Encuesta Expertos en Comercialización de Interactuar

The research within the field of special education often focuses on analysing handicaps and different forms of deviation (Haug, 1998; Helldin, 1998). In the field three research paradigms dominate: the psycho-medical focusing on the individual; the organizational focusing on institutions; and the sociological focusing on society (Skidmore, 1996). Sometimes the research has also comprised investigations or evaluations and more seldom research on content and ways of working (Ahlberg, 1999, Haug 1998). Very few Swedish classroom practices focusing pupils in need of special support are described in literature. Only one report (Ahlberg, 1998), one article (Hemmingsson, Borell and Gustavsson, 1999) and one essay (Tinglev, 2000) have been found.

The three documents concerning classroom practice are discussed here. First, the factors essential within the context for helping children with SEN are described. Secondly, the focus is on different outcomes: social, cognitive and emotional. Finally, the main problems within the context of inclusive education are discussed and some remarks are made concerning the groups of pupils with SEN that cause the most problems within the mainstream settings. 5.14.4 Which factors within the context of the curriculum are essential for helping

children with SEN in mainstream classrooms?

Ahlberg (1998) thinks that teachers must be involved in a reflecting process and closely observe his or her own teaching in a widened perspective which includes the surrounding society and the organization of the school as well as in the class. If mainstreaming is going to

work special education must be integrated in ordinary education. This must be done not only by developing special approaches per se but in the general development of all schools. There is a threat, though, in the polarity between individuality and collectivism.

Another important factor within the context of the curriculum that is essential for helping children with SEN in mainstream classrooms in Ahlberg’s text (1999) is co-operation. To be able to co-operate and later reflect on the work in the classroom these two teachers regularly have counselling sessions about what is happening in the classroom. The special teacher is guiding the teacher during these counselling sessions. Context in these sessions are the teaching in the classroom and the teacher’s attitudes and behaviour. These counselling sessions make it possible for the teacher to get an outside view of her work, which encourages her to change methods, content and groups more suitable for the whole group but also for the children with SEN. The counselling sessions also help the teachers to reflect upon and change their attitudes, although it is not that easy to change attitudes and teaching.

5.14.4.1 What is considered about the outcomes (social, cognitive and emotional) in Ahlberg’s research?

The teachers in Ahlberg’s research find that they have developed their view of their profession during these counselling sessions. The counselling sessions have had an impact on the teachers’ thinking and acting:

• ‘a more joined view on the pupils’ social training and the commission to support the pupils’ learning;

• a deepened understanding about limits and possibilities offered by the social practice; • an increased self confidence in co-operation with parents;

• a closer co-operation with the other actors in the classroom’ (p. 177, translated).

Even if organization and the social practice limit the teachers intentions, the teacher can learn from episodes in social practice with a pupil in SEN, by describing it and talking about how to find new ways of teaching in the counselling session. It is especially important to look at and discuss the perspective of the pupil in need of special support.

5.14.4.2 Essential factors in Hemmingsson, Borell and Gustavsson

In the study of Hemmingsson and others, teaching styles were found important for the participation of pupils with physical disabilities. By characterizing pupil’s opportunities to participate actively in the classroom, they identified four teaching styles. The four styles are: 1. the conductor style,

2. the group work style, 3. the dialogue style and 4. the individual task style.

Table 5.1 The identified teaching styles and opportunities to participate actively for students with physical disabilities

Conductor style Group work style Dialogue style Individual task style

Who decides the pace? The teacher The group The teacher The student Opportunities to actively

participate?

Limited Depends on the group

Mostly good Good

Source: Hemmingsson, Borell and Gustavsson, 1999, p. 33

The conductor style was found to be the style that caused most problems for pupils with physical disabilities. These teachers changed activities and learning tools too rapidly for pupils with physical disabilities. Moreover the rhythm was fast and unforeseen which meant less possibilities for communication between the disabled pupil and his or her assistant. The pupil became dependent on the assistant to be able to keep up with the demanding pace. In this teacher style there was no room for a reduced work pace.

In group work style the disabled pupil’s performance depends on the relationship between the pupils in the group. Activities could be divided according to the pupil’s ability if the group was co-operative. But how long the disabled pupil had to carry out his or her task depended on how fast the peers accomplished their assignments. The limits in this style were constructed in the interaction between the pupils.

In the dialogue style the focus of the teacher was the whole class. The time used to narrate, question or work was decided by the teacher. Therefore the pupil studied did not suffer from great time problems, since time on task performance could always be adjusted to each pupil. Disabled pupils seemed comfortable and also seemed to think that they had enough time.

In individual style the pupils had one or more individual tasks to carry out during at least 20 minutes, which gave all pupils the best opportunities to carry out daily activities, since the flexibility of task performance was good.

Individual style was used in all observed classes, the four regular classes and one special, conductor style was used in three classes; dialogue style was used in one class and in the special education class and group work style in one class.

5.14.4.3 What is considered about the outcomes (social, cognitive, and emotional) in Hemmingsson et al.’s research?

One of the findings is that if the teacher tended to look at the pupils in the class as a homogeneous group, the handicap for the pupils with disabilities increased.

One of the most interesting findings is that the situation for the disabled students can at its extreme be described as a choice between ‘time for doing’ or ‘time for knowing’. The teacher in the study seemed to be forced to choose between these two choices. If the teacher emphasized knowing, as in one case described, and thus reduced the pupil’s opportunities it could only be reached at the price of the pupil’s own practice of common school tasks.

There is finally a discussion of learning, which demands both doing and knowing by interaction. It means that the teachers with physically disabled pupils must individualize to give these pupils opportunities to get time for both. And they must be aware of the type of teaching style they use and how it influences learning opportunities for these pupils to be able to find the best compromise.

5.14.4.4 Essential factors in Tinglev’s study?

In Tinglev’s study (2000) content and support within Swedish lessons are central. It was shown that the content was very seldom arranged in other ways for pupils in reading and writing difficulties and there were often many different tasks in one lesson. The child that needs special support is often offered the same content as the other pupils. The support in the class is characterized by:

• piloting;

• casting an extra eye

• telling the pupil if the answer is right or wrong; • compensating deficits;

• controlling.

5.14.4.5 What is considered about the outcomes (social, cognitive, and emotional) in Tinglev’s research?

To change special education from segregated to inclusive, all personnel at a school must be involved in analysing the existing social practice, for example involve themselves in action research, as Ainscow (1998) writes, the teachers must see ‘themselves as “reflective practitioners”, skilled in learning from experience and, as a result, more responsive to the feedback offered by members of their classes’ (p. 13).

Resources are often seen in terms of money and time. However, resources in the classrooms are probably more a question of reflecting on the type of content on which teachers focus. What do they want the pupil to learn? Why? And in what way and how can they support each child in the best way?