EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF PEDAGOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY DOCTORAL SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
The Development of Inclusive Schools Doctoral (Ph.D.) Thesis
Schiffer, Csilla 2011
2
1. BACKGROUNDThe subject of „The development of inclusive schools”
forms a connection between two fields of educational research: namely, that of inclusive education and that of school development.
The aim of the research is to explore the influence of the Index for Inclusion (Booth and Ainscow, 2002) on the educational environment in Hungary. The social intent of the research (McNiff and Whitehead, 2009) is to bridge the gap between the theory and the praxis of education (Pine, 2009), and give a „voice” to the different members of the school communities.
Since the year 2004, when Hungary became a member of the European Union, inclusion has been considered a very important part of the Hungarian educational system. That is the reason why the main subjects of my research can be summarized as the opportunities and limits for inclusive school development in the context of this new educational policy.
The project introduces the process by which how a Hungarian ’general school’ (both primary and lower secondary school) was improved by the Index for Inclusion. Changes to the school can also affect the attitudes of the school developers. Since I personally was one of them, not only does the research concern changes to the roles of my co- researchers, but also changes to my own approach. As a consequence, the research shows what I could learn both from my co-researchers’ and from my own experience.
3
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKSAccording to the ontology of the research, the mechanisms of development and effect indicating the microstructures and conditions of social change are made visible by the change and the condition of social constructions (Flick, 2005). That is why my research shows the microstructural changing processes in connection with the inclusion. The epistemology of my research reveals personal knowledge that is formed in a self- reflective spiral of retrospective understanding and prospective action (Carr and Kemmis, 2010), and becomes a ’common knowledge’ during the deliberative processes.
During the research I used the methodology of action research, which has recently been rediscovered in education.
Action research is a group of methods that examines change, and simultaneously tries to understand and alter the problems arising from the different systems. My research was mainly influenced by participative action research, community-based action research and the living theory approach. (Stringer, 1999; Reason, 1994; Whitehead, 1989; McNiff, 2002)
From a normative point of view, action research as a research methodology is accepted as being value-laden. The developing direction of the actions cannot be value-free, because they aim to change the social reality. This makes action research especially suitable for educational research, as the most important elements of education are the creation and transmission a set of values (Bábosik, 1999). In the diversity of concepts of values the philosophy of inclusion itself appears as a value. The main aim of inclusive education is the realisation of learning and participation in a common learning process. Therefore, participation as value shows the direction of development and research.
4
3. BASIC CONCEPTSInclusive education, as a further development of the concept of integrated education, appears on three levels of educational policy: on the level of the inclusive school movement (O’Brien and Forest, 1989), on the level of the international policy of a global agenda (Pijl et al., 1997) and on the level of the social policy of European Union. The Index for Inclusion presents an educational concept of inclusive school development related to international inclusion policy.
On the basis of the Index, inclusive education means supporting learning and participation, minimising barriers against learning and increasing the participation of schools.
Inclusion is an endless process of increasing learning and participation for all students, and the Index for Inclusion aims to support these processes. (Booth and Ainscow, 2002)
4. CONTEXTS OF THE RESEARCH
Since action research is defined as a process, the research lasted several years. Naturally, during this period both the social and the professional environment have changed. That is why the introduction of the contextual changes have become part of the frame of the research. Action research is typically politically informed and personally engaged (Altrichter and Posch, 2008). In connection with the development of inclusive schooling, the research reveals the context of inclusive education policy and educational development policy, with a statistical analysis of the changes within the education system in Hungary. My personal involvement is introduced in the chapter titled Personal Contexts.
5
5. METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCHThe methodology of action research is complex, and it combines many different research methods. My research consists of analysis of documents, questionnaires and interviews.
1. Getting started with theIndex
2. Finding about the school
3. Producing an inclusive school development plan
4. Implementing priorities 5. Reviewing
theIndex process
year summary reports
interviews:
pupils, parents, teachers, special needs teachers and psychologists
document analysis:formal school documents, texts and reports of the co-ordinating group discussions
documents of staff development day, presentations
analyse questionnaires
school development plans, working plans
Process of action research
In the phase of getting started with the Index the research process began with an analysis of formal school documents1 and an analysis of discussions in the co-ordinating group. The phase finding about the school was based on the staff development day and various questionnaires. Documents and presentations of staff development days focussed on the possible aims of school development. During the four years of school development, the research included 1193
1 In Hungary, there is a ’school programme ’ which includes some of the schools’
values, aims, tasks, and curriculum.
6
questionnaires both for pupils and parents. The main lines of the discussion were formed by the priorities of the inclusive school development plans. The feedback on the realization of the aims of school development was provided by the approximately 20 interviews which were conducted with pupils, parents, teachers, special needs teachers and psychologists. The last phase, reviewing the Index process was based on the results of the year summary reports. The process restarted the following year with a new phase of finding about the school, so the whole research consisted of three development and research cycles.Seeing that action research uses different methodological elements, the generalization of the results can differ, according to the various questions, methods and sampling. In the present case, generalization is possible on the level of the school, since school questionnaires examined the whole population. On the other hand, its results are of limited use outside the school. These results can be mainly applied to a similar institution having a similar social structure with similar staffs, parents or students. I introduce the research by way of naturalistic generalization, which makes it possible for the reader to find comparisons between the natural situations that I experienced and the similar situations experienced by the reader.
Generalization in action research focusses not only on the present ‘what is?’, but on the the possible future ‘what may happen?’. Moreover, as a result of its transformative character, it can show ‘what could happen?’ – if the Index were used by schools – as well as outlining a perspective to other schools.
(Kvale, 2005; Sántha, 2009)
The validity of the research is increased by the fact that a full-scale sample was examined, and the interviews were conducted from different aspects. According to the notion of communicative validity, the validity of the statements becomes more marked in the communication of the participants (Kvale,
7
2005). Because of the complexity and dynamism of the different actions, method and person triangulation (Flick, 2005) can be used.The reliability of the research is increased by the exact and systematic introduction of the process (procedural reliability) (Golnhofer, 2001; Sántha, 2009).
In community action research, the researcher becomes a facilitator, a partner or consultant, a catalyst, as well as a potential resource. In this case, the researcher can help participants define their problems clearly, and solve them efficiently. The researcher enables the individuals to examine the processes, the results and the consequences of the actions, and supports the realization of the plans. (Stringer, 1999)
In respect of research ethics, action research is considered an especially sensitive method, because at the same time development means intervention. At that point, the question of permission arises. That is why the research mainly intends to fulfil the requirements of a constructive ethic, which requires an open and equal partnership, a division of the elements of the role of the researcher, and common decision making.
(Szabolcs, 2001)
6. THE PROCESS AND THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH
In the case of action research, both the process and the results become the subjects of the interpretative cognition.
School development based on the Index has led to many different local changing processes.
1. Professional cooperation were strengthened by the staff development days, but the development of the cooperation between supporting experts and the teachers also appeared as a priority. The close cooperation between supporting experts and teachers, which was intended to
8
involve everyone, appeared as a result of the common decision of the whole school staff. This decision created the conditions for trust, openness and active involvement.Co-teaching (teachers and special needs teachers working together in the classroom) was also started in the lower secondary school2. Lower secondary school students found the presence of both teachers in the lessons increasingly beneficial.3 The association factor4 between co-teaching and the support available to students, was higher than at the beginning of the research.5 Behind this cooperation lies the fact that teachers and special needs teachers communicated their mutual requirements in an open way, which made the
’fine tuning’ of processes possible. Since teachers and special needs teachers both recognized that lower secondary school students are reluctant to attend extra lessons, they tried to integrate them into the normal timetable. It was very helpful for the teachers that they could get methodological support, and they could discuss the special exercises and evaluation of SEN students with the special needs teachers. On the other hand, special needs teachers appreciated the school equipment and resources as well as the teachers’ input and lesson organisation.
Cooperation between the supporting experts and teachers required the coordination of both the institution of special services and the school. The consultations between the institutions of special services and the interviews conducted with the school leaders revealed that a more visible presence of special experts (psychologists, speech therapists and special needs teachers for students with learning disabilities) would be
2 Lower secondary school: between the age of 10 and 14
3.In 2007 23% of the students found the presence of two teachers beneficial. In 2010 this rate was 41%.
4 Cramer’s V (C=) shows weak C<0.33, medium 0,33<C>0,67 and strong C>0,67 association
5 C2007=0,36; C2008=0,6; C2009=0,43; C2010=0,44
9
required. Not only was the school given the special experts sent by the institutions of special services, but also a part - - time pschychologist, a ’developer teacher’6, a person responsible for child welfare in the school and a spare-time organizer. In a group interview conducted with school leaders and special experts, we wanted to ascertain what kind of supporting experts are needed in the school. The result was the following: the school needs experts who can be available more than once a week, and can quickly help solve problems. The latter was considered to be more important than the question as to who the experts would be employed by. Parents came to like the consultations with the various special experts, so besides special needs teachers, psychologists became increasingly important during this phase.7In order to facilitate the easy transition between primary school and lower secondary school, cooperation between primary school and lower secondary school teachers became stronger.
2. The need to reduce violence was recognised in two areas: firstly, in connection with the violence out of the classroom between primary school and lower secondary school students and secondly, in connection with treating the phenomenon of bullying. Thanks to the common strategy of the teachers, the aggression of lower secondary school students towards primary school students has decreased in the playground8. What is more, being called names9 and has also
6 In Hungary there is a ’developer teacher’ for children with specific learning disability. They are teachers who have attended a 2 year postgraduate course. Special needs teachers have studied at BA and sometimes also at MA level at University.
7 In 2007 60% of the parents, but in 2010 72%
8 In 2007 41% of primary school students reported that they were attacked in the playground, by lower scondary school students, but in 2010 only 16%
9 In 2007 78% of primary school students suffered from being called names but in 2010 only 48%
10
gradually decreased, as has the labelling of ’bad children’10. On the other hand, in the lower secondary school these phenomena have become stronger. Bullying was found to be at the root of this phenomenon, which became very strong in the third year of development. Bullying was mainly experienced by students excluded from other schools, and in this (new) school they started exclusionary processes and their new classmates had suffered from being excluded in. To solve this problem, close cooperation between teachers, supporting experts and school leaders was essential.During the examined years, aggression showed weak association with attention problems during lessons11, so it had hardly any effect on learning. Aggression was reported to the teachers increasingly often, although mainly not by the victims, but by the witnesses. Teachers made conscious efforts to discuss conflict situations immediately and students seemed to be partners in these efforts. During the final year of the project these efforts actually reduced violent incidents lower secondary students12.
3. Mutual respect in the school community was realized by involving all students in formulating classroom or school rules. Consultations about the rules were held at the beginning of the second school year and their rediscussion in the event of any violent situations resulted in children tending to accept rules and consider them fair. While at the beginning, the fairness of the primary school teacher determined the fairness of the rules, from the following year it was not the teacher, but the connection between the discussion of rules and their
10 In 2007 91% of primary school students thought that there were ’bad children’ in their class, but in 2010 only 57%
11 C2009=0,23; C2010=0,21
12 In 2009 46% of lower secondary school students stated that they were ’picked and teased’, but in 2010 only 41%
11
fairness that became significant13. This made the whole process more democratic.From the point of view of the teachers, mutual respect also appeared as a priority. Realization of this mutual appreciation was perceived by the students in that teachers appeared even more helpful, agreeable and cheerful, as well as more interested in listening to the childrens’ ideas. As a result of this, teacher-student relationships became stronger in the school: the association from weak become medium strong.14
Development of mutual respect was also connected with the development of the community and self-knowledge. Due to the strengthening of the psychological service, self- knowledge groups could be formed, and children would increasingly take the initiative with the psychologists. On the basis of their experience, students could decide which problems they should discuss with the class teacher, and which problems they should discuss with the psychologist. In the interviews they said that the class teacher could help in small conflicts, but longer or ’psychical problems’ should mainly be discussed with the psychologist. It could happen both individually or in groups. The psychological service became important not only for the students, but also for the parents.
Both children and parents would lead discussion of their requirements with the psychologists.
4. The development of cooperative learning meant strengthening cooperative teaching in the school. The initiative was mine, being an action researcher, and wasreinforced by the parents in the questionnaires. As a result, teachers started to visit each other’s lessons to learn cooperative techniques.
After the first year (according to the questionnaires) students enjoyed pair work and group work more, but in the third year this changed for the worse. On one hand, it can be explained
13 pprimary<0,01; psecondary<0,02
14 C2007=0,27; C2008,2009=0,49; C2010=0,53
12
by the ’implementation dip’ (Fullan, 2002), which is a typical feature of new developments. On the other hand, according to the interviews, it can be explained by the disappearance of the’novelty’ of cooperative learning, and by increasing conflicts.
Besides these, children who had newly arrived from other schools had had no experience of cooperative learning or were unable to fit in. To solve these problems, teachers used indirect strategies based on peer interaction (Bábosik, 2004).
Teachers listened to the reactions of the students to cooperative lessons, and initiated conversations and reflective processes with them about group work. Finally, teachers focussed on the process of teaching cooperative learning, and their experiences enhanced the effectiveness of the preperatory feature of pair work (Horváth, é.n.; Kagan, 2004). Students cited inattention, carelessness, lack of discipline and inability to fit in as factors making cooperative learning difficult. They reacted to these factors with both exclusion and strengthening of inclusion. Avoiding a classmate can be interpreted as exclusion, and an inclusive tendency can be illustrated by supporting each other or initiating learning together. The medium association factor between cooperation and friendships, which was observed at the beginning of the development, became weaker15, which indicates that the students became open to working together with any of their classmates.
Besides cooperative learning, the strengthening of support appeared as a priority, which indicates a strong moral aspect.
Students condemned refusal of help, but appreciated its acceptance, because they interpreted it as diligence. At the same time, they declared that it was ’not a shame’ to be given help, and they appreciated the freedom to accept help.
Cooperation was motivated by forming learning pairs at learning time outside the classroom. As a result, in the case of
15 C2007=45; C2010=27
13
students who have learning time outside lesson time in the afternoon, the association between cooperation both in and out of the classroom changed from weak to medium16. So cooperation in and out of lessons strengthened each other.5. Forming a partnership with the parents involved informing the parents and the development of communication between the school and the parents, and the priority was to support children’s learning at home. Besides these, it was a very important priority that parents should accept the philosophy of inclusion in the school. In the questionaires a question referred to integration in order to make the whole process understandable for the parents. From the outset, 67%
of the parents considered integration good, which is higher than in an earlier survey17 (Salné és Kőpatakiné, 2001). Later, this high rate could not be exceeded. More changes can be perceived in the question as to what is connected with integration from the point of view of the parents. At first, integration was mainly connected with the education of pupils with SEN in the school. As a result of the development, the connection between integration and the aspects of individualised teaching, cooperative teaching and finally the aspect of „teachers encouraging all students to do their best”
became much stronger associations.18 The interpretation of integration as supporting „all students” shows a change of parental attitude, and indicates an understanding and acceptance of the philosophy of inclusion.
6. The active involvement of students in their own learning was motivated by the varied learning process, the widening scale of extra-curricular activities outside lessons and the development of self-evaluation. This diversified learning process was provided for example by conducting and presenting research projects for students, and by the
16 C2009=0,3; C2010=0,47
17 In the survey, 44% of the parents accepted, and another 9% supported it.
18 C=0,65
14
opportunity to choose activities, which was followed continuous assessment by both teacher and classmate.Supporting learning and arousing students’ interests were motivated by joining clubs and other activities, which were increasingly demanded by students. It was encouraging for students that they could increasingly perceive that teachers showed more interest in their ideas19. Moreover, they increasingly considered evaluation to be appropriate.20 According to the teachers, the reason for this was the strenghtening of students’ self-evaluation. On the other hand, students and parents defined the same as a consequence of discussing marks, and providing opportunities for practice and the correction of marks.
7. SUMMARY
On the basis of the feedback given to the school development programme, it can be pointed out that the Index for Inclusion was successful in developing a culture of change in the school. Besides, the Index gave extremely valuable perfect feedback regarding the effectiveness of the project, and helped form the range of the inclusive school coordinator’s duties. What is more, the Index gave teachers more of a voice, which made it possible for us to hear the voice of other members of the school community.
Regarding the effect of development, the following elements turned to be essential: the discussions initiated during the school development days and the common aims and problem solving processes. These processes encouraged
19 In 2007, 19% of lower secondary school students stated clearly that teachers pay attention to their ideas. In 2010 more than 46% said the same.
20 In 2007, 32% of lower secondary school students considered evaluation appropriate, and in 2010 this rate was 64%
15
communication based on a wide range of participation, and established organizational learning.The most important microstructural change was indicated by the change of the school staffs’ culture of cooperation, because their earlier professional cooperation was characterized merely by the exchange of information, and then a division of labour. Besides, as an effect of development, there appeared a kind of co-construction of the teaching- learning process.
The changes in inclusive culture, policy and practice brought about by the Index for Inclusion mutually influenced and strengthened each other as if connected by a kind of network.
For students, the development of inclusion is realized in building cooperative learning, and in the results of cooperation and conflict solving. For them, inclusion is about recognizing, accepting, supporting and valuing each other, which means
„getting on well” with each other. For the parents, acceptance, cooperation, living together and inclusion appeared as valuable.
As a result of the increasing phenonema of social exclusion created by the economic crisis, some elements appeared to barriers of developing inclusion in schools. Special services aiming to support learning and participation were only available to a limited extent, so the school itself tried to make them available. The resource of developing learning and participation was found in the role of the coordinator of the inclusive processes in the school and in the elements providing the development of inclusion in a school system, which prepared and established this local school development in a variety of ways. On the other hand, public education reforms have had an adverse effect on central innovations in inclusion, and created a rapidly changing educational environment, which has made it difficult to produce and implement a school development plan.
16
As an effect of action research, the school has found its own „voice”, identity, and has become more open, more courageous in communicating its aims and policy.The experiences of the school suggest the following consequences for inclusive schools of the future:
To implement an inclusive school not only are special experts and the further training for teachers needed, but school development as well.
School development is especially important with regard to harmonizing the inclusive processes at lower secondary school.
The Index for Inclusion is an effective and usable tool, perfect for inclusive school development in the Hungarian school system.
The experiences of the school suggest the following consequences for the science of Education:
The real content of inclusive education can be defined at the local level, ie in the school.
School development is one of the few tools that can directly influence the putting of educational theories into practice.
The Index for Inclusion is able to inspire commitment towards inclusive education and is able to encourage teachers to develop their own inclusive culture, policy and practice.
It is also worth involving the participants of the research as co-researchers at the level of both formulating research questions and creating theory, as this would make the research more democratic and practicable.
Action research, which deals with the interpretation and change of educational praxis and which is closely connected to the realities of education in practice, can be a valuable research method of the future.
17
8. REFERENCESAltrichter, H. and Posch, P. (2008): Forschende Entwicklung und Entwicklungsforschung – Argumente für eine Neubewertung von Aktionsforschungsansätzen in der deutschsprachigen Bildungsforschung. In. Hofmann, F., Schreiner, C. and Thonhauser, J. (Hrsg.): Qualitative und Quantitative Aspekte. Zu ihrere Komplementarität in der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Forschung.
Waxmann, Münster, New York, München, Berlin, 75-98.
Bábosik István (1999): A nevelés elmélete és gyakorlata. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest
Bábosik István (ed, 2004): Neveléselmélet. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002): Index for Inclusion:
Developing Learning and Participation in schools. CSIE, Bristol, 2.
revised edition
Carr, W. and Kemmis S. I. (2010): Action Research as Critical Educational Science. In. Campbell, A. és Groundwater-Smith, S.
(2010): Action Research in Education. II. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, 53-82.
Flick, U. (2005): Triangulation in der qualitative Forschung. In.
Flick, U., von Kardorff, E. and Steinke, I. (Hg. 2005): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Rowohlts, Reinbeck bei Hamburg, 309- 318.
Fullan, M. (2002): Principals as Leaders in a Culture of Change.
In. Educational Leadership, Special Issue, 3.
Golnhofer Erzsébet (2001): Az esettanulmány. Kutatás- módszertani kiskönyvtár. Műszaki Könyvkiadó, Budapest
Horváth Attila (é. n.): Kooperatív technikák. Hatékonyság a nevelésben. OKI-IFA, Budapest
Kagan, S. (2004): Kooperatív tanulás, Ökonet, Budapest
Kvale, S. (2005): Az interjú. Bevezetés a kvalitatív kutatás interjútechnikáiba. Jószöveg műhely, Budapest
McNiff, J. (2002): Action research for professional development.
Concise advice for new action researchers. 3. edition, http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp, 2010. december 6.
McNiff, J. és Whitehead, J. (2009): Doing and Writing Action Research. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
18
O’Brien, J. and Forest, M. (1989): Action for inclusion: How to improve schools by welcoming children with special needs into regular classrooms. Inclusion, Toronto, Ontario
Papp Gabriella (2002): Tanulásban akadályozott gyermekek iskolai integrációja a szakemberek közötti kooperáció tükrében. In.
Magyar Pedagógia 102. 2. 159-178.
Pijl, S. J., Meijer, C. J. W. and Hegarty, S. (eds, 1997) Inclusive education: a global agenda. Routledge, London
Pine, G. J. (2009): Teacher Action Research. Buildung Knowledge Democraties. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC
Reason, P. (1994): Tree Approaches to Participative Inquiry. In.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (ed. 1994): Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE, Tousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, 324-339.
Salné Lengyel Mária and Kőpatakiné Mészáros Mária (2001):
Fogyatékos tanulók helyzete az ezredfordulón. In. Új Pedagógiai Szemle, 7-8. 20-29.
Sántha Kálmán (2009): Bevezetés a kvalitatív pedagógiai kutatás módszertanába. Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest
Stringer, E. T. (1999): Action Research. 2. edition, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi
Szabolcs Éva (2001): Kvalitatív kutatási metodológia a pedagógiában. Műszaki Könyvkiadó, Budapest
Whitehead, J. (1989): Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the Kind, 'How Do I Improve My Practice?', In.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 19, 1, 41-52.
19
PUBLICATIONS OF THE AUTHOR CONNECTED WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE THESIS:
Schiffer Csilla (2001): Látókkal együtt - az általános iskola alsó tagozatán. In.
Gyógypedagógiai Szemle, 3. 62-70.
Schiffer Csilla (2005): Tanítók tapasztalatai a vak gyermekek integrációjáról. In.
Gyógypedagógiai Szemle 1. 181-195.
Schiffer Csilla - Bardonné Angyal Zsuzsanna - Türk Miklósné- Kardonné Dolgos Judit (2005): Együtt nevelünk. In. Fejlesztő Pedagógia 4. 26-37.
Schiffer Csilla (2005): Inkluzív Nevelés MA képzés európai tanterve. In.
Pedagógusképzés 1. 135-140.
Réthy Endréné, Schaffhauser Franz és Schiffer Csilla (2006): Az EUMIE mesterfokú tanterv - inkluzív nevelés szakon. In. Pedagógusképzés 1-2. 93-99.
Schiffer Csilla (2008): Az inklúzió fogalmának értelmezései és azok ellentmondásai. In. Bánfalvy Csaba (szerk.): Az integrációs cunami. ELTE BGGYFK, Budapest 45-64.
Schiffer Csilla (2009): Történelmi esély az együttnevelésre – a 19. században. In.
Iskolakultúra 1-2. 87-97.
Hoyningen-Süess, U. és Schiffer, Csilla (2010): "Allgemeine Heilpädagogik" und
"Grundlinien zu einer Theorie der Sonderpädagogik": Heil- bzw. Sonderpädagogische Ideengeschichte im Vergleich. In. Ellger-Rüttgardt, S. L. - Wachtel, G. (Hrsg.):
Pädagogische Professionalität und Behinderung. Herausforderungen aus historischer, nationaler und internationaler Perspektive. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 55- 65.
Balázs Henrietta, Czető Krisztina, Csereklye Erzsébet, Nagyváradi Andrea, Rapos Nóra és Schiffer Csilla (2010): Kutatói tapasztalatok az iskolai nevelésről. Jelzések a diszfunkcióról, jelzések jó válaszokról: az adaptív és az együttműködő iskola. In.
Szabolcs Éva (szerk): Neveléstudomány – reflexió – innováció. Gondolat, Budapest, 253-282.
Garai Dóra, Kerekes Valéria, Schiffer Csilla, Tamás Katalin, Trócsányi Zsófia, Weiszburg Júlia és Zászkaliczky Péter (2010): Die Rolle der Fachkräfte in der inklusiven Bildung und Erziehung. In. Kron, M. Papke, B. Windisch, M. (szerk.):
Zusammen aufwachsen. Schritte zur frühen inklusiven Bildung und Erziehung.
Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn, 46-53.
Schiffer Csilla (2011): Az aktív részvétel, mint a középiskolai integráció és inklúzió alapja. In. Papp Gabriella (szerk.): Középiskolás fokon?! ELTE Eötvös Kiadó – ELTE BGGYK, Budapest, 35-53.
DVD:
Auer Éva, Fótiné Hoffmann Éva, Mohr Marianna, Radványi Katalin, Sándor Éva, Schiffer Csilla és Kovács T. László (2008): Habilitációs és rehabilitációs tevékenységek. Kézikönyv és CD-ROM a pedagógusképző intézmények részére.
Educatio, Budapest
Marton Eszter, Kaló Róbert, Schiffer Csilla és Szaffner Gyula (2008): Az Inklúziós index iskolafejlesztési program a gyakorlatban. DVD, Educatio, Budapest
20
Lectures:
Schiffer Csilla (2004): Kommunikáció – kapcsolatteremtés – beilleszkedés vakon, látó óvodai közösségbe. IV. Országos Neveléstudományi Konferencia, Budapest, 2004. október 20-22.
Schiffer Csilla (2005): Inclusive Education in Hungary. Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress, Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? Strathclyde University, Glasgow, 1st - 4th August 2005
Schiffer Csilla (2007): Befogadó iskolák fejlesztése. Doktori Konferencia, ELTE BGGYFK, Budapest, 2007. máj. 2.
Schiffer Csilla és Csányi Yvonne (2007): Inklúziós index: Az iskolai befogadás minőségének fejlesztése. VII. Országos Neveléstudományi Konferencia, Budapest, 2007. október 25-27.
Hoyningen-Süess, Ursula és Schiffer Csilla (2007): Professionalität in der Heil- und Sonderpädagogik: Ein Vergleich der Herausbildung in Ungarn und der Schweiz.
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 2007. nov. 15-17.
Schiffer Csilla (2007): Az inklúziós index – elméletek és tapasztalatok. A fogyatékos tanulók iskolai integrációja és társadalmi beilleszkedése c. konferencia, ELTE BGGYFK, Budapest, 2007. december 4.
Schiffer Csilla (2008): Inkluzív iskolák fejlesztésének nemzetközi tapasztalatai.
MI/MÁS Konferencia, Eger, 2008. március 19-20.
Schiffer Csilla és Marton Eszter (2008): A szülők viszonyulása az inklúzióhoz egy befogadó iskolában. Pedagógiai Értékelési Konferencia, Szeged, 2008. április 12.
Schiffer Csilla (2008): Az Inklúziós index hazai adaptációja. VII. Nevelésügyi Kongresszus, Budapest, 2008. augusztus 25-28.
Schiffer Csilla (2008): Der Index für Inklusion in Ungarn. 4. Symposium zur Internationalen Heilpädagogik in Oldenburg, 4-6. 9. 2008
Hoyningen-Süess, Ursula és Schiffer Csilla (2008): Forschung damals und heute:
Ähnliches und Verschiedenes. Ein Vergleich zweier Theoriesysteme. 4. Symposium zur Internationalen Heilpädagogik in Oldenburg, 4-6. 9. 2008
Schiffer Csilla (2009): Roles and Qualifications of Professionals in Organising Inclusion. gleich - verschieden - inklusiv Bildung und Erziehung in Kindertageseinrichtungen. 17-18. September 2009, Universität Siegen / ZPE
Nagyváradi Andrea, Balázs Henrietta, Czető Krisztina, Rapos Nóra, Csereklye Erzsébet és Schiffer Csilla (2010): Kutatói tapasztalatok az iskolai nevelésről. ELTE PPK Neveléstudományi Intézet, Budapest, 2010. április 16.
Schiffer Csilla, Papp Gabriella, Perlusz Andrea és Szekeres Ágota (2011):
Speciális és többségi intézmények közötti kooperáció és konkurencia a sajátos nevelési igényű tanulók oktatásában. Országos Neveléstudományi Konferencia, Budapest, 2011. november 3-5.
