Key Takeaway

Strong interview performances are an essential part of obtaining employment and internship opportunities in today’s society. However, research indicates that those with disabilities face increased barriers in performing well on interviews, suggesting that transition-age youth who receive special education pre-employment services (Pre-ETS) may benefit from explicit interview training in high school as a means to increase vocational outcomes. — Taryn McBrayne

Transition-Age Youth and Interview Training

Transition-age youth (TAY) are defined in this article as those who are between the ages of 16 and 22 and who qualify for special education services. Often transition-age youth receive school-based support to assist with the transition from high school to adult life. However, data suggests that employment rates remain low amongst TAY in the United States.1 In their article, Smith et al. (2021) “aim to fill key gaps in the literature on job interviewing in TAY receiving special education pre-employment transition services (Pre-ETS) . . . at schools in urban, suburban, and rural locales.” 

In their study, the researchers collected data from 47 schools across Michigan, Illinois, and Florida and evaluated “vocational interview history and outcomes among TAY prior to their school-level implementation of either Virtual Reality Job Interview Training (VR-JIT) or Virtual Interview Training for Transition Age Youth (VIT-TAY).” As part of the study requirements, teachers and/or administrators at the selected schools were asked to complete two surveys on behalf of each TAY: 1) a survey focused on student demographics, including the appropriate disability category as determined by the 13 disability categories according to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 2) “TAYs’ employment histories with regard to their current and lifetime employment at competitive and integrated jobs.” Both descriptive and inferential analyses were used to assess the collected data. 

Survey Results

The results of the study can be summarized as follows: 

  1. The researchers observed that the age of TAY was an independent variable that affected outcomes. 
  2. “88.8% of TAY who were currently employed interviewed for their job,” which supports the need for interview training as part of Pre-ETS.
  3. It was found that “TAY with a specific learning disability had greater odds of ever having been employed as compared to TAY with other disabilities,” including autism and intellectual disability. Such findings suggest that “autistic TAY and TAY with intellectual disability may need more intensive and individualized interventions and supports within Pre-ETS.”
  4. “TAY with emotional disturbance . . . had greater odds of ever having been employed.”
  5. In regards to internship opportunities, the data found that “21.7% of TAY were currently in an unpaid internship and 8.3% were currently in paid internships,” with TAY with a specific learning disability having lower odds of unpaid internships compared to others. 
  6. “Approximately 30% of unpaid and paid internships were obtained after completing an interview, which did not differ across the diagnostic subgroups.” 

Study Limitations

Although the focus of the study was on interviewing and vocational outcomes, Smith et al. (2021) and Sullivan & Artiles2 (2011) note the importance of further investigating the prevalence of racial disparities among the disability categories indicated in this study in the future. 

Smith et al. (2021) also outline limitations in their study. The authors emphasize that the results of their study may not be largely generalizable due to the fact that their study did not sample a nationally representative group, both in terms of geographic location and a school’s access to resources. In addition, Smith et al. (2021) acknowledge the possible presence of selection bias in their study given that schools who agreed to participate in the study may have been better prepared to conduct interviews with their students and prepare TAY for these interviews. 

Ultimately, the authors conclude that the results from their study reinforce the “importance of implementing evidence-based job interviewing skills training within pre-employment transition services.”

Summarized Article: Smith, M. J., Sherwood, K., Blajeski, S., Ross, B., Smith, J. D., Jordan, N., Dawalt, L., Bishop, L., & Atkins, M. S. (2021). Job Interview and Vocational Outcomes Among Transition-Age Youth Receiving Special Education Pre-Employment Transition Services. Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 59(5), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-59.5.405

Summary by: Taryn McBrayne — Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.

Additional References:

  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics 2019. (USDL-20-0339). Author. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf 
  2. Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: applying structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526–1552.

Key Takeaway: Mueller illuminates key gaps in the present educational system that inhibits disability identity development; educators, administrators, and school staff should collectively work to counteract the lack of curriculum representation, community, and disabled staff in effectively teaching and empowering learners with special needs.—Emmy Thamakaison

Carlyn O. Mueller (University of Wisconsin) shares her qualitative interview study exploring disability identity development and its relationship to educational experiences. Nine adults with special needs were asked to reflect on their schooling experiences through a semi-structured interview process.

Disability identity is defined as “a sense of self that includes one’s disability and feelings of connection to, or solidarity with, the disability community.”1 It is generally accepted that the development of one’s disability identity is heavily influenced by educational experiences during youthful years; more often than not, those with disabilities are “often positioned such that they are likely (and even encouraged) to reject identifying as disabled”2 during their schooling. 

After the current study’s participants reflected upon their past educational experiences in relation to their disability identities, several unifying patterns emerged: firstly, all of the participants noticed a lack of disability representation in both special education and general education curriculum. 

  • Planned or guided discussions around disabilities were minimal if not nonexistent during their schooling years, as one participant noted, “it did not come up. It wasn’t shown in any of the history, or social studies, or multi-media, or anything else… there’s no word for [disability], no vocabulary.” 
  • Though the relationship between curriculum representation and disability identity may be influenced by extraneous factors (ie. stigma), the participants still implore for “more direct, explicit discussion around disability identity” in the schooling system; representation of disability culture and history may help mitigate negative experiences that are beyond the control of schooling and allow individuals with special needs to relate to themselves and others in the community better. 

Furthermore, the participants recalled a lack of disability community during their education. Connection with fellow individuals with special needs, perceived role models, or simply a sense of membership were often “actively discouraged,” as one participant recalled, “I remember them telling me, ‘…don’t associate with those people [other students with intellectual disabilities]’… even though those people I relate with the most.”

  • Importantly, special education spaces often foster “under-developed” disability communities, with their “segregated nature” and narratives that “there was something fundamentally wrong with their bodies, minds, or ways of being.” 
  • To this end, Mueller calls for the identification, correction, and counteraction of such narratives, as well as opportunities for students to “grow and learn around other children with disabilities”3 in a special education context.

Participants also unanimously agreed that there was a lack of school staff with open relationships with disabilities. Not only does this represent a missed opportunity for student empowerment through role-modelling, it also leads to educators being forced to “make their own assumptions, [which] produces really undesirable outcomes.” One participant states that “I would often get yelled at by some of my teachers when I was doing . . . normal autistic stuff, weird for neurotypicals,” and another recalls, “the special ed system didn’t really prepare me for adulthood in a lot of ways . . . it’s not built by people who understand what it’s really like.” 

  • In mitigating these present outcomes, Mueller suggests including disability history, pride, and community in teacher preparation programs; not only would this prime educators for teaching curricula with disability representation, it would also push teachers to challenge and expand their own beliefs about disabilities and commit to anti-ableist approaches that translate to a classroom setting. 
  • Active efforts to include educators, administrators, and paraprofessionals with disabilities into educational spaces are also vital. These individuals would potentially bring “a unique and powerful set of experiences and insights into the needs of children, youth, and families they serve.”4 

Ultimately, Mueller’s study illuminates gaps in the current general and special education system, in relation to students with disabilities. Through the words of individuals with special needs themselves, Mueller calls for a transformation of services and contexts that shape the disability identities of millions across the globe. Schools should make an active effort to “intentionally strengthen and name disability as an identity experience” so that future students look at the world and see a place for themselves in it.

Summarized Article:Mueller, C. O. (2021). “I Didn’t Know People With Disabilities Could Grow Up to Be Adults”: Disability History, Curriculum, and Identity in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 44(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406421996069

Summary by: Emmy Thamakaison — Emmy is a recent high school graduate attending Stanford University and is an enthusiastic advocate of MARIO Framework.

Additional References:

  1. Dunn, D. S., & Burcaw, S. (2013). Disability identity: Exploring narrative accounts of disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031691
  2. Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
  3. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York University Press.
  4. Council for Exceptional Children. (2016). CEC’s Policy on Educators with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 407–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651880

Key Takeaway: Co-teaching has the demonstrated potential to positively impact the experiences and academic performance of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms, yet numerous studies have demonstrated that without sufficient training, planning time, or instructional feedback, the potential gains are not consistently realized in practice. —Erin Madonna

What Was Shared: The purpose of Yazeed Alnasser’s study was to draw out general and special education teacher’s thoughts around co-teaching in inclusive classrooms, allowing for the identification of perceived barriers to effective co-teaching. Four co-teaching pairs, eight teachers in total, were observed and interviewed at a public elementary school in Colorado, USA. The study centered three questions:

  1. “How is co-teaching implemented in an inclusive elementary school classroom in Colorado?
  2. How do co-teachers justify their preferences regarding the models of co-teaching they utilise?
  3. How do co-teachers perceive the barriers that exist in the co-teaching environment of the inclusive classroom?”

Alnassar provides a thorough literature review that elucidates the following understandings:

  • Co-teaching refers to the inclusive practice of at least two educators delivering core instruction in partnership to a heterogeneous group of students within one setting.
  • Despite encompassing multiple models of delivery, the one teach and one assist model is the most commonly used approach to co-teaching.
  • Students with disabilities, who receive instruction in inclusive settings from a co-teaching team, outperformed like peers in segregated settings who did not receive co-teaching instruction.
  • Co-teaching is an approach which has been shown to benefit diverse populations of students, including English language learners and at-risk students.
  • Additional benefits of co-teaching include reduced stigma, increased access to the general education curriculum, a reduction of disruptive behaviors, and increased stability for teachers as they are working with peer support.
  • Thorough training is necessary in order for co-teaching pairs to provide highly effective instruction.
  • Limited planning time negatively impacts the quality of instruction co-teaching pairs can provide. 
  • Special educators often do not have equal status in co-teaching classrooms, with mutual respect and trust lacking in multiple studies. Consistently, in the reviewed studies, general education teachers took primary responsibility for the content while special educators supported through reteaching, providing accommodations and modifications, and managing behavior. 
  • Preparation prior to entering into a co-teaching relationship, including conversations around potential challenges, may mitigate threats to a functioning partnership.
  • “Despite rapid increase in popularity and use, co-teaching remains one of the most commonly misunderstood practices in education.”

Research Question (1): Three themes were drawn out of the observation data:

  • The number of students with IEPs in each classroom felt unmanageable, with every classroom having at least eight students receiving special education services.
  • Adjustment of the general education curriculum through accommodations, modifications, or differentiation, was largely the responsibility of the special educators with shared responsibility for providing these services only present in one observation. Almost universally, the teachers delivered verbal instruction and wrote on the white board without providing differentiation or sufficient accommodation or modification.
  • A one teach-one assist model was used in all observations, despite the model having limited support in literature. Parallel teaching was used for only 10 minutes in one observation.

Research Question (2): One primary theme arose from one-to-one interviews with the teachers:

  • The teachers justified their preference for the one teach-one assist model by pointing out that it was possible to implement without increased planning time, that it met their understanding of the roles the general education teacher (content delivery) and the special education teacher (adapting content) play, and that it was the easiest model to use.

Research Question (3): Four themes addressing barriers arose from one-to-one interviews with the teachers:

  • All teachers struggled to identify the vision or goal of co-teaching in their school.
  • The teachers shared that they either did not have shared planning time at all or that the amount of time they had was insufficient to effectively plan together.
  • All teachers shared that they would benefit from instructional feedback and coaching, with clear expectations in place. They did not feel that this level of administrative support was currently in place.
  • All teachers felt that they had insufficient professional development around co-teaching topics.

Alnasser discusses the following points and suggests actions that may improve the efficacy of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms:

  • When administrators are lacking knowledge of effective co-teaching, it is impossible for them to provide quality feedback or coaching to their staff.
  • In-depth professional development for both teachers and administrators is needed if implementing a co-teaching model.
  • “To make co-teaching successful, it is important to provide time for teachers to engage in co-planning.” Careful attention should be paid during scheduling to the balance of all learners within an inclusive setting to ensure caseloads are manageable.
  • “None of the participants were able to identify the school’s vision for co-teaching.” Developing a clear vision for co-teaching with actionable goals is necessary for success.

Co-teaching has the potential to be a transformative practice in inclusive classrooms if quality professional development and adequate planning time are provided, if administration engages in regular feedback cycles with their staff, and if the relationship between general education and special education teachers is collaborative and mutually respectful.

Summarized Article:

Alnasser, Y. A. (2021). The perspectives of Colorado general and special education teachers on the barriers to co-teaching in the inclusive elementary school classroom. Education 3-13, 49(6), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1776363

Summary by: Erin Madonna—Erin philosophically aligns with the MARIO Framework’s deeply rooted conviction that all learners are capable, and she firmly believes in MARIO’s commitment to the use of evidence-based practices drawn from the field of current multidisciplinary research.

Key Takeaway: Narrative skills play a crucial role in social and academic development, yet prove challenging for students with language disorders. Practitioners can optimize the chances of successful oral narrative intervention through the use of (1) icon cards to represent macrostructure narrative elements and/or pictures to support the telling of the target narrative, (2) repeated student retellings of the entire target narrative, and (3) teacher modeling of narratives. —Ashley Parnell

According to authors Pauls and Archibald,1 “The ability to tell a story is particularly important for school-age students,” and narrative ability has been broadly linked to improved social and academic outcomes. Narrative skills are critical to developing and maintaining friendships and are predictive of later academic skills, including reading comprehension, writing, and vocabulary. 

Children with language disorders and language problems associated with Down syndrome, intellectual disabilities, fragile X, Williams syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) display difficulties with many aspects of narration, requiring targeted instruction and intervention to develop these skills. Oral narrative interventions target macrostructural (i.e., story structure & organization) and microstructural aspects of narrative discourse (i.e., linguistic devices at the sentence level) through the telling and retelling of stories.

In a recent systematic review of the literature, Favot et al. examined the efficacy, quality, and common features of oral narrative intervention on the narratives of children with language disorders. Favot et al. reviewed 24 research articles published between 1993 and 2018, involving three hundred twenty-six participants between 5 years 1 month and 16 years 2 months with varying degrees of language disorder.  

Overall, findings of the review suggest that “oral narrative intervention is likely to be effective” across individuals with varying ages, degrees of language disorder, and co-occurring disabilities. Despite generally good quality and results of the single case studies, confident conclusions could not be drawn regarding efficacy due to the low quality and variable results reported by group research studies. Suggestions for future research included: 1) conducting more robust, group research designs, 2) investigating the effect of intervention on students with more significant disabilities and the inclusion of generalization measures, and 3) evaluating the effect of intervention on personal narrative skills.

Based upon their review, the research team identified common features of effective oral language interventions. Practitioners should consider incorporating the following features in order to optimize the chances of successful intervention: 

  • Macrostructure frameworks or rubrics which identify and sequencing core elements (i.e., setting including characters, initiating event/problem, attempts to solve, resolution) 
  • Icon cards to represent macrostructure elements and/or pictures to support the telling of the target narrative 
  • Repeated retelling of the entire target narrative as opposed to partial retellings
  • Clinician modelling of target narratives

Summarized Article:

Favot, K., Carter, M., & Stephenson, J. (2020). The effects of oral narrative intervention on the narratives of children with language disorders a systematic literature review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 33, 489-536.

Summary by: Ashley M. Parnell — Ashley strives to apply the MARIO Framework to build evidence-based learning environments that support student engagement, empowerment, and passion and is working with a team of educators to grow and share this framework with other educators.

Additional References:

Pauls, L.J. & Archilbald, L. (2021). Cognitive and linguistic effects of narrative-based language intervention in children with Developmental Language Disorder. Autism and Developmental Language Impairments, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415211015867

Key Takeaway: Working conditions may be powerfully related to the day-to-day instruction a teacher provides to their students. Special educators often work with students who exhibit a range of academic, emotional, and behavioural challenges. Special educators who experience more supportive working conditions reported more manageable workloads, less emotional exhaustion and stress, and felt greater self-efficacy for instruction—contributing to more frequent use of evidence-supported instructional practices to address student needs. —Ayla Reau

This paper by Michelle Cumming (Florida International University), Kristen Merrill O’Brien (George Mason University), Nelson Brunsting (Wake Forest University), and Elizabeth Bettini (Boston University) explores how the working conditions of special educators relate to the provision of effective instructional or behavioural management practices for students with emotional behavioural disorders (EBD) in self-contained settings. 

Note that: 

  • “Working conditions are the contexts of teachers’ work, including the demands placed on them and the social and logistical resources they have for meeting those demands.” 
  • Students with EBD tend to “demonstrate low academic achievement and problematic behaviours that impede success.” These needs can be met with; 1) effective research-support instruction “characterized by frequent opportunities to respond to academic prompts, evidence-based practices, and high rates of feedback;” 2) highly effective behaviour management strategies; 3) feedback like praise or token economies to acknowledge positive behaviours. 
  • Self-contained settings are schools and classes that are specifically designed for students who need intensive services to address significant behavioural needs.

The purpose of the study was to “investigate how working conditions related to SETs’ [special education teachers] affective outcomes (workload manageability, emotional exhaustion, stress, and self-efficacy) and reported use of effective instructional and behaviour management practices.” The authors of this study choose to focus on the working conditions of: 

  • demands (i.e., instructional groups, instructional responsibilities)
  • social resources (i.e., administrative support, school culture, and paraprofessional support), and 
  • logistical resources (i.e., instructional resources, planning time)

Analysis of the data collected from a national (United States) survey of SET’s with students with EBD in self-contained settings found that “SETs who experienced more supportive working conditions (i.e., stronger logistical resources, lower demands) rated their workloads as more manageable, experienced less emotional exhaustion and stress, and thus felt more efficacious in using effective instructional practices.” This finding aligns with the “growing body of research in educational leadership and policy [that] indicates that working conditions may be powerfully related to the quality of instruction teachers provide.” 

While the study did have limitations and the authors were unable to find “predictors of self-efficacy for reported use behaviour management practices, and social resources did not demonstrate good model fit when included,” the findings do still present implications for policy and practice. When SET’s feel their workloads are less manageable they are less likely to use effective instructional practices—this would have a significant impact on students who benefit from this research-supported instruction, such as students with EBD. The authors suggest that school leaders and administrations should consider how best to support SETs, in particular by protecting planning times and ensuring that SETs have access to the curricular resources they need to meet their students’ learning needs. They also encourage leaders to provide instructional supports, such as training in the use of resources, in addition to behavioural supports to SETs in self-contained settings. 

It is crucial that school leaders address SET’s working conditions “both to improve their experiences, and to ensure that students with EBD receive the kinds of effective practices necessary to improve their outcomes.”

Summarized Article:

Cumming, M. M., O’Brien, K. M., Brunsting, N. C., & Bettini, E. (2021). Special Educators’ Working Conditions, Self-Efficacy, and Practices Use with Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 42(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924121

Summary by: Ayla Reau—Ayla is excited to help continue to grow the MARIO Framework, seeing the potential for it to impact all students across any educational context.

Key Takeaway: Students with multiple disabilities (SMDs) deserve the right to communicate effectively. One way to meet their needs is to implement Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), an assistive technology that enhances their inclusion into general education classrooms. Special educators believe that barriers to AAC are due to a lack of access to AAC, lack of professional development, and lack of support for families. Being aware of these barriers will allow us to develop the best solutions to support communication needs for SMDs. —Michael Ho

Rashed Aldabas (2021) investigated special education teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators when using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) with students with multiple disabilities. The author acknowledges that an assistive technology like AAC has the potential to facilitate language acquisition and communication competence among SMDs. More importantly, the author emphasizes that the use of AAC not only enhances inclusion into general education classrooms and increases levels of spoken language but it also decreases problem behaviors among SMDs.

The author investigated the following four research questions: 

  1. How do special education teachers perceive barriers to using AAC with SMDs?
  2. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers to using AAC with SMDs based on: (a) gender; (b) previous use of AAC; and (c) attendance of AAC training programmes?
  3. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives regarding barriers to using AAC with SMDs based on: (a) previous teaching experience; (b) level of education; and (c) number of students taught?
  4. How do special education teachers perceive facilitators when using AAC with students with multiple disabilities?

Here are the major takeaways from the article:

  • Aldabas (2021) refers to Raghavendra et al. (2012)1 and Rubin et al. (2009)2—“Students with severe disabilities, including SMDs, who have difficulties using natural speech in order to meet all of their communicative needs, are usually at high risk for reduced participation, with poorer peer relationships and greater exclusion from classroom activities.” Assistive technologies, including AAC, are able to support those students with these barriers.
  • The main barriers to effective integration of AAC within schools were associated with staff inadequacy, lack of AAC resources, lack of teacher training, a lack of college-level courses covering essential skills and knowledge about AAC, and lack of ongoing team collaboration between teachers and students.
  • Aldabas (2021) quotes Bruce, Trief, & Cascella (2011), “Language plays a key role when considering to use AAC.” Bruce, Trief, & Cascella (2011) found that teachers of SMDs noted that there were many benefits when using tangible symbols intervention, but the symbols needed to be labelled in both English and the family’s primary language. This indicates that language can also be a significant barrier. 
  • 172 special education teachers of SMDs participated in this study. The study was conducted in all schools in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that offer educational services to different types of students including SMDs. The data was collected using a non-probability convenience sampling.
  • In response to the first research question, special education teachers identified the following top three barriers to using AAC with SMD: Difficulty in obtaining high- or low-tech AAC because of expense and lack of availability, difficulty in obtaining high- or low-tech AAC supporting the Arabic language, and lack of family collaboration in supporting the use of AAC. 
  • In response to the second research question, female special educators had a higher awareness of their lack of knowledge and skills as barriers to AAC use compared to their male counterparts. Additionally, special educators who had experience with using AAC viewed these barriers more seriously than those who did not. Participants who had attended training on AAC were more knowledgeable about these barriers than those who had not attended training.
  • In response to the third research question, the participants’ teaching experience, the level of education, and the number of SMDs taught did not have an effect on the respondents’ perceptions of barriers associated with teaching SMDs.
  • In response to the fourth research question, the participants perceived the following as the top facilitators of AAC for students with disabilities: providing a special room with AAC, providing AAC support in the Arabic language, providing AAC at affordable prices, and providing sufficient times to train SMDs to use AAC.
  • “The most significant barriers for [the participants] were access to AAC, family support, and professional training, all of which should be supplied by the school environment, namely, the school administration . . . The three sets of facilitators—teacher training, awareness programmes, and SMDs’ family collaboration—could go a long way to addressing some of the most serious barriers to AAC as identified by respondents” (Aldabas, 2021).
  • The study has a few limitations, such that the sample size is relatively small and that the data is restricted to schools in Riyadh. Moreover, the participants were special educators only. Future research could target other stakeholders and other geographical locations. Research on barriers and facilitators other than schools, students, and teachers may provide a more holistic understanding of the effectiveness of AAC among SMDs. 

Summarized Article:

Aldabas, R. (2021). Barriers and facilitators of using augmentative and alternative communication with students with multiple disabilities in inclusive education: Special education teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(9), 1010-1026.

Summary by: Michael Ho—Michael supports the MARIO Framework because it empowers learners to take full control of their personalized learning journey, ensuring an impactful and meaningful experience.

Additional References:

  1. Raghavendra, P., C. Olsson, J. Sampson, R. Mcinerney, and T. Connell. 2012. “School Participation and Social Networks of Children with Complex Communication Needs, Physical Disabilities, and Typically Developing Peers.” Augmentative and Alternative Communication 28 (1): 33–43. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.653604; 
  2. Rubin, K. H., W. M. Bukowski, and B. Laursen. 2009. Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. New York, NY: Guilford.

Key Takeaway: In today’s globalized world, it is imperative that all students are able to use their unique voices and actively participate in conversations. In order to foster meaningful participation in the classroom, educators need to develop strong and trusting relationships with their students. Challenging the notion of what it means to be inclusive provides educators with the opportunity to re-imagine modern education by prioritizing relationships and placing human values at the center of the teaching and learning experience. —Taryn McBrayne

“It is essential to place the relationship between the teacher and the student at the core of teaching,” says Ann-Louise Ljungblad (Department of Education and Special Education at University of Gothenburg). Ljungblad shares her study on the theoretical perspective, Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT), to promote trustful teacher-student relationships as a foundation for student participation and inclusion. The author, in conjunction with Biesta (2007),1 proposes that a new type of inclusion, known as “the incalculable,” be introduced into classrooms. 

As the article explains, this form of inclusion emphasizes student “subjectification” (Biesta, 2009)2 by considering “if, when and how students are given opportunities to participate in education and emerge with their own unique voices,” which Ljungblad (2016)3 believes is one of education’s main purposes. 

According to Ljungblad, the PeRT theory provides a third way for students to access knowledge, in addition to traditional individualist and collectivist approaches, whereby the relationship between teacher and student is leveraged. Relational pedagogy, the main component of the PeRT perspective, values relationships, and Ljungblad believes that “learning and knowledge can be seen as a result of relationships.” More specifically, the author explains that it is the relationship between students and their teachers that significantly impacts learning in what is referred to as the “in-between space.”3 Here, Ljungblad explains that, “since meanings are shared and located ‘in-between,’ we have to embrace this gap, and PeRT is a theoretical inclusive perspective that highlights this essential space.” 

To showcase the role of student-teacher relationships in increasing student participation, the author references a self-conducted, micro-ethnographic study in 2016 which surveyed one hundred children ranging in age and physical and intellectual ability.3 The results of this study suggest that “the teachers’ pedagogical tactfulness created space for the students’ unique voices to emerge.” Put simply, the manner in which teachers interacted with their students, namely a “listening and empathetic pedagogical stance,” positively influenced their levels of participation. 

The author outlines three dimensions of the PeRT model in the article: 

Dimension 1 – According to Ljungblad, “PeRT emphasizes a positive rights 

claim for teachers to actively support students,” meaning that acting based on what is in the best interest of the child and what allows them to achieve their potential serves as a way to encourage participation. These “positive rights” stem from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of a Child (CRC) and the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. 

Dimension 2 – Inspired by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory model, the PeRT model is multidimensional and “shows how different aspects of relational teachership are closely intertwined, from a micro-level to a macro-level.” Through adopting this model, teachers are challenged to change their teaching practices in order to relate to their students and to embrace student collaboration to best meet their needs. 

Dimension 3 – Shifting from Vygotsky’s Didactic Triangle, the PeRT inspired Relational and Didactic Star emphasizes the importance of relational adaptations in the classroom environment to encourage participation. Although a traditional triangle model “emphasises the purpose, content and methods [of teaching],” Ljunglad suggests that it does not “illuminate the people who participate in the teaching community.” Ljungblad argues that PeRT combines the two pedagogical approaches (didactic and relational), therefore creating potential for “double-meaning making” to occur for students. As the author shares, “these two facets of meaning-making are important when teachers develop relational and didactic adaptations to create accessibility to the content.” 

Ultimately, more studies are needed to further understand the complexities of relational values in inclusive education. However, PeRT is “an invitation to scholars and practitioners to use the multi-relational model as creative

inspiration to seek new knowledge and understanding about participation, accessibility and equity.” It is through positioning the teacher-student relationship at the heart of teaching that all students’ voices can be heard. 

Summarized Article:

Ljungblad, A.L. (2021). Pedagogical Relational Teachership (PeRT) – a multi-relational perspective, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 25 (7), 860-876. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1581280

Summary by: Taryn McBrayne—Taryn believes in the power of student voice and, through the MARIO Framework, strives to create more opportunities for both educators and students to regularly make use of this power.

Additional References:

  1. Biesta, G. (2007). “Don’t Count Me in. Democracy, Education and the Question of Inclusion.” Nordic Studies in Education, Vol. 27 (1), 18–29. 
  2. Biesta, G. (2009). “Good Education in an Age of Measurement. On the Need to Reconnect with the Question of Purpose in Education.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, Vol. 21(1), 33–46. 
  3. Ljungblad, A.L. (2016). Takt och hållning – en relationell studie om det oberäkneliga i matematikundervisningen [Tact and Stance – A Relational Study About the Incalculable in Mathematics Teaching]. PhD diss., Gothenburg Studies in Educational Sciences, 381. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Additional Reading: