University of Groningen
Social Inclusion through the Eyes of the Student
Little, Cathy; de Leeuw, Renske Ria; Andriana, Elga; Zanuttini, Jessica; Evans, David
Published in:International journal of disability development and education DOI:
10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837352
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Version created as part of publication process; publisher's layout; not normally made publicly available
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Little, C., de Leeuw, R. R., Andriana, E., Zanuttini, J., & Evans, D. (2020). Social Inclusion through the Eyes of the Student: Perspectives from Students with Disabilities on Friendship and Acceptance. International journal of disability development and education. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837352
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20
Social Inclusion through the Eyes of the Student:
Perspectives from Students with Disabilities on
Friendship and Acceptance
Cathy Little , Renske Ria deLeeuw , Elga Andriana , Jessica Zanuttini & Evans
David
To cite this article: Cathy Little , Renske Ria deLeeuw , Elga Andriana , Jessica Zanuttini & Evans David (2020): Social Inclusion through the Eyes of the Student: Perspectives from Students with Disabilities on Friendship and Acceptance, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837352
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837352
Published online: 01 Nov 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
Social Inclusion through the Eyes of the Student: Perspectives
from Students with Disabilities on Friendship and Acceptance
Cathy Little a, Renske Ria deLeeuw b, Elga Andrianac, Jessica Zanuttinic
and Evans Davidc
aThe University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia; bDepartment of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Groningen, Netherlands; cEducation & Social Work, The University of Sydney, Ringgold Standard Institution, New South Wales, Australia
ABSTRACT
Changing attitudes towards disabilities have resulted in corre-sponding transformations in social justice and human rights issues that have led to an increase in inclusive education practices across the world and a corresponding change in emphasis to address social inclusion of students with disability in the inclusive class-room. Research indicates that students with disabilities do not automatically benefit from the opportunities of inclusive education. To understand the situation of these students, their perspectives should be reported. The following paper reports results of three international studies from Australia, Indonesia, and the Netherlands, whereby students with disabilities were provided an opportunity to express their thoughts and perceptions regarding friendships and acceptance in the inclusive classroom, using a range of methodologies. Despite differences in culture and abil-ities, the students across all three studies highlighted the impor-tance of having a friend and being socially accepted by their peers.
KEYWORDS
Autism spectrum disorder; disabilities; friendship; primary education; social emotional and behavioural difficulties; social inclusion; students’ perspectives
Introduction
The advancement of inclusive education practices and the development of positive atti-tudes towards disability have resulted from a sweeping global change in human rights and social justice issues. The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) called on all governments to employ an inclusive education policy that supported the enrolment of all students in mainstream schools. In 2006 the United Nations proclaimed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol, which presented Article 24: Education as an address on the educational rights of peoples with disabilities. This Article stated an assurance ‘to an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning’ (p. 16). In regard to Article 24, the General Comment No. 4 (GC4; United Nations, 2016) provides guiding commentary on achieving the goals of inclusive education. Two of the areas elaborated within the GC4 include: (a) the need for active participation, consultation, and involvement of students, and (b) the continuing need for research related to inclusive
CONTACT Cathy Little cathy.little@sydney.edu.au
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1837352
education (UNCRPD, 2016). This paper aims to address both of these areas through explor-ing students’ experiences of inclusive education.
Despite the increased attention on inclusion seen through policy and research, there remains a discussion around what inclusion looks like (Jordan & Prideaux, 2019) and how this is enacted by schools and educators (Van Mieghem, Verschueren, Petry, & Struyf,
2018). Slee, Corcoran, and Best (2019) argue through a disability studies in education lens that education of students with disability in the neighbourhood school is a human rights issue. UNESCO concluded, however, that current discussion on what inclusive for all means is not easily solved and should take the context of a country into consideration (UNESCO, 2020).
There has been a change in emphasis from inclusive education settings, to a more holistic concept of inclusion, involving both academic and social inclusion. This shift acknowledges that inclusive education should consider the social development of stu-dents with special educational needs alongside their academic needs. In this paper, ‘social inclusion’ is used to describe the meaningful and active levels of social involvement between students with and without disabilities, facilitated by teachers in mainstream education classrooms (Little, 2017; Jorgensen, 2018). Social inclusion of students with disabilities has been associated with increases in reciprocal friendships and interactions, higher acceptance among peers without disability, and enhanced self-concept by stu-dents themselves (Koster, Nakken, Pijl, & Van Houten, 2009).
Despite the commitment to inclusive education for all students, social exclusion con-tinues to be a product of mainstream environments for many primary-aged students with disabilities (Schwab, 2015). The consequences of social exclusion have been associated with higher academic risk and negative social outcomes, such as early school drop-out rates, lack of school satisfaction, low academic achievement, criminality, and depression (Thompson & Morris, 2016). Empirical research has found that 15–25% of the students with disabilities experience social exclusion in the mainstream classroom (Avramidis, Avgeri, & Strogilos,
2018; Henke et al., 2017), highlighting that inclusion cannot simply rely on the physical placement of students with disabilities within mainstream settings (UNESCO, 2020).
Research into the social inclusion of students with disabilities within mainstream settings consistently demonstrates lower levels of social integration when compared to their peers without disability (Calder, Hill, & Pellicano, 2013; Schwab, 2015). Studies also report that students with disabilities have fewer reciprocal friendships, and experience isolation, feelings of loneliness, and higher rates of victimisation (Potter, 2015). Across these studies, social exclusion has been commonly attributed to the student character-istics (Calder et al., 2013). Alternately, exploration into educational experiences from the students’ perspectives have revealed contextual and structural barriers to their social inclusion (Charles & Haines, 2014). The latter explanation underlines the need to actively involve students in the development of education systems and contexts that support their social inclusion.
Since the Convention on the Rights of the Child was employed (UN General Assembly,
1989), listening to students’ voices have been acknowledged as a fundamental human right. This is reflected by recognising students to be valuable participants when evaluat-ing school life (see for example: Herz & Haertel, 2016; Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2016; Pearson, 2016). Hence, students have become more involved in research, program design, and policy analysis (Lansdown, 2005). Research has indicated that giving students the
opportunities to express their views also enhances their confidence, sense of self-worth, and promotes their development (Lansdown, 2005). Yet, merely consulting students on their perspectives and report on the gained insights is not enough. To truly acknowledge students as valuable members of society, it is necessary that the gained insights are used to influence and change educational practice, policy and research (Lundy, 2007).
To enable a space for students’ influence on social inclusion and effectively address social inclusion, the perspectives of students should be explored. Rose and Shevlin (2004) state that policy implementation, interventions, and future developments have a better chance of affectivity when students’ input is considered, especially the perspectives of students who are experiencing low social inclusion (Adderley et al., 2015). Despite the trend of including students in educational research as illustrated above, the students’ perspectives regarding social inclusion remains rare (Calder et al., 2013).
Studies that have collected data on the perspectives of students and social inclusion indicate a lack of consistency in preferences among students with and without disabilities. Much of the research into the friendships of school-aged students without disabilities has shown that similarity (e.g., behaviour, academic achievement, race, development, atti-tudes, age, gender) is the leading characteristic contributing to friendship (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). However, results from the study of Østvik, Ytterhus, and Balandin (2018) to identify and describe the friendships between students with and without disabilities contradicted the idea of friendship being only between students with high levels of similarity, showing that students with disabilities nominated peers without disability of various ages as their friends. This example demonstrates the importance of including the perspectives of all students towards inclusive education (Van Mieghem et al., 2018). In addition, the importance of including students’ perspectives on resolving social exclusion is shown in the recent study by de Leeuw and colleagues (de Leeuw, de Boer, Beckman, van Exel & Minnaert, 2019). In their study high levels of variability amongst students’ preferred solution to social exclusion and victimisation were found. The authors have suggested that students should be the main source of information when designing individualised programs and interventions for primary school classrooms (de Leeuw et al., 2019).
In this paper, results from three international studies are reported by the researcher from each country; one conducted in Australia, another in Indonesia, and the last in the Netherlands. Each of these countries is working towards the goals of inclusive education through their own systems and within the context of the countries educational history. Australia, Indonesia, and the Netherlands have signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Incheon Declaration and the Framework for Action 2030. In doing so, the governments of these countries recommitted to the inclu-sion and equitable, quality education for all students, with and without disabilities.
Yet, Australia, Indonesia, and the Netherlands are three of the 163 parties that have signed and ratified the Incheon Declaration and the Framework for Action 2030 (UNESCO,
2015). By signing this policy, governments recommitted to the inclusion and equitable, quality education for all students, with and without disabilities. Beyond these legally binding commitments, Australia, Indonesia, and the Netherlands share other common educational contexts and goals. For example, Australia and the Netherlands share similar educational conditions with the representation of many cultures and religions within schools (Leeman & Reid, 2006). Although Indonesian school settings don’t share the same
level of multiculturalism and diversity, both Australia and the Netherlands have strong partnerships with Indonesia. Australian and Indonesian academic, student, and researcher mobility is considered strong across all education sectors (Tehan & Cash, 2019). In addition, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (effective from 5 July 2020) is expected to further strengthen the educational relationship between the two countries (Tehan & Cash, 2019). Similarly, the Studeren in Nederland scholarship programme is one example of a study programme that aims to improve the bilateral relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands while working together to enhance the human resources within Indonesia (Nott, 2019; Nuffic, 2018).
The following series of studies share a common thread – each uses students’ thoughts, attitudes, and interpretations to explore self-perceptions of friendship and acceptance in inclusive education settings. While all three studies used different methodologies, their shared purpose was to capture the views of students enrolled in mainstream schools and examine their perceptions of social inclusion through the constructs of friendship and acceptance.
Study One: Australia
The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 1992) and the associated Disability Standards for Education (2005) (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 2005), has bolstered Australian educa-tional policy regarding students with disabilities by supporting appropriate and accessible education in any educational setting preferred by a student or their family. This legislation does not specify that students must be educated in any specific setting; rather, it ensures that students have the right to an education on the same basis as their peers.
The trend in Australia has seen an increasing movement towards educating all stu-dents in regular education settings and/or classrooms. For example, New South Wales public schools saw increase in enrolments of students with a range of disabilities into mainstream classes. Of note is the recorded 165% increase in enrolments of students with Autism was recorded between 2005 and 2010 (Tso & Strnadová, 2017).
The move towards more inclusive educational environments is a welcome step for-ward, but has led to teachers questioning their beliefs in their abilities to successfully support all students in their classroom (Vaz et al., 2015). Despite holding positive atti-tudes, a specific concern expressed by teachers was how they best serve the identified social needs of students who identify with Autism and how to facilitate socially inclusive opportunities for their students (Garrad, Rayner, & Pedersen, 2018).
Many students with autism actively seek out and establish genuine, long-lasting, reciprocal friendships (Shore, 2017), whilst others remain unsure as to how to initiate making friends. For others, the ability to master the demands and social nuances involved in maintaining a friendship relationship remains elusive. When investigating the construct of friendship for persons with autism, several questions emerge. For example, how do you know if someone is your friend? What are the qualities of a friend? What is the relationship between friendship and social inclusion? These questions were investigated as part of a larger project investigating teachers’ attitudes towards the social inclusion of primary aged students with autism in New South Wales, Australia (Little, 2017). For the purposes of this project, the term social inclusion was used to describe the demonstration of at least
one enduring, reciprocal friendship, and self-initiated, active participation in group activ-ities with acceptance shown by group members.
Method and Analyses
Prior to the commencement of data collection, ethical approval was granted by the institutional Human Research Ethics Committee and the State Ethical Research Approvals Process who provide approval for research undertaken in the public-school system. The parents of the student research participants were informed about the study and invited to consent to their child’s participation. The students were also informed about the aims of the research and invited to provide their assent to participate.
Data included a semi-structured interview with each of five students with an Autism diagnosis and a same aged, self-reported peer group of each target participant (see Table 1). The students interviewed included two female (ages 8 and 10) and three male students (ages 9, 10 and 11), each holding a diagnosis of Autism in accordance with DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) criteria. Each student nominated a group of peers they considered friends for a peer-group interview, except for student S3. Both this student and his teacher were unable to nominate any peers who could be considered as friends to participate in the peer group interview.
As the project was concerned with the target student’s perceptions of friendship and social inclusion, the nominated peers were not required to provide an endorsement of this ‘friend’ nomination, rather their invitation into the study was only as peers of the target student. Further, the target students were not included in the peer group interview, which allowed peers the opportunity to provide more open responses to items relating to students with Autism generally.
The semi-structured, audio taped interviews explored the general constructs of friend-ship and social inclusion. Specifically, the Student Interview (Appendix 1) focused on individual perceptions of friendship and acceptance. Questions asked how much and what level of socially inclusive opportunity was actually desired by individual students. The Peer Group Interview contained questions about friendship, including questions designed to elicit a response specific to students with Autism.
The researcher transcribed the interviews, and transcriptions were securely stored in accordance with the governing institutional protocols. Interview data across each of the participant groups within each of the five case studies were coded using the systematic coding principles and methods of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The open coding process involved labelling all concepts that were raised without seeking to
Table 1. Case study participant demographic information.
Participant CS1 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS5
Student (S)
Gender Female Female Male Male Male
Age 8 10 10 11 9
Class Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 4
Peer Group (PG)
Number 3 4 - 4 2
Gender Female Female N/A Male Female
Same Class Yes Yes N/A 1 Yes
interpret or organise them to the point of saturation. Once the code lists were established, they were compared and contrasted to identify categories of ‘concepts that pertain to the same phenomena’ (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 7) which served to define and describe the parameters of that category. This process is termed axial coding. The final stage of analysis was based on Strauss and Corbin (1998) third analytical level, selective coding, a process by which categories are unified around a core construct.
Results
The notion of friendship determined several unique codes for both groups. Three students (S1, S2, S4) were able to nominate peers they considered to be friends, providing description of the ‘qualities of a friend’ code. Such qualities included: ‘sitting next to me’, and ‘because they play with me’. Three of the students gave responses that addressed the establishment and maintenance of friendships but were bound by particular conditions. These responses gave rise to the conditional friendships code and included comments such as ‘I usually like to have more time with them, but um, sometimes they got something else to do so I just don’t disturb them (S2)’ and, ‘At lunch time I play with my friends unless they’re all away (S3).’ These results concur with those of Calder et al. (2013) who reported children with autism were generally satisfied with their level of friendships, even though the measured level of friendship quality appeared lower than that of their peers (Petrina, Carter, Stephenson, & Sweller, 2017, p. 385). When the construct of acceptance was explored, student S4, provided commentary stating, ‘they [peers] know I have autism and why I sometimes lose it. They help me anyway, all the time.’
A number of open codes that emerged from the Peer Group cohort were similar to those conceptualised by the student group, such as ‘identification of friends’. This similarity is supported by the work of Bauminger et al. (2008) who found students with autism and their friends perceived friendship qualities similarly. Within each Peer Group, there was an unprompted declaration of the target student as a friend from at least one participant in each group. When asked, peers reported that friendship was simply playing together, or sitting next to someone if they were alone on the playground. This lack of sophistication when describing the more psychological constructs of friendship expecta-tion, such as dependability and honesty, reflects the relatively immature age of the participants (Petrina et al., 2017).
When it came to understandings of social inclusion by the two student groups, both alluded to the concepts of friendships and values of acceptance as central to their beliefs (Marks, 2013). However, only one of the target students (S4) demonstrated active engage-ment in socially inclusive opportunities (enduring, reciprocal, self-initiated, acceptance from group members). In the other cases, friendship was reported by the target students as conditional and transitory. ‘I would play with them but they’re really busy (S2)’, ‘My friends change a lot. I have so many (S3)’ and ‘I make them do what I want to do (S1)’. Peers from these same studies reported, ‘We don’t usually play with her but we will if she has no-one to play with (PG2)’ and, ‘If he’s just wandering around at lunchtime then I’ll go up and talk to him sometimes, not all the time though! (PG5)’ These findings align with research that suggests students with high functioning Autism are often on the periphery of their social networks and have fewer reciprocal friendships of poorer quality (Kasari, Locke, Gulsrud, &
Rotheram-Fuller, 2011). The peers of S4 reported knowledge of the target student as having autism, stating, ‘That’s just part of who he is’. These peers commented they had been friends for a number of years and knew each other really well.
Conclusions
Both participant groups described friends as an important inclusive element of their school life. All but one of the five student participants nominated at least one person as a friend, with responses suggesting varying degrees of friendship and friendship satisfac-tion. Yet, despite sharing commentary as to friendship and friendship qualities, the constructs of friendship reciprocity and acceptance as part of a group and equality of participation was not reported by four of the five students. However, when responding to the question of support for the social needs of students with autism in their classes, it is important for teachers to recognise that students with autism may hold different percep-tions of friendship than their peers (Petrina et al., 2017). Teachers must be cognisant of this view and, given the findings cited above, afford ‘due weight’ (Lundy, 2007, p. 973) to students to define and articulate the constructs of friendship quality and satisfaction they perceive to be important. Only then, when students’ perspectives about friendship are understood, can teachers and school communities engage in change to ensure no one is left out (Runswick-Cole, 2011).
Study Two: Indonesia
While Indonesia ratified the UNCRPD in 2011, governments have been working towards upholding the goals of inclusive education since the early 2000’s. Initial efforts found schools designated as ‘inclusive’ schools, meaning they were required to enrol students with disability. Today, all schools are legally required to enrol students with disability, providing cultural and professional challenges for school communities.
Hehir et al. (2016) and Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, and Ahmed (2012) in reviews of inclusive education report that teachers are generally supportive of the concept. While teacher attitudes have been investigated, the benefits of inclusive education according to students themselves have not been the focus of research. More specifically, including students themselves as research participants or as research-ers of their own educational experiences is scarce. This study reports on the presearch-erspec- perspec-tives of students with and without disabilities, from one ‘inclusive’ primary school in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The school in this study is part of a larger study involving three ‘inclusive’ primary schools. In highlighting the complexities of developing a socially inclusive environment from the student’s perspective, the following discussion will focus on friendships and acceptance.
Method and Analyses
Following approval to conduct research from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, twelve students, and their parents, accepted an invitation to partici-pate in the study. Information statements and consent forms in Bahasa, verified by a NAATI certified translator, and approved by the HREC, were provided to each of the
participants; the researcher provided answers to questions families had about the study. Six of the participating students identified with disability through the province processes, while six students did not identify with a disability (see Table 2).
The school they attended had been designated a ‘school providing inclusive educa-tion’ by the Yogyakarta Department of Education. The school had a history in the community for enrolling students with disability and providing education in special classrooms they named as ‘inclusion room’. Further, they were a school to which students with disabilities from ‘non-inclusive schools’ in the community (i.e., did not cater for students with disability) would transfer. The school provides an ‘inclusion room’, a resource provided by the school and province for upholding their approach to inclusive education, where students with disability received specially designed weekly pro-grammes or are withdrawn from mainstream classes to received specific assistance.
The perspectives of students were explored using art-based approaches (e.g., photo-graphs and drawings about their educational experiences) and student research projects. Prior to collection of data, the researcher spent about one week becoming part of the school (e.g., attending classes, taking supervision in the school grounds). The researcher was born, grew up and built a career within the Yogyakarta education community. The social, cultural, professional proximity helped the researcher to becoming part of the school relatively quickly. In the first phase, data were collected over a five-week period, during which time the researcher continued to be part of the schooling context.
During the end of study interviews (see Appendix 2 for example of interview ques-tions), students explored the meaning behind their photos and drawings through infor-mal conversations with the researcher. They were given the chance to elaborate on their perspectives of inclusion in their ‘inclusive’ school, and to give voice to their representa-tions. These data were translated, and a grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin,
1998) was adopted to analyse these data. The results of this analysis were provided to students for their feedback, and to adjust any misconceptions the adult researchers may have developed.
Table 2. Student participants based on the school records.
No Name Year Gender Disability
1 Aisya 1 F
-2 Naira 1 M
-3 Nala 1 M Intellectual Disability
4 Minah 2 F
-5 Lestari 2 F Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 6 Anang 3 M Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
7 Nindya 4 F
-8 Amanda 4 F Slow Learner
9 Ruri 5 F Intellectual Disability
10 Arman 5 M
-11 Mutia 6 F Physical Disability
-Results
Analysis of the data collected by the researcher reported the social isolation and tensions created for students with disabilities through their attending an ‘inclusive’ school. One 10- year old student (Year 5) likened her social life at school to ‘an advertising billboard’ displayed for all to see. Like other students with disabilities she wanted to make friends, and develop long lasting friendships, but the billboard or label of ‘inclusion’ (e.g., name calling students with disabilities as ‘inclusion child’, who belongs to ‘inclusion classroom’) acted as a barrier to developing friendships. Due to prevailing attitudes and perspectives concerning disabilities, this student indicated that potential friends (i.e., other students at the school) did ‘not want to play with me. I feel very upset. They make me angry’. There was a sense of identity that was attached to the concept of ‘inclusion’ by the ‘regulars’, and not the principles that it intended to uphold.
A perceived consequence of this ‘inclusive’ labelling effect was the reported sense of isolation within the school and ongoing chronic bullying. When talking about a photo taken by Student 9 in the playground, the student indicated that her ‘friends’ were playing soccer. When probed further, she revealed that this was ‘sad’ because only the ‘regulars’ play soccer. She had been isolated as she was an ‘inclusion child’. This was further emphasised when talking about a photo of her class during Monday school assembly. In talking about the photo, she stated: ‘I always stand at the back. I feel ashamed. I am afraid to be with the regulars . . . Look, our uniforms are different.’ A similar experience of isolation was also reported by Student 5, stating ‘None of them want to play with me. Nobody. None.’ She recounted that only one student wanted to play with her, another student with a disability.
While the students with disabilities saw the mainstream classes as providing more opportunities for friendships, they indicated during interviews that they preferred to be in the ‘inclusion classroom’. They felt the mainstream class was not supportive of their academic and social needs as teachers focused on the needs of the ‘regular’ students in the classroom. These students expressed their own negative perceptions towards class-room peers without disabilities. Student 9 recounted how the ‘regular’ students were ‘mean and arrogant’, while Student 6 (8 years old) stated, ‘If we have group work, some-times they don’t want me.’ There appeared to be limited attention from teachers to developing the social skills for students to enter this group work in what appeared to be a challenging context for all students.
Students with disabilities experienced conflicting emotions between hoping to make friends with the ‘regular’ students and avoiding the bullying in the mainstream class-rooms. The isolation and bullying were also reported by a ‘regular’ student who expressed her observation on students with disabilities: ‘Their behaviour is different to normal people. Many of them are excluded, bullied.’
The existence of an ‘inclusion classroom’ and mainstream classrooms created physical and social divisions between students with disabilities and students without disabilities. This notion of ‘inclusion classroom’ unfortunately was re-constructed as an ‘exclusion classroom’ (Elder, 2019). In developing the notion of an ‘inclusion classroom’ to support students with disability, the school community appears to have reinterpreted its intent through existing beliefs and attitudes to exclude students with disability socially and educationally.
All students expressed a desire to be part of all activities within the school. Students with disabilities wished to be part of the soccer game, assembly and learning activities within the classroom, but these were for the ‘regular’ students. Students without dis-abilities reported how they would like to be part of ‘inclusion’ activities implemented for students with disabilities only. These activities (e.g., group therapy or physical activities) were attractive to all students, with students without disabilities reporting both a sense of exclusion and entitlement. As an outsider, the researcher could see the potential for teachable moments to build social acceptance and friendships.
When the students with disabilities were given the opportunity to talk about their happy experiences of social life in the ‘inclusion’ school, they frequently talked about playtimes and opportunity for friendship during recess. These students expressed more intensity in their emotions of love and being happy when being asked to play with others; having the social skills to support this outcome appears to be a key part of each student’s toolkit. Student 6 voiced this in his drawings: ‘Me and my friend play and love each other’, while Student 8 recounted: ‘I am happy when my friends ask me to play.’
Findings from this study amplify previous studies that students with disabilities want more than just their presence in mainstream school, they want to be part of the school social life (Schwab, 2015; Stiefel, Shiferaw, Schwartz, & Gottfried, 2017). It is imperative that schools set up learning experiences that not only target the social skills of students to accept and include peers with different backgrounds, but a range of ‘environmental enablers’ to enhance students with disabilities’ social participation (Hodges, Joosten, Bourke-Taylor, & Cordier, 2020, p. 1). This, for the school in this study, means removing the inclusion labels, building a positive school culture of celebrating differences and providing sustained personalised professional learning of all educators on building socially cohesive learning environments.
Conclusions
All students in this case study from a primary school in Indonesia designated as ‘inclusive’ highlighted how being called an inclusive school does not lead to inclusive practices and environments. Students with disabilities expressed their desire to be part of an education process that respected their strengths and interests. They all wished to be part of an environment that allowed them to make friendships, and to be accepted. The snapshot of the results showed that all students could be supported by a whole of school structure that promoted the social skills that allows them to initiate or engage in interaction and play with students from diverse backgrounds. Unlike many of their peers without dis-ability, students with disabilities recognised that friendship could be inclusive of all members of their schooling community. It would appear in this school, that students with disabilities have much to teach some of their peers without disabilities about friendships and acceptance. Further, they can teach the whole school that the title of ‘inclusive school’ does not lead to inclusive processes, curriculum, pedagogy and accep-tance; it is created by the people within it having a common and shared vision of inclusion.
Study Three: The Netherlands
Educational Context
The Dutch education system has a long history of differentiated special education (Pijl,
2016). In 2014 the law of ‘Befitting Education’ became active (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2014), thereby making a move towards an inclusive education system as defined in the in the GC 4 (UNCRPD, 2016). The Dutch education system cannot be called inclusive, whereas the system continues with multiple types of education system: mainstream education and (segregated) special/specialised education. Yet, with the enactment of the law of ‘Befitting Education’ mainstream school settings cannot deny students with disability the right to be educated at the school of their (and parental) choice (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, 2014). With this law, the Dutch education systems was given an additional impulse towards a more inclusive education system, by obligating mainstream schools to include students with disabilities and to provide equitable education to every student.
Method and Analyses
In this study the interviews of a sub-sample of the participants reported in Author1 2020 are presented (see this manuscript for details and Appendix 3). In total, 28 students with enrolled in Year 5 and 6 (aged between 10–13 years), were recruited from mainstream primary education (n = 7) and segregated special primary education (n = 21). Participating students had a diagnosis of SEBD and received additional support regarding their social- emotional development and behavioural challenges at school (see Table 3). When possi-ble the parent or teacher indicated low socio-metric position was confirmed using class-room sociograms. For the students educated at special education settings, their sociometric position during their time at the mainstream primary setting were checked, if possible, in their individual education plans.
The transcripts of the interviews were analysed following the data analysis procedures described by Bazeley (2013) to explore the research themes, such as what is a friend to you, how many friends are needed at school, the importance of social acceptance, and what social acceptance is according to the students themselves. The coding of transcripts that are of interest for this paper was conducted by the first author and a student assistant using ATLAS. ti version 8.1. Via an iterative process a codebook was established. An intercoder reliability was calculated based on the Holsti-index with values of ≥.80 deemed as acceptable (Mao,
2017). The intercoder reliability score between the first author and student assistant was .86.
Table 3. Participant demographics.
Attention deficit disorder ASC Extreme violent behaviour Anxiety/extreme shyness Mainstream education (n = 7) Boys 2 3 1 Girls 1 Special education (n = 21) Boys 4 9 2 2 Girls 2 2
Ethics
All procedures performed in this study were approved and in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional Ethics Committee for Pedagogical and Educational Sciences and with the Code of Ethics for Research in the Social and Behavioural Sciences Involving Human Participants.
Active informed parental and teacher consent and participant assents was obtained from all individuals prior to the participation in the study. Interviews were audiotaped. In line with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) the audio files were destroyed after transcription. The transcripts are anonymised and stored in line with the standards of the GDPR and institutional requirements.
Results
The results provide themes that were derived from the students’ transcripts, regarding the concepts of friendship and social acceptance. Twenty-four students indicated they had at least one friend in their classroom, two students did not know how many friends they had, and two students reported having no friends but felt accepted in their classroom. Regarding the concept of friendship, the students described a friend as someone to play with and undertake activities in and outside the classroom (n= 13); that he/she likes you for whom you are (n= 13); and that a friend will ‘have your back’ when needed (n= 8). The time spent with each other was a determinant of the difference between a ‘good’ friend or ‘just’ a friend. All students indicated that having at least one friend in the classroom is important and if it was possible it would be beneficial to have two friends or more, for the reason that you will never be alone because, you would always have someone to play with if the other friend is absent. The other reason for having a friend in the classroom is that it is ‘very pleasant’ to have a friend.
Despite the confirmed low social participation, either established based on sociometric data or checked in students’ individual education plans, all students indicated that they felt socially accepted in their classroom. In the responses to describe and define the concept social acceptance, the most frequent characteristics of social acceptance in the classroom were having the feeling of being engaged (n= 28) and being liked by their peers (n= 12). Nine students also mentioned that being accepted and not excluded from the group is important for the reasons that it is unpleasant to be excluded.
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to provide a description of the concepts of friendships and social acceptance, according to students with SEBD. By exploring the perspectives of the students, not only were their rights acknowledged and respected (UNESCO, 2015), but valuable insights were gained of their value in the process towards the realisation of an inclusive education system and society that is meaningful for the student themselves (Sargeant, 2018; Sargeant & Gillett-Swan, 2019).
Based on the responses of the Dutch students, a friend is the person with whom they play with, inside and outside the classroom, and who will have your back. Positive social acceptance, according to the students’ perceptions, is realised when the student
perceives the feeling of being engaged and liked by their peers. Students mentioned the importance of having friends and being accepted in the classroom, as being excluded is an unpleasant feeling. In addition, having more than one friend was stated as beneficial, but not needed. If you have more than one friend, there is always someone who wants to play with you or who will support you.
In sum, having at least one friend in the classroom influences the perceived social acceptance in the classroom by a student. It is therefore important that teachers who want to facilitate the social participation of a student think about how to stimulate the opportunities to create classroom friendships between the excluded student and their peers.
General Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to illustrate how students with disability perceive their social inclusion in their respective educational contexts in Australia, Indonesia, or the Netherlands. The social inclusion of these students has been captured and explored in relation to their experiences of friendship and social acceptance within their classroom and/or school. Across the three international studies, students’ expressions were used as a tool to capture the students’ perspectives. While the students’ perspectives were collected using different methods across the three studies, there is evidence of shared perspectives that sit across cultural boundaries. The key findings of the studies included the identification of friendship as important, the nomination of a peer that constitutes as a friend, and the inconsistency between student perception of social inclusion and observed social inclusion.
Across each of the three contexts, students confirmed that friendship and having at least one friend was important for their sense of social inclusion. These findings are supported by previous studies (e.g., Calder et al., 2013; Potter, 2015; Powell, Graham, Fitzgerald, Thomas, & White, 2018) in which students with disability indicated their desire to form and maintain friendship at school. In relation to school friendships, the majority of Australian and Dutch students participating in the studies could nominate at least one peer who they considered to be a friend, according to their understanding of friendship. Students from the three contexts identified common defining qualities of a friendship, such as, playing together, sitting together, liking one another, and completing activities inside and outside the classroom together.
The three studies identified a discrepancy between student’s perceived social inclusion and observed social inclusion. This finding is supported by the work of Avramidis et al. (2018), in which Greek primary-aged students with disability expressed feelings of social inclusion and acceptance which contradicted peer acceptance as measured by socio- metric data. In addition, Charles and Haines (2014) suggest that student perception of social inclusion and social acceptance does not always correlate with more objective measures of social inclusion, or the subjective interpretations of adults.
The definition of social inclusion used in this study identified the central role of the teacher in building a culture of facilitating social engagement between students without and with disability (Little, 2017; Jorgensen, 2018). The three studies used a range of data collection tools and methods of analysis yet could not draw conclusions that highlighted the role or importance of teachers in facilitating friendship and acceptance. Students did
not record this as part of arts-based methodologies, or expressed this via interviews; the analysis of these data did not establish codes or constructs that implied the central role of the teacher. Future studies may seek if in practice teachers play such a central role in facilitating friendship and acceptance. There are studies indicating such a central role for teachers, in which students identified coping strategies to facilitate social inclusion with the teacher as facilitator (de Leeuw, de Boer & Minnaert, 2018).
Interestingly, the Indonesian study revealed a unique finding that was not reflected in either the Australian or Dutch studies. Specifically, students with disability indicated through drawings and interviews that they wanted to be involved in the classroom programme planning process as a way to ensure that their strengths and interests were recognised by others. This request to be part of the changes in education is in line with the reasoning that only exploring students’ perspectives is not enough; students should be provided with the means to express their perspectives and realise change based on their perceptions (Lundy, 2007). Future studies may seek to investigate and explore the nature and levels of involvement students with disability have in planning their own learning and realising inclusion in their education and their school. This future research could consider using a combination of direct observations (as per the Australian study), student sensitive interviews (Dutch and Indonesian) and arts-based approaches (Indonesian). A convergence of findings across methodologies could provide a richer insight into the concept of social inclusion for students with disabilities in regular education contexts (Avramidis et al., 2017).
Findings from the three studies highlight the ongoing tensions in meeting the promises of inclusive education (UNESCO, 2020). For example, the Australian study highlights schooling environments where students with autism are enrolling in their neighbourhood school, yet some elements of the schooling environment (e.g., teacher self-efficacy) present as barriers to students accessing a quality inclusive education. The Indonesian study provided examples of schools that have ‘appropriated the language of inclusion’ without the necessary changes in community attitudes and mindsets, and shifts in existing curriculum, pedagogy and resourcing (UNESCO,
2020, p. 13).
Teachers can begin responding to these tensions by researching their own practices in supporting the social inclusion of students. This research can be driven by questions such as: Do you understand the social desires of your students and facilitate opportunities for them to pursue and benefit from these experiences? Do you recognise that friendship and acceptance may be defined differently by students? Do you know your students’ expectations about your role in establishing socially inclusive opportunities? Students from the three international contexts have demonstrated that their view of friendship was in some cases different to those held by their teachers. Ongoing research is thus required, from across cultural backgrounds, to better understand how the principles of inclusion and practice of inclusive education can be adopted, upholding the right of every student to an education.
Overall, the three studies highlight the important role that social inclusion plays in achieving the goals of inclusive education. The ongoing pro-active role of classroom teachers, peers and communities appears to be the basis by which all students can access and participate in a quality and equitable education. The specifics of this role by stake-holders is complex, and in need of further research through innovative and participatory methods in which the perspectives of each stakeholder are included. Herein, the current paper which presented a series of international studies of students’ perspectives on social
inclusion, could be used to re-think current research praxis to not only on how to include the perspectives of students with disability, but how students and their perspectives should be used to change how social inclusion is addressed. The latter would allow educators to take student participation studies to the next level, by being a steppingstone towards change based and influenced by students with disability. These changes will lead towards the realisation of an inclusive education system and society that is meaningful for students with and without disability.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The work from the Dutch study was supported by the Dutch Foundation for Child Stamps (Stichting Kinderpostzegels Nederland), grant number [8508165]..
ORCID
Cathy Little http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8513-650X
Renske Ria deLeeuw http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6869-4377 References
Adderley, R. J., Hope, M. A., Hughes, G. C., Jones, L., Messiou, K., & Shaw, P. A. (2015). Exploring inclusive practices in primary schools: Focusing on children’s voices. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 30(1), 106–121.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Fifth ed. (DSM – V)). Washington, DC: Author.
Avramidis, E., Avgeri, G., & Strogilos, V. (2018). Social participation and friendship quality of students with special educational needs in regular Greek primary schools. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 33(2), 221–234.
Avramidis, E., Strogilos, V., Aroni, K., & Kantaraki, C T. (2017). Using sociometric techniques to assess the social impacts of inclusion: Some methodological considerations. Educational Research Review, 20, 68–80 doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.004
Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York: Guilford Press.
Bauminger, N., Solomon, M., Aviezer, A., Heung, K., Gazit, L., Brown, J., & Rogers, S. J. (2008). Children with autism and their friends: A multidimensional study of friendship in high functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(2), 135–150.
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: SAGE Publications. Calder, L., Hill, V., & Pellicano, E. (2013). ‘Sometimes I want to play by myself’: Understanding what
friendship means to children with autism in mainstream primary schools. Autism, 17(3), 296–316.
Charles, A., & Haines, K. (2014). Measuring young people’s participation in decision making. The
International Journal of Children’s Rights, 22(3), 641–659.
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. (1992). Disability discrimination act. Canberra: Author.
Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department. (2005). Disability standards for education (2005). Canberra: Author.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2018). Student voices on social exclusion in general primary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 33(2), 166–186
de Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., Beckman, E. J., van Exel, J. & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2019). Young children’s perspectives on resolving social exclusion within inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research. 98, 324–335
Elder, B. (2019). Using PDS as a tool to create sustainable inclusive education practices: A roadmap for school-university partnerships. School-University Partnerships, 12(1), 2–35.
Garrad, T., Rayner, C., & Pedersen, S. (2018). Attitudes of Australian primary school teachers towards the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 19(1), 58–67.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2016). From data source to co-researchers? Tracing the shift from ‘student voice’ to student–teacher partnerships in educational action research. Educational
Action Research, 24(2), 159–176.
Hehir, T., Gridal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of the
evidence on inclusive education. Resource document. https://alana.org.br/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/12/A_Summary_of_the_evidence_on_inclusive_education.pdf
Henke, T., Bogda, K., Lambrecht, J., Bosse, S., Koch, H., Maaz, K., & Spörer, N. (2017). Will you be my friend? A multilevel network analysis of friendships of students with and without special educa-tional needs backgrounds in inclusive classrooms. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(3), 449–474.
Herz, B., & Haertel, N. (2016). The pupils voice in different educational settings. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 16(2), 1040–1045.
Hodges, A., Joosten, A., Bourke-Taylor, H., & Cordier, R. (2020). School participation: The shared perspectives of parents and educators of primary school students on the autism spectrum.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 97, 103550.
Jordan, V., & Prideaux, R. (2019). Access to quality education for children with special educational
needs. Luxembourg: Office of European Union.
Jorgensen, C. (2018). It’s more than “just being in”: Creating authentic inclusion for students with
complex support needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Kasari, C., Locke, L., Gulsrud, A., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2011). Social networks and friendships at school: Comparing children with and without ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 41(5), 533–544.
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & Van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 13(2), 117–140.
Kurniawati, F., Minnaert, A., Mangunsong, F., & Ahmed, W. (2012). Empirical study on primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Jakarta, Indonesia. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1430–1436.
Lansdown, G. (2005). Can you hear me? The right of young children to participate in decisions affecting
them. The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Leeman, Y., & Reid, C. (2006). Multi/intercultural education in Australia and the Netherlands.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36(1), 57–72.
Little, C. (2017). Social inclusion and autism spectrum disorder. In C. Little (Ed.), Supporting social inclusion for students with autism spectrum disorder. (pp. 9–20). Routledge, London doi:10.4324/ 9781315641348
Lundy, L. (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.
Mao, Y. (2017). Intercoder Reliability Techniques: Holsti Method. The SAGE Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods, 740–743. doi:10.4135/9781483381411.n258
Marks, M. (2013). Improving the social inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorders (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Northridge.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (2014). Wet Passend Onderwijs [Act of Befitting Education]. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Nott, W. (2019, October 24). VET partnership focuses as Dutch PM visits Indonesia. The Pie News.
Retrieved from https://thepienews.com/news/education-key-to-relations-between-the-netherlands- and-indonesia/
Nuffic, N. (2018). StuNed (English version). Retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://www.nesoindone sia.or.id/beasiswa/stuned/stuned-english-version
Østvik, J., Ytterhus, B., & Balandin, S. (2018). ‘So, how does one define a friendship?’: Identifying friendship among students using AAC in inclusive education settings. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 33(3), 334–348.
Pearson, S. (2016). Rethinking children and inclusive education: Opportunities and complexities. Bloomsbury Publishing, London:UK.
Petrina, N., Carter, M., Stephenson, J., & Sweller, N. (2017). Friendship satisfaction in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and nominated friends. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 47(2), 384–392.
Pijl, S. J. (2016). Fighting segregation in special needs education in the Netherlands: The effects of different funding models. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(4), 553–562. Potter, C. (2015). ‘I didn’t used to have much friends’: Exploring the friendship concepts and
capabilities of a boy with autism and severe learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 43(3), 208–218.
Powell, M. A., Graham, A., Fitzgerald, R., Thomas, N., & White, N. (2018). Wellbeing in schools: What do students tell us? The Australian Educational Researcher, 5, 1–17.
Rose, R. J., & Shevlin, M. (2004). Encouraging voices: Listening to young people who have been marginalised. Support for Learning, 19(4), 155–161.
Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). Time to end the bias towards inclusive education? British Journal of Special Education, 38(3), 112–119 doi:10.1111/bjsp.2011.38.issue-3
Sargeant, J. (2018). Towards Voice-inclusive practice: Finding the sustainability of participation in realising the child’s rights in education. Children & Society, 32(4), 314–324.
Sargeant, J., & Gillett-Swan, J. K. (2019). Voice-Inclusive Practice (vip): A charter for authentic student engagement. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 27(1), 122–139.
Schwab, S. (2015). Evaluation of a short version of the Illinois Loneliness and Social Satisfaction Scale in a sample of students with and without special educational needs - an empirical study with primary and secondary students in Austria. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 257–278. Shore, S. (2017). Social inclusion: A personal reflection. In C. Little (Ed.), Supporting social inclusion for
students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Insights from research and practice (pp. 168–179).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Slee, R., Corcoran, T., & Best, M. (2019). Disability studies in education – building platforms to reclaim disability and recognise disablement. Journal of Disability Studies in Education, 1, 1–11.
Stiefel, L., Shiferaw, M., Schwartz, A., & Gottfried, M. (2017). Who feels included in school? Examining feelings of inclusion among students with disabilities. Educational Researcher, 47(2), 105–120. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tehan, D., & Cash, M. (2019, March). Stronger education links between Australia and Indonesia.
Ministers’ Media Centre: Department of education, skills and employment. Retrieved from https:// ministers.dese.gov.au/tehan/stronger-education-links-between-australia-and-indonesia
Thompson, K. C., & Morris, R. J. (2016). Juvenile delinquency and disability. Switzerland: Springer. Tso, M., & Strnadová, I. (2017). Students with autism transitioning from primary to secondary
schools: Parents’ perspectives and experiences. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21 (4), 389–403.
UN General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty series. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
UNCRPD. (2016). General comment No. 4, Article 24: Right to inclusive education. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/57c977e34.html
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: Author.
UNESCO. (2015). Incheon declaration and SDG4 - education 2030 framework for action. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf
UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. Paris, Author.
Van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., & Struyf, E. (2018). An analysis of research on inclusive education: A systematic search and meta review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (1), 675–689.
Vaz, S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M., Sim, A., Scott, M., Cordier, R., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Factors associated with primary school teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. PLoS
ONE, 10(8), e0137002.
Appendix 1.
Interview Questions: Australian study Student Interview Schedule
(1) Tell me about yourself? What do you like to do?
(2) Do you get the chance to do this (favourite activity) at school?
(3) What things do you like about school? Are there things you don’t like? What are they? (4) What is your favourite part of the school day? Why?
(5) Tell me about some things/activities at school that have been set up for you? (6) Do you get to do things other kids don’t? Why do you think this is?
(7) Do you like to be involved in school/class activities? Why/why not? (8) Who is your teacher? Can you tell me about him/her?
(9) What are some things your teacher does just for you? To help you?
(10) Do you have time to talk to your teacher? Would you like more time to talk to them? (11) Does your teacher do things differently for you than your classmates?
(12) Do you like to work with others in your class (groupwork) or do you prefer to work by yourself? Why?
(13) What do you do at morning tea/lunch? (14) What games do you like to play?
(15) If you don’t feel like playing on the playground, are there other things you can do? (16) Tell me about your friends at school. How do you know they are friends?
(17) Tell me about your friends in your class? How do you know they are your friends? (18) Who is your best friend? Why are they your best friend?
(19) Would you like more or less time with your friends at school? (20) Do you like having friends?
(21) What are some things you like to do with your friends? (22) What are some things you like to do by yourself? (23) Tell me about your friends outside of school. (24) Would you like more time by yourself at school?
Peer Group Interview Schedule
(1) Tell me about yourself? What do you like to do?
(2) What things do you like about your school? Are there things you don’t like? What are they? (3) Do some kids get to do things you don’t? Why do you think this is?
(4) Does your teacher do things differently for other kids in your class than he/she does for you? Does everyone do things the same?
(5) Are there kids in your class who take up a lot of the teacher’s time? Why do you think this is? (6) Does (Principal) do things differently for other students than he/she does for you?
(8) What games do you like to play?
(9) Tell me about your friends at school. How do you know they are your friends? (10) Tell me about your friends in your class. How do you know they are friends? (11) Are there kids in your class you wouldn’t play with? Why?
(12) You haven’t mentioned (target student). Are they someone you would play with? Why/why not?
(13) Tell me a little more about (target student).
(14) Finish this sentence, ‘A person with a disability is someone . . ..’ (15) Do you know anyone with a disability? How do you know them? (16) Have you seen a movie about a person with a disability?
(17) Have you ever read about disability in a book, newspaper, or magazine? (18) Have you ever watched a TV show that was about disability?
(19) Have you seen a person with a disability in the shops or walking on the street? (20) Do you talk about disabilities at school?
(21) Do you talk about disabilities with your family?
Appendix 2.
Interview protocol of the Indonesian study
Guidance for Drawings with Students (English Version) Instructions for drawing:
Individual drawing
(1) Draw a picture of yourself.
(2) Draw a time line of your experiences at school (can be times of previous years and now). Group drawing
(1) Draw a picture of you working in your classroom.
(2) Draw a picture of you playing during lunch and recess at your school.
Prompts in interview:
(1) Can you tell me about this drawing?
(2) Can you tell me more about what you do/this place/the activity/people in your drawing? (3) How do you feel with what you do/the place/activities/people in your drawing?
(4) Why do you feel that way?
(5) Are there things you would most like to change about that? Why?
(6) Do you think there are things that can be done to change or make it better?
Guidance for Photography with Students (English version) Instructions for taking photos:
(1) Take pictures of places, things, activities and people in your school that you like or make you feel happy, comfortable and safe.
(2) Take pictures of places, things, activities and people in your school that you do not like or make you feel unhappy.
(3) Take pictures of places, things, activities, and people that you think shows your school as an inclusive school.
(4) Optional: Write a short story about your photos in your scrapbook provided.
Prompts in interview:
(1) Can you tell me about this photo?
(2) Why this place/activity/people/things make you feel that way? (3) Why do you think this place/activities/people/things show inclusion?
