The Human Environment Interaction Model

The Human Environment Interaction Model (HEI) is originally developed by Küller (1991), and further adjusted for Swedish school settings by Tufvesson and Tufvesson (2007, 2009).

The model is an interaction model with a set of principles modified and linked to neuro-psychological operations where different factors interrelate and influence learning. Through application of the HEI model to the learning environment, we can analyze environmental factors and their influence for the individual (Tufvesson & Tufvesson, 2009).

The accessibility model used by the Swedish National Agency for special needs education and schools (SPSM, 2012) is derived from the Human Environment Interaction model by Küller (1991). The model was used in this thesis as understanding of components and artifacts linked to each of the three domains of the environment, the pedagogical area, the physical area and the psychosocial area. The pedagogical area is the art of teaching and the content is materials, tasks, activities for learning, the physical area is rooms, facilities, sound and acoustics and the psychosocial area is the social environment, interactions among students and relationships between students and teachers as well as the atmosphere and how students treat each other. The model is presented in Figure 5, where Social miljö = social environment, Fysisk miljö = physical environment, Pedagogisk miljö = pedagogical

environment, Samspel = interplay, Utveckling = development and Förutsättningar för lärande

= prerequisites for learning. All aspects of the learning environment affect the child, and interplay is a prerequisite for learning and educational inclusion.

Figure 5. The accessibility model by SPSM, 2012.

In order to understand the interaction between the child and the surroundings, the HEI model was used in this research. The model was used to understand and categorize the

accommodations in the literature review (study I), the teachers’ adjustments in the

intervention study (study II) and in sorting the items from the INCLUSIO instrument (study IV) into different areas of the learning environment. Educational inclusion in this holistic view means the student can access and develop optimally when the three domains—the pedagogical, psychosocial and physical—are taken into account. Therefore, for students with disabilities, being included in school means having access to all three domains equal to their peers in any school setting.

The three theoretical frameworks in this thesis are similar in the way that they all have aspects of the reciprocal process, where the individual and the environment interact and interrelate to each other. Bronfenbrenner’s model and the ICF Core Sets have similarities in the way macro- and meso-levels are described as influencing the individual and prerequisites for learning and inclusion. The HEI model has its main focus in the micro-perspective of inclusion, in the interplay between the physical, pedagogical and psychosocial domains and the child’s development in the learning environment. Bronfenbrenner’s model has the time

aspect as one level, where in the other two models there is no aspect of time aligned with child development.

3 RESEARCH AIMS

This thesis aims to put into operation the practical aspects of inclusive education. The overall aim is to generate further knowledge about applications of inclusive education in mainstream classrooms for students with NDC without comorbidity from a multi-stakeholder perspective.

New knowledge on how inclusive education is operationalized and experienced is presented and will have implications for practice and how to build powerful inclusive agendas.

Practically, the objectives have been explored by the research questions below.

The thesis’ overall research questions are:

• How can educational inclusion for students with NDC be understood from a multi-stakeholder perspective?

• How does educational inclusion work in practice for students with NDC and what key elements are found essential for the development of more powerful inclusive

agendas?

• Can interventions develop students’ social skills and teachers’ inclusive skills for improved educational inclusion?

4 MATERIALS AND METHODS/ METHODOLOGY

In this thesis, the design is mixed methods with both quantitative and qualitative data used for analysis in order to support the findings by both (demonstrated in Figure 1 and Table 2). The design was chosen in order to gain extensive knowledge of the phenomenon of educational inclusion for students with NDC in mainstream classrooms. The data are responses from interviews (Study III and IV) as well as questionnaires (Study II, IV) and a literature search (Study I).

Due to this study’s interdisciplinary nature, e.g., education, medicine, psychology and sociology, there is a dualistic approach with equal focus on the individual and the environment. This section will present the research design, the participants and the data collection from the four empirical studies, where the methodological discussion is included.

The results for the four studies presented in this thesis form a knowledge base of how to understand educational inclusion and how it corresponds with the micro-perspective of social systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994a).

Table 2. Overview of the four empirical studies.

Study Theoretical

framework

Setting/participants Methods

I, A systematic literature review

The ICF Core Sets for individuals with ASD

The human environment interaction model (HEI)

Students between 5 and 19 years of age and primarily attending

mainstream school N = 6102 citations, n = 37 eligible studies, n = 14 in the synthesis

Database search, screening, full-text assessment, quality assessment and synthesized results

II, An intervention study

Pragmatism HEI

Mainstream school, three elementary and lower secondary schools, N = 26, school staff, n = 3 schools

Intervention based on lesson study methodology, questionnaire, field notes and interviews

III, A multi-informant study of social validity

Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological systems theory

An upper secondary school, N = 20 participants, n = 13 students, n = 5

Semi-structured interviews

teachers and n = 2 school leaders IV, A

multi-perspective study of inclusive education

Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological systems theory

Lower and upper secondary

mainstream schools, N = 53, n = 19 students, n = 17 parents and n = 17 teachers. N = 7 schools

Structured interviews, structured questionnaire, criteria-based

interview instrument