Abstract
Background: Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) refers to the care and education of children from birth to age four. There is a scarcity of research on inclusion in this marginalised sector in many developing countries, including South Africa.
Aim: This article reports on a virtual learning participatory workshop on understanding inclusion with six ECCE teachers and two ECD practitioner trainers.
Setting: Due to the social distancing necessitated by the Corona Virus pandemic, all interactions were facilitated through the WhatsApp platform.
Methods: The study employed a participatory action learning and action research (PALAR) design that focuses on collaborative and contextually relevant learning and research. Data were generated in two iterative cycles using a baseline questionnaire, photovoice, reflective journals and purposeful conversations.
Results: Cycle one found that some of the participants’ understanding of inclusion needed to be challenged. Their understandings of inclusion centred on discourses of disability with a narrow view of inclusion. This action learning set (ALS) mainly regarded inclusion to be a product rather than a process and claimed that segregation had some advantages. Some of the members of the ALS also misconstrued inclusion for micro-exclusive practices of assimilation and integration. Cycle two was planned to address these misunderstandings. Cycle two revealed that becoming inclusive means revisiting dominant ideologies about inclusion and a critical awareness of micro-exclusive practices.
Conclusion: This research serves to challenge dominant beliefs of what inclusion is. The knowledge presented here could be cascaded to other ECCE centres in the South African context. With a scarcity of research on inclusion in ECCE, this study may provide a point of departure for future research.
Keywords: inclusion; participatory action learning and action research; early childhood care and education, micro-exclusion, critical pedagogy.
Introduction
This article focuses on the impact of a virtual participatory workshop held with early childhood care and education (ECCE) teachers and early childhood development (ECD) practitioner trainers on inclusion and presents a segment of the findings from a larger study on inclusion in ECCE. Early childhood care and education encompasses the care and education of children from birth to age four, before the commencement of Grade R (eds. Ebrahim, Okwany & Barry 2019; Harrison 2020; Ring, Sullivan & Wall 2020). This study seeks to explore how teachers understand inclusion in ECCE using a participatory action learning and action research (PALAR) design. PALAR promotes collaborative critical reflection and dialogue for participants to develop their agency and become enablers of change (Luthuli & Wood 2020; Schoonen, Wood & Kruger 2021; Setlhare-Kajee 2018; Zuber-Skerritt 2018). Studies have emphasised that inclusion is an important aspect of a quality early years programme (Aubert et al. 2017; Underwood, Valeo & Wood 2012) as it ensures the equal access, participation and achievement of all children irrespective of diverse identities. Indeed, inclusion in the early years sets the groundwork for a more just society where everyone is respected and valued irrespective of diversity. How teachers understand inclusion is vital, as this shapes pedagogical, social and physical changes in the early learning environment (Aubert et al. 2017). False ideas regarding the conceptualisation of inclusion may be present and these need to be contested. Studies on inclusion in ECCE, which are extensive in the Global North, have indicated that inclusion is context-specific, without a universally accepted definition or a standardised set of procedures that must be followed (Kirschner 2015; Krischler, Powell & Pit-Ten Cate 2019). As there is a scarcity of research on inclusion in the South African ECCE sector, this study attempts to fill in a significant gap in the contextual understanding of inclusion amongst practitioners. The knowledge from this study could be useful for other ECCE teachers to better understand inclusion.
Inclusion
This study highlights three critical components that enable an understanding of authentic inclusion in ECCE spaces. Firstly, to be truly inclusive, teachers need to adopt a broad understanding of inclusion, which moves from a narrow disability focus to a much wider array of concerns (Walton 2018). Inclusion narrowly refers to policies that mandate the education of disabled children alongside children in regular classrooms (Cologon 2019). This deficit or medical model was widely criticised as it situated the problem within the person (Swart & Pettipher 2016). The social model consequently transfers the emphasis from a personal inability to societal barriers experienced by a person with vulnerability (Ferrante 2012). Adopting a social model suggests that the essence of inclusion has much wider and deeper connotations, which challenge how the education system may reproduce and perpetuate social inequalities towards the marginalised in society (Liasidou 2012). These understandings of inclusion align with the Salamanca Declaration and the Education for All movement, which includes all marginalised groups comprising varying identities, including diverse abilities, races, languages, genders and socio-economic statuses (UNESCO 1994). Therefore, inclusion adheres to wider human rights, equality and social justice concerns (Ainscow 2005). Undoubtedly, moving from a narrow disability focus to a much wider set of concerns is more complex and difficult to achieve.
Secondly, this study emphasises that to attain authentic inclusion, inclusion must be understood as a lifelong and sustained journey of learning rather than a destination to be reached. According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2005), inclusion can be seen as a fluid and dynamic process that searches continually for improved ways of dealing with diversity. In line with this, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal Four (SDG4) also calls for an education system which supports lifelong and sustainable learning (Mérida-Serrano et al. 2020). This requires individuals to continue to learn and thrive in complicated, challenging and ever-changing circumstances (Nakidien, Singh & Sayed 2021). To create inclusive spaces, teachers also need to be lifelong learners who are willing to learn, unlearn and relearn to adapt to a world that is constantly in flux. Undoubtedly, ECD centres are arenas of such transformation because of increasing diversity (Emilson & Eek-Karlsson 2021). This requires teachers to rapidly unlearn and relearn to continually adapt their approaches to align with the principles of inclusion.
Thirdly, in this study, one needs to understand that a child’s presence in and access to a centre does not guarantee authentic inclusion. In other words, when children are segregated and openly prevented from accessing centres, it is a more easily recognisable form of exclusion (Cologon 2019). This form of macro-exclusion is obvious and a matter of location (Faustino et al. 2017). For instance, children may be segregated in special schools or classrooms away from regular children. However, it is also of significant concern that children may have access to centres but still be excluded because of subtle forms of exclusion, which is termed micro-exclusion (Cologon 2019). Instances of micro-exclusion appear to be inclusive on the surface, as children have access to centres without authentic inclusion (Faustino et al. 2017). The issue is that micro-exclusion may enable the access and participation of children but does not guarantee the respect or achievement of these children in the ECCE learning environment. Evidently, authentic inclusion entails more than just a problem of location, because access does not guarantee inclusion.
This study highlights micro-exclusion that is commonly misunderstood as inclusion, where children of minority groups are integrated and assimilated in early settings. Integration can be described as a form of micro-exclusion. Here children are able to access an early years setting, but no considerations are made for their full participation and achievement (Zabeli, Perolli-Shehu & Gjelaj 2020). Similar to integration, assimilation also requires children to fit into the dominant culture, which results in a loss of personal identity (Daniels 2018). Therefore, one sees that understanding inclusion goes deeper than just location or the adopting of policies that ensure surface-led accommodations (Petriwskyj 2010). Inclusion requires a deep introspection into one’s own attitudes to diversity and the power issues that may include or exclude certain groups of children.
The context of the study: Early childhood care and education
The need for a quality ECCE learning environment is receiving increased attention internationally. The United Nations SDG4, as mentioned above, emphasises an inclusive, equitable and quality education with lifelong learning opportunities for all children irrespective of diversity (Elfert 2019). Goal 4.2 highlights that to develop optimally, young children should have access to quality care and education services provided by professionals (Mérida-Serrano et al. 2020). Thus, SDG4.2 recognises early education as a powerful means to positively transform the world. In fact, ECCE access is related to positive long-term outcomes for marginalised groups of children (Cascio 2015). Research reflects that quality early programmes do not only benefit children and their families, but they also promote socio-economic benefits for society (Van der Gaag & Tan 1998). Evidently, a quality ECCE programme in developing countries results in positive outcomes for all.
Early childhood care and education has also been noted as a means of social and economic transformation in South Africa (Bipath & Joubert 2016). For instance, the National Development Plan for 2030 has identified quality ECCE as a tool to significantly reduce poverty amongst vulnerable communities (Twala 2021). The National Integrated Early Childhood Development (NIECD) Policy (Republic of South Africa 2015:23) states that ‘investment in early childhood … can limit inequality at its source’. In the state of the nation address in 2019, the state president of South Africa also emphasised strategic planning to migrate ECD to the Department of Basic Education, in order to provide the best support for the youngest members of society. Despite the importance of ECCE as a means of transformation, the inequality of ECCE services for the wealthy and the poor is still of grave concern (Ebrahim, Martin & Excell 2021; Koen, Neethling & Taylor 2021).
Hence, in South Africa, children may have access to ECCE programmes, but the quality of ECCE programmes is questionable. Inclusion can be regarded as an indicator of a quality ECCE programme which aims to achieve equity for all children (Aubert et al. 2017). To create this quality inclusive learning environment requires a teacher with specialised knowledge and skills. Researchers (Atmore 2019; Ebrahim 2018; Harrison 2020) concur that the quality of early childhood services requires a professionalised and competent workforce. This is a concern, as the current workforce comprises mainly underqualified teachers (Ebrahim et al. 2021). Focusing on improving professionalisation in the South African sector, the Draft Policy on Minimum Requirements for Programmes Leading to Qualifications in Higher Education for Practitioners and Educators in Early Childhood Care and Education (MRQECDE) (DHET 2017) was gazetted. This lists the basic competencies for professionally qualified early childhood teachers, which include the ability to critically analyse the differentiated nature of South African society. The policy also highlights that teachers need to work in creative ways to affirm and welcome diversities in the early learning environment.
Implementing inclusive practice will depend largely on a teacher’s knowledge of inclusion. Ginja and Chen (2021) suggested that teachers need to engage with training in order to boost their conceptual understanding of inclusion. With a sound understanding of inclusion, teachers may apply their situational knowledge and create inclusive learning spaces. Thus, this study aims to explore ECCE teachers’ current understanding of inclusion and address deficits through collaborative learning. The research questions are the following:
- What is the current understanding of inclusion in ECCE?
- How can the understanding of inclusion in ECCE be transformed?
Theoretical framework
As this study aims to transform teacher thinking, it resonates with the principles of critical pedagogy as an overarching theoretical framework (Freire 2000). Freire’s ideas highlighted education as a political act, where teachers may play a role in transforming the learning environment by alleviating inequality (Darder, Torres & Baltodano 2017). This calls for teachers to develop a critical awareness or conscientisation of power dynamics in the learning environment and act against these (Gelot 2019). Conscientisation therefore questions dominant ideologies or belief systems. McLaren (2007:205) regards ideology ‘as a way of viewing the world, a complex of ideas, various types of social practices, rituals and representations that are accepted as natural and as common sense’. In the context of this study, certain dominant beliefs regarding the understanding of inclusion need to be challenged.
To become conscientised, Freire suggested collaborative dialogue and problem-posing as a pathway to enable the transformation of classrooms (eds. McLaren & Kincheloe 2007). According to Dale and Hyslop-Margison (2012), conscientisation or critical consciousness is the ability of humans to act in morally appropriate ways that respect the freedom of others. This serves as a starting point for teachers to inquire into how their beliefs become enmeshed in the hidden curriculum (Darder et al. 2017). A hidden curriculum refers to the implicit values, behaviours and norms transferred without conscious intention and awareness by children and teachers (Sedigheh et al. 2019). To adopt a critical lens, the participants needed to retain their fluidity, resulting in a process of continually inventing and reinventing themselves (eds. McLaren & Kincheloe 2007). Through iterative cycles of dialogue and mutual collaboration, teachers were able to reflect on their current ways of thinking which shaped their personal and professional practice. Therefore, these ideas of conscientisation shaped the social transformation agenda of this study on inclusion as well as the research methodology of the study.
Methodology
This study adopts a PALAR design, which encompasses research with a unique learning component. Participatory action learning and action research aligns with a critical pedagogy and historically originates from Freire’s ‘culture circles’ (Reingold, Derry & May 2020). The participants were purposefully selected according to who could best inform the research objectives and enhance an understanding of the phenomenon under study (Maree 2016). Teachers and ECD practitioner trainers from a selected ECCE training centre were invited to participate and form an action learning set (ALS). This refers to a group of people coming together to address real problems in their context (Morrison 2017). A PALAR design aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the research problem and foster close relationships amongst the participants; therefore, the ALS consisted of eight participants, comprising six ECCE teachers and two ECD practitioner trainers. As a result of the global coronavirus pandemic, the research needed to adhere to the restrictions stipulated by the government.
Participatory action learning and action research aims to benefit the community and enhance the existing knowledge, skills and values of the research participants (RPs). Traditionally, academics from universities conduct research without providing any feedback or benefit to the members of the community (Setlhare-Kajee 2018). This research design attempts to address complex contextual challenges relevant to the research group. Participatory action learning and action research creates an environment where the RPs share their knowledge collaboratively and build on each other’s experiences. As a result, the process of PALAR highlights the democratisation of knowledge production where the knowledge of all members is equally valued (McAteer & Wood 2018).
A PALAR design centres on its three Rs and seven Cs (Kearney, Wood & Zuber-Skerritt 2013; Zuber-Skerritt 2018). The three Rs of relationships, reflection and recognition are interwoven with the seven Cs and are contingent on each other (Schoonen et al. 2021). Relationship building is an essential foundation of PALAR, and this important initial phase seeks to build trust and establish mutual goals and team spirit essential for the ongoing success and sustainability of a project (Zuber-Skerritt & Teare 2013). On the WhatsApp platform, participants introduced themselves, established common interests and shared mutual goals before the research phase began. In the research phase, principles of compromise, communication commitment and collaboration continued to strengthen relationships amongst the ALS. Critical reflection on the knowledge created and the research process assist in shaping future cycles of learning. By presenting their own videos, participants coached each other and shared their learnings. Their competencies in the form of photographs, captions and drawings were recognised for a proposed publication of an inclusive handbook to be distributed to other centres in the sector.
Participatory action learning and action research belongs to the action research genre, and the four steps of ‘plan, act, observe and reflect’ (Morrison 2017) guided each research cycle. In Cycle 1, to support the first step of planning, the participants completed a baseline questionnaire which determined the situation prior to intervention, with the intention of pinpointing areas in need of further action. This questionnaire was designed by the principal researcher. The planning step revealed that participants required a clearer understanding of the concept of inclusion. Most participants needed to adopt a broader view of inclusion that entailed more than just disability or special educational needs. The questionnaire also revealed that many of the participants regarded inclusion as a destination and were unaware of the concepts of micro- and macro-exclusion. Secondly, during the acting step, participants were engaged in watching videos and PowerPoint presentations prepared by the principal researcher. This was followed by the third step, which required a discussion of participants’ observations as WhatsApp conversations. Participants provided their interpretations of each video and slide presentation. Strategic questions were crafted to stimulate in-depth critical thinking. Thus, participants built on each other’s interpretations of the presentations, leading to a collective meaning-making. The fourth action research step involved thinking back critically about learnings and the recording of participant reflections. The data from the journals were analysed using critical thematic analysis (Lawless & Chen 2019), which identified broad themes by noting incidences of recurrence, repetition and forcefulness within the data set. Participants contributed to the development of the broad themes; however, the principal researcher related these to relevant ideologies, which were then presented to the group for verification at the end of the first cycle.
The second cycle was informed by the second research question, which aimed to record the shift in participants’ understanding of inclusion. This cycle was guided by the same four steps mentioned above. Propelled by the three areas of need revealed in Cycle 1, participants planned how to transform their understandings of inclusion. In the planning phase, guided by the principal researcher, participants recorded and shared their slide presentations to showcase their new understandings of inclusion. Secondly, during the action step of this cycle, participants used photovoice, a participatory visual method in which participants use their cameras to capture images that convey their feelings, beliefs and experiences and narrate their everyday experiences in their own words. Participants were prompted to provide an image of a drawing or object that represented their new understandings of inclusion according to the identified themes. In the observation step, the photos and captions were shared by the participants, followed by input from the participants. The principal researcher used the ‘SHOWED’ method (Luthuli 2019) to analyse the collaborative interpretations gleaned from the WhatsApp discussions. Reflections in participant journals confirmed the photovoice interpretations and shaped further cycles of inquiry.
Findings
The aim of the first research cycle was to identify deficits in RPs’ understanding of the concept of inclusion. In Cycle 1, participants completed a baseline questionnaire to identify deficits in their understanding of inclusion. The findings revealed that most participants adopted a narrow view which referred to the inclusion of children with disability or special educational needs, instead of a broader view that included all diversities. The findings also revealed that participants mostly regarded inclusion as a destination rather than a process. The data in this cycle also revealed that participants were unaware of instances of micro- and macro-exclusion. Cycle 2 aimed to transform the understanding of participants by addressing these areas of concern. The results reported in Figure 1 include participant messages from Cycle 1 and 2. The three themes that emerged from the two research cycles are presented, supported by photovoice images, captions and participants’ narratives.
 |
FIGURE 1: Participants’ photovoice, captions and narratives for cycles 1 and 2. |
|
Discussion and findings
This study highlights the process of conscientisation, where RPs engage in collaborative dialogue to question dominant ideologies or false belief systems regarding inclusion. These transformed ideologies regarding inclusion enhance teacher pedagogical practice and the social and physical learning space. Hence, it was important for teachers to critically engage in discourses regarding their understanding of inclusion. Members of the ALS identified false ideologies that they shared regarding the concept of inclusion in Cycle 1. This gave impetus to Cycle 2, where the group attempted to redefine these understandings. The following discussion attempts to synthesise the results from Cycles 1 and 2, the theoretical underpinning and the PALAR design to understand how the ALS transformed their understanding of inclusion.
Moving away from narrow views of inclusion
In Cycle 1, discourses on inclusion centred on disability or learning barriers were mostly dominant. This aligned with the medical or deficit model that focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of a pathology (Swart & Pettipher 2016). Therefore, a few members of the ALS felt that special education teachers need to be trained to create inclusive learning spaces in ECCE. Members of the ALS mostly adopted a narrow view of inclusion, rather than focusing on all children vulnerable to exclusion. Later in Cycle 2, the ALS prepared presentations and recorded their learnings using reflective drawings, photovoice and captions. These new observations challenged narrow views of inclusion and aligned with the work of Dickins (2014) and Cologon (2019), where inclusion has broader human rights and a social justice agenda. In keeping with the new understanding, Dickins (2014) explains that inclusion:
[I]s based on a defined value system that equally welcomes, celebrates and respects diversity arising from gender, race, ethnicity, language, culture, belief systems, socio- economic or family background, and level of educational disadvantage or disability. This is underpinned by an acceptance that inequality, racism, ableism and other forms of prejudice and discrimination are deeply embedded in today’s society. (p. 1)
Therefore, these deeply entrenched attitudes mentioned by Dickins need to be acknowledged and challenged as part of a defined value system that welcomes all who are vulnerable to exclusion, not just those experiencing barriers to learning or disability.
The destination of inclusion is never really reached
Critical pedagogy assumes that reality is dynamic and fluid and reconstructed through collaborative action and critical reflection (Aliyu et al. 2015). Some messages in Cycle 1 centred on inclusion as a goal to be reached rather than a process of becoming. As the PALAR process emerged, most participants indicated a need to examine their situation on an ongoing basis, where each day presented varied opportunities to readjust, reinvent and reconsider teacher choices. For RP 7 as an inclusive teacher, just like the children who enjoyed the process of creating their paintings, inclusion is a journey. In an ECCE learning environment, each day is never the same. There are new challenges to face, and these require constant adjustment and accommodation on the part of the teacher. Similarly, inclusion can be compared to a journey that never reaches a final destination, which is often challenging and takes commitment and ongoing efforts (Cologon 2019). In essence, a state of inclusion will ‘emerge only through invention and reinvention, the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry beings pursue with the world and with others’ (Freire 2000:53). Hence, in their shifts in thinking, participants emphasised that the destination of inclusion is never really reached.
Moving away from micro- and macro-exclusion
This theme is divided into three subthemes consisting of segregation, integration and assimilation. Firstly, segregation is a macro-exclusion that blatantly excludes certain groups of people (McKenzie 2021). Photovoice and captions from RP 6 align with the findings of Devarakonda (2014) and Corbett and Slee (2000) who explained that children at special schools could be represented as square pegs in square holes and children in mainstream schools as round pegs in round holes. These rigid schooling systems are predesigned to accommodate either a ‘regular’ child or a child with some deviation from the societal norm. Certain discourses in Cycle 1 regarded segregation as a practice that could be beneficial, as parents may want to protect their children from bullying by regular children. This is a parental choice that denies a child the right to become a fully integrated member of society. It is important to realise that inclusion is a basic human right, and segregation stigmatises the child as an inferior member of society (Cologon 2019). Importantly, a lack of socialisation amongst diverse groups results in a society that excludes and denies the presence of marginalised groups (Dickins 2014). Young children must experience living together with others who are different, to embrace diversity and form positive attitudes from a young age. Consequently, research on children experiencing barriers or disability, placed in inclusive learning environments, has indicated long-term benefits for both children experiencing barriers or disability and ‘regular children’ (Kart & Kart 2021).
Secondly, the photovoice and captions indicate the presence of integration as a subtle form of micro-exclusion. Children who deviate from the norm are compared to square pegs placed in round holes. This ineffective placement of children (square pegs) together within the same setting (round holes) without making adjustments or adaptations to the setting results in micro-exclusion. The children appear to be present but cannot fully participate or achieve. Sometimes, in forcing the square pegs into round holes, similar to children, they would become damaged, resulting in greater problems than outright segregation. Ferrante (2012) remarked that integration alludes to a deficit perspective where children’s needs are connected to their ‘disability’ and not to their ‘ability’. Therefore, deficit perspectives call for adjustments to be made to the child rather than the inflexible systems of educational settings.
Thirdly, when RP 5 presented photographs of stew and salad, she effectively described the concepts of assimilation. The stew represented assimilation, where the various ingredients lost their individual flavours, whilst the salad represented inclusion, where the individual flavours of each ingredient were retained. Reygan, Walton and Osman (2018) maintained that assimilation creates a situation where there are no separate social structures for diverse identities, thus perpetuating exclusion. The findings align with that of Dickins (2014), because this centre expected minority groups to conform to the dominant language and culture in order to belong. To move away from assimilation, differences amongst groups need to be accepted and even embraced and appreciated.
The PALAR learning component enabled the participants to make connections between their lived experience and the complex concepts pertaining to understand inclusion. When participants used photographs of pegboards, shape sorters, stew and salad to explain concepts, others in the group could relate to them. This aligned with the findings of Freire (2000), who advocated that learners need to transform their lived experiences by using prior experiences to unveil new knowledge. Unless they are able to do this, ‘they will never be able to participate rigorously in a dialogue as a process of learning and knowing’ (Freire 2000:19). Hence, using their lived experiences, participants were successful in making meaning of complex concepts.
This research is driven by a critical epistemological perspective, which attempts to discover real knowledge that is of benefit to society (Lochmiller & Lester 2015). It is likely that both blatant and subtle exclusionary practices devalue the identities of minority groups of people. Freire (2000:181) asserts that this is ‘cultural invasion, which through alienation, kills the creative enthusiasm of those who are invaded’. In other words, children from marginalised groups are expected to conform to the ideals and practices of the majority, which results in a loss of individual identity. Freire cautions that ‘without a sense of identity, there can be no real struggle’ (Freire 1985:186). Therefore, without a strong sense of identity, children may not develop free will, agency and self-actualisation.
Conclusion
The above exploration provides an in-depth exploration of how participants understand inclusion. This article presents a segment of a larger study on inclusion in the early years, drawing on the work of Freire, relevant literature and messages from participants to justify the findings of the study. This study enabled the participants to gain an in-depth understanding of inclusion by collaboratively sharing their lived experiences with an intention to transform and improve the lives of others. A process of reflection and action that built upon the lived experiences of the group was evident in the two cycles, producing a unique set of conceptualisations of inclusion. The key message of this study is that most participants refuted narrow views of inclusion and embraced broader views after the learnings. Also vital was the conceptualisation of inclusion as a fluid process of ‘becoming’ rather than a static goal. Participants used their unique lived experiences to explain concepts of macro-exclusion and a more subtle micro-exclusion. The understanding of inclusion presented in this study is a product of the unique contexts of the collaborative learning group. Although the RPs were both teachers and ECD practitioner trainers, there were no significant differences in their responses to the research questions. This could be because of these two ECD practitioner trainers being fairly new in the field of ECCE teacher training and having minimal exposure to inclusion in their training. It is possible that a different group of RPs would produce a completely different set of findings. This research aims to question dominant beliefs of what inclusion is. Using a PALAR design enables the voice and agency of a marginalised group of teachers. The knowledge presented here would be cascaded to other ECCE centres in the form of a handbook on inclusion for the South African context. With a scarcity of research on inclusion in ECCE, this study may provide a point of departure for future research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the research participants for their time and efforts.
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Authors’ contributions
A.M. was the primary researcher who reported on her PhD study. She wrote the article. D.J.H was the supervisor of the study and contributed to the article by providing guidance regarding focus and structure.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee (HSSREC) (clearance no. HSSREC/00001146/2020).
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Abraham, G.Y., 2014, ‘Critical pedagogy: Origin, vision, action & consequences’, KAPET 10(1), 90–98.
Ainscow, M., 2005, ‘Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?’, Journal of Educational Change 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4
Aliyu, A.A., Singhry, I.M., Adamu, H. & Abu Bakar, M., 2015, ‘Ontology, epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the research philosophical misconception’, Proceedings of the Academic Conference: Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon, vol. 2, no. 1, Ogun State, December 22.
Atmore, E., 2019, ‘Early childhood development key in eradicating poverty and inequality in SA’, Cape Argus, viewed 05 May 2019, from https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/opinion/early-childhood-development-key-in-eradicating-poverty-and-inequality-in-sa-33562411.
Aubert, A., Molina, S., Schubert, T. & Vidu, A., 2017, ‘Learning and inclusivity via interactive groups in early childhood education and care in the Hope School Spain’, Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 13, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.03.002
Banks, J.A., 1993, ‘Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform’, Beyond Heroes and Holidays 2, 37–38, viewed 22 January 2021, from https://www.teachingforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Banks_James.pdf.On.
Bipath, K. & Joubert, I., 2016, ‘The birth of a new curriculum for early childhood development’, Mail and Guardian, viewed 10 February 2019, from https://mg.co.za/article/2016-05-27-00-the-birth-of-a-new-qualification-for-ecd.
Bohórquez, Y.S., 2020, ‘A self-dialogue with the thoughts of Paulo Freire: A critical pedagogy encounter’, HOW Journal 27(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.27.1.520
Burchinal, M., 2018, ‘Measuring early care and education quality’, Child Development Perspectives 12(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12260
Cascio, E., 2015, ‘The promise and pitfalls of universal early education’, IZA World of Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.116
Chidarikire, M., 2017, ‘A peer counselling strategy for alleviating drug abuse in Zimbabwean rural learning ecologies’, Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Free State.
Cologon, K., 2019, Towards inclusive education: A necessary process of transformation, viewed 15 July 2019, from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-10/apo-nid265286_1.pdf.
Corbett, J. & Slee, R., 2000, ‘An international conversation on inclusive education’, in F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong & L. Barton (eds.), Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives, pp. 133–146, David Fulton, London.
Dale, J.A. & Hyslop-Margison, E.J., 2012, Paulo Freire: Teaching for freedom and transformation – The philosophical influences on the work of Paulo Freire, Springer, Dordrecht.
Daniels, D., 2018, ‘The immigrant Somali parent as a strategic partner of South African education’, in E. Walton & R. Osman (eds.), Teacher education for diversity, pp. 87–102, Routledge, New York, NY.
Darder, A., Torres, R.D. & Baltodano, M., 2017, The critical pedagogy reader, 3rd edn., Routledge, New York, NY.
Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), 2017, Policy on minimum requirements for programmes leading to qualifications in higher education for early childhood development educators, Government Printers, Pretoria.
Devarakonda, C., 2014, Diversity and inclusion in early childhood: An introduction, Sage, London.
Ebrahim, H., 2018, ‘The South African ECCE context and principles for teacher education programmes’, in The Project for Inclusive Early Childhood Care and Education (PIECCE), viewed 16 June 2020, from https://piecce.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/piecce-programme-framework.pdf.
Ebrahim, H.B., Martin, C. & Excell, L., 2021, ‘Early childhood teachers’ and managers’ lived experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa’, Journal of Education 84, 204–221. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i84a11
Ebrahim, H.B., Okwany, A. & Barry, O. (eds.), 2019, Early childhood care and education at the margins: African perspectives on birth to three, Routledge, New York, NY.
Elfert, M., 2019, ‘Lifelong learning in sustainable development goal 4: What does it mean for UNESCO’s rights-based approach to adult learning and education?’, International Review of Education 65(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09788-z
Emilson, A. & Eek-Karlsson, L., 2021, ‘Doing belonging in early childhood settings in Sweden’, in Early child development and care, pp. 1–12, viewed 12 December 2021, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2021.1998021.
Faustino, A.C., Moura, A.Q., Da Silva, G.H.G., Muzinatti, J.L. & Skovsmose, O., 2017, ‘Macroinclusion and microexclusion in mathematics education’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (MES) at the University of Thessaly, Greece, viewed 09 May 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316203472_Macroinclusion_and_Microexclusion_in_Mathematics_Education.
Ferrante, C.A., 2012, ‘A case study of inclusion and diversity: A whole school approach using the social model of disability’, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Northumbria University.
Freire, P., 1985, The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation, Greenwood Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Freire, P., 2000, Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th-anniversary edn., Continuum, New York, NY.
Gelot, L., 2019, ‘Training for peace, conscientization through university simulation’, Journal of Peace Education 16(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1576514
Ginja, T.G. & Chen, X., 2021, ‘Conceptualising inclusive education: The role of teacher training and teacher’s attitudes towards inclusion of children with disabilities in Ethiopia’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1879958
Harrison, G.D., 2020, ‘A snapshot of early childhood care and education in South Africa: Institutional offerings, challenges and recommendations’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v10i1.797
Jaques, C., Islar, M. & Lord, G., 2019, ‘Post-truth: Hegemony on social media and implications for sustainability communication’, Sustainability 11(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072120
Kart, A. & Kart, M., 2021, ‘Academic and social effects of inclusion on students without disabilities: A review of the literature’, Education Sciences 11(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010016
Kearney, J., Wood, L. & Zuber-Skerritt, O., 2013, ‘Community–university partnerships: Using Participatory Action Learning and Action Research (PALAR)’, Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement 6(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v6i1.3105
Kinzler, K.D. & Spelke, E.S., 2011, ‘Do infants show social preferences for people differing in race?’, Cognition 119(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.019
Kirschner, S.R., 2015, ‘Inclusive education’, in W.G. Scarlett (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of classroom management, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Krischler, M., Powell, J.J. & Pit-Ten Cate, I.M., 2019, ‘What is meant by inclusion? On the effects of different definitions on attitudes toward inclusive education’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 34(5), 632–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1580837
Koen, M., Neethling, M. & Taylor, B., 2021, ‘The impact of COVID-19 on the holistic development of young South African at-risk children in three early childhood care and education centres in a rural area’, Perspectives in Education 39(1), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i1.9
Lawless, B. & Chen, Y.W., 2019, ‘Developing a method of critical thematic analysis for qualitative communication inquiry’, Howard Journal of Communications 30(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2018.1439423
Liasidou, A., 2012, ‘Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 10(1), 168–184.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J.N., 2015, An introduction to educational research: Connecting methods to practice, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Luthuli, A. & Wood, L., 2020, ‘Nothing about us without us! A PALAR approach to improving inclusion in a Zimbabwean college of education’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1766124
Maree, K., 2016, First steps in research, Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria.
McAteer, M. & Wood, L., 2018, ‘Decolonising knowledge: Enacting the civic role of the university in a community-based project’, South African Journal of Education 38(4), a1662. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n4a1662
Mckenzie, J., 2021, ‘Intellectual disability in inclusive education in South Africa: Curriculum challenges’, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 18(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12337
McLaren, P., 2007, Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education, 5th edn., Pearson, Boston, MA.
McLaren, P. & Kincheloe, J.L. (eds.), 2007, Critical pedagogy: Where are we now?, Peter Lang, New York, NY.
Mérida-Serrano, R., González-Alfaya, M.E., Olivares-García, M.A., Rodríguez-Carrillo, J. & Muñoz-Moya, M., 2020, ‘Sustainable development goals in early childhood education: Empowering young girls to bridge the gender gap in science’, Sustainability 12(22), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229312
Moodly, A., 2019, Early childhood care and education: A transdisciplinary approach, Oxford, Cape Town.
Nakidien, T., Singh, M. & Sayed, Y., 2021, ‘Teachers and teacher education: Limitations and possibilities of attaining SDG 4 in South Africa’, Education Sciences 11(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020066
Petriwskyj, A., 2010, ‘Diversity and inclusion in the early years’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 14(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504515
Reingold, R., Dery, K. & May, N., 2020, ‘Creating culture circles – A case of continuing professional development workshop for Israeli special education teachers’, European Journal of Teaching and Education 2(4), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.33422/ejte.v2i4.522
Republic of South Africa, 2015, National integrated early childhood development policy, Government Printers, Pretoria.
Resnik, D.B., 2011, ‘What is ethics in research and why is it important?’, in National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, viewed 23 January 2019, from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm.
Reygan, F., Walton, E. & Osman, R., 2018, ‘Assimilation and discourses of difference and the application of critical diversity literacy in education’, in E. Walton & R. Osman (eds.), Teacher education for diversity, pp. 1–20, Routledge, New York, NY.
Ring, E., O’ Sullivan, L. & Wall, E., 2020, ‘Resisting the “schoolification epidemic” in early childhood education’, in I. Jones & M. Lin (eds.), Critical issues in early childhood teacher education, pp. 79–104, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
Schoonen, A., Wood, L. & Kruger, C., 2021, ‘Learning to facilitate community-based research: “Guidelines from a novice researcher”’, Educational Research for Social Change 10(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2021/v10i1a2
SDG Compass, 2018, SDG 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, viewed 21 July 2020, from https://sdgcompass.org/sdgs/sdg-4/.
Setlhare-Kajee, R., 2018, ‘Equipping teachers to support learners with psychosocial challenges: The potential of a linked PALAR-life design process’, Doctoral research, North West University.
Swart, E. & Pettipher, R., 2016, ‘A framework for understanding inclusion’, in E. Landsberg, D. Krüger & E. Swart (eds.), Addressing barriers to learning: A South African perspective, pp. 3–24, Van Schaik, Fayetteville, NC.
Twala, Z., 2021, ‘A great chance to accelerate early learning development for children in South Africa’, in E. Atmore, M. Ashley-Cooper & L. Van Niekerk (eds.), Thought leaders on early childhood development in South Africa: A collection of thought-provoking essays, pp. 4–9, Centre for Early Childhood Development, Cape Town.
Underwood, K., Valeo, A. & Wood, R., 2012, ‘Understanding inclusive early childhood education: A capability approach’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 13(4), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.4.290
UNESCO, 1994, The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education, UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO, 2005, Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all, UNESCO, Paris.
Van der Gaag, J. & Tan, J.P., 1998, The benefits of early child development programs: An economic analysis, World Bank Group, viewed 12 April 2020, from http://www.oas.org/udse/dit2/costos/vandergaag-total.htm.
Walton, E., 2018, ‘Decolonising (through) inclusive education?’, Educational Research for Social Change 7, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2018/v7i0a3
Wood, L., 2020, Participatory action learning and action research: Theory, practice and process, Routledge, London.
Zabeli, N., Perolli-Shehu, B. & Gjelaj, M., 2020, ‘From segregation to inclusion: The case of Kosovo’, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education 12(2), 201–225.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., 2018, ‘An educational framework for participatory action learning and action research (PALAR)’, Educational Action Research 26(4), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1464939
|
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
