1

Listening to Students: A Collaborative Research Effort between Denmark and the United States

Susan Tetler & Kirsten Baltzer, DPU, University of Aarhus

Dianne L. Ferguson, Shawna Draxton and Amy Hanreddy, Chapman University

In the Scandinavian countries we have for decades accepted the idea that our regular schools should include all learners – regardless of the type and degree of their disability. The question, however, is whether this is an ideal or an actual practice, as the practice seems often to fall short of the mark. Scandi-navian research literature, at any rate, indicates several problematic experiences for students placed in inclusive settings (Emanuelsson, 1998; Dalen, 1999; Tetler, 2000; Nes, 2004; Marinosson, Ohna, and Tetler, 2007). Thus, the huge gap between ideology and reality – and the reasons for this gap - seems to be crucial for the outcome of the efforts of inclusion.

Similarly in the United States, the calls for inclusive practices that begun in the 1990s continue with mixed results (e.g., Ferguson, 2008). Currently slightly more than half of all students (52%) with disabilities nationwide spend at least 80% of their time in general education classrooms. However, only 13% of stu-dents with intellectual disabilities have this opportunity and the data can vary widely from state with some states including 70% or more of students with disabilities (28th Annual Report to Congress, 2007).

These results about inclusion and inclusive practices raise questions about whether - and how - we judge the ‘quality’ of inclusive settings. Have for instance the efforts in inclusive settings been reduced to a matter of physical placement, depending on the child’s adaptability to the more or less standardised norms of the mainstream school? Or are the efforts characterized by flexibility and comprehensiveness, allowing students with disabilities to be involved as active participants on their own terms? This kind of questions implies a organizational perspective, as we know that the way in which the learning environment is organ-ized for students with disabilities, affects the outcomes (academically, socially and personally) for that group of students (as for other groups of students) (Dyson, Howes, and Roberts, 2002; Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson, 2006; Black-Hawkins, Florian, and Rouse, 2007; Alborz, Pearson, Farrell, and Howes, 2009; Sydney, 2010).

Farrell argues for a school-related concept of inclusion, containing four aspects: presence, acceptance, participation and achievement (2004), as he stresses: ‘It is not, for example, sufficient for children to simply be present in a school’ (ibid, p 8). Are schools to be characterized as inclusive, they should also welcome all students and accept them as valuable and active participants of their learning community. Furthermore, all students should be allowed to participate and contribute in all school activities, as well as to learn and to develop positive views of themselves. Thus, the research challenge is how to gain substantial knowledge about what constitutes a quality inclusive setting by examining the four aspects from teachers’, parents’ and students’ views. The study, reported on in this article, concerns the students’ own perceptions. How do they experience their outcomes of being students in inclusive settings, and how do they characterize the learning conditions, which they face?

Research on students’ perspectives on learning In research on special education we see few research projects taking the student perspective seriously.

Gaining more substantial knowledge about increased problems in schools with disengagement, marginali-sation and school failure, we need to ask students at risk, how they perceive their role in schools, and what they experience as characteristics of their learning environment. In order to deal effectively with that kind of problems we need to understand their motives, incentives and their will to learn. It is the everyday school life with all its multitude of interactions in learning situations that constitutes the conditions for tak-

2

ing courage, believing in oneself and learning to look upon oneself as important for the community. In this way, the student’s will to learn is related to conditions that would overall be described in terms of learning environment and classroom climate.

Classroom climate, learning environment and learning management are related topics, which showed up on the educational (research) agenda in the 1960s. Since then, the theme has been a field of research of significant growth and has particularly focused on factors that are supportive of learning. According to a recent research meta-review, ‘there is clear evidence that the quality of the classroom climate is a signifi-cant determinant of learners’ achievement. They learn better when they have positive perceptions of the classroom environment’ (Mitchell, 2008, p 103). Three main factors of creating a climate that facilitates learning have been identified (ibid. p 103-104): 1) relationships (the extent to which people in the class-room support and help each other); 2) personal development (the extent to which personal growth and self-enhancement is facilitated) and 3) system maintenance (the extent to which the classroom is orderly, and educators are clear in their expectations, maintain control and are responsive to change).

Mitchell finds that learning environment and classroom climate depict nearly the same factors related to learning in schools, and this view is supported by a review from Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research (Nordenbo, 2008). This review defines classroom climate as a construct including three indicators: 1) Student activity (the extent to which students are involved in decisions about classroom activities) and motivation (especially self- or inner motivation), 2) Supportive behaviour (the extent to which the teacher involves students in structuring the learning situation and supportive collaboration), and 3) Stu-dent/teacher relationship (the extent to which the teacher is supportive in relation to student initiatives and motivation). The wording is slightly different from Mitchell’s, but the meaning is consistent.

Bronfenbrenner (1986) focuses upon the relation between the learning context and acquisition of per-sonal competences. A learning context is characterized by situational requirements and demands, and de-velopment of competence is a result of the interaction between the context and personal attributes (Wentzel, 2006). These are cognitive, self-monitoring, and self-regulating skills as well as personal goals and values. Student experiences are primarily influenced by proximal processes as relations, communication, and interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1999), and positive experiences are related to the quality of proximal processes. Bronfenbrenner defines these processes as proximal, but they need further elaboration to serve as constructs for operationalization into research tools.

The lesson to be learned from Bronfenbrenner is that tools for our study should include indicators re-lated to the learning context in a broader perspective, learning situations, social relationships between the teacher and student as well as among students, communication and interaction from the interpersonal as from the intrapersonal perspective. Mitchell’s and Nordenbo’s meta-reviews give hints about how to trans-form Bronfenbrenner’s concept of proximal processes into research tools.

However, Nordenbo (2008) mentions the issue of the German traditions with focus on ‘Bildung’, when conducting meta-reviews on classroom management, following the guidelines presented in The Clearing House concept (2006). According to the German tradition, education is rooted in philosophy, and this tradi-tion has been very influential in the Scandinavian countries including Denmark although much less so in the US. Nordenbo argues that the ethics and morality included in the philosophical position of ‘Bildung’ and didactics is indeed a necessary perspective. Within this tradition there has been no focus on the conse-quences for management of the teaching and learning processes, and it is nearly impossible to find studies fulfilling the criteria for inclusion in a Clearing House review. The same criticism is relevant concerning Mitchell’s meta-review, as he focuses solely on the classroom’s psychological climate. This criticism has to be considered when creating a research tool based on Bronfenbrenner’s position. In other words, the tool has to reflect the Danish learning context inspired from both the German tradition for centuries and for the International tradition mainly rooted in Anglo-American traditions and studies and more characterized by learning in US schools. As a consequence it was necessary to seek further inspiration from another meta-

3

review conducted within a German context. The German researcher in didactics Hilbert Meyer (2004) has done a meta-review on good teaching. He finds ten characteristics of good teaching, which include more details about the structure of the teaching process, communication and differentiation. Meyer mentions that it has not been possible to find evidence for communication as characteristic for good teaching in the meta-review. However, he finds it necessary to include communication in the list.

Allodi (2007) has prepared and tested a theory-based instrument for assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish schools. There are many similarities between Mitchell’s definition based on a meta-review and Allodi’s theory-based empirical model evaluated from a holistic perspective. However, the higher-order factors (Allodi) and the main factors (Mitchell) combine the lower order factors into different patterns. They fit into Bronfenbrenner’s views as well. Allodi finds that Self-affirmation (including Achieve-ment, Efficacy and Safety) has a central position in evaluating the quality of learning environment. Self-Affirmation has an interpersonal as well as an intrapersonal dimension. Hence, it has been necessary to expand the theoretical perspectives. The concept ‘efficacy’ is rooted in Bandura’s social learning theory. According to Bandura (1994) ‘perceived self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave’ (1994, p 71). A strong sense of self-efficacy is a major motivational factor, in school settings as in other settings, where people conduct their lives. There are four main sources to a strong sense of efficacy: Mastery experiences, vicari-ous experiences provided by social models, social persuasion, and somatic and emotional states. It has to be mentioned that social persuasion is verbal persuasion and includes competence to structure situations - for oneself as for other people - in ways bringing success. Part of this competence is to avoid situations or challenges where people are likely to fail.

Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy is one of the cornerstones in his social learning theory. Bandura (1994) elaborates a model of personal and social dimensions which sets the stage for an understanding of motivation for learning as a synthesis of self-regulated processes taking place in social interactions. Later on Bandura (1997) developed the construct of collective efficacy which means that groups can develop shared efficacy beliefs. Efficacy is thus an important major dynamic source of motivation for self-monitoring, often mentioned as self-regulated learning (SRL) (McCaslin et al., 2006). Self-Regulated Learning is in focus of the theories about learning prepared by the Russian psychologist L.S. Vygotsky (ibid). Vygotsky has two impor-tant foci related to SRL. The first is the focus on the multiple functions of language: Communicative lan-guage is transforming thoughts into speech; in contrast language or speech directing the self transforms speech into thoughts – Vygotsky labels it inner speech. He finds that the capacity for self-regulation emerges from the interpersonal regulation mediated by language or speech. From this theoretical stance communication is a key-element of good teaching. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a construct closely related to the understanding of self-regulation. ZPD recognizes what learners cannot do themselves, but are able to do with assistance or support, and is a potent target for learning. As a consequence the rela-tionship between the participants in ZPD is central – be it peers, teachers or adult significant others.

Bandura and Vygotsky have developed important key-concepts which elaborates the understanding of the concept ‘learning environment’. Vygotsky adds richness to Bronfenbrenner’s concept of communication and interactions. Goals and values are mentioned in Bronfenbrenner’s list of personal attributes. Bandura adds richness to the understanding of goals. Following Bronfenbrenner, goals and values are embedded in the school context in curricula and syllabi. Somehow curricula and syllabi should be reflected in the re-search tool, because they set up a framework for the proximal processes: communication, interactions and relations. Finally, we have to bear in mind, that learning, development of motives and motivation for learn-ing, collective efficacy and self-efficacy emerges intertwined in the work on school subjects within the framework set by curricula and syllabi. Hence, the research tools should reflect the specific school subjects for students in primary education, how these subjects and the social life within school relate to students’

4

everyday life and how teachers support students in connecting their experiences across important life con-texts (Hedegaard and Chaiklin, 2005).

Finally, it has to be stressed that the body of research on classroom climate has been investigations of various aspects of classroom climate and how they impact on academic achievement and affective learning, but as Mitchell states: He has ‘not been able to find any research that focuses on learners with special edu-cational needs’ (Mitchell, 2008, p 108). However, the value of giving voice to young people with disabilities is evident, as they have provided many new insights about their experiences, including how they often feel deprived of influence on their own lives and living conditions. They also report loss of competence and op-portunity for taking initiatives, making up one’s mind and acting self-dependently (e.g. Ringsmose and Buch-Hansen, 2004; Høgsbro et al., 1999). The challenge for education, then, is to counter processes, in which dependence, passiveness and helplessness seem to get internalized in children and youth with dis-abilities, and for that purpose it is necessary to learn more about the youngest students’ perceptions and school experiences.

Methods The study reported in this paper, has sought to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of educa-

tional inclusion in mainstream classrooms and the opinion held by the students involved. It is part of a lar-ger research project, dealing with the learning experiences of 27 students with disabilities (specifically groups of students diagnosed with ADHD, autism, blindness, cerebral palsy, dyslexia, and learning difficul-ties) in their school settings. Fifteen students were included in mainstream classrooms, while the other 12 students were placed in more segregated settings such as special classes and special schools. All the stu-dents were in primary education. The research was funded by the Danish Ministry of Education and wished to explore the policy question of whether or not the resources being directed to special education services were ‘working’ (Egelund and Tetler, 2009).

In order to study educational patterns required a systemic approach to capture classroom complexity in a variety of ways (Salomon, 1991). To this end, a wide range of methods was used including semi-structured interviews with focus students (students with disabilities), semi-structured interviews with their teachers and parents, semi-structured interviews about the classroom climate with the focus students as with their classmates (304 in all), collection of individual educational plans, collection of teachers’ diaries with success stories’ and observations of teaching and learning activities in each classroom. In all the re-search was conducted as a multi-site, multi-researcher qualitative project (in 24 classrooms across 23 schools distributed among 18 Danish municipalities) (Tetler et al., 2009; Ferguson and Tetler, 2009).

In a separate research effort during the 2009 – 2010 school year and using the same tools as the Dan-ish study, a team of researchers collected data from 27 students with disabilities and 163 classroom peers. All data were collected at an urban charter school with a population of 380 students. The school was estab-lished as a demonstration site for a partnering university, and has been recognized for its practices in in-cluding students with disabilities in general education classrooms. According to the charter school’s au-thorizing district, 11% of the students enrolled in the school are identified as gifted or high achieving, 69% are considered to be typically developing and 20% have disabilities. Among the students identified with disabilities, approximately 12% have mild to moderate disabilities and 8% experience what are considered to be moderate to severe disabilities which include autism, intellectual, physical, sensory impairments and multiple disabilities. Fifty two percent of students who participated were female and 48% were male. Twenty-three percent of the students participate in the free and reduced lunch program, a national meas-ure of low income. Students and teachers from a variety of ethnic groups participated including 51% Euro-American, 19% Latino, 14% Asian, 12% African American and 4% from other categories. English language learners represent 17% of the study body.

5

Both studies stand within the interpretivist tradition and primarily used qualitative methods. Even methods which drew upon quantitative formats (i.e., surveys) were administered as interviews and ana-lyzed qualitatively. That is, we used common pattern analysis methods and looked for agreements, dis-agreements or mixed responses. This paper, then, deals with the insight gained through semi-structured interviews with those fifteen focus students in Denmark and 27 students in the US with disabilities who were included in mainstream classrooms, and their class mates.

First of all, an interview guide was prepared for the diverse student group taking in account recent in-ternational meta-reviews about ‘good teaching’, which showed clear evidence that the classroom climate is a significant determinant of learners’ achievement. Especially three factors seem important: Relationships, personal development and system maintenance (Mitchell, 2008). However, when asking students about their own perceptions of their learning environment, meta-reviews can just be a starting point. It has been necessary to transform the content of the three main factors into questions related to everyday classroom practice and adapt these questions to student age and intellectual development. In this process we took inspiration from Norwegian, Swedish and German research related to classroom climate, learning environ-ment and learning contexts (Nordahl, 2005; Westling Allodi, 2005, 2007; Meyer, 2004). Nordahl has done a literature review and learned that there are 8 important factors defining the learning environment. Some of these 8 factors are also mentioned in Mitchell’s model. Nordahl mentions school management and col-laboration with parents, but these factors are not relevant for an interview guide for students. Allodi’s GA-VIS questionnaire (GAVIS is an acronym for ‘The Goals, Attitudes and Values in School’) has provided inspi-ration to relate the factors ‘Relationships’ and ‘Personal development’ to classroom practice. Therefore, three of the themes (and the related questions from GAVIS) are included in our interview guides. The themes are ‘Participation’, ‘Responsibility’, and ‘Influence’, while the questions from ‘Helpfulness’ has pro-vided inspiration to statements about ‘Collaboration’ in the interview guide.

Mitchell’s factor ‘System maintenance’ is about didactical issues, and the inspiration to this section of the interview guide stems from a meta-review on characteristics of ‘good teaching’ (Meyer, 2004). Meyer found 10 characteristics of good teaching, and four of them are included in the interview guides as themes: ’Physical environment’, ’Clear structure’, ’Meaningful communication’ and ’Differentiation’ (see Appendix A). A closer look on the descriptions of these characteristics reveals an overlap with the factors ’Relations’ and ’Personal development’.

The interviews were conducted as group interviews (and in some cases individual interviews) both in Denmark and the US, as they have been run as conversations about statements one by one. However, the answers have been collected on answering sheets designed in a questionnaire format to create a shortcut access to students’ views and opinions. This has been necessary, because some of the informants have no spoken language. The answering categories are inspired from ordinal scales e.g. Likert scales, but the inter-pretation has been processed according to qualitative methodology, rooted in a qualitative methodology focused on interpretivism (Ferguson and Ferguson, 1995).

Findings about Student Voice Across Countries The overall aim of this paper is to compare the opinions about the learning environment between two

groups of students: Students with disabilities included in mainstream classrooms (Focus students) and their class mates (C-students) in both Denmark and the US. Also, the intention is to get a holistic picture of simi-larities and differences between those two groups of students. To pursue this aim it has been necessary to compile the comprehensive set of data, which has been done in a very pragmatic manner as described in Appendix A. Therefore, the design of the compiling analysis is based on creating cuts that reveals differenc-es between the two groups and makes sense considering the big difference in population size and the in-terview with 32 items. We have included the answering patterns for focus students in Denmark (15 in all) and the US (27 in all) and their mainstream class mates in Denmark (222), and the US (163). These data are

6

calculated as % of interpretable answers within each group and are included in Appendix A. We also com-pared the responses of the focus students and mainstream classmates and rated them as “similar”, “mixed” or, if they were within 5 percentage points, “same. “ Further details of this comprehensive analysis are in-cluded in Appendix A along with the full tables for both countries. These tables also provide all of the statements that were used in the student interviews. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the agreement for focus students and their classmates in both countries by items.

Table 1: The answering patterns for Focus students (with disabilities) and their Class mates in Denmark

Student

Population C-Students

Answering Category

Positive Mixed Negative

Focus Stu-dents

Positive Items 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32

Items 2, 12, 30

Mixed Items 14, 17 Items 4, 5, 25

Item 21

Negative

Items 3, 23 Item 22

Table 2: The answering patterns for Focus students (with disabilities) and their Class mates in the US

Student Population

C-Students

Answering Category

Positive

Mixed Negative

Focus Stu-dents

Positive Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

24

Mixed Item 21 Items 25

Item 4

Negative

Overall, the students in the US were somewhat more positive than their counterparts in Denmark with

only 1 item where both groups of students were “mixed” and 28 were both groups were “positive”. These related to students feelings and their sharing of their feelings with their teacher. One of the items where students were “mixed” stated that “in my class some of my peers feel alone or lonely.” Focus students were also “mixed” about their involvement in important classroom decisions, while their peers were equal-ly mixed about talking with their teachers about their feelings. The only item that received a negative re-sponse was one referring to the availability of a computer in the room for everyone to use. In this particu-lar school there actually were very few computers in classrooms since the groups used a separate computer lab. So the “negative” response of the classmates was simply accurate while the “mixed” response of the focus students might reveal some confusion about whether or not they could use the computers that were available.

7

By contrast, both Danish students groups were positive about 20 items and mixed about 10. Like their US counterparts, they were “mixed” about some of their classmates feeling lonely and alone. They were also both “mixed” about their perception about having enough time to do their work and being able to work undisturbed. The focus students were “mixed” about 2 additional items and their classmates about 5 additional items. The focus students were “mixed” about having different materials for reading and math and doing projects together with their classmates whereas their classmates were quite positive about the same item. It is possible that the focus students perceive some difficulties in group work that their peers do not perceive or experience.

The classmates in Denmark were also “mixed” about the classroom being organized for easy use, and being able to make different things without disturbing each other. They were also “mixed” about their teaching being good at making things “fun”, being responsible for what to do in reading and math or being able to voice ideas their teachers liked. Whereas more than half the focus students were negative about being able to share ideas their teachers liked. Both groups were negative about getting to decide things for themselves in the classroom. On a similar item – deciding about important things like homework – the focus students were mixed while their classmates were quite positive.

The findings also revealed some differences between the two countries in themes. The US students were all positive about physical environment, structure, communication, differentiation, collaboration and responsibility in their classrooms while there were some mixed responses concerning their influence and participation. In contrast, the Danish students were uniformly positive only about communication offering slightly more mixed perceptions about structure, responsibility, participation, and collaboration. They were decidedly mixed in their responses regarding the physical environment and their influence.

Conclusion The study, reported on in this paper, concerns the students’ own perceptions of their learning envi-

ronment. A major segment of a larger data set has been selected to illustrate how students with disabilities and their classmates construct the classroom climate, including their experiences of student membership. In general, (see Table 2) F- and C-students have similar opinions about their learning environment. Moreo-ver, it is a diverse picture with positive, mixed and negative views on different dimensions of the classroom climate. The positive and mixed answers are dominant as well as within and across the F- and C- groups of students. However, the analysis also shows that F-students have a less positive answering pattern, com-pared with their class mates.

In general, this holistic picture of the learning opportunities for the young students involved in this study indicates that some mainstream learning communities succeed in creating positive student attitudes on a range of dimensions of the classroom climate. Overall the US students were more positive about their school; however that school has a specific mission and charter to be inclusive of students with disabilities and has developed the strategies to directly focus on this outcome. This result is interestingly revealed when you compare the fact that the focus students in the Danish schools were less positive on 20 of the 32 items than their classmates whereas the US students were less positive on only13 items. Further, Danish focus students were more positive on 8 items while US students were more positive on 18. Having posi-tive, mixed or negative opinions is not just a simple matter of being in more or less complicated learning situations. Rather, it is a more complex issue, calling for further cross contextual investigations of the com-bined intra- and interpersonal dimensions of learning communities.

One of the things that these data seem to reveal is that when inclusive practices are a specific focus of a school, students can and do experience similar and positive perceptions of their participation as was true for the US students. All of these students were in a single school that has a commitment and mission to being inclusive of all differences in children including disability, language, culture, ethnicity and socio-economic status. The school has worked for over a decade to develop specific strategies for planning and

8

differentiation curriculum and teaching in ways that assure all students succeed as much as possible. In contrast, the students in the Danish study were from schools in 13 different municipalities in Denmark and while their schools had a commitment to inclusive practices, they did not necessarily have it as a central focus and mission. We think in part the more mixed responses from the Danish students are accounted for in large degree by the differences in schools.

Looking on the findings more theoretically (following Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Almquist et al., 2004) the students’ quite positive attitudes towards their school experiences concerning the didactic and social dimensions of schooling are results or outcomes of reciprocal dynamic relationship between personal and environmental factors. The overall picture of environmental dimensions like physical envi-ronment, clear structure, meaningful communication, differentiation, collaboration, participation and re-sponsibility is positive. This is somehow in line with the theoretical views behind the study, as Bronfen-brenner’s proximal processes (relations, communication and interactions) are included in these environ-mental dimensions. Both Bronfenbrenner and Bandura pinpoint that beliefs and efficacy is context specific, e.g. characterized by situational requirements and demands.

Discussion As mentioned earlier, mainstream school situations of students with disabilities relate to a wide range

of issues dealing with disengagement, marginalization and school failure. This seems not to be the case among students in this study, as they have mostly positive experiences of their learning environments. However, this finding should be interpreted in conjunction with our students' age, as they are early in their schooling. The question is whether (and in which aspects) students’ opinions on their learning environment will change during schooling. Therefore, it seems obvious (and desirable) to repeat this semi-structured interview for the same student group at regular intervals. Indeed, the research field of educational inclu-sion is in need of that kind of longitudinal studies, which look more closely at the nature of processes of inclusion and exclusion over the years. The US school that participated in this study plans to continue using the interview three times per year in both the elementary and middle school grades. This will begin to pro-duce some of these comparisons over time.

Even though, in general, the Danish students with disabilities included in mainstream class rooms in-volved in this study, have quite positive attitudes about their learning communities, it is also clear that they are somewhat less positive compared with their mainstream class mates (without disabilities). First and foremost, they seem to lack positive experiences of influence and appreciation. In this way, it is an evident challenge for schools to create learning situations and processes, based on values such as ‘student influ-ence’ and ‘educational participation’, if they are to be characterized as inclusive (see also Farrell, 2004). It is not enough to be cared for by caring professionals; they also need to be active and valuable contributors to the learning communities, to which they belong; e.g. doing project together with their class mates. The US data seems to demonstrate that these things can be accomplished as evidenced by the much closer agree-ment between the focus students and their classmates and the degree to which students with disabilities were frequently more positive than their classmates.

It is worrying that nearly two thirds of the Danish students with disabilities do not agree with the statement that ‘in my class we make up many ideas that our teachers like’ compared to their US counter-parts where the students with disabilities were slightly more positive than their classmates on the same item. When influence on own learning processes (and a lack of appreciation) are withdrawn from students with disabilities, they tend to be treated like objects, rather than subjects – and are likely to develop pas-siveness and helplessness. Their participation is compromised and they may suppress their own wishes and motives, presenting themselves as disengaged and passive. Later on, in schooling or adult life, when asked for active participation and independent making up one’s mind, they may not have the competence to act. Is this trend to be reversed, as the data from the US demonstrates can occur, we must all take the educa-

9

tional challenge seriously, as phrased by Per Lorentzen (1998, p. 27): To work with children’s motives and will to learn.

If we are going to facilitate students’ development of autonomy and engagement in their own learning processes, we need to involve them in our teaching planning and evaluation, even if they have difficulties in expressing their wishes verbally or articulating their requests. It requires creativity, perseverance and em-pathy to succeed in grasping the students’ will to learn and in transforming it to a sustainable practice. Not least, it requires time for reflections on how to balance so inconsistent processes as support and challenges to each individual student, protection and autonomy, security and risky situations (Tetler, 2002). Thus, we need to further explore the concept of educational participation and the meaning held by the students through ongoing research.

References: Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. (London: Routledge).

Alborz, A., Pearson, D., Farrell, P. and Howes, A. (2009) The impact of adult support staff on pupils and

mainstream schools. In Research Evidence in Education Library. (London EPPI-Centre, Social Sci-

ence Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London).

Bandura, A. (1994) Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour (Vol. 4, pp

71-81). (New York: Academic Press).

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of Control. (New York: W.H. Freeman).

Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L. and Rouse, M. (2007) Achievement and Inclusion in Schools. (London:

Routledge).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986) Ecological Systems Theory. In R. Vasta (ed.), Annals of child development. (Vol 6,

pp 187-250) (Greenwich CT: JAI Press).

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999) Environments in developmental perspective: theoretical and operational mod-

els. In S.L. Friedman and T. Wachs (eds.), Measuring environments across the lifespan. (APA:

Washington DC).

Dalen, M. (1999) Den inkluderende skole – idealer og realiteter. In: En skole for alle I Norden. Et festskrift I

anledning af den 20. nordiske kongres i Stavanger: ’100 års nordisk samarbejde omkring undervis-

ning af elever med særlige behov’.

Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning (2006) Dansk Clearinghouse for Uddannelsesforskning

/konceptnotat. http://www.dpu.dk/Clearinghouse

Dyson, A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2002) A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-level actions

for promoting participation by all students. (EPPI-Centre Review, version 1.1) In: Research Evi-

dence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Educa-

tion).

Egelund, N. and Tetler, S. (eds.) (2009), Effekter af specialundervisningen. (København: Danmarks Pæda-

gogiske Universitetsforlag).

Emanuelsson, I. (1998) Integration and segregation – inclusion and exclusion. International Journal of Edu-

cational Research, 2, 95-105.

Farrell, P. (2004) School Psychologists: Making Inclusion a Reality for All. School Psychology International;

25; 5. Downloaded from http://spi.sagepub.com at Aarhus Universitets Biblioteker / Aarhus University Li-

braries on June 24, 2009.

Ferguson, D.L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each

one and every one. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23 (2), 109 – 120.

10

Ferguson, D.L. and Ferguson, P.M. (1995) The Interpretivist View of Special Education and Disability: The

Value of Telling Stories. In T.M. Skrtic (ed.), Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special)

Education for Postmodernity. (New York: Teachers College Press).

Ferguson, D.L. and Tetler, S. (2009) Meeting the Challenge of Multi-Site, Multi-Researcher Interpretivist

Research. Paper presented at ECER, Vienna, September 28, 2009.

Hedegaard, M. and Chaiklin, S. (2005) Radical-Local Teaching and Learning. (Aarhus: Aarhus University

Press).

Høgsbro, K., Kirkebæk, B., Blom S. V. and Danø, E. (1999) Ungdom, udvikling og handicap. (Frederiksberg:

Samfundslitteratur).

Lorentzen, P. (1998) Språk og handling. (Otta: Tano Aschehoug).

Marinosson G., Ohna S.E. and Tetler, S. (2007) Delagtighedens pædagogik. Psykologisk Pædagogisk

Rådgivning, 44, 236-263

McCaslin, M., Bozack, R.A., Napoleon, L., Thomas, A., Vasquez, V. Wayman, V. and Zhang, J. (2006) Self-

Regulated Learning and Classroom Management: Theory, Research, and Considerations for Class-

room Practice. In C.M. Evertson and C.S. Weinstein (eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management.

(London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Meyer, H. (2004) Was ist guter Unterricht? (Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor).

Mitchell, D. (2008) What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education – Using Evidence based teaching

Strategies. (London: Routledge).

Nes, K. (2004) Hvor inkluderende er L97-skolen? In K.J. Solstad and T.O. Engen (Eds.) En likeverdig skole for

alle? Om enhet og mangfold i grunnskolen. (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).

Nordahl, T. (2005) Læringsmiljø og pedagogisk analyse. En beskrivelse og evaluering af LP-modellen. NOVA

rapport 19/05. Norsk Institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring. (Oslo: Nova).

Nordenbo, S.E. (2008) En Clearingshouse-undersøgelse. Om regelledelse og relationskompetence. In J.B.

Krejsler and L. Moos (eds.), Klasseledelse – magtkampe I praksis, pædagogik og politik. (Frede-

rikshavn: Dafolo).

Ringsmose, C. & Buch-Hansen, L. (2004) VUL – Voksne - Udviklingshæmmede – Livsvilkår. (København:

Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag).

Salomon, G. (1991) Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: The Analytic and Systemic Ap-

proaches to Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 20, 10-18.

Sydney, A. (2010) A Handbook for Inclusion Managers. (London: Routledge).

Tetler, S. (2000) Den inkluderende skole – fra vision til virkelighed. (København: Gyldendal).

Tetler, S. (2002) Skolelivskvalitet i den inkluderende skole. Kognition & Pædagogik, 12, 32-44.

Tetler, S., Baltzer, K., Hedegaard-Sørensen, L., Boye, C. and Andersen, G.L. (2009) Pædagogiske vilkår … for

elever i komplicerede læringssituationer. In N. Egelund and S. Tetler (eds.), Effekter af specialun-

dervisningen. (København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag).

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Edu-cation Programs, 28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006, vol. 1, Washington, D.C., 2009.

Wentzel, K.R. (2006) A Social Motivation Perspective for Classroom Management. In C.M. Evertson and C.S.

Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

Westling Allodi, M. (2005) Specialpedagogik i en skola för alla. Individ, omvärld och lärande. Forskning

nr.27. Institutionen för Individ, omvärld och lärande. (Lärerhögskolan: Stockholm).

Westling Allodi M. (2007) Assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish Schools: Development

and analysis of a theory-based instrument. Learning Environments Research, 10, 157-175

11

Keywords: Educational inclusion, participation, Student voices, Classroom climate

Susan Tetler (ph.d.) is Director of the Research Program ‘Inclusive Education and Social Pedagogy’ at the

Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Tuborgvej 164, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Kirsten Baltzer (ph.d.) is external associate professor at the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University,

Tuborgvej 164, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark.

Dianne L. Ferguson (ph.d.) is a Professor at Chapman University in the US.

Shawna Draxton and Amy Hanreddy are both doctoral students at Chapman University and work as school

administrators in Southern California.

Correspondence should be addressed to Susan Tetler: email: tetler@dpu.dk

12

Appendix A: Student’s Opinions about their Learning Environment in Denmark and the US We selected a 60/40 rule to determine percentages that were positive (60% or more), mixed (40% - 59%, or negative (0% - 39%). Using these fairly intuitive cuts allowed us to compare between fo-cus students and their classmates as well as between focus students and classmates in the US and DK. To determine the agreement between focus students and their classmates, we used a 5% and 10% rule. If the agreement was five percentage points or less, we considered that “same”. If agreement was greater than 15 percentage points different, we determined the agreement to be “different”. Comparisons between 6 and 14 we determined to be “similar”. Column heading definitions: Column A: Themes and Item numbers

Column: B Theme and items Column: C Students Groups C and F Column: D Category 1 very positive answers n % Column: E Category 2 positive answers in % Column: F Category 1+2 Sum of positive answers in % Column: G Category 3 negative answers in % Column: H Category 4 very negative answers in % Column: I Category 3+4 Sum of negative answers in % Column: J Characterisation of answering pattern (See note page 9). Column K: Comparison between the C- and F population. Comparison categories similar or different

Table 1. Students’ opinions about their learning environment in Denmark A Item

B C Stu-dents

D YES

E yes

F D+E

G no

H NO

I G+H

J K Comparison: C vs. F

Theme Physical environment 1 In my class there is plenty of space C

F 29% 20%

57% 47%

86% 67%

13% 33%

1% 0%

14% 33%

Pos Pos

Different

2 In my class things are placed, making it easy for us to find

C F

7% 7%

40% 53%

47% 60%

43% 27%

9% 13%

52% 40%

Mix Pos

Similar

3 In my class we can make different things without disturbing each other

C F

7% 7%

39% 20%

46% 27%

45% 53%

7% 20%

52% 73%

Mix Neg

Different

4 In my class is a computer which we all can use

C F

43% 50%

14% 7%

57% 57%

5% 7%

38% 36%

43% 43%

Mix. Mix

Same

Theme Clear structure 5 In my class it’s possible to work

without being disturbed C F

4% 20%

45% 20%

49% 40%

39% 7%

12% 53%

51% 60%

Mix Mix

Similar

6 In my class we have rules for how to behave

C F

54% 64%

35% 29%

89% 93%

9% 0%

2% 7%

11% 7%

Pos Pos

Same

7 In my class we are good at listen-ing to each other

C F

14% 21%

70% 50%

84% 71%

12% 21%

4% 7%

16% 28%

Pos Pos

Similar

8 In my class the teachers are good at explaining what to do

C F

48% 64%

45% 29%

93% 93%

7% 7%

0% 0%

7% 7%

Pos Pos

Same

Theme Meaningful communication 9 In my class we speak nicely to each

other C F

7% 20%

58% 40%

65% 60%

28% 7%

7% 33%

35% 40%

Pos Pos

Same

10 In my class we also talk about what’s happening outside school

C F

35% 33%

43% 40%

78% 73%

16% 20%

6% 7%

22% 27%

Pos Pos

Same

13

11 In my class the teachers tell us how to get better in reading and math

C F

37% 27%

45% 53%

82% 80%

15% 0%

2% 20%

17% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

12 In my class teachers are good at making fun

C F

19% 40%

38% 20%

57% 60%

24% 13%

19% 27%

43% 40%

Mix Pos

Same

Theme Differentiation 13 In my class we have lots of differ-

ent materials and things to work with

C F

23% 47%

41% 33%

64% 80%

31% 13%

5% 7%

36% 20%

Pos Pos

Different

14 In my class we can choose differ-ent tasks to work with

C F

21% 29%

41% 29%

62% 58%

29% 29%

9% 14%

38% 43%

Pos Mix

Same

15 In my class we have plenty of time to do our work

C F

19% 25%

59% 50%

78% 75%

18% 8%

4% 17%

22% 25%

Pos Pos

Same

16 In my class it is okay that we do differently on many things

C F

72% 67%

25% 33%

97% 100

3% 0%

0% 0%

3% 0%

Pos Pos

Same

Theme Collaboration 17 In my class we do projects togeth-

er C F

14% 20%

69% 33%

83% 53%

15% 33%

2% 13%

17% 46%

Pos Mix

Different

18 In my class we care for each other

C F

21% 27%

62% 40%

83% 67%

14% 13%

3% 20%

17% 33%

Pos Pos

Different

19 In my class we do many things together during free time and after school

C F

52% 40%

41% 27%

93% 67%

6% 13%

1% 20%

7% 33%

Pos Pos

Different

20 In my class we help each other C F

36% 33%

57% 60%

93% 93%

6% 0%

1% 7%

7% 7%

Pos. Pos.

Same

Theme Influence 21 In my class we can decide about

important things (for instance home work)

C F

9% 20%

22% 20%

31% 40%

32% 13%

37% 47%

69% 60%

Neg. Mix.

Similar

22 In my class we can decide about many things

C F

6% 14%

32% 21%

38% 35%

41% 29%

22% 36%

63% 65%

Neg Neg

Same

23 In my class we make up many ideas that our teachers like

C F

12% 21%

44% 14%

56% 35%

35% 29%

9% 36%

44% 65%

Mix Neg

Different

24 In my class we often talk to teach-ers about how we feel

C F

16% 27%

49% 47%

65% 74%

30% 27%

6% 0%

36% 27%

Pos Pos

Similar

Theme Participation 25 In my class some of my peers feel

lonely and alone C F

16% 18%

41% 36%

57% 54%

31% 9%

12% 36%

43% 45%

Mix Mix

Same

26 In my class everyone feels good C F

20% 29%

51% 36%

71% 65%

22% 7%

7% 29%

39% 36%

Pos Pos

Similar

27 In my class all of us get the oppor-tunity to tell about what we have experienced

C F

50% 53%

33% 27%

83% 80%

18% 7%

3% 13%

21% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

28 In my class we include each other, e.g. when we are playing

C F

29% 33%

57% 40%

86% 73%

11% 20%

3% 7%

14% 27%

Pos Pos

Similar

Theme Responsibility 29 In my class we are all responsible

for what to do in class C F

49% 50%

30% 29%

79% 79%

16% 21%

5% 0%

21% 21%

Pos Pos

Same

30 In my class we are responsible for what to do in reading/math

C F

16% 21%

39% 43%

55% 64%

37% 29%

8% 7%

45% 36%

Mix Pos

Similar

31 In my class we share responsibility everyone is feeling good in school

C F

33% 33%

47% 27%

80% 60%

15% 40%

5% 0%

20% 40%

Pos Pos

Different

32 In my class the teachers trust us

C F

39% 47%

42% 27%

81% 74%

14% 7%

6% 20%

20% 27%

Pos Pos

Similar

14

Table 2. Students’ opinions about their learning environment in the US

A Item

B C Stud.

D YES

E yes

F D+E

G no

H NO

I G+H

J K Comparison C vs. F

Theme Physical Environment

1 In my class there is plenty of space

C F

44% 48%

43% 24%

87% 72%

8% 16%

5% 12%

13% 28%

Pos Pos

Similar

2 In my classroom everything is placed just so in order to make it easy for us to find things.

C F

44% 48%

40% 32%

84% 80%

12% 16%

4% 4%

16% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

3 In my classroom we can make different things without disturb-ing each other

C F

41% 48%

42% 32%

83% 80%

12% 4%

5% 16%

17% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

4 In my class there is a computer which we all can use.

C F

15% 32%

12% 20%

27% 52%

22% 4%

51% 44%

73% 48%

Neg Mix

Different

Theme Clear Structure

5 In my class it’s possible to work without being disturbed.

C F

30% 54%

39% 29%

69% 83%

18% 13%

13% 4%

31% 17%

Pos Pos

Similar

6 In my class we have rules for how to behave.

C F

81% 79%

17% 13%

98% 92%

1% 8%

1% 0%

2% 8%

Pos Pos

Similar

7 In my class we are good at listen-ing to each other.

C F

36% 52%

47% 32%

83% 84%

14% 12%

3% 4%

17% 16%

Pos Pos

Same

8 In my class the teachers are good at explaining what to do.

C F

73% 72%

24% 24%

97% 96%

2% 0%

1% 4%

3% 4%

Pos Pos

Same

Theme Meaningful Communication

9 In my class we speak nicely to each other.

C F

48% 68%

42% 16%

90% 84%

8% 12%

1% 4%

9% 16%

Pos Pos

Similar

10 In my class we also talk about what’s happening outside school.

C F

24% 36%

43% 48%

67% 84%

17% 12%

16% 4%

33% 16%

Pos Pos

Different

11 In my class the teachers tell us how to get better in reading and math.

C F

61% 72%

27% 20%

88% 92%

10% 8%

2% 0%

12% 8%

Pos Pos

Same

12 In my class the teachers are good at making things fun.

C F

63% 64%

26% 28%

89% 92%

9% 0%

3% 8%

12% 8%

Pos Pos

Same

Theme Differentiation

13 In my class we have lots of dif-ferent materials and things to work with.

C F

63% 80%

29% 20%

91% 100%

6% 0%

3% 0%

9% 0%

Pos Pos

Similar

14 In my class we have different materials to work with in reading and math.

C F

55% 56%

31% 24%

86% 80%

8% 12%

6% 8%

14% 20%

Pos Pos

Similar

15 In my class we have plenty of time to do our work.

C F

33% 50%

46% 29%

79% 79%

18% 21%

3% 0%

21% 21%

Pos Pos

Same

16 In my class it is okay that some-times we each do things diffe-rently.

C F

65% 64%

31% 16%

96% 80%

3% 8%

1% 12%

4% 20%

Pos Pos

Similar

Theme Collaboration 17 In my class we do projects to-

gether. C F

58% 52%

37% 40%

95% 92%

3% 8%

2% 0%

5% 8%

Pos Pos

Same

18 In my class we care for each other.

C F

59% 56%

33% 24%

92% 80%

5% 12%

3% 8%

8% 20%

Pos Pos

Similar

19 In my class we make things to-gether during free time and after

C F

53% 44%

26% 36%

79% 80%

13% 8%

8% 12%

21% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

15

school.

20 In my class we help each other. C F

55% 76%

33% 16%

88% 92%

8% 0%

4% 8%

12% 8%

Pos Pos

Same

Theme Influence

21 In my class we can decide about important things (for instance homework).

C F

38% 36%

32% 16%

70% 52%

12% 28%

18% 20%

30% 48%

Pos Mix

Different

22 In my class we can decide about many things.

C F

37% 60%

36% 32%

73% 92%

17% 0%

10% 8%

27% 8%

Pos Pos

Different

23 In my class we make up many ideas which teachers like.

C F

47% 56%

30% 24%

77% 80%

17% 8%

6% 12%

23% 20%

Pos Pos

Same

24 In my class we often talk to our teacher about we feel about going to school.

C F

23% 48%

28% 12%

51% 60%

24% 12%

25% 28%

49% 40%

Mix Posq

Similar

Theme Participation

25 In my class some of my friends feel alone and lonely.

C F

21% 28%

22% 20%

43% 48%

17% 12%

40% 40%

57% 52%

Mix Mix

Same

26 In my class everyone feels good. C F

44% 42%

38% 21%

82% 63%

13% 21%

5% 16%

18% 37%

Pos Pos

Different

27 In my class all of us get the op-portunity to tell about what we have experienced.

C F

32% 52%

38% 24%

70% 76%

18% 20%

12% 4%

30% 24%

Pos Pos

Similar

28 In my class we are very much aware of including everybody (e.g. when we are playing)

C F

53% 68%

34% 20%

77% 88%

9% 4%

4% 8%

13% 12%

Pos Pos

Similar

Theme Responsibility

29 In my class we are all responsible for what to do in the class (e.g., getting food/milk, etc.)

C F

57% 64%

30% 24%

87% 88%

9% 8%

4% 4%

13% 12%

Pos Pos

Same

30 In my class we are responsible for everyone doing well in reading and math.

C F

45% 60%

25% 12%

70% 72%

18% 24%

12% 4%

30% 28%

Pos Pos

Same

31 In my class we are responsible for everyone doing well in school in general.

C F

46% 36%

23% 32%

69% 68%

18% 16%

14% 16%

32% 32%

Pos Pos

Same

32 In my class the teachers trust us. C F

67% 68%

26% 28%

93% 96%

4% 0%

3% 4%

7% 4%

Pos Pos

Same