Teachers’ Understanding of Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties (EBD) in Sweden.

Author(s):

Ulrika Gidlund(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 07 C, Teacher Views of Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

17:15-18:45

Room:

OB-H1.12

Chair:

Susanne Schwab

Contribution

         Maintaining order in school is considered necessary for the smooth running and the survival of the school. When schools accommodate 20-30 students in classes, and hundreds in the buildings, they need ways of keeping order. The importance of maintaining order by disciplinary methods has thus become more important than processes towards more equal power relations in schools. In school certain behavior is regarded as appropriate, others not. When students fail to conform to the ‘order’, the need for ‘need’ occurs, and the construct of the students having Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties (EBD) becomes an easy solution. Students who misbehave are said to have special needs rooted in emotional disorder or disturbance, but deviance is not a quality that lies in the act or behavior itself but in the interaction between the student’s act and those who respond to it. Whether the behavior is seen positively, as diversity, or negatively as deviant, depends on the way of thinking of the person who observes the behavior. Any violation of a norm, or a set of norms is not in itself deviant, but becomes deviant when it evokes a particular set of negative responses (Thomas & Loxley, 2001). This study will explore how teachers in Sweden construct meaning of EBD.
        The concept of EBD is described by UNESCO (2009) as an imprecise term, difficult to define since it is in a continuum of behavior which challenges teachers. EBD may manifest as introverted, passive, depressive, or aggressive behavior. EBD is a subjectively perceived disorder rather than an objective one with definite and clearly defined characteristics that lead to the same diagnostic conclusions (Mundschenk & Simpson, 2014). UNESCO (2009) emphasizes that what is considered socially acceptable behavior in one cultural, religious and traditional context may be unacceptable elsewhere. EBD are therefore highly sensitive to the concerned children’s background and situation.
        There is a classical Western understanding of the individual as an autonomous subject with an identity. But identities are rather the result of contingent, discursive processes. Identities are accepted, refused and negotiated in discursive processes. Discourse theory rejects a true or perfect definition and conception of social identities as rooted in pre-given essences (Torfing, 1999). Discourse theory claims that our ways of talking play an active role in creating and changing identities. Identities are always established relationally, in relation to something they are not. Analysis of the other which is always created together with the creation of us can give some idea of what a given discourse excludes and what social consequences thisexclusion has (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).
         The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of how teachers in mainstream school, grade 4-6 construct meaning of the collective identity of EBD. This study will seek which discourses prevail, and which are neglected. The consequences if one particular discourse is to become hegemonic instead of the others will also be discussed.

The specific research questions are:

- How do teachers jointly construct meaning of EBD?

- Which discourses of EBD prevail?

- Which discourses of EBD are neglected?

The theoretical framework of this study is Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory. According to discourse theory identities areconstructed in and through social relations, and aims to map out the struggles about the way in which the meaning of signs is to be fixed, and the processes by which certain fixations of meaning become conventionalized, and thus natural (Winter Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). A study like this might therefore unmask and delineate taken-for-granted, common-sense understandings about EBD, and transforming them into potential objects for discussion, challenge and criticism.

Method

Since discourse analysis has its background in structuralism and post-structuralism it claims that our access to reality always goes through language. With the help of language we create representations of reality that both reflects but also helps to create the existing reality. The physical reality exists - but it will only be meaningful through discourse. The language not only mediates the social aspects of the world and social identities, it also constitutes them. There is a battle on the discursive level that both reproduces and transforms the social reality and identities. When collective identity is investigated by discourse analysis, the starting point is to identify the nodal point around which the identity is organized. In this case EBD. Then the way in which the nodal point is filled with meaning relationally by being equated with some, and contrasted with other signifiers is investigated. The importance is to map how different discourses struggle, and fill the nodal point by equating it with different signifiers. It is by being represented by a cluster of signifiers with a nodal point at its center that one acquires an identity (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). The empirical data of this study is collected through six focus group interview with four to eight teachers working in the same teacher team in grade 4-6 in six different mainstream schools (38 teachers). The schools chosen all have different cultures and contexts due to their size, geographical characteristics, socio-cultural, -economic and -political background. The purpose with interviewing teachers working in teacher team is that they together, in discussions shall develop the school and the solutions for specific students and students’ special needs. Based on its social context, teachers in teacher team also construct their own subcultures in which they jointly construct discourses (Assarson, 2007). The focus group interviews have the concept of EBD as its focus and Kvale (1996) claims that with the help of concept interviews taken-for-granted assumptions can be revealed. Focus group interviews also provide an opportunity to observe construction of meaning in practice (Wibeck, Abrandt Dahlgren & Öberg, 2007). The focal point in the analysis is the interplay between the discourses in the field of discursivity rather than in the single discourse. What consequences will it have if one discourse is to be accepted instead of the others? It is in this interplay that the social consequences might become most apparent.

Expected Outcomes

The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of how teachers in mainstream school construct meaning of the collective identity of emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBD). The prevailing discourses about EBD in this study are constructed by equating EBD with being hyper-active, noisy, aggressive and disturbing in the classroom, and with its opposite, too shy, never answering questions or when spoken to, and not participating in the work of the class. Discourses about the students reacting because they find themselves being forced in, for them, a hard and incomprehensible context and fails to conform to it are neglected. The consequences for the teachers’ prevailing discourse, as the student’s behavior being located within the individual student and a strong emphasis on the special needs professionalism based on expert knowledge of the "deviant”, instead of the neglected discourses of the behavior being a reaction of various causes as social injustice, professional interests, and schools' failure, will be the continuing focus on curing or amelioration of the student by interventions based on medicine and educational psychology. The pedagogical implications of this study is, that by examining the prevailing discourses, and those which are neglected might elaborate or redirect teachers understanding of students with EBD in mainstream school, challenge them, or open up new ways of understanding. This may assist school management, special educators, teachers, and parents to see behind the discourses that prevail and consider those which are neglected in order to make the interpretation of students' needs more dialogic and needs-oriented, and might impact both teachers’ practice and the research field. This study is an important step towards an understanding of what limitations the prevailing discourses have in order to contribute to social change towards more equal power relations in communication processes and in schools.

References

Ainscow, M. (1998). Would it work in theory? Arguments for practitioner research and theorising in the special needs field. In C. Clark, A. Dyson and A. Millward, (Eds.) Theorising special education (London, Routledge), 123-137. Assarson, I. (2007). Talet om en skola för alla: Pedagogers meningskonstruktion i ett politiskt uppdrag. Diss. Malmö: Lärarutbildningen, Malmö högskola. Avramidis, E & Norwish, B. (2002) Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17:2. 129-147. Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (Eds.) (1998). Theorising special education? Time to move on? In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Millward, (Eds.), Theorising Special Education, pp. 156-173. London: Routledge. De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J. & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1:1, 1–24. Dyson, A. & Millward, A. (2000) Schools and Special Needs. Issues of Innovation and Inclusion. London: Paul Chapman. Howarth, David (2007) Discourse, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London: Verso. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review Sociol. 22, 129–52 Mundschenk, D. & Simpson, R. (2014) Defining Emotional or Behavioral Disorders: The Quest for Affirmation. In P. Gardner, J. M. Kauffman & J. Elliott (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. OCED. (2008). Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages: Statistics and indicators. OCED Publication. Skrtic, T. (1991) Behind special education. Denver: Love Publishing Company. Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. 2001: Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Torfing, Jacob (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Törrönen, J. (2002). Semiotic theory on qualitative interviewing using stimulus texts. Qualitative Research. 2, 3, 343-362. UNESCO. (2009) Embracing Diversity: Toolkit for Creating Inclusive, Learning-Friendly Environments Specialized Booklet 3. Paris: UNESCO. Wibeck, V., Abrandt Dahlgren, M. & Öberg, G. (2007). Learning in focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Qualitative Research. 7, 2, 249-267. Winther Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002) Discourse analysis as Theory and Method. London : Sage.

Author Information

Ulrika Gidlund (presenting / submitting)

Mid Sweden University

Education

Härnösand

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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.