Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Responsive Teachers Confront Inclusion

Hafdis Gudjonsdottir Ph.D.
Iceland University of Education, Reykjavik, Iceland
hafdgud@khi.is

The movement from segregation to inclusion (integration) of students with disabilities into general education classrooms has challenged teachers to expand their knowledge and skills, as well as to cross certain philosophical and methodological boundaries that separate general and special education (O'Brian & O'Brian, 1996). This paper discusses how Icelandic teachers who are facing these challenges shape and develop their teaching practice and re-define their role as responsive teachers. The complex and multifaceted phenomena of inclusion/exclusion can only be understood through partnership with teachers in sustained in-depth inquiry into (a) the learning and life outcomes for all students, (b) the theoretical underpinnings of classroom teaching that encompasses theory, practice, and ethics, (c) the impact of broad societal, cultural and socioeconomic trends.

Inclusion

Skrtic (1995) proposed that inclusion is more than a model for special education service, but rather a change in paradigm from the functionalist ideas that emphasize fixing, improving or making students ready, and a demand for thinking and acting in ways that include all persons in a society where diversity is the norm rather than the exception. Skrtic reasoned that in a diverse society, schools will educate people who will become socially responsible, appreciate uncertainty and become interdependent (Skrtic, 1995). Understood in this way the concept and practice of inclusion extends well beyond understandings of “disability” or the institution of special education to focus on the efforts of schools and communities to embrace diversity and recognise the participation and agency of all students, teachers and families in creating this reality (Ballard, 1999; Skrtic, 1995; Stainback & Stainback, 1996). Accordingly, all students, including those with disabilities, should be able to attend their neighborhood community schools. The challenge is to extend theory and practice of inclusion to more schools and communities, while at the same time keeping in mind that the primary purpose is to facilitate and assist the learning and adaptation of all students, the citizens of tomorrow (Ballard, 1999; Biklen, 1992; Guðjónsdóttir, 1994; Karagiannis, Stainback, & Stainback, 1996; Schnorr, 1990; Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1995; Ware, 1995).

Schaffner and Buswell (1996) believe that, to effectively educate a diverse group of students and meet their educational needs, it is critical that teachers use a variety of teaching approaches. (Guðjónsdóttir, 1994; Martin, 1997; Noddings, 1997; Sapon-Sevin, 1996; Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1995; Ware, 1995). In this paper, I will focus on how one teacher shapes and forms her practice by introducing her professional profile. The profile provides an illustration of a teacher as she uses theory, develops curricula descriptions, responds to diversity, and evaluates her practice. In the conclusion, I will bring together some recommendation for inclusive classroom practices.

Greta

Greta, a forty-year old educator, finds it critical that teachers do not refuse to have a child in their classrooms: “You can ask for support or set up requirements.”

For example, Baldur, a six-year-old diagnosed as severely disabled, had two older brothers who attended Nesskoli. To his parents it was simply natural that he would join his brothers at their school. The school faculty at Nesskoli welcomed him and immediately began to prepare for his attendance. They began by gathering information about his status and starting to write an individualized curriculum. Before school started, faculty who would work with Baldur attended a workshop on sign language. The inclusion of Baldur was in opposition to a group of professionals in town who did not support the concept of integrating Baldur into a regular classroom.

Later in the fall, the collaborative teachers, the special educator, and the general educator realized the inclusion program took a great quantity of time and energy. They also realized that they needed to document the process so others could learn from their experience. Baldur entered Greta’s class in first grade:

I was apprehensive and felt we had to have everything ready for him. I asked for an educational assistant and in the beginning, I had a paraprofessional who was just out of junior college, but it was just like having an additional student. It is very critical whom you get as a partner; it must be a professional or at least someone with experience and not a student to whom you have to teach everything, and who will not even listen, as was the case here.

There have always been two adults in the class and sometimes three. The special educator works with Greta and there is also an educational assistant in the classroom.

…and now I have a person that is enthusiastic and with remarkable experience. A paraprofessional who seeks out workshops and readings so she can do her job better. It has been great to work with her.

Greta and the special educator developed an individualized curriculum with emphases on social development, communication, and instruction that would meet Baldur’s needs. During the first two years, collaboration was considerable but gradually they divided the responsibility and workload. The special educator and the educational assistant collaborated on Baldur’s educational goals and Greta worked with the regular class on their curriculum as well as social goals for Baldur.

It came to the point that I felt it all stagnated and that Baldur was just in his corner glued to his paraprofessional, doing his work. There was little correlation between his educational work and the schoolwork other students in the class were doing. Finally, I suggested we should do something about our organization. We began by evaluating our work and then reorganizing. We have not reached the stage at which I would like us to be, but we are striving for more participation in the learning division.

Greta noted that Baldur’s social development in the class and his inclusion in social events with his classmates went beyond their expectations.

His mother is very active in the association for families of people with disabilities. Once she was discussing Baldur’s experience in the general school and one of the other mothers was surprised that his classmates invite him to birthday parties. Her son attends a special school and never goes to birthday parties with his schoolmates.

Form the beginning, Greta has worked on social cohesion in her inclusive practice. She beliefs that by neglecting the constant work that needs to be done in functioning and by thinking it will happen by itself, there is the danger of loosing the cohesion. Children should have the opportunity to express their opinion and they should learn to discuss different opinions without judging people. She asked the children to look at matters from Baldur’s point of view, but did not at first realize that Baldur, has his own opinion about his classmates, as appears in the following incident:

Baldur kept asking about something and I did not understand what he was saying. He was very disturbed about something; finally, one of the children managed to understand what he was trying to communicate to us. His concerns were the grouping of the students. He preferred to go with one group rather than the other because he liked the kids in that group better. Baldur had been thinking about this all winter but we did not even consider if he liked some kids more than others or if he even cared!

One year Greta attended a conference in Norway where she learned about “Julius,” a soft animal that belonged to a class.

During one of our dialogues, Greta asked me eagerly if I knew about Julius and when I said no, she said very excitedly: Oh, I must tell you about him, he is a great idea. I went to a conference in Norway one year and a group of teachers introduced their project in which they used a teddy bear as a motivator for writing. I became very interested and decided to introduce this idea into my class to integrate cohesion and writing. Student teachers working in our class one year had given the class a teddy bear at the end of their student teaching, which the students decided to call Julius. Julius has meant very much to the children and through him Greta talks about friendship, loyalty, consideration, and differences.

There are 22 children in the Greta’s class and she described them as a diverse group — to respond to this diversity her teaching strategies include both individualized and group approaches. Her classroom was only three walls and opens into a common middle space. A small blackboard is in one corner, around which the children’s desks are organized into two U-shapes. In one corner is a mat for Greta and the children to sit on when they work together as a whole group or at discussion time and next to the mat is Greta’s desk, which she uses mostly for storing her things. The classroom space is organized for “center work” where students have easy access to study materials.

It was my first observation in Greta’s classroom. The students were arriving, although some were already building blocks together, others playing cards, and few working on their workbooks. In one corner, Baldur and one of his classmates were going through his schedule for the day, and his other classmates were stopping by to check how they were doing.

Greta looks at me and says: “My educational assistant is at a conference and not here today. Therefore the children alternate with Baldur on his work.” Greta is chatting with the children as they arrive, checking their work and their condition. Before long, she suggests they put their work away and take a seat on the corner-mat. She wants to go through the schedule for the day. During the first hour, they can alternate their work.

Gradually the children decided on their alternatives; Baldur was going to work on the computer. Greta has the children take turns working with him and today it was Stella’s turn. Some of the others volunteered to work with Baldur, but Greta gently says that if Stella is ready, she would like her to work with him. The children began organizing themselves and as everyone was working, Greta began to gather the things Baldur needed for his next task. The children often stopped by Baldur and Stella; they looked at his work, encouraged him, or just joked with him. I noticed that they communicated with him by mixing speech and sign language.

Greta states that one of the main goals in Baldur’s curriculum is teaching him how to communicate through sign language. She is not satisfied with the results. Although they have taught sign language to the class, labeled everything in the classroom, and used it themselves, Baldur does not use it very much except when he is having a hard time communicating and is reminded to sign. Greta told me that his family does not use it at home and now she is beginning to wonder about this goal and how useful it will be for him in the future.

The reality is that he will go to the store but the cashier will not sign or he will have a job but his colleagues will not sign. If this is to become useful, we need to teach all children at the school to sign as is done at Solbakki (an inclusive preschool). Additionally, it needs to be taught to adults in certain services. I am wondering how I can rationalize all the time I used to teach the sign language now when I have realized the lack of usefulness. Now as Baldur becomes more fluent in his speech we are signing less.

Greta finds working in an inclusive classroom challenging and, in certain ways, she has to plan and work differently than in a more homogenized classrooms.

You have to constantly balance your teaching, asking yourself if all students have appropriate work and are socially included. You must work in cohesion with your class, you cannot expect it to appear naturally. Sometimes the whole group works together, other times individually or they work collaboratively. My students help each other very much; they work in pairs, which they enjoy. Together they work on their workbooks; they write stories and make questions.

For Greta it is important that children have challenging learning opportunities, alternatives, and hands on projects. To keep them interested and occupied she creates teaching and learning material that involves play. It is very important to Greta that children feel good about themselves, feel safe and secure, and have their needs met. Additionally she finds it important to be well aware of their process and their accomplishment.

As I look around my classroom, I want to see a group of occupied students and see that the behavior in the class is in balance because the learning opportunities are in charge. I try to give the children enough time to touch and to feel the learning materials we use. I want my class to be well disciplined but I do not want to make rules all the time; interesting projects ought to discipline the children. I observe with the children what needs to happen so they will all feel good about themselves. We create the class rules in collaboration and minimize them while making them as clear as possible.

Greta finds it important to plan well for her teaching, although she states that often she does not even look at her plans, and often her plans change. She tries to plan learning activities and projects in conjunction with her students:

I had suspended for a long time an idea of a reading bingo I wanted to arrange in my classroom. Through all kinds of excuses, such as having to plan the whole program beforehand, not having time to make all the material I needed, and having to “sell” the idea to my teaching partner, I delayed the project much longer than I had anticipated. Finally, I decided to discuss this with my class and have them help me create the bingo and that is when it really began to roll. We began by making bingo cards for everyone, then we decided on the rules. To fill a square the students had to read certain type of a reading. It could be a novel, a poem, news, article, or discovery, and they could find these readings in a book, newspaper, or a magazine. They could also choose from looking at pictures, listening to a tape, listening to their parents or a friend, or reading by themselves. This all depended on their ability, interest and motivation.

The students were actively suggesting how to organize the activity but when it came to discussing the rewards for filling out the bingo card, they challenged my ethics. To me there was no way I could agree on materially rewarding them. I believe there is way too much going on in terms of getting children to work by rewarding them with toys, food, pizza, movie tickets, and that there was no way I would have that as part of my rewards. Little by little, I moved the discussion towards an award that I felt was educational and in the end, we agreed on a “word trophy.” I made the trophies and a list of words from which they could choose. I was satisfied with this project because I managed to imbue it with many of my philosophical and pedagogical believes.

Next year Greta will teach first graders again and she is looking forward to the chance to incorporate her new knowledge with a new group of students. She finds it very important to strengthen the link between preschool and grade school levels, and has worked on that for some years. She intends to continue this as she incorporates new ideas and knowledge into her teaching. Although Greta admits that responding to all the learning and social differences in her class was challenging, she says her own gain was even greater.

I learned that nothing is self-evident and to look at children’s ability from different angles and to accept the difference. I also reflected on my biases and began to evaluate my own teaching strategies, realizing that all children can learn something if the teaching is geared to their abilities, interest and needs. I also learned that children are tolerant and can easily image themselves in other children’s shoes if you inform them and teach them. That is our responsibility as teachers.

For Greta, including all children in the general classroom calls for professional growth in pedagogical knowledge and ethics, and requires recognition of teachers’ professional knowledge. Greta had to respond to a group of students who were more diverse than she had ever experienced before. Collaborating with professionals and paraprofessionals to develop and implement individualized curricula and personalized learning forced Greta to broaden her practice and thinking. Working on social development and skills has been a strong component in her responsive practice. By emphasizing hands-on projects, learning by doing, and play, she responds to children’s different needs, interests and learning styles. Conducting research and reporting on her inclusive practice was an important stage in her professional development. As she returns again to first grade, she anticipates this opportunity to include all her new ideas and learning in practice.

Conclusion and the beacon

The story of Greta illustrates the diversity of students in her classrooms, the vitality, complexity and challenges of her work, and the holistic nature of her approaches to curriculum design, assessment and evaluation. Her openness to diversity and responsiveness as a professional were the critical elements in creating learning for all students. She was excited by the diversity in her classroom and created curricula for the whole group of learners that was responsive to each student. A critical element of this response was her openness to children and her recognition that individual differences in children contribute to the richness of the learning environment.

Diversity means different races, different interest groups, different power bases and basically different lots in life. To achieve moral purpose is to forge interaction and even mutual interest across groups. Yet the problem is that there are great tendencies to keep people different than ourselves at a distance (Fullan, 1999 p. 2)

It was clear that Greta had a strong ethical and moral commitment to the value and abilities of each student. It was this openness and her commitment to responding to the needs of each student that led her to build a pedagogy appropriate for mixed-ability groups of students.

The number of schools and classrooms that are inclusive of all learners will not increase if the educational discourse continues to be based on the special education model with its focus on categorization of students, identification of their limitations, and generation of individual programs and social interaction. An understanding of the term “diversity” must be expanded beyond disability or ethnic difference to focus on the value of differences in gender, socio-economic status, cultural group, abilities, learning styles and interests (Booth & Ainscow, 1998).

A pedagogy that forms the basis for teaching diverse groups of students must include more than a skill in using prescribed instructional practices. It must integrate a professional knowledge base about teaching, learning and child development, and involve an ethical and social commitment to children. As a result of my study, I have developed a definition of the pedagogical qualities of the responsive professional educator:

Responsive pedagogues are educators who (a) understand child development and individual difference and are committed to the education of all students, and (b) have a knowledge base which enables them to differentiate between students as they develop curriculum for all students.

Responsive pedagogues go beyond acknowledging and respecting differences as they create curricula. They focus on the children and what they bring into the classroom (ability, attitude, background, experience, interest, knowledge, and skills), and respond to individual differences as they create a learning environment that supports all students to expand their learning. Responsive pedagogues are skilled in creating a curriculum of learning activities and environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed.

This inquiry brought me to the understanding that to create inclusive practice teachers not only need to be open to diversity, they must also have the pedagogical knowledge on which to base their responsiveness to the variety of situations they face in their daily work. Teachers must have a comprehensive grounding in pedagogy that enables them to (a) base their teaching on detailed knowledge of each student, (b) construct learning activities that are both challenging and enjoyable, (c) differentiate between students within integrated curricula and programs, (d) use the physical and social environment to support learning, (e) support students to develop a growing sense of responsibility for their learning, and (f) work in partnership with students to monitor and modify teaching, learning and assessment.

If this is to happen, teachers need to gain knowledge, understanding and skills in the following key areas of teaching, learning and professionalism; differentiated curriculum design, learning and assessment, inclusive classroom climate, activity-based learning, professional collegiality and connection with families. In addition to the responsive professional practice of teachers, the successful education of all students will require action by all members of the educational community, and systemic, legislative and policy support that values openness, diversity and non-discrimination.

References

Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all: An alternative approach to special needs in education. In M. Ainscow (Ed.), Effective schools for all (pp. 1-19). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc. A Sage Publications Company.

Ballard, K. (1999). Concluding thoughts. In K. Ballard (Ed.), Inclusive education: International voices on disability and justice (pp. 167-180). London: Falmer Press.

Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents, educators, and inclusive education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education . London: Routledge.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel . Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Guðjónsdóttir, H. (1994). Heildtæk skólastefna-- samvirkt nám (Inclusive schooling: Cooperative learning). Glæður (a).

Karagiannis, A., Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1996). Rationale for inclusive schooling . Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Publishing Co.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Geelong Victoria, BC: Deakin University Press.

Martin, J. M., & Kompf, M. (1996). Teaching in inclusive classroom settings: The Use of journals and concept mapping techniques. In M. Kompf, W. R. Bond, D. Dworet, & R. T. Boak (Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers' professionalism identities and knowledge (pp. 90 -103). London: Falmer Press.

Martin, J. R. (1997). A Philosophy of education for the year 2000. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Transforming public education: A new course for public America's future (pp. 15- 26). New York: Teachers College Press.

McCutcheon, G., & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into practice, 29 (c), 144-151.

McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional, collaborative and emancipatory-critical conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3 (c), 173-200.

Noddings, N. (1997). A Morally defensible mission for schools in the 21st century. In E. Clinchy (Ed.), Transforming public education: A new course for America's future . New York: Teacher College Press.

O'Brian, J., & O'Brian, C. L. (1996). Inclusion as a force for school renewal. In S. S. & S. W. (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators . Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Publishing Co.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication.

Sapon-Sevin, M. (1996). Celebrating diversity, creating community: Curriculum that honors and builds on differences. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators . Baltimore: Paul H Brooks.

Schaffner, C. B., & Buswell, B. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective school communities. In S. S. & S. W. (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators . Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Publishing Co.

Schnorr, R. (1990). Peter? He comes and goes...first graders' perspectives on a part-time mainstream student. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15 (d), 231-240.

Skrtic, T. M. (1995). Deconstructing/reconstructing public education: Social reconstruction in the postmodern era. In T. M. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy (pp. 233-274). New York: Teachers College Press.

Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Concluding remarks: Concerns about inclusion. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A Guide for educators . Baltimore: Paul H Brooks Publishing Co.

Udvari-Solner, A., & Thousand, J. (1995). Effective organizational, instructional and curricular practices in inclusive schools and classrooms. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools? (pp. 147-163). London: David Fulton Publishers.

Ware, L. (1995). The aftermath of the articulate debate: The invention of inclusive education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools? (pp. 127-146). London: David Fulton Publishers.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact