Vol 15 No 12 - November 2016

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:1694-2493
e-ISSN:1694-2116IJLTER.ORG
Vol.15 No.12

PUBLISHER
London Consulting Ltd
District of Flacq
Republic of Mauritius
www.ijlter.org
Chief Editor
Dr. Antonio Silva Sprock, Universidad Central de
Venezuela, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Editorial Board
Prof. Cecilia Junio Sabio
Prof. Judith Serah K. Achoka
Prof. Mojeed Kolawole Akinsola
Dr Jonathan Glazzard
Dr Marius Costel Esi
Dr Katarzyna Peoples
Dr Christopher David Thompson
Dr Arif Sikander
Dr Jelena Zascerinska
Dr Gabor Kiss
Dr Trish Julie Rooney
Dr Esteban Vázquez-Cano
Dr Barry Chametzky
Dr Giorgio Poletti
Dr Chi Man Tsui
Dr Alexander Franco
Dr Habil Beata Stachowiak
Dr Afsaneh Sharif
Dr Ronel Callaghan
Dr Haim Shaked
Dr Edith Uzoma Umeh
Dr Amel Thafer Alshehry
Dr Gail Dianna Caruth
Dr Menelaos Emmanouel Sarris
Dr Anabelie Villa Valdez
Dr Özcan Özyurt
Assistant Professor Dr Selma Kara
Associate Professor Dr Habila Elisha Zuya
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research
The International Journal of Learning, Teaching
and Educational Research is an open-access
journal which has been established for the dis-
semination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
field of education, learning and teaching. IJLTER
welcomes research articles from academics, ed-
ucators, teachers, trainers and other practition-
ers on all aspects of education to publish high
quality peer-reviewed papers. Papers for publi-
cation in the International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research are selected
through precise peer-review to ensure quality,
originality, appropriateness, significance and
readability. Authors are solicited to contribute
to this journal by submitting articles that illus-
trate research results, projects, original surveys
and case studies that describe significant ad-
vances in the fields of education, training, e-
learning, etc. Authors are invited to submit pa-
pers to this journal through the ONLINE submis-
sion system. Submissions must be original and
should not have been published previously or
be under consideration for publication while
being evaluated by IJLTER.

VOLUME 15 NUMBER 12 November 2016
Table of Contents
Mathematics vis-à-vis Arithmetics .......................................................................................................................................1
Hanna Savion and Michal Seri
The Goldilocks Dilemma: A Case Study toward a “Just Right” Model of Service-Learning .....................................19
Ms. Shelley Brown and Dr. Lori Maxwell
A Critical Interrogation of Integration, Special Educational Needs and Inclusion...................................................... 31
Glazzard Jonathan
Psychometric Properties of a Screening Tool for Elementary School Student’s Math Learning Disorder Risk.......48
Sinan OLKUN, Arif Altun, Sakine Göçer Şahin and Galip Kaya
Students‟ Academic Performance in Religious Education: A Case of Selected Schools in Botswana ...................... 67
Baamphatlha Dinama , Koketso Jeremiah, Boitumelo Sihlupheki-Jorowe, Masego Keakantse, Rebonyetsala Kemoabe, Bafedile
Kgaswe, Mpolokang Motshosi and Oshi Sebina
Research-Based Practices for Teaching Reading in Elementary Classrooms: An Exploration of the Instructional
Practices of Former Elementary Education Students ...................................................................................................... 84
Jacquelyn Covault
Community College Faculty and Conceptualizations of Disciplinary Writing.......................................................... 112
Jodi P. Lampi and Eric J. Paulson
Teaching Probability – Statistics towards Training Occupational Skills for Economic Majored Students – Case
Study at Lac Hong University Viet Nam......................................................................................................................... 130
Hoan Van Tran and Hang Thuy Nguyen
An Investigation of Discrepancies between Qualitative and Quantitative Findings in Survey Research .............. 145
Melanie DiLoreto and Trudi Gaines
Teaching the Novel in a University English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Context: An Exploratory Study in
Lebanon................................................................................................................................................................................ 155
Nahla Nola Bacha

The Academic Outcomes of Boys An Argument for a Pluralist Approach.................................................................174
Gregory IB Woodrow

1
© 2016 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 1-18, November 2016
Mathematics vis-à-vis Arithmetics
Hanna Savion and Michal Seri
Gordon Academic College of Education
Haifa, Israel
Abstract. This study engages in the two terms arithmetics and
mathematics which are frequently interpreted as having an identical
meaning. Pupils and elementary school mathematics pre-service
teachers use those terms as if they were the same. This study clarifies
these terms and explores their definition among pre-service teachers as
well as 6th and 7th grade pupils. Presentation of a historical sequence
focuses on the development of and relation between arithmetics and the
various areas of mathematics. Later on, we elaborate the terms
arithmetics and mathematics as they are meant to be understood by and
explained to the learners and present the way they are perceived by
pupils and pre-service teachers. The research findings illustrate the
confusion these terms create.
Keywords: arithmetics; mathematics; pre-service teachers.
Introduction
The relation between arithmetics and mathematics is described by the analogy to
a language, namely the relation between spelling and writing (Peterson, 2001).
Arithmetics is the foundation stone of mathematics as letters are the foundation
stone of writing. Moreover, mathematics is presented as the queen of sciences
and as such, when the fundamental laws of arithmetics are insufficient, learners
can solve more complex questions by means of the other areas of mathematics
(Stevens, 2011; Turgeman, 2006; Weintraub, 2004).
One of the frequent questions of learners, whether at elementary school or junior
high school, is: "Teacher, which books should I bring tomorrow? Arithmetics or
mathematics?” Elementary school pupils or their teachers say that they are
studying arithmetics and sometimes they say they are learning mathematics.
Moreover, the class board in elementary school displays the captions
'mathematics' and 'geometry' as two different subjects, geometry being one of
the areas of mathematics.
The study examines those two terms and how it perceived by pupils from the
6th and 7th grade and by students of elementary school mathematics teaching.

2
Theoretical Background
The Israeli Managing Director Circular (Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sport, 2006) which specifies the mathematics curriculum for elementary schools,
is grounded in the perception that pupils should acquire and develop a
numerical and geometric insight. This insight is based on the acquisition of
terms and structures in arithmetics and geometry as a continuing process. The
arithmetic insight can be achieved by mastering mathematical competences and
by being familiar with fundamental facts while emphasising oral computations.
The same applies to the relations between different arithmetic terms and relying
on them when choosing strategies for solving questions and checking the
answers. All this is done by using the mathematical language correctly. In junior
high school, the academic year in the 7th grade starts with revision of the laws of
arithmetics familiar to the pupils from elementary school. Later on, the pupils
learn algebraic expressions which comprise letters and numbers, emphasising
the performance of arithmetic operations, acquaintance of mathematical terms
and mathematical procedures. The concepts arithmetics and mathematics are
described in literature as follows:
Mathematics: a language dealing with numbers and shapes, their properties and
the investigation of their interrelations, while using signs and symbols.
Mathematics consists of arithmetics, algebra, differential and integral
arithmetics, geometry, trigonometry and more (Hebrew Encyclopaedia, 1972;
Peterson, 2001; Stevens, 2011; Weintraub, 2004).
Arithmetics: an area of mathematics based on the four basic mathematical
operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, root extraction as well
as on the order of operations between them. This area constitutes a fundamental
part of mathematics studies and is essential for the understanding thereof
(Avnion, 1997; Hebrew Encyclopaedia, 1953; Stevens, 2011; Wikipedia, 2014).
In the introduction to his book, Gazit (2004, p. 5) wrote:
… true, many people use the principles of arithmetics – the first and
basic mathematical area… However, mathematics has additional areas,
the most familiar among them are: algebra, plane geometry and solid
geometry, analytical geometry, trigonometry, differential and integral
arithmetics, statistics and probability.
To emphasize the relations of arithmetics and all the other areas of mathematics,
a Graphic Mathematics Model is drawn (Figure 1 - below). The Model illustrates
some of the areas of mathematics.
The relations between arithmetics and the other branches - areas of mathematics
are exemplified by bi-directional arrows. Those arrows show the reciprocal
connections of arithmetics and all the other areas of mathematics.

3
Figure 1: Graphic Mathematics Model -
Mathematics and the various areas-branches included in it
(the representing the other areas)
The graphic Mathematics Model (Fig. 1) and the following chronological review
indicate the development of the areas of mathematics, in general, and of
arithmetics, in particular, and how they are intertwined.

4
Historical-Chronological Review
Researchers concur to some extent that mathematics (counting methods, four
basic mathematical operations and geometric computations: arithmetics and
geometry) was developed in Egypt at about 4000 B.C. (Gazit, 2004).
Nevertheless, there are evidences related to the need for counting which dates
back to 25,000 B.C. (Arbel, 2005). The Greek mathematicians distinguished
between the science of numbers (arithmetics – number in Greek arithmos and in
Latin arithmetica) and the wisdom of computation (logistics) (Dagon, 1955;
Smith, 1958). Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) and his disciples worshiped whole
numbers (Arbel, 2005), arguing that everything is a number, everything is
arithmos. This view was proven as incorrect when they calculated the length of
a diagonal of a square whose side was 1 length unit. As a result the Pythagorean
sect disbanded. Later, the mathematicians embraced the geometric approach
which facilitated proofs without reference to numbers (Unguru, 1989a). Archytas
(5th-6th centuries B.C.), one of Pythagoras disciples, divided the engagement in
mathematics into four areas (a division maintained for about 2000 years).
Absolute numbers – arithmetics, useful numbers – music, sizes in position –
geometry, sizes in motion – astronomy. The Pythagoreans raised the number to
a level of religion, a religion of numbers (Arbel, 2005; Dagon, 1995; Gazit, 2004).
Euclid (3rd century B.C.) collected, edited and enhanced the geometric material
written by his predecessors. Until our present days, the Euclidean geometry is
named after him. Archimedes (3rd century B.C.) conceived the fundamentals of
integral arithmetics (Arbel, 2005). Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century A.C.) made a
great contribution to trigonometry and Abu al-Wafa' (10th century A.C.)
continued to develop it. In the year 90 A.C., Nicomachus of Gerasa wrote
"Introduction to Arithmetics" – the first work separating arithmetics from
geometry.
During the Middle Ages, the term arithmetics was not common, perhaps
because it did not have a Latin origin. People were accustomed to call it 'Greek
arithmetics' (or in Latin 'numerorum scientica'). In 1116 A.C., arithmetics was
referred to as 'arismetricis', in 1140 A.C. it was called 'arismetrica' and 50 years
later Fibonacci used the word 'rismetrica' (Smith, 1958).
Viete (1591) sets clear boundaries between the logistica numerosa – arithmetics –
and logistica speciose – algebra. According to him, arithmetics deals with
specific numbers and the regular arithmetic operations with them whereas
algebra constitutes a method of acting with the numerical structures connecting
between occurrences (Unguru, 1989b). The two numerical areas of study
continued to be studied separately until the invention of the printing press.
Then, the more aristocratic name 'arithmetics' combined the two disciplines.
This term is not universal. Until today, the Germans refer to arithmetics as to the
theoretical part and use the word Rechnen [calculate] for the ancient logistics and
the French call is calcul [calculation] (Smith, 1958).
Pierre de Fermat (17th century) developed a theory which comprised much of
what is called at present analytical geometry and at the same period Rene
Descartes actualised and in fact invents the concept of the analytical geometry
(Arbel, 2005). Moreover, Descartes was the first to present the infinitesimal

5
computation which constituted the basis of differential and integral
arithmetics developed by Leibnitz and Newton after Descartes' death. In 1664,
Isaac Barrow presented in his lectures materials which were the origins of
differential arithmetics. In 1675, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz developed the differential and integral arithmetics. In 1690, Jacques
Bernoulli used for the first time the term integral. In 1920, Hardy Godfrey
Harold solved the Waring problem by a method which integrated analysis with
arithmetics. Its importance resides in the fact that it is also applicable in the case
of very difficult arithmetic problems.
The historical review above reinforces the fact that arithmetics is an initial
basis and inseparable part of all areas - branches of mathematics.
Research Statement
Hashiv (anon) and Peterson (2001) argue that most pupils do not know to define
mathematics or what is the difference between mathematics and arithmetics.
Kyriakides, Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou (2016) state that pupils have
fundamentally narrow viewpoint of mathematics as being primarily
computation and arithmetics. Latterell and Wilson (2016) state that elementary
teachers and elementary students tend to describe mathematics as arithmetics
operations and computations.
Aharoni (2011) indicates that at elementary school arithmetics teaching is
actually elementary mathematics in which basic topics are studied. For example:
essence of the number as well as meaning of the basic mathematical operations,
derived from the rules and order of the mathematical operations. Mathematics is
unique in that it simplifies the most basic thinking processes.
What distinguishes the math is that it abstracts the basic thinking processes. We
have examined the above with pre-service teachers and pupils.
Research aim: explore how the terms mathematics and arithmetic are perceived
by 6th graders, 7th graders and pre-service teachers.
Materials and Methods
Research Population
76 pupils from the 6th grade.
65 pupils from the 7th grade.
56 pre-service teachers [hereafter – "students"] in their 4th year of studies,
learning to become elementary school mathematics teachers.
Research Instrument
An open-ended questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprising three items. These
items aimed to check the meaning attributed by the participants (a subjective
interpretation) to the terms arithmetics and mathematics.

6
Results
The table in Appendix A presents the questionnaires results. The participants'
answers were divided into categories. The name of which was determined
according to the answers. The data were quantitatively analyzed while finding
relations between the results.
Item No. 1: What is Arithmetics?
Most of the students (89%) knew to explain what is arithmetics. Conversely, only
about half of the 6th and 7th graders – 47% of the 6th graders and 62% of the 7th
graders - could explain the essence of this term.
Table 1: Results (%) for the term arithmetics
Examples of answers to the item 'what is arithmetics': "a learning subject at school,
which helps us to advance in life", "arithmetics is mathematics for elementary school",
"a simple computation of numbers, i.e. plus, minus, division, multiplication".
Item No. 2: What is Mathematics?
79% of the students knew to explain this term. 31% of the 7th graders (less than
half the percentage of the students) and 18% of the 6th graders (about one quarter
of the percentage of the students) could explain the essence of mathematics.

7
Table 2: Results (%) for the term mathematics
Examples of answers to the item 'what is mathematics': "an alternative and more
difficult word for arithmetics", "mathematics is advanced arithmetics", "mathematics is
the generalization. It is arithmetics, geometry, gematria1"
Item No. 3: In Your Opinion, What is the Relation between Arithmetics and
Mathematics?
Three answers were obtained for this item. 79% of the students responded there
was a relation and specified what was its essence. So did 35% of the 7th graders
(about half of the percentage of the students). On the other hand, only 5% of the
6th graders explained this relation.
92% of the 6th graders believed that there was no difference between arithmetics
and mathematics. 62% of the 7th graders and 14% of the students thought so too.
3% of the 6th and 7th graders as well as 7% of the students gave no answer to this
item.
1
Gematria originated as an Assyro-Babylonian-Greek system of
alphanumeric code/cipher later adopted into Jewish culture that assigns numerical value to a
word/name/phrase. It is also used in Greek and Arabic.

8
Table 3: Results (%) for the relation between arithmetics and mathematics
Examples of answers to the item 'what is the relation between arithmetics and
mathematics': "There is no relation", "a similar subject but mathematics is more
difficult. Arithmetics is for elementary school and mathematics is for post-elementary
school", "in my opinion arithmetics is for children and mathematics for adolescents",
"arithmetics is the basis of mathematics, we learn first the basic material and from there
we shift to mathematics".
Although they had not been asked, the participants related in their answers to
the degree of difficulties they encountered in arithmetics and mathematics.
Below are their answers and the analysis thereof:
39% of the 6th graders maintained that arithmetics was an easy subject whereas
mathematics was a difficult one. Compared to them, 5% of the 7th graders and
4% of the students thought like them and chose to indicate it in their answers.

9
Table 4: Results (%) for the degree of difficulties encountered in arithmetics
Examples of answers to the item 'degree of difficulties encountered in
arithmetics': "Arithmetics is the easier level for beginning children (addition and
subtraction, comparison between integers)"
Table 5: Results (%) for the degree of difficulties encountered in mathematics
Examples of answers to the item 'degree of difficulties encountered in
mathematics': "… much more difficult than arithmetics".

10
Summary and Conclusions
This study aimed to explore how the terms mathematics and arithmetics and the
relation between them are perceived by pupils in the 6th and 7th grade and by
students of elementary school mathematics teaching.
The results illustrated that less than half the 6th graders could explain what is
arithmetics and less than one-fifth were able to explain what is mathematics.
This accounted for the finding that pupils of the 6th grade (92%) responded there
was no relation between arithmetics and mathematics. It is noteworthy that the
pupils have been learning arithmetics for six years and still found it difficult to
clarify this term. About 40% of the 6th graders related to the degree of difficulties
they had in arithmetics and/or mathematics. Underscoring the 'easy' arithmetics
versus the 'difficult' mathematics was in line with the other results discussed
above.
About 60% of the 7th graders could define arithmetics and some 30% knew to
define mathematics. Two-thirds of the 7th grade pupils thought there was no
relation between mathematics and arithmetics and one-third believed there was
a relation between them. We realized that there was a change in the reference to
and understanding of the relation between mathematics and arithmetics among
pupils moving from the 6th to the 7th grade. 92% of the 6th graders claimed there
was no relation between mathematics and arithmetics as compared to 62% of the
7th graders. It was obvious that in spite of the gap of one year, the transition to
junior high school affected the differentiation in the answers. Nevertheless, most
of the 7th graders, whose learning subject was already called mathematics, did
not know to explained what was the essence of mathematics and did not think
there was a relation between mathematics and arithmetics.
The students showed no meaningful difference between the percentage of
answers to each of the questions. The results indicated that the students had a
more consolidated opinion about the essence of arithmetics, the essence of
mathematics and the relation between them. About 10% of the students failed to
explain the essence of arithmetics and approximately 20% did not know to
explain the essence of mathematics and the relation between the two.
The pupils' answers indicated that there was no distinction between arithmetics
and mathematics. One learns arithmetics from the 1st until the 6th grade and
mathematics from the 7th grade and above. Some think that arithmetics is the
order of operations in exercises, such as: multiplication, division, addition and
subtraction while in mathematics pupils learn equations, algebra and so on. For
certain learners of mathematics implies exercises with fractions ('complicated
exercises') (see Appendix C, tables 1-5).
The historical review described above and the research results emphasise that
arithmetics is the theory of numbers or to be more precise the theory of
operations with numbers. In order to increase pupils and their teachers'
awareness of an appropriate and accurate use of these terms, we described the
relation between arithmetics and mathematics by means of the Mathematics
Model. The Model shows arithmetics at the vertex of a pyramid which feeds

11
(mutual feedback) all the other divisions/areas of mathematics located at the
base of the pyramid.
Learners use these terms currently but with no accuracy and conceptualisation.
The daily use of the terms mathematics and arithmetics, as if they were one
term, while not paying attention to the relation and/or the difference between
them, is one of the factors affecting the lack of clarity and distinction between
these two terms.
We should relate to the fact that the subject of arithmetics learnt in elementary
school is an incomparably crucial and essential milestone. Arithmetics forms an
important and inseparable part of mathematics studies in elementary school,
junior high school and above. Although the arithmetic operations are apparently
a simple procedure, elementary school pupils should understand and correctly
use the order of the basic mathematical operations and the process of
computation. This helps for example to prevent difficulties in understanding the
mathematical operations and connections in algebraic expressions which is the
first topic the 7th graders encounter when starting the junior high school.
Mathematics studies in the wider sense and not necessarily only arithmetics
studies constitute the basis for teaching organized rational thinking. Arithmetics
studied at elementary school is an important and inseparable part of
mathematics studied in elementary school and later on. Arithmetics, as the basis
of mathematics, is an extensive area with quite a few nuances. Mathematics
teachers in general and students in particular who understand this, are endowed
with the orientation for proper teaching.
From the very start, when pupils comprehend the difference between the terms
'arithmetics' and 'mathematics' and express themselves correctly, it implies that
they understand the meaning of each word. This is the opening to the continued
appropriate mathematical conduct, grounded in the knowledge of definitions
and understanding of processes.
We want to end with a short story taken from the field:
During one of the mathematics lessons in the 7th grade where we are teaching, a
teacher (from a difference discipline) came into the classroom to make an
announcement. He saw exercises written on the class board, turned to the pupils
and asked: "When do we move from arithmetics to mathematics?" When asked:
"Why did you ask this question?" he replied: "Because arithmetics is for
beginners and mathematics for higher grades. It is all the same thing".

12
References
Aharoni, R. (2011). Arithmetics for parents: A book for adults about mathematics of children.
Tel Aviv: Shocken Publishing House. [Hebrew]
Arbel, B. (2005). A brief history of mathematics. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute. [Hebrew]
Avnion, A. (Eds.) (1997). Sapir Dictionary. Tel Aviv: Hed Artzi/Itav. [Hebrew]
Dagon, S. (1955). History of ancient mathematics. Tel Aviv: Dvir Publishing. [Hebrew]
Gazit, A. (2004). Eureka…! About people who loved to think and compute. Herzelia: Geist.
[Hebrew]
Hashiv (unknown). Who doesn't understand mathematics.
http://www.hashiv.co.il/28156/math-article1. Accessed 16.12.2014. [Hebrew]
Hebrew Encyclopaedia (1953). Arithmetics (vol. 5, p. 877). Tel-Aviv: Society for the
Publication of Encyclopaedias Ltd. [Hebrew]
Hebrew Encyclopaedia (1972). Mathematics (vol. 24, p. 750). Tel-Aviv: Society for the
Publication of Encyclopaedias Ltd. [Hebrew]
Kyriakides, A. O., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. and Prodromou, T. (2016). Mobile
Technologies in the Service of Students' Learning of Mathematics: The Example of
Game Application A.L.E.X. in the Context of a Primary School in Cyprus.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 53-78.
Latterell, C. M. and Wilson, J. L. (2016). Math is like lion hunting a sleeping gazelle:
preservice elementary teachers' metaphors of mathematics. European Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education. 4(3), 283-292.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (2006). Curriculum of mathematics for elementary
schools. Jerusalem: Pedagogical Secretariat, Department of Curricula Planning and
Development.
http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Tochniyot_Limudim/Math/Yesodi/mavo1.p
df Accessed 16.12.2014. [Hebrew]
Peterson (Doctor Peterson) (2001). The Math Forum. Difference Between Math and
Arithmetic. http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52282.html. Accessed
22.12.2014.
Smith, D.E. (1958). History of Mathematics. Vol. II. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Stevens, H. (2011). Math vs. arithmetics. Tribune Newspapers.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-26/features/ct-tribu-words-work-
math-20110126_1_arithmetic-math-class-answer-math-questions. Accessed
22.12.2014.
STIPS site (2011). What is the difference between mathematics and arithmetics?.
http://www.stips.co.il/ask/224764/%D7%9E%D7%94-
%D7%94%D7%94%D7%91%D7%93%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-
%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-
%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%91% . Accessed 10.1.2015. [Hebrew]
Turgeman, A. (2006). Hebrew mathematics in Hebrew. Mispar Hazak 2000, 12, 55-62.
Unguru, S. (1989a). Introduction to the history of mathematics. Part I: Ancient times and the
Middle Ages. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence Publications. [Hebrew]
Unguru, S. (1989b). Introduction to the history of mathematics. Part II: The Renaissance and the
New Age. Aviv: Ministry of Defence Publications. [Hebrew]
Weintraub, I. (2004). What is the difference between Arithmetic and Mathematics?
http://www.mathmedia.com/whatisdifbet.html. Accessed 9.1.2015
Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. Definitions of Arithmetics and Mathematics.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%9E%D
7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94. Accessed 18.11.2014. [Hebrew].

13
Appendix A
The questionnaire form
Name: _____________________ Age: __________
What is arithmetics?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
What is mathematics?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
In your opinion, what is the relation between arithmetics and
mathematics?
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

14
Appendix B
Results of the questionnaire
Category% of 6th
graders
% of 7th
graders
% of
students
What is
arithmetics?
Comprehensive
explanation
476289
Irrelevant/incorrect
explanation
533811
What is
mathematics?
Comprehensive
explanation
183179
Irrelevant/incorrect
explanation
826921
The relation
between
arithmetics and
mathematics
There is a relation53579
There is no difference
between them
926214
Did not respond337
Level of difficulty
in arithmetics
Believe that arithmetics is
an easy subject
3954
Did not refer to the level of
difficulty
619596
Level of difficulty
in mathematics
Believe that mathematics is
a difficult subject
3954
Did not refer to the level of
difficulty
619596

15
Appendix C
Examples of additional answers to the questionnaire
NameAgeItem 1: What is
arithmetics?
Item 2: What is
mathematics?
Item No. 3: What
in your opinion is
the relation
between
arithmetics and
mathematics?
Pupils of the 6th grade
Shir11+Arithmetics = a
subject studied in
elementary, junior
high and high
school and we
engage in it day-
by-day (at school,
restaurant,
home…)
Mathematics = a
synonym of
arithmetics. The
basic terms of
arithmetics are
called
mathematics
The relation is that
both values have
the same meaning
Hila12Arithmetics is
adding integers
and easy numbers
Mathematic is
multiplying or
dividing big
numbers
in both we use
numbers and
mathematical
operations
Idan12Arithmetics
implies exercises
and comparisons
of small numbers:
division,
multiplication,
addition and
subtraction
Mathematics is
exercises on a
high level with
fractions, decimal
numbers and
comparison on a
high level
The relation
between
arithmetics and
mathematics is the
fact that they "are
connected" to
exercises and
comparisons
between all the
areas
Itay12Arithmetics is for
younger children
in the 1st, 2nd and
3rd grades
Mathematics is for
learners in higher
grades, from the
5th grade and
above
both are subjects
which deal with
numbers
Niv11Arithmetics is a
kind of
mathematics
which constitutes
half of the wide
term called
mathematics
Mathematics is a
general term
which is divided
into two parts:
arithmetics and
geometry
The relation
between them is in
fact a relation of
similarity, they are
very similar. The
basis of both is the
basis of almost

16
everything
Yuval12Arithmetics is a
subject learnt at
elementary, junior
high and high
school and most of
it consists of the
four basic
mathematical
operations
(multiplication,
division, addition
and subtraction)
Mathematics is a
word, an area
which embodies
arithmetics,
geometry and
more
The relation
between
arithmetics and
mathematics is that
arithmetics is a
topic which is part
of mathematics
and this is the topic
which is the most
studied from
among the areas of
mathematics
Kirill12Arithmetics is a
subject on a low
level because in
the 1st-3rd grade we
say arithmetics
Mathematics is a
subject on a high
level because in
the 4th-6th grades
we say
mathematics
in arithmetics we
learn a material
which is somewhat
easier and in
mathematics we
learn a material
which is a bit more
difficult than
arithmetics.
Pupils of the 7th grade
Omri12.5Arithmetics is the
basis of
mathematics and
we start learning it
in elementary
school
Mathematics is a
small part of
algebra which is
studied in junior
high school
mathematics is
based on
arithmetics and
continues with
mathematics
Uri12Exercises of
addition,
subtraction,
multiplication and
division for the 1st-
3rd grades
Exercises of
addition,
subtraction,
multiplication and
division for the
higher grades, 4th-
12th grades
both are similar
subjects with
calculations and
exercises
Lior12Arithmetics is a
body within
mathematics. It is
a sub-subject
within the wider
subject
(mathematics)
Mathematics in
the generalisation.
It is arithmetics,
geometry
mathematics is
arithmetics but
arithmetics is not
mathematics

17
Gal12Arithmetics is
thinking about
calculation of
numbers, their
totals, quotient,
product, etc.
Mathematics is a
subject which
encompasses all
the types of
arithmetics,
computations
with equations
and so on
The relation
between
arithmetics and
mathematics is
that arithmetics is
included within
the subject of
mathematics
Michelle12.5Arithmetics is in
fact computation
– exercises and so
on
Mathematics is a
term which
comprises
algebra,
geometry,
gematria, etc.
The relation
between the two is
that arithmetics is
included in the
term mathematics
and both are in
fact a kind of
calculations
Almog12.8A subject at
school facilitating
our progress in
life
A subject studied
at school which is
necessary for the
future
both are a similar
subject but
mathematics is
more difficult.
Arithmetics is for
elementary school
and mathematics
is for post-
elementary school
Students
Dotan25Arithmetics is
computation I
think
Mathematics is a
proof of
arithmetics
we need
arithmetics in
order to reach
mathematics
Gal24A subject/area
which is derived
from mathematics
and constitutes its
basis
A very wide area
dealing with
numbers, algebra,
geometry and
others
arithmetics is part
of mathematics
Noa44Arithmetics is the
four basic
mathematical
operations studied
at elementary
school – addition,
subtraction,
multiplication and
division. Each
operation is
calculation of at
Mathematics
focuses on
quantities, spaces,
structures and
changes. Its
development took
hundreds of years
and it continues
to do so. It is
learnt at post-
elementary
The relation
between them is
that mathematics
consists of
arithmetics.
Without
arithmetics we
cannot develop in
mathematics

18
least two numbersschools and
higher education
institutions
Nofar23The basic
operations on
which
mathematics is
based: addition,
subtraction,
multiplication,
division
Proofs, theorems
which connect the
numbers and are
connected by
them
mathematics is
based on the
foundations of
arithmetics

19
The Goldilocks Dilemma:
A Case Study toward a “Just Right” Model of
Service-Learning
Ms. Shelley Brown and Dr. Lori Maxwell
Tennessee Tech University
Cookeville, Tennessee
Abstract: Scholars have long lamented the lack of conceptual clarity in
the area of SERVICE-LEARNING. The pedagogical approaches of
Sigmon (1994), Haynes (2016) and Eyler and Giles (1999) have been
applied to create a balanced or “Goldilocks” model of SERVICE-
LEARNING to courses in both Sociology and Political Science.
Moreover, preliminary quantitative assessments have been integrated
into the curriculum along with a component of a University wide
accreditation plan now for the second five-year QEP (Quality
Enhancement Plan). Presented are preliminary assessment results of a
case study demonstrating positive relationships between SERVICE-
LEARNING and skills identified as essential to critical thinking and real
world problem solving. The cross-disciplinary application of
community-based SERVICE-LEARNING projects in increasing critical
thinking skills demonstrates a positive direction for future research.
Keywords: SERVICE-LEARNING; Quality Enhancement Plan; Critical
Thinking Assessment
Introduction
Over twenty years ago, Sigmon (1994) famously lamented what is herein
relabeled, after the famous fairy tale, the “Goldilocks Dilemma.” (Cauley, 1981).
In true Goldilocks fashion, according to Sigmon, academicians were practicing
an unbalanced approach to SERVICE-LEARNING with either an inappropriate
SERVICE-learning or service-LEARNING pedagogy (1994). Under a SERVICE-
learning model, Sigmon suggested too much emphasis was placed in service to
the detriment of learning, or in our Goldilocks analogy, the SERVICE focus was
“too hard” and the classroom link “too soft” (Cauley 1981). In the service-
LEARNING imbalance, clearly, the situation was reversed, whereby scholars
were “too cool” in their service emphasis and “too hot” on the educational focus
(Sigmon 1994). To rectify this problem, Sigmon proposed SERVICE–LEARNING

20
(the capitalization is the authors’ own emphasis) programs in which both the
service and learning “would be of equal weight and would enhance the other for
all participants” (Sigmon, 1994). In this study, Sigmon’s balanced approach, or
“Goldilocks Model” has been incorporated into two groups of courses yielding
positive results. Preliminary analysis was conducted utilizing both pre-test
/post-test assessment of SERVICE-LEARNING pedagogical applications. The
results indicate that a SERVICE-LEARNING based pedagogy in which both
service and learning are given equal priority is “just right” for application in
higher education.
Review of Related Literature
The last forty years have seen a wholesale revitalization of SERVICE-
LEARNING in the college classroom. Service learning is a diverse, experience-
based approach to education and learning that has a breadth of potential
learning outcomes (Yorio and Ye, 2012). For the purposes of this case study, two
areas of relevant literature have been examined. First, there are those that have
emphasized the need for SERVICE-learning in which the primary focus is on
service. Secondly, there are those which emphasize the learning component of
service-LEARNING, seeking to answer the critical question asked by Eyler and
Giles in their seminal text: Where’s the Learning in Service Learning (1999)?
SERVICE-Learning
Imbued both with John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural admonition to
“Ask…what you can do for your country” and Reagan’s reminiscence of
Winthrop’s “City on a Hill,” colleges and universities in the 1970’s and 1980’s
began a focus on what Campus Compact purposed, the education of “students
for civil and social responsibility” (Campus Compact Vision and History, n.d.).
Campus Compact is a coalition of over 1000 colleges and Universities
throughout the United States with a focus on college-based civic engagement
(Campus Compact Overview, n.d.). Most Americans now agree that “schools
have a clear responsibility to link what children study in school to the skills they
will need at work and in their communities” (National Service-learning
Partnerships, 2002). SERVICE-learning projects provide this link between study
and real-world application.
One of the main reasons educators require SERVICE-learning projects is
because it has become a social norm. “An individual’s inclination to give is
reinforced by social norms in their community” (Piliavin & Libby 1985).
Participation in SERVICE-learning projects allows students to contribute in a
meaningful way to society (Jovanovic, DeGooyer & Reno, 2002, p 11). When
students work together for a common good, they build a strong understanding
of community and generate ideas for social change while also developing social
bonds with one another (Jovanovic, DeGooyer & Reno, 2002).
Accordingly, SERVICE-learning has become a widely utilized
pedagogical tool on college campuses across the United States. Furco (2002)
defined service learning as “an integration of community service and academic

21
study; connecting classroom instruction with real life situations” (Furco, 2002,
p.25).
Service learning seeks to engage individuals in activities that combine
both community service and academic learning. Because service-learning
Programs are typically rooted in formal courses (core academic, elective,
or vocational), the service activities are usually based on particular
curricular concepts that are being taught (Furco, 2002, p.25).
SERVICE-learning not only involves a reflection component but also a
triangular relationship between students, the institution and the community, in
which all parties are benefited and address unmet community needs (Furco,
2002). The goal of Service-learning is for students to make contributions to the
community while using the community site as an opportunity for learning.
Consistently, the emphasis remains on linking the students’ projects, instruction
and/or community service with a broader awareness of citizenship and civic
engagement (Furco, 2002). In addition, SERVICE-learning is a “method under
which students learn and develop through thoughtfully organized service that is
conducted in and meets the needs of a community and is coordinated with an
institution of higher education, and with the community; helps foster civic
responsibility; is integrated into and enhances the academic curriculum of the
students enrolled; and includes structured time for students to reflect on the
service experience.” (Campus Compact National Center for Community
Colleges, 2002). Importantly, Eyler and Giles (1999) found that the benefits of
SERVICE-learning were not limited just to the college classroom and
community. Their research demonstrated that those who contribute to society as
college students would build social capital. They become more informed voters,
better parents, and are more likely to volunteer as adults.
Returning to the introduction, Sigmon (1979) defined service learning as
"reciprocal learning" and he later (1994) developed four typologies. The primary
focus of much of the research in this area is on SERVICE-learning. This,
according to Sigmon, is out of balance with a focus on the service but less
emphasis on how it will be applied in the classroom. SERVICE-LEARNING,
which we have repurposed our Goldilocks Model and in which both the service
and learning goals are of equal value is what Sigmon advocates. In essence,
equal value would be represented in courses where both service and learning
are both emphasized through assignments, grades, student learning objectives
and/or instructional time. However, Sigmon additionally urged caution
regarding his first model of service-LEARNING as it emphasized learning to the
detriment of service. Accordingly, a renewed methodological emphasis is on this
first Sigmon model, as scholars have struggled with how to quantitatively assess
service-LEARNING.

22
Service-LEARNING
The Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges suggests
a definition of service-LEARNING in which service itself should enhance the
academic curriculum (Campus Compact National Center for Community
Colleges, 2002). More significantly, this definition points to "thoughtfully-
organized service" measured with quantitative data with the potential for an
exciting increase in "critical thinking/ real world problem solving" skills
(Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges, 2002).
Service-LEARNING assessment measures are difficult to obtain. The use
of this pedagogical approach is constantly evolving. In its nascent stages,
institutions would “quantify” service-LEARNING projects by stating numbers
of faculty members and total students engaged in any activities such as
internships and mission trips as well as courses that would more fully embody
Sigmon’s vision. As a more coherent strategy for incorporating service-
LEARNING in which a focus was on learning and academic content came to the
forefront, assessment remained problematic. Assessment measures shifted to
indirect student self-perception rather than direct measures of learning outcome
goals such as critical or creative thinking or real-world problem solving.
Although self-perception tests are not inherently flawed, they do not measure
outcomes directly. Rather, they measure students’ perceived gains of outcomes.
An important work in this area is by Eyler and Giles (1999) who
distinguish the contributions of self-perception measures and also contribute
significantly to the scholarship on assessing service-LEARNING. Not just
focusing on the how, but also the why. Pascarella and Terezini (1991) conclude
that Eyler and Giles’ process illustrates the potential gains faculty members are
able to quantitatively measure in service-LEARNING outcomes;
“[b]ecause students engaged in social problem solving are encouraged to
come to closure, to create solutions, they have to reconcile conflicting
points of view and sources of information. For some, this process will
help them apply their most advanced abilities; for others it will be the
factor that helps them move to the next stage in their ability to evaluate
and use complex information” (p.119).
Again, Sigmon (1979) defined service learning as "reciprocal
learning" and he later (1994) developed four typologies. The primary focus of
much of the research in this area is on SERVICE-learning. This, according to
Sigmon, is out of balance with a focus on the service but less emphasis on how it
will be applied in the classroom. SERVICE-LEARNING, or our Goldilocks
model, in which both the service and learning goals are of equal value is what
Sigmon advocates. In essence, equal value would be represented in courses
where both service and learning are both emphasized through assignments,
grades, student learning objectives and/or instructional time. However, Sigmon
additionally urged caution regarding the application of SERVICE-LEARNING
as scholars have struggled to locate the approach within their disciplines and

23
quantitatively assess SERVICE-LEARING in a way that is “just right” (Cauley
1981). It is to these issues that we now turn.
Cross-Disciplinary Application
Service-learning projects allow students to think outside of the box.
These projects provide real-life knowledge that they might not have acquired
otherwise. “Students may feel empowered by their experiences to assist others
in need. They may also recognize their own biases and discomfort in such
situations” (Jovanovic, DeGooyer & Reno, 2002, p. 7). It is not one particular
type of person that participates in a project. College classrooms consist of people
from every walk of life. This forces the students to communicate with one
another, use real world problem solving skills as well as critical thinking skills in
a group setting and also facilitate activities to enhance the project. This will help
students in the future as they apply for jobs or work through real life problems
with their families. Everyone experiences obstacles, and a group project in
school can better prepare these students for future challenges. These types of
projects can benefit the student and bridge the gap between these generations.
Better understanding of one another can only help society function smoothly.
“To establish commonality with the other is to recognize kinship, and therefore
obligation” (Jovanovic, DeGooyer & Reno 2002, p.12).
Methods
This project consisted of case studies of six classes in Sociology and
Political Science at Tennessee Technological University. All of these case studies
involved extensive service learning projects. Four of the classes were Aging in
American Society courses. In these courses students were given an opportunity
to submit a grant proposal that described a project that could be funded by the
university to meet the needs of seniors in the community. Each semester, a
panel of community providers selected two projects, and the students who
proposed those specific projects became the team leaders for the execution of
that project.
Two of the classes were Political Science classes. One was survey-level
American Government course and the second one was an upper division
political science course where students submitted grant proposals. In the survey
class, students went into local middle schools and taught the students debate
skills culminating in a “Great Debate” among local middle school-aged children
for prizes. This debate was held at our university. The upper division students
sponsored and brought in speakers for the annual Take Back the Night event to
raise awareness regarding violence against women, children, and men.

24
Assessment Tools
Both direct and indirect assessment tools were utilized to measure the
effect of service learning in the classroom projects for this study. As an indirect
measure of critical thinking, students completed QEP pre and post surveys
where students’ self-reported gains on critical thinking in these classes
compared to typical classes. For the direct measure of critical thinking, students
were given pre and post CAT (Critical thinking Assessment Test) assessments.
As part of the official Quality Enhancement Plan for accreditation at
Tennessee Tech University, specific skills are targeted and assessed. The Quality
Enhancement Plan is a five-year university initiative as a part of University
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation and is an integral
part of the University Strategic Plan to improve the quality of student learning.
This plan is designed to improve students’ critical thinking/real world problem
solving skills using active learning strategies. Some of the skills targeted include
evaluating and interpreting information, lifelong learning skills, effective
communication, thinking creatively and teamwork. (Tennessee Tech QEP
Background 2010-2015, n.d.) The progress that students demonstrate on course
objectives, as well as some of the objectives of the Quality Enhancement Plan
were evaluated using two separate measures, the QEP pre and post assessment
survey and the CAT Instrument.
“The Critical-thinking Assessment Test (CAT) was
developed with input from faculty across a wide range of
institutions and disciplines, with guidance from colleagues in the
cognitive/learning sciences and assessment and with support
from the National Science Foundation (NSF). This NSF funded
assessment has been used at approximately 250 institutions and
over 30 NSF projects to measure critical thinking skills. The CAT
Instrument is designed to directly assess a broad range of skills
that faculty across the country feel are important components of
critical thinking and real world problem solving. All of the
questions are derived from real world situations, most requiring
short answer essay responses. The CAT instrument is designed to
engage faculty in the assessment and improvement of students'
critical thinking.” (Critical-thinking Assessment Test Overview,
n.d.)
The CAT assesses several skills that are outlined in Table 1 (Critical-
thinking Assessment Test Overview, n.d).

25
Table 1. Skills Assessed by the CAT Instrument
Evaluating Information
 Separate factual information from inferences.
 Interpret numerical relationships in graphs.
 Understand the limitations of correlational data.
 Evaluate evidence and identify inappropriate conclusions.
Creative Thinking
 Identify alternative interpretations for data or observations.
 Identify new information that might support or contradict a hypothesis.
 Explain how new information can change a problem.
Learning and Problem Solving
 Separate relevant from irrelevant information.
 Integrate information to solve problems.
 Learn and apply new information.
 Use mathematical skills to solve real-world problems.
Communication
 Communicate ideas effectively.

26
Analysis
Using preliminary bivariate analysis results from the QEP pre and post
assessment survey (two-tailed t-test), students in both courses showed
significant improvement on multiple skills: (p<.05) (Tables 2 & 3)
Table 2: Paired two-tailed t-test of QEP Pre-/Post-Assessment (Sociology Course)
20091 20102 20113 20134
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Separate Factual
Knowledge from
Inference
2.73/3.44*
(.71)
3.06/3.88*
(.82)
3.06/3.94*
(.88)
3.06/3.94*
(.88)
Analyze & Integrate
Information, Complex
Problem Solving
2.54/3.25**
(.71)
2.88/3.65*
(.59)
3.13/3.56
(.44)
3.13/3.56
(.44)
Critical Thinking 2.81/3.56*
(.75)
3.47/4.06
(.59)
3.56/4.38*
(.81)
3.56/4.38*
(.81)
Creative Thinking 2.92/3.88*
(.95)
3.41/3.88
(.47)
3.19/4.44***
(.82)
3.19/4.44***
(.82)
Solve Real World
Problems
2.50/3.63***
(1.13)
3.41/3.93
(.53)
3.31/4.19**
(.88)
3.31/4.19**
(.88)
Analyze & Critically
Evaluate Other
Perspectives
2.77/3.69***
(.92)
3.35/4.00
(.65)
3.44/4.25*
(.82)
3.44/4.25*
(.82)
Make Effective Decisions 2.69/3.56***
(.87)
3.41/4.06
(.65)
3.56/4.00
(.44)
3.56/4.00
(.44)
Identifying Inappropriate
Conclusions
2.96/3.50*
(.54)
3.41/3.88
(.47)
2.75/3.56*
(.81)
2.75/3.56*
(.81)
Understanding the
Limitations of
Correlations
2.38/2.75
(.37)
3.00/3.71
(.71)
3.07/3.53
(.47)
3.07/3.53
(.47)
Identifying New
Information Needed to
Draw Conclusions
2.77/3.56**
(.79)
3.41/4.00*
(.59)
3.63/4.00
(.38)
3.63/4.00
(.38)
Recognizing How New
Information, Change
Solution to Problem
2.81/3.75***
(.94)
3.59/4.24
(.65)
3.31/4.19**
(.88)
3.31/4.19**
(.88)
Learn & Apply New
Information
3.24/3.75
(.51)
3.65/4.24
(.59)
3.63/4.13
(.50)
3.63/4.13
(.50)
Communicate Effectively 3.23/3.69
(.46)
3.53/4.24*
(.71)
3.13/4.63**
(1.50)
3.13/4.63**
(1.50)
Work with Others as
Team Members
3.04/4.31***
(1.27)
3.53/4.35*
(.82)
3.25/4.31**
(1.06)
3.25/4.31**
(1.06)
Note: * >.05; ** >.01; *** >.001
1 Pre-Test N= 16/ Post-Text N= 23

27
Table 3: Paired two-tailed t-test of QEP Pre-/Post-Assessment (Political Science
Course)
20071 20082 20093 20104
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Means
(Mdiff.)
Separate Factual
Knowledge from Inference
3.00/3.91*
(.24)
2.78/3.39*
(.61)
3.13/3.74***
(.61)
3.27/3.47
(.20)
Analyze & Integrate
Information, Complex
Problem Solving
2.91/3.64
(.73)
2.78/3.00
(.22)
3.13/3.18*
(.05)
3.47/3.07
(-.40)
Critical Thinking 3.36/4.55**
(1.18)
3.22/3.72
(.50)
3.43/3.88*
(.46)
3.80/3.67
(-.13)
Creative Thinking 2.82/4.18***
(1.36)
2.72/3.33
(.61)
3.23/3.74*
(.51)
3.53/3.20
(-.33)
Solve Real World
Problems
2.82/4.00*
(1.18)
2.72/3.00
(.28)
3.23/3.62
(.39)
4.00/3.33
(-.67)
Analyze & Critically
Evaluate Other
Perspectives
2.91/4.55***
(1.64)
2.83/3.72**
(.89)
3.03/3.76*
(.74)
3.87/3.40
(-.47)
Make Effective Decisions 2.82/4.09***
(1.27)
3.22/3.39
(.17)
3.38/3.65**
(.27)
4.27/3.33*
(-.93)
Identifying Inappropriate
Conclusions
3.55/4.18**
(.64)
3.06/3.50
(.44)
3.08/3.71
(.63)
3.20/3.67
(.47)
Understanding the
Limitations of
Correlations
2.45/3.73**
(1.27)
2.78/3.33
(.56)
2.73/3.50*
(.78)
2.87/3.33
(.47)
Identifying New
Information Needed to
Draw Conclusions
3.00/4.09**
(1.09)
3.17/3.61
(.44)
3.25/3.85***
(.60)
3.40/3.13
(-.27)
Recognizing How New
Information, Change
Solution to Problem
2.91/4.27***
(1.36)
2.89/2.39
(.50)
3.20/3.50
(.30)
3.73/3.47
(-.27)
Learn & Apply New
Information
3.36/4.27*
(.91)
3.67/3.94
(.28)
3.43/3.94*
(.52)
4.20/3.53*
(-.67)
Communicate Effectively 3.64/4.36
(.73)
3.29/3.61
(.32)
3.41/3.79
(.38)
4.13/3.40*
(-.73)
Work With Others As
Team Members
3.64/3.82
(.18)
3.06/2.89
(-.17)
3.33/2.82**
(-.50)
3.04/3.07*
(-.93)
Note: * >.05; ** >.01; *** >.001

28
Unlike the QEP pre and post assessment, which measures how students feel
they have progressed on certain objectives, The CAT measures a student’s
ability to transfer critical thinking skills to non-specific disciplines. “A series of
increasingly deeper and more explicit question prompts are used to engage
students’ critical thinking skills to measure the extent to which people can
understand and evaluate new information and apply that information to a novel
situation.” (Haynes et al, 2016 p.49)
Using the CAT (Critical Thinking assessment Test) preliminary analysis,
students were evaluated on their progress on a number of skills. Students
showed significant improvement on the following skills: (paired one tailed t-
test)(p <.05)
 Summarizing the pattern of results in a graph without making
inappropriate references
 Identifying additional information needed to evaluate a
hypothesis
 Total CAT score (overall measure of critical thinking skills)
Finally, the IDEA Evaluation tool utilized a likert scale survey to assess
progress on relative objectives in the course that are selected by the instructor.
The emphasis of the IDEA evaluation is on improving teaching, learning and the
higher education process. For this evaluation, students in the course are asked
to evaluate their perceptions of progress on relevant objectives to the course,
identified by the professor prior to the evaluation. As demonstrated in Table 4, a
majority of students in the courses utilized for this study reported “Substantial”
or “Exceptional” progress on relevant objectives.
Table 4: IDEA evaluation results demonstrating students’ perceptions of progress on
relevant objectives
Targeted Skill
(Relevant Objective)
2007 2009 2010 2011 2013
Learning to Apply
Course Material to
Improve Thinking,
Problem Solving and
Decision Making
88%/84% 67% 82% 95% 95%
Learning to analyze and
critically evaluate ideas,
arguments and points of
view
88%/92% 67% 89% 90% 86%
Conclusion
In conclusion, we encourage further scholarship vis-à-vis critical thinking
and SERVICE-LEARNING in cross-disciplinary applications. SERVICE-
LEARNING can have a positive, significant effect on many of the skills
identified as crucial to the critical thinking skills of college students.

29
Demonstrable gains were indicated both across disciplines and over time in QEP
pre and post measures, IDEA student evaluations and the CAT instrument.
Students learn by doing and therefore, active learning strategies such as
SERVICE-LEARNING projects/opportunities are effective tools for developing
these real world skills and improving critical thinking. SERVICE-LEARNING
projects provide this “link” between study and real-world application. Although
we have found a promising positive relationship between SERVICE-LEARNING
and critical thinking, more research using direct measures is needed. Thus, we
proffer that universities continue, as suggested by Sigmon, to move away from
the “too soft” neglect of the classroom inherent in SERVICE-learning and,
likewise eschew the “too hard” approach of service-LEARNING that overworks
the student in the classroom with no time left for civic education; obviously,
neither option provides a balanced model of SERVICE-LEARNING. Clearly the
balanced and interdisciplinary application of a “Goldilocks model of SERVICE-
LEARNING” is invaluable in higher education. Therefore, we would suggest,
based on our assessment, that when SERVICE and LEARNING are used as
pedagogical tools in balance with each other, a maximum benefit for the
students can take place. In other words, if SERVICE and LEARNING are given
equal emphasis in the classroom, the learning that takes place is “just right.”
References
About the CAT.(n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from
https://www.tntech.edu/cat/about/
Campus Compact National Center for Community Colleges. (2002). Essential Service –
Learning Resource Guide [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED479524.pdf
Campus Compact National Center for Colleges. Mission and Vision. Retrieved from
http://compact.org/who-we-are/mission-and-vision/#history
Campus Compact. “Who We Are”(n.d.)Retrieved November 23, 2016, from
http://compact.org/who-we-are/
Cauley, Lorinda Bryan. (1981). Goldilocks and The Three Bears. New York: Putnam
Eyler, J., & Giles Jr, D. E. (1999). Where's the Learning in Service-Learning? Jossey-Bass
Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, Inc., 350 Sansome St., San Francisco,
CA 94104.
Furco, A. (2002). Is Service-Learning Really Better Than Community Service? In A.
Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.) Service-learning: The Essence of Pedagogy (p. 25).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing
Haynes, Ada, et. al. 2016. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Volume
16, No. 4. August 2016, pp.44-61. “Moving Beyond Assessment to Improving
Students’ Critical Thinking Skills” A Model for Implementing Change”
Jovanovic, Spoma, DeGooyer, Dan Jr, and Reno, David. 2002. “News Talks: Critical
Service-Learning for Social Change.” Proteus: A Journal of Ideas. 27(1), pp.7-14.
Pascarella, E.T., and Terenzini, P.T How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from
Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Piliavin, J. A., & Libby, D. (1985/86). Personal norms, perceived social norms, and blood
donation. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 13, 159-94.
QEP Background. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from
https://www.tntech.edu/images/stories/QEP/qep_background/

30
Sigmon, Robert L. Spring 1979. Service-learning: Three Principals. Synergist. National
Center for Service-Learning, ACTION,8 (1):9-11
Sigmon, Robert L. 1994. Serving to Learn, Learning to Serve. Linking Service with
Learning. Council for Independent Colleges Report.
Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the
social, personal, and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 11(1), 9-27.

31
© 2016 The author and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
A Critical Interrogation of Integration, Special
Educational Needs and Inclusion
Glazzard Jonathan
Leeds Trinity University
Leeds, England
Abstract. In this article, I have focused on presenting the key literature
which has shaped my personal thinking and values around inclusion.
Throughout the article, I draw on the perspectives of a Special
Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) who I have referred to as Jane.
The perspectives are taken from a complete life history account which
formed the basis of my doctoral research. To produce the narrative Jane
documented her personal reflections over a period. Jane‟s account
illustrates the extent to which inclusion can present a risk for schools
and in this case the powerful othering effect that it can have on the
reputation of a school.
Keywords: Inclusion; special educational needs; disability; integration
Jane: Throughout my teaching career I have always been acutely aware of an
overwhelming desire to accept and support the very individual and diverse personalities
I have had the pleasure of meeting and educating over many years. In the early years of
my career I was aware of many teachers who labelled children who were unable to follow
the rule book. The term ‘naughty’ seemed to be splattered around like paint. ‘Naughty’
was applied to children, as one would perhaps understand, who disrupted classes with
their challenging behaviour. It was however also applied to children who were shy and
did not respond to questions, or those who struggled to complete tasks. It was the
labelling of the latter group which disturbed me the most. I would find myself trying to
relate to these children, knowing how they were feeling, knowing that the more they felt
pressurised and undermined the more their self confidence and self-esteem would be
damaged. My views have not changed and my empathy for such children is as strong
today as it was then. Deep in my memory I have always realised that I was more able
and ready to relate to these children. Many of them were a mirror image of me. I have,
until now, acknowledged, to myself and a few close friends, that certain aspects of my life
have influenced both my views and practices. I have recalled isolated incidents, but in a
very dismissive manner. In my own thoughts, I have often revisited them. I have never
wanted to publicly dwell on my past. The past was gone, the present and the future were
my focus. In reality I was afraid of revisiting it, unsure of the feelings I would experience
by doing so. Agreeing to share and discuss my life experiences has enabled me to more
fully understand and deconstruct my own meanings of inclusion. I have lived and

32
worked through the transition from integration to inclusion. The impact of current
political agendas is not totally at odds with my practices and beliefs. I do believe that we
should do the very best we possibly can for all children and enjoy supporting children to
move forward in their learning although I find the current performance culture
frustrating. I continue to strive to support the whole child. Until recent years I was able
to openly celebrate each and every development and I do so to this day. In the current
wilderness of the standards agenda the children and I frequently celebrate alone.
(Jane)
Introduction
In this article, I have focused on presenting the key literature which has shaped
my personal thinking and values around inclusion. Throughout the article, I
draw on the perspectives of a Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO)
who I have referred to as Jane. The perspectives are taken from a complete life
history account which formed the basis of my doctoral research. To produce the
narrative Jane documented her personal reflections over a period. I have
interwoven specific extracts from the narrative throughout this article to
illustrate the points raised in the literature.
I start the article by exploring the discourses of integration and inclusion. I then
draw upon Foucault‟s „box of tools‟ (Foucault, 1977a) to deconstruct the
discourses associated with special educational needs and inclusion. Following
this, I offer a critical analysis of the current discourses of inclusion by examining
the relationship between inclusion and the marketisation of education.
Integration
Jane: As a classroom teacher for the last 35 years I have enjoyed the rewards and
challenges of working with all children. Without doubt, some have been more
challenging than others. In the early years of my career I taught several children who
had been educated in special schools. My role was to integrate them into a mainstream
setting. At this time, it was the child who was expected, with support, to adapt to the
policies and systems of the school. I was fortunate that I was working in a school where
the Head Teacher realised that we would need to make adaptations to our practices to
meet children’s diverse needs. There were, as there are today, also children who struggled
to access some aspects of their education. There were no individual education plans and
teaching assistants and consequently children with special needs may not have been as
effectively supported as they are today. However, it was viewed as essential to support
the whole child. Differentiation was in evidence although I do not recall using ability
grouping. I frequently taught classes larger than 35 children and recall several classes
which had more than40 children. I was charged with teaching these classes with no
additional support.
(Jane)
Jane‟s account makes it possible to view integration as a process of assimilation
which placed an onus on the child with special educational needs and/ or
disabilities to adapt to the policies, routines and curricula of mainstream schools.
The child was largely expected to „fit in‟ (Frederickson & Cline, 2009: 71) to a
system of education which had not been adapted to meet the needs of the

33
individual pupil. As policy discourse integration emerged following the
recommendations of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) which removed medical
categorisations of deficit, instead replacing them with the softer language of
learning difficulties and special educational needs (Norwich, 2008). The
recommendations of the Warnock Report were addressed in the 1981 Education
Act and this legislation was the basis of the current system of special educational
needs which exists in England.
The trend towards the integration of pupils with special educational needs
and/or disabilities into mainstream schools arose out of increasing
dissatisfaction with segregated provision (Black-Hawkins, Florian & Rouse,
2007). However, Tomlinson (1982) has demonstrated how special educational
needs are a product of education system which fails to respond to diversity.
Thus, “needs” are problematic because they are socially constructed (Thomas &
Loxley, 2007). They are also interpreted in various ways by different people in
different contexts. Despite the removal of medical labels, it could be argued that
the special educational needs system which developed following the 1981
education Act was largely based on a medical model of disability in the way that
it failed to consider the ways in which education can erect barriers to
participation and achievement. By retaining a focus on the individual rather
than the environmental, social or pedagogical factors that contribute to the
identification of needs, the discourse of integration located the problem within
the child rather than examining the contribution of schooling to disablement.
Interpretations of inclusion
Jane: „Inclusion’…….one short word. It is a word, however, that I struggle to define
despite its prominence in my current professional role. Should I be asked to substitute
this with an alternative my response would be ‘belonging.’ Immediately other words
spring to mind, including ‘acceptance.’ It is profoundly evident that I have no clear
understanding of the word’ inclusion’ and that despite my strong beliefs that I wish to
‘include’ all children in my teaching I am unable to offer an explanation as to the
meanings of my practices. I offer no apologies for my poor understanding of this
educational term. Through copious discussions with friends and colleagues, as well as
my own readings, it has become evident that this one word, in reality, has several
meanings. It is a word with several meanings to different individuals who may at the
same time be working to enable and support its principles. There is little wonder that,
despite working in an ‘inclusive’ environment, I continue to find it a frustrating and
challenging experience.
There are aspects of some interpretations of ‘inclusion’ that I embrace wholeheartedly. To
include children is to ensure that they are not simply a physical presence. I strive to
make adaptations to my practices to ensure that all children can access all aspects of their
education. I view the classroom as ‘ours’. It is a space which belongs to all of us, a space
in which we can all grow and develop, and a space where we can all enjoy a strong sense
of belonging. To simply belong, however, is inadequate. Throughout my own story, it is
clear that I ‘belonged’ to a family who in many respects had my best interests at heart. I
am, to this day, at odds with many of the methods my parents used, but cannot deny

34
their ambition for me. This leads me to return to the word ‘acceptance.’ Revisiting the
events of my life was not an easy journey. It was, however, fruitful. I am more able to
identify a genuine desire, on the part of my mother, to ensure that I was offered every
chance to enjoy success. In doing so, however, she left me longing for acceptance.
Acceptance is of course another term which will have different meanings for different
people. It is, I now acknowledge, acceptance that is central to my own interpretation of
‘inclusion.’ I believe that we are all capable of great things and that equally we all find
some aspects of life and learning more challenging. The current agenda relating to
inclusion does not, in my opinion, support acceptance. There is a strong emphasis on
academic attainment and success is measured against narrow performance indicators. I
truly strive to accept the differences between children.
(Jane)
In this section I have not attempted to define inclusion because it is a word
which means different things to different people (Clough, 2000) with different
vested interests. This is complicated further by the fact that social, political and
cultural contexts shape interpretations of inclusion. Inclusion has a multiplicity
of meanings (Graham & Slee, 2008) and thus, to pin inclusion down to a single
entity would fail to do it justice (Nind, Sheehy & Simmons, 2003). I share
Lindsay‟s perspective that inclusion „is not a simple, unambiguous concept‟
(Lindsay, 2003: 6), not least because it cannot be disassociated from values,
which are neither shared nor stable.
Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden (2002) stated that inclusion „is a bewildering
concept which can have a variety of interpretations and applications‟ (p.158). As
such it has become an empty and elusive term (Gabel, 2010) and consequently
Cole makes a useful point in arguing that it is better to explore meanings rather
than the meaning of inclusion (Cole, 2005). The vested interests of politicians,
teachers, parents and people with disabilities will invariably shape their
personal perspectives of inclusion. However, the development of socially just
pedagogies continually evolve through being grounded in personal experience
(Sikes et al. 2007: 358) and thus, Jane‟s story provides an opportunity to explore
the ways in which personal and professional experiences shape inclusive
practice.
Inclusion has been reflected metaphorically in the literature as a journey
(Ainscow, 2000; Allan, 2000; Nind, 2005; Azzopardi, 2010). Julie Allan‟s
humorous reference to the term „inconclusive education‟ (Allan, 2000: 43) serves
as a reminder that inclusion is always in process and never complete. In this
respect inclusion challenges schools to continually develop their capacities to
reach out to all learners (Ainscow, 2000) by developing socially just pedagogies
which connect individual learners with their own ways of learning (Corbett,
2001). Inclusion necessitates a deep cultural change within schools (Corbett,
1999; Graham & Harwood, 2011) to make schools more able to respond to
difference. It places an onus upon schools to examine the environmental,
curricular and pedagogical factors which limit achievement (Erten & Savage,
2012), resulting in radical reform of pedagogy and value systems (Mittler, 2000).

35
Such an approach represents an ecological perspective (Dyson, Farrell, Polat,
Hutcheson & Gallanaugh, 2004) which challenges educators to examine factors
in the school environment which limit achievement rather than focusing on
deficits within individual learners.
Azzopardi (2009, 2010) has argued that the term „inclusive education‟ is little
more than a cliché: „a politically correct term that is used for speeches and
policy-makers to silence all woes‟ (2009: 21). It is defined in various ways by
different groups with different interests, leading to its exploitation (Sikes et al.
2007). For example, Hodkinson & Vickerman (2009) have argued that
government definitions of inclusion have continued to emphasise the traditional
discourses of special educational needs. In addition, inclusion is interpreted
differently within groups (Glazzard, 2011). Jane‟s sense of frustration is evident
above when she refers to the lack of a shared understanding of inclusion within
her own school, resulting in various practices. Consequently, there is an
increasing interest in the use of people‟s own narratives in the academic
literature to illuminate what inclusion means to those who have a vested interest
in it (Goodley et al. 2004; Cole, 2005; Sikes et al. 2007; Azzopardi, 2009) and my
own study is also located within this arena.
During the past two decades inclusion has become a politically correct term
(Azzopardi, 2010) for politicians, theorists and activists and this has diverted
attention away from its realisation in practice. Pather (2007) argues that there is a
need to de-sloganise inclusion by focusing on providing quality experiences for
all learners and there is some logic in this argument; research which explores
tangible aspects of inclusive practice will help to advance inclusion in schools.
However, inclusion is political because it demands and continues to require a
structural transformation of education to make it more equitable and more
responsive to diversity. Until inclusion is disentangled from neoliberal values of
governance (Slee 2011) practitioners will be restricted in the extent to which they
can develop socially just pedagogies. This restricts inclusion to a process of
assimilation, thus resembling the previous discourses of integration in which
schools accommodated learners with special educational needs but their systems
were largely unchanged.
Like others before me (Slee, 2001a; Slee, 2001b; Slee & Allan, 2001; Thomas &
Loxley, 2007; Slee, 2011) I share the view that the special educational needs
paradigm that has dominated education for the last three decades is
exclusionary and serves the function of maintaining existing inequalities.
Questions of inclusion concern questions of rights rather than needs (Roaf, 1988).
The latter are problematic because the notion of „need‟ implies a deficit in
relation to a socially constructed norm. My critique of the special educational
needs paradigm does not relate to the suitability of mainstream or segregated
educational environments for children. Thomas & Vaughan (2004) provide a
very comprehensive overview of this debate. In addition, current policy
frameworks in England (DFE, 2011) and literature (Baker, 2007) recognise the
central role of both mainstream and special educational provision within the
inclusion debate and this is a policy development which I support. My critique

36
is primarily concerned with the way in which policies by previous and current
governments (DFES, 2001; DFES, 2004; DFE, 2011) in England have allowed
inclusive education to be used as a replacement for special needs education
(Black-Hawkins, Florian & Rouse, 2007; Slee, 2011). Consequently, rather than
inclusion interrogating and reconstructing the existing structures, policies and
practices of schooling and challenging deeply engrained injustices, it has
sustained inequalities by creating subtle forms of segregation (Slee, 2011).
Through its connection with special needs inclusion has served to protect the
status quo in schools (Graham & Slee, 2008; Slee, 2011). As a concept it has
continued to focus on notions of assimilation and presence rather than
representing a struggle for equality and social justice (Hodkinson, 2012). The
continued dominance of the use of traditional psychological approaches for
responding to diversity has resulted in categorisation, stigmatisation and deficit
views of difference which have not helped the inclusion agenda (Florian, 2009).
Inclusive education must be disassociated from special educational needs so that
it is able, as a policy discourse, to articulate its distinct values (Slee, 2011) based
on social justice, democracy and equity. It necessitates a departure from
processes which label, segregate and stigmatise to enable schools to embrace
diversity (Graham & Harwood, 2011).
Cole‟s narratives (Cole, 2005) are helpful in exploring interpretations of
inclusion. They explore the collective voices of six women who were both
mothers and teachers of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Within the narratives, the mother-teachers emphasised the need for educators to
embrace humanitarian values (Armstrong, 2005) by developing a pedagogy
which emphasises care, dignity and respect. The emphasis on „careful teaching‟
is also prominent in early writing of Jenny Corbett (Corbett, 1992). The
experience of becoming parents had a substantially positive impact on the
professional identities of these teachers (Cole, 2005) and this theme has been
identified in previous research (Sikes, 1997). The mother-teachers embraced the
language of „normality‟ by viewing difference as normal rather than special. In
doing so they rejected the deficit, pathologising language of special educational
needs. These insights, based on the personal experiences of the informants, have
been useful in shaping my own understandings of inclusion. Thus, inclusion
necessitates a humanitarian approach to teaching which emphasises care,
respect and dignity. I view inclusion as a process which engenders a sense of
acceptance. Jane‟s reflection illustrates that a sense of belonging does not do
justice to inclusion. Inclusion, in my view, refutes pathologising labels which
emphasise perceived deficits and demands creative and reflective educators
who are willing to experiment with pedagogy (Allan, 2006) and who view
diversity as an „enriching opportunity for learning‟ (Pizzuto, 2010: 88).
Lloyd‟s call for a reconceptualisation of achievement and the „denormalisation of
institutions, systems and rules which comprise education and schooling (Lloyd,
2008; 228) has substantially contributed to my understanding of inclusion as a
radical transformation of both policy and practice. Such a transformation
demands major changes to the education system (Nilholm, 2006) through
disrupting the current structures of schooling which result in segregation and

37
systemic failure. Inclusion raises critical questions about the purposes of
education and challenges politicians to reconceptualise current limited notions
of achievement. Transformation at a pedagogic level alone is insufficient to
facilitate social justice. To develop inclusive schools, the curriculum and
assessment processes need to be radically overhauled to enable education to
respond to diversity. However, changing schools and school systems is
problematic because „there is not a perfect system awaiting us on the shelf‟
(Nind, Rix, Sheehy & Simmons, 2003) and various models rather than one model
will be required. The notion of inclusion as a radical transformation is a well-
established theme within the literature (Mittler, 2000; Farrell, 2001; Nind, 2005),
with some scholars emphasising the role of teachers as change agents
(O‟Hanlon, 2003; Skidmore, 2004; Nind, 2005). Additionally, the emphasis on
ensuring maximal participation of all learners (Nutbrown & Clough, 2006) has
also been emphasised.
Philosophical debates have emphasised that hopes for full inclusion are
fundamentally naive because schools and communities will always need to
employ exclusionary strategies to secure their own existence (Wilson, 1999; 2000;
Hansen, 2012). The thrust of such critiques is that in practice inclusion always
has limits. Hegarty (2001) warned that inclusion would have a case to answer if
it diverted attention away from a school‟s core function of promoting learning
towards a focus of promoting values of equity and social justice. Whilst these
critiques are conceptually sound they do not sufficiently articulate how the
current structures of schooling (curricula, assessment processes, limited notions
of achievement) create barriers to participation and achievement which
subsequently results in exclusion. Inclusion is crucially about the politics of
difference and identity (Slee, 2001b) which interrogates the structures, policies
and practices of schooling (Slee, 2011). It demands a process of educational
reconstruction and revisioning (Slee, 2001a) rather than a process of assimilation
into an unchanged system. Such limited notions of inclusion, which have been
uncritically accepted in the philosophical debates, will inevitably result in
exclusion and consequently inclusion will always fail as a policy imperative
(Slee, 2011). It could be argued that educators should not dismiss inclusion
because it takes time to get it right or because they make inevitable mistakes
along the way (Cole, 2005). Instead, they might consider using inclusion as a
vehicle for experimenting with creative, innovative approaches in a bid to reach
out to all learners (Allan, 2006; Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2010).
Critiques of special educational needs
In this section I draw on Foucault‟s conceptual tools (Foucault, 1977a) to develop
a critique of the special educational needs empire. I argue that the discourses of
special educational needs have hijacked inclusion and this has restricted the
development of more socially just pedagogies.
I begin my critique by arguing that the discourses of special educational needs in
England are anti-inclusive. The techniques of diagnosis, intervention and
surveillance categorise children by their differences and are rooted in a psycho-

38
medical paradigm which „conceptualizes difficulties in learning as arising from
deficits in the neurological or psychological make-up of the child‟ (Skidmore,
2004: 2). In adopting the language of special needs by identifying distinct
categories of „need‟, the Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs in
England (DfE, 2015) emphasises homogeneity rather than heterogeneity by
increasing the focus on outcomes for learners with special needs. Additionally,
the Code emphasises early identification of need which results in labelling
through the use of categories of need. These categories ascribe to individuals a
minority status which presumes a weakness and vulnerability in comparison
with the majority of learners who fall outside the imposed categories (Thomas &
Loxley, 2007). The concept of „need‟ is highly problematic in that it reinforces
notions of deficit and disadvantage (Thomas & Loxley, 2007). Additionally,
within the discourses of special education, „need‟ and notions of „normality‟ are
determined through distances from artificially constructed norms (Graham,
2006). Failure to achieve such norms results in the creation of an othered group
made up of learners who do not fit the required subject construction; an able,
productive, skilled learner who understands their responsibilities to a neoliberal
marketised society (Goodley, 2007). These learners are reconceptualised as the
needs of the school (to compete, to maintain standards and order) are
transferred to the learner (Thomas & Loxley, 2007), thus inscribing a stigmatised
identity. They are by-products of a traditional curriculum (Skrtic, 1991) in which
they are viewed as eternally lacking (Goodley, 2007) and with support they are
expected to transform themselves to meet the required subject construction. The
diagnosis, intervention and remediation processes result in „the entrapment of
the child in a cocoon of professional help‟ (Thomas & Loxley, ibid. 55) which
conceals the vested professional interests of „expert‟ professionals under the
rhetoric of humanitarianism (Tomlinson, 1985). These learners are then singled
out for specialist attention and placed under increased surveillance (Allan, 1996),
resulting in them becoming disempowered.
The vocabulary of individual intervention, targets and individual education
plans advocated in the Code of Practice results in a „highly individualised
approach‟ (Skidmore, 2004: 15) which locates the deficiencies within the child
rather than the deficiencies within the school (Dyson, 2001). Such approaches
restrict creative pedagogy (Skidmore, 2004) and, according to Lloyd, are „all
concerned with normalization and ... standardization, of groups and individuals
rather than contributing to the denormalization of the institutions ...‟ (Lloyd,
2008: 228) which is so central to the development of inclusion. Inclusion is a
transformative process which refutes „normative practices‟ (Graham, 2006: 7)
such as diagnoses and the use of „correct training‟ (Foucault, 1975a; 1975b 1977a;
1984a). These serve as disciplinary forces which regulate the lives of individuals
(Armstrong, 2005). Normative practices are deeply embedded in the discourses
of special educational needs and, whilst failing to promote equity, serve to
legitimise failure by emphasising „individual responsibility for individual
achievement‟ (Armstrong, 2005: 147). Such practices, which serve to negate
diversity, are justified because they are viewed as benevolent responses to need
(Graham, 2006).

39
It has been argued that special needs educators have relocated their knowledge
and experiences within the discourses of inclusion (Slee, 2001b). Consequently,
according to Slee this has restricted inclusion and enabled the medical model of
disability to triumph (Slee, 2001b). Varying „disorders‟ have been introduced
into the lexicon of special needs, each with its own symptoms and disease like
characteristics, creating spectacle, fear and revulsion (Dunne, 2009). Intervention
and remediation serves to negate diversity by creating normative subjects and
educators have been positioned as „police‟ (Dunne, 2009), charged with hunting
down abnormalities and correcting them through early identification processes.
In contrast, an inclusive pedagogy rejects both deficit views of difference and
fixed notions of intelligence (Florian, 2009) which are heavily embedded within
the discourses of special educational needs.
Foucault’s conceptual framework
I now turn to Foucault‟s conceptual tools (Foucault, 1977a; 1991a) to illustrate
how these can be applied to interrogate the discourses of special educational
needs. I use Foucault‟s work to argue that the inclusion agenda is currently
situated within a powerful othering discourse (Dunne, 2009) of special
educational needs.
For Foucault discourses relate to „practices that systematically form the objects of
which they speak‟ (Foucault, 1972: 49). Discourses are pervading in that they
result in particular truths being accepted (Foucault, 1980) and sustained through
circulatory power rather than sovereign power (Foucault, 1978a; 1978b).
Neoliberal forms of governance are an example of a discourse which places
responsibility on the individual to become entrepreneurial (Masschelien, 2006),
self-reliant and able to compete in a global economy. This is achieved through a
focus on functional skills which derive from a traditional curriculum. Discourses
of special educational needs sit within and feed into this master narrative which
serves the purpose of creating a flexible, qualified and enterprising workforce.
This narrative is immensely problematic for those learners who are not able to,
or choose not to, fit the required subject construction (Goodley, 2007).
Foucault‟s „box of tools‟ (Foucault, 1977a) makes it possible to understand the
ways in which power is used as a regulatory force to control the lives of
individuals. The tool of surveillance is perhaps the most important conceptual
tool that Foucault uses in helping us to understand ways in which individuals
are regulated, sorted and normalised (Allan, 2008). In The Birth of the Clinic
(Foucault, 1973) Foucault illustrates the effects of surveillance on the lives of sick
people through the medical gaze which constructs „individuals as both subjects
and objects of knowledge and power „(Allan, 1996: 221). In his analysis of
madness (Foucault, 1967) Foucault illustrates how the medical gaze focused on
the regulation and purification of the body, which gave it a normalising
function. In Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1977a) Foucault draws on Jeremy
Bentham‟s technique of panopticism which made it possible „for a single gaze to
see everything perfectly‟ (Foucault, 1977a: 173). This method of hierarchical
surveillance was „absolutely discreet, for it functions permanently and largely in
silence‟ (Foucault, 1977a: 177). Foucault‟s second conceptual tool of surveillance

40
was the use of normalising judgements which are used in a range of professions
to „promote standardization and homogeneity‟ (Allan, 2008: 87). The notion of a
norm enables individuals to be categorised in deficient ways and distances from
the norm are used to determine the extent of abnormality and extent of need.
Foucault‟s third conceptual tool of surveillance is the examination which
effectively enables individuals to be „described, judged, measured, compared
with others, in his very individuality‟ (Foucault, 1977a: 191).
Foucault‟s techniques of surveillance provide a powerful theoretical lens
through which the discourses of special educational needs can be critically
interrogated. It makes it possible, for example, to recognise how the Special
Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), with its increased focus on
outcomes for learners with special educational needs, subjects „vulnerable‟
children to increased measures of surveillance compared with other learners.
The mechanisms of the individual education plan, individual progress reviews,
additional assessments, remediation and „specialist‟ support both subject those
learners identified as having special educational needs to greater amounts of
surveillance than their peers and serve a normalising function. The technique of
the formal assessment process, which diagnoses specific conditions, validates
the presence of an abnormality in relation to socially constructed norms. The use
of terms such as intervention, remediation and support all serve a normalising
function which aim to purify and correct. The disciplinary apparatus of special
educational needs has an individualising effect which views difference in
negative and stigmatising ways rather than as a positive feature of an
individual‟s identity. The focus on correction and minimising „abnormality‟ gaps
has a pathologising effect which places responsibility on the child to „correct‟
their deficits. Such deeply engrained processes reflect a medical model of
disability which views impairment as a tragic deficit which needs to be
corrected. According to Allan (2008) „These mechanisms of surveillance create
subjects who are known and marked in particular kinds of ways and who are
constrained to carry the knowledge and marks‟ (p.87). The discourses of special
educational needs fail to address critical questions about the purposes of
schooling, education policy, the nature of the curriculum and the assessment
systems which create social injustices. Rather than embracing a social model of
disability, the discourses of special educational needs are positioned squarely
within a powerful othering framework which is detrimental to inclusion (Slee,
2001b; Thomas & Loxley, 2007; Dunne, 2009).
Critiquing inclusion
This application of Foucault‟s theoretical framework is well documented in the
academic literature in relation to learners with special educational needs.
However, applying this framework to teachers who work in inclusive schools,
rather than to pupils with special needs, makes it possible to analyse the
disciplinary effects of inclusion differently. The following account from Jane
illustrates the disciplinary effects of „inclusion‟ on teachers who work in
inclusive schools:

Vol 15 No 12 - November 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Vol 15 No 12 - November 2016

Similar to Vol 15 No 12 - November 2016 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Vol 15 No 12 - November 2016