What are the integrative effects on society

Learning in integrative classes. Effects on various areas of support for children

Table of Contents

1 Introduction
1.1 Definition of terms
1.1.1 Disability
1.1.2 Integrative classes
1.1.3 Heterogeneous learning groups

2. main part
2.1 Practical implementation of integrative teaching
2.1.1 Role of the educator
2.1.2 Parental work
2.1.3 Performance evaluation
2.2 Effect of integrative learning on the child
2.2.1 Different support areas for all children
2.2.1.1 Social area
2.2.1.2 Emotional area
2.2.1.3 Cognitive area
2.2.2 The problem of integrative teaching
2.2.2.1 Number of students
2.2.2.2 Curriculum

3rd conclusion
3.1 Summary
3.2 Outlook

Bibliography:

1 Introduction

Since the Education Commission in 1970 at the latest, German education and school policy has spoken of integration and integrative schools. In the KMK recommendations from 1994 it was written down for the first time that the fulfillment of the special educational needs of a child in the elementary sector or in the primary school is not tied to special schools. Alternatively, the children can visit general schools or vocational schools. (cf. Dörr / Günther, 2003) Specializing in the elementary sector, the Social Security Code (SGB VIII) stipulates that children with disabilities "are granted remedial educational measures within the framework of the Federal Social Welfare Act and Volume VIII of the Social Code" (Dörr & Günther, 2003, P. 88), whereby mentally or physically retarded children are also cared for in day-care centers. Since integrative school classes and kindergarten groups are increasingly being developed and set up, the present work deals with the question of what effects teaching in integrative classes has on the child. In this context, the effects on both the disabled child and the non-disabled child are discussed. In order to be able to answer this question, terminology for a better understanding of the work is explained in the present work. The main part of the thesis deals with insights into the practical implementation of integrative teaching, the effects of teaching in heterogeneous groups on different areas of support for children and the general problem of teaching children with and without disabilities together. In order to complete the work, there is a summary of the entire term paper and an outlook on further developments in integrative teaching.

1.1 Definition of terms

1.1.1 Disability

There is no generally applicable concept of disability in the literature (cf. Eberwein, 1988). This is particularly due to the fact that disability is not just an objective fact, but rather a question of social or collective definition. (cf. Walter, 2004) The concept of disability shows heterogeneity, as it is perspective-dependent and limited in time and it can constantly change and renew itself due to cultural backgrounds or developments. In the illiterate culture of the Middle Ages, no one was identified as disabled who could not read or write. Nowadays, however, reading or spelling weaknesses are regarded as a consequence or symptom of a learning disability (cf. Walter, 2004). In order to further specialize the concept of the disabled, the World Health Organization (WHO) created the “Classification of Impariments, Disabilities and Handicaps” in 1980, in which a distinction is made between harm and disability (cf. Walter, 2004, Eberwein, 1988). This is relevant because people with learning disabilities, for example, often vehemently resist falling into the same category as someone with severe multiple disabilities. Because of this, the medical understanding of disability is also largely specialized. According to this, a disability occurs when a “medically or psychologically comprehensible disorder, a syndrome or a deficit or a deficit is the basis” (Hinz, 2001, p.127). It should be noted that a disorder or impairment only reaches disability status if it is permanent (cf. Walter, 2004). From an educational policy perspective, the term disability was described as "education outside the general and within a special school" (Hinz, 2001, p. 127) until the 1970s. If the term disability is used today, education policy opens up a second variant in addition to special education - upbringing and teaching in integrative classes.

1.1.2 Integrative classes

In order to be able to explain the composition of integrative school classes, it is relevant at this point to discuss basic ideas regarding integration. Andreas Schwarz (2009) describes integration with the method of integrating the other into something of one's own. In connection with integrative classes, children with disabilities who are viewed as different are incorporated into their own, i.e. children without disabilities who are viewed as normal. At this point it becomes clear that this methodology creates a greater proximity between the two levels, but maintains a certain delimitation (cf. Schwarz, 2009). The intensive contact and exchange between disabled and non-disabled children is not continuously maintained. If there were no longer any demarcation at all, we would speak of inclusion. However, the present work deals with the topic of integrative teaching in German primary school classes, so the area of ​​inclusion is not discussed further. The implementation of integration in a mainstream school can take place on two levels. Either through the individual integration of a child in a normal school class, who can claim separate educational or psychological care for themselves, or through the integration of several children with disabilities in a normal class. The term “normal” is again viewed heterogeneously at this point, since a child with a disability should be integrated into a class with children without a disability, which in this sense is understood as a normal class (see http://www.bildungsserver.de / innovationsportal / bildungplus.html? artid = 409). The question of which methodology is used to implement integrative teaching in practice will be dealt with in more detail in the second chapter of this thesis.

1.1.3 Heterogeneous learning groups

In addition to the concept of integrative classes, the concept of heterogeneous learning groups is often used in the work. Eberwein makes the connection between the two terms clear with his quote: "An integration class is affirmed and wanted heterogeneity" (Eberwein, 1988, p. 257). Heterogeneity is a broad term, but in this context it indicates the diversity of the students in a class. However, heterogeneity must always be viewed as perspective-dependent in order to capture what is considered “normal” and what is “not normal”. Thus, in heterogeneous learning groups, the retarded children are integrated into a “normal” class of non-disabled children (cf. Schieferdecker, 2011). With the above statement, Eberwein makes it clear that the aforementioned differences between children in this context with regard to their disabilities are the goal of integration.

2. main part

2.1 Practical implementation of integrative teaching

In order to achieve efficient support for all children at their individual level of performance, the number of pupils in integrative classes is reduced, with around 20 children usually four to five children having a disability. As a rule, teaching is carried out according to a "two-pedagogue principle", in which the teacher is supported by a special education specialist (see http://www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal/bildungplus.html?artid=409). Both pedagogical specialists teach using selected methods that can build on the level of development, prior knowledge and learning ability of each individual child. These methods include "free work, work according to daily and weekly plans, individualization of learning requirements and interdisciplinary teaching in projects" (http://www.bildungsserver.de/ innovationsportal / bildungplus.html? Artid = 409). The integration of disabled children creates a heterogeneity of the entire student body in a class. If this is used pedagogically, there is an inner differentiation which, among other things, strives for social learning goals. The children become more independent, learn to get along with one another, to respect one another and can work on tasks that are tailored to their respective learning requirements (cf. Walter, 2004).

2.1.1 Role of the educator

The role of the pedagogical specialist in an integrative class is of great importance with regard to the success of the teaching methodology. First of all, it is beneficial for the integration of the children in the class if as few teachers teach as possible. Since the environment and the classmates are already new, the teacher should be a constant reference person who is not only briefly familiar with the students (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). Working as a pedagogical teacher in integrative classes entails even more and differentiated tasks than working in a “normal” class. A perfect coordination of the lesson structure ensures pleasant and coordinated learning within the class. Team meetings of the educational specialists, in which experts from the special educational field are also involved, should take place every four weeks (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). In contrast to non-integrative schools, the content of these meetings is more detailed. Various development reports are created and discussed for each individual child with special educational needs in order to record the child's learning development and thus determine the further course of action. However, special support for high-learning students must also be integrated into the classroom. In order to prevent the children from being under-challenged, additional tasks must be kept ready for children who are particularly capable of learning (see Feyerer & Prammer, 2003).

2.1.2 Parental work

The involvement of parents in school work has become increasingly important in recent years of school development. The extent of cooperation was intensified, which resulted in closer collaboration between parents and teachers (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). In integrative work in particular, a constant flow of information through letters from parents, parents' evenings or discussions with parents is relevant. In order to avoid any uncertainties on the part of the parents, they should always be informed about work processes, manufactured products or new focal points in the lesson structure (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). In addition to the usual parenting days, a time window should be kept open for additional one-on-one discussions with the parents if required. Furthermore, it is the task of the teacher and the special education specialist to support and relieve the parents themselves, since a mentally or physically ill child has a profound effect on the family structure (see Brown, 1975). At this point, the teachers can give the parents support in an educational sense. This can be done through individual exchanges or through group sessions with the other parents (see Brown, 1975).

2.1.3 Performance evaluation

When teaching in heterogeneous classes, a conventional performance assessment in the form of a certificate is difficult, since each child's level of development is unique. In this sense, it is not just a matter of judging, but rather of describing a child's learning development and general developmental progress (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). Avoiding the allocation of grades in the traditional sense enables the child to learn in their own individual rhythm without suffering setbacks, which usually lead to demotivation. However, the parents and also secondary schools at which a possible transfer is imminent have the right to a formal overview of the benefits (cf. Feyerer & Prammer, 2003). In order to fulfill said formalities, learning-goal-oriented development sheets, which are tailored to each individual child, are filled out at the end of the school year and passed on to the parents (see Feyerer & Prammer, 2003).

2.2 Effect of integrative learning on the child

It is undisputed that learning in integrative classes has an impact on learning. In this chapter, the effects of integrative learning on various funding areas are presented in a differentiated manner. A distinction is made between the advantages of integrative learning in heterogeneous groups for all children, the non-disabled children and especially for the children with disabilities. Although a large number of advantages of integrative learning can be listed, it also brings problems and difficulties with it, which are explained as the final point in this chapter.

2.2.1 Different support areas for all children

An important argument, which is intended to convince parents of children without disabilities in particular to opt for integrative classes, is that the joint learning of children with and without disabilities can have a beneficial effect on the areas of development of all children, but also on school performance (cf.Eberwein, 1988 ). In the following, the possible developments and advantages for all children in the social and emotional area as well as the effects on the respective school performance are presented.

2.2.1.1 Social area

The “otherness” of the pupils can stimulate them to accept this individuality of every single child and to respect it as part of our society (cf. Eberwein, 1988). The children can learn from and with one another. In this way, both disabled and non-disabled students can function as a model function for the others (cf. Eberwein, 1988). Due to the reduced number of students in a class, contact with one another is usually more intensive than in a regular school. This intensity with one another strengthens class cohesion (see http://www.gemeinsam-leben-lernen.de/ index.php? Link = integration / integration). Through the open teaching, which should encourage the children to represent and express their opinion, the children learn to cope better with conflicts and to solve them democratically. (cf. Rutte & Vukan, 1993) With the knowledge of verbal problem-solving strategies, social integration in heterogeneous classes reduces the violent behavior of children (cf. http://www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal/bildungplus.html?artid=409.) . The integration not only makes essential contributions to the general social behavior of the children, but also serves as a prophylaxis against violence (see http://www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal/bildungplus.html?artid=409.).

From 1983 to 1986 Preuss-Laussitz carried out sociometric surveys on the effects of integrative learning on the social area at a primary school. In particular, the informal social relationships among the children as well as their social leisure behavior were examined (cf. Eberwein, 1988). The study proved that the "status positions of the disabled increased in the course of or towards the end of the investigations" (Eberwein, 1988, p.277). Preuss-Laussitz also found that children from integrative classes visit each other more regularly in their free time than children in regular schools (cf. Eberwein, 1988).

2.2.1.2 Emotional area

Children with disabilities usually deal with the subject matter in a more uncomplicated and emotional way than children without disabilities. The behavior of children with disabilities is also a model behavior for the other children to openly express and act out their feelings (see http://www.gemeinsam-leben-lernen.de/ index.php? Link = integration / integration). Children without disabilities are generally sensitized to disabled people through the many contacts with the retarded children, which frees them from prejudices (see http://www.gemeinsam-leben-lernen.de/index.php?link=integration/integration ). The children with disabilities also benefit from the intensive contact and exchange with other children from their heterogeneous class. They learn to assert themselves, to assert themselves in crises, to represent their own interests and to articulate their needs as a matter of course. (see http://www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal /bildungplus.html?artid=409). This assertion and assertion in situations in which children and later adults without disabilities are also involved is existential for the emotional well-being of the children, as they increasingly feel recognized as part of our society.

2.2.1.3 Cognitive area

With regard to the effects of learning together for children with and without disabilities on their school performance, most of the findings are available in the learning focus. Internationally as well as nationally, better school performance of the pupils in integrative classes than in the special school area was determined. (see.http://www.inkoe.de/information/information_detail.php?thema_id=11&eintrag_id=35) In addition to this, a six-year longitudinal study was carried out in Berlin on the primary school years of the children, in which studies on “the effect of integration classes on the mentally disabled and severely multi-handicapped people "(http://www.inkoe.de/information/information_detail.php?thema_id=11&eintrag_id=35) were employed. In some cases, enormous leaps in performance, especially in the mathematical area, could be recorded (cf. Bless, 1995). However, phases without various further developments were also identified. (cf. http://www.inkoe.de/information/information_detail.php?thema_id=11&eintrag_id=35) Regarding the non-disabled children in integrative classes, it can be said that some of them achieved better school results than in regular classes. Certainly the joint teaching of the heterogeneous class did not have any negative effects on the school performance of the children. (cf. http://www.inkoe.de/information/information_detail.php?thema_id=11&eintrag_id=35) In summary, it can be said that, from an educational point of view, heterogeneous learning groups are associated with higher opportunities, which, however, also entail greater risks. (see Eberwein, 1988)

2.2.2 The problem of integrative teaching

With regard to the problem of integrative teaching, it can generally be mentioned that many of the associated problems can be prevented with correct and intensive planning. The problems cannot be generalized in any general way, as they do not degenerate to this extent in every school or even exist at all. In some integrative schools, for example, the first contact with retarded children within a student body occurs on the first day of school (cf. Bews, 1992). In order to take preventive action here, it is the task of the teachers and, above all, the school management to first organize trial weeks or school projects over several weeks (cf. Bews, 1992). Two problems, however, which every heterogeneous class brings with it, will be briefly pointed out in this chapter.

2.2.2.1 Number of students

Even for a two-teacher system, the maximum number of 20 students in an integration class is at the upper limit. While the teachers in integrative classes are envied by the teachers in regular classes for the small number of students, looking after children with various deficits involves a considerable amount of time (cf. Bews, 1992). The individuality of the children with their various disabilities, which have to be taken into account individually in addition to the normal curriculum, is often underestimated or simply dismissed by teachers from regular classes who are not involved. For this reason, integrative schools should adequately report and inform about their precise pedagogical work.

2.2.2.2 Curriculum

Since most heterogeneous classes are open forms of instruction, the children must be very flexible within the curriculum. Nevertheless, there are certain requirements for learning material, which should be brought closer to the children in certain year classes. For the teachers, this parallel approach often represents a dichotomy that has to be overcome with a great deal of time. (cf. Rutte & Vukan, 1993) Even if grade evaluations of the usual form do not exist in integrative classes, certain school achievements in the form of written evaluations must be available for transfer to a secondary school. However, the greatest failure of joint teaching is the change from an integrative school to a special needs institution. The reasons for this were often school organizational reasons, cooperation problems on the part of parents and teachers, didactic problems or possible difficulties in social acceptance (cf. http: / /www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal/bildungplus. html? artid = 409.).

3rd conclusion

3.1 Summary

The present work deals with the effects of learning in integrative classes on non-disabled and retarded children. The social, emotional and cognitive areas were examined more closely. Due to the smaller number of students than in mainstream schools, the class atmosphere in heterogeneous groups is more intimate, which contributes to the general well-being of all children. Further effects of the joint learning of pupils with and without disabilities on the social area are the model learning of the children from each other as well as the representation of their own opinion and strategies for verbal conflict resolution through the open form of teaching. (see Chapter 2.2.1.1) Above all, children without disabilities are confronted with the issue of disability and thus naturally learn to deal with it, which will certainly benefit them in their further everyday life. Learning together for children with disabilities is emotionally effective especially when they have to assert themselves in front of the entire class, i.e. also in front of their non-disabled classmates, and thus experience that they too are taken seriously. (cf. chapter 2.2.1.2) Knowing to be part of the whole group strengthens the self-esteem of every single child. Regarding the school performance of the pupils in integrative classes, it can be said that they are by no means worse than in special school classes. Learning in a heterogeneous student body also has no negative effects on the school performance of children without disabilities. Studies have shown that children with retardation by attending integrative school classes sometimes even achieve greater leaps in performance than in the special school sector (see Chapter 2.2.1.3). However, there are fundamental problems with the issue of the integration of pupils with disabilities, which also have an impact on the pupils. On the part of the teaching role, these can be described primarily by difficulties with simultaneously implementing the curriculum and maintaining the open form of teaching. Failure to maintain this balance between open and structured form can have an impact on the class climate and on the school performance of all children.

3.2 Outlook

For the future, it can be said that integrative classes can be very beneficial for all children, but only if they are planned by the teachers and management over a longer period of time and are constantly being worked on. Knowledge of the considerable amount of time required to teach in heterogeneous classes is essential for integrative work. Furthermore, the flow of information about what is happening in integrative teaching should be stimulated even more, not to put special needs education at a disadvantage, but simply to remove prejudices and uncertainties about integrative education.

Bibliography:

Bews, S. (1992): Integrative teaching in practice. Experiences, problems, analyzes. Innsbruck: Österreichischer StudienVerlag.

Bless, G. (1995): On the effectiveness of integration. Research overview, practical implementation of an integrative school form, studies on learning progress. Bern, Stuttgart, Vienna: main.

Brown, G. (Ed.) (1975): Feeling + Action. Gestalt methods in integrative teaching. Frankfurt / Main: Publishing house for humanistic psychology Werner Flach KG.

Dörr, G & Herbert, G. (2003): Special Education. Hohengehren: Schneider Verlag

Eberwein, H. (Ed.) (1988): Disabled and non-disabled learn together. Handbook of integration pedagogy. Basel and Weinheim: Beltz Verlag .

Eberwein, H. (Ed.) (2001): Introduction to integration pedagogy. 2nd Edition. Basel and Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

Feyerer, E. & Prammer, W. (2003): Joint teaching in secondary level I. Suggestions for an integrative practice. Weinheim, Basel, Berlin: Beltz Verlag.

Hinz, A. (2001): Integrative career preparation. Supported work training for people with disabilities. Berlin. Luchterhand

Hosterbach, H. (2005): Musical learning in Montessori pedagogy. Music didactic considerations with special consideration of the music educational work in German-speaking Rome. 11th edition. Berlin: Lit

Preuss-Lausitz, U. (2002): Integration research. Approaches, results, perspectives. In: Eberwein, H .; Knauer, S. (Ed.): Integration pedagogy. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Verlag.

Schwarz, A. (2009): Inclusion and Integration. Clarification of the terminology from a social science perspective. In: Adult Education (2009). Issue 4. Pages 183-185

Rutte, V. & Vukan, H. (1993): Learning Together. Integration at the 1st grade. Volume 1. Vienna: ÖBV Pedagogical Publishing House.

Walter, P. (2004): Integration of disabled people into school. Wiesbaden. VS publishing house for social sciences.

Schieferdecker, R. (2011): Pedagogy of Difference. PH - vineyard.

Web sources:

Kotthaus, M. (2012): Together from the beginning. URL_http: //www.gemeinsam-leben-lernen.de/index.php? Link = integration / integration. [Accessed on March 20, 2012]

Roßmöller, M., Fink, R. & Müller-Florath, K .: Integration / Inclusion Cologne. Examinations / study results from research. Effects of joint teaching on school performance. URL_http: //www.inkoe.de/information/information_detail.php? Thema_id = 11 & eintrag_id = 35- [accessed on March 20, 2012]

Schraml, P. (2005): Education and Innovation. It is normal to be different. URL_http: //www.bildungsserver.de/innovationsportal/bildungplus.html? Artid = 409. [Accessed on March 19, 2012].

[...]

End of the reading sample from 13 pages