Sunteți pe pagina 1din 19

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Characteristics of Nordic research on special


education in preschool: a review with special focus
on Swedish conditions

Linda Palla

To cite this article: Linda Palla (2019) Characteristics of Nordic research on special education
in preschool: a review with special focus on Swedish conditions, International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 23:4, 436-453, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa


UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 28 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1224

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 436–453
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1441337

Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in


preschool: a review with special focus on Swedish conditions
Linda Palla
Faculty of Education and Society, Department of Children, Youth and Society, Malmö University, Malmö,
Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY


The article identifies and reviews current Nordic research on special Received 17 November 2017
education in preschool. The research question was: What Accepted 31 January 2018
characterises Nordic research on special education in preschool
KEYWORDS
between the years 2006 and 2014? The analysis that was applied Children in need of special
was configurational and the procedure included a content analysis. support; inclusion; Nordic;
The results of the present review indicate that the included studies preschool; special education;
are characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to preschool special educators
practice, with predominantly qualitative data created through
interviews and with a variety of theories. Teachers’ voices
dominate, while special educators, and parents’ voices are heard to
some degree. Children’s voices are rarely heard and then only
through video recordings in which the adult interprets the child.

Introduction
In an inclusive preschool, children’s well-being, development, and learning become central
issues. All children are entitled to both receive the support and be presented with the edu-
cational challenges they are perceived to be in need of (UNCRC 1989; Unesco 1994). The
concepts of inclusion and inclusive education were central parts of the agreements in the
Salamanca Statement (Unesco 1994). Inclusion can be defined as something qualitatively
different than integration, since inclusion requires that all children are seen as a part of the
whole (Ahlberg 2013) and that the education suits all (Egelund, Haug, and Persson 2006).
Inclusion is closely linked to the ideas of democracy, equal rights and participation
(Ahlberg 2013). One could argue that with the absence of exclusion or segregation,
there is no need for integration.
Preschool has been said to welcome all children (Palla2011). The concept ‘preschool for
all children’ has changed in meaning during the past century in, for example, Sweden. The
early forms of preschool primarily focused on physical accessibility for all. In recent years,
more attention has been directed towards special education content. With preschool being
regarded as the first step in the education system and special education being seen as a key
area in matters concerning preschool quality, research on special education in preschool

CONTACT Linda Palla linda.palla@mau.se Faculty of Education and Society, Department of Children, Youth and
Society, Malmö University, Nordenskiöldgatan 10, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 437

has a central role to play. As today’s preschool in the Nordic countries is a part of the edu-
cation system, with an enhanced learning focus and inclusive ideals, there is a need to
study the terms and conditions for an inclusive preschool.
The Nordic early childhood research field has not yet developed in accordance with the
strive of preschool being an institution of prevention, equalisation and early intervention.
The research field is in need of strong growth and strategic efforts (Tallberg-Broman
2015). A large part of the existing Nordic special education research has been conducted
in other parts of the school system, so it is important to identify the research that has been
carried out in preschool.
The latest comprehensive research overview (Emanuelsson, Persson, and Rosenqvist 2001)
carried out in the special education field dealt primarily with Swedish research that had been
completed and published in 1995 and later. The overview includes Nordic and international
comparisons. Since 2001, no similarly comprehensive and comparative Swedish research over-
view appears to have been published that specifically relates to special education in preschool
as a field of knowledge. However, other knowledge and research overviews may be attributed
to the special education field, since they include preschool to some extent, such as overviews of
research on dyslexia (Myrberg 2007) or on special education from an international perspective
(Nilholm 2006). Nilholm and Björck-Åkesson (2007) have argued that research on special
education in general in Sweden is in a phase of expansion.
With this background, one could argue that research on special education in relation to
preschool as the first step in the education system is in need of greater visibility and sys-
tematisation. It is important to periodically identify and review prevailing and relevant
research to guide future research. A Nordic perspective may then serve as a first entry
in identifying and creating knowledge about the research field of special education in pre-
school. This could contribute to a greater understanding of what constitutes the research
field, and furthermore, it´s base of knowledge.
The forms of preschool in the Nordic countries have somewhat different titles, but are
similar in character, purpose, and content, which has motivated the present review. The
Nordic countries as well as the other OECD countries are, according to Jensen (2009), a
part of the field of early childhood education where ‘intervention in daycare/pre-school is con-
sidered the best way to give children a good beginning in life, particularly socially endangered
children’ (p. 11). The Nordic model is defined by its specific character and wide mission. The
preschool in the Nordic countries is well developed, has extensive opening hours, relatively low
fees and a large participation of children from one to six years. The preschool is based on a
combination of education and care; the Nordic EDUCARE model (Tallberg-Broman 2015).
The main occupational groups working in, and in relation to, preschool are care givers, pre-
school teachers and special educators, or similar.
This review is a limited and developed part of a larger study that was conducted as one
of the research reviews carried out in conjunction with the establishment of the Swedish
Institute for Educational Research. Therefore the article reflects Swedish conditions to a
somewhat greater degree and the concept ‘preschool’ is used throughout the article.

Aim and research questions


The aim of this review is to identify and review current Nordic research on special edu-
cation in preschool. The main research question is: What characterises Nordic research
438 L. PALLA

on special education in preschool between the years 2006 and 2014? More specifically, the
subquestions in this article are: (1) What characterises the aims of the research in terms of
closeness to the preschool practice, (2) What data collection methods are used in the
research, and what characterises the data and analytical approaches used in the research,
(3) What theories are used in the research, and (4) Which participants voices take pre-
cedence in the research?

Methods and data


Analytical strategy
The analytical strategy can be described by Åkerstrøm Andersen’s (1999) words, namely
that the analytical strategy is a strategy for how researchers construct others’ observations
by expressing what they themselves express. Since the review includes studies using differ-
ent theories, as well as both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the analysis is config-
urational, in an exploratory sense. The strive in this strategy is to create, organise and
present a meaningful picture of the included research (Levinsson 2015), in the parts
and as a whole. The procedure includes a thematic content analysis, to identify,
compare and report the findings in a way that is fruitful to professionals in preschool
(see also Analysis Process). Thematic analysis is often used to analyse primary qualitative
research (Thomas and Harden 2008), as in this case. To summaries and synthesise the
findings of this review this approach was found to be suitable.
According to it instructions, the Swedish Institute for Educational Research is, for
example, to validate research results in the area with respect to quality and relevance, sys-
tematically compile research results of good scientific quality and present these results in a
way that is of use to professionals in the education system, identify areas in the education
system where there is a lack of relevant practice-centered research (www.skolfi.se).

Selection process
The complexity of special education, both as a concept and as a research and knowledge
area, has affected the work of identifying what may be said to constitute the research field
of special education in preschool in this review. Special education as a field of knowledge is
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary. The special education knowledge base has long been
dominated by medical and psychological research (Helldin 2002). This narrow focus has
been criticised both in the Nordic region and internationally. The development of special
education research has meant, among other things, a significant increase in studies con-
ducted in a number of research environments and scientific disciplines (Emanuelsson,
Persson, and Rosenqvist 2001), for example such areas as education, sociology, and phil-
osophy. Special education has a special relationship with education. They are both fre-
quently cited as intimately connected with each other and sometimes difficult to
distinguish.
This Nordic-oriented research review was based on research in the educational science
sphere, and databases in the educational area were selected. To take stock of prevailing and
relevant research the review included dissertations and peer-reviewed articles between
2006 and 2014. The following selection criteria were used in the search process. The
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 439

studies should (a) be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal or as a licentiate or


doctoral dissertation, (b) be published during the 2006–2014 period, (c) explore preschool
contexts in Nordic countries, and (d) regard special education in preschool as the first step
in the education system.

Search paths
Studies included in this research review were identified online in five databases – ERIC via
EBSCO, Education Research Complete (ERC), the Nordic Base of Early Childhood Edu-
cation and Care (NB-ECEC), SwePub, and LIBRIS – and in three journals – the Nordic
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Educational Research in Sweden, and Research
on Teaching and Learning – as well as in manual searches. The search strings, or the equiv-
alent when the search phrases were not applicable, used in the research review were as
follows. Similar terms and concepts were included in the searches (‘expanders’).
The Location:
Preschool, or ECEC, or ECE, or early education, or early education and care
The Phenomenon:
Special education, or special needs, or special needs education
Children in need of special support
Early intervention
Special educator
Inclusion or inclusive education
Normalisation.

Limitations of the data


This research review did not cover topics of general educational character or development
in general, such as participation linked to influence, bi- or multilingualism, general issues
of ethics, development plans, or evaluation and assessment in general. The review also did
not cover research on general preschool interventions for a specific age or similar, nor did
it address standards or normality issues related to ethnicity, gender, or similar. In addition,
the review excluded studies of social categories or studies on such themes as ‘vulnerable
children’ where preschool is seen as a general factor for success. In contrast, the review
included studies of social vulnerability and physical and mental health difficulties specifi-
cally related to special education. Writings on the profession, the training, professional
roles, and similar in special education were included in the selection process only if
they explicitly focused on current or future special educators in preschool.

Profile of the search data


The following section describes the searches in the databases and the manual searches, and
the outcome of these searches. The NB-ECEC database were the primary database since it
collects quality assured research. It contains a topic overview with a total of 78 subject cat-
egories. To find the relevant studies, all subject categories were reviewed. The first selec-
tion identified 16 studies as relevant for further review. The second selection review
yielded 14 studies.
The search in SwePub produced 31 hits, of which 5 were licentiate dissertations, 21
were doctoral dissertations, and 5 were journal articles. The review in selection 1 identified
440 L. PALLA

3 licentiate dissertations and 6 doctoral dissertations warranting further review. None of


the 5 scientific articles was found to be relevant for further review. Selection 2 retained 3
licentiate dissertations and 5 doctoral dissertations.
The results based on the searches in LIBRIS were a total of 12 licentiate and doctoral
dissertations. Of these, 7 were found relevant for further investigation in selection 1,
and then also in selection 2.
The outcome of the search in ERIC was that in selection 1, 7 of the 19 search hits were
found relevant for further review. The outcome of selection 2 was 4 studies.
Based on 6 search hits in the ERC database, the outcome of selections 1 and 2 was one
article seen as relevant for further review.
To ensure that relevant studies even from the most recent years were included in this
search process, and as a supplement to the database searches, a complete search of all
articles published in the Nordic Early Childhood Education Research Journal between
the years 2008 and 2014 was conducted. The manual search revealed a total of 2 articles
in selections 1 and 2. Similar searches were conducted in Educational Research in Sweden
(between 2006 and 2014) and in the practice-oriented journal Research on Teaching and
Learning, with no results from either journal. Four dissertations with relevant keywords
and content were identified in additional searches on such websites as www.
avhandlingar.se and www.skolporten.se and in newsletters. These dissertations were
included in the final selection.

Search and analysis process


For the database and manual searches and the subsequent analyses, the following pro-
cedure was employed. First, the location (preschool) was defined. Then the location was
combined with the search phrases defined above. The search process was implemented
in collaboration with a search specialist/librarian at Malmö University.
After an initial review of the comprehensive information retrieved through the data-
bases and manually, the abstracts from the documents that were identified in the first
review were read (selection 1). The reading of the abstracts resulted in a number of pub-
lications that were read in a more detailed manner (selection 2). The in-depth reading of
the publications prior to selection 2 resulted in an assessment of each study based on its
relevance to the present review’s aim and research questions. Selection 2 then consists of
the studies that were finally selected for inclusion in the review.
The selected studies were first assessed in relation to their aim and content. A crucial
question was whether the studies provided knowledge of special education in preschool.
The content was validated in relation to the Swedish preschool context.
The analysis was made using content analysis (Graneheim and Lundman 2004) including
the process of making thematic synthesis (Thomas and Harden 2008). Thorough readings of
the included studies were made. The analysis process entailed the selected studies being
reviewed and analysed in their separate parts as well as holistically, to see whether they
were in accordance with the review’s aim and research questions. Thomas and Harden
(2008) argues that
In the case of synthesis, reviewers translate themes and concepts from one situation to
another and can always be checking that each transfer is valid and whether there are any
reasons that understandings gained in one context might not be transferred to another (n.p.).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 441

The focus of the analysis was on characteristics, including main themes and variation,
regarding (a) aims; (b) data collection methods, data and analysis approach, (c) theories,
and (d) participants voices. In the final part of the analysis, these categories were related to
each other to synthesise and conclude what characterises Nordic research on special edu-
cation in preschool. ‘In situations in which the primary studies are concerned directly with
the review question, it may not be necessary to go beyond the contents of the original
studies in order to produce a satisfactory synthesis’ (Thomas and Harden 2008, n.p.).
Since the review includes studies with different theories, and both quantitative and
qualitative approaches, the analysis that was applied was configurative. The analysis con-
tained both quantitative (frequency) and qualitative (descriptions, texts, narratives)
elements. When comparing and contrasting findings across the studies with configurative
and explorative processes, four concepts were used as a way to organise and categorise the
studies in relation to the aims.
The concepts were intimacy and depth versus distance and width. Intimacy and depth
stands for closeness to the study object, with possibilities to meet the respondents face-to-
face and to engage in in-depth interviews and observations. Distance and width signals a
focus on statistical relationships and measurability, with possibilities to reach a greater
number of participants. Other concepts that were used to categorise the studies were quali-
tative versus quantitative data and analysis approaches. No specific categories were used
regarding data collection methods or theories. The categories regarding voices were tea-
chers and other staff, special educators, parents, and children.
Since qualitative approaches were most prominent, and to present the results in a way
that is of use to professionals in preschool, the Result section uses texts as well as tables to
describe and explain, and narratives from the reviewed studies to highlight, the findings.
The narratives serve as examples in each category. According to Thomas and Harden
(2008) thematic synthesis allows us to stay close to the empirical results in the reviewed
studies, synthesising them with transparency. The tables in each section serve to document
and summarise the findings in a transparent way.

The empirical data


The searches in the various databases generated in some cases duplicates, with some of the
studies being included in more than one of the databases. These studies were counted and
reviewed once. Finally, the search came to include 31 publications. Of these 31 publications,
13 are scientific articles and 18 are dissertations: 3 licentiate dissertations and 15 doctoral
dissertations. Five of these 18 dissertations are compilation dissertations, which means
that they consist of several (2–4) scientific articles that have been published or are about
to be published – referred to as either being ‘in press’ or having been ‘accepted’ for publi-
cation – in a scientific journal. One of the compilation dissertations is a licentiate dissertation
and the rest are doctoral dissertations. The remaining dissertations are written in the form of
monographs. The compilation dissertations were reviewed both in their separate parts and
as a whole, but each dissertation was regarded as one source. The dissertations are volumi-
nous in character and comprise between about 80 and 300 pages.
All the sub-studies/articles in a compilation dissertation could potentially involve pre-
school. The dissertation could also contain sub-studies published in article form. A
number of these sub-studies could be relevant for the preschool field.
442 L. PALLA

Several of the 31 reviewed studies included preschool as well as compulsory school.


The sub-studies/articles in the compilation dissertations were written by different
authors, while the introductory chapter giving the overall aim of the compilation
was written by the licentiate or doctoral student in question. In the monographs, the
respective licentiate/doctoral student is the sole author. All 31 works are known as orig-
inal empirical research, which means that they were based on one or more empirical
studies. Some of the authors are responsible for more than one publication, such as
both their licentiate and doctoral dissertations, or have contributed a number of scien-
tific articles.

Results
The following section focuses on highlighting common themes and variation in the
included studies, presented in a narrative style and with examples from the studies.
When needed, quantitative elements and tables are supplementing the narrative style.

Aims
Overall, it can be pointed out that the 25/31 reviewed studies were aimed at understanding
specific phenomena and issues, rather than at, for example, identifying statistical relation-
ships. An example of such aims is drawn from Bygdeson-Larsson (2010):
The overall aim of the Educational Process Reflection (EPR) studies has been to develop a
better understanding concerning interaction between adults and children and the conditions
for children’s peer play and interaction within the pre-school arena. The ultimate goal of the
present study is to explore how practitioners through the use of EPR may develop the dimen-
sion of social interaction between practitioners and children and between children, in order
to consciously create a more healthy and inclusive experience for all children and especially
for children at risk. (Abstract section, paragraph 1)

The review revealed that 25/31 aims are characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to
preschool practice (see Table 1). Each study was categorised in the table based on its
primary affiliation.
An example of both intimacy and depth is Gjermestad’s (2009, 14) study of the dyadic
interaction between teacher and children with severe developmental disabilities, which
had the following aim:
The study’s purpose is mainly to win insight and understanding of what characterises every-
day dyadic interaction between children with developmental disabilities and adults who have
close relationships with them in school and preschool. … The purpose is to move a step
closer to an understanding of the interaction with children with profound developmental dis-
abilities. (my translation)

Conclusively, the majority (25/31) of the studies were aimed at understanding specific
phenomena and issues, and were characterised by intimacy and depth in relation to pre-
school practice. This finding indicates that in the implementation of an empirical study,
the researcher is located concretely in the preschool environment. As a result, the
researcher has the opportunity to be close up to, for example, learning and interaction
situations.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 443

Table 1. Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ aims.


Author(s) (N = 31) Intimacy & Depth (n = 25) Distance & Width (n = 6)
1 Åmot (2012) X
2 Arnesen (2014) X (diff to def)
3 Björklund (2012) X
4 Bygdeson-Larsson X
5 Cameron and Tveit (2011) X
6 Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) X
7 Fisker (2010) X
8 Gjermestad X
9 Hagström (2010) X
10 Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) X
11 Holst (2008) X
12 Holst and Pihlaja (2011) X
13 Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) X
14 Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) X
15 Lansheim (2010) X
16 Lillvist (2010) (4/4 art) X
17 Lindqvist (2013) (2/4 art) X
18 Luttropp (2011) (2/2 art) X
19 Lutz (2006) X
20 Lutz (2009) X
21 Melin (2013) X
22 Palla (2011) X
23 Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) X
24 Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) X
25 Siljehag (2007) X
26 Svensson (2013) (2/4 rel art) X
27 Tveit and Cameron (2012) X
28 von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) X
29 Warming (2011) X
30 Westman Andersson (2013) (4/4 art, unclear X (closer to dist than to intimacy
relevance) and depth, but not to great width)
31 Wetso (2006) X

Data collection methods


The most common (23) approach was to combine several research data collection
methods, known as triangulation, and thus generate different types of data.
The researchers combined a range of methods in varying ways. The combinations
included observations and interviews, along with field notes, video recordings and obser-
vations together with interviews and discussions, and surveys and interviews. In addition,
researchers also chose to use questionnaires in combination with observations.
The researchers also combined interviews and discussions with various forms of docu-
ments and document analysis. Studies included elements that can be grouped under the
concept of intervention or were part of a specific intervention programme.
In some of the studies, the researchers adopted an explicit ethnographic approach that
emphasised the use of different methods and materials such as videos, interviews, discus-
sions, and field notes as a supplementary source.
Overall, interviews (and similar) were the most common (26) method for acquiring
knowledge in these studies. The interviews were mainly semi-structured. In addition,
researchers used the deep interview method, as well as more free-flowing conversations
and narratives. The interviews were done either individually or in groups. The number
and type of interviews completed in each study varied, ranging from one deep interview
with an individual teacher, to approximately 20 interviews with 20 individuals. Regarding
444 L. PALLA

the methods or approaches to data collection, it should also be emphasised that 8 of the
researchers used different types of surveys and questionnaires. Observations including
video recordings were used in 15 cases.
Conclusively, the researchers combined a range of data collection methods in varying
ways (See Table 2). Interviews were the most common method for acquiring knowledge,
followed by observations including video recordings. Other methods that were used are
other parts of interventions, writing field notes and diaries, or collecting written documen-
tations in different forms.

Data and analysis approaches


The empirical material in the 31 studies consisted of predominantly (27/31) qualitative
data and analysis, although in seven cases, the researchers also used methods that gener-
ated quantitative data and analysis (see Table 2).
In cases where the researchers used questionnaires or surveys, these tools yielded data
that were suitable for either quantitative or qualitative analysis or for both forms of analy-
sis. Some of the reviewed articles are part of a larger study from which the author had
selected a limited part as the basis for a scientific article and qualitative analysis (see
Table 2). Conclusively, the empirical material in the majority (27/31) of the studies con-
sisted of qualitative data and analysis approaches.

Theories
The theories, theoretical analysis tools, theoretical influence(r)s, or similar used in the
reviewed studies represent a range of approaches in pursuit of an understanding of specific
phenomena and issues (see Table 3).
There appears to be no distinct picture or particular dominance of theory in the
research field of special education in preschool. In these studies, the researchers employed
theories with a great span, including organisational theories, theories of learning, com-
munication and language theories, attachment theories, and theories of power, and the-
ories of risk factors for child abuse. The theoretical approaches used also varied in
prominence in the studies.
Several studies clarified the researchers’ overall theoretical stand, giving examples as
variation theory, sociocultural theory, social constructionism and post-structural theory.
Other theoretical strings used in the studies include system theory, activity theory,
grounded theory, critical realism, and critical social theory.
The researchers varied in the way they described the more specific theoretical concepts
or approaches they had used in their study. For example, one researcher chose to use criti-
cal discourse analysis and social constructionist theory linked to organisational theory.
Some of the researchers elected to combine several theoretical approaches. In some of
the studies, it was not possible to deduce whether the researchers had used a specific theor-
etical approach to create meaning in their empirical material.
To analyse their materials, the researchers relied on a number of theoretical models of
explanation and understanding, analytical strategies, and methodological ‘tool boxes’. The
researchers had different emphases in the various studies, which means that they pre-
sented their theoretical and/or analytical grounds in different ways. Some researchers
used discourse analysis as their analytical strategy. Others viewed a phenomenological
Table 2. Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ data collection methods, data and analysis.
Author(s) Qual. Data & Analysis Quant. Data &
(N = 31) Data Collection Methods Appr (n = 27) Analysis Appr (n = 7)
Åmot (2012) Observations, focus group interview X
Arnesen (2014) 3 studies. Interventions, questionnaire, interviews X
Björklund (2012) Deep interview, videographic observations X
Bygdeson-Larsson Observations, narrated experiences by preschool practitioner X
Cameron and Tveit (2011) Observations, interviews, field notes X
Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) Interviews X
Fisker (2010) Observations, video recordings, interviews, conversations X
Gjermestad Video observations, conversations X
Hagström (2010) Mapping, conversations, education sessions, written narratives X
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) Video observations X
Holst (2008) Interviews X
Holst and Pihlaja (2011) Self evaluation, survey X

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION


Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) Video observations, field notes, interviews X
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) Video observations, field notes, interviews, informal conversations X
Lansheim (2010) Interviews, conversations, participants diary notes X
Lillvist (2010) Survey, observations X X
Lindqvist (2013) Questionnaires, interviews X X
Luttropp (2011) Observ, video, surveys, interviews, written doc X X
Lutz (2006) Meeting with discussion, written doc, interviews, policy doc X
Lutz (2009) Meeting with discussion, written doc, interviews, policy doc X
Melin (2013) Part of an intervention programme. Observations, field notes, conversations X (yet frequency measures, histogram,
particip profiles, time profiles)
Palla (2011) Interviews, group conversations, written documentation X
Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) Intervention programme, tests, video recordings X
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) Interviews X
Siljehag (2007) Group meetings, interviews, policy documents, archive material X
Svensson (2013) Survey X
Tveit and Cameron (2012) Interviews X
von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) Interviews, logbooks, network meetings, web forum X
Warming (2011) Group interview X
Westman Andersson (2013) Part of an intervention programme. Tests, Observations, questionnaire, interviews X
Wetso (2006) Play process as intervention, researcher initiated activities: educating, tutoring, conversations, X
observations, video, questionnaire, interviews, diary

445
446 L. PALLA

Table 3. Characteristics of the reviewed studies’ theories.


Author(s) (N = 31) Theories, Theoretical Analysis Tools, Theoretical influence(r)s or similar
Åmot (2012) Descriptive phenomenology
Arnesen (2014) No obvious theory. Briefly mentions learning theory as part of ABA
Björklund (2012) Variation theory of learning, phenomenography
Bygdeson-Larsson Activity theory (Engeström, EPR model), hermeneutics, sociocultural theory and object rel
theory (Winnicott)
Cameron and Tveit (2011) Lipsky and Habermas
Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson Grounded theory
(2008)
Fisker (2010) Metatheor rel developm perspective, Vygotsky, Sommer
Gjermestad Theories about dyadic relations, intersubjectivity and learning, phenomenology and
hermeneutics
Hagström (2010) A range of diff theories on for example teachers learning, attachment theory, affect
theory
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna Sociocultural theory
(2014)
Holst (2008) No obvious theory
Holst and Pihlaja (2011) No obvious theory
Kristoffersen and Simonsen Ethnography, sociocultural theory
(2013)
Kristoffersen and Simonsen Ethnography, sociocultural theory
(2014)
Lansheim (2010) Social constructionism, Mead, Foucault and more
Lillvist (2010) System theory
Lindqvist (2013) Critical pragmatism, Cherryholmes, Skrtic, Abbott
Luttropp (2011) Developmental ecology
Lutz (2006) Social constructionism, critical discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, organisation
theory, Giddens
Lutz (2009) Social constructionism, critical discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, organisation
theory, Giddens
Melin (2013) Critical realism
Palla (2011) Poststructuralism, discourse analysis, Foucault, Butler
Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and No obvious theory
Kontu (2010)
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) Phenomenology
Siljehag (2007) Critical social theory
Svensson (2013) Theories regarding child abuse, ecology model
Tveit and Cameron (2012) Ethnography, deliberative communication (theoretical approach based on
‘argumentative’, power-free and respectful communication)
von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) Social constructionism, deliberate communication, the theory of argumentation by
Habermas, critical theory, discourse analysis
Warming (2011) Discourse analysis, Fairclough, Foucault, Giddens and Bourdieu
Westman Andersson (2013) No obvious theory
Wetso (2006) ‘Ethnography’. Main theory: Activity theory (Vygotsky, Leontiev, Elkonin)

approach as important in their analyses. Yet other researchers sought to combine phe-
nomenology and hermeneutics or to undertake a distinct phenomenographic study.
It may also be the case that the so-called narrative approach became central in some
studies. Other researchers carried out statistical analyses by measuring significances, in
order to compare and assess children or to assess effects of interventions and did not
relate to any specific theory.
Conclusively, there appears to be no dominance of theory. The researchers employed
theories with a great span, in different ways and combinations.

Voices
In the majority (29/31) of the studies, the researchers focused their attention on ensuring
professionals, and primarily teachers’ (25), voices were heard, particularly by holding
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 447

interviews with teachers and other professional groups, such as special educators, and also
by conducting surveys/questionnaires (see Table 4).
8 studies explicitly focused on special educators in preschool. In these studies, other
types of schools and professional groups besides preschool and special educators were
included. Parents’ voices are heard only in 5 cases, and then in the form of the parents
of a specific child or where parents constitute a category of the whole study group. Obser-
vations and video recordings of different contexts or situations in preschool give some
degree of space for children’s voices to be heard through the researchers, other respon-
dents, and/or the camera. No studies were directed specifically to children’s perceptions
of their situation. One of the few researchers who sought to approach the children’s
own perspectives, including children with severe disabilities, is Gjermestad (2009). Her
research took the form of video recordings and interpretations of what she called the
‘child’s voice’ in translations by individuals who related closely with the children.
Examples of studies where it became more evident that the voices of teachers and other
professionals take precedence were studies including teachers’ descriptions of individual
children’s behaviour, teachers’ perceptions of their personal early childhood special edu-
cation competence, or when listening to different professionals working with children in
need of special support.
Conclusively, the review shows that when it comes to research on special education in
preschool, it is primarily the preschool teachers’ voices (25) that are being heard.

Characteristics of Nordic research on special education in preschool


In this final section on the results of the review, the results are synthesised and reconnected
to the overall research question of what characterises Nordic research on special education
in preschool between 2006 and 2014. Conclusively, the results revealed that the studies in
this review have the following characteristics:

. The majority (25) of the studies’ aims reflect the researchers’ greater desire to under-
stand specific phenomena and issues, rather than, for example, to identify statistical
relationships (6).
. The majority (25) of the studies are characterised largely by intimacy and depth in
relation to preschool practice. This means that the researchers had the opportunity
to be close in learning and interaction situations, and thus often had a limited study
or survey area.
. The majority (23) of the researchers used several methods in collecting data, which gen-
erated a variety of rich empirical material.
. Of the data collecting methods used in the studies, interviews (and similar) were the
most common method (26) for gaining knowledge.
. The researchers predominantly (27) collected qualitative data and used qualitative
analysis approaches, but in 7 of the studies, they also handled more quantitatively-
oriented material. This material in turn contained data that had undergone quantitative
and/or qualitative analysis.
. Together, the studies represent a variety of theories that were used in creating an under-
standing of the empirical material.
448 L. PALLA

Table 4. Primary voices in the reviewed studies.


Preschool Teachers & oth Special Educators Parents Children
Author(s) (N = 31) Staff (n = 26) (n = 8) (n = 4) (n = 0)
Åmot (2012) X Teachers, staff
Arnesen (2014) X ABA-supv & teachers, staff
Björklund (2012) X Educator spec in educ
children w spec needs
Bygdeson-Larsson X Teachers, staff
Cameron and Tveit (2011) X Teachers, nurse X X
Drugli, Clifford, and Larsson (2008) X Teachers
Fisker (2010) X Educators
Gjermestad X Adults/staff
Hagström (2010) X Teachers
Hillesøy, Johansson, and Ohna (2014) – – – –
Holst (2008) X Teachers
Holst and Pihlaja (2011) X Teachers X
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2013) X Teachers
Kristoffersen and Simonsen (2014) X Staff
Lansheim (2010) X Future + special ed
Lillvist (2010) X Teachers
Lindqvist (2013) X Staff, ed. leaders
Luttropp (2011) X Teachers, staff
Lutz (2006) X Staff, actors
Lutz (2009) X Staff, actors
Melin (2013) X Teachers
Palla (2011) X Staff X
Sajaniemi, Suhonen, and Kontu (2010) – – – –
Sandberg and Ottosson (2010) X Teachers, prof X
Siljehag (2007) X Teachers bec. special eds
Svensson (2013) X Staff
Tveit and Cameron (2012) X Teacher, nurse X X
von Ahlefeld Nisser (2009) X Edu leaders X
Warming (2011) X Teachers
Westman Andersson (2013) X Teachers X
Wetso (2006) X Teachers X

. The researchers allowed preschool teachers’ voices to dominate (25), while special edu-
cators’ (8) as well as parents’ (5) voices were heard to some degree. Children’s voices
were rarely heard (0) and then only through video recordings in which adults inter-
preted the children.

Discussion
The aim of this review was to provide a compilation and overview of Nordic research in
the field of special education in preschool, with a special focus on Swedish conditions,
which might then serve as the basis for identifying possible merits and shortcomings,
and indicating the need for further research in this field.

The results
The included research on special education in preschool predominantly drew on qualitat-
ive data and approaches, which provided the opportunity for intimacy and depth in the
analytical process and also in the consideration of complexity. Larger studies with quan-
titative data accounted for one fifth of the studies in this review. Quantitative and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 449

qualitative data can be viewed as complementary in that they permit a focus on different
types of questions and generate various types of analyses and findings. Both qualitative
and quantitative data and results together form the prerequisites for creating a good
knowledge base that has some bearing on practice and provides a desirable variety in
aims, methods, and findings.
The studies in this research review are considered to have relevance for the professional
practice. When doing research useful to the field, it could be fruitful for researchers to
listen to the field’s own identified problems and challenges, as well as to construct pro-
blems on the basis of the skills that the researchers possess so that these problems do
not have too local a focus. There could also be a need for generalisable knowledge,
although special educational research problems often include marginalised groups,
which makes it challenging to make larger, quantitative studies.
The included studies of special education in preschool is characterised by a diversity of
theories. This diversity can be perceived as sprawling and indistinct, but it can also be a
strength. Various complex processes may require different theoretical models of expla-
nation and understanding. Tackling the wide special education field with a range of the-
ories and focuses can help to create diverse and rich images of what and how special
education in a preschool, sought to be inclusive, may be understood. At the same time,
the risk is that too large a spread can counteract the research to form a base of knowledge.
The research focus on teachers’ input can add to greater recognition and usability and
thus be more professionally relevant, but it can be a one-sided picture if children’s and
parents’ voices and perspectives remain in the background, as well as other professional
groups, like special educators. It could be important to do research not only on and for
individuals in professional practice, but also with individuals who are the subject of
research on special education in preschool. Even if this would mean taking in consider-
ation the special ethical circumstances that could appear when involving young children
with for example disabilities. Although the vision of an inclusive preschool for all children,
with special education as a resource to meet the challenges associated with this vision, is
particularly relevant for special educators, the vision concerns all professionals in pre-
school. However, it is relevant for researchers seeking to create a special space for research
into the special educator profession. The results show the need for more research on
special educators voices in preschool.

Methodological and ethical reflections


The wide focus of ‘special education in preschool’ in the research review has presented a
challenge, but it has been necessary for this review to identify the research field. Applying
systematic reviews to studies based on a wide spread of aims, methods and theoretical
approaches can also be challenging. The review has been systematic, but makes no
claim to be fully comprehensive.
The detailed and transparent description of the approach forms the basis for the study’s
credibility. The present review has been validated as being of relevance, not only to
researchers, but also to professional practice, with the idea being that the information
resulting from the review would be useful for professionals in preschool.
In response to the time and resources that were available for the present study, a
Nordic, educational perspective, with a special focus on Swedish conditions, was
450 L. PALLA

considered to be feasible. The findings are limited by the restriction of the search to five,
mainly educational, search databases. If a more comprehensive research review had been
possible, it would have been interesting to have expanded the study to include other search
databases and other kinds of literature.
Based on the review, the contribute of this study has been to highlight directions for
future research that can be of interest and relevance to professionals in the field. Prac-
titioners need to have access to a variety of research and reviews.
In research on special education in preschool, opportunities should perhaps be made
for those who are often included in research, as the children, to have their voices heard
and their experiences made visible. Research on special education in preschool that
takes into account children’s and parents’ voices and listens to them more broadly and
deeply are clearly lacking.
Affirming the children’s perspectives is associated with some challenges when it comes
to special education, particularly in the case of very young children and children with
severe disabilities. However, one could argue that it is possible to approach and listen
to children’s perceptions and experiences, even when it comes to children who in different
ways are facing difficulties and needing special support and challenges. Listening to chil-
dren’s voices could increase the research base of knowledge, when enlightening other per-
spectives than the ones already investigated in the research field. This approach could also
create opportunities for and contribute to an increase in equality and democracy issues in
an inclusive preschool for all and everyone.

Final words
Since preschool has been found crucial in promoting child development, learning, and
well-being in general, as well as in creating good conditions for children in difficulties
in particular, it seems necessary to create opportunities for further research on special edu-
cation issues in relation to preschool as the first step in the education system.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council through its Committee for Educational
Sciences.

Notes on contributors
Linda Palla is a senior lecturer at Malmö university. Her main research interests are preschool,
inclusive and special education, and questions concerning childrens differences, identities, docu-
mentation and assessment.

References
Ahlberg, A. 2013. Specialpedagogik i ideologi, teori och praktik- att bygga broar [Special education in
ideology, theory and practice; In Swedish].
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 451

Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. 1999. Diskursive analysestrategier: Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann


[Discursive Analysis Strategies: Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann; In Danish].
Frederiksberg: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.
Åmot, I. 2012. “Etikk i praksis. Barn med samspillsvansker og medvirkning i barnehagen” [Ethics in
Practice: Children Who Have Difficulties Interacting and their Participation in Day-care
Centres; In Norwegian]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning 5 (18): 1–11. http://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.
437.
Arnesen, T. 2014. “Are They Ready for This?: Experiences on Implementing Educational Behavior-
analytic Interventions in Norwegian Kindergartens.” Doctoral diss., Karlstads universitet:
Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap, Pedagogiskt arbete.
Björklund, C. 2012. “One Step Back, Two Steps Forward – An Educator’s Experiences From a
Learning Study of Basic Mathematics in Preschool Special Education.” Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research 56 (5): 497–517. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.599425.
Bygdeson-Larsson, K. 2010. ““Vi började se barnen och deras samspel på ett nytt sätt”: Utveckling
av samspelsdimensionen i förskolan med hjälp av pedagogisk processreflektion” [“We began to
see the children and their interactions in a new way”: Development of the interaction dimension
in preschool through Educational Process Reflection; In Swedish]. Doctoral diss., Umeå univer-
sitet, Institutionen för tillämpad utbildningsvetenskap.
Cameron, D. L., and A. D. Tveit. 2011. “The Policy for Implementation Challenges of Individual
Plans for Preschool Children with Disabilities.” International Journal of Parents in Education
5 (1): 12–23. http://www.journals4free.com/link.jsp?l=24289745.
Drugli, M. B., G. Clifford, and B. Larsson. 2008. “Teachers’ Experience and Management of Young
Children Treated Because of Home Conduct Problems: A Qualitative Study.” Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research 52 (3): 279–291. doi:10.1080/00313830802025082.
Egelund, N., P. Haug, and B. Persson. 2006. Inkluderande pedagogik i skandinaviskt perspektiv
[Inclusive Education in Scandinavian Perspective; In Swedish].
Emanuelsson, I., B. Persson, and J. Rosenqvist. 2001. Forskning inom det specialpedagogiska
området- en kunskapsöversikt [Research within the Special Education Area- a Knowledge
Review; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Liber.
Fisker, T. B. 2010. “Småbørn i interaktion: En undersøgelse af socialt udviklingspotentiale og
muligheder for interaktion for småbørn med autisme i forskellige pædagogiske og organisator-
iske miljøer [Interaction between Young Children: A Study of Potential Social Development and
Opportunities for Interaction for Young Children with Autism in Various Pedagogical and
Organisational Settings; In Danish].” Doctoral diss., Aarhus Universitet, Danmarks
Pædagogiske Universitetsskole.
Gjermestad, A. 2009. “Skjøre samspill. En deskriptiv og fortolkende studie av barn med dyp utvik-
lingshemming og deres nærpersoner i barnehage og skole [Fragile Dyads; In Norwegian].”
Doctoral diss., Universitetet i Stavanger, Det humanistiske fakultet.
Graneheim, U. H., and B. Lundman. 2004. “Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Research:
Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness.” Nurse Education Today 24
(2): 105–112. doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Hagström, B. 2010. “Kompletterande anknytningsperson på förskola [Complementary Attachment
Person in Preschool; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Malmö högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Helldin, R. 2002. Specialpedagogisk forskning- en kritisk granskning i ett omvärldsperspektiv [Special
Education Research- a Critical Review in an Environment Perspective; In Swedish]. Stockholm:
Skolverket och Liber.
Hillesøy, S., E. Johansson, and S. Ohna. 2014. “Interaksjoner mellom de yngste barna med
cochleaimplantat og andre barn i barnehagen [Interactions between the Youngest Children
with Cochlear Implant and Peers in the Kindergarten; In Norwegian].” Tidsskrift for Nordisk
Barnehageforskning 7 (4): 1–21. http://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.575.
Holst, J. 2008. “Danish Teacher’s Conception of Challenging Behaviour and DAMP/ADHD.” Early
Child Development and Care 178 (4): 363–374. doi:10.1080/03004430701321621.
452 L. PALLA

Holst, T. K., and P. M. Pihlaja. 2011. “Teachers’ Perceptions of their Personal Early Childhood
Special Education Competence in Day Care.” Teacher Development 15 (3): 349–362. doi:10.
1080/13664530.2011.608517.
Jensen, B. 2009. “A Nordic Approach to Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Socially Endangered
Children.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 (1): 7–21.
Kristoffersen, A., and E. Simonsen. 2013. “Et løfte om inkludering: Barnehagens rammer for sam-
handling mellom hørselshemmede og hørende barn i barnehagen [Pledge for Inclusion:
Possibilities for Interaction between Deaf and Hearing Children in Nursery Schools; In
Norwegian].” Tidsskrift for Nordisk Barnehageforskning 6 (20): 1–18. http://doi.org/10.7577/
nbf.341.
Kristoffersen, A. E., and E. Simonsen. 2014. “Teacher-assigned Literacy Events in a Bimodal,
Bilingual Preschool with Deaf and Hearing Children.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 14
(1): 80–104. http://ecl.sagepub.com/content/14/1/80.full.pdf+html.
Lansheim, B. 2010. “Förståelser av uppdraget specialpedagog – blivande och nyblivna specialpeda-
gogers yrkeslivsberättelser [Understandings of the Special Educator Mission; In Swedish].”
Licentiate diss., Malmö högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Levinsson, M. 2015. Kartläggning och sammanställning av forskning i Norden. Delrapport från
SKOLFORSK-projektet [Review and Compilation of Research in the Nordic Countries; In
Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Lillvist, A. 2010. “The Applicability of a Functional Approach to Social Competence in Preschool
Children in Need of Special Support.” Doctoral diss., Örebro universitet.
Lindqvist, G. 2013. “Who Should Do What to Whom?: Occupational Groups’ Views on Special
Needs.” Doctoral diss., School of Education and Communication.
Luttropp, A. 2011. “Närhet: Samspel och delaktighet i förskolan för barn med utvecklingsstörning
[Closeness: Interaction and Participation in the Preschool for Children with Intellectual
Disability; In Swedish].” Licentiate diss., Stockholms universitet, Specialpedagogiska
institutionen.
Lutz, K. 2006. “Konstruktionen av det avvikande förskolebarnet – En kritisk fallstudie angående
utvecklingsbedömningar av yngre barn [The Construction of the Deviant Preschool Child; In
Swedish].” Licentiate diss., Malmö Högskola, Lärarutbildningen.
Lutz, K. 2009. “Kategoriseringar av barn i förskoleåldern – Styrning & administrativaprocesser
[Categorisations of Children of Preschool Age; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Malmö Högskola,
Lärarutbildningen.
Melin, E. 2013. “Social delaktighet i teori och praktik: om barns sociala delaktighet i förskolans
verksamhet [Social Participation in Theory and Practice: About Children’s Social Participation
in Pre-schools’ Activities; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Stockholms universitet: Institutionen
för pedagogik och didaktik.
Myrberg, M. 2007. Dyslexi- en kunskapsöversikt [Dyslexia: A Knowledge Review; In Swedish].
Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. https://publikationer.vr.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/VR2.2007_
02pdf.
Nilholm, C. 2006. Möten?: Forskning om specialpedagogik i ett internationellt perspektiv
[Encounters?: Research on Special Education in an International Perspective; In Swedish].
Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. https://publikationer.vr.se/produkt/moten-forskning-om-special
pedagogik-i-ett-internationellt-perspektiv/.
Nilholm, C., and E. Björck-Åkesson. 2007. “Inledning.” In Reflektioner kring specialpedagogik – sex
professorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronterna [Reflections on Special Education- Six
Professors on the Research and the Research Fronts; In Swedish], edited by C. Nilholm and E.
Björck-Åkesson, 7–16. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Palla, L. 2011. Med blicken på barnet: Om olikheter inom förskolan som diskursiv praktik [With the
Gaze on the Child: About Differences in Preschool as a Discursive Practice]. Malmö: Malmö
Högskola, Lärarutbildningen. In Swedish (Doctoral dissertation).
Sajaniemi, N., E. Suhonen, and E. Kontu. 2010. “Verbal and Non-verbal Development in SLI
Children After Early Intervention.” Early Child Development and Care 180 (4): 519–534.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 453

Sandberg, A., and L. Ottosson. 2010. “Pre-school Teachers’, Other Professionals’, and Parental
Concerns on Cooperation in Pre-school – all Around Children in Need of Special Support:
The Swedish Perspective.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14 (8): 741–754.
doi:10.1080/13603110802504606.
Siljehag, E. 2007. “Igenkännande och motkraft: Förskole- och fritidspedagogikens betydelse för spe-
cialpedagogiken – En deltagarorienterad studie [Recognition and Counterforce; In Swedish].”
Doctoral diss., Institutionen för individ, omvärld och lärande, LHS, Stockholm.
Svensson, B. 2013. “Barn som riskerar att fara illa i sin hemmiljö: Utmaningar i ett förebyggande
perspektiv [Children in Risk of Maltreatment in their Home Environment: Challenges in a
Preventive Perspective; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för hälsa,
natur- och teknikvetenskap.
Tallberg-Broman, I., ed. 2015. Förskola: Tidig intervention. Delrapport från SKOLFORSK-projektet
[Preschool: Early Intervention; In Swedish]. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Thomas, J., and A. Harden. 2008. “Methods for the Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research in
Systematic Reviews.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 8: 1–10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.
Tveit, A. D., and D. L. Cameron. 2012. “Utfordringer når foresatte skal medvirke på tjenestetilbudet
til eget barn [The Challenges Presented When Parents Become Involved in Official Plans for
their Children; In Norwegian].” Nordic Studies in Education 32: 321–332. https://www.idunn.
no/np/2012/0304/utfordringer_nr_foresatte_skal_medvirke_p_tjenestetilbude.
UNCRC. 1989. The Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/
ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf.
UNESCO. 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.
www.unesco.org/edcation/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF.
von Ahlefeld Nisser, D. 2009. “Vad kommunikation vill säga: En iscensättande studie om special-
pedagogers yrkesroll och kunskapande samtal [What Communication Says: An Engineering
Study on the Role of Special Educators and Knowledging Dialogues; In Swedish].” Doctoral
diss., Stockholms universitet: Specialpedagogiska institutionen.
Warming, H. 2011. “Inclusive Discourses in Early Childhood Education?” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 15 (2): 233–247. doi:10.1080/13603110902783365.
Westman Andersson, G. 2013. “Autism in Preschoolers: Assessment, Diagnostic and Gender
Aspects.” Doctoral diss., University of Gothenburg, Department of Psychiatry and
Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology.
Wetso, G.-M. 2006. “Lekprocessen – specialpedagogisk intervention i (för)skola: När aktivt han-
dlande stimulerar lärande, social integration och reducerar utslagning [The Play Process:
Special Education Intervention in (pre)school; In Swedish].” Doctoral diss., HLS Förlag,
Stockholm.

S-ar putea să vă placă și