ECA – Report
Introduction
To change educational practice, a wealth of evidence must be presented that has an impact within that specific field (Pring and Thomas, 2004). For this evidence to be adopted by policy makers, it must prove to be empirical in nature and follow a set of prescriptive guidelines (Shamsheer et al., 2015). Systematic reviews are widely acknowledged as the method most successful at influencing policy (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006, Ridley, 2012, The Cochrane Group, 2022) and therefore should be adopted by changemakers within education. Empirical research needs a precise search strategy conducted with reliable databases and transparent search strings, making the study replicable (Bryman, 2021, Ridley, 2012, Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). The following research aims to adopt elements of the systematic review process wherever possible and so search strings and databases used are included here as appendix one with the inclusion and exclusion criteria available as appendix two.
As this research is in the formative stages, a research question has not yet emerged, though the areas to be examined involve inclusion, special educational needs and practitioner views on the tensions between policy and practice in these areas. Therefore, these are the focus of the search strings in appendix one. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2017) observe that a systematic review is focused on the process of the research and so is possible without a clear research question. Within the searches conducted the dates were restricted to recent research as contentious issues such as inclusion often change quickly, and it was imperative to examine research produced in the current educational climate (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2019).
The research undertaken here has begun to facilitate the development of the conceptual framework for further research by providing an overview of the methodology, theoretical perspectives and data analysis techniques adopted by other researchers in the area. There were some limitations on the research being completely empirical as Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2017) point out, a literature review is not as focussed as a systematic review. This search did begin at a much wider point to enable the selection of research which complemented the field of study. According to Mohar et. al. (2009) clarity adds to the value of any research process and so a PRISMA chart has been included here as appendix three to illustrate how articles were selected. Four articles are examined here but a further nine were selected as valuable to the overall research and referenced throughout to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research available, support the findings and add context to the articles examined (Bryman, 2021, Cohen Manion and Morrison, 2017).
Search Process
The research process progressed through several evolutions with search strings examining different areas of research as shown in appendix one. There were also elements of the inclusion and exclusion criteria which were developed to be more specific alongside the research process. Due to the wide variety of language used around special educational needs (Norwich, 2007), the inclusion criteria specified only English studies should be included. However, even when search strings were restricted, some international articles appeared in the results. These were deemed useful to the research, and several have been included here. The criteria were therefore adapted to filter out educational systems that are very different to the English systems, rather than all of those outside of Britain itself.
Though every effort was used to actively exclude studies from other educational levels, little research was available on further education, limiting the initial research results. Further education is a key element to this research and so it was always included in the search string, but when filtering results from those discovered professionals across secondary schools, further education and higher education were all included within the criteria. After finding only four suitable articles from database searches, Google Scholar was used to uncover further relevant studies by searching ‘Inclusion in Further Education’ in three separate searches with different dates, ranging from 2020 to 2022. Bryman (2021) recommends the use of Google Scholar to expand the search process, providing results are quality checked. This was completed through comparing the publications discovered with the journal ranking on Scimago (n.d), used to ‘assess… scientific domains’. A further ten articles were discovered here and nine have been included.
Research Articles
Within the research four articles were the most relevant and provided different perspectives of inclusion, each examining a different area with different methodologies and data analysis techniques but each contributing to ideas to develop the research further. Each of the articles explored the tensions within policies for inclusion and the delivery of these policies within practice.
In the British Journal of Education Studies, Koutsouris, Anglin-Jaffe and Stentiford (2020) ask ‘how well do we understand social inclusion in education?’ and use primary research to try and identify the impact social inclusion has, or at least they imply ‘should’ have on perspectives of educational inclusion. The study uses participants’ responses to imaginary scenarios depicting different levels of inclusion to explore society’s discomfort with inclusion fitting social norms, especially the concepts of homophily and choice. This article has extended the scope of the initial research as social inclusion was originally excluded and not seen as relevant to educational inclusion. However, this article links the two firmly together, exploring the lack of autonomy and expected similarities in those perceived as needing inclusion. This, according to the article, is often neglected because this would cause difficulties for the education scenario in which inclusion is so often needed in the real world. In addressing social inclusion, the article refers to different spheres of inclusion, which span further than education and suggests awareness building for all (‘education for inclusion’), rather than just educators. It goes on to suggest that for inclusion to be successful in any environment, a consistent institutional approach must be adopted which is transferable to other situations. This research uses young people as participants and not educational professionals, which might have given more insight into inclusion within education. However, it gathers interesting information that can be applied across the different spheres of inclusion it mentions. It is concerned with how policy impacts institutions in relation to inclusion and how this can be made more accessible outside of the sphere of education, whilst also suggesting that insights into social inclusion may be relevant to educators, causing them to question their own definitions of inclusion.
An article by Hodkinson (2020) frames itself within the work of Foucault. Though complex, Foucault’s work examines the body in relation to power (Foucault, 2019) and Hodkinson explains how this creates tension for those with disabilities, especially in relation to government legislation, making the article particularly valuable to this research and a potential theoretical framework. This article is heavily narrative and relies on the author’s first-hand experience as an educational practitioner. As such, it is subjective and does not follow a systematic process. However, Hodkinson’s explanations of Foucault are accessible, and he relates this to his own experience as a practitioner, providing a valuable insight of oppression within practice. Hodkinson is the only article included which concentrates only on further education and though the narrative of his own experience is emotive, it demonstrates his theoretical perspective effectively and so was identified as a potential basis for the beginning of the research in this area.
Essex, Alexiadou and Zwozdiak-Myers (2021) examines student teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. This article relies heavily on the PREVENT agenda to demonstrate different approaches to and understandings of inclusion. It looks at the legislation surrounding PREVENT and whether this could or should work in practice for inclusion, presenting both positive and negative effects of a standardised approach. This research highlighted that though inclusion as an ideology seems to be widely accepted, the interpretations of this vary widely across both policy and practice and the ultimate delivery of inclusion lies within an individual educational institutions approach to this. This is also mentioned by Koutsouris et al. (2020) and Essex et al. shares other similarities with this article, such as exploring the differences in inclusion outside of educational environments, the impact this has on the individuals involved and the difficulties this creates for successful inclusion within the classroom. This research is transparent throughout regarding the methods and participants used. Therefore, though the study is based within schools, it could be replicated or transferred to teachers in different areas and subjects. The article highlights some concerns around the negative perceptions or misunderstandings of Inclusion by participants in the study and suggests that further, more specific training and tighter links between teacher training courses and practice placements might offer a solution
The next research examined is a systematic review relating to the perceptions of educators on the inclusion of students with Autism (Russell, Scriney and Smyth, 2022). Though the exclusion criteria for this research contains those studies examining only one disability, autism encompasses such a range of difficulties (Russell et al., 2022) that it could be considered transferable across several disability categories and so has been included here. As the article followed the systematic review process, it was interesting to follow the difficulties experienced by the researchers in not only gathering the research but also determining a measurement scale across this field, where the individual studies included used very methodology. This study was unique amongst those chosen as it focused on quantitative research, though the results were presented in a narrative format due to the difficulties associated with comparison of the different methodologies. By exploring the self-efficacy of teachers as a variable in the opinions towards inclusion, this study contributed to information gathered from Koutsauris et al (2020) and Essex et al. (2021) regarding the effects of specific training on inclusion and the experience of inclusion on practitioner’s views on their ability to deliver inclusion effectively. This study is the only one to mention the Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal, 2010) as a possible contribution to the self-efficacy of teachers. This feeds into Hodkinson’s (2020) views on oppression within the categorisation of disability and could compliment Foucault’s theoretical perspectives by focussing further on disability categories.
Key Findings
The majority of the research uncovered within this topic has been qualitative, this would reflect the view of Bryman (2021, p.33) who says that qualitative research emphasises ‘how individuals interpret their social world’. This is the chosen method for this research as it gives an opportunity to examine practitioners’ perspectives in relation to special educational needs and inclusion. Data analysis techniques varied between each piece of research selected here but to facilitate the analysis of all results, Braun and Clarke’s (2013) thematic analysis was adopted as an inductive analysis to uncover the codes, themes and subthemes which emerged within the research. Braun and Clarke (2013) suggest following six stages, the first step being finding the research within the specific area of interest. For each article selected a data extraction sheet was completed, included here as appendix four. These were adapted to generate initial codes, and then reviewed to reveal broader themes relevant to the research. These were defined so they were clear and understandable, with definitions added when needed. Sub-themes detailed in appendix five were then identified to act as a beginning point for further research. The last stage of Braun and Clarke’s analysis suggests producing a report and, as such the findings are discussed below.
Most of the research identified here is exploring the tensions between policy and practice so this was an important theme to explore. Hodkinson (2020) especially, points to the idea of policy being ever changing, whilst practice seems only to encounter similar problems, regardless of policy reforms. He suggests that policy change relating to inclusion has never been about empowering individuals and references the oppressive language and categorisation involved, suggesting this leads to barriers to inclusion, rather than the inclusive practice it is supposed to encourage. Koutsouris et al. (2020) finds tensions exist within perceptions of what should happen to ensure inclusion and the individual choice of those others are trying to ‘include’. This is measured through social inclusion scenarios but is transferable to situations governed by policy as Koutsouris et al. (2020) point out, this often neglects to include reference to individual choice. This article in particular highlights the uncomfortable nature of inclusion and that educators in particular need to step outside of their comfort zone to be successfully inclusive. Essex et al. (2021) explore the tensions surrounding the delivery of the Fundamental British Values mandatory curriculum alongside mainstream delivery and relate this to inclusion. Their findings indicate that though legislation dictates specific delivery, this does not often happen naturally when teaching mainstream subjects and can be neglected altogether in favour of teaching for success. The tensions with Russell et. al. (2022) all relate to the difficulties of delivering mainstream in an inclusive way with limited resources, though it does mention that complications can be particularly significant when the specific difficulties of individuals are barriers to inclusion, such as communication, emulating the findings of Koutsouris et al. (2020). These correlations showed that tensions were present in all the themes identified and so this was the overarching theme, with subthemes of interpretations of inclusion, training and government legislation and policy sitting underneath this.
All the research uncovered raises an element of tension. Overwhelmingly, the research suggests that positive institutional approaches to inclusion are the contributing factor to success in this area, rather than policy or legislation which can actively work against practitioners in some environments (Kiel et al., 2020, Paulsrud and Nilholm, 2020, Essex et al., 2021, Koutsouris et al., 2020 Duncan and Purcell, 2021, Marshall et al., 2020). Hodkinson’s (2020) exploration of oppressive legislation is also explored in Symeonidou’s (2022) study in relation to curriculum materials and his ideas about outcomes being related to an individual’s contributions to society appear again in Scanlon and Doyle (2021) and Blake et al. (2021). This highlights the differences between internal policy and government legislation, with one having the potential to positively influence inclusion and the other seemingly having little effect and so internal policy and external government legislation were made into two separate sub themes.
The issues raised by Koutsouris et al. (2020), that inclusion is sometimes uncomfortable for practitioners is another area widely supported, though often framed differently. Blake et al. (2021), for example, explore the idea of certain inclusive practices as actually exclusionary and this is also raised by Essex et al., (2021) as different practices have cultural implications. Parry (2020) repeats this sentiment in his study, finding that when purportedly inclusive courses are offered, this can exclude students from attending other courses. Marshall et al.’s (2020) research also highlights fundamental failings with inclusive practice, as it reports that often practitioners themselves are often unable to disclose their own difficulties and missing an opportunity to acknowledge the impact they could have on building an inclusive environment. This sub-theme has been titled individual choice as an area of inclusion which is often forgotten and difficult to acknowledge. Essex et al.’s (2021) study in particular highlights the difficulties experienced by practitioners when trying to define inclusion and how this can create a barrier to effective practice. This article finds that inclusion is an accepted part of teaching but that it seemed to be presented by student teachers as more of an ideology than a practice and due to this it was difficult for them to define how it was demonstrated in practice. Hodkinson (2020), too, presents inclusion as an ideology and argues that it would be difficult to achieve through current legislative practices.
The positive impact of specific training is another theme running through the research. Links to teacher-efficacy show a variety of results but the impact on attitudes towards inclusivity is mostly positive (Perrin et al., 2021, Kiel et al., 2020, Hornby, 2021 Symeonidou, 2022). A lack of training and tensions about the resource and time commitment involved are discussed by Russell et al. (2022). However, Essex recommends specific training should be present in current teacher training, with stronger links between training courses and placement, helping new teachers relate policy to practice more effectively after finding ‘an alarming lack of knowledge’ amongst student teachers during their study alongside contradictory delivery within inclusive practice. This is echoed by Symeonidou (2022) who shows the positive impact of specific training and Hodkinson (2020) who believes that current training is ineffectual at preparing teachers for effective inclusion.
Subsequent reflections
This research process has been a valuable learning experience. It has facilitated the development of themes and sub-themes which can be taken forward into further research. The opportunity to adopt elements of the systematic review process has given an insight into the challenges that may be faced on a larger scale research project and identified potential areas for improvement and change. The research discussed here has shaped ideas that will contribute to the final research question and the themes generated were not as expected. The range of minority groups under the umbrella term of inclusion was something that had not been considered, though studies which discussed primarily these groups were deemed valuable to the overall research and included here. This will lead to changes in the terminology of search terms and perhaps the inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure all research available is examined for transferability. Though the research included is all recent, several articles referred to studies or theorists which will be influential to the development of further research.
This search process has identified a gap in recent research surrounding inclusive practice in further education. While the studies included here looked at a range of educational stages, further education concentrated on the outcomes for young people, as this has been a contentious issue within policy recently (Scanlon and Doyle, 2021) rather than the impact of practice. Practitioner voice is also underrepresented with teachers in further education only mentioned in Marshall et al. (2020) without examining their views on practice. The themes and sub-themes identified through analysing the articles indicate areas that are relevant to further education and discovering professionals’ views on these areas would enhance the research available, giving a clear picture of these views across the education sector. To gather these views, interviews with open questions around each of the sub themes should be effective and encourage practitioners to speak openly about these areas.
Reference List
Blake, H., Hanson, J. and Clarke, L. (2021) ‘The Importance of an Inclusive Alumni network for ensuring effective transitions into employment and future destinations for people with learning disabilities’. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(4) pp. 445-455.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2013) Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: Sage
Bryman, A. (2021) Social Research Methods (6th Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2017) Research Methods in Education (8th Edition). Routledge: London
Duncan, H. and Purcell, C. (2020) Consensus or Contradiction? A Review of the current research into the impact of granting extra time in exams to students with Specific learning difficulties. Journal of Further and Higher Education 44(4) pp.439-453
Essex, J., Alexiadou, N., Zwozdiak-Myers, P. (2021) ‘Understanding Inclusion in teacher education – a view from student teachers in England’ International Journal of Inclusive Education. 25:12 1425-1442.
Foucault, M. (2019). Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Penguin: UK
Hodkinson, A. (2020) ‘Special Educational Needs and Inclusion, moving forward but standing still? A critical reframing of some key issues’ British Journal of Special Education. 47(3)
Hornby, G. (2021) ‘Are Inclusive Education or Special Education Programs More Likely to Result in Inclusion Post-School?’ Education Sciences 11:304 Available at:
Kiel, E., Braun, A. Muckenthaler, M., Heimlich, U. and Weiss, S. (2020) ‘Self-efficacy of teachers in inclusive classes. How do teachers with different self-efficacy beliefs differ in implementing inclusion?’ European Journal of Special Needs Education 35:3 333-349 Available at:
Koutsouris, Anglin-Jaffe and Stentiford (2020) ‘How well do we understand social inclusion in Education?’. British Journal of Education Studies. 68 (2) pp.179-196.
Marshall, Fearon, Highwood and Warden (2020) “What should I say to my Employer… if anything?” My Disability Disclosure Dilemma International Journal of Educational Management 34 (7) pp.1105- 1117
Mohar, D. et al (2009) ‘Reprint – Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement’, Physical Therapy, 89(9), pp. 873-880.
Norwich, B. (2007) ‘Categories of Special Educational Needs’ in Florian, L. The SAGE Handbook of Special Education 2nd Edition. London: SAGE Publication pp.55-72
Parry (2020) ‘Exploratory Study of the Inclusion of ‘Future-Selves’ as part of transition preparation in to and out of Further Education for young people with learning difficulties’. Psychology of Education Review. 44(2) pp.44-51.
Paulsrud, D. and Nilholm, C. (2020) ‘Teaching for Inclusion – A review of Research on the cooperation between regular teachers and special educators in the work with students in need of special support’ International Journal of Inclusive Education
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell.
Perrin, Jury, Desombre (2021) Are Teachers’ Personal Values Related to their attitudes towards inclusive education? A correlational Study. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal 24(4) Available at:
Pring, R. and Thomas, G. (2004) Evidence-Based Practice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ridley, D. (2012) The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students. 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Russell, A., Scriney, A. and Smyth, S. (2022) ‘Educator Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Education: A Systematic Review’ Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
(Accessed 25/06/22)
Scanlon, G. and Doyle, A. (2021) ‘Transition Stories: Voices of School Leavers with Intellectual Disabilities’. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 49 (4) pp.456 – 466.
SCImago (n.d.) SJR SCImago Journal and Country Rank.
Shamseer, L. et al (2015) ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and Exploration’, The BMJ 349:g7647,
Symeonidou, S. (2022) ‘Teacher Education for Inclusion and ani-oppressive curriculum development: innovative approaches informed by disability arts and narratives’ International Journal of Inclusive Education 26:7 659-673
The Cochrane Group (2022) Cochrane. Available at: Cochrane.org/about-us. (Accessed: 03/01/22).
Appendix 1:
Search Strings with Boolean Operators
| 1. | Inclusion | AND |
| Further Education | AND | |
| Policy | AND | |
| England or English or British | AND |
| 2. | Inclusion | AND |
| Further Education | AND | |
| England or English or British | AND |
| 3. | Special Education or Special Needs or Disabilities | AND |
| Further Education | AND | |
| England or English or British | AND |
Databases used:
Education Research Complete
British Education Index
Educational Research Information Centre (ERIC)
Appendix 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
| Category | Inclusion | Exclusion |
| Population | Teachers, SENCOs, college staff | Professionals outside of education, parents |
| Post 16 education | Primary and secondary education, organisations outside education | |
| Special needs, disabilities, SpLD, inclusion | Mainstream ONLY, learning and teaching, special education only (not inclusion) | |
| Issue | Opinions, perceptions and realities of SEN policies in Practice | No mention of policies, education or employment outcomes. |
| Outcome | Impact on policy | No mention of policy level |
| Age Range | 16-25 | 0-10, 25+ |
| Language | English | Anything other than English |
| Geography | England or those with similar educational context | America, look for language that is not inclusive |
| Date | 2020 to present | Pre 2020 |
| Source | Academic journals | Non-Academic Journals |
Appendix 3
PRISMA Flow-chart
Appendix 4 – Data Extraction Sheets
4.1 Data Extraction Sheet 1
| Author | George Koutsouris, Hannah Anglin-Jaffe & Lauren Stentiford |
| Title (of article or book chapter) | How well do we understand Social Inclusion? |
| Journal (or book) Title | British Journal of Education Studies |
| Research Question/Hypothesis | Exploring tensions between inclusion and individual choice experienced by young people in the context of everyday social interaction with reference to the intersection between disability, ethnicity, gender and social class. |
| (and/or) Research Aims | To argue that understanding inclusion at the social level leads to implications for inclusive education. |
| To explore whether a top-down approach influenced by national and international policy and rights is sufficient in order to achieve inclusion in education. | |
| To research young people’s understanding of social inclusion | |
| Relevant Policy(ies) | Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) – troubling as differing definitions of Inclusion since then. Equality Act (2010) mentioned in passing as an example of how policy might work in an educational setting but not transferable to others situations necessarily. General policies in education or Human rights that cannot be transferred in the same way. |
| Relevant areas of practice | Inclusion. That as a concept it has been widely misunderstood and that, though educational inclusion can be successful to a certain extent within the confines of a policy, this does not necessarily lead to wider social inclusion outside of policy. This has an implication for education as several of the areas of social inclusion such as freedom of choice and homophily are often not taken into consideration when policies are made. |
| Relevant Theory(ies)/(ists) | There is a quote about the complexities of inclusion at the beginning from Rohrer (2005) and this is said to shape the study. Felder’s (2018) work on inclusion also features heavily throughout and this work looks at the freedom of choice that should be prevalent within inclusion but that has caused tension according to the study. There are many other theories mentioned but perhaps most interestingly Koutsouris, the first author has referenced himself several times as working with Norwich, a name which has been mentioned in relation to SEN policy throughout several of these research papers. |
| Methodology | They use a small scale empirical study (their words). This involves 20 young people between 17 & 27, semi-structured interviews of around 40 minutes were carried out with each participant after they had taken part in discussions related to scenarios based around inclusion presented on power point with the rest of the group. This fits with the research aim somewhat, though it is a relatively small study and the research is open about that. The aims may have been further met by looking at the scenarios with professionals or educators who would then be able to discuss the implications for practice. I would also say that there is a lot here, it would be difficult to meet all of the aims based on the small scale study. |
| Sampling Approach | 20 young people between the ages of 17 and 27 took part here. It seems to have just been a convenience sample as e-mails were sent out, notices were out up and people asked to invite their friends. Though the researchers mention that they ‘tried to ensure the group was as diverse as possible with regards to gender, country of origin, topic of study and family income’ the reader is given no further information on this, though we are informed that only one participant disclosed a disability – dyslexia. |
| Method(s) | Semi-structured interviews of around 40 minutes took place after focus groups around different scenarios. |
| Method(s) of Analysis | Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically on NVivo 12 using the constant comparison method. The main themes were discussed between 2 members of the research team to ensure transparency and consistency. |
| Key Findings | It is mentioned that findings should be treated somewhat cautiously as some of the young people indicated that they had answered questions based on what they thought they should have done and not necessarily what they would have done in that scenario. Interestingly, all of the answers to questions seemed to indicate that the participants valued inclusion over individual preference. The research discusses the fact that later reflections were sometimes more interesting as this revealed a tension btn what they thought they should do and what they would prefer to do. This shows a connection to the research question and aims, though as previously mentioned, I’m not sure that the research links back enough to education, though I see a tenuous link through the research. |
| Credibility/Validity | I don’t believe that the sample covers enough of the relevant population to relate back to education but I do find it very interesting in relation to a younger generation’s opinions. I would be interested to read the other related articles on the research which are currently outside of my inclusion criteria due to the dates but I think this might provide a fuller understanding. I agree with what the research is trying to say and believe it is a very interesting way of looking at inclusion and feel it makes this point through the study. Throughout researchers are open about the fact that this is a small scale limited study and that they were unable to get a good selection of society within this study which is generally good. Data is relevant and discussed at length according to the theories raised. It gives a good demonstration of what it is trying to achieve. I’m not sure that the validation they give of researchers looking over the information is enough and respondent validation may have been more effective. The worry I suppose is that it seems to be end reflection and not actually the responses given in interview which feed into the researchers conclusion that there is a tension between what the participants believe should be done and what the participants might actually have done. |
| Ethics | Ethics were sought and approved from the University involved. No issue from me. |
| Study Recommendations | I would look to change the interview questions in the spirit of freedom to ensure that participants were given an opportunity to talk about what they would have done within the scenario as well as morally what they believe to be true and explore the tension which is very interesting. I also believe that the study should possibly be replicated with educators and data gathered on whether this changes their perspectives on educational inclusion. |
| General notes on the research | I really liked this research. I thought it was a new and innovative way of looking at Inclusion as a topic, in particular Felder’s use of freedom in relation to social inclusion was an aspect that I, as an educator had never considered, and is essential to understanding the subject area. I have reservations about the usefulness to education of the way the primary research was delivered but I like the design and methodology of the study, just not necessarily the sample size. I believe I am therefore a little bias about the results, but I do believe that they support the idea that there is a tension between what the general population believes inclusion is and what it actually is. Overall, an interesting study which I believe will definitely feature somewhere in my research. |
| Codes Discovered | Policy & Legislation, Intersectionality, Inclusion Interpretations, Tensions, Homophily, Training |
4.2 Data Extraction Sheet 2
| Author | Alan Hodkinson |
| Title (of article or book chapter) | Special Educational needs and inclusion, moving forward but standing still? |
| Journal (or book) Title | British Journal of Special Education |
| Research Question/Hypothesis | In England, as in the international Arena, do we move forward with policy while in reality standing still in relation to success in the education of our pupils? |
| (and/or) Research Aims | Revisit, review and reframe key issues such as the definitions/constructions of SEN, disability and inclusion |
| Draw out the complexities of SEN and inclusion | |
| Reframe future directions for inclusive education | |
| Relevant Policy(ies) | To define disability, certainly in education, certain statements or policies must be mentioned. Here the Warnock report is mentioned but it’s standing in SEN history questioned. Salamanca is also given a courtesy mention but, again, not in any meaningful way. The Children and families act and associated COP is dissected in terms of oppressive language and compared to outdated research such as the Warnock report as being fairly similar in terms of terminologies used. Words have been replaced with other words. Though the article doesn’t mention specific policies it does discuss the New Labour initiative to take a ‘powerful inclusion stance’, placing the medical model of disability firmly back in the spotlight, and the subsequent fall out from this when the government changed hands. Policy in general is discussed as having a negative effect, using negative language or just generally being wrong as it does not take into account the lived experiences of those it is trying to affect. |
| Relevant areas of practice | There is a quote here from Penketh looking at the policy contribution to negative language of the categorisation of disability (referred to as oppressive language in the Symeonidou article included in Bibliography) which I find interesting and may merit further research The researcher is arguing that Inclusion has never been successful because it is a government tool to try and ensure employment for people with disabilities. He believes that a contribution to society is not necessarily an economic one. The researcher’s own experience from teaching an Adult with disabilities who had been let down by the system is discussed within this study. It is obvious that the researcher’s journey has been affected by this first hand experience and this brings an element of practice and understanding practice that some of the other research examined here is lacking. |
| Relevant Theory(ies)/(ists) | Mentions Norwich as another study does, but also Foucault (and a development through Ahmed- 2006) in relation to the understanding of disability through concepts of ‘the body’. I find this theory quite highbrow but the article looks at this is a translatable and understandable way. This theory has an impact on the way in which policy is translated within the text, as a political anomaly, something that doesn’t fit the ideology of capitalist and commodified societies and that Inclusion is the tool to make it fit. |
| Methodology | The research is presented as a secondary review of the literature. It is emotive and bias. It sets out to portray the English educational system as wrong and it definitely does that. It is not empirical and does not claim to be, but it does frame the policy and government approaches in the way it sets out to do. The first hand narrative recount of the experiences of the researcher are also bias with no evidence that he was able to speak for the student he refers to in the way he feels. Nevertheless the story is believable but it is little more than that… a story. This research is useful to me as it sets out a stall for policy negatively affecting the progress of inclusion within the UK education system, more or less, exactly what I am looking for. In terms of validity and reliability, there is very little but the research is a good place to start and the article is well written and engaging. |
| Sampling Approach | |
| The research here is very mixed, policy papers, government manifestos and reports alongside highbrow theorist histories and developments and discussion articles, rather than studies including primary research. Not necessarily a bad thing, for a discussion article but not empirical either and certainly not exhaustive, no arguments are offered for the other side of this but they don’t need to be either, this is the more positive and supported viewpoint. | |
| Method(s) | The search process is not discussed or brought into the research at all. |
| Method(s) of Analysis | The quality of the research uncovered is not discussed or acknowledged. |
| Key Findings | The narrative certainly points to the research question being true but little evidence is presented for this. Indeed, even the personal experience presented at the end as a ‘kind-of’ evidence took place 40 years ago and so cannot be used as evidence that Inclusion and SEN have not moved forward. That said, the author does do what he had set out to do and breaks down the research presented within each of the aims above. That said, the research is definitely not exhaustive and misses out key information, the work presented on Inclusion by Koutsouris, for example on Social inclusion, which would have added more depth to the argument that not all perspectives of inclusion are considered when policy is developed, just those that are convenient to the policy makers of the time. |
| Credibility/Validity | The judgements made by the research are actually reasonable and are made very clear. I believe it presents complex issues in an accessible way and discusses openly the failures of government to employ any reasonable research techniques on improving inclusion for children and young people in the UK. That said, the study does not follow any kind of empirical rules. There is no discussion of data collection or how things were brought together as they were and seems to be a bit of a jumble sale of knowledge and thoughts gathered together by the researcher. That said, it doesn’t pretend to be anything but what it is and presents itself as a discussion piece so is valuable in that it is bringing together the thoughts and feelings of one experienced individual in the field and can offer a starting point for further research from there, though I would not rely on it as being factually correct without conducting my own empirical research from the knowledge gained here. |
| Ethics | The issue of the first hand experience raised an ethics issue for me as it felt like the researcher may have broken confidentiality here. I don’t believe that this has an impact on the article overall but I felt a little uncomfortable that the researcher was discussing emotions that had been felt by the student without authorisation or evidence. |
| Study Recommendations | A more empirical approach would have yielded a stronger argument I feel. The research is out there on the fact that Salamanca and Warnock did not invent inclusion. Primary research in the field of education would no doubt have thrown up practitioners who were happy to discuss the flaws in the policies and how they do not work in practice. Policy makers would also have been an interesting pursuit here, if you could manage to get any to participate, even School management level, policies need to take regard to government policies so how did this work, was there anyone who had been successful in changing the oppressive languages, what is their approach? Inclusion does work in some settings, how? Why? What is different about them? I could go on… |
| General notes on the research | This is a very different piece from the others and I did have to make a big decision when deciding to include it. I have read other research on Foucault and didn’t understand it but this explained it much more simply and related it back to government policy. I believe in what this study is saying but I recognise it for what it is, which is a narrative piece and will simply have to back this up with my own research. It’s very similar to what I would like to look at and interestingly mentions inclusion and that tension throughout so is very useful. |
| Codes discovered | Policy & Legislation, Intersectionality, Inclusion interpretations, Tensions, Training, Oppression, Outcomes & Practice |
Appendix 4.3 – Data Extraction Sheet 3
| Author | Jane Essex, Nafsika Alexiadou and Paula Zwozdiak-Myers |
| Title (of article or book chapter) | Understanding Inclusion in teacher education – a view from student teachers in England |
| Journal (or book) Title | International Journal of Inclusive Education |
| Research Question/Hypothesis | To explore the way student teachers understand and practice inclusion during the final stages of their training. |
| (and/or) Research Aims | Look at the ways in which student teachers conceptualise inclusive practice and discuss the implications for their work |
| Explore student teacher’s perceptions of the PREVENT strategy in relation to inclusion | |
| The opportunities and tensions student teachers identify in their practice and what they do to address them. | |
| Relevant Policy(ies) | The Government’s PREVENT strategy is used here to frame issues with inclusion and it’s reach. The Fundamental British Values Framework is used to identify strengths and weaknesses within the preparation of student teachers for the classroom, though inclusion is also mentioned within the scope of SEN. At first read, I thought that they were using the mandatory aspect of the PREVENT policy in a good light, saying that all SEN policies could look similar to this to avoid complications with definitions of terms like Inclusion. However, what it’s actually saying in relation to PREVENT is that it isn’t a one size fits all, and how can it be when everyone is individual. It also points out that PREVENT and FBV aren’t really seen as being a part of Inclusion when really, they should be and that the FBV agenda could be seen to be undermining any progress made within inclusion. |
| Relevant areas of practice | Inclusion as connected to educational, social and policy contexts that frame teacher education and pedagogic practice. The researcher highlights that student teacher’s interpretation of inclusion into practice does not necessarily come from what they learn within their course and seem instead to be linked to the values of a school or staff within a school. |
| Relevant Theory(ies)/(ists) | The study says that it draws on a social constructivist set of principles. It aims to understand it’s participants from the context of their personal experiences and circumstances. |
| Methodology | Primary research is used to gather information about Student Teacher views on Inclusion within their practice. A qualitative approach is used. Since the aim of the research is to explore student views, this seems to be the most effective way to do that. |
| Sampling Approach | Student teachers in two groups – Group A: 17 science students in their PGCE year – in depth 1:1 interviews some were teaching in areas of high deprivation and some in mixed socio-economic areas. 2nd study: focus groups and interviews with 14 Science students in their PGCE year with a different provider, most teaching in high ethnic diversity areas with pockets of social economic deprivation. Some students in this group were also teaching in Prus. They also refer to group C, for this they bring both groups together to complete the task identified in the study, a written task on Fundamental British Values. No gender, age, ethnicity or disability is discussed and might have added an interesting perspective. |
| Method(s) | Interviews, focus groups and course materials. They do mention that their area of practice; Inclusion as connected to (see above) guided their data collection methods so that is a positive. Interview, focus group and task questions are all included in the study so methodology is transparent and could be replicated. Method matches the aims. |
| Method(s) of Analysis | Followed an interpretive critical approach. The data was analysed through a combination of a thematic and discourse analysis. First stage – inductive analytical approach where all texts were deconstructed and themes were derived that captured core meanings. The characteristics of each theme were explored and superordinate thematic categories identified which linked back to the research question. These are identified within the study. These were then further analysed for meaning and through a discursive lens. The process is made very transparent through the text. |
| Key Findings | Highlights the tension between policy and practice, mostly by highlighting the PREVENT strategy but also by highlighting the difficulties associated with the definitions of inclusion and what it should actually entail. Findings are split into: Learning, ability and pedagogies of differentiation – found that perspectives around inclusion were linked to low ability learners – this links back to school attitudes and policies. Student teachers also seemed to indicate that this inclusion for low ability pupils cost other pupils something in way of time, attention or something else. Differentiated teaching is discussed and the study found some ‘alarming’ results when it came to knowledge of SEN in general, causing student teachers to view differentiation as adapting materials for low ability learners more than anything else. The second category is Bridging Experience – the role of teacher education – this looks at the disconnect between the theory learned on the course and whether the student teachers were able to put it into practice. The study found that participants valued their school experiences much more than the university part of their course and did not see the need to question the institution they were in or learn how to see past the policies they were working to. The next category identified was Contradictory Policy Goals and Expectations – this identified a tension between curriculum delivery and policy expectations, with Student teachers finding it difficult to deliver curriculum whilst also individualising learning experiences. Fundamental British Values and Inclusion was the final category. This examined Student Teacher’s perspectives of the FBV strategy. Many were accepting of it as a part of teaching, though were unsure how to incorporate it into the classroom, some were highly critical of it and pointed out that it was a top down unrealistic approach. The judgement implied is that Student Teachers struggle with implementing the theories taught on their courses within their practice. Most seem accepting of the policies forced upon them and, though sometimes do not see the value of teaching certain areas of policy, do so because it is required. In this section PREVENT is presented as anti-inclusion by the author but this is not mirrored within the views they collected. |
| Credibility/Validity | This research is certainly contrasting with the Hodkinson article in terms of it’s transparency and it’s validity. The research could be replicated easily and is clear about it’s aims and objectives. The participants are relevant to the study and data is present throughout the study to corroborate their claims. Respondent validation is not mentioned but they triangulate their results by using 2 separate groups of student teachers and by using interviews, focus groups and a written task. The limitations are not mentioned and probably should be because even though they do use two separate group their findings cannot be generalised to everyone and they focus on Science teachers in particular, where these issues could be impacted by the subject area in some cases. Overall this seems to be a quality piece of research which is reliable and relates well to my area of interest. |
| Ethics | Ethics are not discussed but there are no ethical issues. |
| Study Recommendations | A conflict is identified between the pressures teachers are under to achieve high results and the abilities of teachers as professionals to develop their practice to achieve differentiation and inclusion. Practice needs to be much more open and flexible, free from policy parameters to be developed. That is not what is happening in the UK system so this is a recommendation for a change in policy or at least approach to inclusion so that educators can recognise it for what it is. |
| General notes on the research | Though this study uses FBV to demonstrate it’s thought on standardised policies in relation to inclusion, this can still be applied readily to SEN and the tensions here between policy and practice. I would also argue that the training and teacher efficacy link that is discussed here is very relevant to successful inclusion in the classroom no matter what form it takes. |
| Codes | Policy & Legislation, Intersectionality, Inclusion Interpretations, Tensions, Training, Oppression, Outcomes & Practice |
Appendix 4.4 – Data Extraction Sheet 4
| Author | Amy Russell, Aideen Scriney, Sinead Smyth |
| Title (of article or book chapter) | Educator Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Education: a Systematic Review |
| Journal (or book) Title | Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders |
| Research Question/Hypothesis | Aggregate data on the attitudes of educators towards the inclusion of students with ASD in mainstream educational settings and examine the factors which influence these attitudes. |
| (and/or) Research Aims | To draw attention to the importance of seeking out nuanced attitudes of educators towards the inclusion of different subsets of SEN to gain a deeper understanding of inclusive education practices. |
| Understand the implementation of inclusive educational practices for children with ASD. | |
| Relevant Policy(ies) | UNESCO is mentioned as referring to inclusion as a guideline for policy and practice but little else. This may be because the studies examined are across such a wide sector of education that no one policy documentation fits. In terms of UNESCO the authors consider the idea correct but question what this actually means for policy, a pretty consistent emerging theme. |
| Relevant areas of practice | The issue here is the effect that educator attitudes can have on inclusion, with particular reference to attitudes towards ASD. |
| Relevant Theory(ies)/(ists) | Interestingly Rosenthal is mentioned without reference to labelling theory but whilst also discussing the Pygmalion effect! Also mentions Norwich as some other articles do. Bandura is also mentioned, in relation to social cognitive theory NOT social learning theory. |
| Methodology | This is a systematic review and is transparent in its data collection methods. Though this does match its aims somewhat, the data it collects is obviously very mismatched and presents a difficulty with interpretation. A primary study could have gathered this information through an opinion scale a bit more effectively IMO. |
| Sampling Approach | |
| Strict Inclusion/Exclusion criteria were applied and PRISMA shows a starting point of 3954 articles narrowed down to 13 studies. These were mostly Quantitative with one mixed methods study included. What I did find strange was that the articles were across huge Chasms of SEN and especially ASD with studies from the USA, China, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, Greece, Scotland and Romania all being selected. Though I understand the need for a selection of data, the differences in education and definitions of SEN and ASD between all of these countries is vast and so very difficult to compare. This is not mentioned within the article, though the difficulties in the difference of measurement is. | |
| Method(s) | Search process is good and clear, clear inclusion and exclusion and PRISMA is included so should be able to replicate. |
| Method(s) of Analysis | Analysis seems to have taken place through computer software, Zotero and Covidence are both mentioned and explained somewhat. Reviewers met to discuss any conflicts that arose and quality assessment was conducted on each article using the Quantitative Quality Appraisal Tool. The data extraction tool is also described in detail and could be easily replicated. |
| Key Findings | The article found that the attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASD in mainstream education predominantly positive. It discusses the key factors influencing attitudes as self-efficacy of educators with a link to teaching. Though there is not a strong correlation btn training and self-efficacy, the idea that teachers who feel they can teach this cohort of learners (perhaps through training) is discussed. Self-efficacy itself did seem to have an impact on inclusion attitudes. Availability of resources (specifically personnel) also had an impact on the attitudes of educators. Student skill set was another contributing factor to educator attitudes but interestingly the research found that many of the studies included did not assess attitudes in relation to differing abilities. This is a good reason to include this here as though it relates to ASD this combines many other co-morbidities which could form part of the disability collective I am hoping to gather information from. The study also found that educators had presented barriers to inclusion from the student’s perspective as well, concerned about areas such as Life Skills and Bullies. Future recommendations are made for research in that a consistent measure used for attitudes would make the collection of data much easier. The recommendations for practice are that all ITT programmes include an element of SEN experience or placement and an attempt to increase the general public’s knowledge surrounding ASD would be helpful. The study has met it’s aim and areas for development and further study are clearly stated. |
| Credibility/Validity | Overall what is your judgement of the quality of the research and what are your reasons for this judgement? If it is quantitative research relate to the test(s) used, sample size, whether any key concepts are missed out that might negate the research, whether a pilot was done and whether they acknowledge the limitations. For qualitative research relate to the sample, key concepts, whether there is data given to support the results, whether they acknowledge the limitations and take these into account, whether they are reflexive and transparent and use any techniques such as triangulation or respondent validation to their advantage. For secondary research how exhaustive does it appear and do were the judgements made reasonable and clear? |
| Ethics | None |
| Study Recommendations | The article discovers only a tenuous link to training as having a positive impact on the attitudes of educators towards the inclusion of students with ASD. It does discover that self-efficacy plays a large part in having a positive impact and therefore suggests training as an outcome. I understand what it is trying to say but this link does seem a bit strange in the way they’ve framed it. I am also interested as to how they can make this judgement given the variety of different ways educators in this article will be taught and assessed to become teachers. Plus the differing attitudes, opinions and terminologies that are adopted with a difference such as ASD. I feel like this should have been mentioned somewhere and acknowledged as a restriction on the research. |
| General notes on the research | I wanted to include this as it is a systematic analysis, that although is synthesized through narrative, relies heavily on quantitative studies to make its point. It does not give a definitive answer and it’s recommendations are vague, but it seems to have done well to synthesize this data that was originally quite different. A valuable study in some respects but I felt it was lacking in the recognition that education and especially SEN is presented very differently in different countries and communities and that this may have had an effect on the way teachers felt about inclusion and mainstream. It is an interesting introduction to professional viewpoints on inclusion and, similar to the other articles mentions teacher self-efficacy and training as a possible facilitator of inclusion. I also found the mention of the Pygmalion effect very interesting and wonder whether this might be something I explore further in my research. |
| Codes | Policy & Legislation, Inclusion Interpretations, Tensions, Training, Outcomes & Practice, Educator Values |
Appendix 5 – Braun and Clarke thematic spider diagrams.
Leave a Reply