Goldacre (2013) somewhat provocatively laid down the claim that education lags behind other disciplines in terms of its use of research evidence. Given Schon's (1983) critique of technical rationalism across the professions, whether Goldacre's claim is true or not remains open to question, but nevertheless the question of how education is anchored to evidence is very much on the agenda. A range of policy initiatives internationally have focused on how schools and teachers can be supported to engage with research evidence, such as the What Works Clearing House initiative (NCEE, n.d.)

Mintz, Joseph

Norwich, Brahm

English

UCL Discovery

TYPE EditorialPUBLISHED 21 November 2023DOI 10.3389/feduc.2023.1335386OPEN ACCESSEDITED AND REVIEWED BYGeo  Anthony Lindsay,University of Warwick, United Kingdom*CORRESPONDENCEJoseph Mintzj.mintz@ucl.ac.ukRECEIVED 08 November 2023ACCEPTED 09 November 2023PUBLISHED 21 November 2023CITATIONMintz J and Norwich B (2023) Editorial: The roleof evidence in developing e ective educationalinclusion. Front. Educ. 8:1335386.doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1335386COPYRIGHT© 2023 Mintz and Norwich. This is anopen-access article distributed under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproductionin other forums is permitted, provided theoriginal author(s) and the copyright owner(s)are credited and that the original publication inthis journal is cited, in accordance withaccepted academic practice. No use,distribution or reproduction is permitted whichdoes not comply with these terms.Editorial: The role of evidence indeveloping e ective educationalinclusionJoseph Mintz1* and Brahm Norwich21Faculty of Education and Society, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 2School ofEducation, University of Exeter, Exeter, United KingdomKEYWORDSinclusion, evidence based practice, special educational needs, inclusive education,evidence informed practiceEditorial on the Research TopicThe role of evidence in developing e ective educational inclusionGoldacre (2013) somewhat provocatively laid down the claim that education lags behindother disciplines in terms of its use of research evidence. Given Schon’s (1983) critique oftechnical rationalism across the professions, whether Goldacre’s claim is true or not remainsopen to question, but nevertheless the question of how education is anchored to evidence isvery much on the agenda. A range of policy initiatives internationally have focused on howschools and teachers can be supported to engage with research evidence, such as the WhatWorks Clearing House initiative (NCEE, n.d.).The issue of evidence and practice is thrown in to particular relief in thecontext of inclusive approaches to special educational needs, given the prevalence of“psychoeducational” models of thinking about diagnostic categories such as autism orADHD (Mintz and Wyse, 2015). As we noted in the call for this Research Topic, tensionsbetween differing conceptualisations of difference and the role of categorization presentquestions as yet not fully answered as to the ways in which evidence can and should articulatewith practice in this specific domain. Such debates specifically about inclusion and specialeducation intercalate, of course, with wider debates about the place of evidence in education.Notably, Biesta (2017) critiques the now ubiquitous model of “What Works” as being fatallyover instrumental in approach, devaluing the crucial place of “practical expertise” in thelife of the school and the teacher. Yet science, in its widest sense, continues to churn outacademic study after academic study—piles indeed of evidence accumulating every dayof the year. From basic science on genetics and neurology through cognitive studies andresearch on pedagogy and critical perspectives, the march of knowledge continues. It is hardto just ignore. Yet what its precise implications are for teachers, in terms of significance andapplication remain difficult to ascertain.In this Research Topic, Daniels et al. focusing on school exclusion, consider thesedebates and in particular the extent to which a focus on categorizations of research rigorthat give precedence to RCT designs in particular fully allow us to capture the complexitythe cultural-historical origins and inter play of factors in such phenomena in education.Waitoller et al. similarly problematize the emphasis on quantitative methods in research ininclusive education, particularly noting the importance of taking account of the intersectionsbetween disability, race and class. Norwich takes this line of inquiry in a somewhat differentdirection, noting the importance of recognizing and taking account of value tensions whenFrontiers in Education 01 frontiersin.orgMintz and Norwich 10.3389/feduc.2023.1335386coming to judgements about both what is inclusive education andwhat might constitute “effective” research on inclusive education.He argues that research about inclusive education is not justempirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a processwhich has been too often ignored.Another important issue in this space is that of access. Giventhe constraints on teachers’ time, both during pre-service education(in most countries), and when properly in the classroom as servingteachers, the question of how teachers might filter and engage withevidence is a live one. Despite the range of initiatives which havesought to address this, such as the research schools network inEngland (Dixon et al., 2020) and knowledge networks in Canada(Cooper et al., 2017), the question persists: how to get busy andoften over worked teachers to effectively engage with any researchevidence? Brown et al. report on a survey of teachers and schoolleaders in England about research informed inclusive practices.One key finding was that perceiving research-use as an activitythat successful teachers and schools engage in is associated withmore individual-level research use. Also dealing with how researchevidence can be matched to meet the needs of individual teachersand schools, Mintz and Roberts focusing on autism education,propose how more use of locally tailored Theory of Changemodelsduring the adoption of evidence based practices in schools, couldmake such adoption more effective.The Research Topic also includes empirical studies reportingdirectly on and adding to the evidence base on inclusive education.Sharma et al. report on the validation of the newly developedParental Perception of Inclusion Climate Scale which focuseson giving more voice to parents in considering the impactof inclusive approaches to children with disabilities in schools.Staden-Payne and Nel using an interesting approach involvingsemi-structured interviews and collage making activities, considerfactors impeding teacher self-efficacy for inclusion in South Africanschools. Focusing on the crucial initial stages of teacher preparationand the first few years in the classroom, Specht et al. report on a 4year longitudinal study of the trajectory of development of inclusivebeliefs. A key finding was that student teachers who had in schoolpracticum experiences early on in their programmes were morelikely to endorse inclusive beliefs.The Research Topic concludes with two reviews of theliterature. Hassani and Schwab undertake a systematic reviewof an area never too far from controversy in methodologicaldebates in inclusive education, namely socio-emotional learning(SEL) interventions. Their review focuses innovatively on theuse of SEL interventions with children with special educationalneeds, and notwithstanding positions taken in other papers inthe Research Topic, criteria included use of a control group withpre and post test outcome measures. The authors conclude thatacross the studies there was some evidence of positive effectsfor SEL interventions, but that effect sizes were small. Finally,Paul et al. perhaps turning the critiques of Biesta and others ontheir head, present a meta-aggregative review of qualitative studieson the perspectives of children and young people with specialeducational needs and disabilities on their experiences of inclusiveeducation. Their key finding was that young people, when providedwith the right opportunities, can show profound understandingof their own strengths and needs which can inform inclusiveeducational practice.Author contributionsJM: Writing—original draft. BN: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing.FundingThe author(s) declare that no financial support was received forthe research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.Conflict of interestThe authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.The author(s) declared that they were an editorial boardmember of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impacton the peer review process and the final decision.Publisher’s noteAll claims expressed in this article are solely those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliatedorganizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and thereviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, orclaim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed orendorsed by the publisher.ReferencesBiesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the professions: Reclaiming aspace for democratic professionality in education. Educ. Philos. Theory 49, 315–330.doi: 10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665Cooper, A., Klinger, D. A., and McAdie, P. (2017). What do teachers need? Anexploration of evidence-informed practice for classroom assessment in Ontario. Educ.Res. 59, 190–208. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2017.1310392Dixon, M., Brookes, J., and Siddle, J. (2020). “Hearts and minds: The ResearchSchools Network: from evidence to engagement,” in Getting Evidence Into Education,eds.M. Dixon, J. Brookes, J. Siddle. London: Routledge, 53–68.Goldacre, B. (2013). Building Evidence into Education. London: Departmentfor Education.Mintz, J., and Wyse, D. (2015). Inclusive pedagogy and knowledge inspecial education: addressing the tension. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 19:1161–71.doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1044203NCEE (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse. Available online at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ (accessed June 30, 2022).Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action.New York: Basic Books.Frontiers in Education 02 frontiersin.org

Editorial: The role of evidence in developing effective educational inclusion

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10184364/1/feduc-08-1335386.pdf

Editorial: The role of evidence in developing effective educational inclusion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery