Development Of Student’s Beliefs Towards Inlusive Education At School

Author(s):

Bettina Lindmeier(presenting / submitting)Dorothee Meyer Alice Junge

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

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

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 02 B, Student Voice for Professional Learning

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

15:15-16:45

Room:

OB-E2.18

Chair:

Ken Jones

Contribution

The main question is: Do teaching students, through learning in heterogeneous groups, reflect on their beliefs about inclusive pedagogy and develop a more sustainable positive approach towards inclusive schools? Recent international research indicates the importance of practical inclusive experience of teaching students for the development of more positive attitudes towards inclusive education. (Sharma/Forlin/Loreman 2008; Sharma 2012; Stella/Forlin/Lan 2007; Lindmeier/Laubner 2015). Most of this research focuses on general teacher education. In Germany, all special education students have at least some practical experience and most oft them have an overall positive attitude towards inclusion. Nonetheless, at the same time there is a massive ‚2-groups-perception’ (Feyerer et al. 2014) with strong beliefs that special settings might be necessary for some children with special needs. There is little comprehension of the rights of people with disabilities as set out in the CRPD. Moreover, limited curricula, 2/3 of SEN students still in special schools and inclusive settings lacking resources suggest the limited capacity of these children to learn and participate. Though Germany, maybe, is behind other European countries regarding inclusive education in schools, teacher education faces similar problems in all developed countries. To improve teacher education at Leibniz University of Hanover, we provide own learning experience in heterogeneous groups for students and adults with learning difficulties/ID on subjects relevant for both groups. The aim is to provide fruitful learning experience with regard to academic and social learning, work on own projects and reflexivity. The theoretical framework that informs the courses is the ‚theory of integrative processes’ (Klein et al. 1987) and the ‚contact hypothesis’ (Cloerkes 2007), both proved by some older research. They support the view that meaningful interaction can change believes and reciprocal shape interaction in positive ways. But up to now, too little is known about how to provide meaningful peer interaction in heterogeneous (adult) learner’s groups, the influence of learning subjects, methods and materials. Besides, the project is to be seen in the context of teacher professionalization. There are several theories on professionalization, the most important focus on competences (e.g. Shulman), reflexivity (e.g. Oevermann 1996, 2002) and the long-term development of professionalization during the biographical course, beginning with own students experience, continuing during teacher training and career entry and on-going during the whole professional career (Terhart 2010, 2011; Lindmeier 2015). The research project evaluates the experiences of all students, and the development of the teaching students attitudes towards inclusion, diversity, (dis)ability and learning, their view on their own path of professionalization and their role as a teacher.

Method

Group discussions of project work during the course, in-depth single interviews and group discussions before, after and one year after the courses were used for data collection. The stimuli covered views on learning in heterogeneous groups, diversity, professionalization, inclusion and the anticipated role as a SEN-teacher in inclusive settings. The analysis uses a method called ‘dokumentarische Methode’ (Bohnsack 2007, 2010). This method was developed in dependence on Karl Mannheim’s (1980) sociology of knowledge to analyse ‘collective orientientations’ and implicit knowledge. This approach assumes that there is common, shared knowledge of certain parts of the social reality that is shared by different people on the basis of similar experience, e.g. by ‘being student at a German school’, not necessary in the same class, or by the course experience. This knowledge is partly ‘implicit’ and elusive, therefore it is easier to grasp in a group discussion where participants can agree, complement or disagree with other participant’s statements and recur on their common background. Thus the interview setting allows expressing concurrent and contradictory views on, diversity, inclusion, course experience, professionalization and teacher’s role. It allows recognizing possible changes linked to the shared experience and the further professional development one year later. Nohl (2009) recently applied the method on single interviews. Aim of the method is to identify certain ‘types’ of practical knowledge and (collective) orientation.

Expected Outcomes

Most project groups worked together very well (Lindmeier/Meyer/Kielhorn, 2014). The study project changed their views on learning in mixed groups and the abilities of people with learning disabilities. Students rated the seminar much more positively than other courses on offer and showed high gain of reflexivity. Nonetheless, a closer view reveals large differences between interview partners and groups. As the research process is still on-going, an example is drawn from the project groups. In this part of the research where real interaction was audio graphed and analysed, one important result is that the first group session determines participant’s roles in the group. Though the whole project time was recorded, there where hardly any changes in spite of supervision by student tutors on the group process. In the group type named ‘collaboration’, participants made sure that everybody could participate, taking their time and asking each other. In these groups, participants tried to spend some leisure time together as well. They revealed a collective orientation of collaboration in Harmony, avoiding conflicts. Another group type produced more exclusion. Interestingly, in one group there was one student menaced by exclusion by two other students who often shared information outside the project group, which left the third student insecure about her role in the group. Her main point was to avoid further exclusion. This group had, additionally, to deal with difficulties in the interaction with one of the two women with ID as well. As the group decided to produce a film on partnership with in the topic ‘self determination’, the group agreed to talk about own partnership first, but the three students where overwhelmed by the appalling experience of violence one of the other participants revealed. As several discrepancies occurred in the stories as well, the group tended to ignore the contributions of this participants, not knowing what to make of them.

References

Bohnsack, Ralf (2007). Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in qualitative Methoden. 4., durchgesehene und aktualisierte Auflage. Leske + Budrich; Opladen. Bohnsack, Ralf (2010). Das Gruppendiskussionsverfahren in der Forschungspraxis. 2., vollständig überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Leske + Budrich; Opladen. Cloerkes, G. (2007): Soziologie der Behinderten. Eine Einführung. Unter Mitwirkung von K. Felkendorff und R. Markowetz. 3., neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Heidelberg Klein, G.; Kreie, G.; Kron, M. & H. Reiser (1987): Integrative Prozesse in Kindergartengruppen. Über die gemeinsame Erziehung von behinderten und nichtbehinderten Kindern. München: DJI 1987. Lindmeier, B. (2015): Professionstheoretische Hinweise für eine inklusionsorientierte Lehrerbildung im sonderpädagogischen Lehramt. In: Redlich et al. (Hrsg.): Veränderung und Beständigkeit in Zeiten der Inklusion. Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Professionalisierung. Berlin, 133-143. Lindmeier, B., Meyer, D. & Kielhorn, S. (2014): Inklusive Hochschulbildung durch gemeinsame Universitätsseminare für behinderte Menschen und Studierende. In Schuppener, S., Bernhardt, N., Hauser, M. & Poppe, F. (Hrsg.). Inklusion und Chancengleichheit: Diversity im Spiegel von Bildung und Didaktik, Bad Heilbrunn, (286-296. Lindmeier, B.; Laubner, M. (2015): Hochschul-Seminare einer inklusionsorientierten Lehrerbildung – Forschungsergebnisse sowie methodische und methodologische Diskussionen. In: Schnell, I. (Hrsg.): Herausforderung Inklusion. Theoriebildung und Praxis. Bad Heilbrunn, 303-312. Lindmeier, B. (2015): Professionstheoretische Hinweise für eine inklusionsorientierte Lehrerbildung im sonderpädagogischen Lehramt. In: Redlich, H. Schäfer, L.; Wachtel, G.; Zehbe, K.; Moser, V. (Hrsg.): Veränderung und Beständigkeit in Zeiten der Inklusion. Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Professionalisierung. Berlin, 133-143. Nohl, Arnd-Michael (2009). Interview und dokumentarische Methode. 3. Auflage. VS Verlag; Wiesbaden. Oevermann, U. (1996): Theoretische Skizze einer revidierten Theorie professionalisierten Handelns. In: Combe, A.; Helsper, W. (Hrsg.): Pädagogische Professionalität. Untersuchungen zum Typus pädagogischen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main, 70-182. Oevermann, U. (2002): Professionalisierungsbedürftigkeit und Professionalisiertheit pädagogischen Handelns. In: Kraul, M.; Marotzki, W.; Schweppe, C. (Hrsg.): Biografie und Profession. Bad Heilbrunn, 19-63. Sharma, U. (2012): Changing pre-service teachers’ beliefs to teach in inclusive classrooms in Victoria, Australia. In: Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 37, No. 10, 53-66. Sharma, U./ Forlin, C./ Loreman, T. (2008): What concerns pre-service teachers about inclusive education: An international viewpoint. Journal of Educational Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2, 95-114. Stella, C. S. C./ Forlin, C./ Lan, A. M. (2007): The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, 161-179. Terhart, E. (2011): Lehrerberuf und Professionalität: Gewandeltes Begriffsverständnis – neue Herausforderungen. In: Helsper, W.; Tippelt, R. (Hrsg.): Pädagogische Professionalität. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik – 57. Beiheft. Weinheim, 202-224

Author Information

Bettina Lindmeier (presenting / submitting)

Leibniz University Hannover

Hannover

Dorothee Meyer

Leibniz University Hannover, Germany

Alice Junge

Leibniz Universität Hannover

Institut für Sonderpädagogik / Institut f. Politische Wissenschaft