Identifying best practices for advancing access, equity, and inclusion in code club settings

The term children with special educational needs (SEN) refers to highly diverse populations of children with a wide range of physical, cognitive and socioemotional disabilities or difficulties as well as strengths and resources causing them to require varying degrees of special educational support and assistance (Squires, 2012; Vehmas, 2010; Wilson, 2002). Several studies document significant gender imbalances in the number of students who receive special educational support, and for most disability categories the prevalence is higher for boys (Skårbrevik, 2002). The reasons for these imbalances are likely complex, and it is beyond the scope of the present review to account for the hypotheses and findings associated with each disability category. However, a general hypothesis across different categories of special educational needs is the notion that special educational needs are more likely to remain undetected in girls as symptoms and problems in girls may be less visible to educators (Arms et al., 2008). Traditional special education consists of segregating students with special needs from mainstream students within separate and typically smaller classrooms or educational settings. However, as early as in the 1930s, a movement originally known as mainstreaming, and in more recent years as inclusion, has sought to bring an end to segregated placement as the preferred educational option for students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). In 1994, the idea of inclusive education became even more consolidated when the Salamanca Statement was adopted by representatives from 92 countries, resulting in an international shift in policy. This meant that far more students with special needs started entering general educational settings around the globe (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). The terms inclusion, mainstreaming, integrated placement, and cross-categorical instruction all refer to educational settings with a group composition consisting of a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. In the present review, we have chosen to use the term inclusion to refer to general educational settings in which there is a mixture of students with and without special educational needs. Ideally, inclusion and inclusive education should be based on an educational approach in which the goal is to continuously address and respond to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation and reducing exclusion within and from education. Inclusion thus may involve changes and modifications in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision which covers all children and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children. Inclusion emphasises the provision of opportunities for equal participation of children with disabilities (physical, social and/or emotional) whenever possible into general education, but leaves open the possibility of personal choice and options for special assistance and facilities for those who need it (UNESCO, 2005). Inclusion as an ideological and theoretical movement was built on a philosophical foundation but during the last 60 years, the number of empirical studies addressing inclusive education has grown tremendously. However, findings on the efficacy of inclusion on student outcomes are still far from unequivocal (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lindsay, 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). This is where the present review will contribute, as the aim of the review is to summarise contemporary evidence on the effects of inclusive education when compared to a traditional segregated approach on students' learning, socioemotional adjustment and well-being. It is important to consider the types of students who might benefit most from inclusive education. As stated earlier, it is possible that the effects of inclusive education may be different for girls and boys. Further, a child's cognitive and socioemotional skills and needs develop throughout childhood and adolescence (Lightfoot et al., 2009) and thus, it is possible that the potential benefits of inclusive education may vary depending on the age of the children. We plan to to explore the impact of these student characteristics on student outcomes. At the core of inclusion is the principle that students with special or additional learning needs or disabilities belong in mainstream education. The fundamental principle of inclusive education is that all children should learn together, regardless of any difficulties or differences (UNESCO, 2005; Winter & O'Raw, 2010). However, operationally within the present review, we define inclusion as an educational setting with a mixture of children with and without special educational needs. In the present review, the intervention termed inclusion may thus be defined as any given group composition within a general educational setting which contains at least one child with an identified special educational need. Based on the core principles of inclusion there are many ways in which inclusion may be practised and adjusted, and thus there are a large number of characteristics within the inclusive setting, which may vary across the included studies. We will review studies of all kinds of inclusive education meaning that placement in the inclusive setting may be full time or part time. Special education students are a diverse group, as outlined in Section 4.1.2, and we will review studies regardless of the type of special educational needs of the student population and regardless of the ratio of students with and without special needs within the inclusive setting. We will include studies in which the general education teachers are provided with support and continuing professional development aimed at helping the teachers accommodate the needs of special education students and studies of inclusive settings in which no such support is offered to the teachers. It is often referred to as coteaching when two or more professionals deliver substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within the same physical space (Murawski & Lee Swanson, 2001). In the present review, we will include studies, in which special education teachers and/or teaching assistants are present within the general education setting (coteaching) and studies in which they are not. For physically disabled students there may be adjustments made to the inclusive educational setting in order to accommodate aids such as wheelchairs, and for dyslexic students a number of computer programmes may be available. We will review studies in which students with special needs are provided with any kind of aid and technological support. This list of possible variations in student and classroom characteristics is not exhaustive, and in summary, within the present review we will include studies of all kinds of inclusive education as long as the studies are aimed at exploring the effects of inclusion in comparison to segregated special educational settings. We plan to conduct moderator analyses to explore the impact of specific characteristics of the inclusive educational setting and the characteristics of special educational needs on student outcomes. Considering the rapid global development towards inclusive educational placement for students with special educational needs, there is a rather surprising lack of pedagogical, psychological, or didactic theories regarding the specific ways in which inclusive education may affect students with special needs' academic and socioemotional development. Group composition within the educational setting may play a significant role in determining the academic achievement, socioemotional development and overall wellbeing of special needs students. Theoretically and ideologically, scholars favouring mainstreaming or inclusion propose that segregated educational placement causes stigmatisation and social isolation which may have detrimental effects on the self-concept, social identity, and self-confidence of students with special educational needs (Dyssegaard & Larsen, 2013). Second, being placed in a general education classroom along with typically developing peers is proposed to benefit special needs students' academic growth through peer effects (Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Finally, it is hypothesised that social interaction with general education peers may provide developmental opportunities that are not present in smaller, specialised units (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). On the other hand, opponents of inclusive education for all special needs students suggest that placement in general education classrooms may have adverse effects for special needs children especially if the time and resources allocated for individualisation and differentiation are not aligned with student needs. In such cases, special needs students' learning opportunities and wellbeing may also suffer, resulting in damages to self-concept (Zeleke, 2004), social isolation or bullying (Monchy et al., 2004; Pijl et al., 2010), stress (Pitt & Curtin, 2004), negative self-perception, and lower self-confidence (Bakker et al., 2007; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on inclusion and suggests that a number of factors are associated with positive student outcomes in inclusive settings. These are: (1) instruction based on student achievement needs, (2) materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace, (3) additional time for students who need it, (4) increased student responsibility for their own learning, (5) cooperation among students in achieving goals, (6) support teaching and (7) collaboration among special and general education teachers. In sum, the impact of inclusion on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and wellbeing of students with special needs may be hypothesised to be both positive and negative, and the current knowledge base is rather unclear, leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision. Since the 1980s, a number of reviews on the impact of inclusion on students with special needs have been published (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1982; Wang & Baker, 1985; Hegarty, 1993). Results are equivocal, and several reviews point to a number of methodological challenges and weaknesses of the study designs within the included primary studies. In summary, most reviews suggest a neutral or small positive impact of inclusion on most outcomes. However, all reviews also point to the need to study the impact of potential moderators more thoroughly, as there may be several interaction effects between student and classroom characteristics, such as student disability category × proportion of students with disabilities within the classroom and disability category × presence of teaching assistants. Therefore, it is important to conduct the present review in order to explore the impact of potential moderators associated with student and classroom characteristics. In the following section we present the existing reviews and their main findings. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 50 primary studies exploring the effects of special versus regular class placement for children with special needs, Carlberg and Kavale (1980) concluded that for students with special needs consisting of below average IQs, special classes were significantly inferior to regular classes on all outcome measures (separate analyses were carried out for achievement, social/personal and other measures). However, for students with behavioural disorders, emotional disturbances and learning disabilities (LDs), special classes were superior to regular classes. Madden and Slavin (1983) conducted a narrative review of the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on students with mild academic disabilities. The review does not include a description of the search strategy for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for inclusion in the review. The review concludes that among methodologically adequate studies, findings indicate few benefits on academic and social outcomes of placement in full-time special education compared with part-time placement with resource support or full time regular class placement for students with mild academic disabilities. Ottenbacher and Cooper (1982) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 43 primary studies exploring the effects of class placement (special class, regular class and resource class defined as placement in regular education classroom with resource support and the possibility for part time segregated education) on the social adjustment of students with mild cognitive disabilities. The overall results suggest a very small effect in favour of special class placement over regular class placement. However, when special class placement was compared with resource class placement, results were insignificant but favouring resource class placement. Wang and Baker (1985) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 11 primary studies exploring the effects of mainstreaming/inclusion on children with special educational needs. In order to be eligible for inclusion in this review, primary studies needed to provide information on the effects of mainstreaming on students with special needs placed in a regular education setting. The studies had to use a control group consisting of special needs students with comparable impairment classifications placed in a segregated learning environment. The final selection of studies included 11 studies published between 1975 and 1984. The included studies used a wide variety of outcomes, but within the meta-analysis, outcomes were synthesised into three categories: performance, attitudinal, and process effects, and separate analyses were carried out for each of the three outcome categories. The study found small-to-moderate beneficial effects of inclusion on all outcomes with an overall mean weighted effect size across all studies and all three categories of outcomes of 0.33. Hegarty (1993) provides a narrative review of the literature on integration (inclusion) of students with different disabilities. The narrative review is based on a literature review which was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and was conducted by researchers in five different countries. The review does not include a description of the search strategies for identifying records or the criteria used to determine eligibility for the selected primary studies. Within the review, a number of factors which are associated with effective integration programmes are identified. Baker et al. (1994/1995) describe a review and meta-analysis by Baker et al. (1994/1995), which included 13 primary studies exploring the effects of inclusive placement on academic and social outcomes for students with special needs. We have been unable to retrieve the original publication, but according to Baker et al. (1994/1995), this study found a very small effect in favour of inclusive placement on academic outcomes (0.08) and a small to moderate effect on social outcomes (0.28). Sebba and Sachdev (1997) provide a review as part of a research report on what works for whom in inclusive education. The review does not include a description of the search strategy or the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies for the review. Within the research report, the authors suggest an overall positive impact of inclusive education and list a number of potential moderators such as attitudes of teachers and parents as well as a number of recommendations for the implementation of inclusive education. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) provide a narrative review of studies of both the effects of inclusive schooling on student outcomes and studies focusing on issues related to the implementation of inclusion. The review includes both quantitative and qualitative studies including case studies. Results are difficult to synthesise, but suggest an overall positive impact of inclusion based on the main findings: (1) students with disabilities demonstrate high levels of social interaction in settings with typically developing peers, but placement alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes; (2) interactive small group contexts facilitate skill acquisition and social acceptance; (3) friendships develop between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Freeman and Alkin (2000) conducted a systematic narrative review in which it was concluded that on measures of academic achievement and social competence, children with mental retardation placed in general education perform better than children with mental retardation placed in special education classrooms. This review was only about children with mental retardation and did not include meta-analyses. Murawski and Lee Swanson (2001) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis which included 6 studies exploring the effectiveness of coteaching on student outcomes of both general education students and students with special educational needs. Coteaching was defined as two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse or blended group of students within a shared/common physical space, and thus in this review coteaching is a form of inclusion. The outcomes within the included studies were grades, achievement scores, social and attitudinal outcomes. The review found coteaching to be effective (average total effect size of 0.40). It is unclear what the control conditions within the included studies were and two of the included studies did not have a control group, but used a pre-test/post-test research design. Lindsay (2007) provides a narrative review of the effectiveness of inclusive education for students with special educational needs. The review provides a historical overview of the vast literature prior to 2000 and a search of studies published 2001–2005 in eight journals on special education. The search identified 1373 studies and points to the fact that only 1% of the identified papers were comparative outcome studies. The review concludes that there is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of inclusion and argues that where evidence does exist, the balance is only marginally positive. Lindsay (2007) thus supports the need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of inclusion for students with special needs, with special attention to the potential impact of student and classroom moderators. In a systematic narrative review of the effects of inclusion on both learning and socioemotional outcomes of students with and without special needs, Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) point to mixed findings regarding the effects of inclusion on student outcomes and suggest a number of potential moderators. The authors conclude that there is a need for more research. This review has not been updated since publication and does not include meta-analyses. In 2009, a systematic review of evidence comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in different educational settings was carried out by the Canadian Council on Learning. The review included 30 primary studies. The search strategy for identifying studies was not described. The included studies examined students with LDs, intellectual disabilities, language impairments and mixed disabilities. The quality of each study was rated as either "high", "medium", or "low" based on criteria related to transparency and research design, and effect sizes were retrieved. No meta-analyses were carried out, but the authors provide tables illustrating the number of effect sizes for each disability category favouring either inclusive or segregated settings along with the quality ratings of the studies from which they were retrieved. The authors point to mixed findings but conclude that the balance of evidence shows favourable academic outcomes for students with special educational needs educated in inclusive settings, however they also note that results are not homogenous and that effects are generally small in magnitude.11 The review was retrieved 2.10.2019 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519296.pdf. Dyssegaard and Larsen (2013) provide a systematic review and narrative synthesis on the effects of including children with special needs in mainstream teaching in primary and lower secondary school, and on which of the applied educational methods have proven to have a positive effect. The narrative synthesis is based on 43 studies of which 16 studies were deemed to have a "high level of evidence". The included studies consist of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, longitudinal studies, and studies using a pre-test/post-test design. The systematic review included studies focusing on outcomes for both mainstream and special needs students and does not include a meta-analysis. The conclusion points to mixed findings regarding the overall effectiveness of inclusion on the academic achievement and psychosocial adjustment of special needs students and suggests that the effects may vary depending on the age of the child and the overall school and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Furthermore, the review suggests that the effectiveness of coteaching may depend on the educational background and continuous professional development of both special and general education teachers and of teaching assistants. Carroll et al. (2017) provide a rapid evidence assessment of studies focused on approaches, strategies, and interventions supporting children and young people with special educational needs in mainstream schools. The rapid evidence assessment is based on a systematic search in a single database (ERIC) as well as a strategy of consulting experts within the relevant fields. The initial search identified 1046 papers of which 505 were later excluded due to low quality of evidence. The rapid evidence assessment points to a number of implementation strategies, pedagogical and didactic approaches which have shown positive results. Furthermore, the study points to evidence gaps and suggests the need for further research. The rapid evidence assessment does not include a meta-analysis. In the present review, besides being up to date, we will conduct an extensive risk of bias assessment of all included studies, and we will provide separate meta-analyses for each conceptual outcome (academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing). Furthermore, we hope to be able to conduct moderator analyses based on the children's specific disability categories and the specific type of inclusion setting. This may shed further light on the initial differential findings from existing reviews. Traditional segregated special education is costly and in a time of increased interaction between special and general education systems and constraints on education spending, policymakers must consider the cost-efficiency of different special needs provisions. As more students with special educational needs enter general education settings, educators and policymakers must consider how the needs of these students are met in different settings and on what grounds placement in general or special educational settings should be determined. As previously noted, the current knowledge base is ambiguous with many findings suggesting a complex interplay between student and classroom characteristics (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980; Mesibov & Shea, 1996; Peetsma et al., 2001), leaving special educators and policymakers uncertain when making decisions on special education provision and highlighting the need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of inclusion on student outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is firstly: To uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the effects of inclusion on measures of academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special needs when compared to children with special needs who receive special education in a segregated setting. A secondary objective is to explore how potential moderators (gender, age, type of special need, part or full time inclusive education, and coteaching) affect the outcomes. The moderator analysis will be performed as outlined in Section 4.3.11. In order to summarise what is known about the causal effects of inclusion on student's academic achievement, socioemotional outcomes, and wellbeing in special education, we will include all studies with a well-defined control group. Thus, the study designs eligible for inclusion are: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocated at either the individual level or cluster level, e.g., class/school/geographical area etc.). Non-randomised studies (inclusion has occurred in the course of usual decisions, the allocation to inclusive and segregated special educational placement is not controlled by the and there is a comparison of two or more of at least a group and a control using a single group research will not be eligible for inclusion in the review. Non-randomised studies using an approach will not be the of exclusion of studies using an for for studies of these In order to the risk of bias in cluster randomised studies, we will study designs in which only one was to the intervention or control group. there must be at least two units in the intervention group and two units in the control group, as there is a risk of effects with effects this likely be In order to the of findings from the present review to current and we will search to studies published The for studies is as a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have synthesised the effects of inclusion based on studies published prior to Second, educational settings, pedagogical approaches and the development and of technological to support the educational needs of special needs children have changes throughout the two & and in order for the findings from the present review to be to the current within educational settings, we will review to the more recent findings. The review will include special needs children in to the in in special education in the defined as the countries. The reasons for focusing on the are we that the in which children with disabilities are within is which fundamental differences in the for children with disabilities around the globe et al., 2010; & 2013). Second, special education is costly and thus the resources for special educational support for children with special needs are often different between in the and the developing regarding the of what a special educational need Wilson, 2002). A used be found in the with in which special needs are into 13 different disability categories under which children are eligible for For more information on the disability of with These categories are: challenges related to a child's to or e.g., or impairment conditions a child's or e.g., e.g., and or language impairment difficulties with or e.g., language problems a child's to or impairment including and where a child most or all even with a impairment to a not by the of children from both and vision impairment when a child has problems with or as in the case of disability intellectual by or other kinds of physical disabilities with more than one by the However, the criteria are not to be as or as of what special educational needs but are rather as in the search for and of relevant studies. We that existing to define special educational needs, as in and are by a lack of which to be

The study aimed to explore the knowledge and attitudes of second-cycle students visiting non-formal STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education centers in the Sultanate of Oman. It employed a descriptive methodology in collecting and analyzing data, where quantitative data were gathered through two questionnaires: one to measure knowledge comprising 22 items, and the other to measure attitudes comprising 64 items. These questionnaires were distributed to a convenient sample of 76 male and female students. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The research findings revealed that second-cycle students exhibited a high level of knowledge and positive attitudes towards non-formal STEM learning environments (STEM OMAN), with a statistically significant difference (<0.001) compared to the theoretical average. Furthermore, the results indicated a statistically significant positive correlation between students' attitudes toward STEM professions and their knowledge in this field. Based on these results, the study recommended further research on the effectiveness of non-formal learning environments on different samples, such as university students, and emphasized the importance of enhancing awareness and skills related to STEM education. Keywords: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Career Awareness, STEM Career Attitudes, non-formal learning environments, STEM Curriculum, Blended learning curriculum.

This paper addresses the issue of learner support in networked learning communities by drawing out key findings of an exploratory study into the relationship between online social presence and learner support in networked learning. The aims of the paper are, first, to promote understanding of learners’ experiences with learner support in networked learning and, second, to inform the ongoing development of learner support system in that context. Historically associated with distance education, learner support is gaining currency in a variety of educational contexts. Increasing interest in lifelong learning has resulted in changed demographics in higher and further education. Constructivist pedagogical approaches and the related learner centredness have refocused the design and implementation of learning programs on the learner experience. The marketisation of education has changed the dynamics of the institution--student relationship and necessitated a consideration of learners as consumers or clients. Together, these forces have emphasised the role of learner support in increasing the satisfaction, retention and success of learners. Simply put, learner support adds value for learners. It addresses their needs and empowers them to create learning experiences which are more personally meaningful, more relevant and more productive. Education has become a service industry and learner support is a key component of that service. Learner support in networked learning merits particular attention because it introduces potentially unfamiliar learning conditions associated with networked learning. These include pedagogical approaches which emphasize collaborative process over individual ones and highlight concerns over learning skills and equitable social practice; learner centeredness and the implied role changes for learners; the use of new, novel or unfamiliar technology tools; the physical distance between learners in distributed groups; and the social distance between learners introduced by mediating technologies. The general question addressed in this paper is: How do learners in online courses experience learner support within a course, particularly in the (a) infrastructure of the course and (b) the human--human interaction within the course? Focussing on learner experiences, the study included four networked learning courses as part of a collective case study design. Information on learner experiences was collected using a dialogical process consisting of five phases: questionnaire, initial interview, group discussion, second interview and summary group discussion. This process acted as an extended conversation which allowed respondents to identify, explicate and reflect on their experiences as networked learners, then work collaborative to construct shared understandings of the phenomena in question. Information was analysed using an iterative thematic analysis and the quality of findings was enhanced through a combination of multiple forms of triangulation and extensive respondent validation. The findings focus on learners’ experiences with learner support in the forms of (a) interpersonal interaction and (b) supportive infrastructure which facilitates learning activity. The discussion highlights three issues which inform the provision of learner support in networked learning environments: (1) the identification of support mechanisms valued by learners; (2) the disconnect between learners expectations for support and the practicalities of learning activity in networked environments; and (3) the conceptual problem of imaging learner support within networked community structures.

This study delves into the relationship between education for social justice and the concept of educational commons, seeking to elucidate the connections that exist between these two distinct yet complementary components of inclusive and humanistic pedagogy. Education for social justice represents a fundamental tenet in contemporary educational discourse, emphasising the imperative of fostering equitable opportunities and social cohesion among learners. Educational commons, as an emerging paradigm, embodies the idea of shared and open educational resources, knowledge, and practices that are accessible to all, co-designed, co-assessed and serve the whole learning community, transcending traditional notions of ownership and hierarchy in education. This study explores the diverse strategies that are based on or are aligning with commoning principles as enacted in two educational contexts in Estonia. Through Action Research, which included observations in a formal and a non-formal learning environment, and focus groups interviews, these practices were documented and are discussed in relation to the principles of social justice, namely: redistribution, recognition, and participation. By investigating the interplay between these two pedagogical approaches, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the potential synergy between education for social justice and educational commons, highlighting their capacity to catalyse positive change within education systems.

Early childhood requires a learning approach that considers individual needs and encourages the development of socio-emotional and cognitive skills. A stimulating and inclusive learning environment is essential to ensure every child has an equal opportunity to thrive. This research investigates various practical pedagogical approaches in early childhood education, focusing on developing socio-emotional, cognitive, and holistic skills. This research uses a qualitative approach by conducting a comprehensive literature review of various effective learning strategies in early childhood education. Data were analyzed thematically to identify general patterns and emerging trends. The research results show that a practical pedagogical approach in early childhood education involves using inclusive and child-centered learning methods that emphasize developing socio-emotional and cognitive skills. Involving parents, school staff, and the community has also proven critical in creating a supportive and stimulating learning environment. This research concludes that quality early childhood education requires a holistic and inclusive pedagogical approach. Educators and educational practitioners must continue developing evidence-based learning practices and integrating findings from this research into their daily practice. This will ensure every child has the same opportunity to develop to their full potential in a supportive and stimulating learning environment.

En este trabajo se expone el proceso y los resultados obtenidos de la investigación, la cual se basó en un estudio fundamentado en un enfoque cuantitativo cuyo objetivo principal fue identificar qué condiciones tecnológicas, de capacitación docente, de adaptación en programas académicos, se requieren para implementar con éxito ambientes virtuales a través de la plataforma Moodle en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje en la Institución Educativa Luis Camacho Rueda de San Gil, Colombia; el cual servirá como base para posibles decisiones de la institución objeto del estudio. Se trataron temas como el paradigma constructivista y conceptos referentes a la plataforma Moodle, Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC), Web 2.0, ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje, así como algunos estudios de autores que han tenido experiencias relevantes en el tema tratado. Esta investigación se realizó entre Agosto de 2011 y Marzo de 2012, en la ciudad de San Gil, Santander, Colombia. Se utilizaron los cuestionarios de preguntas cerradas como instrumentos para la recolección de información, los cuales se aplicaron al 100% de los docentes de la institución educativa. Otro instrumento de recolección de datos fue la entrevista, aplicada al docente experto en el tema quien es el encargado de administrar la infraestructura tecnológica existente en la institución. El tipo de análisis aplicado fue la estadística descriptiva. De acuerdo a los principales resultados arrojados, se puede resumir que la institución cuenta con las condiciones tecnológicas mínimas necesarias para la implementación de la plataforma Moodle en la institución educativa, así como el consentimiento de las directivas de la institución quienes muy formalmente incluyeron en sus metas institucionales para el año 2012 la actualización de la infraestructura tecnológica y el aumento en la velocidad de acceso a internet existente en la institución, para lograr avances en educación e integración de la tecnología en los procesos educativos.

This paper presents a systematic mapping study on the application of educational robotics in non-formal educational settings such as science clubs, museums, libraries, extracurricular activities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The aim of this study is to explore the potential and challenges of educational robotics in these settings, specifically in relation to teaching and learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) domains. A methodological approach was employed, involving the selection of papers based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Our findings indicate that educational robotics not only fosters computational thinking, problemsolving, creativity, and collaborative skills but also enhances student motivation and self-efficacy. Furthermore, we identify various challenges associated with the implementation of educational robotics in non-formal settings. These insights may serve as a foundation for future research and pedagogical practices in the field.

Everything our research team learned about virtual learning communities (VLCs) from formal learning environments was called into question when we recently shifted our attention to non-formal and informal learning environments. In almost all of the literature we reviewed, what we understood about online learning communities and how they develop, grow, and die away was based on examinations of formal online learning environments—primarily on postsecondary courses managed by institutions of higher learning. Formal environments typically require learners to engage each other online in prescribed, externally defined ways. As effective as formal environments may be, paying exclusive attention to them limits our understanding of the nature of learning in online settings. Non-formal and informal learning environments, by contrast, impose fewer controls on learner activities, and collaboration among participants is not required. This chapter considers what we are beginning to learn about learning communities in formal, non-formal, and informal online environments and speculates about how learners make use of social interaction to enhance learning. We wonder out loud whether “community” is an overused, tired metaphor for understanding dynamic learning phenomena and social interaction evident in non-formal and informal learning environments.

Engineering education requires a strong emphasis on problem-solving, critical thinking, and practical application of knowledge. To achieve the highest quality of teaching, educators must create a trusting environment that allows students to feel comfortable asking questions and performing to the best of their abilities. This paper outlines the teaching philosophy and practices of an engineering lecturer who has adapted his pedagogical approach across several universities in Sweden and abroad. The author emphasizes the importance of being flexible and responsive to student needs, offering early and constructive feedback, and providing students a safe and supportive learning environment with opportunities to develop programming skills. The paper also includes comments from students that reflect the author’s effectiveness as an educator in creating a supportive and challenging learning environment for engineering students.

The implementation of inclusive teaching requires that teachers adapt their behavior and actions in such a way that they promote trust within an all-inclusive and supportive teaching and learning environment. This review chapter analyzes how teachers through their personality traits promote trust between themselves and students in order to promote an inclusive and supporting teaching and learning environment. The chapter will use Giddens Structuration Theory with reference to agency theory to understand how their personality traits as imbedded in their agency may either promote or hinder their ability to create trust and build inclusive and supportive environment in the classroom. In this chapter, some lessons from the literature review and analysis will be drawn and recommendations made. The main lesson drawn is that teachers’ personality traits are very important toward establishing trust between them and the student in an inclusive classroom. It is very important also to note that the application of teacher agency based on their personality trait may or may not create the conducive conditions for a pedagogy that is inclusive or constraining for the students.

Equal education programs in non-formal education units are an important means of ensuring access to education for students who have been marginalized from formal education. In facing complex challenges such as the inability to access formal education for various reasons, learning strategies are key in achieving educational equality. This research aims to explore various effective learning strategies in the context of equality education in non-formal education units. This type of research uses a descriptive qualitative approach, namely exploring social phenomena through observation, in-depth interviews, and text analysis to understand in depth how these learning strategies are implemented and integrated in non-formal learning environments.. The research results show that effective learning strategies include creating an inclusive learning environment that pays attention to individual needs, providing a curriculum that is relevant and appropriate to the needs of participants, as well as utilizing technology and innovative learning methods consider specific characteristics of equity education, such as experiential learning approaches, distance learning, or technology-based learning. The implication of this research is the importance of developing learning strategies that are adaptive and responsive to the needs of students in equal education in non-formal education units, thereby ensuring that all individuals have equal opportunities to access education and improve their quality of life.

Sensory Gardens are considered non-formal learning environments, however, they are not used as a methodological alternative for teaching in Brazil. The installation of the QR Code in a Sensory Garden is innovative and the link to in a non-formal learning environment can attract and retain student’s attention. Our study tested the hypothesis that Public School students between the ages of 13 and 15 years old are not stimulated by subjects taught in the area of botany when exposed to non-formal learning environments. The study selected 23 students, divided into two teams, in which one obtained access to the Sensory Garden and the other team was restricted to the content addressed in the formal learning environment. ‘Diagnostic questionnaires’ were applied to assess botanical knowledge, before and after the activity, comparing results between teams. From the data obtained, it was possible to prove the effectiveness of the Sensory Garden in the student’s botanical learning process. Our results indicate that the use of QR Code technology contributed to students’ improvement and interest in botany, while arousing curiosity and enthusiasm to observe, in loco, the content previously covered in the classroom. In assessing botanical knowledge among participants, this study reported that students attending the Sensory Garden showed better performance compared to students who did not attend the Sensory Garden. Therefore, we reject the hypothesis tested and accept that the Sensory Garden using QR Code was relevant and contributed as a study tool for 13 to 15 years old students from Public High-schools.

The classroom learning environment aids students in acquiring knowledge and improving their abilities, with learning acquisition serving as the cornerstone of curriculum evaluation. Traditional approaches to curriculum assessment predominantly rely on explicit indicators like university reputation, resource allocation, and academic performance, often neglecting the implicit measure of learning acquisition. A shift towards a student-centered perspective suggests that curriculum evaluation should prioritize students’ subjective experiences. In line with this perspective, this study endeavors to investigate the interplay among the classroom learning environment, learning support, and learning acquisition within applied undergraduate universities in China. Employing a descriptive research methodology through a survey, participants responded to a questionnaire. A total of 411 students majoring in law, art, and engineering from Henan CJ University in China were included in the study. Findings revealed no significant correlation between respondents’ gender, age, major, and the classroom learning environment, learning support, and learning acquisition. However, notable associations were identified between the classroom learning environment and learning support, the classroom learning environment and learning acquisition, as well as learning support and learning acquisition. This research underscores that an enhanced classroom learning environment corresponds to better learning support, resulting in improved learning outcomes.

BackgroundLGBTQ+ adolescents living with mental conditions are affected by stigma based on their health status, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity/expression (SOGIE), especially when navigating their learning environments. Our aim is to gain detailed insights into how LGBTQ+ adolescents living with mental conditions vision their learning environments so that they can feel safe and supported enough to freely disclose their SOGIE and health status, and hence thrive.MethodsAware of the participants’ vulnerabilities, a dialogical narrative-based approach was used to gather thick descriptions and deep insight, while applying the “seven C's”: conversation, curiosity, context, complexity, challenge, caution, and care (Frank, 2019). Recruitment was done through LGBTQ+ Denmark and via networks of networks. Two LGBTQ+ young adults living with chronic conditions held the dialogues. Mode of communication was chosen by the participants (either face-to-face, via internet or via telephone). Data analysis was conducted via the “analysis grid” (Roest et al. 2021).ResultsNine dialogues lasting from 20 to 50 minutes were held with youth from 14 to 24 years old during spring 2022. According to their narratives, supportive and safe learning environments would: respect for change of names and pronouns, update learning materials, allow for flipped classrooms (hybrid teaching tested under COVID lockdowns), have separate neutral change rooms/bathrooms and create safe private spaces to take medications. They would also permit higher absenteeism rates for those living with chronic conditions or getting hormonal treatments, allow for more breaks/slower version of the pensum, and show proactive healthy curiosity and respect for “invisible diseases”, fluid SOGIEs and neurodiversity/neurodivergent profiles.ConclusionsThe differing participants’ narratives provide innovative ways to create safe and supportive inclusive learning environment that embrace and enhance diversity.

A Collaborative Approach to Safety, Equity, and Fairness by Medical Staff, Graduate Medical Education, Human Resources, and Law Enforcement.