectives at the centre of the analysis, the study demonstrates how social exclusion and bullying are experienced and interpreted by pupils in close connection with everyday teaching practices and organisational arrangements. Pupils’ narratives reveal how experiences of irritation, insecurity and unfairness emerge in relation to how such issues are addressed and discussed as well as negotiated within the classroom, including the ways in which support and attention are organised. These experiences can trigger competitive dynamics and conflictual peer relations, giving rise to circular processes in which pupils may simultaneously become victims and perpetrators of exclusion. In this way, the findings complement research by showing how certain teaching orientations can unintentionally contribute to exclusionary processes when pupils’ irritations and uncertainties remain unaddressed. Making these connections visible requires a methodological approach that takes pupils’ perspectives seriously as a source of knowledge. A central contribution of the study therefore lies in its methodological focus on pupils as producers of knowledge. Through reconstructive and participatory research approaches pupils were positioned as active contributors whose perspectives made it possible to trace how teaching orientations are perceived and negotiated in everyday school life. In that sense the widening rang of knowledge-producing actors (CfP) can be seen as an important step in the name of inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Beaton 2018). References Berger, C. & Caravita, S. C. (2016): Why do early adolescents bully? Exploring the influence of prestige norms on social and psychological motives to bully. Journal of Adolescence 46, pp. 45–56. Bohnsack, R. (2018): Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge and Documentary Method. In: D. Kettler & V. Meja (Eds.): The Anthem Companion to Karl Mannheim. Bath: Anthem, pp. 199–220. Florian, L. & Beaton, M. (2018): Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child. International Journal of Inclusive Education 22, pp. 870–884. Košir, K. & Pivec, T. (2026): Prosocial, aggressive, or both? A multilevel latent profile analysis of peer status and social behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence 36, pp. 1–16. Migliaccio, T. (2015): Teacher Engagement with Bullying: Managing an Identity within a School. Sociological Spectrum 35, pp. 84–108. Papke, K. & Wagner-Willi, M. (2024): Schüler:innen-Perspektiven und konstituierende Rahmung – Implikationen für empirische Zugänge. In: D. Matthes, J.-H. Hinzke, H. Pallesen & D. Wittek (Eds.): Dokumentarische Schüler:innenforschung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 68–85. Puschmann, C. M. (2020): Warum gibt es Mobbing? In: M. Böhmer & G. Steffgen (Eds.): Mobbing an Schulen. Wiesbaden/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 33–56. Van Ryzin, M. J. & Roseth, C. J. (2019): Effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, empathy, and bullying in middle school. Aggressive behavior 45, pp. 643–651. Von Unger, H. (2014): Partizipative Forschung. Einführung in die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer. Wachs, S. & Schubarth, W. (2022): Schule und Mobbing. In: T. Hascher, T.-S. Idel & W. Helsper (Eds.): Handbuch Schulforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 1399–1416. Wagner-Willi, M. & Zahnd, R. (2020): Primarschulen im Spannungsfeld von Inklusion und Bildungsstandards – Rekonstruktiver Fallvergleich und partizipative Entwicklung inklusiven Unterrichts. https://data.snf.ch/grants/grant/188805 Wilde, N. (2020): Mobbing – ein Gruppenphänomen? In: M. Böhmer & G. Steffgen (Eds.): Mobbing an Schulen. Wiesbaden/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 79–98. Wöhrer, V., Arztmann, D., Wintersteller, T., Harrasser, D. & Schneider, K. (2017): Partizipative Aktionsforschung mit Kindern und Jugendlichen. Wiesbaden: Springer. Zahnd, R. & Oberholzer, F. (2025): ‘In this sense, we use the term integration and thus implement the UNCRPD’. Theorising exclusionary pressures in Switzerland. In: E. J. Done (Ed.): Theorising exclusionary pressures in education. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–79. Zahnd, R. & Oberholzer, F. (2022): Stolpersteine und Wegweiser auf dem Weg zu inklusiven Lernarrangements. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik 28, pp. 16–23. | ||