The Pedagogy of Participation - Aarhus Universitet



Pedagogy of Participation in inclusive classrooms

Susan Tetler, DPU, University of Aarhus

Nordic social and education policy is based on the principles of equality and democracy. Ostensibly this refers to policy as well as practice. Active participation by all students in all school activities irrespective of their social position is not considered a necessary prerequisite for these principles to operate but the possibility of such participation is seen as a must. This is the essence of the Nordic public school system: it is an ideal rather than a practice – and the practice often falls short of the mark (Marinosson, Ohna & Tetler, 2007). But before any further elaboration of the concept of participation, the concepts of integration and inclusion need to be clarified as regards to consequences for educational practices and research.

Ultimately, the difference between the concepts of integration and inclusion (and their understandings of practice respectively) is about with whom the responsibility of the success of efforts on integration lays: with the individual and so saying dependent on the functioning of the individual student or on the learning environment and so saying dependent on the broadness and flexibility of the environment.

Traditionally, a student’s social integration is considered as dependent on that student’s personal skills and competencies, as inherent in the student, so to speak. The concept of inclusion, however, is much more related to the conditions and opportunities, that every day school life provides for the students with a view to participating meaningfully. Thus, the focus is shifting from individually oriented explanations to more relational explanations, which ultimately requires solutions related to the way that education currently is organised.

Seen from that point of view, we need (new?) pedagogical concepts, that can point out the qualitative aspects of the relation between the individual and the environment. Else the concept of inclusion is at risk of being devalued as it is taken over by those at whom its original critical potential was aimed – and at risk of becoming mixed up with the politics of the standard agenda.

Revitalizing the vision of inclusion, the concept of participation has been a turning point in recent discourses in the Scandinavian countries. In contrast to the compensatory principle of the period of integration, the present period is characterized by the principle of democratic participation. Participation, therefore, is not necessarily a disability issue; any more than inclusive education is, it refers to all learners. This entails that each individual’s involvement is on his or her own terms. In this sense participation is the practical activity that epitomizes inclusive education and makes it what it purports to be.

A review of Nordic classroom research projects (from the period 2000-2006), dealing with the concept of participation, indicates a need for studies that bring up pedagogical strategies and means that can promote active participation in diverse classrooms (Marinosson, Ohna & Tetler, 2007). One of the teacher’s tasks in Nordic schools is to facilitate participation, and that can be organised through differentiated, activating and cooperative teaching processes. It is well known that it is possible to differentiate compared to several aspects of the educational process: goals, curriculum, working methods, time, resources or evaluation forms, but our review of the Nordic doctoral studies shows as well that these differentiation issues compared to “included” students with disabilities are so far scanty clarified.

Project rationale

The project, presented in this article, is a minor part of a larger three year project named “Effects of Special Education Provisions for students with disabilities”, which is part of The Strategic Wellfare Research Program in Denmark. It takes its point of departure from these reflections, as the aim of the study is to take a closer look at the processes of participation, going on in inclusive classrooms. The overall research question is: What characterizes the learning opportunities and -conditions in inclusive classrooms? To highlight that issue, it is also necessary to study 1) which patterns of teaching and learning actually predominate, 2) in which ways are students with disabilities included in classroom teaching activities, 3) with whom do they interact, and 4) what characterizes their active participation – and to which degree?

Seeking answers to these questions, Suzanne Carrington’s (1999) distinction between the two levels of a teacher’s educational platform looks very helpful. She distinguishes between teachers’ espoused theory (what they say they assume, believe and intend) and their theory in use (the assumptions, beliefs and intents which can be inferred from their behaviour). Thus, it is not sufficient to analyse documents such as government bills and departmental decrees, which probably reflect the official rhetoric but tell us nothing about practice, preparedness or priorities. Nor is it sufficient to pin down teachers’ self-perception by interviewing them, as they are rarely conscious of the hidden agenda embedded in school activities. Rather, an attempt to capture both teachers’ espoused theories and their theory in use calls for a field-study approach, using data-collection techniques such as participant observation and open-ended interviews with participants.

In the large project we study 26 students’ learning conditions. Half of them is included in regular classrooms, while the other half is placed in more segregated settings such as special classes and special schools. Furthermore, the students are characterized by different kinds of disabilities (ADHD, autism, cerebral pares, visual impairments, dyslexia and cognitive difficulties). We have used a wide range of methods: for example semi-structured interviews of teachers and parents, structured interviews of our focus students and their class mates about the classroom climate, collection of individual educational plans, collection of teachers’ diaries with “stories of successes” and observations of teaching and learning activities in the classrooms. We analyse the data in three phases: “within setting” analysis, “within category” analysis and “cross case” analysis.

Studying the characteristics of ongoing pedagogical processes, however, it is necessary to step into the classrooms and observe what is actually going on when it comes to teaching and learning activities. As the challenge is … not only to analyze teaching and learning processes within a setting … but also to compile data across settings, it was necessary to develop observation tools that make that kind of comparisons possible.

Method

This minor study part is about those 15 students, included in regular classrooms. In the first year we made a pilot study of 26 observations. This year 30 lessons have been observed in those inclusive setting; that means 14 classrooms in 13 schools in 13 municipalities. We have taken our point of departure in an observation tool: Student Membership Snapshot, developed by Eileen Rivers & Dianne Ferguson, 1995. The original intention of that tool was to be a developmental tool for schools that intend to include students with disabilities in order for them to become active participants in their learning communities.

As the title of the tool indicates, it provides the teacher with a snappy overview of how a student participates in teaching activities in the learning community and on which premises, but in a way so … at the same time … both student AND his/her context is in focus. We have revised this tool to a research tool in order to make it possible to compare characteristics cross classrooms.

Empirical findings

Time only allows me to present some of the empirical findings of this observation study: 1) the characteristics of the “included” students’ learning activities, 2) with whom do they interact, and 3) their patterns of participation in classroom activities.

I’m very much aware that it is excluding using the term “included students”, but anyhow, we have chosen that term in this paper, as I want to stress their position.

The characteristics of the “included” students’ learning activities

Our interest was to compare included students’ learning activities with those of the other students. Were they similar, or did they differ? And … was so the case … in which aspects did they differ?

It was characteristic for all 14 inclusive settings that more teachers took part in the class room activities, which opened up for a more flexible organisation of the teaching activities. Therefore, it was surprising, how little the teaching actually was differentiated.

Figure 1

[pic]The predominating pattern is that students with disabilities work with the same materials as the other students in the class room; they work in the same way and with the same goals. When we were able to identify differences among the students’ learning activities, it was often a pattern of (individual) parallel activities, together with a teacher assistant. For example, one of the boys, diagnosed with Tourette, had his own room next to the classroom, to which he and his teaching assistant withdraw to work, when he needed periods of quiet.

The students’ patterns of interaction

Related to the issue of differentiation of teaching and learning activities are the patterns of student interaction. Who teach and support the included students?

Figure 2

[pic]

Figure 2 shows that our focus students primarily work individually, either as independent (as part of whole class activities) or as involved in a 1:1 teaching activity with a teacher assistant. It is remarkable, how little interaction occurs with the other students in the classroom, especially because one of the main reasons for an inclusive school placement is the possibility for social relationships with age peers.

Groupings, in which the focus students is involved

Closely linked to the pattern of interactions is the study of groupings in which our focus students are involved. Again, it is obvious that either the included students are involved in joint teacher directed classroom activities, or they work individually. We saw only a few situations, when they worked in groups together with other students.

Figure 3

[pic]

Conclusions

All in all our observations of selected teaching activities in 14 inclusive settings show that an included student either participates in joint teacher directed activities with the same materials or works individually; sometimes independent, sometimes in a close relationship (almost symbiotic) with his/her teacher assistant.

There is a clear division of the responsibility: the classroom teacher is in charge of the teaching of the whole class, while the teaching assistant is in charge to adjust this teaching to the needs of the included student. In spite of this clear division of the teaching responsibility, both the classroom teacher and the teacher assistant are supportive, when it comes to concrete situations in the classroom.

The most frequent interaction partner of an included student is an adult (especially the teaching assistant); thus, it is striking, how little an included student is involved in more committed cooperative and collaborative situations with his or her peers. Finally, it is worth mentioning, that an included student’s pattern of activity looks like the other students, and is characterized by a high degree of participation, no matter if the teaching activities are so-called “structured” or more “unstructured”.

Closing remarks

In many of these classrooms, the teachers have the best intentions, but as our observations show, there are lots of unused possibilities. For example, more cooperative teaching activities, characterized by commitment, will mean, that the learning potential – as the peers actually are – can be used much better, than the case is today. In this way, students with disabilities are much more able to contribute to the development of the learning community.

It is a dilemma for teachers how to balance between the academic and social dimensions of schools, when schools are also put under great pressure to focus on basic skills, as is the case with Danish schools at the moment due to the international comparative studies in reading, math and science skills. Consequently, teachers argue that they do not have time for social activities in their classes.

They seem, however, to mistake activities which involve “being together” for collaborative activities. While “being together” is perceived as a social activity without a well-defined goal – and therefore as less binding or committing, collaboration always involves a goal that one tries to achieve through various activities (Rabøl, Horn & Robenhagen, 1992). Thus, collaborative work is seen as the framework for both the students’ learning and social outcomes. Instead of seeing the academic and social dimensions as separate areas of school life, the challenge is to integrate them in order to facilitate the development of caring and mutual relations as well as academic skills.

One may look at successful participation in a diverse group of students as a result of, or at least as one element of, inclusive education. It may be viewed as the core of a set of beliefs and arrangements that inclusive education is composed of and that make participation possible. Conversely, inclusion is about maximising participation and removing barriers to that participation.

References

Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Vol. 3, no. 3

Marinosson G, Ohna S.E. & Tetler, S. (2007). Delagtighedens pædagogik. Psykologisk Pædagogisk Rådgivning, nr. 3

Rabøl, V., Horn, I. & Robenhagen, O. (1992) Undervisningsdifferentiering - idé og grundlag. København, Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.

Rivers, E. S., Ferguson, D. L., Lester, J. & Droege, C. (1995). Student Membership Snapshots: An Ongoing Problem-Finding and Problem-Solving Strategy. Eugene, OR: School Project STP, University of Oregon.

-----------------------

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download