Education For Handicapped Children Research Articles

One of the goals of a country is to prosper its people including people with disabilities. The welfare of persons with disabilities can be achieved through increased independence, the educational process, and patterns of care for people with disabilities. The education process and the burden of care to realize the independence of persons with disabilities are influenced by the level of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, and community environment. This study aims to 1) analyze the level of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, and community environment towards the burden of childcare; 2) analyze the level of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, community environment, and the burden of child care for children's education; and 3) analyze the level of disability, family economics, family environment, school environment, community environment, the burden of care, and education of children towards the independence of persons with disabilities; 4) analyze whether the burden of care mediates the effect of variable levels of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, community environment on the education of children with disabilities; and 5) analyze whether the education of children with disabilities mediates the effects of variable levels of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, community environment on the independence of persons with disabilities in the Province of Bali. This study was designed using quantitative methods with 177 respondents with disabilities taken by probability sampling with proportionate stratified random sampling techniques. The analytical model used is Partial Least Square (PLS) with Structural Equation Modeling. The results showed that: 1) variables of the level of disability, family economy, family environment, and school environment directly had a positive and significant effect on the burden of caregiving and only the community environment had a direct but not significant effect on the burden of care; 2) variables of the level of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, and community environment directly have a positive and significant effect on the education of children with disabilities and the independence of persons with disabilities; 3) the burden of care mediates the influence of the level of disability, family economy, family environment, and school environment significantly on the education of children with disabilities. While the influence of the community environment on the education of children with disabilities through the burden of caregiving as a mediating variable has no significant effect; 4) education of children with disabilities mediates the influence of the level of disability, family economy, family environment, school environment, and community environment significantly on the independence of persons with disabilities in the province of Bali. Based on the results of this study, it is hoped that the government, NGOs and social organizations to encourage increased access and quality of education for children with disabilities, skills training and empowerment of persons with disabilities to foster independence and fulfill the rights of persons with disabilities. KEY WORDS Rate of disability, family economy, environment, education for disabled children, independence of the disabled

The 46th NERA Congress was held on March 8th to 10th 2018 at the University of Oslo. NERA is the Nordic Educational Research Association that brings together researchers in the field of educational sciences in the Nordic countries. An essential part of the association and of the congress are NERA’s 24 networks that are organised around different subject areas in educational sciences like early childhood research, youth research etc.. There is a network also for social pedagogy. Its aim is to develop and strengthen the cooperation between researchers and professional groups, engaged or interested in the field of social pedagogy, in the Nordic countries and even wider in Northern Europe like in Poland and Germany. It is currently coordinated by six researchers from five different countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Poland and Sweden. The theme for NERA2018 congress was Educational Research: Boundaries, Breaches and Bridges. The Social pedagogy network had organized altogether four sessions during the congress dealing with topical issues in the field of social pedagogical research. These sessions included two roundtable discussions, the first one dealing with sensitive research and the second one on social pedagogy at schools. In addition to the roundtables there was one symposium considering research in the area of asylum seekers and refugees, and one session was for traditional paper presentations. The countries that were represented in network sessions were Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Poland. The sessions awakened animated conversations between participants. One common topic of the discussed issues related to the role and transformation of social pedagogy in changing societies. The sessions of the social pedagogy network were opened up by the roundtable discussion on sensitive research. The leading question for the short presentations of the roundtable participants was: how to research in cooperation with extremely vulnerable people. We heard two interesting presentations by Irena Dychawy Rosner from Malmö University and by Aneta Ostaszewska from the University of Warsaw that giuded us to a discussion about how to support the participation in social pedagogical research of e.g. women working in prostitution so that not just their anonymity and well-being during the research process are secured but also their autonomy and agency could be supported. The research examples shown in the presentations were so fascinating that the discussion around them filled up all the time of the roundtable although we had planned to have four presentations instead of two but there had been two cancellations. The second session following the roundtable was a traditional paper presentation session. Even this session had one last minute cancellation – we assumed it was because of the flue season – so we had two presentations by Jan Arvid Haugan from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Vilborg Jóhannsdóttir from the University of Iceland. Jan Arvid’s presentation was on ’Coping strategies and resilience in upper secondary school’. He shared with us some social pedagogically interesting findings about the background factors behind school drop-out. He himself told us that he was not familiar with the social pedagogical discussion but he had thought that his research findings could be of use in our field when we are trying to find out ways how to support the integration of young people. And he certainly had right. Vilborg’s presentation on the other hand was very interesting for another reason: it was about Icelandic social pedagogy, which differs quite a lot from the understandings of social pedagogy in other Nordic countries. In Iceland, the social pedagogical practice concerns almost only work with people with disabilities. The professional education, role and perspectives of social pedagogy have developed in line with the paradigm change rooted in the CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), which has replaced the medical understanding of disability by the social relational understanding of disability. For example in Finland, the social pedagogical discussion and practice have focused very little on people with disabilities. The second roundtable was on social pedagogy at schools. There were four short presentations leading to a common discussion about the role that social pedagogy and social pedagogues have and could have at schools in different Nordic countries. Vilborg Jóhannsdóttir shared us more thoughts on social pedagogy in Iceland concentrating now on the work that the social pedagogues are doing in inclusive schools. Their role seems to be very essential in supporting the education of disabled children and young people in ’normal’ schools but it is at the same time quite controversal. Amela Pacuka from the Oslo Metropolitan University asked us in her presentation: What social pedagogy is for? She had a very critical perspective towards social pedagogy as it is practiced in Norway at schools: trying to find a balance between measurement, quality assurance, testing and relations work. Margareta Fehland and Mikael Boregren from Malmö University presented a project that they have been working on developing a new way of listening to kids in school. Their presentation roused a lively discussion about empathy and about the possiblity to teach empathy in social pedagogical studies. Interestingy, discussion about empathy and about teaching empathy has just recently awaken in the Finnish social pedagogical discussion. Eija Raatikainen, Leigh Anne Rauhala and Seija Mäenpää from Metropolia University of Applied Sciences have published an article about professional empathy called ’Qualified Empathy: A key element for an empowerment professional’ in the Finnish journal of social pedagogy. It is available online in English (Raatikainen, Rauhala, Mäenpää 2017). The last peresentation in the roundtable was about social pedagogical thinking at schools in Finland, presented by Elina Nivala from the University of Eastern Finland. It described social pedagogy as an approach rather than a profession meaning that different professionals at school can have a social pedagogical orientation in their work: A teacher, a special education teacher, a school social worker and even a school nurse can have a social pedagogical mindset in their work e.g. when building pedagogical relations and working holistically with the pupils, supporting their participation and finding ways to strengthen the school community and well-being of everybody at schools. All of them can be considered social pedagogues at schools if they want to develop their work based on social pedagogical thinking. The last session organised by the Social pedagogy network was the symposium called ’How to research in the area of asylum seekers and refugees’. It included originally six presentations: two from Finland and four from Denmark but two of those from Denmark were cancelled. The two presentations from Finland were ’Acts of citizenship in reception centre’ by Päivikki Rapo, and ’Life on hold? – A research project on agency and belonging of asylum seekers’ by Elina Nivala, both of them from the University of Eastern Finland. The Danish presentations were ’How do asylum-seekers experience a sense of meaningfulness in their everyday life in asylum-centres’ Anna Ørnemose, Lene Løkkegård and Lis Leleur, and ’Creating a sense of meaning in connection to school attendance of unaccompanied asylum seeking children’ by Nadia Klarsgaard & Kasper Drevsholt, all of them from the University College of Northern Denmark (UCN). The symposium had a wonderful opportunity to provide an arena for comparative discussion about social pedagogigal asylum research, which is a relatively new field in both countries. Discussions were animated but there could have been more time for comparative perspectives. This shows the need for more research and discussions on this field between different countries. One of the discussed topics concerned asylum seeker women and their possibilities to participation. According to observations of Danish researchers in an asylum center in Denmark, asylum seeker women were denied to get their own spaces. This was argumented with ideas of gender equality in Danish society. In Finland, the challenges on physical spaces of reception centres have also been discussed. Rapo (2018) made an ethnographic research in a Finnish reception centre for her master's thesis. In the observed reception centre, women's fragile position was understood and it was taken into account but even then some restrictions of spaces were noticed only later. It will be interesting to follow how practicies related to gender will transform in reception centres, as questions concerning gender, religion, culture and participation in Western societies are challenging. It is obvious that knowledge on participation and agency of asylum seeker and refugee women is much needed, and social pedagogical research could provide valuable perspectives and tools to produce it. All in all, the presentations and discussions during the sessions showed us very clearly that there is a lot of interesting research and work done in the field of social pedagogy in the Nordic countries. They also illustrated explicitly that the traditions in social pedagogical discussion and practice do differ quite a lot between different Nordic countries. Due to this, there should be more discussion about how social pedagogical practicies have developed historically in different societies and how they are defined theoretically. It is important to discuss critically how social pedagogical work is in practice but it would be of utmost importance to discuss as well how the practices are understood and represented in theory: what is it that makes something social pedagogical, how can it be conceptualised and what makes it different from other fields of practice. And the same goes to research: are there some elements that make research social pedagogical. We hope that the next NERA congress in Uppsala, Sweden on March 6th to 8th will provide an as lively arena for discussions than the previous one did and even more opportunities for critical reflection and shared moments of new understanding. We welcome all new researchers interested in social pedagogy to join us there.

Education For Handicapped Children Research Articles

Related Topics

Articles published on Education For Handicapped Children

Making sense of policy development of inclusive education for children with disabilities in China

Parental associations and education politics regarding disability: the case of Cyprus

Experiences of disabled children’s families concerning school-family collaboration

Inclusive education policy and experience: Global and local perspectives

Education of Disabled Children and Involvement of Parents at Champhai District, Mizoram

Cutting-edge communication and learning assistive technologies for disabled children: An artificial intelligence perspective.

Functional Design of Lekotek Centers

A Systematic Review of the Literature on Societal Attitude towards Inclusive Education In North-East India

Studies on Disability Perspectives Inclusive Education in Nepal - Focus on Methodological Review

To what extent is the schooling system willing to change to include disabled children?

DETERMINANT ANALYSIS OF DISABLED CHILDREN EDUCATION IN BALI PROVINCE, INDONESIA

Examining the legacy of the Warnock Report in Northern Ireland: A Foucauldian genealogical approach

Enhancing Creativity through Musical Drama for Children with Special Needs (Down Syndrome) in Education of Disabled Children

Insights into social pedagogical research and discussion in Northern Europe – Report from NERA2018 Congress in Oslo

Affective economies, autism, and ‘challenging behaviour’: Socio-spatial emotions in disabled children's education

Procedural Due Process and The Education of Handicapped Children

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN RUSSIA: THE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS ABOUTON INCLUSION

A just state of affairs: philosophical reflections on justice, inclusion and the education of disabled children

Funcionalidad familiar y participación escolar de las familias de niños con discapacidad

Testing for Parental Inequality Aversion. Evidence from Mexico

Lead the way for us