Abstract
The article discusses results of a study that evaluated university students’ competencies related to inclusive education. The study aimed to find out how prospective school counselors, who were familiar with theories on inclusion as an educational concept and had some relevant field experience, analyzed and reflected upon inclusion-related, real-life situations. The authors also aimed to establish any differences in views and explanations depending on students’ average grades and whether students have experience working in inclusive settings. A questionnaire was developed that consisted of seven questions related to independent variables (e.g., average grade, experience with working in inclusive settings) and six open-ended questions related to a real-life situation. The results indicate that most students understand at least the basic elements of the broader definition of inclusion and can provide some ideas for improvement of practice. Interestingly, students’ grades do not seem to be a decisive factor, but field experience does play a role in students’ competencies related to inclusive education.
Introduction
Several pieces of research (Engelbrecht, Savolainen, Nel, Koskela, & Okkolin, 2017; Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Florian & Spratt, 2013; Lesar, 2018; Saloviita & Schaffus, 2016) indicate that high quality higher education is one of the key factors that supports prospective educators in their ability to work successfully in inclusive educational settings. High quality education pays attention to three dimensions: solid theoretical knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In other words, it pays attention to all levels of prospective educators’ competencies (Rouse, 2009). This article brings forward results of a study in which the authors evaluated university students’ competencies for working in inclusive educational settings. Evaluating or measuring competencies will always have limited success, not only due to methodological challenges but also because of the limitations of the competency concept (Štefanc, 2012). Furthermore, evaluating competencies required for successful creation of inclusive learning settings adds to the complexity of the topic, as the concept of inclusion is elusive and refers to a never-ending process. To improve methodological characteristics of the evaluation, the triangulation of methodological approaches, as well as the triangulation of data analysis, was used. The article discusses results obtained as a part of a larger bilateral research project located in two states of the former Yugoslavia: Slovenia and Serbia. The article focuses on Slovenian students—prospective school counselors—and their knowledge of, and attitudes toward, inclusion. Theoretically, the study builds upon a broad understanding of inclusion (Haug, 2017) and links it to a discussion on competencies of prospective educators, particularly school counselors.
Inclusion and Educators’ Competencies for Inclusive Education
The Broad Concept of Inclusion
Ever since the concept of inclusion was introduced in the mid-1990s with the “Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education” (1994), researchers have worked to define it. However, even today, there is no clear-cut theoretical definition of inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; Florian, 2014; Lesar, 2009; Mitchell, 2015). This article builds upon the broad understanding of inclusion (Haug, 2017), which can be characterized by the premise that inclusion is a matter of general theory of education, not only of special education (Slee & Allan, 2001), thus making diversity a guiding pedagogical credo in education. Therefore, the concept is not tied merely to students with special educational needs (SEN); it applies to all students who face barriers in learning and participation (Lesar, 2009) and to students in general, as it is the education system’s responsibility to establish learning conditions for all children and to teach them to live in a diverse society (Black-Hawking, 2010; “The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education,” 1994). Students, whether or not they face barriers, are active participants in the learning process; they also become co-creators in the process of resolving learning difficulties (Kodele, 2017). This includes a shift from the special pedagogical to the general pedagogical. It does not isolate special pedagogical interventions carried out by special education professionals in the foreground (e.g., pull-out model), but rather the idea of high-quality teaching that is planned and implemented by a teacher (Florian, 2015; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Thomas, 2013), who is, if necessary, supported by other professionals.
Moreover, broadly understood inclusion gives priority to communitarianism as opposed to individualism (Arduin, 2015; Jeznik, Ermenc, & Mažgon, 2018). The liberal discourse from which moral individualism derives gives priority to protecting individual rights relative to institutions. According to liberalism, institutions must ensure suitable conditions for people’s inclusion in society and education. Nevertheless, as liberalism overlooks social rights and the spirit of the common good, it overlooks the importance of establishing an inclusive society based on solidarity (Kymlicka, 2002). The individualist approach focuses on guaranteeing individuals’ rights; it emphasizes the importance of special rights for everyone in a disadvantaged position (Rawls, 1971). Yet implementing measures for specific disadvantaged groups assumes the deficitary nature of these individuals or groups who, therefore, enjoy special assistance (Thomas, 2013). The broad understanding of inclusion places the values of the common good, equality, and cooperation in the foreground, and it is inseparably connected to a different view of the student. The student is not understood through the prism of a deviation from the “normal,” but as a person capable of learning (Kroflič, 2013; Reindal, 2016) who brings a new quality to the life of the community. In this sense, Lynch and Lodge’s (2002) conceptualization of equity seems productive because it supplements Rawls’s (1971) concept of redistribution with recognition and representation. Besides the political equalization of differences recognition introduces a demand for the ethical and epistemological acceptance of the horizon of the other, which through its difference also has the effect of changing the identity of the individual (Fraser & Honneth, 2003; Jeznik et al., 2018).
Competencies for Inclusive Education
As already pointed out (Peček & Ermenc Klara, 2016), modern discourse about teachers’ education is a discourse of competencies. Many authors support the idea that modern teacher education must be based on the concept of competencies as the competence-based approach is supposed to make it possible to teach teachers how to function in practice (Buchberger, Campos, Kallos, & Stephenson, 2000). Yet, considerable reservations about the approach are also expressed. Korthagen (2004) emphasizes that modern literature defines competencies more broadly than in the past as “an integrated body of knowledge, skills and attitudes” (Korthagen, 2004, pp. 80-81). However, a teacher’s work is influenced by a deeper level of the teacher’s personality, which the concept of competencies does not cover. Similarly, according to Biesta (2013), teachers must, most of all, be able to judge what is good for a concrete student in a concrete situation. A judgment about good work is always a normative judgment and always derives from the question of the purpose of pedagogical work. Teachers must constantly make judgments about how to find a balance between the different dimensions (Biesta, 2013).
Having these limitations in mind, competency models seem to be productive in a sense that they shift the focus of attention from knowledge also to students’ attitudes, beliefs, and skills. Therefore, Florian and Spratt (2013) suggest pinning teacher education on Rouse’s (2009) competency model. They contend that inclusion depends on teachers “knowing” (about theoretical, policy, and legislative issues), “doing” (turning knowledge into action), and “believing” (in their capacity to support all children). Also, Forlin and Chamber’s (2011) analysis indicates “a growing body of research . . . has identified positive attitudes as being equally important as, if not more important than, knowledge and skills as prerequisites for good inclusive teachers” (p. 18). The authors emphasize “greater contact with people with disabilities during training . . . has also been found to yield more positive attitudes and support for inclusion” (p. 18).
The Context: The Role and Competencies of Pedagogues
In the mid-1990s, Slovenian independence was followed by extensive education reform at all levels, including the education of SEN students, who were gradually being integrated into mainstream schools (separate special education institutions have not been abandoned). These advances brought several changes in the daily life of schools, including employing special education professionals to work with SEN students (pull-out model). In this context, academic pedagogues and researchers continued to defend the broad concept of inclusion (Kroflič, 2013; Lesar, 2009) and highlighted the importance of a learning community with collaboration and co-responsibility between teachers and support staff.
In Slovenia (and in Croatia, Serbia, etc.), one type of specialist exists to support teachers in finding ways to provide meaningful learning experiences for all children in the classroom; they are known as pedagogues and are employed as school counselors. 1 Pedagogues work in kindergartens, elementary, and secondary schools; their main task is, on one hand, to support principals and teachers in their endeavors to improve the educational process. On the other hand, pedagogues work to encourage students’ personal, social, and academic development (Gregorčič Mrvar & Mažgon, 2017). Beyond working with individual students, pedagogues work with groups and help create a supportive learning community for all.
The starting point of our research is with study programs in the field of pedagogy provided by one of the universities in Slovenia; two programs, one at the bachelor and other at the master’s level, were taken into consideration, which are both based on the science of general pedagogy—that is, general education theory, the main knowledge base of the pedagogical profile. Pedagogy in Slovenia is not defined as in the Anglophone world, where pedagogy is understood as “the act of teaching and its attendant discourse” (Alexander, 2001; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Florian & Spratt, 2013). On the contrary, the conceptualization of pedagogy rests in German tradition, where pedagogy developed as a theoretical science starting in the late-18th century.
The main reason for the two different configurations has been discussed by Biesta (2014), who wrote that pedagogy in Germany did not develop in the context of the incorporation of teacher education into the university, but emerged from a much older interest in education as a “phenomenon” . . . where this phenomenon was first and foremost seen as having to do with the formation of the individual . . . in relation to and in interaction with culture and society. (p. 71; cf. Lesar, 2018; Lesar & Ermenc, 2017).
Nevertheless, pedagogy gained more importance with the development of public education systems, as it responded to the needs of pedagogical professions (e.g., teachers, school counselors, school administrators), thus increasing the importance of practical knowledge and skills as well. The dual nature of pedagogical science and study has produced tension (Vujisić-Živković, 2008), including the relationship between pedagogical theory and practice. Recently, for instance, Gadamer’s (Ermenc, Vujisić Živković, & Spasenović, 2015) analysis of Aristotle’s differentiation of sciences strengthened the view that pedagogy is a practical science because it is inseparable from practice. Yet, this practice does not refer to techne (craftsmanship) but requires phronesis (reasoning or proper decision making) as it raises the question of good, proper, and ethical decision making. Currently, particularly since the onset of the Bologna Process, debates about the nature and role of pedagogy are linked to the issue of a competency-based approach in curriculum design and the role of pedagogical practicum. A recent study (Ermenc et al., 2015) indicated that the majority of university professors who follow the German or Central European tradition of pedagogical research are rather critical about the competency concept. They claim that pedagogy is foremost a theoretical (reflective) science. Some add that pedagogy is about both theoria and phronesis; learning the truth and gaining wisdom from ethical decision making is more important than the craft of coping with everyday professional routines. Despite the contemporary societal atmosphere in which applied knowledge (techne) is favored, academic pedagogues caution that students must have the opportunity to develop the ability to reflect theoretically on their practical experience. They agree to the competency model only if understood in such a holistic manner.
Study—Evaluation of Students’ Competencies
Background
Against this backdrop, the current study took place. Most pedagogues in Slovenia are educated at the above-mentioned university. Over the years, the broad concept of inclusion has gained a prominent place in study programs. A combination of an infusion approach (by modification of curricula) and stand-alone subjects of study on diversity was implemented. The study program includes field experience (pedagogical practicum), and students are encouraged to gain some experience during their spare time (e.g., volunteer work in schools); the idea of competency development has gradually gained more ground. Students who graduate at the master’s level achieve full competency for independent work as school counselors. By the end of their studies, students are expected to gain systemic knowledge of different aspects of pedagogical science and develop the ability to make decisions based on theory and ethical considerations. They are also encouraged to develop empathy, responsibility, and sense for community (Department of Educational Studies, 2018).
Research Problem
The main aim of the study was to gain more insight into the competencies related to inclusive education that pedagogy students gain in their first 3 years of study, when their full competency for work is still not developed, but have already gained both theoretical knowledge on inclusion and practical experience. The researchers aimed to find out how pedagogy students understand inclusion, its dimensions, and practical implementation. The main question was how they analyze and reflect upon inclusion-related, real-life situations. There is an abundance of research evaluating beliefs or attitudes about inclusion, but less is known about another dimension of competencies: knowledge of inclusion and its application in real-life professional challenges. Moreover, the majority of studies focus on teachers or student teachers (e.g., Engelbrecht et al., 2017; Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Saloviita & Schaffus, 2016). This is not surprising as it was often proved that an essential prerequisite for the creation of inclusive school ethos is teachers’ accepting attitudes toward these children (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Lesar, 2018). This study is different in two ways: first, it does not investigate (student) teachers, but instead prospective professionals who are to become teachers’ supporters. Second, it strives to investigate students’ knowledge and their ability to evaluate practical professional challenges related to inclusion and then provide recommendations for better solutions. In addition, we were interested in either the students’ experience with students facing barriers or how their average grade influences their competencies and reasoning.
Measuring and evaluating such complex phenomena is extremely difficult; it requires various research approaches and techniques. The results presented in this article are thus only part of a broader bilateral research project conducted between 2016 and 2017 by research teams from two universities: one located in Slovenia and the other in Serbia. The research project is comprised of three parts, each with a specific research aim for which specific research instruments have been designed:
To gain deeper understanding of students’ attitudes about inclusion, focus groups have been devised;
To provide insight into students’ knowledge in connection with their views, a questionnaire has been designed; and
To investigate the influence of a program and wider context on students’ knowledge and attitudes, a comparative study has been conducted.
This article presents results of the second part of the research project and focuses on three research questions:
Method
The study followed the principles of qualitative and quantitative methodologies and was designed as a descriptive survey, mainly to describe the phenomena as they naturally occur, but to some extent, the study also tries to identify some causal relationships between variables (Gray, 2004).
The non-random sample consisted of 61 students, enrolled in the third year of the study program in the field of pedagogy (92% of all third-year students). Their average grade was 7.7 (positive grades at universities in Slovenia are from 6 to 10), and one of them had a status of a student with special needs. Twenty-six (42.6%) students reported they have had at least some experience with students with special needs or inclusive settings, eight reported to work as volunteers, five encountered inclusion-related situations during the pedagogical practicum, five worked as animators in different cultural events, four worked with immigrant students, and four were engaged in other activities.
To carry out the study, we developed a questionnaire which consisted of seven questions related to independent variables (e.g., average grade, status of a student with special needs, experiences with inclusive settings, and their opinion on how much topics related to inclusion they meet in the study program) and six open-ended questions related to the following real-life scenario:
The class teacher reports, My pupil Silvia attends Grade 6. She has been treated as an SEN student since first grade. She has learning difficulties and a statement of special educational needs and is therefore entitled to two hours of additional specialized assistance. She often comes into conflict with her classmates; she speaks down to them and pushes them away. They don’t accept her, and she feels lonely. It is also difficult to work with her because she doesn’t bring her books and notebooks to school, and she often leaves prematurely with an excuse that she doesn’t feel well. I have suggested that Silvia regularly, once a week, consult with school pedagogue.
Data Analysis
Data for this study were analyzed by a team of three researchers using techniques associated with categorical aggregation: an analytic approach predicated on the search for correspondence and/or patterns of responses within and across cases (Stake, 1995) to gain higher internal validity of the results. During the first stage of the analysis, team members read through the responses to identify initial codes and categories. The process of assigning codes and categories was based on a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. More codes and categories were allowed for individual response.
The team met twice to compare their lists of codes and categories, which resulted in a mutually agreed upon list of codes and categories. During the third stage of analysis, the team met three more times to select one category for each of the students’ responses, this time for statistical analysis of the data. Statistical analysis conducted during the third stage of the analysis enabled us to gain more insight into the influence of the students’ grades and experience based on their responses (presenting data with absolute and relative frequencies [f, f%] and comparing students with and without SEN experience), while the qualitative analysis of the second stage provided more in-depth examination of the students’ responses.
Results
Students were asked to define the primary problem/challenge in the depicted scenario. Their responses were grouped into five categories (Table 1). Among them, two express a narrow definition of inclusion (student’s deficit, lack of parents’ support), while three express a broader definition (inappropriate conceptualization of additional specialized assistance, 2 noninclusive school climate, deficitary view of the pupil). The majority of students (almost 46%) saw the noninclusive ethos of the school/class as the main challenge. If all three categories expressing a broader view are taken together, then 65.6% of students replied according to the expectations that are based on the main aims of the study programs in question.
What Is in Your Opinion the Main Challenge of the Scenario?
For the hypotheses testing, likelihood ratio chi-square test was used as the expected counts were too low (more than 20% were less than five) to meet the criteria for using the Pearson chi-square test.
Correlations of responses with students’ experience (Table 2) reveal that students who have some experience related to inclusion provide answers closer to a broader understanding of inclusion: 45.7% of students with no experience see the main problem in the pupil or her family, while similar reasoning was expressed in only 19.2% of students having experience. As Table 2 shows, the responses of students with no experience vary more in comparison with responses of students with some experience: good 65% of students with experience, but only little more than 31% of those without experience see the main challenge in the noninclusive school climate (the difference is statistically significant at α = .030).
Correlation of Responses to Main Challenges Based on Students’ Experience.
Note. For the hypotheses testing, likelihood ratio chi-square test was used as the expected counts were too low (more than 20% were less than five) to meet the criteria for using the Pearson chi-square test.
Interestingly, the correlation of the students’ responses with their average grades showed no statistically significant differences. To go deeper into the students’ line of thought, we will consider the content of the codes behind all the five categories.
The majority of students seem to understand the vital role of school and class ethos (Table 3). Some put more emphasis on the pupil being not accepted by her peers and teacher; some questioned the current arrangements in Slovenian education in which additional specialized assistance is usually provided separately. Conversely, some students see the pupil’s deficit or family’s lack of support as the main cause of the problem. Yet, among them, only six see the pupil’s or family’s situation as the only reason; the rest combine it with some additional insights. The majority (35 out of 61) of students provided more complex responses, some being in line with narrow, and some with a broad, understanding of inclusion: 22 students listed two problems; seven students, three problems; and six students, four or more problems. Complex responses, which aim to explain the situation from different points of view, are most valuable as they show students’ analytical abilities. As the calculations indicated that experience played a role in the quality of students’ responses, while the average grade did not, we examined the most complex responses (Table 4) of those six students also through the lenses of who or what allowed them (students with experience/good grades) to gain more insight into factors influencing the quality of students’ knowledge.
The Main Challenge: Categories and Codes.
This is the number of responses, hence larger than the number of students.
The Most Complex Responses.
These results are somewhat inconclusive, but they seem to confirm the greater importance of students’ experience and lesser importance of their grades.
Students were also asked to provide an optimal solution to the problem. Table 5 provides their responses. Not surprisingly, little more than 39% suggest improvement of class climate, while almost 30% suggest individual support of the pupil.
What Would Be the Optimal Solution to the Problem?
These responses correlated with the students’ experience and grades. Once again, there was no statistically significant difference among students with different average grades, while experience played a role. There were differences in answers, but they were not statistically significant. Table 6 reveals that the majority (40.0%) of students who had no experience related to inclusion recommended individual support for the pupil, which is true for less than 16% of those with some experience. On the contrary, more than 46% of those who had experience recommended improving the class climate. The two groups of students did not differ in their recommendations regarding introducing a team approach, working with parents and supporting pupil’s strengths.
Correlation of Responses for Optimal Solution and Students’ Experience.
To gain a better understanding of the students’ resourcefulness about possible measures to be taken, we further analyzed their responses. Table 7 indicates that the responses could be divided among those who express a broad definition of inclusion and those who express the narrow definition.
Students’ Recommendations.
Note. SEN = special educational needs.
Despite the fact that the majority of students identified lack of inclusive practice as the main source of the problem in the scenario depicted, Table 7 shows that only good half of their responses are in line with the broad concept of inclusion. Moreover, responses more in line with the broader definition of inclusion are, in most cases, unspecific; students reported on what should be done but not how.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study aimed to explore how pedagogy students analyze and reflect upon inclusion-related real-life situations and how resourceful they are in their recommendations. In other words, the researchers aimed to gain some insight into their “knowing” (about theoretical issues), but in relation to “doing” (recommending measures) and “believing” (expressing their views on the problem) (Rouse, 2009). Students develop competencies not only mostly by theoretical study during which topics on inclusion are either infused in different subjects of study or stand-alone program units, but also by engaging in prescribed and optional field experience. The idea that during their studies, students need to primarily develop their abilities to reflect upon professional challenges theoretically is very much embedded in the study process.
The results are expected to some extent, but also surprising. The majority of students understand some basic elements of the broader definition of inclusion; among them, the importance of school climate/ethos stands out the most. Students also understand that inclusion is about community (Arduin, 2015; Black-Hawking, 2010) and acceptance of diversity as the guiding pedagogical credo (Florian, 2015; Haug, 2017). Some put more emphasis on the pupil being not accepted by her peers and teacher; some question current arrangements in Slovenian education (pull-out model prevails). Some students see the pupil’s deficit or family situation as the only challenge. Interestingly, views closer to a broad understanding of inclusion are more often expressed by students who have some field experience related to inclusion compared with those who do not have such experience. The students’ average grade does not seem to be a decisive factor. Regarding the impact of grade and/or experience, additional analyses of the most complex students’ responses did not give clear answers. The results indicate that students’ experience is, to a degree, more important than their average grade, which is not easy to explain. One explanation might be that inclusion is more an issue of attitude than an issue of knowledge. We came to a similar conclusion in another piece of research (Jeznik, Mažgon, & Ermenc, 2017), in which we compared attitudes toward inclusion between pedagogical professionals and volunteers. The study indicated that, to some extent, volunteers expressed more positive attitudes about inclusion compared with the trained professionals, who does not need to focus on supporting students in achieving prescribed learning outcomes instead of considering also other dimension of their inclusion. Yet, inclusion is not only about attitudes without some fundamental knowledge base. Considering the context, which gives priority to the separate provision of support, one might expect that students would adopt the narrower understanding. Yet, most of them do not, which leads to the conclusion that those students were able to critically evaluate the practices they encountered. It seems that the findings of this study confirm the importance of phronesis (Ermenc et al., 2015). Students who have some field experience gave complex responses, but they were also able to reflect upon the experience and evaluate it critically.
Students were also asked to suggest some measures which would lead to an optimal solution to the problem. Their responses were also correlated with their experience and grades. Once again, there was no statistically significant difference among students with different average grades, while experience did play a role. Most students without experience related to inclusion recommended individual support to the pupil, which is also true for less than 16% of those with some experience. Moreover, good 46% of those with experience recommend improving the class climate. The two groups of students do not differ in their recommendations regarding introducing a team approach, working with parents and supporting pupil’s strengths. The findings show that students with experience are more inclined to group measures instead of individualizing them; only two students recommend that the pupil’s strengths must be the starting point.
The analysis of the students’ recommended measures revealed that despite the fact that the majority of students identified lack of inclusive practice as the main source of the problem of the depicted situation, only a little more than half of their responses are in line with the broad concept of inclusion. Moreover, responses which we categorized as being closer to the broader definition of inclusion are unspecific in most cases. The findings are not particularly encouraging and indicate that when action comes to the forefront, some students neither managed to distance themselves from the narrow definition nor did they prove to be resourceful in providing solutions to the depicted challenge.
Due to the small sample size, great caution needs to be taken in generalizing the results. Most pedagogues are educated at the same university; their expertise, therefore, has a certain impact on the educational field in the country. The generalization is additionally limited due to the specific context of the research. Yet, triangulation of the methodological approaches, as well as the triangulation of data analysis, increases the validity of the results. The results of the study lead to the conclusion that students’ ability to theoretically reflect upon practical, professional challenges is particularly important in settings that are not (yet) inclusive enough. Young professionals who enter the professional field need to be equipped with theoretical concepts (and believe in them) that will help them introduce some new practices into their surroundings. This is of utmost importance for school counselors who need to support teachers in their everyday struggles. Yet, being successful in bringing about change also demands craftsmanship. If students are not at least to some extent equipped with possible practical solutions, they might not only provide enough support to teachers but also uncritically resort to measures they encountered during their experience that are not adequate from the perspective of the broad definition of inclusion. To sum up, when designing higher education study programs and modes of delivery, it seems of key importance (a) to give students the opportunity to gain in-depth theoretical knowledge of inclusion in education, (b) to develop students’ ability to observe and reflect upon pedagogical practice, (c) to engage them in a variety of different inclusion-related real-life educational situations, (d) to enable the students’ critical reflection on knowledge that underpinned their activities and the approaches they chose, and finally (e) to give them the opportunity to explore their own feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is a product of a research program No. P5-0174 Pedagogical-Andragogical research—Learning and Education for Quality Life in a Community, funded by Slovenian Research Agency, and of a bilateral project between University of Belgrade and University of Ljubljana: No. BI-RS/16-17-011. The preparation of pedagogical students for work in inclusive settings.