European Journal of Psychology of Education 2006, Vol. XXI, nº 3, 333-346 © 2006, I.S.P.A.
From exclusion to inclusion: Collaborative work contributions to more inclusive learning settings Margarida César Nuno Santos Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
There have been deep changes in societies during the last decade. As a result, schools face new challenges, such as avoiding exclusion by promoting inclusion. In this paper we present the findings of our efforts to use collaborative work as a mediation tool in order to achieve more inclusive learning settings. This work starts from the assumption that learning should be seen as a communicative process. This builds on the ideas of Vygotsky, who stressed the importance of social interactions in the development of complex functions and of working in the zone of proximal development in order to promote children’s development. The study used a critical and ethnographic approach and thus peer interactions were implemented as a daily practice. Data were collected through participant observation (audio and videotaped), questionnaires, tasks inspired in projective techniques, interviews, reports, and sets of materials gathered by the teachers. The findings illuminate the role of collaboration in facilitating more positive attitudes towards academic learning and mathematics, promoting students’ socialisation, their socio-cognitive and affective development, and their school achievement.
Societies have changed over the last decades and, as a result, schools are facing new challenges, such as avoiding exclusion through the promotion of more inclusive practices. Schools became more multicultural (César & Oliveira, 2005), and students categorised as having Special Educational Needs (SEN1) attend regular classes (Freire & César, 2002). This means that schools must try to experience diversity as a celebration instead of a hindrance. Of course, none of this is straight forward, leading some educational agents facing fears, frustrations, conflicts, and doubts. Whilst it is relatively easy to articulate the ideals associated with inclusive education, it is much more difficult to turn these into practices. Some authors present successful cases of inclusion (e.g., Ainscow, 1991; Armstrong, Armstrong, & Barton, 2000; César, 2003) and much can be learnt from such successful The project Interaction and Knowledge was partially supported by the Instituto de Inovação Educacional, SIQE 2 (project nº7/96) in 1996/97 and 1997/98 and by the Centro de Investigação em Educação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa since 1996. Our deepest thanks to the students, teachers and our research group who helped us made this work come true and to Sofia Coelho for her help with the translation of this paper.
334
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
experiences. This does not mean becoming less critical or ignoring critical commentaries on existing policies and practices, such as those provided by Allan (1999), Barton (1997), Dyson and Millward (2000), Lindsay (2003) and Norwich (2005). Neither does it overlook the cases of exclusion that still exist, such as those reported by Billington (2000) and Pomeroy (2000). Rather it means analysing examples of practice in order to learn how to move forward. Such a perspective conceives of inclusion as a never-ending process and as a way of living, not only in schools but at a macro scale, including interpersonal relations. With this perspective in mind, this paper uses evidence from our on-going programme of research in order to address the question: What are the contributions of collaborative work to the promotion of more inclusive learning settings? We set our account in the context of the changes in policy that have occurred within the Portuguese education system.
The context of Portugal Our own educational system in Portugal has undergone great changes in the past three decades. Some of these are related to the way that students categorised as having SEN are treated (Freire & César, 2002, 2003). The introduction of a common national curriculum for all students up to the 9th grade had a particularly significant impact. Compulsory education lasts until students are less than 15 years old. If they never fail, they accomplish the 9th grade during compulsory education. However, a high percentage of students drop out of school before the 9th grade and many others fail (César & Oliveira, 2005). Thus, one significant form of exclusion occurs as a result of cumulative and selective underachievement, often leading on to other forms of social exclusion in adult life, such as unemployment and poverty. In 1986, the Portuguese government published the School System Public Law (ME, 1986). This had clear consequences for the work of the special education system. For the first time it was assumed that all children, regardless of their characteristics, should be integrated in schools and follow a less restrictive curriculum. In this way, education was seen as a right. However, this led to the situation whereby some groups of students, although attending the same school, were segregated in separate classes. Thus, in practice, students categorised as having SEN did not usually follow the mainstream curriculum (Freire & César, 2002). In the 1990s further legislation was introduced (Freire & César, 2002). However, it was only after the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) that the focus was directed away from individual students seen as having difficulties, towards the need to reform the education system in response to learner diversity. However, whilst inclusive principles were adopted in national policy documents, daily practices continued to lag behind these aspirations. Nevertheless, the central role played by the curriculum (re)construction, school organisation and teachers’ practices gradually changed the focus of interventions and research (Ainscow, 1999; Lea & Nicoll, 2002). Consequently, the new century began full of challenges for teachers, researchers and policy makers, stressing the need for collaborative efforts to create ‘Schools for All’ (Ainscow, 1999; César, 2003). The ideals of inclusive education were spreading within Portugal, as well as across the world. Thus attention has been focused on finding more effective ways of responding to learner diversity, included those from immigrant families, SEN-related students, street children and teenagers, and those from minority cultures. However, despite the progress that has occurred, there is still a long way to go and it has been argued that effective collaborative work is needed in order to solve persistent problems (César, 2003).
Collaborative work as a step towards inclusion The theoretical framework is based on a historic-cultural approach (Daniels, 2001; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). It involved a focus on the use of collaborative work, namely peer interactions, as a mediation tool to achieve more inclusive settings.
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
335
Vygotsky (1962, 1978) stresses the importance of social interactions in the development of complex functions. He also underlines the potential of working in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in order to promote children’s development. Subsequent studies illuminate the role of collaborative work in knowledge appropriation, and in the mobilisation and development of students’ competencies (César, 1998; Lea & Nicoll, 2002; PerretClermont, Pontecorvo, Resnick, Zittoun, & Burge, 2004), in multicultural settings (César & Oliveira, 2005; Elbers & de Hans, 2005), when associated to new technological devices (Joiner, Littleton, Faulknner, & Miell, 2000), or in connect to the integration of students categorised as having SEN (Ainscow, 1999; César, 2003). In the context of this research, learning is conceived of as a communicative process. Daniels (2001) and Wertsch (1991) show how important it is to adopt a historic-cultural perspective when studying learning processes and agents acting in learning settings. This is also illustrated by César (2003) in analysing the contributions of collaborative work to the development of more inclusive settings. This study illuminated how students learned to negotiate meanings, roles, arguments, or solving strategies in order to co-construct their knowledge and their identities. By associating a new didactic contract which relates to the mutual expectations of those involved within a learning context (Schubauer-Leoni & Perret-Clermont, 1997), that is coherent with teachers’ practices and their ways of acting (César, 2003), significant tasks (César & Torres, 1998), and the notion of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), it is possible to construct a learning community, conceived as an inclusive learning setting. Such a contract is intended to promote collaborative work amongst students (peers or small groups), valuing horizontal (student/student; among teachers/researchers) as well as vertical (teacher/student) interactions. In this way, students become more autonomous, responsible for their learning, developing higher mental functions (Vygotsky, 1978). It is a way of empowering students, not least those SEN-related, since it gives them a voice, allowing them to become legitimate participants, engaged in relevant learning decisions, including the evaluation process. We argue that this evolution, from peripheral participation to legitimate participation, is an essential step towards more inclusive settings. Thus, the didactic contract we propose is based on inclusive schooling principles (Ainscow, 1991, 1999), as well as socio-constructivist theory (César, 2003). Giving a voice to all participants is a main concern, as words only have a meaning when used by participants as discourse is socially constructed (Valsiner, 1998). This being the case, we use Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of voice, assuming a dialogical perspective. This perspective is also consistent with Herman’s (2001) conception of self: a dialogical self in which multiple identities co-exist and interact, not always in a non-conflictive way. The conflicts between some of the students’ identities are illuminated in some interviews (César, 2003) and play a fundamental role in the process of inclusion. It is when students – and the learning community – are able to deal with these conflicts, accepting diversity, that we may achieve inclusion.
Method This research is part of the on-going Interaction and Knowledge project, which began twelve years ago. This project includes an action-research level, in which 33 teachers/researchers and four psychologists study and implement collaborative work, namely peer interactions (more details in César, 2003). The paper focuses specifically on the experience of one student categorised as having SEN, who is similar to many others studied within the project. Both the study and the process of data analysis adopted a critical and ethnographic methodology. As noted earlier, the main research question addressed is: What are the contributions of collaborative work to the promotion of more inclusive learning settings? More specifically, we explored the following issues:
336
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
– How can inclusivity be seen in students’ talk during peer interactions within mathematics classes? – How does collaborative work contribute to students’ mathematical knowledge appropriation and to the development of higher mental functions? – What is the role of the new didactic contract in the promotion of knowledge appropriation? – Is there an impact of working collaboratively over several school years in students’ identities and life projects? Since we were committed to the idea of listening to students’ voices in order to address our research questions, the project adopted ethnographic methods, allowing for a long and deep relationship with participants. It also emphasized collaboration amongst participants and inclusive principles. The quotes used in this paper were selected and authorised in partnership with the teacher/researcher, the psychologist and the students involved. This process of selection and negotiation proved to be a very rich learning experience, providing us with a comprehension of issues that we would not have had access to if not working collaboratively. We decided to implement a ten-year follow up of some selected classes in order to study the impact of collaborative work on students. Students complete a questionnaire, along with annual interviews with privileged informers. Some of the strongest empirical evidence was derived from the follow up. Participants This student categorised as having SEN worked in a group of four 9th grade students (14/15 years old), but they had been in this project since the 8th grade. None of them had failed any grade, but one student, J., was evaluated under the special evaluation system for SEN-related students. When he joined the project we decided that he was able to follow the same evaluation as the other members of his class. This decision facilitated his participation in daily activities and his acceptance by his peers. The mathematics teacher who worked with the group joined the project from the very beginning. Before joining she already had long experience as a teacher (23 years) but it was the first time she had acted as a teacher/researcher. Several observers went to some of the classes, as well as external evaluators. Their oral comments and written reports were also considered in the interpretations. Being an ethnographic study, one of these observers (a psychologist) followed this class quite often during the study. Instruments Data were collected through participant observation (different observers, video and/or audio tape recordings), digital photos, questionnaires, interviews, tasks inspired by projective techniques, students’ work, academic documents, and teachers’ and evaluators’ reports. Data discussed in this paper include quotations from a peer interaction audio taped during a mathematics class, and interviews with these students. We aimed at giving voice to all participants, allowing them to express themselves through different kinds of instruments. Procedures Each class worked collaboratively during at least a whole school year. Thus, the first week of classes was changed according to the new didactic contract (more details in César, 2003). The main aim of this week was to learn about the students’ interests, academic paths, life projects, and their mathematical competencies (not merely their mathematical knowledge).
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
337
Promoting students’ positive academic self-esteem is an essential step towards inclusion, as many Portuguese students strongly reject and fail in mathematics. In some cases, they are so unconvinced about their ability to learn, that they do not even try to solve mathematical tasks. This is why Ollerton and Watson (2001) emphasize the need to implement inclusive mathematics during compulsory education. In responding to questionnaires and interviews, students often referred to this first week as a decisive learning experience. During the first week data were collected through teachers’ participant observation, and students’ protocols. Then they were submitted to content analysis in order to decide about dyads. After this week, students were placed in dyads and they worked collaboratively in almost all activities. After dyad or group work, there was a general discussion (whole class discussion). When this group interaction was audio taped (second term), students were already used to working in dyads. But it was only the second time they were working in a 4-student group. In previous papers we have discussed dyad work that was audio taped when the students were interacting for just the third time (César, 1998). This allows for understanding this process evolution over time. The interviews took place in December (end of the first term) and June (end of the school year) when students were in the 8th and 9th grades. After that, when they were no longer in the project, they completed a questionnaire and were interviewed each year in June. All these interviews were audio taped and fully transcribed. Then they were the object of content analysis. As noted above, we wanted to give students a voice and to address the research questions through the analysis of their discourses. Learning is seen as communicational and reaching a shared understanding also requires the establishment of an intersubjectivity (Wertsch, 1991). Given our view of discourse as being dynamic and complex, based on our experiences and background knowledge (Rommetveit, 1974), our main challenge when analysing the transcriptions of students’ interactions and interviews was to interpret them. The quotations were analysed individually, identifying what emerged from them that would illuminate answers to our research questions. Then we discussed our interpretations both with students and other colleagues within the research team. Thus, the current interpretations were worked on several times. To begin with, we looked for inductive categories that might emerge. Then we kept those considered by more than one researcher, and those emerging from students’ comments that researchers had not identified but with whom they agreed. Later we analysed the transcriptions based on some of the main concepts (e.g., didactic contract) included in our framework. This being an action-research study based on ethnographic methods, we aimed to produce interpretations grounded in narrative methods (van der Maren, 1996) that would not only allow teachers to illuminate the evolution of their students, but help them create more inclusive settings through their practices.
Results The membership of the groups and dyads constitution was chosen by the teacher. She organised heterogeneous dyads, or small groups, whose members’ competencies and knowledge were complementary, facilitating their work in one another’s ZPD (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). In this particular class, students were reluctant to accept her choice. At first the two students categorised as having SEN were explicitly rejected. However, the approach of the first week made students curious about what would happen next. Thus, though not ecstatic, they did not refuse to work with these students. They understood that argued negotiation was going to happen throughout the whole school year between them and their teacher, and that peers were going to be changed in order to promote each one’s development and knowledge appropriation. Being so empowered was such a new experience that they engaged in the new didactic contract.
338
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
This four-student group was working together for the first time in this class. We only use the first letter of each student’s first name in order to keep them anonymous: J., T., N., and A. Each time a student begins a new sentence in this peer interaction we designate it as a talk. All talks are numbered to facilitate the analysis. Before, they had worked as two separate dyads. This is still visible in the way they interact as T. is more concerned with J. She knows his way of reasoning, or his usual difficulties. But she also knows that he keeps trying to make progress and that when she asks him questions he is able to correct what he did wrong, going further in his mathematical knowledge appropriation (Talks 35, and 37). She makes sure he understands what is going on when J.’s peers interacted enthusiastically for a while and J. did not participate in their talk (Talks 11, 13, and 28). She is also the one who calms down N. (Talk 33) and understands J.’s reasoning when he gives the only wrong answer of this interaction (Talk 31). Thus, T. assumes a leading role in J.’s inclusion, acting as a mediator between his previous knowledge and competencies, and the new mathematical knowledge he is supposed to appropriate and the competencies he needs to develop. N. was used to working with A. and had a leading role by then. A. was a student who rejected mathematics. She never succeeded in this subject until the 8th grade, when she began working collaboratively. A curious feature of this interaction is that N. accepts sharing the leading role with T. (Talks 21, 24, and 45), and A. soon collaborates with T. in promoting J.’s performance (Talk 40, and 42). There is an easygoing working atmosphere that allows J. to express that he is unable to begin solving the task (Talk 1). But his peers, despite caring about him and his performance, did not lose the enthusiasm that characterise teenagers when they know the answers and are solving a challenging problem (Talks 4 to 10), non-verbally expressed by the trial the three of them did to write their solving strategy in the groups’ answering sheet. This means that creating more inclusive learning settings also allows for having different working rhythms and respecting them, without feeling constrained because you are not among the fastest. Problem: At the school bar drinks are all sold at the same price. Ricardo likes drinking either orange juice or coke. Pedro always picks orange juice, coke or pineapple juice. João drinks pineapple, orange or passion fruit juice. What is the probability that the three friends go separately to the bar and without planning anything beforehand, pick the same drink? 1. J 2. T 3. J 4. A 5. N
6. T 7. A 8. N 9. T 10. N 11. T 12. J 13. T 14. J 15. N 16. A
Do you know how to solve this? I’d do a scheme! A scheme? How? I also think it might be… if we put the names of each of them… Of course! We do one of those schemes with circles! [At this point there are already three students trying to write on the sheet. T. was the fastest to take the sheet and writes as she talks] Ricardo, Pedro, João... Now... Now you have to put down what each of them drinks… with those arrows… I think I’d do it this way: on R which is for Ricardo I’d say that he could drink orange juice or Coke… Right… and you can also just write O or C, to be faster! Are you getting this, J.? I think so… So do you know how to go on? [Silence] Can you tell us what to write now? It’s like we did with Ricardo… I mean… from Pedro’s circle there are 3 lines, one for each drink: orange juice, Coke or pineapple, and we can also just put the first letter, so as to have a neater scheme! Hey T., what a great teacher you are!?! [Laughter] I also know how to continue. Now we do the same for João. [Grabs the pencil and continues the scheme on the sheet]
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
339
J. is trying to be a legitimate participant in the group, rather than a peripheral one (Lave & Wenger, 1991). He identifies his own difficulties in order to be helped by his peers to overcome them (Talks 1, 17, and 23); he listens carefully to his peers, even when he is not directly participating in their talk (Talks 4 to 10); he answers his peers’ questions so they are sure he understood (Talks 14, and 19); he answers even when he is not really sure about the answer (Talks 29, and 31); but he is able to reformulate his answer following T.’s suggestions when he realises it was wrong (Talks 36, 38, and 41); and he expresses how happy he feels when he finally gets it right (Talk 43). Then, he also proves that he can represent their group’s work well during the general discussion (Talk 49). If we analyse this pattern of intervention further, we see that J. has a central role. He asks questions that make his peers explain in detail their solving strategies (e.g., do a scheme; explain how they would do it), or try to be more precise in their mathematical language (Talk 24). To respect the didactic contract, they are also forced to learn how to facilitate J.’s knowledge appropriation without doing the tasks in his place. Thus, they learned how to ask him questions that allow for his progress. For all this, although it is clear that T. and N. learned mathematics much quicker, and more easily, it is also true that working with J. made them develop social and cognitive competencies they would not have developed if they were not faced with the features of his learning process. This is precisely what Vygotsky (1962, 1978) described as one of the potentialities for social interactions: to promote the development of higher mental functions, like language, or reasoning. Another feature of the didactic contract that contributed to the creation of a more inclusive learning setting, is that students were used to exploring new concepts, and challenging tasks (problems, or investigative tasks), even when they were studying new content (for instance, probabilities appear for the first time in the 9th grade in the Portuguese curriculum). They felt confident to look for intuitive solutions and were able to make connections between this problem and other learning situations they had experienced before in mathematics classes; they were able to look for explanations in their text book when they needed; and then they tried to generalize, or prove, or demonstrate, or formalize what they had learnt. In these ways, the creation of more inclusive learning settings goes hand in hand with developing students’ autonomy, positive academic self-esteem, sense of responsibility, critical sense (Ainscow, 1999; César & Oliveira, 2005), and, in mathematics classes, it also includes conjecturing and testing these conjectures (César, 2003). Thus, it is a slow process that needs time to be implemented. But it also needs students who persist in trying to solve the tasks, instead of giving up after their first difficulties or doubts. And this is precisely what happens in this interaction: after drawing the scheme and explaining what it means, they try to go further and quantify the probability. 17. J So far so good. I’ve understood. But don’t we have to give a number to show the probability? 18. N Of course we do! But now it’s easy. Look at this scheme we’ve done and see which is the only chance of them all drinking the same drink. 19. J Just the orange juice... only two drink coke and pineapple too. 20. T Right... and only João drinks passion-fruit juice; so that’s no good either. 21. N Then let’s put a red circle on O, to show this is the only hypothesis that fits what we want... and we have to put captions on this so the teacher understands what we were thinking! [They draw a red circle around the Os] 22. T These are the favorable cases, right? 23. J Ah! I remember that! Those are the ones you put on the top part of the fraction, right? 24. N Yeah... But I don’t know if you can put it that way exactly... we have to look in the book and see if that’s the right definition... 25. T But we also need... 26. A ... all the possible cases... 27. N But with the scheme that’s easy to see them! 28. T Yeah, but let’s see if J. knows which ones they are. 29. J All the possible ones? 30. N Yes.
340
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
31. J If we count the bottom ones, they’re eight. 32. N Eight? 33. T Yeah... he talked about counting the drinks each one could drink! 34. N But... 35. T Don’t think everything out all at once. Think only about Ricardo. How many favorable are there? 36. J One. Drinking orange juice, which is what we marked with the red ball. 37. T And how many are possible for Ricardo? 38. J Two: orange juice or coke. 39. N Great! 40. A – So we write... 41. J 1/2. 42. A Right! 43. J Ah! I see! For Pedro it’s 1/3 and for João it’s 1/3. 44. T Yeah. 45. N And to know the probability of all of them drinking orange juice, what do we have to do with those numbers? 46. A Multiply them! 47. T Well done, A.! This one was for you! Just to see if you were paying attention! 48. A Hey, I’m sorry. I didn’t remember I wasn’t supposed to answer first. 49. J Forget it, I realized that. If I go to the blackboard, I can explain everything well: I do the scheme and explain what each thing represents. Then, under each name I write 1/2, 1/3 and 1/3 and at the end I show the calculation for finding the probability: 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=1/18. So, there’s one favorable case, which is all of them drinking orange juice, but there are 18 possible cases. 50. N Great! You’re becoming real clever!
After J.’s question, N. tries to follow T.’s way of interacting with J. But this time it does not go so well, as J.’s only mistake appears during this part of the lesson. T. needs to lead again to help him to progress. When T. is orchestrating J.’s answers, and leading the interactive process (Talks 33 to 41), trying to make him correct his answer, there are more evaluative comments as positive feedback to J. (Talks 39, 42, and 44). This is also an interesting modeling example as, according to our field notes (participant observation, different observers), as well as to the external evaluators’ written reports, their teacher seldom expresses evaluative comments. And when she does, it is to give positive feedback to students who experienced some sort of constraint. She clearly avoids being evaluative because, as she explained to us in the interviews, she believes that “comments that are too evaluative make students depend on teachers’ comments, and I want to promote autonomy, and a sense of responsibility”. The easygoing atmosphere of this group is illuminated in many parts of this episode, especially when J. immediately calms down A. when she answers in his place (Talk 49). They all know that in this didactic contract each member of a group can be asked to go to the blackboard in the general discussion. Thus, J. did a simulation of what he would say if he was the one chosen to present his group’s work. This way of acting shows three different essential aspects: (1) he feels confident enough to explain everything, which illuminates the degree to which he implemented his academic positive self-esteem and mathematical performance since the beginning of the 8th grade (before, he used to sit quietly and do nothing, because in the 7th grade he mostly did childish tasks, different from all the other students – the type of integration that means being excluded, although being inside the very same classroom); (2) he was truly capable of following the solving strategy of his group; and, (3) he really wants to be a legitimate participant of that learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991), instead of merely occupying a fringe role. And this means accepting more responsibility, working hard in classes, and learning how to interact with different peers, as the dyads changed over the school year. This peer interaction also illuminates several aspects that contribute to the creation of more inclusive settings through collaborative work. When we were asked to include this class in the project (8th grade), this request was due to J.’s open rejection by his peers, and by some of his teachers. But when reading this episode we no longer notice any sign of rejection. It seems clear that working in dyads, or in small groups, within a didactic contract that is
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
341
coherent with inclusive principles, facilitates mutual respect, solidarity and the acceptance of diversity. However, if we go back and listen to the students’ accounts in the interviews we realize that rejection really did exist and it was quite strong. It is even more amazing as we can see it in T.’s words... the exact same T. who is now so close to J.: “If I’d been put with J. right from the start of the 8th grade, I think I’d have been scared to death. It wasn’t a dyad, it was total condemnation! [Laughs] I mean, looking back now that I’m actually really fond of him, it seems so cruel. But you know what it was like, right? No-one liked him, we just wanted him to go away. (...) I think if it hadn’t been for the Maths teacher things would have become so unbearable that he would have given up eventually (...) but now I realise that would have been a pity, that he really wants to learn and also that he has every right to be here. I even offered to be his pair this year, when we prepared the classroom map we have now.” (T., December, 9th grade)
Although interpretation must be careful because the students were talking to us, and we were associated with the project, T.’s words still draw our attention to two interesting features: (1) before, J. was strongly rejected and no one cared about him, they only wanted him to leave that class; and (2) things changed because their mathematics teacher implemented a new didactic contract, acted coherently, and made them understand J. had much more potential than they expected. This makes T. recognize that they were too cruel to him at the beginning, but also that it would have been a pity if he had given up studying. The other interesting comment is that she classifies the previous atmosphere as “unbearable”, which means that J., in the midst of all his constraints, revealed a great ability to resist his colleagues’ rejection. The other curious feature is that both students learned a lot from the collaborative work. T. went on having top marks, but she developed several social and cognitive competencies (already illuminated in the interaction), and she became more humble, respectful, and curious about the elements that can change an aggressive, competing setting into a more collaborative one. This means that not only did she miss her 9th grade class and colleagues, but she also tried to continue working collaboratively when she was faced with another learning reality in the 10th grade. Her next two accounts illuminate she is able to understand social settings and interactions, and to use her power to change them, as well as the links that still remain between her and J. “I knew I could be a very good pupil. What I didn’t know is that some mates who I thought were silly were also very good at things I didn’t even know how to do. That was hard to take, but it made me accept everyone better. And that’s what made our class so cool, where everyone likes to be. Even I, who hated that class in the 7th grade, am going to feel sorry when we enter the 10th grade and have to split up.” (T., December, 9th grade) “The marks have been great, but our class is so competitive... I’ve got no patience for that type of thing anymore... fortunately there’s three other mates from last year. We formed two dyads straight away and placed ourselves strategically... one behind the other... Luckily the teachers didn’t notice... or maybe they just don’t care about that... and they let us be. (...) Can you believe I’ve been in touch with J. over the phone to know how he’s doing and we’ve even had lunch together with a few other mates?! That was one hell of a class! I’ll never have such a good one again.” (T., June, 10th grade)
J.’ s accounts are also illuminating. As in many other cases, the interviews we carried out during the follow-up include some of the finest empirical evidence considering the contributions of collaborative work to the creation of more inclusive settings, and promoting students’ knowledge appropriation and their development of competencies. If we remember that J. was supposedly “incapable of any mathematical reasoning” (from his medical report), and “experienced huge difficulties in expressing himself, or making what he wrote understandable” (Portuguese Language teacher report, during his 7th grade), then we have to recognize that working collaboratively contributed to his development, as is illuminated both by the interaction, and the quotations that follow:
342
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS “I really miss my 9th grade class. I don’t think I’ll ever have mates like those again. At the school I’m at now each one fends for himself... and I don’t like it. It’s as if everything’s gone back. (...) The marks haven’t even been bad. What I miss is someone who really likes me, like the Maths teacher and my mates from my old class.” (J., June, 10th grade) “Now I know there are good and bad scars. All of them hurt. And they made me angry, and want to hit someone. Scars mean there were wounds, right? And a wound hurts. You can pretend it doesn’t hurt… act like a hero. But it does. Only some scars are good because they make us stronger. Less angry. Like the scars I cured in the 9th grade, when people started liking me... and I... too... and I too liked myself more.” (J., June, 11th grade)
Final remarks These results illuminate that teachers’ practices and the nature of the tasks associated with a new didactic contract play an essential role in students’ mathematical knowledge appropriation, in their development of competencies (whether cognitive, social, or affective), and in creating more inclusive learning settings in which students’ diversity is perceived as a valuable aspect of class work. In this way, we see evidence of how the social interactions that take place within lessons can play a decisive role in the promotion of more inclusive settings, or, on the other hand, in the establishment of exclusion practices (César, 2003; Gorgorió & Planas, 2005). Through their actions, teachers may contribute to the negotiation and acceptance of a didactic contract that promotes students’ autonomy and empowerment, allowing them to become legitimate participants of that learning community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). No matter which instruments we analyse, the students’ accounts highly value collaborative work as an effective way to promote their mathematical learning, which is similar to the findings of other cases we have analysed (e.g., César, 2003; César & Torres, 1998). In relation to classroom interactions, as they were much more concerned with solving tasks, students’ appreciation of collaborative work is more implicit than explicit: it is evident in the way they accept and implement the didactic contract, and also from the enthusiastic way in which they work. But this is also a feature of the didactic contract itself: rules are much more often implicit than explicit (Schubauer-Leoni & Perret-Clermont, 1997). In their interviews, whose features resemble closer to the narrative mode, students’ accounts explicitly state that collaborative work changed their role as students and, furthermore, also changed their way of acting, even in another settings. During the interviews students explained how working with peers in the co-construction of problem-solving strategies not only helped them learn how to respect each other, but also to deal with their own contradictory identities (Hermans, 2001). This was also evident in N.’s comments and in his non-verbal language during the interactions: he was trying to learn to become more inclusive in his reactions, with a better acceptance of diversity; but it was still hard for him not to overreact when the others made such blatant (as he thought) mistakes. For instance, he was going to overreact when J. failed to give a correct answer, but T.’s prompt intervention made him realise that he had to wait and understand J.’s mistake. Thus, students seemed to understand that evaluating others and their performances at first glance is a risky way of acting, as it can eventually exclude all those who do not conform to the expected pattern. And they also learned that diversity can contribute to every single student’s development, making them profit from one another’s characteristics. But experiencing collaborative work was not only effective during the time students were part of this research project. It seemed to remain in their ways of thinking, acting, reacting, in their values, and in their ways of understanding others, even when they were no longer working in collaborative settings, as we can see in follow-up accounts. Being part of a learning community, being empowered by teachers, developing their critical sense, but also
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
343
respecting diversity, are features that remain in their accounts, even many years after leaving the project and/or school (César, 2003; César & Oliveira, 2005). This long lasting effect is essential if we aim to develop more inclusive settings, both in schools and in society. Students who experienced collaborative learning settings are able to maintain collaborative ways of acting, even in other complex and dynamic settings, like the university (César, 2003), or their professional life (César & Oliveira, 2005). Working collaboratively was also a facilitating element to accomplish a life project that was related to school, at least up to a certain point (such as the case of J., who went to a professional school in the 10th grade, and graduated after attending it for three years, as expected in that curriculum). This was particularly important for students categorised as having SEN and also for those who usually failed in mathematics and whose plans were only possible if they really succeeded in mathematics during secondary school (Portuguese universities have numerus clausus; so, in many courses only top mark students can be admitted). This is another example of how school practices can be more inclusive, instead of exclusive. For all these reasons working collaboratively between students, teachers/researchers, and psychologists was a tool that facilitated the implementation of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) principles, allowing for the inclusion of all and every student, giving them a voice and also promoting their school achievement. The impact was felt not only during their time in school but also in their broader life projects and in their expectations towards their future. This was particularly decisive for students who were at risk of exclusion, whether these were SEN-related, came from poor backgrounds or showed disruptive behaviours (César, 2003; César & Oliveira, 2005). Thus, these results point to a possible way to achieve not only more inclusive educational settings, but also a more inclusive society.
Note 1
Within an inclusive approach, we prefer to focus on student diversity rather than the idea of students categorised as having SEN, which carries with it deficit assumptions.
References Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all. London: David Fulton Publishers. Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press. Allan, J. (1999). Actively seeking inclusion: Pupils with special needs in mainstream schools. London: Falmer Press. Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D., & Barton, L. (2000). Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton Publishers. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231-242. Billington, T. (2000). Separating, losing and excluding children: Narratives of difference. London & New York: Routledge Falmer. César, M. (1998). Social interactions and mathematics learning. In P. Gates (Ed.), Mathematics, education and society: Proceedings of the MEAS 1 (pp. 110-119). Nottingham: Nottingham University. [Also on line] César, M. (2003). A escola inclusiva enquanto espaço-tempo de diálogo de todos e para todos [Inclusive schooling as a dialogical space-and-time of all and for all]. In D. Rodrigues (Ed.), Perspectivas sobre a inclusão: Da educação à sociedade (pp. 119-151). Lisboa: Porto Editora.
344
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
César, M., & Oliveira, I. (2005). The curriculum as a tool for inclusive participation: Students’ voices in a case study in a Portuguese multicultural school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIX(4), 29-43. César, M., & Torres, M. (1998). Students’ interactions in maths class. In P. Abrantes, J. Porfírio, & M. Baía (Eds.), The interactions in the mathematics classroom: Proceedings of the CIEAEM 49 (pp. 76-85). Setúbal: Escola Superior de Educação de Setúbal. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer. Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2000). Schools and special needs: Issues of innovation and inclusion. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Elbers, E., & de Haan, M. (2005). The construction of word meaning in a multicultural classroom. Mediational tools in peer collaboration during mathematics lessons. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX(1), 45-59. Freire, S., & César, M. (2002). Evolution of the Portuguese education system. A deaf child’s life in a regular school: Is it possible to have hope? Educational and Child Psychology, 19(2),76-96. Freire, S., & César, M. (2003). Inclusive ideals/inclusive practices: How far is dream from reality?: Five comparative case studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(3), 341-354. Gorgorió, N., & Planas, G. (2005). Social representations as mediators of mathematics learning in multiethnic classrooms. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX(1), 91-104. Hermans, H. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture and Psychology, 7(3), 323-366. Joiner, R., Littleton, K., Faulknner, D., & Miell, D. (2000). Rethinking collaborative learning. London: Free Association Books. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lea, M.R., & Nicoll, K. (2002). Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice. London: The Open University Press. Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 3-12. Ministry of Education (1986). Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo [School System Public Law]. Lisboa: Ministry of Education. Norwich, B. (2005). Inclusion: Is it a matter of evidence about what works or about values and rights? Education 3-13, 33(1), 51-56. Ollerton, M., & Watson, A. (2001). Inclusive mathematics 11-18. London: Continuum. Perret-Clermont, A.-N., Pontecorvo, C., Resnick, L.B., Zittoun, T., & Burge, B. (Eds.), (2004). Joining society: Social interaction and learning in adolescence and youth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pomeroy, E. (2000). Experiencing exclusion. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structures. A framework for the study of language and communication. London: Wiley. Schubauer-Leoni, M.L., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1997). Social Interactions and mathematics learning. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 265-283). Hove: Psychology Press. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca framework for action. Paris: UNESCO. Valsiner, J (1998). The guided mind. A sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. van der Maren, J-M. (1996). Méthodes de recherche pour l’éducation [Reseacrh methods in education]. Paris: De Boeck Université. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. [Original published in Russian in 1934] Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. [Original published in Russian in 1932]
FROM EXCLUSION TO INCLUSION THROUGH COLLABORATIVE WORK
345
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hemel Hempstead: Havester Wheatsheaf.
Pendant les dernières années la société a changé et les écoles doivent répondre à des nouveaux défis, comme par exemple éviter l’exclusion en favorisant l’intégration*. Dans cet article nous présentons les résultats de nos efforts pour utiliser le travail collaboratif comme médiateur pour accomplir des scenarios d’apprentissage plus inclusives. Ce travail est basé sur le fait que nous considérons l’apprentissage comme un processus de communication. Cette conception a origine dans les travaux de Vygotsky qui a signalé l’importance des interactions sociales dans le développement des fonctions complexes et le rôle de la zone proximale de développement dans le développement des enfants. Notre but est l’étude de ce travail de collaboration entre pairs dans la promotion de séances d’apprentissage qui favorisent l’intégration. La recherche comprend une approche critique et ethnographique et les interactions entre pairs ont été mises en pratique quotidiennement. Les données ont été recueillies à partir de séances d’observation (enregistrées et vidéoscopiées), questionnaires, tâches d’inspiration projective, interviews, rapports et documents rassemblés par les enseignants. Les résultats illuminent le rôle du travail collaboratif dans le développement d’attitudes académiques plus positives, de la socialisation des élèves, de leur développement sociocognitif et émotionnel et de leur succès scolaire.
Key words: Collaborative work. Diversity. Inclusive education. Mathematics education. Students’ voices.
Received: September 2005 Revision received: May 2006
Margarida César. Universidade de Lisboa, Centro de Investigação em Educação da Faculdade de Ciências, Edifício C6, Campo Grande, P-1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: macesar@fc.ul.pt; Web site: www.fc.ul.pt, www.educ.fc.ul.pt/cie/ Current theme of research: Social interactions, namely peer interactions within classe. Social representations. Inclusive schooling. Intercultural education. Deaf and blind students education. Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: César, M. (1998/2002). La Figure de Rey prédit-elle la réussite scolaire? Etude de 25 enfants au Portugal, leur devenir scolaire 4 ans après le test de Rey. [The Rey Figure is well adapted for the prediction of school achievement? Twenty-five Portuguese children study approaching their school evolution 4 years after their resolution of the Rey test] In P. Wallon & C. Mesmin (Eds.), La Figure de Rey: Une approche de la complexité [The Rey Figure: An approach to complexity] (pp. 293-322). Paris: Les Pluriels de Psyché/Editions érès. *
Dans la langue française “éducation inclusive” n’est pas utilisé. Pourtant, ça veut dire qu’on n’a pas moyen de marquer la différence entre les deux approches.
346
M. CÉSAR & N. SANTOS
César, M., & Oliveira, I. (2005). The curriculum as a mediating tool for inclusive participation: A case study in a Portuguese multicultural school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XX(1), 29-43. César, M., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & Benavente, A. (2000). Modalités de travail en dyades et conduites à des tâches d’algèbre chez des élèves portugais. [Working strategies in Portuguese students dyad work during the resolution of algebraic tasks] Revue Suisse des Sciences de l’Education, 22(3), 443-466. [Thema: L’apprentissage par le dialogue: Learning through dialogue] Freire, S., & César, M. (2002). Evolution of the Portuguese education system. A deaf child’s life in a regular school: Is it possible to have hope? Educational and Child Psychology, 19(2), 76-96. [Guest issue, theme: What Psychology for what kind of world?] Freire, S., & César, M. (2003). Inclusive ideals/inclusive practices: How far is dream from reality? Five comparative case studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(3), 341-354.
Nuno Santos. Universidade de Lisboa, Departamento de Educação da Faculdade de Ciências, Edifício C6, Campo Grande, P-1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: nmfds@clix.pt Current theme of research: Blind and low vision students’ learning. Inclusive education. Collaborative work. New technologies and innovative learning methods and strategies. Mathematics education. Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: Branco, N., Matos, A., Ventura, C., & Santos, N. (2004). Investigando o significado de um movimento... poderei (re)descobrir as funções? [Searching for the meaning of a movement... can I (re)discover the functions?] In APM (Eds.), Actas do ProfMat 2004. Covilhã: APM. [CD-ROM support] Santos, N. (2005). E tu como vês a Matemática? [And you, how do you see Mathematics?] Revista Educação e Matemática, 82, 25. Santos, N., & César, M. (in press). Eu não vejo como tu... mas podemos falar de Matemática [I do not see like you... but we can talk about Mathematics]. In Actas do VIII Congresso da Sociedade Portuguesa de Ciências da Educação. Castelo Branco: SPCE. Santos, N., Matos, A., Branco, N., & César, M. (2005). Os Movimentos que encontrámos escondidos nas Funções [The movements we found hidden in the functions]. In Actas do V CIBEM. Porto: APM. [Suporte CD-ROM]