Inclusive learning: Difference between revisions
Rogerandrews (talk | contribs) |
Rogerandrews (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Position paper on promoting inclusion in face-to-face learning through use of ICTs== | ==Position paper on promoting inclusion in face-to-face learning through use of ICTs== | ||
[[User: Roger_Andrews | Roger Andrews]], Memorial University of Newfoundland | [[User: Roger_Andrews | Roger Andrews]], Memorial University of Newfoundland | ||
This position paper argues in favour of using ICT to ensure the inclusion of all students into the regular classroom. Exclusion has been the accepted norm for students who endure cognitive delays or physical disabilities. Over the past number of years, the development of assisted technologies has created a shift from an exclusionary environment to an inclusionary setting. | This position paper argues in favour of using ICT to ensure the inclusion of all students into the regular classroom. Exclusion has been the accepted norm for students who endure cognitive delays or physical disabilities. Over the past number of years, the development of assisted technologies has created a shift from an exclusionary environment to an inclusionary setting. | ||
Revision as of 12:52, 7 October 2013
Position paper on promoting inclusion in face-to-face learning through use of ICTs
Roger Andrews, Memorial University of Newfoundland
This position paper argues in favour of using ICT to ensure the inclusion of all students into the regular classroom. Exclusion has been the accepted norm for students who endure cognitive delays or physical disabilities. Over the past number of years, the development of assisted technologies has created a shift from an exclusionary environment to an inclusionary setting.
Problem
Students who experience disabilities such as the loss of basic communication skills for students with hearing impairment, may find their psychological needs compromised when they are integrated into the regular classroom (Dalton, 2012). Alquraini & Gut (2012) found that withstanding all of the positive outcomes for students with disabilities, those with severe disabilities included in the regular classroom setting as well as stakeholders involved, are still fighting for improvements in inclusive educational programs. The inexperience of teachers have also influenced the effectiveness of including students with disabilities into the regular classroom (Andrews, 2002). Haywood (2006) discovered that, despite the numerous laws that have been developed to ensure inclusion, many schools throughout North America have not yet created nor developed fully an inclusive environment for all individuals with special needs. In his article, Ruijs (2010) found that inclusion can have both a positive and negative effect on students. Students with disabilities could take up much more of the teacher’s attention causing the typical student to be at a disadvantage. Problems are also associated with the provision of resources, the school and district culture, and the readiness and training that has been provided to teachers. (Loreman, 2010). Bossu, Bull & Brown (2012) concur that many governments in developed nations were either reluctant, unwilling or unable to find the recourses necessary to help support the idea of inclusion within the regular classroom. Social diversity, racial differences, economic status and the school environment all have the tendency to mirror societies differences, and as a result, influence the acceptance of inclusion within the classroom (Dei, 2012).
Role of ICTs
Obstacles
Works cited
Abbott, C., & Cribb, A. (2001). Special schools, inclusion and the World Wide Web – the emerging research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(3), 331-342.
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D., (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 42-59.
Andrews, L. (2002). Preparing general education pre-service teachers for inclusion: Web-enhanced case-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3), 27-35.
Bossu, C., Bull, D., & Brown, M. (2012). Opening up down under: The ole of open educational resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia. Distance Education, 33(2), 151-164.
Dalton, C., (2013). Lessons for inclusion: classroom experiences of students with mild and moderate hearing loss. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 125-152.
Dina Soeiro, D., Figueiredo, A., & Ferreira, J., (2012). Mediating diversity and affection in blended learning: A story with a happy ending. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 10(3), 339-348.
Freire, A., Linhalis,F., Bianchini, S., Fortes, R., & Pimentel, M. (2010). Revealing the whiteboard to blind students: An inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning activities. Computers & Education, 54(4), 866-876.
Haywood, J. (2006). You can't be in my choir if you can't stand up: one journey toward inclusion. Music Education Research, 8(3), 407-416.
Loreman, T. (2010). Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta preservice teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2), 124-142.
Luke, R. (2002). AccessAbility: Enabling technology for lifelong learning inclusion in an electronic classroom– 2000. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1).
Mavrou, K., Lewis, A., & Douglas, G. (2010). Researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus: The role of the computer in pupils' interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 486–501.
Mcmaster, C. (2013). Building inclusion from the ground up: A review of whole school re-culturing. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9(2).
Pearson, E., & Koppi, T. (2002). Inclusion and online learning opportunities: Designing for accessibility. Research in Learning Technology, 10(2), 17-28.
Peel, D., & Posas, P. (2009). Promoting disability equality and inclusive learning in
planning education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 456(2).
Pellerin, M. (2013). E-Inclusion in early French immersion classrooms: Using digital technologies to support inclusive practices that meet the needs of all learners. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 44-70.
Ruijs, N., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390.
Seale, J. (2013). When digital capital is not enough: reconsidering the digital lives of disabled university students. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 256-269.
Sefa Dei, G. & James, I. (2002). Beyond the rhetoric: Moving from exclusion, reaching for inclusion in Canadian schools. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), 61-87.
Starcic, A., Cotic, M., & Zajc, M. (2013). Design-based research on the use of a tangible user interface for geometry teaching in an inclusive classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 729–744.
Traxler, J. (2010) Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation? Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 3-15.