Contents lists available atScienceDirect
International Journal of Educational Research
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures
Listening to the voices of students on inclusive education:
Responses from principals and teachers in Indonesia
Elga Andriana
a,*, David Evans
baFaculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
bSydney School of Education and Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Student voice Inclusion Inclusive education Labelling
A B S T R A C T
Studies advocating for student voice to be included in the debate of inclusive education have been conducted, however, little is known about how the other stakeholders respond to the messages within student voice. This article examines the response of principals and teachers in Indonesia to the voice of primary school students and their representations of inclusive educa- tion. Principals and teachers were generally receptive to the messages they were hearing about the impact of their language of inclusion on students, year retention, and the continued se- paration of students in all education matters on the basis of disability. While the implications for the future development of inclusive education are examined, the researchers also explore the issues related to adults listening and empowering the student voice.
1. Introduction
This paper aims to present the results of a study on responses by principals and teachers towards student voice on inclusion. The study was part of research on student voice on inclusion in three public primary schools in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, designated as School Providing Inclusive Education (Andriana, 2018). Student voice in this paper is grounded in a rights-based approach. The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC;United Nations, 1989) states that children have the right to freely express their perspectives and to be heard, especially pertaining to issues affecting their lives, including their education. There are four elements to realise the UNCRC (i.e. space, voice, audience and influence). Each of these elements represents the affordances of opportunities to express views, the facilitation to express views, the attention to listen to, and the act to respond to the children’s voice (Lundy, 2007;United Nations, 1989).
The concept of inclusion can invoke various meanings and can be problematic. In the arena of inclusive education, the terms integration, mainstreaming and inclusion are often used interchangeably, although differ substantially. Integration refers to the attendance of students with disabilities at a regular school, but they are placed in a separate special class. Meanwhile, in main- streaming, students with disabilities are placed in a special class in a regular school and may partly attend a regular classroom, especially in subjects where the students are considered able to follow (Foreman, 2005).Loreman, Deppeler, and Harvey (2011)) argue that the enactment of practices such as providing students with disabilities with part-time education in regular schools, placing students in segregated classrooms in regular schools, or facilitating students with substantially different study programs in regular classrooms do not uphold the principles of inclusion. Inclusion is the task of adopting a framework of values and taking it into action irrespective of our differences (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Inclusion is rooted in the principles of social justice, human rights and a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101644
Received 3 January 2020; Received in revised form 9 July 2020; Accepted 14 July 2020
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address:[email protected](E. Andriana).
0883-0355/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
pulled out from regular class (i.e., inclusion room), and to name a dedicated day every week for students with disabilities to receive special activities (i.e., inclusion day). This, arguably, had an impact on the subsequent theme of the image of students with disabilities who were seen as having a lower status by other members of the school community, possessing characteristics such as being less intellectual and being dependent on special education teachers and students without disabilities.
While studies have captured the voices of differing players (e.g., teachers, principals) about inclusive education (Sandberg, 2017;
Simmons, Graham, & Thomas, 2015), little is known about their response to the perspectives of their students. Therefore, this study focussed on analysing the responses of principals and teachers when listening to the student voice on inclusion.
2. Methodology
The main study included twelve teachers (i.e.,five special education teachers, seven classroom teachers), four principals, and six parents from the three participating schools SeeTable 1). These participants were from schools designated‘inclusive schools’within Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
One year after the initial collection and analysis of study data on student voice on inclusion (Andriana, 2018), thefirst author conducted a focus group with the student participants and adult participants in each school to provide feedback on the studyfindings.
Thefirst author used anonymous drawings and photos as stimuli for discussion with the student participants. As for adult partici- pants, a rather complete presentation comprising research aims, analysis and examples of anonymous drawings, photos and narra- tives was presented. While adult groups from each school were provided with common themes from the studyfindings, a specific focus was given to what the students as a collective had to say about inclusion and inclusive education.
At the invitation of the school principals, teachers were joined by the district supervisor. In addition to the adult participants involved in the main study (seeTable 1), the principal of each school also invited other teachers so that each meeting comprised 20–40 attendees. The participants of the meetings were invited to provide their comments and thoughts towards the student voice.
The discussions generated by adult participants were collated throughfield notes and audio recordings and then analysed using a grounded theory approach. The purpose of this paper is to report thefindings of this analysis, with a specific focus on how principals and teachers responded to the feedback about what students had to say about inclusion and inclusive education in their schools.
These responses will be examined further in regard to the wider literature on the principles of inclusion and inclusive education.
3. Findings
General descriptions within the data showed that school staffwere prepared to listen to and also respond to and realise the student voice. Discussion with the adult group addressed various topics such as the label of inclusion as applied to both the students with disabilities, teachers and the school; the issue of year retention; and students’hopes to participate in all educational oppor- tunities on the same basis as their peers without disability. Some examples of drawings, photos, and comments of the student voice that were being presented to the school staffare provided below (Figs. 1–5).
Table 1
Adult Participants.
Primary School Teacher Principal Parent of student with disability Parent of student without disability
Special Education Classroom
A 1 2 1 2 –
B 2 3 1 2 –
C 2 2 2 1 1
5 7 5 1
Total 12 4 6
3.1. Principals and teachers’response to the student voice 3.1.1. Labels
The theme that attracted many participants' attention was the manner in which the term‘inclusion’was used to label persons, resources and activities that were related to the education of students with disabilities, as shown inFigs. 1, 3–5and students’ comments. To respond to this language of inclusion a principal commented:
We as a teacher sometimes forget and say, "You, children with special needs". It is not acceptable to say that. Hearing the result of the study, let's provide better education provision to both children with disabilities and to children who view themselves as having a high ability. All children have needs.
(A statement from a school principal)
This principal provided emerging evidence that adopting an inclusive philosophy required examining the whole of the educa- tional context. Students with disabilities were not considered as a separate group, but part of a heterogeneous schooling community.
That in viewing all students as individuals, and as all having unique or differing needs, they could remove the need to separate and exclude some students to address the needs of most.
A teacher, in responding to the feedback from the students about the label of inclusion, stated:
Hearing the children's voice, it can be feedback for myself and other teachers who teach in inclusion schools. What do we need to improve? To enhance our competencies. I tend to…, I have a lack of things as a classroom teacher. Often labels just come out of my mouth unconsciously and I want to erase it.
(A statement from a teacher)
The teacher acknowledged and recognised the voice of the students; she took it as feedback. She reflected on removing the practice of labelling from her personal and professional language. Teachers generally admitted that they were unaware of how their behaviour impacted other members of the school community (e.g., the impact of their language on students with disabilities).
Professionally they were accustomed to partitioning the student population into those students with disabilities and those without disability. In doing so, they would often partition their professional responsibilities, unconsciously assuming that students with disabilities were the responsibility of the special needs teacher or inclusion teacher, shadow teacher, and/or parents.
Another comment by a principal showed how the responses gave greater attention to addressing the impact of these exclusionary forces on the well-being of students.
This is a fact. The words from the children are true. We are as humans, as teachers, sometimes when we are tired, we lose control.
With this, we, I, have to be more patient. Nonetheless, it is the soul, children's souls we are talking about. And then, the title of
‘inclusion child’is very hurtful;‘inclusion teacher’[her voice was shaking] makes me very angry. I am angry with the other principals because my teachers are seen as inferior. The other principals view inclusion schools as low.
(A statement from a school principal)
The responses from school staffprovided evidence that they had some insight into the impact of the label of‘inclusion’either on the students’well-being, the teachers’professional standing or the school’s image. These teachers appeared to realise the damaging effects that the‘inclusion’label brought to the students, especially on their emotions and self-esteem. They suggested changes in their professional behaviour by not using the label of‘inclusion’that was seen as“hurtful”and“low”. Yet the concept of disability and disablement was still used throughout their language, continuing to maintain the exclusionary chasm between students‘with’ability and those‘without’.
Using the‘inclusion’label was not only used in regard to students with disabilities. One teacher gave her evaluation of labelling in Fig. 1.Inclusion room.
This is the class for children with special needs. Other children cannot enter here. ABK can go to the regular class. Well, regular children could come here during recess but not for studying. (Minah, Year 2 student).
‘inclusion room’ find an alternative for it, indicating an attempt to attend to student voice. The removal of the label was not associated with removal of its intent; students with disabilities would still attend a room especially for students with disabilities (i.e., a room that students without disability would not attend; receive an education program based on a curriculum that was different to students without disability). While teachers feel they heard the voice of the student, a whole school cultural shift in regard to celebrating difference, and meeting the needs of all students, was not apparent.
While teachers discussed removing the labels such as ABK (stands for Anak Berkebutuhan Khusus which equates to Children with Special Needs) and‘inclusion child’, the label of‘inclusion school’was perceived to be the responsibility of the education department to give a formal response or action. Inclusive education within Indonesian schools grew out of an initiative where only some schools were designated to be those that would enrol students with disabilities. As a result, these schools became known as inclusion schools.
Teachers, therefore, suggested that government departments were responsible for removing the category of‘inclusive school’, and ensuring that all schools should be inclusive of all students.
Teachers reflected on the impact labelling, especially the effect of‘inclusion day’and‘inclusion room’on students with dis- abilities’self-identity; they considered how labelling impacted the view of students without disabilities towards the students with disabilities. The responses also show that the school community attended to the student voice with a focus on addressing the issue of labelling which could bring a positive difference to the inclusive climate of the school. Changing the label may not lead, however, to different understanding of the principles of inclusion.
3.1.2. Year retention
Another important discussion around student voice was about year retention. Retention related to the practice that every student was required to meet the minimum standard at the end of each year to be able to progress to the next year level. Students with disabilities were quite strong in their views that this practice was not liked, and they hoped to progress to the next level as exampled inFig. 2.
Teachers responded to this perspective in a number of ways. One early career teacher voiced her concerns about this practice, although she did not rule out the practice, by stating:
Maybe this is only to clarify that the concepts in inclusive education are openness, equality, that they want year promotion. How are year retention and promotion being applied in inclusion school? I have asked another inclusion school before and they said they don't have year retention. So, what is it in the concept of retention and promotion in inclusion school? For example, in inclusion school, say there is a regular child and there is an inclusion child, is the guidance for assessment different? Do they have
Fig. 2.Unhappy Experience: Year retention.
Written description: Unhappy experience, not studying, not moving to the next grade. (Ita, Year 3 student with disability, 11 yrs).
a different report? For example, the inclusion child can proceed without retention, is it the same case with regular children?
(Early career female teacher)
The response from this teacher uses language that continues the practice of providing a clear demarcation between students with and without disability. Her professional curiosity is peaked by the practices of another (inclusion) school that does not apply year Fig. 3.Learning geometry in Year 5 regular class.
I like this picture because children are learning, cutting geometry shapes. Regular children have to be smart and study diligently. Regular children can learn things being learnt by inclusion children quickly. Children in special class cannot do what children in regular class learn, it’s just too difficult for them. (Abi, Year 5 student, regular class).
Fig. 4.Learning how to wrap a gift.
Children in the special class are wrapping gifts. Regular children can learn things being learnt by inclusion children quickly. Children in the special class cannot do what children in the regular classes do. It’s just too difficult for them. (Adi, Year 5 student, regular class).
Fig. 5.Inclusion Day.
This photo shows ball play during a therapy session (inclusion day). Students from regular classes don’t need to play because they have so many subjects to learn to be clever. (Raka, Year 2 student with a disability, special class).
‘inclusion school’ ‘teachable’
Budiyanto, 2015). This belief, a belief to children’s right to education with their peers is a strong basis for supporting the development of inclusive classroom practice.
The issue of year retention was seen as difficult to alter and if reformed then the teachers would need further guidance and support in designingflexible learning activities and assessments to respond to students’diverse learning needs. More support is needed to help the teachers change from the rigid teaching and learning approach to a moreflexible approach. More importantly, the change in learning approach will entailfirst a change in teachers’understanding of what inclusive education really means.
3.1.3. Educational opportunities
The discussion of year retention went further to respond to students’voice on other opportunities such as academic learning.
Teachers viewed students with disabilities as not capable and that academic learning experiences were limited, as illustrated inFig. 3.
Students with disabilities were exposed more to life skills (Fig. 4) and therapy as in (Fig. 5). Teachers also viewed students with disabilities as not capable, and their presence reflected poorly on the school (e.g., that they should not join the National Exam as it will affect the school’s academic performance).
On the other hand, parents of students with disabilities were demanding that their children be included in the National Exam.
Having results from the National Exam is one of the requirements to enter‘regular’secondary school. Meanwhile, teachers suggested that students with disabilities can complete the School Exam, an exam administered by individual schools. Having results of a School Exam allows students with disabilities to enrol at‘inclusive’secondary schools (SPIE). However, since the status of an‘inclusive’
school is seen as lower than a‘regular’school, participation in the National Exam is seen as important by parents of students with disabilities.
On hearing the statements from principals and teachers, a school supervisor expressed her thoughts on future plans as part of her duty in supervising‘regular’and‘inclusion’schools:
Hearing the results of the research, we are thinking of changing our tool for supervising inclusion schools so that it cannot be the same as the supervising tool for mainstream schools. The vision is to serve all children. Education for all. At one event, we asked Physical Education teachers to make their own vision and mission. We encouraged them to include achievement in their state- ments. The only school that objected was this school who, as an inclusion school, wanted children's happiness as their goal, which is consistent with a research result that achievement will follow if children are happy when they learn. We will look at lesson plans that make children happy to learn. Learning materials have to be two types, for regular children and for children with special needs. The assessment has also to be two types, for regular children and for children with special needs. Next, we really need a curriculum specially for inclusion schools, since curriculum will define every practice in the school.
(Provincial school supervisor)
The idea to make sure that lesson plans should engage all students is a positive response to the students’voice. However, the idea of separating curriculum and assessment for students with and without disabilities can be debated within the principles of inclusive education and pedagogy. Inclusive pedagogy responds to individual differences in ways that avoid the stigma of marking some learners as different (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012). The idea can also be argued within the mandates of the Convention on Rights of People with Disability (UNCRPD, 2016) that Indonesia has ratified and the Disability Act that Indonesia recently endorsed in 2016.
Both CRPD and the Disability Act base their principles on the human rights approach for people with disabilities; to participate in aspects of life on the same basis as people without disabilities.
The issue of retention is one that generated considerable discussion and concern amongst students, teachers, principals, parents and senior administrators. At the heart of this discussion is the issue of the professional capacity of school communities to address the learning needs of students. It continues the debate over the separation of students into inclusion and regular students; it maintains the premise that these two groups of students require differing curriculum, and in some ways continues the idea that students with disabilities are not the responsibility of teachers within the‘regular’school sector.
4. Students’responses to the student voice
Thefirst author also conducted a focus group in each of the schools to share the general results about the student voice with the
student participants. In reporting thefindings of the responses to student voice, attention was given to how students viewed the exclusionary forces they had talked about in the initial data collection. Reflecting on these results from twelve months prior proved difficult for students, so the researcher checked with the students if there were updates to the previous conditions (e.g., labelling, retention); and if there were, what happened in the school to influence these changes.
The students from one school reported that the name-calling or labelling of‘ABK’and‘inclusion child’continued. Individual stories emerged when responding to the theme of bullying experiences with a similar issue from the main phase, that is, the identity of being‘special’or‘regular’. Also highlighted was the inferior position of the‘inclusion child’and superior position of the‘regular child’. The division between‘regular’and‘special’were represented in the students’language such as“the regulars”,“that class”,“not normal”,“them”, and “us”. Other languages that identified students including“regular child” and“inclusion child”,“inclusion parent”,“inclusion school”,“inclusion day”,“inclusion room”, and labelling of children as“ABK”continued to reinforce the division between students with and without disabilities.
A student reported the situation had improved in regard to having friends. She felt that this was related to afine system being imposed on all students if they used those labels as name-calling or to identify students. She stated:
Fines can be money or to clean the classroom for two weeks, usually 5000 rupiah and the money is kept, for example, to visit a friend who is sick.
(Year 6 student with disability)
Another student reported on how their friendships had changed. Friends in her Year 6 class were from the full range of students, with evidence of peer support to assist all students:
My friends sometimes are from inclusion class and sometimes are from regulars. Sometimes it is mixed. Sometimes regular, sometimes inclusion. We play together. The regulars are E, S, R. It is better this year. We help each other. We don't mock each other.
(Year 6 student with disability)
While the condition regarding bullying had improved, there was no account from the students’reports about understanding as to why name-calling was not appropriate practice. This may indicate unchanged attitudes of peers towards students with disabilities as students stopped doing the name-calling only to avoid punishment.
Three students with intellectual disability eventually were promoted to the next year level after being retained from one to three years. Nevertheless, moving up to the next grade surfaced as a problem for students, as they reported they were unable to access tasks based and required considerable support in learning. As reported by one student:
Mmmm…the lessons are so…difficult. I need a special education teacher to help me. I do not receive any help from the teacher. I do the math myself. I hope the children are given easy lessons. Math is so difficult. No one is helping.
(Year 4 student with intellectual disability, 12 yrs)
The emergence of this message from students with disabilities about how the education program excluded them was a new theme amongst the students. Students with disabilities voiced a desire for their educational program to be based on the same content as their peers, yet at a level and manner in which they could participate, demonstrate their learning and provide evidence of their success.
This call for equity of educational opportunity goes to the professional attitudes, skills and knowledge of principals, class teachers and resource personnel, and their willingness, professional capacity and belief that students with disabilities can and should access content on the same basis as their peers without disability. It challenges educational communities that currently design educational programs for most students to design educational programs for all (Florian, 2014;Humphreys & Jimenez, 2018).
5. Discussion
This paper set out to examine the responses from school personnel to the feedback they received about the perceptions and thoughts of students towards inclusion and inclusive education in three primary schools. Each of these schools had been designated by the local education authorities as 'inclusion schools', meaning that they enrolled students with disabilities. The designation of these schools as‘inclusive’resulted in students identified with disabilities gaining physical access to education. This development also resulted in cultural stigma emerging: these inclusion schools became 'dumping' grounds for students who did not meet rigid education outcomes (Andriana, 2018); 'classes' of education (e.g., regular, special;Andriana, 2018); and "marginalisation and stigmatisation" of students with impairments (Suharto, Kuipers, & Dorsett, 2016, p. 694).
The principals and teachers as a group were highly receptive to hearing the voices of students. The feedback they received from thefirst author about student perspectives on a whole were treated with respect, and many of them engaged constructively with feedback. While this positivity is respected, it would appear that the real understanding within this dialogue is from a position of power (i.e., adult v student). As has been an issue historically, how we understand and reflect on the voice and perspective of children is an ongoing tension within research that examines student voice (Messiou, 2019; Musgrave, Leahy, & Moruzi, 2019). This is highlighted in the results from this smaller part of a larger study by examining issues of labelling, attitudes and the cultural un- derpinning of schooling in this Indonesian context.
The strongest message that came through from students related to the issue of labelling (e.g.,‘inclusion child’,‘inclusion teacher’,
‘inclusion room’). The concept of inclusion, a set of principles that adult participants saw as striving towards a social‘good’, was actually being used unintentionally and intentionally as a negative construct, and tool of power. As a result, it was used to separate
‘inclusion students’, yet no proactive support was evident about how communities supported the transition to a more respectful language and set of attitudes.
Attitudes of all community members are strongly linked to the efforts to transform schools into inclusive and respectful en- vironments (MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013;Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). Principals, for example, have the capacity to project inclusive language and actions to display leadership and the expectation that“every learner matters and matters equally”(UNESCO, 2017, p.
12). They have the capacity to influence the manner in which student voice is heard within schools, yet this will only be achieved over time and through focused, constructive cultural changes amongst themselves, teachers, parents and the community (Forde, Horgan, Martin, & Parkes, 2018).
Teachers and students were clear in their perspective that the pedagogical practices within classes did not uphold the intent of inclusive education. Students voiced clearly within the main study, and in this follow-up part of the study, that the content within classrooms was often“too hard" or in some instances was totally different from that of other students (e.g., watered-down curriculum content to make it 'easier’). All students gaining access to the general curriculum in their local school is key to upholding the principles of inclusion (Agran et al., 2020). Teachers, schools and students have the capacity to work together to develop inclusive practices that are sensitive to the needs of the local community through working together and acknowledging the rights of all students to a robust and meaningful education program (Evans, Andriana, Setiani, & Kumara, 2018).
Using student voice to enhance and foster greater inclusive practices within schools requires considerable change on the part of all participants. It requires adults to listen and be willing to shift perspectives; it requires adults to engage in conversations and dialogue with students about their experiences and what they are seeking (Messiou, 2019). Methodologies used to collect and represent student voice need to be varied so all students have voice. This study engaged with student voice using differing methods (e.g., verbal, photos, drawings) in a range of contexts, yet adults used verbal feedback in a formal context. While the verbal word is a worthy representation, ongoing conversations, observations and reflections on the actions of teachers in classrooms, the playground and in policy and curriculum design is needed to change mindsets. These conversations need to be with and for all students if they are to have a meaningful impact on the inclusive nature of schools.
The power of language was a common theme throughout this paper. Historical examination of language within the Indonesian context shows that changing the language, as suggested by one of the adults, does not always result in changed attitudes, or students voice being heard. One avenue may be to adopt a language that recognises that learners are all different, celebrates all their strengths, and there is a“continuum of being and doing that applies to all humans”(Gibson, 2019, p. 85).
6. Conclusion
Inclusive education is“a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing par- ticipation in learning, cultures and communities, and reducing exclusion from education and from within education”(UNESCO, 2020). Student voice can be a powerful means to inform school staffabout educational developments (e.g., inclusive education) by identifying biases and issues in school practices. The unique insight into principals and teachers’responses toward student voice revealed that inclusive education in the schools is characterised by the division between‘special’and‘regular’. It also uncovered a predominant issue of marginalisation experienced by students with disabilities both at the academic level, such as year retention and exclusion from the National Exam, and at the social level such as the label of inclusion, and teachers’negative attitudes towards students with disabilities.
This study used student voice data to promote discussion amongst educators. Listening to students’voices if done as a reflexive approach (Spyrou, 2011), and in partnership with students (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2016), can provide insights about how to promote dialogue among school community members in working towards practices based on inclusive principles. The schools may consider using students’voice to bring practices that are more respectful and supportive of the needs of all students. The results of this study can be used as an opportunity towards a culture of dialogue between the school staffand the students to eliminate exclusionary pressures.
The schools need to remove the label of inclusion. It is vital for the schools to provide educational and learning opportunities equally accessible to all students and this can be made through consultation with students to respond to their voices about this matter.
Future studies could utilise an arts informed method such as using drawing and photos to reveal students’views and hopes that may hardly be seen when using other approaches (e.g., verbal communication). This method can be used as part of participatory action
research where schools go through a continuous cycle from hearing student voices to creating real changes by involving students and other members of the school community. This way, as recommended by the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989), space, voice, audience and influence of student voice are truly realised.
Ethics
Ethic approval was granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics CommitteeAustralia Awards Scholarship.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There are no perceived conflicts of interest in the publication of this manuscript References
Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., ... Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relationship among classroom placements, learner outcomes, and other factors.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45, 4–13.https://doi.org/10.1177/15407996919878134.
Andriana, E. (2018).Engaging with student voice through arts-informed methods: Exploring inclusion in three schools providing inclusive education in Yogyakarta, IndonesiaDoctoral Thesis. University of Sydney.
Andriana, E., & Evans, D. (2017).“Why I am chosen as inclusion child?”Listening to students’voice on school experiences of inclusion in Indonesia. In V. Plows, & B.
Whitburn (Eds.).Inclusive education: Making sense of everyday practice(pp. 175–193). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Black-Hawkins, K., & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’craft knowledge of their inclusive practice.Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 18, 567–584.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.709732.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011).Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools(3rded). Manchester: CSIE.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2005). Understanding pre-service teachers’construct of disability: A metacognitive process.Disability & Society, 20, 563–574.https://doi.
org/10.1080/09687590500156329.
Chambers, D., & Berlach, R. (2011). Interpreting inclusivity: An endeavour of great proportions.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 529–539.https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603110903159300.
Evans, D., Andriana, E., Setiani, P., & Kumara, A. (2018). Universal Design for Learning to support learning in Gunung Kidul. In M. Best, T. Corcoran, & R. Slee (Eds.).
Who’s in? Who’s out?: What to do about inclusive education. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Florian, L. (2014). Reimagining special education; Why new approaches are needed. In L. Florian (Ed.).The SAGE handbook of special education(pp. 9–23). (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Forde, C., Horgan, D., Martin, S., & Parkes, A. (2018). Learning from children’s voice in schools: Experiences from Ireland.Journal of Educational Change, 19, 489–509.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9331-6.
Foreman, P. (2005).Inclusion in action(3rded.). Southbank, Vic: Thomson Learning.
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017).Inclusion in action(5th ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.
Gibson, B. (2019). Worlding disability: Categorizations, labels, and the making of people.AJOB Neuroscience, 10, 85–96.https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2019.
1618413.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, S. (2016). From data source to co-researchers? Tracing the shift from‘student-voice’to student-teacher partnerships inEducational Action Research.Education Action Research, 24, 159–176.https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1053507.
Humphreys, S., & Jimenez, B. (2018). The evolution of personalised learning: From different, to differentiated and now to universally designed.Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 5(4), 1–2.https://doi.org/10.19080/GJIDD.2018.05.555666.
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2011).Inclusive education: Supporting diversity in the classroom(2nded.). Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin.
Lundy, L. (2007).’Voice’is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701657033.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. (2013). Teacher attitude and behavior towards the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in main- stream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior.Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 46–52.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006.
McNiff, S. (2011). Artistic expressions as primary modes of inquiry.British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 39, 385–396.https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2011.
621526.
Messiou, K. (2019). Understanding marginalisation through dialogue: A strategy for promoting the inclusion of all students in schools.Educational Review, 71, 306–317.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1410103.
Musgrave, N., Leahy, C., & Moruzi, K. (2019). Hearing children’s voices: Conceptual and methodological challenges. In K. Moruzi, N. Musgrave, & C. Leahy (Eds.).
Children’s voices from the past: New historical and interdisciplinary perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Sandberg, G. (2017). Different children’s perspective on their learning environment.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32, 191–203.https://doi.org/10.
1080/08856257.2016.1216633.
Sharma, U., & Jacobs, D. (2016). Predicting in-service educators’intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia.Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.004.
Sheehy, K., & Budiyanto (2015). The pedagogic beliefs of Indonesian teachers in inclusive schools.International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 62, 417–469.https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1061109.
Simmons, C., Graham, A., & Thomas, N. (2015). Imagining an ideal school wellbeing: Locating student voice.Journal of Educational Change, 16, 129–144.https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10833-014-9239-8.
Spyrou, S. (2011). The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation.Childhood, 18(2), 151–165.https://doi.org/10.1177/
0907568210387834.
Suharto, S., Kuipers, P., & Dorsett, P. (2016). Disability terminology and the emergence of‘diffability’in Indonesia.Disability & Society, 31, 693–712.https://doi.org/
10.1080/09687599.2016.1200014.
UNCRPD (2016).General comment No. 4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education.Retrieved fromhttp://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html.
UNESCO (2017).A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education.Retrieved fromhttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254.
UNESCO (2020).Interview with the UNESCO-IBE director, clementina acdedo(nd) Retrieved fromhttp://unesco.org.pk/education/icfe/resources/res41.pdf.
United Nations (1989).Convention on the rights of the child: General assembly resolution 44/25.U.N Doc. A/RES/44/25.
Whitburn, B. (2016). Voice, post-structural representation and the subjectivity of‘included’students.International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39, 117–130.https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X2014.946497.
