Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Magda Nikolaraizi and Sophia Mavropoulou
Department of Special Education
University of Thessaly
Argonaphton and Philellinon
38221, Volos, Greece
mnikolar@uth.gr
Inclusive education and curriculum development
The term "curriculum" entails the learning and social structures, practices, organization as well as what and how is taught within educational settings (Apple, 1996; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Carr, 1993). The design and implementation of curriculum has been one of the most crucial topics in education because through its rules, practices and content it transmits societal values in terms of knowledge and culture (Armstrong, 1999). Curriculum is not static but it changes in order to keep up with the ongoing social development (Browder, Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Karvonen, Spooner & Algozzine, 2004; Otis-Wilborn, 1995).
Along with the society’s evolution, a major development that influenced curriculum and raised concerns regarding its role in education was the inclusive movement. Inclusion came as a response to the economical, political, social, cultural conditions and humanistic values that emerged in most western societies (Freire & César, 2003) and reflected the new societal perspectives regarding children with diverse needs and consequently children with special educational needs (Browder et al., 2004). An inclusive learning environment is the one that reflects the heterogeneity of our society (Bradley & Switlick, 1997), through the acceptance of all children regardless of their perceived physical, educational or psychological challenges, accommodates their needs and creates opportunities so that all children develop their full potentials in the school (Armstrong, 1999; Bradley & Switlick, 1997; Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Stainback, Stainback, & Jackson, 1992; Walter-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin & Williams, 2000).
The realization of inclusive education has been a rather complicated and demanding process and despite the efforts of researchers as well as of policy makers around the world to support and promote inclusion (Van Kraayenoord, 2003), effective planning has not been accomplished yet (Kavale, 2002; Kavale & Forness, 2000). The issue of complexity derives from the assumption that inclusion does not simply concern a placement but a philosophy, the implementation of which requires dynamic educational changes and a reconsideration of the roles of professionals, learners, the curriculum, as well as instructional and financial resources (Peters, 2002; Lipsky & Gartner, 1999; Thomas, Walker & Webb, 1998; Ware, 1995). The aim of this paper is to analyze the role of the curriculum as well as that of the teachers as two critical factors in the realization of an effective inclusive programme ( Ainscow, 1999; Evans, 2004; Peters, 2002; Rose, 2000; Thomas et al. 1998; Van Kraayenoord, 2003)
Traditionally, curricula, often based on psychometric or other forms of assessment, have been a means of exclusion of students (Clough, 1999). Although efforts have been made to ensure greater access to the curriculum, there was always a “readiness” viewpoint, meaning that the principal aim was to enable children to follow the general education curriculum, to “fit” into a standardized educational mainstream in which uniformity was fostered over personal learning (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996; Warger & Pugach, 1996). The tendency was to look at the “deficit” behaviors or learning characteristics of the child as the main sources of the problem (Warger & Pugach, 1996) and to recommend the provision of more specialized educational services, usually in another classroom with a special education teacher (Bradley & Switlick, 1997). Gradually, though, the synthesis of school population in general education settings became more diverse and along with the vision of inclusive schools, there was a shift from the assumption that the responsibility lies within students’ themselves to the curriculum itself and the exploration of why the curriculum appears to be ineffective to respond to the challenging needs of the school population in general education settings (Warger & Pugach, 1996).
As a result, a rethinking of the entire curriculum began and a need emerged for the development of more progressive and inclusive curricula which would consider and most importantly adjust to children’s individual needs , rather than require from of all children to become “ready” for the general education setting and prove that they can accomplish the same curriculum goals (Bassett, Jackson, Ferrell, Luckner, Hagerty, Bunsen & MacIsaac, 1996; Bradley & Switlick, 1997; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett & Ferguson, 1992; Pugach, 1996; Schumm, Vaughn, Haagar, McDowwll, Rothlein & Saumell, 1995; Switlick, 1997 ). Along with the rethinking of the curriculum and the need for the development of more progressive curricula, particular attention was given to curriculum integration as an increasingly popular approach and potentially promising to respond to the multiple educational needs of children within general education settings (Reisberg, 1998; Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1995). In the following section, the concept of integrated curricula and their role in education will be discussed.
Curriculum integration emerged out of dissatisfaction with the discipline-based curriculum approach and traditional educational practices (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996). For many years, the subject approach was the prevalent theory underlying the development of school curricula (Beane, 1995). From the beginning of ‘90s, though, there were some signals that teaching conventional separate subjects of knowledge could not effectively foster learning and there was a need for the development of more integrated curricula (Beane, 1995; Eisner, 1992). During the last decade the categorization of knowledge in academic disciplines has been criticized as offering fragmented, disconnected knowledge and incoherent assortments of facts and skills, preventing students to see the connections between subjects (Drake, 1993; Reisberg, 1998). Furthermore there seems to be an inconsistency between the way learning is promoted at school in disciplines and real life. Specifically, while, at school, students are called to acquire a subject-based knowledge, discuss issues and solve problems within a specific discipline, in real life, when they confront difficult situations and make decisions, they do not think which part of the problem has to do with a specific discipline such as mathematics, physics, language and so on. Instead they have to apply a combination of information and strategies from different areas (Beane, 1995). Finally, discipline-based curricula focus on the transmission of content knowledge, which, however, is growing exponentially and quickly and there is not enough time for students to conquer it (Kysilka, 1998; Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996). Demanding from all children to acquire this knowledge at a predetermined learning pace is a rather excluding practice, considering, as already mentioned, that all children cannot respond to this demand (Skrtic, 1991).
In contrast with the discipline-based curriculum, curriculum integration views learning in a holistic manner, as an ongoing reconstruction of knowledge and experiences, with the aim to search and describe the connections of information from various curriculum areas so that students can develop a deeper understanding of the world (Beane, 1995; Drake, 1993; Ornstein, 1999; Reisberg, 1998). In essence, subject knowledge is rearranged into the context of themes, projects and activities, so that knowledge is used beyond the boundaries of disciplines. The development of themes and activities becomes meaningful for the learners since it is based on social issues and personal concerns. A central theme, identified by teachers or in more progressive cases collaboratively by teachers and students, provides the framework for organizing learning, the active construction of knowledge and the processing of meaning through a holistic approach (Beane, 1995).
Another dimension about curriculum integration is that the flow of knowledge is rearranged and is no longer defined by the subject sequences; rather it follows the rhythms and patterns of students’ minds (Beane, 1995). In this way, students and teachers are encouraged to create a learning partnership collaborating with each other in order to examine a theme utilizing various perspectives. Therefore, students come across and apply subject knowledge within a meaningful context and not in a restricted manner as in the discipline-based curriculum (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996).
Considering, the challenges that subject-based knowledge poses for the school population and the beneficial aspects of curriculum integration (Beane, 1995; Reisberg, 1998; Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1996), an analysis is going to be made about its potential contribution towards the realization of inclusive education with a special emphasis on children with special educational needs.
Another important feature of an integrated curriculum that could also be advantageous within an inclusive program is that it is child-centered, considering that themes are selected and activities are planned accordingly to children’s needs and interests (Beane, 1995). In this way, children play a more active role in their learning, since through the exploration of themes of their own concern and interest they are encouraged to seek knowledge, which they can relate to their own experiences and apply in the meaningful context of their life (Beane, 1995). Furthermore, by exploring themes and projects through group work, children are reinforced to collaborate with each other. This instructional arrangement entails important cognitive and social benefits for all students, facilitating the academic and social inclusion of students with special needs (Antia, 1995; Mathes & Fuchs, 1994; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998).
Furthermore, a significant aspect of integrated curricula is that the emphasis is not placed on the transmission of a pre-definable content of knowledge and content is not considered as the goal but rather as the means towards learning (Beane, 1995). In the past, the emphasis on the delivery of specific content resulted in the development of “reductionist” approaches, which, based on behavioural perspectives, promoted the acquisition of basic pre-determined skills in a specific learning sequence and through teacher-directed instruction. In contrast, integrated curriculum is contingent with more progressive learning theories, such as social constructivism, which emphasizes the importance of knowledge construction, learning strategies such as critical thinking and problem solving and children’s motivational involvement deriving from the fact that they make sense and develop a deep understanding of what they are doing (Galloway, Rogers, Armstrong & Leo, 1998; Otis-Wilborn, 1995; Watson, 2000; Woods, 1996). In this way, teachers can act as facilitators, as the ones that could help and support each child to explore ways of learning, instead of having demands for acquiring specific and definable content.
In addition, an integrated curriculum could easily accommodate instruction of skills that are considered fundamental for the comprehensive education of children with special needs. Namely, teaching skills leading to independent living, better social behaviors as well as learning strategies could be infused more easily within an integrated than a subject-based curriculum, provided that a cooperative teaching model is in place (Reisberg, 1998; Williams & Reisberg, 2003). General and special teachers could select a theme and work jointly on the skills that fall under the above areas and need to be taught to those students with special needs participating in relevant activities.
Finally, it is important to stress that all the above features of integrated curricula necessitate a rethinking of the roles of general and special teachers, which is highly required within an inclusive programe. Specifically, up to now general and special teachers have separate roles, since special teachers assumed responsibility for children with special educational needs and general teachers for the rest of the school population. Furthermore, the collaboration between special and general teachers revolved around the traditional readiness approach (Antia, Stinson & Gaustad, 2002; Moores & Kluwin, 1986; Nikolaraizi, 2004; Warger & Pugach, 1996). Children attending the general educational settings were usually treated as visitors rather than full members and their visits were arranged by the general and the special teacher, depending on whether they could prove that they could respond to the demands of the classroom and the curriculum (Antia et al., 2002; Chorost, 1988; Moores & Kluwin, 1986). Integrated curricula require from both general and special teachers to be knowledgeable about the curriculum and collaborate to find out how the curriculum could be managed so that it could meet pupils’ needs, rather than attempt to fit all pupils to the same curriculum (Warger & Pugach, 1996). Such an approach is in line with the inclusive philosophy (Rose, 2000), according to which all children are on a continuum of learning ability and the aim of the education is to develop and implement approaches that would support this continuum (Evans, 1997).
Concerns - Conclusions
Although integrated curricula entail characteristics that appear to be beneficial within an inclusive programe, there are some concerns regarding their feasibility and whether their implementation is practical, considering that radical changes are required (Kysilka, 1998).
These concerns are mostly related to the fact that integrated curricula view learning in a holistic manner, rather than as discipline-based. However, the intention is not to abandon discipline-based knowledge, rather there is a need for disciplines to be viewed alternatively, as resources for exploring themes and implementing activities, so that meaningful learning for all students is fostered (Beane, 1995). As learning is approached holistically there is a concern about whether integrated curricula embrace the instruction of specific sequenced skills and knowledge (social skills, learning strategies etc.) through direct instruction, which, often, appears to be more efficient for children with special educational needs (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993; Sugden, 1989). It is worth stressing, though, that an integrated curriculum is quite flexible and acknowledges the diversity of children’s needs. Α s a result, it acknowledges that some children may achieve to develop and acquire skills in the context of more holistic methods, whereas other children may still need to be taught sequenced skills through direct instruction. Consequently, the need for adopting a mixed approach is deemed in certain cases as more suitable for the education of children with special needs, thereby enabling some children to be taught first certain strategies via direct instruction and then have access to more integrated knowledge.
Finally, it is important to stress that the realization of integrated curriculum, depends on the level of its acceptance by teachers. Therefore, it is important for teachers not to be forced to use integrated curricula, but rather to be convinced about the important role of integrated curricula in helping them to do things differently and manage children’s needs more effectively (Kysilka, 1998). Following this line of thought, teachers may be encouraged to adopt different models of integrated curricula. Specifically, several researchers have suggested a continuum of curriculum thinking according to the role of the disciplines and the level of curriculum integration, ranging from curricula where discipline knowledge plays a powerful role to curricula that entail total integration (Drake, 1993; Jacons, 1989; Kysilka, 1998). Some of the teachers may find it extremely difficult to move away from the safety of the discipline-based knowledge, others may feel comfortable with a partially integrated model, while others may find total integration more challenging and creative (Kysilka, 1998). These frameworks of conceptualization of integration promote flexibility to teachers, who might be resistant or less knowledgeable in implementing an integrated curriculum. Whichever level of integration teachers might adopt, though, they need to bear in mind the skills they need to accommodate, so that students with special needs are given the access to the curriculum that they deserve
In summary, the integrated curriculum seems to be promising, being in line with the dominant approaches in special education, but raising concerns. Regardless of the level of curriculum integration, there is a need for the individual differences of children with special needs to be respected. Finally, it needs to be emphasized that there is a strong need for the empirical evaluation of the value and the role of the integrated approach for the education of children with special needs at a national and international level (Kysilka, 1998).
References
Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools . London: Falmer Press.
Antia, S. (1995). Strategies to develop peer interaction in young hearing-impaired children. The Volta Review, 96, 277-290.
Antia, S., Stinson, M., & Gaustad, M. (2002). Developing membership in the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 214-229.
Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Armstrong, F (1999). Inclusion, curriculum and the struggle for space in school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 75-87.
Bassett, D., Jackson, L., Ferrell, K., Luckner, J., Hagerty, P., Bunsen, T. & MacIsaac, D. (1996). Multiple perspectives on inclusive education: Reflections of a university faculty. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 355-386.
Beane, J. (1990). Rethinking the middle class curriculum. Middle School Journal, 5, 1-5.
Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan , 76, 616-622.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture . London: Sage.
Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R., (2004). The allignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211-223.
Carr, W. (1993). Reconstructuring the curriculum debate: an editorial introduction. Curriculum Studies , 1, 5-9.
Chorost, S. (1988). The hearing-impaired child in the mainstream: A survey of the attitudes of regular classroom teachers. Volta Review, 90, 7-12.
Clough, P. (1999). Exclusive tendencies: concepts, consciousness and curriculum in the project of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 63-73.
Drake, S. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Eisner, E. (1992). A slice of advice. Educational Researcher, 21, 29-30.
Evans, P. (2004). Educating students with special needs: A comparison of inclusion practices in OECD countries. Educating Canada, 44, 32-35.
Freire, S. and Cesar, M. (2003). Inclusive ideals/inclusive practices: how far is a dream from reality? Five comparative case studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18, 341-354.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Ferguson, C. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436-450.
Jacobs, H. (1989). The growing need for interdisciplinary curriculum content. In H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 1-13). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kavale, A. K. & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296.
Kavale, K. (2002). Mainstreaming to full inclusion: from orthogenesis to pathogenesis of an idea. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 201-214.
Lipsky, D. & Gartner, A. (1999). Inclusion and school reform: transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
Mathes, P.G., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23, 59-81.
Moores, D., & Kluwin, T. (1986). Issues in school placement. In A.N. Schildroth & M. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America. San Diego: College Hill Press.
Otis-Wilborn, A. (1995). Conceptualizing and reconceptualizing curriculum. The Volta Review, 97, 19-32.
Peters S. (2002). Inclusive education in accelerated and professional development schools: a case-based study of two school reforms in the USA. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6, 287-308.
Pugach, M. (1996). On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 212-223.
Reisberg, L. (1998). Facilitating inclusion with integrated curriculum: A multidisciplinary approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 272-277.
Rose, R. (2000). The curriculum: a vehicle for inclusion or a lever for exclusion? In C.Tilstone, L. Florian & R. Rose (Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice (pp. 27-38). London: Routledge
Schirmer, B. (2000). Language and literacy development in children who are deaf. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Scruggs, T.E. & Mastropieri, M.A. (1998). Tutoring and students with special needs. In K. Topping & S. Ehly, (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 165-182). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scumm, J., Vaugh, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: what can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352.
Skrtic, T. (1991). Beyond special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love.
Stainback, S., Stainback, W. & Jackson, H. (1992). Toward inclusive classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriclum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitate learning for all students (pp. 3-17). Baltimore: Brookes.
Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (Eds.) (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: Divergent perspectives. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Sugden, D.A. (1989). Transfer skills across a national curriculum: The role of cognitive strategies for children with learning difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 241-255.
Switlick, D. (1997). Curriculum modifications and adaptations. In D. Bradley, M. King-Sears & D. Tessier-Switlick, Teaching in inclusive settings: From theory to practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thomas, G., Walker, D. & Webb, G., (1998). The making of the inclusive school. New York: Routledge.
Udvari-Solner A. & Thousand, J. (1995). Effective organizational, instructional and curricular practices in inclusive schools and classrooms. In C.Clark, A. Dyson & M. Milward (Eds.), Towards Inclusive Schools and Classrooms? London: Routledge.
Udvari-Solner, A. & Thousand, J. (1996). Creating a responsive curriculum for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 182-192.
Van Kraayenoord, C. (2003). The task of professional development. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50, 363-365.
Walter-Thomas C., Korinek L., McLaughlin V., & Williams B. (2000). Collaboration of inclusive education: Developing successful programs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ware, L. (1995). The aftermath of the articulate debate: the invention of inclusive education. In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive school. (pp. 127-146). London: David Fulton
Warger, C. & Pugach, M. (1996). Curriculum considerations in an inclusive environment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28, 1-12
Watson (2000). Constructive instruction and learning difficulties. Support for Learning, 15, 134-140.
Williams, J. & Resiberg, L. (2003). Successful inclusion: teaching social skills through curriculum integration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 205-210.
Woods, P. (1995). Creative teachers in primary schools. Buckingham: Open University Press.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |