Whither Inclusion? Translation of the Policy of Inclusion in Teachers’ Understanding and Enactment in Practice

Author(s):

Órla Ní Bhroin(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 10 C, Professional Development for Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-24

15:30-17:00

Room:

W6.21

Chair:

Jo Rose

Contribution

Research question: How do resource teachers and class teachers interpret policy and principles of inclusion and construct practices to include children with special educational needs in mainstream primary schools?

Within the context of an international policy commitment to inclusion (UNESCO, 1994), the introduction of the first piece of legislation relating to education in Ireland (Education Act, Government of Ireland, 1998) heralded a period of rapid policy transformation from segregation to inclusion in the education of children with special educational needs. As such, within the past two decades, the mainstream primary education system has experienced significant change in terms of its requirement to educate all children, including those with special educational needs. Such change constitutes a challenge to the established practices of most teachers, as they are required to interpret knowledge of special education and policy and principles of inclusion in their constructions of practice. However, as consistently noted (Florian, 2014; Hegarty, 2001; Winter & O’Raw, 2010), definitions, concepts and principles of inclusion are varied, contributing to multiple interpretations in practice, while knowledge of special educational needs with implications for teaching and learning has to be acquired. Although legislation and policy documents make the presumption for inclusion, and capacity building measures were implemented, decision-making regarding these measures “appears to have been influenced by reactionary coping mechanisms to manage and control the swift expansion of educational provision for children with special educational needs in the mainstream setting rather than a proactive commitment to inclusion” (Ní Bhroin, 2013, p. 114). This problematic context raises the issue of how resource teachers and class teachers interpret policy and concepts of inclusion and construct practices to include children with special educational needs in mainstream primary schools. This issue transcends geographical boundaries in so far as “how teachers make meaning of the concept of inclusion in their practice” (italics in original) is of relevance to all teachers who face the key challenge of becoming more inclusive (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011, p. 813).

The study adopted a social constructivist theoretical framework (Charmaz, 2000). As the paradigmatic assumptions of constructivism support exploration of human understanding, intentions, interpretations and actions in natural contexts, they underpinned the research design which was interpretive and espoused a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1978). Within this framework, literatures forming the backdrop for the study and articulating perspectives for data analysis were conceptually organized to reflect five key and interrelated aspects of teachers’ practices and pedagogy for inclusion as follows: special education specific pedagogies; co-teaching; teaching for collaborative learning; differentiation; and, pedagogy for inclusion.

Research on special education specific pedagogies does not support the view that effective teaching for learners of a particular category of special educational need is different from teaching other learners, making the concept of a continuum of pedagogy to meet the continuum of need compelling (Lewis & Norwich, 2005). Research on co-teaching (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain & Shamberger, 2010; Takala & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, 2012) and differentiation (Avissar, 2012; Coffey, 2004) evidences equivocal results while research on collaborative learning highlights the importance of teaching prerequisite skills of communication (Howe & Tolmie, 2003; Webb, 2009). Research on pedagogies for inclusion emphasises co-agency, trust and providing learning opportunities that are sufficiently made available to everyone (Hart, Dixon, Drummond & McIntyre, 2004; Florian, 2014). Indicating that there is no blue print for inclusion and that pedagogy and practices are varied and complex, the review also substantiated the critical importance of documenting intentions as well as pedagogical routines and of incorporating classroom observations in research design as a means of capturing teachers’ interpretations in action.

Method

Methodology was qualitative, incorporating interview and observation. Participants included nine resource teachers and nine class teachers each paired in a particular school, totaling 18 teachers. The research design had two distinct but interrelated phases. Phase one involved semi-structured individual interviews to elicit teachers’ understanding of inclusion. Phase two involved observations to document practice, conducted for a period of five to six days spread over the course of the school year in each of the nine schools. The time allocated to observation of resource teachers’ and class teachers’ practice was based on tracking one child with special educational needs. The children were selected by the resource teacher on the basis that they qualified for additional teaching support. All children were broadly within a similar category of special educational needs, classified as high incidence special educational needs (DES, 2005). Consistent with the flexible research design, initial observations were unstructured but with progressive focusing; subsequent observations were systematic and focused. In this context, a systematic observation schedule was developed for data collection on teachers’ communicative routines, containing six categories of teachers’ verbal interactions as follows: teacher directs, questions, disciplines, mediates, encourages, and maintains learning and relationships. Structured observation was based on a number of lessons taught by resource teacher in resource room and by class teacher in settings in which the mainstream class was located. This accounted for approximately two hours teaching time per teacher, totaling 36 hours. In two schools, where the resource teacher and class teacher co-taught for certain periods of the school day, additional structured observations were based on the group including the child with special educational needs being tracked and teacher working with that group. This accounted for approximately two hours teaching time per school, totaling four hours. Teachers’ verbal interactions were coded according to frequency across each of the lessons observed and represent the total of teacher talk during the allocated time. Focused observation involved completing a running record on content and sequence of teacher-learner actions and interactions relating to particular teaching-learning episodes across all curricular areas. Dialogue occurred throughout, and at the end of the school year individual semi-structured interviews were also conducted. Analysis of qualitative data involved manual processing from units of information to codes, to categories to themes within and across cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Quantitative data on teachers’ verbal interactions were tabulated and entered into SPSS for descriptive and comparative purposes.

Expected Outcomes

Findings revealed that teaching-learning activities that connect with needs of the learner are priority while degree of inclusion they provide is secondary in teachers’ constructions of inclusive practices. At times, the withdrawal setting is more appropriate for the intensity of teaching necessary to secure intentional learning of children with special educational needs. In the mainstream class, their intentional learning is enhanced by one-to-one and small group teaching and by co-teaching practices. Inclusion is highly complex and has to evolve further as learners with special educational needs are accommodated only to the extent that they can be included within the needs of the mainstream class. Paradoxically, the very resources provided to facilitate inclusion can contribute to separate, fragmented and often times exclusionary teaching-learning experiences for learners with special educational needs. The particular contribution of the study to understanding inclusion is that teachers’ interpretations and constructions of inclusive practice are grounded in the central tenets of communicative routines, attunement and coherence-fragmentation. As such, pedagogical practices central to facilitating inclusion are as follows: teachers’ use of mediated talk and questions to assess learning; transactional teaching-learning interactions contributing to transformational teaching-learning episodes; and, optimal interfacing of roles of resource teachers and class teachers. This paper focuses specifically on findings related to the theme of attunement, referencing how the international policy of inclusion plays out in teachers’ interpretations and constructions of practice. To this end, attunement is defined, detailing the mutually transformative reciprocal interactions among teachers and learners to enable intentional learning; complexities presented by attunement for class teachers are documented; co-teaching to circumvent the challenge of deploying attunement is detailed; and, analysis of attunement as an inclusive pedagogical approach is presented. Findings support recommendations to policy and professional preparation as a means of promoting the developments to practice critical to securing and sustaining inclusion.

References

Avissar, G. (2012). Inclusive education in Israel from a curriculum perspective: an exploratory study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 35-49. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory objectivist and constructivist method. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coffey, A. (2004). Accessing the curriculum: A case study of pupils with special educational needs in a mainstream Irish primary school. REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, 17(2), 93-103. Department of Education and Science. (2005). Circular 02/05: Organisation of teaching resources for pupils who need additional support in mainstream primary schools. Dublin: Author. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Government of Ireland. (1998). Education act. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M.J., & McIntyre, D. (2004). Learning without limits. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hegarty, S. (2001). Inclusive education: A case to answer. Journal of Moral Education, 30(3), 243-249. Howe, C. & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: Discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1/2), 51-72. Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (Eds) (2005). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for inclusion. London: Open University Press. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Ní Bhroin, Ó. (2013). Questions to assess learning as a communicative routine for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 114-123. Takala, M. & Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. (2012). A one-year study of the development of co-teaching in four Flemish schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(3), 373-390. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Retrieved 14 September 2010 from . Webb, N.M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1-28. Winter, E. & O’Raw, P. (2010). Literature review of the principles and practices relating to inclusive education for children with special educational needs. Trim: National Council for Special Education.

Author Information

Órla Ní Bhroin (presenting / submitting)

Dublin City University, Ireland

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.