Lesson Study in Inclusive Educational Settings

Sui Lin Goei, Brahm Norwich, Peter Dudley, Sui Lin Goei, Brahm Norwich, Peter Dudley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781317361541
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation inclusive

Lesson Study has been shown to be a systematic way of building teachers' knowledge by allowing them to share their knowledge with each other. While much has been written about the benefits of Lesson Study in science and mathematics education, this book analyses its impact on education for children with special needs. It studies the ways in which the Lesson Study process is implemented in different educational contexts in the Netherlands, Singapore, the UK, and Sweden—countries which propagate more inclusive learning environments regardless of varying degrees of student capacities.

In addition to making transcultural comparisons regarding concepts, procedures, and instruments in the use of Lesson Study in these four countries, this book will provide practice-based suggestions for teachers to formulate collaborative lesson plans.

1 Lesson Study for inclusive teaching in various settings

Sui Lin Goei, Brahm Norwich, and Peter Dudley

Introduction

Providing for the diverse educational needs of students is one of the most challenging goals in education. In a just and democratic society, it arises from the desire for education to accept, recognize, and respond positively to diversity. This aim is reflected in various terms, such as differentiated, adaptive, and responsive instruction, and in contemporary terms, such as inclusive education and teaching. The terms coined are used often and fiercely in the ongoing debate on inclusive education; they are, in fact, a matter of course. This raises the rhetocial question of how can one not be in favour of this aim and desire of catering to the needs of all learners?

Nowadays, inclusive education, or simply inclusion, refers to reducing barriers to learning and participation for all (Alquati Bisol, Valentini, & Rech Braun, 2015). It refers to the process of enhancing the capability of the education system for all students and has been recommended for the past three decades as best practice schooling for all students. Diversity and individual differences are seen as opportunities to enrich learning (UNESCO, 2005).

Inclusion, though, is a treacherous concept with many connotations and a multi-faceted nature depending on one’s policy, educational infrastructure, values and beliefs, and pedagogical approaches for the diverse needs of different learners. One way of approaching this issue is to frame it within the perspective of what the teacher or team of teachers is doing in terms of inclusive teaching; what kind of distinctive pedagogies is the teacher practising, applying, and implementing in her/his effort to gain better insight in the learning and learning processes of his students so as to reach all students when developing whole-classroom teaching.

However, there can be tensions between pursuing inclusive education, with its commitment to common curricula for all in common or inclusive settings, and the need for differentiation of curricula, teaching, and even settings. These tensions and the dilemmas that they give rise to have been discussed over the decades (Berlak Berlak, 1981​​​​​​;​ Judge, 1981) and more recently by Norwich (2008; 2013). Judge (1981) identified various dilemmas over the purpose of schooling, including common versus diverse school programmes. Berlak and Berlak (1981), who focussed more on classroom teaching, identified three broad sets of dilemmas concerned with control-autonomy, curriculum commonality-differentiation and equal-additional resource allocation. Norwich (2008; 2013) has developed the idea of dilemmas on difference or differentiation in education to consider how to find a resolution between the tensions between meeting individual educational needs while doing so within common curriculum programmes and mainstream schools and classrooms. The challenge of developing inclusive teaching in inclusive settings is about finding creative resolutions to the challenges presented by the commitment to educational values that can come into conflict. This is where professional learning and the development of teaching practices by teachers is so important; and where, as this book will illustrate, Lesson Study has much to contribute.

The first steps towards these developments are represented by the chapters in this book written by authors who have been involved in using Lesson Study within their separate countries. Lesson Study is a form of classroom inquiry in which several teachers collaboratively plan, teach, observe, revise, and share the results of a research class lesson (Cerbin, 2011). It is an excellent model for constructing pedagogical knowledge and improving teaching as the teacher becomes more knowledgeable about how the student learns and thinks and how instruction affects the student’s learning in the process of teaching (Cerbin & Kopp, 2011). The Dutch examples in the book focus on educational needs in mainstream settings, the UK example is about both a mainstream and special education setting, while the examples from Sweden and Singapore refer to educational needs in special educational settings. The use of Lesson Study in different settings, including those that might be seen as separate and segregated, calls to question what is meant by inclusive teaching. This important question will be discussed further below in this introductory chapter. Whilst the main knowledge base for this book is situated in the European context, the volume editors as well as the individual chapter authors think the operationalisation of inclusive teaching in the various settings will have wider resonance with practitioners, researchers, and educators working in other regions of the world.

The assumption made in this book is that Lesson Study is a promising and exciting approach to provide teachers with an opportunity to deepen their knowledge of their subject matter, their pedagogical-didactical content knowledge and practical teaching practices to promote the learning of all learners, including those with additional support or special educational needs, through collaboration with other colleagues. Collaboration, therefore, constitutes the cornerstone of Lesson Study and alleviates the isolation of teaching and allows teachers to share their experiences and knowledge with others (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).

Before we elaborate on how Lesson Study can work for inclusive teaching, we will first examine the concepts of inclusion, inclusive education, and teaching on one hand, and about the nature and practice of Lesson Study on the other.

Inclusive education

As is in many countries around the world, in line with the notion of inclusive education, the emphasis has shifted from only a deficit model (a so-called ‘needs-based model of disability’), where the problem is seen to lie with the individual child, to a social service or educational model, which focuses on the learning environment, the school curriculum, and the school climate more generally (Kinsella & Senior, 2008) and ‘identifies institutional barriers to learning and success at all levels, but does not ignore individual needs’ (Meijer & Watkins, 2016). These changing conceptions regarding the notion of inclusive education have outgrown the fierce discussions on themes like specialist segregated settings, integration, and mainstreaming (Meijer & Watkins, 2016). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) views inclusive education as: ‘a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all children, youth and adults through increasing participation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing and eliminating exclusion within and from education’. It involves changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures, and strategies, with a common vision that covers all children of the appropriate age range and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children (2009, pp. 8–9). The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) also corroborates this in a universal policy challenge (OECD, 2018).

In Europe, inclusive education is supported by European Commission funding and promoted jointly by the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education and by UNESCO. Many member states of the European Union (EU) have the implementation of inclusive education high on their educational agenda. The core underlying assumption of this policy for children with special educational needs (SEN) is that they would benefit most from education alongside neurotypical children in mainstream schools, as opposed to special schools catering specifically to those with special needs. However, in most EU member states, there is still some form of special provision in separate settings, though the trend is towards gradually reducing the number of special schools and increasing the number of children with SEN in mainstream education (Networks of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and Training, 2012). In the process, special schools are being transformed into resource centres for mainstream schools. In this context, these global and European policy statements show important changes in thinking regarding inclusive education, but how does an education system and its schools create the provision of the quality needed?

The Netherlands has had a two‐track approach for pupils with SEN with two distinct education systems: the mainstream school system and the special school education (Mooij & Smeets, 2006). Four types of special schools cater to four categorisations of pupils with special needs (sensory impairments, communication disorders, motor and mental disabilities, and behaviour problems). Categorisation is done based on a psychomedical evaluation; over 2.7% of students with SEN are educated while segregated in special settings (Watkins, 2010). Only recently did Dutch legislation move towards inclusive education (in Dutch ‘passend onderwijs’), this law having been enacted in 2014. This legislation, however, has had a long history, from its preparation starting in 2007 to it being passed in 2012. This process has shown how difficult the Dutch Ministry of Education has found the transitioning from a deficiency-based education system to a more inclusive education system (van der Bij, 2017, p. 14). This has led to a different educational infrastructure where the distribution of funding is done by the municipality.

In the United Kingdom (UK) the legislative presumption has been since 1981 for students with SEN to be taught in mainstream schools. This has led to a significant downward trend in English schooling over the last 30 years in the proportion of pupils going to special schools. However, from 2006 the proportion going to special schools has increased yearly, a reversal of a 20 year trend (Black & Norwich, 2019). This phenomenon can be seen to arise in the context of a National Curriculum, a national testing system, and schools becoming more autonomous from local authorities. This is in contrast with the Scottish trends, where the proportion of pupils in special schools has decreased slightly over the last six years in 2018 (Scottish Government, 2019).

Inclusive practices in most parts of Asia have been limited mainly to students with SEN, generally those with physical and/or mental disabilities, as well as refugees (Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016). This is also the case in Singapore, an affluent young nation, recognized as a world leader in education. Singaporean students regularly top the rankings in international comparisons in mathematics, science, and language (OECD, 2012; Vincent-Lancrin, Urgel, Kar, & Jacotin, 2019). However, despite these rankings, Singapore continues to deploy a dual education system in which students with SEN are educated separately (Lim & Nam, 2000).

In Singapore, students with mild disabilities are supported in mainstream schools, funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE), while receiving school-based itinerant support. Those who have moderate to severe disabilities, who have with difficulties accessing education in a mainstream school environment, are schooled in specialised educational settings with additional educational support provided by specialised staff.

Throughout the island, there are 19 special education (SPED) schools, most of which offer a specialised curriculum that offer a functional curriculum with a focus on teaching life skills to students with a variety of disabilities (MOE Special Education Branch, 2018). Four of the 20 special schools have adopted the mainstream curriculum (Walker, 2016). SPED schools in Singapore serve a total of about 5,400 students with some 1,200 SPED teachers. MOE is a major funder of these schools which operate via a tripartite relationship among Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), the National Council of Social Services (NCSS), and the Ministry of Education (MOE).

In Nordic countries such as Sweden, national policies have encouraged the inclusion of students with SEN in mainstream education. This is in line with the definition of inclusion stated by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (EADSNE) (2003). In Sweden, all students for the most part follow the national curriculum, sometimes with the support of special education aids, in mainstreamed classes together with students without SEN. The Swedish school system is a one-track system regarding inclusion of pupils with SEN. Sweden had a highly centralised education system, emphasising equity and communitarian values. Following several reforms in the 1990s, the Swedish system is characterised by extensive decentralisation of decision making from the state to municipalities and schools are now highly decentralised (Cameron et al., 2018; Lundahl, Arreman, Holm, & Lundström, 2013; Magnússon, 2020). There is a strong Swedish history of equal educational opportunities (Lundahl et al., 2013). Education in Sweden is publicly funded and free of charge from primary (6–16 years) to upper secondary level (16–19 years), and even tertiary level education (adult education). All students are also entitled to a range of services, including special education (if needed), counselling, school libraries, school transport, free healthcare, and free school meals of high standards. There is still little tracking or streaming of students (e.g., into ability groups) in their nine years at comprehensive school and students with special needs are mostly integrated into ordinary classes (Lundahl et al., 2013). Inclusive education is not mentioned in the Swedish legislation (Göransson, Nilholm, & Karlsson, 2011; Isaksson & Lindqvist, 2015) but the legislation stipulates that special educational support should primarily be provided in the ‘regular’ classroom if possible. If segregating measures are deemed necessary, they should be temporary and restricted to particular school subjects. The Swedish education system is often recognised as exemplary in international comparison (e.g., EADSNE). Since 2014, the legislation makes a distinction between ‘extra support’ made within the scope of regular teaching, and ‘special support’ being provided after an investig...