Inclusive Teaching Strategies
Author(s):
Mette Molbæk (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Network:
21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES H 08, Education and Teachers' Practice

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-02
11:00-12:30
Room:
FPCEUP - 247
Chair:
José Pedro Amorim

Contribution

Topic:

Inclusive Teaching Strategies

 

Research Questions:

What do teachers think about and how do they practice inclusion and leadership in the classroom?

How can inclusive teaching strategies be developed?

 

Objective and Conceptual/ Theoretical framework:

This paper deals with the way teachers think about and work with inclusion and their leadership in the classroom and how they see the relationships between their curricular choices and pupil participation.

Research shows that teachers’ choices are crucial for the pupils’ outcome (Dufour, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Helmke, 2013; Higins et. al, 2007; Nordenbo et. al, 2008). The assumption underlying the research is that to a large extent inclusive teaching strategies depend on an increased focus on the choices made by the teachers before, during and after their teaching, and that a conscious framing and development of these choices will lead to an increased pupil participation and inclusion.

Focus on and development of the teachers’ professional capital may be one of the crucial answers to many of the challenges and dilemmas teachers face (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Hord 1997). Based on that underlying assumption, the project is designed as a co-research project between me as a doctoral student and three teacher teams inquiring into and improving the teachers own daily practice based on what research tells us about inclusive teaching strategies.

The project draws upon a social constructivist perspective on how practice and knowledge are developed and has a interactionist perspective (Järvinen & Mik-Meyer 2005), in which knowledge and being are understood and constructed in complex and situated processes and where the smallest unit of analysis is the relation and situation (Charmaz 2009; Clarke 2005, 2009; Haraway 1988).

This theoritical framework also has implications for the projects ontological and epistemological position regarding understandings and analysis of issues concerning inclusion and inclusive teaching strategies. Pupil participation - or non-participation - is to a large extent seen contextual and relational.

Booth & Ainscow (2011) ask in the Index of Inclusion central questions which can support a social constructionist analysis of the teachers’ inclusive practice and teaching strategies:

  • What barriers to learning and participation arise within the school and its communities?
  • Who experiences barriers to learning and participation?
  • How can barriers to learning and participation be minimized?
  • How can additional resources to support learning and participation be mobilized?

 

Outline of presentation at ECER:

At the ECER conference the presentation shortly introduces the research design and subsequently focuses on two models drawn upon research reviews on inclusion and effective teaching strategies and the projects’ own data.

The first model introduces four central dimensions in inclusive teaching strategies: framing dimensions, relational dimensions, curricular dimension and organizational dimensions. Inspired by Index of Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2011) each heading has underlying central questions to guide the teachers’ inquiry and focus.

The other model presented shows the different positions teachers seem to undertake in their work with inclusive teaching strategies. The purpose with the model is to clarify how different positions and views on practice also make different focal point and understandings of ‘the problem’. The argument for showing and discussing these different positions is that a greater awareness of these positions can facilitate the teachers’ capacity building regarding inclusive teaching strategies.

Method

The project is designed in two phases with two different methodological approaches. In the initial phase focus is on research question one - the teachers’ views and practice in relation to inclusion and teaching strategies. In this phase the method Grounded Theory (the 2nd generation) is used and data is here collected from interviews, observations and the teachers’ narratives of inclusion and teaching strategies. Based on my analysis of the data from the first fieldwork, the second phase and fieldwork is initiated. Here Action Research is used and the focus is on the teachers development of inclusive teaching strategies. This second field work is framed as a research partnership between me as a researcher and the teachers and examine how such a partnership can facilitate cooperation and flow of knowledge between practice (School) and research (University and Teacher Education) with the aim of bridging the gap between theory and practice. The project is a qualitative case study. Data comes from three teacher teams: in all, eleven teachers from three different schools placed in the same municipality. The data is collected from different sources: • video recorded and transscripted semi-structured interviews • teachers’ log books during four months • classroom observations conducted by both the teachers and me • video recorded meetings where we discuss the teams’ focus and work with the development of a more inclusive practice • my notes of reflections made after the meetings and sent to the teachers as both a sum-mary of our meeting and for inspiration to the next period. The meetings take places every 6th week during almost a school year. Throughout the project I work with different forms of visualizations. These visualizations and models are developed with inspiration from the theory and method developed by Adele Clarke, who understands and uses Grounded Theory in a postmodern context (2005) and outlines a systematic way of categorizing and analyzing the data through the use of ‘social worlds/arena maps’, ‘relational maps’ and ‘positional maps’. The models developed in the project are based on and are further developments of the work with Clarke’s maps. The models show and pick up the central findings from my analysis and are made to operationalize both earlier research findings and my research, so it can be more applicable in the teachers’ daily practice and in teachers’ pre- and in service training.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions: The preliminary conclusions of the project are that teachers are concerned with inclusion and to a large extent want to ‘do it right’, but they also tell and show that they need more competencies regarding inclusive teaching strategies. Here a focus on teachers development of ‘Professional Capital’ (Hargreaves and Fullan 2013) through an inquiring approach and teamwork seems to be a setup that facilitate development of more inclusive teaching strategies. To succeed the teachers development of inclusive teaching strategies must be framed and organized in order to give space and priority to reflexivity. Expected outcome or findings: The expected outcomes of the project are on different levels: On a theoretical level it is the objective to make guidelines that can be used to make an analysis on the current status regarding the teachers inclusive teaching strategies and their positions the work with inclusion. After an overview over the status the models can be used to help the teachers to discuss and choose focus for further inquiry and development. On the practical level the project's objective is to develop the teachers’ teaching leadership and competences to increase pupil participation and create more inclusive learning environments. At the end of the second fieldwork phase the teachers and I evaluate whether they observe and use more inclusive teaching strategies in their daily practice and if and how our research partnership has made a difference. On a methodological level the project may give suggestions how to facilitate research partnerships between teachers and researchers and how a grounded theory inspired initial phase with focus on the teachers’ concerns and daily work and challenges can make a starting point for co-research projects between teachers and researcher/teacher educators. These research partnerships may help bridging the gap between theory and practice.

References

Booth, T. og M. Ainscow (2011). Index for inclusion. Bristol, UK: CSIE. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: SAGE. Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the Grounds. I J. M. Marose, Developing Grounded Theory - the Second Generation (s. 127-194). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, inc. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis - Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. London: SAGE. Dufour, R. &. (2011). Leaders of Learning - how District, School, and Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement. Bloomington, USA: Solution Tree Press. Haraway, D. (Vol 14, No 3. 1988). Situated Knowledges: the Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, s. 575-599. Hargreaves, A. og M. Fullan. (2012). Professional Capital - Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Routledge. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning - a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Helmke, A. (2013). Undervisningskvalitet og lærerprofessionalitet. Frederikshavn: Dafolo. Higgins S, B. V. (2007). Learning skills and the development of learning capabilities, report 1501R. I Research Evidence in Education Library. England, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Hiim, H. (2010). Pedagogisk Aksjonsforskning - tilnærminger, eksempler og kunnskapsfilosofisk grundlag. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Järvinen, M. &.-M. (2005). Kvalitative metoder i et interaktionistisk perspektiv. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Kirkeby, O. F. (2002). Abduktion. I H. Andersen, Introduktion til Videnskabsteori og metodelære (s. 122-152). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur. Lewin, K. (1948). Action Research and Minority Problems. I K. Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts (s. 201-216). London: Harper & Row. Marzano, R. m.fl. (2003). Classroom Management the works - Research- based Stretegies for Every Teacher. Alexandria, USA: ASCD. Mitchell, D. (2008). What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education. London: Routledge. Morse, J. M. (2009). Developing Grounded Theory - The Second Generation. I J. M. Morse, Developing Grounded Theory - The Second Generation (s. 13-21). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc. Nordenbo, S. E. (2008). Lærerkompetanser og elevers læring i barnehage og skole. København: DPU. Sheehy K, R. J. (2009). A systematic review of whole class, subject- based pedagogies with reported outcomes for the academic and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs, 1701. I Research Evidence in Education Library. England, London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Author Information

Mette Molbæk (presenting / submitting)
AU
IUP
Skive

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.