Svitlana Tsymbaliuk
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6194-4035
THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL INCLUSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Full text (pdf)
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract. Today, the implementation of the priority of social inclusion should become an integral part of the policy of higher education institutions (HEIs), due to the increasing number of people with health problems, which creates barriers to obtaining education and continuing to work in the previously acquired profession. The purpose of the study is to analyse approaches to developing social inclusion indicators and to develop methodological foundations for assessing social inclusion in educational institutions. Based on critical generalisation, the methodological foundations for developing tools for studying social inclusion in HEIs have been formulated. The methodology for developing the tools is based on the modern vision of social inclusion in education as the involvement of all students regardless of their characteristics. A comparative analysis of the approaches of various international organisations and scholars to the development of social inclusion indicators has been carried out. Social inclusion indicators for HEIs have been proposed based on the generalisation of different approaches to selecting social inclusion indicators and the established methodological principles. To formulate the indicators, the “input resources – processes – results” approach has been used. Indicators for measuring input resources have been formed in the following dimensions: policy; educational environment and financial resources; communication; curriculum and teaching materials; teacher training and leadership and educational management. Indicators for measuring the educational process include indicators in the context of the following dimensions: climate in HEIs; teaching and didactic practices; organisation of education and individual support. Outcome indicators include indicators that characterise the engagement and success of students. The expert survey method has been used to determine the reliability and significance of the developed social inclusion indicators. HEIs can use the proposed tools to assess the implementation of social inclusion priorities at the institutional level.
Keywords: higher education, higher education institutions, social inclusion, social inclusion indicators.
https://doi.org/10.32987/2617-8532-2024-4-113-126
Keywords: higher education, higher education institutions, social inclusion, social inclusion indicators.
https://doi.org/10.32987/2617-8532-2024-4-113-126
References:
1. EHEA. (2020). Rome Ministerial Communiqué. Retrieved from https://ehea2020rome.it/pages/documents.
2. EHEA. (2024). Tirana Communiqué. Retrieved from https://ehea2024tirane.al/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Tirana-Communique.pdf.
3. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. (n. d.). Strategy for the Development of Higher Education in Ukraine for 2022-2032. Retrieved from https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/news/2022/04/15/VO.plan.2022-2032/Stratehiya.rozv.VO-23.02.22.pdf [in Ukrainian].
4. Collins, P. (2010). Inclusive team assessment of off-campus and on-campus first year law students using instantaneous communication technology. The Law Teacher, 44(3), 309-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2010.524032.
5. Jackson, C. (2006). Towards inclusive assessment. Educational Developments, 7(1), 19-21.
6. Morris, C., Milton, E., & Goldstone, R. (2019). Case study: suggesting choice: inclusive assessment processes. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 435-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1669479.
7. Shrestha, P., & Bhattarai, P. (2022). Application of Case Study Methodology in the Exploration of Inclusion in Education. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 73-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11461.
8. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427.
9. UNESCO. (2019). Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. International Forum on Inclusion and Equity in Education. Cali, Colombia. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370910.
10. Jesuit Refugee Services. (2023). A Guide to Inclusive Education 2023. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/guide-inclusive-education-2023?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4MSzBhC8ARIsAPFOuyWGFmsTwU1QLsUrZ2XYfPJrIWOjkYa_PGOkji8KS9p58Y9j6u5_vQ8aAkUfEALw_wcB.
11. UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989.
12. UNICEF. (2014). Conceptualizing Inclusive Education and Contextualizing it within the UNICEF Mission. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_Webinar_Booklet_1_0.pdf.
13. Turchyna, I. S. (2024). Analysis of the Organisation of the Inclusive Educational Environment of Higher Education Institutions of Ukraine (on the material of official sites of institutions). Perspectives and Innovations of Science, 6(40), 489-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-4952-2024-6(40)-489-502 [in Ukrainian].
14. OECD. (n. d.). Education for Inclusive Societies Project. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/strength-through-diversity/.
15. Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49, 123-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w.
16. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Retrieved from https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf.
17. Mezzanotte, C., & Calvel, C. (2023). Indicators of inclusion in education: A framework for analysis. OECD Education Working Papers, 300. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d94f3bd8-en.
18. New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education. (2010). Quality Indicators for Effective Inclusive Education Guidebook. Retrieved from http://inclusionworks.org/sites/default/files/QualityIndicatorsGuidebook.pdf.
19. Vyrastekova, J. (2021). Social inclusion of students with special educational needs assessed by the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. PLoS ONE, 16(4): e0250070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250070.
20. Zdrahat, S. H. (2015). On the issue of forming indicators of social efficiency of inclusive education. Social Technologies: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice, 67-68, 66-71 [in Ukrainian].
21. BFUG Working Group on Social Dimension. (2024). Indicators and Descriptors for the Principles of the Social Dimension in the European Higher Education Area. Tirana: Bologna Follow-up Group. Retrieved from https://ehea.info/Immagini/BFUG_BE_VA_88_9_5_2_WG_SD_Indicators_and_Descriptors.pdf.
22. Hubbard, K., & Gawthorpe, P. (n. d.). Inclusive Higher Education Framework. University of Hull. Retrieved from https://www.inclusiveeducationframework.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Inclusive-Education-Framework-2.pdf.
23. Kaiser, F., Veidemane, A., Craciun, D., Schmidt, N., Mihut, G., Nur, M. …& Stoychev, G. (2022). Guidelines for developing social inclusion indicators at higher education institutions: how to develop relevant and internationally comparable indicators? U-Multirank. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25487.19361.
24. Jaegler, A. (2022). How to Measure Inclusion in Higher Education: An Inclusive Rating. Sustainability, 14(14): 8278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148278.
25. Tsymbaliuk, S. O. (2019). Decent remuneration: theoretical and methodological foundations and implementation mechanism. Kyiv: KNEU. Retrieved from https://ir.kneu.edu.ua:443/handle/2010/35636 [in Ukrainian].
26. Orzhel, O., & Otych, O. (2024). Social dimension of EHEA as a strategy for enhancing higher education inclusivity. Image of the Modern Pedagogue, 2(215), 79-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33272/2522-9729-2024-2(215)-79-87 [in Ukrainian].
2. EHEA. (2024). Tirana Communiqué. Retrieved from https://ehea2024tirane.al/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Tirana-Communique.pdf.
3. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. (n. d.). Strategy for the Development of Higher Education in Ukraine for 2022-2032. Retrieved from https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/news/2022/04/15/VO.plan.2022-2032/Stratehiya.rozv.VO-23.02.22.pdf [in Ukrainian].
4. Collins, P. (2010). Inclusive team assessment of off-campus and on-campus first year law students using instantaneous communication technology. The Law Teacher, 44(3), 309-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2010.524032.
5. Jackson, C. (2006). Towards inclusive assessment. Educational Developments, 7(1), 19-21.
6. Morris, C., Milton, E., & Goldstone, R. (2019). Case study: suggesting choice: inclusive assessment processes. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 435-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1669479.
7. Shrestha, P., & Bhattarai, P. (2022). Application of Case Study Methodology in the Exploration of Inclusion in Education. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(1), 73-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/11461.
8. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427.
9. UNESCO. (2019). Cali commitment to equity and inclusion in education. International Forum on Inclusion and Equity in Education. Cali, Colombia. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370910.
10. Jesuit Refugee Services. (2023). A Guide to Inclusive Education 2023. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/guide-inclusive-education-2023?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4MSzBhC8ARIsAPFOuyWGFmsTwU1QLsUrZ2XYfPJrIWOjkYa_PGOkji8KS9p58Y9j6u5_vQ8aAkUfEALw_wcB.
11. UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54676/JJNK6989.
12. UNICEF. (2014). Conceptualizing Inclusive Education and Contextualizing it within the UNICEF Mission. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_Webinar_Booklet_1_0.pdf.
13. Turchyna, I. S. (2024). Analysis of the Organisation of the Inclusive Educational Environment of Higher Education Institutions of Ukraine (on the material of official sites of institutions). Perspectives and Innovations of Science, 6(40), 489-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-4952-2024-6(40)-489-502 [in Ukrainian].
14. OECD. (n. d.). Education for Inclusive Societies Project. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/strength-through-diversity/.
15. Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects, 49, 123-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w.
16. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Retrieved from https://www.eenet.org.uk/resources/docs/Index%20English.pdf.
17. Mezzanotte, C., & Calvel, C. (2023). Indicators of inclusion in education: A framework for analysis. OECD Education Working Papers, 300. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d94f3bd8-en.
18. New Jersey Coalition for Inclusive Education. (2010). Quality Indicators for Effective Inclusive Education Guidebook. Retrieved from http://inclusionworks.org/sites/default/files/QualityIndicatorsGuidebook.pdf.
19. Vyrastekova, J. (2021). Social inclusion of students with special educational needs assessed by the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale. PLoS ONE, 16(4): e0250070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250070.
20. Zdrahat, S. H. (2015). On the issue of forming indicators of social efficiency of inclusive education. Social Technologies: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice, 67-68, 66-71 [in Ukrainian].
21. BFUG Working Group on Social Dimension. (2024). Indicators and Descriptors for the Principles of the Social Dimension in the European Higher Education Area. Tirana: Bologna Follow-up Group. Retrieved from https://ehea.info/Immagini/BFUG_BE_VA_88_9_5_2_WG_SD_Indicators_and_Descriptors.pdf.
22. Hubbard, K., & Gawthorpe, P. (n. d.). Inclusive Higher Education Framework. University of Hull. Retrieved from https://www.inclusiveeducationframework.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Inclusive-Education-Framework-2.pdf.
23. Kaiser, F., Veidemane, A., Craciun, D., Schmidt, N., Mihut, G., Nur, M. …& Stoychev, G. (2022). Guidelines for developing social inclusion indicators at higher education institutions: how to develop relevant and internationally comparable indicators? U-Multirank. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25487.19361.
24. Jaegler, A. (2022). How to Measure Inclusion in Higher Education: An Inclusive Rating. Sustainability, 14(14): 8278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148278.
25. Tsymbaliuk, S. O. (2019). Decent remuneration: theoretical and methodological foundations and implementation mechanism. Kyiv: KNEU. Retrieved from https://ir.kneu.edu.ua:443/handle/2010/35636 [in Ukrainian].
26. Orzhel, O., & Otych, O. (2024). Social dimension of EHEA as a strategy for enhancing higher education inclusivity. Image of the Modern Pedagogue, 2(215), 79-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33272/2522-9729-2024-2(215)-79-87 [in Ukrainian].