CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.4 Mixed methods results and analysis – ideological roots endorsed by
5.4.1 SLR – in-service teachers and ideological roots of pedagogy
For the SLR, eleven findings were synthesised from the data obtained from the 34 articles that conformed to the study’s search and data extraction requirements (cf. 4.3.5).
Findings 1 through to 3 (cf. 4.3.4.1.i-iii) specifically reports on the overall purpose and requirements of inclusive education in terms of defining its key descriptor - inclusion. From the three findings we see a traditionalist education stance, an inclusive education stance and a mixed version of the two. From Finding 1 it is found that a section of the in-service teacher populace interprets inclusive education as just a refined policy to establish traditionalist practices (cf.
4.3.4.1.i). Inclusion is defined as steps taken to identify barriers to learning and then place students in the designated spaces for students experiencing specific barriers to learning. In terms of ethics, the responsibility is to identify exactly the type of barrier that is at play and direct the student to the environment that caters for that pool of learners. In terms of epistemology, the embedded assumption is that there are teaching and learning practices applicable to specific environments and for specific groups.
Finding 2 is a mid-way between the two forms of identified interpretations for inclusion (cf.
4.3.4.1.ii). It is a position that acknowledges the ethical responsibility of including learners in the education environment without discrimination, but that it means that learners experiencing barriers are included physically in the everyday classroom and that they are required to meet the expectations set by traditionalist education practices. Learners experiencing barriers are included in the everyday classroom, but teaching practices are not adapted to address barriers. Adjustment is not made for learners who experience barriers to learning, nor for their peers who could also benefit from amended and diverse learning experiences.
Finding 3 represents the policy intended view of EWP6 (cf. 4.3.4.1.iii). This finding shows that a great many South African educators see inclusive education as a right and one that requires teachers to acknowledge their responsibility in developing a school environment representative of society at large. It is seen as a responsibility to be met by educators in South Africa, but also a strategy that would lead to the benefit of all learners and meet the general societal stance of non- discrimination. The embedded acknowledgement, however, is that it would require planning and adjustment of teaching practices in order for inclusion to be successful:
“We can include learners in both planning and teaching” (Article 67, p.221).
Findings 4 through to 8 are findings that are epistemological judgments made regarding inclusive education (cf. 4.3.4.1.iv-viii). Findings 4 and 5 reflect the traditionalist medical-deficit stance when it comes to learners experiencing barriers to learning (cf. 4.3.4.1.iv-v). In Finding 4 (cf. 4.3.4.1.iv),
the traditionalist education’s envisioned average student and accompanying knowledge ‘mean’ is expressed. It depicts knowledge and knowledge construction as an idealised standard that should be met or fall short of. As a consequence, all learners are ‘welcome’, as long as they fit the established knowledge practices. Finding 5 indicates the same capabilist stance with regard to access to knowledge practices (cf. 4.3.4.1.v). In Finding 5, however, it is argued that it is ethically required that learners experiencing barriers to learning be separated. They need to be assisted towards specialised environments, as it is there that the required teaching practices would be endorsed that could overcome barriers to learning. A repeating factor seen for justifying separate practices are arguments that certain subject fields are not open to adjusted teaching practices, leading to it not being possible to make it available to or include learners experiencing barriers to learning in those settings.
Finding 6 and 7 are also responses informed by conceptualised standard teaching practices, however here it is seen that inclusive education is a threat to the knowledge construction processes (cf. 4.3.4.1.vi-vii). In Finding 6, inclusive education is accused of going against what education practices should attempt to achieve. From the oppositional view it can be seen that their ideal pedagogy is evidently framed in the context of the competition-orientated, output measured, linear-levelled expression of improved capability and knowledge construction as is ascribed to traditionalist education. Inclusive education is, in this context, virus-like. It is accused of crippling education, watering down knowledge construction and supplanting pedagogy with presence. Finding 7 is a milder reaction, but also sees its justification in the context of traditionalist education practices (cf. 4.3.4.1.vii). In Finding 7, inclusive education is seen as an additional strain. It is not viewed as a general pedagogy, but rather an added demand and practice relevant to only those learners who explicitly express experiencing barriers to learning. The view is therefore not a shift away from traditionalist education knowledge construction practices, but a tack-on adjusted teaching practice for those experiencing barriers added to the already established norm.
In contrast, Finding 8 is as a result of attempting inclusive education practices in earnest to find that its effects could assist curriculum teaching and student development and support in general (cf. 4.3.4.1.viii). In Findings 4 through to 7 there are repeated references to the range of limitations, stressors and mountainous workloads as added justification to disregard inclusive education as pedagogical approach and for entrenching divisions and status quo practices (cf.
4.3.4.1.iv-vii). As one researcher summarised their findings:
“The participants ignored the distinctions between broad education challenges, such as large classes, and the challenges of inclusive education. This blurred distinction has consequences… They did not recognize that inclusive education can bring relief in terms
of time pressure, and that individual assistance is not a key aspect of inclusive education.”
(Article 19, p.354).
What educators who are contesting inclusive education are therefore not considering is the fact that inclusive education may be the very resolution to the existing issues they experience in schools. Finding 8 demonstrates that in contexts where adapted teaching practices have been pursued, success was achieved and teachers felt empowered by being able to have greater effect in assisting learners to overcome barriers and enhancing learning in general (cf. 4.3.4.1.viii).
Findings 9 and 10 are those explicit expressions of duty and responsibility with regard to the implementation of inclusive education (cf. 4.3.4.1.xi-x). Finding 9 is a prevalent response when South African educators are questioned about the importance and purpose of inclusive education, especially in comparison to other countries (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2018; Nel et al., 2014).
South African educators identify inclusive education as a human rights matter, that it is a policy to overcome discrimination. Inclusive education is, therefore, the responsibility of the entire education system, teachers included, to achieve. However, as seen in the previous findings, this is qualified again by what is understood to be ‘effective’ inclusive education in relation to existing teaching practices. Finding 10 exposes the competing duty with regard to inclusive education, which also serves to support medical-deficit models and inclusive education as best practiced separately from general education practice (cf. 4.3.4.1.x). Finding 10 is the argument that teachers have a duty towards their ‘general’ learners, and that inclusive education hampers their ability to perform this duty. Implied in this argument is the range of traditionalist epistemological and ethical convictions – that standard education is best structured and applied towards the
‘average’ learner, that learners need to fit teaching practices and not vice versa, that education is a competitive environment and that practices that do not endorse this end can only serve to hamper education, and that the responsibility is to place the learner in the ‘correct’ environment for their required practices. Once again, the argument is that the focus should be on learners meeting the ends of the existing system and not the adaptation of education according to needs and development.
The final finding places in words exactly what the contesting positions to inclusive education imply – that inclusive education is an idealistic notion that is not practically executable. This highlights the ideological contestation between drawing the polar opposites of traditionalist and inclusive education – one or the other will hold to be true for effective and demonstratively beneficial education. From the established viewpoint of traditionalist education, inclusive education is an ideology of ideals and not a practical pedagogy.