This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 27 November 2014, At: 19:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special NeedsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Developing inclusive practices throughcollaborative action researchVassilios S. Argyropoulos a & Magda A. Nikolaraizi aa Department of Special Education , University of Thessaly,Argonafton & Filellinon , Volos, GreecePublished online: 02 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Vassilios S. Argyropoulos & Magda A. Nikolaraizi (2009) Developing inclusivepractices through collaborative action research, European Journal of Special Needs Education,24:2, 139-153, DOI: 10.1080/08856250902793586

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250902793586

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Special Needs EducationVol. 24, No. 2, May 2009, 139–153

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/08856250902793586http://www.informaworld.com

Developing inclusive practices through collaborativeaction research

Vassilios S. Argyropoulos* and Magda A. Nikolaraizi

Department of Special Education, University of Thessaly, Argonafton & Filellinon, Volos, GreeceTaylor and FrancisREJS_A_379528.sgm10.1080/08856250902793586European Journal of Special Needs Education0885-6257 (print)/1469-591X (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis242000000May 2009VassiliosArgyropoulosvassargi@uth.gr

This paper highlights the framework and discusses the results of an action researchnetwork which aimed to promote academic access in two general educationalsettings within which a pupil with blindness and a deaf pupil were educatedrespectively. The persons involved in this collaborative scheme were generalteachers, a school counsellor, academic staff and student teachers. The findings ofthe study indicate that the implementation of the action research network resultedin the development of inclusive and collaborative thinking and the adoption ofrelevant teaching practices which promoted the children’s access to the curriculumand supported the teachers’ and student teachers’ professional development. Theoutcomes of this action research network raise concerns about the access and thestatus of membership of children with special needs in general educational classroomand provide insights for the pivotal role of action research in understandingeducational contexts and situations from a number of different perspectives.

Keywords: action research; inclusive and reflective practices; collaboration; co-teaching; deaf; blindness

Introduction

Today, the notion of inclusion and its multi-level structure is high on educationalagendas and has led to many educational reforms. Clifton (2004, 77) argues that‘inclusion, and thereby participation, in the educational system, is more than simplyaccess to education’. Since inclusion refers to a wider community which embodies anumber of cultural and linguistic diversities, educators have to strive to highlight thecomplexity of inclusion and encourage the development of an ‘inclusive ethos’accompanied with a flexible curriculum and classroom management (Armstrong andMoore 2004). This perspective has led to the necessity of changing classic techniquesand strategies and reflecting on collaborative research projects (action researchprojects) conducted by teachers, pupils and researchers which seek to advance anagenda for inclusion bringing or conveying changes to institutional cultures andpractices (Ainscow et al. 2003; Argyropoulos and Stamouli 2006; Langerock 2000;Lloyd 2002; Schoen and Nolen 2004).

At the same time, inclusive education challenges issues of classic pedagogy and assuch leads to conflicts between different set of values and goals (Armstrong andMoore 2004). According to Rodney (2003), inclusive education is not just a matter ofinaugurating a new term in the educational terminology. It is a shift from one set of

*Corresponding author. Email: vassargi@uth.gr

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

140 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

beliefs to another. Principles that are underpinned by notions such as empowerment,emancipation and equity are embedded in the context of inclusion and often practitio-ners and their co-researchers confront dilemmas and difficulties (Armstrong andMoore 2004; Thompson 2004).

In particular, Greek national and local policies seem to diverge from the principlesof inclusion and as such they are open to challenges, dilemmas and critical analysesby researchers and practitioners. Many cases are reported where children with specialneeds are integrated or included in regular educational settings ‘due to lack of anyspecial education facilities’ (Vlachou 2006, 42) and not due to inclusive policy prac-tices. Integration in Greece was supported to a greater extend by the latest legislation(Law 2817/2000) ensuring the right of every single child with special educationalneeds to be educated in regular educational settings. More specifically, there are threemain models adopted for the integration of Greek blind and deaf pupils in primary andsecondary regular schools. The first refers to the simple placement of the pupils withspecial needs in the general classrooms without a particular kind of support. Thesecond model refers to the usage of resource rooms which are located in the generalschools and a special education teacher responsible for the pupils with special needswho are enrolled in the resource rooms. The third model describes a context whichconsists of two teachers in the same classroom – the general teacher and the specialeducation teacher, who is normally qualified in issues pertinent to special education.The theoretical perspectives of the latter model are underpinned by the notion of co-teaching or team-teaching, a teaching model that occurs when two or more profession-als collaborate to plan, decide and deliver instruction to a certain number of studentsin the same physical place (Luckner 1999). A co-teaching model allows general andspecial education teachers to share their skills and knowledge, to face difficulties andsolve problems together enabling them to respond more effectively to the diverseneeds of their students (Luckner 1999), facilitate their access to learning (Jiménez-Sánchez and Antia 1999; Kirchner 1994) and as such promote ‘inclusive thinking’.

This study refers to a collaborative teaching model which was developed withinan action research network that lasted for one school year in Greece (November2006–June 2007). The aim of this network was to promote the academic access oftwo children, a child with blindness and a deaf child, in two general classrooms. Themembers in this network involved two general teachers and a school counsellor of theparticular local education authority, two researchers and two student teachers who allcollaborated in order to facilitate the aforementioned children’s access to learning andclassroom activities. The research questions which can best shape these collaborativeaction research projects are the following:

(1) What was the impact of the action research project on the general teachers’professional development?

(2) What was the impact of the action research project on student teachers’ profes-sional development?

(3) What was the impact of the action research project on the academic access ofthe two pupils with special educational needs?

Method

Action research is a methodology that fulfils two important conditions; one is that itseeks the improvement of teachers’ practice in order to improve their students’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 141

understanding, using any appropriate tool, and the other is that it seeks an under-standing of the educational setting and context in general (Feldman and Minstrell2000; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988). The aforementioned conditions were apparentin both projects and led us to believe that the framework of action research was thebest choice to shape our collaboration.

According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) there is a group of four fundamentalaspects in action research: planning, acting, observing and reflecting. They highlightthe dynamic complementarity of the four aspects in action research which end up in acycle, and ultimately in a spiral of such cycles. These aspects were present in theprojects of the present study and converged to the fulfilment of the ultimate target ofaction research which is ‘change’.

Participants

The collaborative action research network consisted of two projects that concerned anine-year-old pre-lingually deaf girl (Anna) who attended the second grade of ageneral primary school with 17 hearing children, and a 12-year-old girl (Maria) withblindness who attended the sixth grade of another general primary school with 18sighted classmates. The action research network group consisted of the school coun-sellor, who took the initiative for these projects, two academic researchers and twostudent teachers from the Department of Special Education, University of Thessalyand two general teachers from the two different general schools within which Annaand Maria were educated.

Procedures – preliminary stages

The overall strategy of the collaborative action research network involved three inter-linked cycles. A number of meetings took place during which all the members of theaction research network group discussed the children’s and the general teachers’ needsand the most appropriate type of support for them. Also, the researchers obtainedinformation about the children’s and the general teachers’ needs as well as the inter-actions between them through classroom observations. All these collected data werevery useful in order to ‘map the process of change in schools’ (Ainscow, Hargreavesand Hopkins 1995). The action research network group ended up with a cyclicalcollaborative planning and reflecting network, consisting of two projects which wouldtake place in the classrooms within which the two pupils were integrated. Also, whenthe baseline data were determined for both schools the action research network groupwas divided into two validation groups. The first validation group consisted of theschool counsellor, one researcher specialised in the education of the deaf, one studentteacher and Anna’s general/classroom teacher. The second validation group consistedof the school counsellor (same person in both validation groups), one researcher speci-alised in the education of the blind, one student teacher and Maria’s general/classroomteacher.

Action research project 1: assisting the deaf student

The general teacher had many concerns about Anna’s performance in school, espe-cially in the area of literacy. She mentioned that Anna had low levels of readingcomprehension and could not write even a simple sentence. Also, the teacher felt that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

142 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

she could not communicate with Anna or support her effectively. Through discus-sions, the researcher went on to elucidate that a general educational classroom is achallenging environment that does not consider a deaf child’s needs, such as visualcommunication, visual educational material and a normal rate of speech and conver-sation (Jiménez-Sánchez and Antia 1999; Stinson and Antia 1999). Hence, there wasa consensus about the importance of additional teaching support and the developmentof educational material according to Anna’s needs.

The following collaborative teaching model was suggested. Initially, theresearcher would write down some guidelines regarding general educational practicesand techniques which could facilitate Anna’s access to the curriculum (Easterebrooks,Stephenson and Mertens 2006, Luckner, Bower and Carten 2001; RNID 1999).Following this, the student teacher in collaboration with the general teacher (team-teaching situation) would support the child on a daily basis in the academic area of‘language’. Finally, the textbooks that are used in Greek schools in the academic area‘Language’ would be adjusted by the researcher and the student teacher in collabora-tion with the school counsellor and the general teacher in order to meet Anna’s needsand specifically enhance her reading comprehension and creative writing skills.According to the team meetings and the observed data during the ‘preliminary stages’,Anna had poor skills in the aforementioned areas, which were considered as veryimportant for her access to the curriculum.

Action research project 2: assisting the blind student

The second validation group reached a consensus about the implementation of team-teaching (general teacher and student teacher) in the classroom where Maria wasintegrated. It was also agreed to inform the staff of the school about the project on aregular basis. The selected interventions were the following: the student teacher incollaboration with the general teacher would support Maria on a daily basis, mainlyin mathematics. The researcher in turn would give some notes and written sugges-tions regarding modifications of the activities planned by the two teachers. Thesesuggestions were based mainly on the principles of haptic apprehension (Argyropou-los 2002; Millar 1994) and on data obtained from literature review (Millar 1997;Roberts and Wing 2001).

The road map of action research project 1

First cycle – planning

The new material included the following adjustments: (a) the reading texts in the text-books were reduced but not simplified and visual information (pictures, diagrams)was added, mainly in the title of each reading text, in order to help Anna activate oracquire prior knowledge before reading the main text, based on schema theory princi-ples (Schirmer 2000); (b) reading comprehension exercises were added to checkwhether Anna understood the new reading texts; (c) the grammatical and vocabularyexercises were enriched with visual information.

Apart from the preparation of the material, the general and student teacher gotprepared for their new role, since neither of them had a similar teaching experi-ence of a team-teaching situation. The researcher asked the two teachers to writedown their comments, based on the their daily observations, providing feedbackabout the appropriateness of the material, the child’s behaviour and interaction

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 143

with the rest of the hearing children and their role as they experienced it in theclassroom.

First cycle – acting and observing

The student teacher supported Anna in the following way: (a) repeated or explainedwhat the general teacher or the hearing children were saying in class; (b) gave infor-mation about the adjusted educational material; (c) explained unknown words orgrammatical issues; (d) monitored Anna’s reading comprehension level; and (e)encouraged Anna to participate in the classroom’s activities.

The whole project was under continuous assessment. Unfortunately, only thestudent teacher provided a daily written feedback, whereas the general teachernever did so. As a result the researcher suggested an alternative way to get thegeneral teacher’s feedback. At the end of each lesson, the student teacher had ashort meeting with the general teacher (informal discussions) and kept notes regard-ing: (a) the appropriateness of the material; (b) their roles as teachers; and (c)Anna’s behaviour and performances in class. Then, the student teacher shared allthis information with the researcher, who kept weekly telephone contact with thegeneral teacher to discuss the progress of the project. Based on the assessmentduring the first cycle, the following observations and the subsequent changes weremade.

The reading texts appeared to be difficult and Anna could not answer the readingcomprehension questions. There was a need for a further reduction of the reading textsand enrichment with more visual information to facilitate Anna’s reading comprehen-sion. Also, it was difficult for Anna to understand what to do in some exercises, sincethe adjusted material presented the exercises in a different way to that which Anna wasaccustomed to. Therefore, one or two examples had to be included in each exerciseand the student teacher would devote some time to explain analytically the exercise toAnna.

Regarding the general and the student teachers’ roles, the general teacher feltawkward, she tried to keep visual contact with Anna, but she interacted mainly withthe hearing children. Also, the student teacher felt stressed. She sat next to Anna inorder to support her and did not interact with the hearing children. As a result, Annarelied heavily on the student teacher; she did not work on her own and did not participatein the classroom’s activities.

First cycle – reflecting

After two months a reflection meeting took place, where an evaluation of the projectwas made. Both teachers felt that there was a need for more visual material, smallerreading texts and fewer grammatical exercises, because these were too demanding forAnna. The general teacher stressed that ‘if the educational material is difficult, thenAnna will be too dependent on the student teacher, whereas if the level of the materialcould be better adjusted to Anna’s needs, then I believe that Anna would become moreindependent and participate more in the classroom’s activities’.

Furthermore, the discussion was also focused on teachers’ roles, because it wasdifficult for them to adjust to the new situation. The student teacher – as an under-graduate student – was not experienced and it was the first time for her supporting adeaf child in a general classroom in collaboration with a general teacher. On the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

144 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

other hand, the general teacher had always been the single teacher in the classroomand had never had the chance to teach a deaf child. Considering and adapting toAnna’s needs and collaborating with a student teacher on a daily basis was some-thing new for her.

Finally, this was the first time that a child in the classroom used adjusted educa-tional material and both teachers could not find a way to exploit this material so as tohelp Anna and at the same time not isolate her but enable her to follow a similar pacewith the rest of the hearing children in her classroom.

Second cycle – planning

The new reading texts were smaller and also included more visual information. Upto now only the title of the reading text was enriched with visual information,namely pictures, aiming to help Anna draw information and make predictions aboutthe forthcoming text. At the beginning of this cycle, new visual information wasinserted within the text. Also, a further reduction of the exercises was made in orderto enable Anna to complete them within the required time and follow the pace of theclassroom.

Finally, the researcher encouraged the student teacher and the general teacher tointeract with all children rather than keeping separate roles. Specifically, theresearcher suggested that the student teacher should support hearing children too,instead of always sitting next to Anna. Similarly, it was suggested that the generalteacher interact more with Anna by asking her simple written questions and checkingwhether Anna was able to understand what she was saying to her.

Second cycle – acting and observing

The new reading material was helpful for Anna, who gradually seemed to improveher understanding, answering the reading comprehension questions and completingthe exercises on her own without asking constantly for the student teacher’s help.Also, she became a more active participant and sometimes raised her hand to answera question that the general teacher posed.

The student teacher also felt more comfortable and she gradually distanced herselffrom Anna and dedicated time to the hearing children too. When she supported Anna,she encouraged her: to raise her hand to answer a question, to interact with her class-mates and to ask questions directly to the general teacher when she was confusedduring the lesson.

The general teacher interacted more often with Anna and also seemed to be lessanxious and more comfortable with the presence of the student teacher in the classroom.She encouraged Anna to participate in the classroom’s activities and she dedicated timeto check whether Anna had grasped things that were going on in class and, if needed,provide some useful tips to her.

Second cycle – reflecting

The second reflection meeting involved all the team members of the first validationgroup. The general teacher highlighted that Anna had made major progress during theproject and commented that she felt more secure and able to respond to Anna’s needs.According to her, Anna became more self-dependent and she participated more and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 145

more. Nevertheless, there was still a need for Anna to participate more actively incommon tasks with her hearing classmates.

As mentioned in the previous cycle, both teachers were concerned with how to usethe adjusted material in such a way that did not isolate Anna from the rest of the class.At that time the researcher and the school counsellor proposed that the adjusted read-ing material could also be shared with the rest of the hearing children. For example,some of the reading comprehension questions or exercises could be administered ashandouts to the hearing children1 so that Anna and her hearing classmates couldparticipate in joint activities.

Third cycle – planning

As Anna’s performance improved the reading texts became more extended and theexercises more complicated. There was a constant use of visual information within thetexts and the exercises because this was an essential element which helped Anna tounderstand the reading text and also to complete the exercises.

Third cycle – acting/observing and reflecting

The general teacher started to write some of the reading comprehension questions onthe blackboard, which pleased Anna and encouraged her and her classmates to partic-ipate in the same activity. An additional observation that was made by the two teacherswas that Anna indicated an improvement in her spoken language. More specifically,at the beginning of the project she used to make sentences consisting of one or twowords, while now she attempted to make complete sentences. Furthermore, her writingskills were also improved and she managed to make simple complete and correctsentences.

In conclusion, Anna became an independent learner who interacted more with herpeers and her classroom teacher and less with the student teacher. The generalteacher commented that she felt more confident and alert about Anna’s needs andstressed that both the educational material and the support provided by the studentteacher were extremely valuable and important for Anna as well as for her.

The road map of action research project 2

First cycle – planning

As mentioned in the section ‘Procedures – preliminary stages’ Maria faced difficul-ties when dealing with tasks pertinent to mathematics. This information wasprovided by the general teacher and was also conjectured by the classroom observa-tions. Maria hardly had any modified educational material (such as haptic material,different textures for different representation in a map or geometrical instrumentssuch as compasses, rulers, protractors). The general teacher, in collaboration withthe student teacher, produced a number of tactile representations of many sectionsfrom Maria’s mathematics textbook. The student teacher would assist Mariathroughout the activities using the enriched material, whereas the general teacherwould focus on the sighted pupils. Hence, the second validation group decided tofocus on the educational needs of Maria rather than on the interactions betweenMaria and her classmates. Both teachers kept notes in order to reflect on them andmake all the necessary changes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

146 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

First cycle – acting and observing

Systematic observation was conducted which revealed the kind of activities thatwere associated with Maria’s problems, as well as with her preferences and inter-ests. As mentioned in the planning section, most of the chapters of Maria’s mathe-matics textbook were accompanied with tactile diagrams and embossed maps. Thiswas quite demanding for the student teacher because she had to prepare all theappropriate modified material on a daily basis and also had to cooperate at thegreatest degree with the general teacher in order to synchronise their interventionsin the classroom. Some examples of such accommodations are: exploration ofembossed shapes, implications in Euclidean geometry using thermoform andGerman film, implications in graphics with specialised kits on Cartesian coordinatesand use of geometrical instruments such as Braille ruler, compass and Brailleprotractor. Maria was overwhelmed when she realised that she had at her disposalall this educational material and could participate in class and this resulted in fullattention and participation.

First cycle – reflecting

Evidence was obtained via observations and interviews, from Maria’s statements andperformances through the activities, from her sighted peers and from the researcher’sand teachers’ own accounts. According to the two teachers Maria was very excitedbecause she felt more active in class and it seemed that her confidence was increased.However, the two teachers felt as if they were doing parallel activities since the studentteacher was focused on Maria’s needs, while the general teacher was focused on thesighted pupils’ needs. They felt that there was not a substantial interaction betweenthem and it was something that they did not like and wanted to change. For example:

I think that Maria was happier because she could have the same pace with all in class.(Student teacher)

Maria seems less frustrated in mathematics now. (Student teacher)

This teaching model should be acknowledged to all educational settings within whichblind students are integrated. (General teacher)

I like very much the team teaching but still I think that I do not interact very much withmy colleague. She’s doing a terrific job but usually there is no time left to discuss andinteract. (General teacher)

Maria, on the other hand, mentioned that she did not interact so much as shewanted with her classmates. She was generally familiar with different kind of shapesbut she lacked familiarity with geometrical devices. Nevertheless, she wanted to sharethis new situation with her classmates but never had enough time to do so. For exam-ple: ‘I wish I could show my friends all these new things. I’m sure they will love it’.Also the sighted pupils showed interest in the new material that was entering theclassroom and sometimes their curiosity was very intensive.

In this phase of the second action research project interventions were deliberatelyplanned based on the theoretical contexts of haptic apprehension (Argyropoulos 2002;Millar 1994) and cognitive theory (Rock 1983) in order to integrate approaches andunits of structures and increase Maria’s participation in class.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 147

From the reflection phase it was decided to continue all the interventions whichenhanced Maria’s academic access in maths and also make some modifications to themodel of intervention by strengthening the interactions between her and the rest of thepupils.

Second cycle – planning

The second validation group, after reflecting on the obtained data, resulted in reform-ing the way that the pupils were working in classroom so that they would be engagedin a more coordinated collaborative working approach. The two teachers felt that theyshould facilitate the interaction between Maria and her sighted classmates throughstructured activities administered in groups. For this an ‘alternating support peergroup’ model was suggested to operate according to which the whole class would bedivided into small groups and work on activities that the two teachers would suggest.The synthesis of the groups was changing every fortnight and Maria, as well as therest of the class, had the chance to interact, collaborate, agree and disagree, in otherwords to build relationships based on dialogue and mutual support and respect. Thestudent teacher was in charge of the different groups within which Maria was includedevery time and the general teacher was in charge of the rest of the groups.

Second cycle – acting and observing

In this case Maria was coupled with other competent learners in collaborative andadaptive learning environments with all the appropriate educational material, asmentioned in the first cycle of the project. Systematic observations revealed someproblematic behaviours which stemmed from the pupils who were sighted because oftheir ignorance about blindness and its consequences in everyday life. Maria, duringthe operation of the ‘alternating support peer group’ model, had the chance to explainmore about herself, her preferences and interests, which in turn resulted in mutualrespect and exchange of information, strengthening the bonds between her and herclassmates. We also found ways to encourage the sighted pupils to raise questionsregarding Maria’s apprehension and promote creative writing within groups. Mariawas using her note taker and given the circumstances she was explaining the featuresof the hardware she was using. Her sighted peers showed great interest about Maria’sapproach and many times they asked questions about Braille notation and some ofthem started to learn Braille.

Second cycle – reflecting

The two teachers mentioned that the second cycle was very successful in terms ofcollaboration and mutual understanding between Maria and her classmates. They alsoreflected on their own assumptions and explored the various dimensions of the projectand concluded that the fact that they adopted a more facilitating role in class actuallygave more opportunities to Maria and her classmates to interact, thus reducing thebarriers to inclusion. For example:

This alternating support peer group idea turned to be not only very useful for Maria butalso for all the sighted pupils in class. They begun to have a real communication and thisbrought an effective collaboration with fruitful results. (Student teacher)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

148 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

We realised that we didn’t give the initiative to the pupils but when we did so our rela-tionship also changed to the better. (General teacher)

We learned to value ourselves without fear. (Student teacher)

Third cycle – planning/observing and acting

The researcher and the school counsellor made some suggestions to maintain Maria’sattention and to receive more support in terms of educational material. More specifi-cally it was observed that the ‘alternating support peer group’ model functioned wellbut the two teachers had roles which were not very flexible. It was decided to proceedto a more collaborative approach which dealt with issues of teaching. The studentteacher was mainly in charge of Maria and the general teacher of the rest of the pupils.Since the pupils were functioning into small interactive groups, the teachers wouldchange their scheme of working. Reflecting on this it was suggested to imply a modelof ‘interchanging teaching group’. In the second cycle the student teacher was dealingwith all the difficulties that Maria was facing during the tasks and activities in class.Now it was decided that the general teacher would take the role of the student teacherand vice versa. In other words, the roles of the two teachers would overlap. Thepurpose of doing this was to achieve better inclusion by increasing the interactionsbetween the teachers coupled with the interactions between Maria and her sightedpeers. The two teachers found this suggestion very interesting to adopt and felt thatthis proposal would be closer to the ‘philosophy’ of the ‘alternating support peergroup’ model. This phase of the project was actually a continuation of the previousone, modifying the shape of collaboration between the two teachers.

Third cycle – reflecting

The teachers asked the pupils to describe their impressions of this new style ofworking. All children mentioned that there was a vivid collaborative spirit all overthe classroom and this feeling was something that they liked very much. The twoteachers reflected better on their work because they had the chance to share mutualfeedback and information about their own practices and also administer responsibili-ties equally.

Also, there was a change in the teacher–child interaction. Since the teachers wereworking on the ‘interchanging teaching group’ model, they felt more confident andable to respond to the children’s needs. Maria had learnt to interact with all her sightedpeers and vice versa. Also, she could collaborate and communicate with her class-mates in a very democratic way, increasing her self esteem and confidence. The mainproblem in all these efforts to improve the inclusive practices was the shortage of time.We realised that we had to take this parameter into account very seriously in our plan-ning because we often ran out of time and did not complete the tasks or the activitieswe had planned to do in class.

Overall reflections and discussion

In the last meeting an overall reflection took place regarding the evolution of the twoprojects and all members of the two validation groups conveyed their experiencethrough notes, reports and obtained data from informal discussions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 149

The impact of carrying out action research on general and student teachers’ profes-sional development – which were the first two research questions – was as follows.The two general teachers in our study felt that the collaborative action researchnetwork helped them to interrogate their practice and teaching models in order to seeka deeper understanding of what these processes involved. For example:

During the action research project I realised that I had to question again and again myselfwhat and how I was helping Maria.

In the beginning I couldn’t communicate with Anna and I couldn’t help it but now I feeldifferent, I think I know the whys and the hows.

The project helped me to reflect on my own methods of teaching and I realised howlimited was my knowledge about blindness and all this haptic material and devices.

Both general teachers mentioned that through self-reflection they found out if somestrategies or techniques of their teaching methods were working or not. Reynolds(1992) argues that in order for teachers to reflect successfully on their teaching activ-ities, they have to use self-reflective methods such as constant evaluation of theirstudents’ performances, reviews of their classroom lives and maintaining journals ofthoughts and feelings. The participants in this action research network demonstratedall the characteristics of self reflection and as a result they adapted the curriculum fortheir students.

Regarding, the second research question, the student teachers were in the fourthyear of their studies and despite the fact they had to attend several courses coupledwith exams, they decided to get involved in this project voluntarily. They were verycollaborative, responsible and punctual during the whole duration of the projects. Forexample:

We learnt that participation consists of shared experiences and mutual respect. All thesevirtues emanate from social interaction and we believe that action research operates as asafe and learning methodological umbrella which prepares you to change and learn fromdifferences.

We are not yet qualified teachers but we think that this experience and knowledge madeus ready to challenge and reflect without fear on all our assumptions and beliefs.

The two student teachers described themselves as very lucky for participating in theprojects. They believed that they acquired important practical experience and knowl-edge and felt more equipped to respond to a deaf or to a blind child’s needs. Also, theygained experience in collaborating with general teachers in mainstream settings.

At the beginning of the projects, the general and student teachers felt stressed andconfused about their roles in the classroom. However, gradually, through their dailyconversations and meetings with the corresponding validation groups the two generalteachers managed to collaborate effectively with the two student teachers respectively.Team-teaching is a challenging teaching model that requires from teachers flexibility,respect for the other, a willingness to change, sharing responsibilities, relying on theother, stepping back and giving up some autonomy when necessary and in generalhaving strong interpersonal skills. Many teachers who always have their own class-rooms, may face some difficulties with collaborative models, because they may neverhave had the opportunity to work with other teachers as a team or because they might

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

150 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

not have the necessary interpersonal skills or other personal characteristics that areimportant for a team teaching situation (Friend and Cook 1996; Jiménez-Sánchez andAntia 1999; Kluwin et al. 1996; Luckner 1999).

Regarding the third research question, the projects had a positive impact onMaria’s and Anna’s academic access to the general classroom. Maria’s classroomwas equipped with many and different kinds of tactile material in conjunction with alearning tools. She began to feel a more active agent in class. It was felt that the diffi-culties that Maria felt stemmed from secondary factors such as lack of educationalmaterial.

On the other hand, Anna could not participate in the classroom’s activities andhad a low level of understanding of anything that happened in the classroom. Gradu-ally, as the project was implemented Anna’s behaviour changed. She participatedmore, she completed the exercises on her own, and her reading and writing skillswere improved.

Also it is worth noting that the two projects had the same starting point, aiming atfull accessibility in the curriculum, but while the cycles of action research were evolv-ing the academic inclusive characteristic was coupled with social elements. This wasevident mostly in the second project because the lack of interaction between Mariaand her classmates had a negative impact on her. Rodney (2003) corroborates thedynamic role which occupies the environment by saying that the conditions and thelimitations of the environment are often the main cause of many frustrations anddelays regarding the education of children with special needs.

The whole process was shaped by the principles of action research (Elliott 1995;McNiff 1994) and in fact crossed traditional or common boundaries in teaching. Bothprojects had at the centre of their educational attention the academic needs of the pupilswith special needs and in the process, via the critically reflective phases, innovativeteaching models were applied. It is argued that these teaching models actuallyborrowed elements from theories such as the social learning theory (Bandura 1976) orthe social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978), which place emphasis on learning throughresponses and behaviours of other persons. For instance, the function of the ‘alternat-ing support peer groups’ in the second action research project or the model of the‘interchanging teaching group’, which actually took place in both projects bring us tothe philosophy of a holistic approach which can be captured by the notion of a ‘connec-tive pedagogy’ (Corbett 2001).

Hence, it is not an exaggeration that through this action research network we high-lighted the necessity of building up a constructivist curriculum which can captureknowledge, culture, interactions, institutional arrangements and personal histories ofall the people who are involved in an ‘educational journey’. All this is stronglyconnected with issues of inclusive educational policy which seems, at least in theGreek educational context, far away or mutually excluded from the broader educa-tional context.

Also this study raised key issues regarding some ideas which are sometimesdisregarded in debates on inclusion. Inclusion relates to a dynamic process by whichthe diversity of the students is respected and acknowledged during their education intheir locality (Booth and Ainscow 1998). On the other hand, many school systemsare poor examples of inclusive education because they implement programmes with-out using a thorough and considerate planning process (Walther-Thomas et al. 2000).In our view, these contradictory notions of ‘what is inclusive and what is not’ resultin confusion about how to interpret inclusive qualities regarding the everyday school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 151

practice. For this, the present study focuses on practical interpretations and realisa-tions of inclusion rather than on definitions and ideological divisions.

Finally, it is argued that this study contributes to the promotion of inclusive thinkingunder a specific methodological umbrella which attempts to bridge the teaching roleand the researching role aiming at ‘opening up possibilities through a reexaminationof taken-for-granted ideas’ and perspectives (Phillips and Carr 2006).

Limitations and conclusions

The present study is entirely qualitative and limited and as such it embodies a degreeof subjectivity. The results of this study are pertinent to specific educational contextsand to specific situations with specific participants. As a result one cannot generaliseits findings and it should not, therefore, be seen as the implementation of models of‘ideal practices’. Instead, these models or schemes of inclusive practices should beseen as subject to constant reflection, reconnaissance, interpretation and continuousassessment.

Nevertheless, the issues mentioned earlier should be addressed in future researchto arrive at robust conclusions expanding the number of participants, encouragingpractitioners in bringing change in their strategies and techniques and developinginclusive practices. Inclusive education enriched with the cyclical nature of collabora-tive planning and reflecting can improve the current educational system, can helppupils become more accepting and can encourage collaboration (Armstrong andMoore 2004). Hence, it may be argued that action research constitutes a valid basis(O’Hanlon 1996) on which to interpret educational contexts in their localities and assuch to develop inclusive practices, overcoming barriers and promoting real change ininstitutional cultures and curricula.

Note1. The reading textbooks of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs did not include

any reading comprehension questions, but the teacher made such questions orally.

ReferencesAinscow, M., D.H. Hargreaves, and D. Hopkins. 1995. Mapping the process of change in

schools: The development of six new research techniques. Evaluation and Research inEducation 9, no. 2: 75–89.

Ainscow, M., A. Howes, P. Farrell, and J. Frankham. 2003. Making sense of the develop-ment of inclusive practices. European Journal of Special Needs Education 18, no. 2:227–42.

Argyropoulos, V. 2002. Tactual shape perception in relation to the understanding of geometricalconcepts by blind students. The British journal of Visual Impairment 20, no. 1: 7–16.

Argyropoulos, V., and M. Stamouli. 2006. A collaborative action research project in an inclusivesetting: Assisting a blind student. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 24, no. 3:128–34.

Armstrong, F., and M. Moore. 2004. Developing inclusive practice and transforming cultures.In Action research for inclusive education, ed. F. Armstrong, and M. Moore, 1–16.London: Routledge.

Bandura, A. 1976. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.Booth, T., and M. Ainscow. 1998. From them to us: an international study of inclusion in

education. London: Routledge.Clifton, M. 2004. We like to talk and we like someone to listen. In Action research for inclusive

education, ed. F. Armstrong, and M. Moore, 77–91. London: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

152 V.S. Argyropoulos and M.A. Nikolaraizi

Corbett, J. 2001. Supporting inclusive education: A connective pedagogy. London: FalmerPress.

Easterebrooks, S., B. Stephenson, and D. Mertens. 2006. Master teachers’ responses to twentyliteracy and science/mathematics practices in deaf education. American Annals of theDeaf 151: 398–409.

Elliott, J. 1995. What is good action research? Action Researcher 2, no. 1: 10–11.Feldman, A., and J. Minstrell. 2000. Action research as a research methodology for the

study of the teaching and learning of science. In Research design in mathematics andscience education, ed. A.E. Kelly, and R.A. Lesh, 429–55. London: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Friend, M., and L. Cook. 1996. Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Jiménez-Sánchez, C., and S. Antia. 1999. Team–teaching in an integrated classroom: Percep-tions of deaf and hearing teachers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4, no. 3:215–24.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. The action research planner. 3rd ed. Victoria, Australia:Deakin University.

Kirchner, C. 1994. Co-enrolment as an inclusion model. American Annals of the Deaf 139:152–6.

Kluwin, T., W. Gonsher, K. Silver, and J. Samuels. 1996. The ET class: Education together.Teaching Exceptional Children 29, no. 1: 11–15.

Langerock, N.L. 2000. A passion for action research. Teaching Exceptional Children 33,no. 2: 26–32.

Lloyd, C. 2002. Developing and changing practice in special educational needs throughcritically reflective action research: A case study. European Journal of Special NeedsEducation 17, no. 2: 109–27.

Luckner, J. 1999. An examination of two co-teaching classrooms. American Annals of theDeaf 144, no. 1: 24–34.

Luckner, J., S. Bower, and K. Carten. 2001. Visual teaching strategies. Teaching ExceptionalChildren 33: 38–44.

McNiff, J. 1994. Action research – principles and practice. London: Macmillan EducationLtd.

Millar, S. 1994. Understanding and representing space. Theory and evidence from studieswith blind and sighted children. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press

Millar, S. 1997. Reading by touch. London: Routledge.O’Hanlon, C. 1996. Why is action research a valid basis for professional development? In

Teaching education policy: Some issues arising from research and practice, ed. R.McBride, 179–91. London: Falmer Press.

Phillips, D.K., and K. Carr. 2006. Becoming a teacher through action research. Process,context and self-study. London: Routledge.

Reynolds, A. 1992. What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Reviewof Educational Research 62, no. 1: 1–35.

RNID (Royal National Institute for the Deaf). 2001. Promoting access to the curriculum fordeaf pupils. London: RNID.

Roberts, R., and A.M. Wing. 2001. Making sense of active touch. The British Journal ofVisual Impairment 19, no. 2: 48–55

Rock, I. 1983. The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rodney, P. 2003. The psychological aspect of visual impairment as a central understanding in

the development of inclusion. The British Journal of Visual Impairment 21, no. 1: 19–24.Schirmer, B.R. 2000. Psychological, social and educational dimensions of deafness. Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.Schoen S.F., and J. Nolen. 2004. Action research. Decreasing acting-out behavior and increas-

ing learning. Teaching Exceptional Children 37, no. 1: 26–9.Stinson, M.S., and S.D. Antia. 1999. Considerations in educating deaf and hard-of-hear-

ing students in inclusive settings. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4:163–75.

Thompson, V. 2004. Disability and empowerment. In Action research for inclusive education,ed. F. Armstrong and M. Moore, 17–31. London: Routledge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 153

Vlachou, A. 2006. Role of special/support teachers in Greek primary schools: A counterpro-ductive effect of ‘inclusion’ practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10,no. 1: 39–58.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Walther-Thomas, C., L. Korinek, V.L. McLaughlin, and B.T. Williams. 2000. Collaboration

for inclusive education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

34 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014