Inclusion and development initiatives

LSP - Laboratorium for forskningsbaseret skoleudvikling og pædagogisk praksis, Institut for Læring og Filosofi, AAU og UCN, www.lsp.aau.dk

Inclusion and development initiatives

Torben NæsbyNERA 2014

http://www.lsp.aau.dk/


The Project• Empirical research consists of a survey of 130 pre-schools,

followed by an analysis of 7 interviews. Pre-schools working with LP-model – and inclusion.

• Mixed methods design (quan-Qual)• Selected themes, based on the data from the questionnaire,

further analysed in interviews• Aim: Determine which barriers occur and if they use research

knowledge in developing practice. • The transformation from the pedagogical analysis into

development initiatives is observed in an inclusive perspective, that is, the distinction between inclusion and exclusion.



Form Analysis• The form analysis, developed by G. Spencer Brown (1969), is a

tool which, in a pragmatic way, makes it possible: “To observe how central distinctions work or operate in Praxis” (Jönhill, 2012: 54).

• Hereby I distinguish the observations into three forms of inclusion. Thus the theoretical distinction between inclusion types is: Physical inclusion, Social inclusion and Mental inclusion.

• The left side (vertical) identifies the specific forms of community. These are empirical, but do not cover all of the forms that could be observed in pedagogical practice in pre-school.



The Inclusion Model Physical

(passive) inclusion

Social (active) inclusion

Mental (experienced) inclusion

Formal, professionally managed learning and development communities

Adult-child communities (interpersonal communities)

Informal, adult organized communities (relating to the institution)

Self-organized communities (relating to the institution)

Child-child communities (interpersonal communities)

Inclusion as process quality



Findings Sustaining factors

Physical (passive) inclusion Social (active) inclusion Mental (experienced) inclusion

Promoting Good framework and structure The rooms' décor is matched to children's needs Well-structured space and organization of work Good staff cooperation

Respecting diversity - a good moodPositive communication and care for all Creating motivation for new friendships Conscious grouping Helping children with tools for collaboration Children's friendships

Children experiencing community Involvement of children's initiative - keep track of children 100% presence in relationsRules that everyone understands; can act in

Inhibiting The rooms' decor not inspiringStaffing that does not allow pedagogues to guide Interior only targeted to girls Places with very little space Small dining areasRooms so small that the child cannot find his place Lack of wardrobe space Many staff changes / different adults To many possibilities to choose among Incoming factors

“Invisible” adults - lack of adult management Too large groups Too few adults to be close to the kids - adults are not near the children Exclusion from the group of children Quiet children are not given attention

Preconceived opinions Many outward reacting children Staff lack of insight in recognizing and seeing the children's perspective - maintained in individual perspective Low self-esteem Bullying Messiness in context



Goals – Inclusion IndicatorsPhysical (passive) inclusion

Social (active) inclusion Mental (experienced) inclusion

In general Various activitiesAltered staffingBetter framework and structure

Smaller groupsClose interactionsGood role modelsSustain children in creating relations

Positive relationsRecognitionCommunicationCreating new relationships

The children Smaller groupsBetter harmony

Activities in smaller groups with focus on childrens needsSupporting play and building of new relations

Smaller groups sustain self-esteme and self-efficacyAll children should parcitipate and experience coping



BarriersPhysical (passive) inclusion

Social (active) inclusion

Mental (experienced) inclusion

The staff: Time and organizationStaffing and economics, Bad room / decor Not everyone dares to take leadership Not everyone has the desire and ability Rules and routines

Difference between pedagogues and assistantsDifferent interpretations of how to work with inclusion Prejudices about and marginalization of children - from staff and parents

Limitations in the adult thinking, not taking responsibility Neglectingchildren in big trouble Few adults - makes it difficult to have presence with the kids



Focus on the pedagogues

• Structure and organization promotes or inhibits the inclusion work and the quality of it

• Changes here affect both the social and mental inclusion

• The pedagogues’ role, clarity in communication and increased awareness of the importance of social interaction

• They themselves are a sustaining factor• Their approach to children matters



Creating new knowledge

• Obtaining information is central and, in my view, crucial for the pedagogues’ competence development

• 2/3 have launched an initiative • 1/3 have not



The Positive Answer• It is positive that 2/3 (69 %) of the survey participants have launched an

initiative (n = 49). This is similar to the general idea of such development projects (Andersen, 2002) and it corresponds to the result of the LP model's own study (73 % of the participants, Andresen, 2013) (n = 60).

• We do not know how those who have not responded to either the present or the LP model study responded to the survey or analysis work, but it would be reasonable to assume that the studies taken, altogether, may point to a clear trend for the whole population (the 130 pre-schools).

• Comparable to the survey in LP-pre-schools by Nordahl et al. (2012), which shows that the majority of children thrive, are included and feeling well, it can be assumed that not all such facilities actually need to implement specific development initiatives. Daily life and the practice work well and can be characterized as good or high quality, which means that the practice is continuously reflected, justified and evaluated, and thus remains in process.



The Negative Answer• It is negative that 1/3 of the participants did not initiate an action. Based on

the mapping of LP-pre-schools, there are children who do not thrive, and there are children who do not experience themselves to be socially and mentally included.

• There are children who, in the eyes of the pedagogues, exhibit problematic behaviour (Nordahl et al., 2012). It is problematic if this is so, and that despite the mapping results, some pre-schools do not implement an analysis which leads to an initiative to enhance children's well-being and sense of inclusion.

• The results of the present study and the LP model study show that, respectively, 31 % and 27 % (Andresen, 2013: 10) do not develop practice even with the facts that the mapping generally identifies them as problematic.

• But again, we do not know how those who have not responded to the questionnaire are acting on mapping and analysis.



Development initiative IThe linear process

Problem Plan Action Goal



Development initiative IIThe circular process


Didactic

Informa-tion



Development initiative IIThe circular process


Didactic

Informa-tion



Further ResearchCurrent international and national educational research points out the problem in understanding skills development projects as the transfer of knowledge, and suggest, in different ways, new approaches to and understandings of the relationship between theory and practice (research and profession) (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Hammersley, 2007; Ogden, 2013; Qvortrup, 2013; Glaze, 2013). Recent conceptual bids, such as Capacity Building, Knowledge Mobilization and Professional Capital, may be involved and provide a possible foundation for understanding how the profession could benefit from the research, and become an active and informed participant in practice and professional development.


Documents

Inclusion and development initiatives