Frederic Fovet AHEAD Ireland 2019 Keynote
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes220 views
This document discusses the complexity surrounding definitions of inclusion in higher education. It explores how inclusion is understood from different perspectives and theoretical stances. The document aims to examine common assumptions about inclusion, acknowledge the multiple dimensions it encompasses beyond just disability, and conceptualize new collaborative practices across disciplines to promote inclusion. It argues that inclusion involves considerations around gender, race, ethnicity, indigenous status, socioeconomic class, and more. Silos between services need to be broken down in favor of interdisciplinary approaches that reflect students' diverse, intersecting experiences.
More Related Content
Similar to Frederic Fovet AHEAD Ireland 2019 Keynote (20)
More from Frederic Fovet (20)
Frederic Fovet AHEAD Ireland 2019 Keynote
- 1. Exploring and clarifying the definitions of Inclusion we use in Higher Ed: moving towards a common discourse AHEAD2019Conference–JourneytoOz:Travellingtogethertowardsinclusiveeducation Dr. Frederic Fovet, Associate Professor, School of Education & Technology, Royal Roads University UDL and Inclusion Consultant
- 2. Where does my interest in ‘unpacking’ the concept of Inclusion come from? • Multiple perspectives on Inclusion: • Associate Professor. School of Education and Technology, Royal Roads University • Have taught MEd Inclusion courses to in-service teachers for three years in my previous position • Teacher and principal for 15 years • Focus on Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties • Also Director of the Office for Students with Disabilities at McGill for four years over the period of my PhD, and in charge of a UDL implementation drive accross campus
- 3. Objectives of the session • Explore the complexity that surrounds the notion of Inclusion we use in Higher Education • Examine the different theoretical assumptions we make as HE practitioners when we use this term • Explore the impact our theoretical stance has on the work we seek to achieve in HE • Acknowledge the multiple dimensions of Inclusion that take us beyond the notions of Impairment and Disability • Conceptualize new collaborative & interdisciplinary practices towards Inclusion in Higher Ed
- 4. What do we mean when we use the word ‘Inclusion’? • Interactive Exercise • Take a few minutes to discuss with your peers how you understand and interpret the notion of ‘Inclusion’ in a Higher Ed context
- 5. What are the various concepts we include in our definitions of “Inclusion”?
- 6. Conceptualizations of “Inclusion” • There is more complexity in this concept than just the ‘inclusion vs. mainstreaming’ dichotomy. • Here are some notions we also need to ‘unpack’: - Personalized Learning - Individualized Leaning - Differentiation - UDL
- 7. Where are we trying to go? Why? Whatis our‘yellow brickroad’?
- 8. What are the intentions we have when embracing Inclusion? • It is difficult to clarify our construction of “Inclusion” before we explore and identify our intentions in embracing this notion. • Interactive exercise: • Take a few minutes in think pairs to examine what you seek to achieve as practitioners when embracing ‘Inclusion’. • What are you wishing to see occur? • What is your theoretical approach/ presumption?
- 9. The various justifications for “Inclusion” • Philosophical argument • Human Rights lens • Cognitive argument • Social Capital • Pedagogical argument • Operational argument
- 10. The reality of our current experience with Inclusion in Higher Ed Wehavedrasticallydivergentagendas
- 11. What is the impact of these divergences of perspective on the work we do in Higher Ed? • As I go through these again, ask yourself (i) whether we acknowledge these perspectives in Higher Ed; (ii) to what extent they frame our work. • Philosophical argument • Human Rights lens • Cognitive argument • Social Capital • Pedagogical argument • Operational argument
- 12. Unpacking the various intentions we have when seeking to implement inclusive practices • Philosophical argument • Classes should be microcosms that offers the same diversity we are likely to encounter in the outside world • The Salamanca Statement • Classrooms prepare learner for diversity • Human Rights lens • Discriminating in access to learning is illegal • Canadian Charter of Rights, ADA, the Equality Act 2010
- 13. Unpacking the various intentions we have when seeking to implement inclusive practices • Cognitive argument • A continuum of thinkers that has expanded Gardner’s original claims. We are all diverse in our learning + also adopt diverse approaches as learners at different stages of our learning process. More recently: Todd Rose and the Myth of the Average • Social Capital • Classroom are not just a locus for knowledge acquisition; they are primarily in fact spaces that allow the development of social capital (size, scope and richness of networks)
- 14. Unpacking the various intentions we have when seeking to implement inclusive practices • Pedagogical argument • The benefits of inclusion are not limited to students. Educators stagnate and underperform when placed in homogeneous environments. Professional growth requires exposure to a mixed ability classroom • Operational argument • Segregating diverse learners or retrofitting the curriculum to meet their needs is extremely expensive. It represents a burden on resources that is economically unustainable.
- 15. Part three: Inclusion is not just about Impairment • Further complexity is present in our reflection: Inclusion is not just about Impairment or Disability • Interactive exercise: • In pairs or small groups, examine the other dimensions of Inclusion that should concern us in Higher Education
- 16. Various dimensions of Inclusion that should concern us in Higher Ed • Disability, Impairment, Neuro-diversity, Mental Health but also: • Gender • Race • Ethnicity • Indigenous Students • First generation undergraduates • Poverty vs. privilege • International Students and Second Language Learners • Gender and sexual orientation
- 17. Intersection • In fact these delineations only exist in our ‘service provider’ or administrator minds. • Learners experience diversity on these multiple dimensions at once • Our fragmentation of our approach to inclusion makes no sense from a user experience (UX) perspective • There is an urgent need to blend our discourses and our practices
- 18. Looking ahead: devising interdisciplinary and collaborative approaches to Inclusion • How do we break out of silos and create successful interdisciplinary collaborative practices that span the whole spectrum of Diversity? • How do we engage with colleagues who serve other populations? • How we begin the task of creating a common language and shared practices? • Self-reflection and interactive dialogue: Who might be the first colleague on your campus you should reach out to in order to begin this journey?
- 19. Some solutions for UDL advocates • Extend your efforts to other colleagues and services beyond Disability • Develop a momentum on your campus that capitalizes on this overlap • Create a scholarship that is interdisciplinary • Ensure your formulation of UDL invites colleagues serving other population towards the model
- 20. What are the changes we need to carry out in our practices with colleagues? • Anecdotal example: • On a typical Canadian Campus: • 10% of students register as having a Disability • 25% of students are International Students and Second Language Learners • 5% identify as Indigenous • 33% are likely to be ‘first generation’ undergraduates (University Affairs, 2015) • 73% are – for these reasons - likely to experience barriers in access to learning • The voice of 73% of our campuses …. is not a ‘minority discourse’ • We will fail to fully appreciate the momentum of this phenomenon till we embrace a common discourse on inclusive practices in the Higher Ed classroom.
- 21. A more hopeful use of the Oz allegory
- 22. A few references • Cook, B., Gerber, M., & Murphy, J. (2000) Backlash Against the Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities in Higher Education: Implications for Transition from Post-Secondary Environments to Work. Work, 14 (1), 31–40 • Fovet, F. (2014) Navigating the delicate emerging synchronicity between inclusion and access. LEARNing Landscapes, 7 (2), 17-24 • Gibson, S. (2015) When Rights are Not Enough: What Is? Moving Towards New Pedagogy for Inclusive Education Within UK Universities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (8), 875–886 • Houghton, M., & Fovet, F. (2012) Reframing dis-ability, reshaping the provision of services. Communiqué, 13 (1), 16–19 • Martinez-Acosta, V. G., & Favero, C. B. (2018). A Discussion of Diversity and Inclusivity at the Institutional Level: The Need for a Strategic Plan. Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 16(3), A252-A260. • Ralabate, P. K. (2011). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. The ASHA Leader • Tedesco, G. (2013). The Challenge of Inclusive Education in Relation to Differentiated Instruction. Masters Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
- 23. Contact details • Dr Frederic Fovet • Associate Professor, School of Education and Technology, Royal Roads University • [email protected] or [email protected] • www.implementudl.com • @Ffovet
- 24. Q&A? • We have about 10 minutes to tackle remaining questions • ‘Toto, I’ve got a felling we’re not in Kansas any more…’