Support of the Improving Process of Inclusive Education Practices: quality indicators

Author(s):

José Ramón Lago(presenting / submitting)Mila Naranjo Verónica Jiménez

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 04 C, Mentoring

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

09:00-10:30

Room:

B035 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Ene-Silvia Sarv

Contribution

This paper presents some results of the research project “Case studies about developing and consultancy process of an educative support program for supporting inclusive practices". The present paper focuses on the objective “Develop a comprehensive strategy for counselling / training process structured in phases, tasks and discursive resources for the consultant for the incorporation of inclusive practices by means of cooperative learning in usual practices of teachers.”

The overall hypothesis in the project was: “the introduction of a cooperative structuring of classroom activity, related to the ICTs, integrated in an Educational Support Program, by means of a counselling / training process aimed at the improvement of educational practices among teaching staff that contributes to increasing the level of inclusion of students with disabilities in ordinary classrooms”.

The theoretical framework for developing the Project was the results of our research about personalization, self-regulation and cooperation (Pujolàs et alt. 2011). One of the most important outcomes of this project was the support program for inclusive practices "Cooperating to Learn, Learning to Cooperate" (CL/LC Program), name that take the Slawin’s work (Slawin, that is an important reference for the Program). This is the result of our research between 2008 - 2010 (Pujolàs, 2008, 2009), following the approach of Kagan (1999), Johnson and Johnson (1997), and Putnam, (2009). The research has allowed us to create a joint proposal to introduce cooperative learning to improve inclusive practices in the schools, with which we have conducted various counselling / training process in schools (Lago, Pujolas and Naranjo 2011).

The CL/LC Program articulates a set of educational resources organized in three closely related intervention areas: area A; which includes resources linked to improve the cohesion of the group, area B; which contains a series of cooperative activity structures to organise the teaching of the content of the curriculum areas, this is, work in teams to teach curriculum as a resource, and the area of intervention C, which includes actions aimed at teaching pupils and students, in an explicit and systematic way, to work in teams.

At the same time the results of our research have allowed us to create a strategy of a counselling / training process to help the process of cooperative learning introduction (Pujolàs and Lago, 2011) that take as reference the concept of the meaning of the change process, its key components and phases that Fullan (2002) provides, Ainscow’s, Hopkin's, and West Soutworth’s (2001) research on school improvement and the programs focused on cooperative learning made by Slavin and Madden (1998).

The development of CL/LC Program had two levels: an individual level and a collective level. In the Introduction stage, during more or less an academic year. At individual level the teacher offers a "taste" of the CL / LC Program applying certain group dynamics and cooperative structures in a didactic unit. At collective level a first group of teachers (supported by the CL/LC Program coordinator) coordinate and evaluate together the first application of each area. Starting in the second year, we spend two years on the generalization stage. At individual level the teacher applies CL / LC Program in a more systematic way in some areas and/or in a group. At collective level the first group applies the program and supports, together with the coordinator a second group of teachers who start to develop the coordinated CL/LC Program. In the third year, we enter the consolidation stage, at individual level and at the same time in the school, cooperative learning is incorporated into the educative project as a unique feature of the centre and creates permanent structures coordinating.

Method

We used a qualitative case study methodology with two references: on the one hand, the criteria proposed by Stake (1999) multiple case study, and on the other hand the assessment done of counselling / training process in CL/LC Program. The data collection has been studied across 9 participating schools in the process of counselling / training process at different stages. Three schools in the introduction stage (first year), three schools in the generalization stage (second year) and three schools in consolidation stage (third year). From each of the schools that have participated there are three key figures of the counselling process: the area responsible counselor, the coordinator of the school in cooperative learning and a teacher who implements the CL/LC Program in his/her classroom. We have used four data collection instruments. The first two in order to detect indicators of improvement on the counselling / training process, allowing advice to make changes or improvements in educational practices: 1. A semi-structured interview was carried out at each of the figures (advisor, coordinator and teacher) of each school. The interview subjects are: to assess activities that help the introduction of each of the stages of the counselling process; assess the activities, contents and materials used in the counselling process to help the introduction of cooperative learning and assess the role participants (advisor and coordinator) to improve educational practice and improvement of the changes. 2. Discussion group with the participation of the counselor, coordinator and teacher following the same structure as the semi-structured interview and from which were discussed and put into common aspects of the counseling process. In order to detect indicators of phases, procedures, tasks and discursive resources used by the counselor during the counselling process, we used two instruments: 3. Self-reports that promote reflection on the description and assessment of the activities carried out during a counselling session. 4. Assessment sessions with counselors and coordinators and sessions with all participants to assess the end of each stage.

Expected Outcomes

The results of the triangulation process between the four data sources give us some evidence the support to the process of development of inclusive practices. One first type of outcome has shown how there are some evidences that are not consistent between the four data sources. Some of the data, the recording of evaluation sessions, have no presence in others documents (self-reports, discussion group or semi-structured interviews). The evidence has shown how teachers usually do not remember to or don't recognize how some improvements had been planned in working sessions of planning or assessment of the activities for inclusion. A second type of evidence is about the positive effect of individual writing in self-reports and group discussions of inclusive activities with cooperative learning that teachers have to write. We use this data like a research data, and like an instrument for reflection in groups about improvements for inclusion and difficulties that they observed in the introduction of inclusive practices. We have seen how of these evidences are, in some aspects, conflicting with the first type data. But other evidences indicated how much teacher value the work with partners debated in self-reports. This result suggests how important they consider it is to see and hear their partners in their difficulties, more than the specifics contributions about it. We are collecting evidences about this. The third type of results have shown how teachers think it is very important during the process of planning the activities to do a practice with partners with the same strategies in cooperative learning that they will then do after with pupils. In a few, but significant cases, we observed how they use some cooperative activities for inclusion to engage other teacher partners to do inclusive practices with cooperative learning. We are collecting evidences about that, too.

References

- Ainscow, M.; Bereford, J.; Harris, A.; Hopkins, D. & West, M. (2001). Crear condiciones para la mejora del trabajo en el aula. Madrid: Narcea. - Fullan, M. (2002). Los nuevos significados del cambio en educación. Barcelona: Octaedro. - Johnson, R. T. & Johnson, D.W. (1997). Una visió global de l’aprenentatge cooperatiu. In Suports, revista catalana d’educació especial i atenció a la diversitat, vol. 1, núm. 1, 54-64. - Kagan, S. (1999). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente. Resources for Teachers, Inc. - Lago, J.R., Pujolàs, P. & Naranjo, M. (2011). Aprender cooperando para enseñar a cooperar: procesos de formación/asesoramiento para el desarrollo del Programa CA/AC. Aula. Revista de Pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca. 17, 89-106. - Pujolàs, P. (2008). Nueve ideas clave: El aprendizaje cooperativo. Barcelona: Graó. - Pujolàs, P. (2009). La calidad en los equipos de aprendizaje cooperativo. Algunas consideraciones para el cálculo del grado de cooperatividad. Revista de Educación: 349, 225-239. - Pujolàs, P. & Lago, J.R. (2011). El asesoramiento para la transformación de las aulas en escenarios cooperativos. In E. Martin & J. Onrubia (Coords). Orientación educativa y procesos de innovación y mejora de la enseñanza, (pp. 121-142). Barcelona: Graó. - Pujolàs P.; Riera R.; Pedragosa O. & Lago J.R. (2011). The Programme Cooperating to learn/Learning to Cooperate as a tool for inclusion of all students in regular classrooms. ECER. Cadiz. - Putnam, J.W. (2009). Cooperative learning for inclusion. In P. Hick, P. Farrel & R. Kershner: Psychology for inclusive education: new directions in theory and practice, (pp. 81-96). New York: Routledge. - Slavin, R. E., et alt. (Eds.) (1985). Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New York: Plenum Press - Slavin, R. E. & Madden, N. (1998). Disseminating success for all. Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ.

Author Information

José Ramón Lago (presenting / submitting)

University of Vic

Department of Pshicology

Vic

Mila Naranjo

University of Vic, Spain

Verónica Jiménez