The purpose of this symposium is to address issues of how diversity is understood, and accommodated to in educational settings. A comprehensive school implies that the variation in the population with respect to social background, cultural origin, language, perceived learning ability and so on, will be visible in most classrooms. The explicit ambition of inclusion and having ‘a school for all’ signals an expectation that it is possible to organize teaching and learning in the classroom in manners that make it possible for all students to profit from the activities. However, research findings reveal an alarming result of an increasing number of pupils who find it difficult to reach the goals in school. This has resulted in increased demands for different compensatory solutions with for example placement in special schools, in special teaching groups, or in some other special educational setting as a consequence.

The intention of having a school for all, when transformed into practice, results in fundamental dilemmas about inclusion and exclusion of children with different kinds of abilities and backgrounds. Segregating solutions will not only have consequences for the idea of a having a school for all but, equally importantly, it will also have a decisive influence on children’s identity, learning and development.

How educational institutions deal with diversity is one of the most important determinants of learning and development, but one which has received relatively little attention. In this symposium, the theme is explored with a focus on analysing how inclusion and potentials of learning are understood and dealt with in schools. The contributors relate their research findings to these issues and focus on the educational strategies practitioners consider relevant when organizing teaching and learning practices for children considered to be in need of special support.

The process of migration involves the transition from being a full-member of communities of practice in the home country to being a novice or peripheral-participant in the host country. To adapt successfully migrants have to engage in social interactions with members of the new communities.  For young people social interactions with their new peers and teachers are of fundamental importance. This presentation examines Portuguese students’ accounts regarding their experiences in adjusting to schooling in England to explore how different patterns of participation are constructed. Drawing on data from a project conducted between 2000 and 2003 with Portuguese students in British schools (England and Jersey) a range of situations where the students reported withdrawing from a particular form of participation (interaction) in their school are examined. Most students did not speak English when they arrived at their English school.  In addition, life in the English school exposed the students to others’ constructions of their identities, often in ways they felt disruptive to their sense of self.  Both types of experiences were associated with withdrawing from social interactions. Initially, having a limited understanding of the English language was recounted as resulting in “self-imposed withdrawing”, usually temporarily, until the student developed English for social communication. In contrast, disruptions to the self, such as experiences of discrimination, are better accounted in terms of   “other-imposed withdrawing”, and were described as having long term impact in cultural adjustment and associated trajectories. The possible connections between these two forms of withdrawing and Wenger’s distinction between “marginalities of competence” and “marginalities of experience” will be discussed. Withdrawing from social interactions that are crucial to their development in British schools is a manifestation of students’ agency, but also a manifestation of schooling practices that do not make it easier for them to incorporate their past histories.

This presentation examines Portuguese students’ accounts regarding their experiences in adjusting to life and schooling in England to explore how different patterns of participation are constructed. One of the key characteristics of the process of migration is the transition from being a full-member of communities of practice in the home country to being a novice or peripheral-participant in the host country. To adapt successfully the immigrant person has to engage in social interactions with members of the new communities. For young people social interactions with their new peers and teachers are of fundamental importance. Drawing on data from a large project conducted between 2000 and 2003 with Portuguese students in British schools (England and Jersey) we examine a range of situations where the Portuguese students reported withdrawing from a particular form of participation (interaction) in their school.

Theoretical and analytical framework

Wenger’s conceptualisation of learning as a process that “transforms who we are and what we can do” (Wenger, 1998, p. 215) is used as an analytical framework for examining Portuguese students’ accounts. This framework enables us to explore how individual learning trajectories can be constructed through processes of identification and negotiation of modes of belonging in communities of practice.  Wenger distinguished three modes of belonging: engagement, imagination and alignment. Engagement refers to our doings, our direct experiences of the world, the ways we engage with others, and the ways these relations reflect who we are. Imagination refers to our images of the world, which enable one to establish connections through time and space and extrapolate our locations to other spaces and historical times, such as the future. Alignment refers to our co-ordination of energies and activities to fit within broader structures or to contribute to broader enterprises (family, institutions, etc.).

Methodology

The data analysed was collected on a research project aimed at understanding the experiences of Portuguese young people in British schools (Abreu & Lambert, 2003), which originated from a concern with their school achievement.  The field-work involved an ethnographic approach using a multiple-method strategy of data collection (interviews, observations, life-stories, questionnaires); multiple-data sources (schools, students, parents, teachers); a bilingual-bicultural approach enabling data collection in English and Portuguese languages. This paper draws on interviews conducted with 48 students (aged 7-19 years). In addition, where appropriate, accounts from the students will be complemented with accounts from their parents’ and teachers’ interviews. A high percentage of the students included in this sample were born in Portugal (37 out of the 48 interviewed).  The interviews were semi-structured and explored the migration process, academic and social life in the “English” school, uses of language at school and at home, home-school relationships, and the cultural identities of Portuguese students. All interviews were fully transcribed and thematically coded with the support of the ATLAS-ti programme.  This paper examines: i) a range of situations where the Portuguese students explicitly or implicitly withdrew from a particular form of participation (interaction) in their school; ii) how a position in a developmental trajectory of participation may have unfolded and was reflected on an individual’s ability to draw on particular cultural, social and symbolic resources.

Findings

The majority of students participating in our study did not speak English when they arrived at their English school.  In addition, life in the English school exposed the students to others’ constructions of their identities, often in ways they felt disruptive to their sense of self.  Both types of experiences were associated with withdrawing from social interactions. Initially having a limited understanding of the English language was recounted as resulting in “self-imposed withdrawing”, and usually temporarily, until the student developed English for social communication. In contrast, disruptions to the self, such as experiences of discrimination, are better accounted in terms of   “other-imposed withdrawing”, and were described as having long term impact in cultural adjustment and associated trajectories. 

The analysis of engagement, imagination and alignment illustrated an interaction between the way individuals construct their learning trajectories and the way practices are organised. It was apparent that students in schools in locations that had experienced more discrimination talked more of other-imposed withdrawing. A dominant trajectory in these locations was one that opposed the Portuguese and the British (us versus them) identities. This did not prevent a minority of individuals in these locations, who had a distinct set of experiences, to engage with a bi-culturally inclusive trajectory.  An understanding of experiences and feelings of one’s experience as an immigrant (non-English speaking background) student was a crucial dimension. Nevertheless, we were working in schools who showed sensitivity and developed practices to integrate students who had no English as a first language, and this calls for an explanation if one wants to avoid the trap of blaming the individual or their cultural of origin.

Wenger’s distinction between “marginalities of competence” and “marginalities of experience” may offer insight into why certain trajectories take shape. The British schools where our study took place include participants within their “marginalities of competence”. The way schools treat competence in English language is an example of this inclusion. It is widely believed that the barrier with English language is temporary and that most students develop competence very quickly. The issue of “marginalities of experience” is more complex. It has to do with the extent to which the school practices incorporate the students’ past histories, or if they position certain experiences as “not fully accountable to the regime of competence because they are repressed, despised, feared, or simply ignored.” (Wenger, 1998, p.216). The accounts of other imposed withdrawing were located in marginality of experience. The withdrawing of Portuguese students from social interactions that are crucial to their development in English school is a manifestation of their agency, but also a manifestation of schooling practices that do not make it easier for them to incorporate their past histories.

The aim of this presentation is to discuss the demands for learning environments in instructing struggling learners and to highlight the ‘social’ in instructional practise. In line with current research, our studies have shown that some students show strong resistance to instruction. Long-term, stabilised motivational and emotional vulnerability as well as social and self-regulatory incompetence severely interfere with students’ ability to benefit from instruction. There is still a need for deeper analyses of transactional instruction and student scaffolding, both in inclusive and special needs education. Our recent studies with learning disadvantaged (LD) students, empirically confirmed the earlier conclusions about how the training of cognitive strategies, construction of metacognition, restructuring of socio-emotional coping, motivational strategies, and social competence must be co-ordinated with respect to promoting self-regulation and transfer of training. It is argued that LD students need carefully designed, flexible and adaptive support environments to dismantle their maladaptive beliefs and interpretations, to strengthen their academic and social competence, and to bridge the wide competence gap between themselves and their peers.

This demand has ever more put the social interaction in a spotlight in understanding the power of instruction and the design of learning environments. Surprisingly little, though, is known of the interpersonal patterns or group dynamics shaping the participants’ transactions in learning settings, and recurrent interaction patterns, which may prove highly favourable or damaging in scaffolding LD students – or highly damaging. Gradually, these interactions build up distinct developmental trajectories as well as socio-cognitive and motivational-emotional developmental paths and outcomes. Better understanding of transaction and group processes in actual learning may importantly help us to design sensitive, flexible, responsive and adaptive learning and support environments for LD students. The research striving to fulfil this goal faces severe methodological challenges, both in research design and in analysis.

In line with current research, our studies have shown that some students show strong resistance to instruction. Long-term, stabilised motivational and emotional vulnerability as well as social and self-regulatory incompetence severely interfere with students’ ability to benefit from instruction (see e.g. Lehtinen et al. 1995, Vauras et al. 1999; cf., e.g., Zimmerman 2000). There is still a need for deeper analyses of transactional instruction and student scaffolding, both in inclusive and special needs education. Our recent studies with learning disadvantaged (LD) students, empirically confirmed the earlier conclusions (e.g. Lehtinen et al. 1995; Vauras et al. 1992) about how the training of cognitive strategies, construction of metacognition, restructuring of socio-emotional coping, motivational strategies, and social competence must be co-ordinated with respect to promoting self-regulation and transfer of training (e.g. Kajamies et al. 2005; Vauras et al. 1999). Thus, it is argued that LD students need carefully designed, flexible and adaptive support environments to dismantle their maladaptive beliefs and interpretations, to strengthen their academic and social competence, and to bridge the wide competence gap between themselves and their peers.

This demand, empowered by evidence and notions on complex developmental - learning-related - interactions between cognitive and metacognitive competence, motivation, emotion and social interaction (see, e.g., Salonen et al. 2005, Volet et al. 2006) has ever more put the social interaction in a spotlight in understanding the power of instruction and the design of learning environments. This is congruent with the ideas of "new pedagogical cultures" (e.g. De Corte 2000), stressing the participation in authentic social activities in order to foster learning and development, as well as with the ideas of the social embeddedness of cognitive and metacognitive processes (e.g. MacCaslin & Hickey 2001, Volet et al. 2006).

However, surprisingly little is known of the interpersonal patterns or group dynamics shaping the participants’ transactions in learning settings. Even less is known of the recurrent, learning-related, interaction patterns, which may prove highly favourable in scaffolding LD students – or highly damaging. Recent conceptions of dynamic systems (e.g., Granic & Hollenstein 2003) and relational control (e.g., Rogers & Escudero 2004) offer a possibility to identify the situational and developmental mechanisms contributing to the widening motivation & achievement gap between low- and high-achievers. They suggest that cumulative developmental trajectories are based on early parent-child and later teacher-child dyadic regulations which have become repetitive in nature (see, e.g., Granic et al. 2003; Salonen et al., in press). Gradually, these interactions build up distinct developmental trajectories as well as socio-cognitive and motivational-emotional developmental paths and outcomes. Our theoretical work and exploratory analyses suggest that relational control patterns and interpersonal coordination of affect may form interaction structures that codetermine both the participants’ motivational orientations and the nature of cognitive and metacognitive (co-)regulatory processes taking place in interactions between parents and children (Salonen et al., in press), teachers and students (Salonen & Vauras 2006; Salonen et al. 1998) and peers in collaborating groups (Salonen et al. 2005).

These analyses may prove invaluable in view of observations of how interacting teachers, students and student teams actually often engage in more or less optimal transactions leading to poor learning outcomes and even unintended, negative affective and motivational outcomes. Better understanding of transaction and group processes in actual learning may importantly help us to design sensitive, flexible, responsive and adaptive learning and support environments for LD students. However, the research striving to fulfil this goal faces severe methodological challenges, both in research design and in analysis.

References

De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10, 249-266.

Granic, I. & Hollenstein, T. (2003). Dynamic systems methods for models of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 641-669.

Kajamies, A., Vauras, M. & Kinnunen, R. (2006). Instructing Students with Learning Difficulties in Mathematical Problem Solving. (Submitted)

Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E. & Kinnunen, R. (1995). Long-term development of learning activity: Motivational, cognitive, and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 29, 21-35.

McCaslin, M. & Hickey, D. (2001) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 227-252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McNeal. B. & Simon, M. A. (2000). Mathematics culture clash: Negotiating new classroom norms with prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 475-509.

Salonen, P., Lehtinen, E. & Olkinuora, E. (1998). Expectations and beyond: The development of motivation and learning in a classroom context. In J. Brophy (Ed.) Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7: Expectations in the classroom (pp. 111-150). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Salonen, P., Lepola, J. & Vauras, M. (in press). Scaffolding interaction in task oriented and non-task oriented parent-child dyads. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

Salonen, P. & Vauras, M. (2006). Von der Fremdregulation zur Selbstregulation: Die Rolle von sozialen Makrostrukturen in der Interaktion zwischen Lehrenden und Lernenden. [From other- regulation to self - regulation. The role of social macro-patterns in teacher-learner interaction.] In M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister. K. Reusser & H. Wyss (Hrsg.) Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage . Von Hans Aeablis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktiek zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung (207-217). Bern: h.e.p. Verlag.

Salonen, P., Vauras, M. & Efklides, A. (2005). Social interaction   - What can it tell us about metacognition and co-regulation in learning? European Psychologists, 10, 199-208.

Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., Kinnunen, R. & Salonen, P. (1992). Socio emotional and cognitive processes in training learning disabled children. In B. Wong (Ed.) Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 163-189). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Vauras, M., Rauhanummi, T., Kinnunen, R. & Lepola, J. (1999). Motivational vulnerability as a challenge for educational interventions. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 515-531.

Volet, S., Vauras, M. & Salonen, P. (2006). Integrating the psychological and social nature of self- and other forms of regulation in learning contexts. (Submitted)

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–41). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

This paper will report on some aspects of a collaborative action research project involving teams from 25 schools in England working with researchers in an attempt to understand how schools can develop more inclusive ways of working. A common process of development emerged across the schools, which started with the disturbance of existing practices and was nurtured by a range of institutional and external factors that included ideas about inclusion. The research revealed how, as a result of engaging with various forms of evidence, staff within some schools reconsidered their assumptions and, as a result, were able to develop new ways of working.  In some cases this led to significant changes in the way problems were defined and addressed.  We saw these as examples of the way norms of teaching are socially negotiated within the everyday context of the schools.  In this sense, they are evidence of how the culture of the workplace impacts upon how teachers see their work and, indeed, their students.  This means that the development of more inclusive approaches does not arise from a mechanical process in which any one specific organizational restructuring, or the introduction of a particular set of techniques, generates increased levels of participation. Rather, it requires processes of social learning within specific contexts.  The national 'standards agenda' was a major force shaping the directions taken by the schools. Whilst it constrained inclusive development it also provided that development with a particular focus and led schools to consider issues that might otherwise have been overlooked. The paper will conclude that inclusive developments - albeit of a highly ambiguous nature - are possible even in apparently unpromising circumstances and that there may be specific ways in which these developments can be supported.

This paper will draw on the evidence of a three-year study, 'Understanding and Developing Inclusive Practices in Schools', which was one of four national research networks funded as the first phase of the Economic and Social Research Council's Teaching and Learning Research Programme (see Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006, for a detailed account of the study).  The network involved teams of researchers working with groups of schools within three local authorities.  Participating schools were invited to explore ways of developing inclusion in their own contexts in collaboration with university researchers. In most cases, the school established a small project team, including the head teacher, and identified a focus for its work. This took the form of an aspect of practice or provision that it wished to review and develop. Evidence was gathered by the schools and by the university researchers, with meetings between the two teams to exchange information and explore its implications.

Social learning

The study has shown how the use of evidence to study teaching can help to foster the development of more inclusive thinking and practices.  Specifically, it can help to create space for reappraisal and rethinking by interrupting existing discourses, and by focusing attention on overlooked possibilities for moving practice forward. A particularly powerful technique in this respect is the use of mutual observation, sometimes through video recordings. 

This confirms the views of others who argue that developments of practice are unlikely to occur without some exposure to what teaching actually looks like when it is being done differently, and exposure to someone who can help teachers understand the difference between what they are doing and what they aspire to do.  It also suggests that this has to be addressed at the individual level before it can be solved at the organisational level.  Indeed, there is evidence that increasing collaboration without some more specific attention to change at the individual level can simply result in teachers coming together to reinforce existing practices rather than confronting the difficulties they face in different ways.

At the heart of the processes in schools where changes in practice do occur is the development of a common language with which colleagues can talk to one another and, indeed, to themselves about detailed aspects of their practice. Without such a language teachers find it very difficult to experiment with new possibilities. Much of what teachers do during the intensive encounters that occur is carried out at an automatic, intuitive level.  Furthermore there is little time to stop and think.  This is why having the opportunity to see colleagues at work is so crucial to the success of attempts to develop practice.  It is through shared experiences that colleagues can help one another to articulate what they currently do and define what they might like to do.  It is also the means whereby taken-for-granted assumptions about particular groups of students can be subjected to mutual critique.

The study also shows how evidence collected from students about teaching and learning arrangements can be an effective means of interrupting taken for granted assumptions. Under certain conditions such approaches provide interruptions that help to make the familiar unfamiliar in ways that stimulate self-questioning, creativity and action.  In so doing they can sometimes lead to a reframing of perceived problems that, in turn, draws the teacher's attention to overlooked possibilities for addressing barriers to participation and learning.

School cultures 

All of this points to the importance of cultural factors.  Schein (1985) suggests that cultures are about the deeper levels of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organisation, operating unconsciously to define how they view themselves and their working contexts.  The extent to which these values include the acceptance and celebration of difference, and a commitment to offering educational opportunities to all students, coupled with the extent to which they are shared across a school staff, relate to the extent to which students are enabled to participate.

The implication of all of this is that becoming more inclusive is a matter of thinking and talking, reviewing and refining practice, and making attempts to develop a more inclusive culture.  Such a conceptualisation means that we cannot divorce inclusion from the contexts within which it is developing, nor the social relations that might sustain or limit that development (Dyson, 2006). 

Conclusion

The approach outlined in the paper is not about the introduction of particular techniques or organisational arrangements.  Rather it requires a new way of thinking.  Engaging with evidence, particularly the views of children, is a key strategy. As Copland (2003) suggests, inquiry can be the 'engine' to enable the distribution of leadership that is needed in order to foster participation, and the 'glue' that can bind a school community together around a common purpose. 

All of this has major implications for leadership practice.  In particular, it calls for efforts to encourage coordinated and sustained efforts by whole staff groups around the idea that changing outcomes for students is unlikely to be achieved unless there are changes in the behaviours of adults.  Consequently, the starting point must be with staff members: in effect, enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, and increasing their sense of accountability for bringing this about.  This may also involve tackling taken for granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations about certain groups of students, their capabilities and behaviours.  

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., with Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2006) Improving schools, developing inclusion.  London: Routledge

Copland, M.A. (2003).  Leadership of inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for school improvement.  Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (4), 375-395

Dyson (2006). Beyond the school gates: context, disadvantage and 'urban schools'.  In M.Ainscow and M. West (Eds.), Improving urban school: leadership and collaboration.  Open University Press

Schein, E. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The analyses indicate that the pedagogical arrangements considered suitable for the children classified in these manners consist of extremely well structured lessons where the form rather than the content become the main issue. The expressed goal is to normalise the child to be able to participate in a regular class at a later point. One of the key ambitions of the practices observed is that the pupils should be made aware of their identity as being deviant and of their belonging to the category ‘AD/HD-pupil’. The pupils should also learn to monitor their own behaviours and to filter what they do through their knowledge of what it implies to be an AD/HD-pupil, i.e. they are trained in mastering their handicap. In some sense, they are learning how to be disabled in a normal setting.

Categorization is fundamental to humans. Gender, class, age, ethnicity, religion, ability are some examples of categories through which people understand and categorize each other in daily intercourse. In other words, categories are associated with certain characteristics through which we are able to classify people and act in different settings. Within institutions such as the school, categories are used as practical tools in order to organize the daily activities. This implies that ‘having an identity’ in a school context is to be understood in terms of specific social categories. In addition, being identified as a child with special needs will result in extra resources being made available for the individual and the school. In this study, the focus will be on analysing how specific categories are ascribed to pupils, i.e. how the identity shaping categories are used in school, and what ‘extra support’ for children with some kind of functional disorder implies in terms of organizing specific teaching and learning practices. What pedagogical practices will the pupil encounter and how will he or she profit from these?

At present, biomedical diagnoses like AD/HD, Aspergers, Tourette, and others are frequently used when explaining learning difficulties. Although heavily debated, these categories, and the diagnostic model characteristic of biomedicine, have a considerable impact on the discussion of learning and learning difficulties. The introduction of so called AD/HD-classes and even AD/HD-schools signify the impact of this diagnostic tradition, and its consequences for ideologies, identities of children (and professionals) and the use of material resources. This general trend of seeking explanations in biomedical factors has resulted in a rapid increase of children who are categorised as disabled in some sense. In spite of the huge interest in, and the impact of, diagnoses of the kind just mentioned in school, there are surprisingly few, if any, studies on educational strategies and life in the classroom for these children.

The focus in this presentation concerns what happens when children are placed in a special teaching group, that is, in an AD/HD-group. What kind of education is offered to the children? The questions in focus are a) what teaching and learning practices are considered appropriate for children diagnosed with AD/HD and b) how are children made aware of their diagnosis and what consequences does this have for identity formation?

The research is ethnographic and based on participant observation, fieldnotes, document analysis and tape-recorded interviews within an ADHD-class. The issues explored in the study concern what pedagogical strategies, ways of communicating and organizing the school day, methods for examining learning and so on, are established in this context and how are the identities of the children shaped through the practices?

The empirical work consists of observations, fieldnotes, documents and tape-recorded interviews in classrooms specifically organized for these groups of pupils. The focus is on the physical and social arrangements in these classrooms as well as on the interaction between pupils and teachers.

The project takes its point of departure in theories of communication and social interaction with a focus on a) how categories are used in institutional settings when handling different dilemmas, and b) the concrete consequences of these categories. From a methodological point of view, the work builds on a discourse analytical and micro ethnographic approach, where the everyday practices and interaction in the classroom are documented and analysed. This involves viewing processes and practices in school as dynamic and interactionally produced in order to achieve certain institutional ends.

The results show that disciplining behaviour and that the form of schooling seems to be the object of concern rather than what students learn in terms of skills such as reading, writing etceteras. Another interesting result shows how the students are made aware of their identity as being deviant and of their belonging to the category ‘AD/HD-pupil. In some sense, they are learning how to be handicapped in a normal setting.