See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286452440

International Journal of Inclusive Education A community of practice as an

inclusive model to support children with social, emotional and behavioural
difficulties in school context...

Article  in  International Journal of Inclusive Education · December 2015

DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1111448

CITATIONS READS

15 4,355

2 authors:

Johan Botha Elias Kourkoutas

North West University South Africa University of Crete
20 PUBLICATIONS   46 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

School Bullying and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: The role of parental Bonding View project

Resilience Emotional Behavioral Disorders SEN School Counselling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elias Kourkoutas on 11 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Inclusive Education

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

A community of practice as an inclusive model

to support children with social, emotional and
behavioural difficulties in school contexts

Johan Botha & Elias Kourkoutas

To cite this article: Johan Botha & Elias Kourkoutas (2015): A community of practice as an
inclusive model to support children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in school
contexts, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1111448

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1111448

Published online: 10 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

Download by: [North West University] Date: 10 December 2015, At: 19:54
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1111448

A community of practice as an inclusive model to support children

with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in school
contexts
Johan Bothaa and Elias Kourkoutasb
a
Education and Human Rights in Diversity Research Unit, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa;
b
Department of Primary Education, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Many school children throughout the world who exhibit antisocial or Received 7 March 2015
destructive behaviour or have social, emotional and behavioural Accepted 13 October 2015
difficulties (SEBD) do not receive the support they need. As a result, they
KEYWORDS
are caught up in a cycle of vulnerability. Systemic collaborative support Behavioural difficulties;
is needed to counter this. Although in some cases teachers and other collaboration; collaborative
professionals join forces, interventions are usually affected by individual partnerships; communities of
professionals outside the framework of inclusive education. This practice; inclusive education;
literature review paper explores the support children with SEBD in social capital
school contexts receive. The findings of the thematic document analysis
highlight the vulnerability of children with SEBD, the success or
otherwise of attempts made by various approaches and intervention
programmes to provide support to these children, and the barriers to
inclusive support. We argue the merits of adopting a Community of
Practice as an inclusive model to support school children with SEBD.
This kind of inclusive model strengthens constructive partnerships that
provide these children with opportunities to acquire the social capital
they need to engage meaningfully at schools and in their future life.

Introduction
International research highlights the challenges children with social, emotional and behavioural dif-
ficulties (SEBD) pose not only to inclusive education systems, but also to their peers, teachers,
parents, families (Botha and Wolhuter 2015; Kourkoutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler 2015; Scriva, Heriot,
and Kourkoutas 2015; Simpson and Mundschenk 2012). Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000)
as cited in De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011, 332) found that teachers viewed children ‘with
emotional and behavioural difficulties as causing significantly more concern to [them] than children
with other types of disability [difficulties]’.
The failure to address the needs of these vulnerable children has serious implications. Many of
these children do not ‘develop the ability to behave in appropriate ways as active and productive
citizens in … contexts such as in the family, school, community and society’ which mentally healthy
individuals should be able to do (Botha and Wolhuter 2015, 444). Most studies on these vulnerable
children accentuate the negative effect of their antisocial or destructive behaviour on friends, peers,
family members, teachers and themselves, as well as their academic achievement and social compe-
tency (e.g. Botha, Myburgh, and Poggenpoel 2012; Botha and Wolhuter 2015; Dalton 2010; Kour-
koutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler 2015).Their inadequate communication and social skills hamper

CONTACT Johan Botha johan.botha@nwu.ac.za

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

academic achievement as well as social relationships with their peers and teachers, making them feel
alienated (Botha 2014; Botha and Wolhuter 2015).
The provision of equalled teaching and learning environments for children with SEBD, irrespec-
tive of their differences or challenges, is still far from the ideal that advocates of inclusion have in
mind.

What is inclusion?
Laluvein (2010a, 35) argues against a narrow view of inclusion by stating that:
‘Inclusion’ is not a mechanism for relocating educationally disadvantaged youngsters in mainstream rather
than in special schools. Rather, inclusion implies a whole school approach to social relations and production
of meaning reached through processes of negotiation [between stakeholders and further highlights the impor-
tance of a whole school approach as it] places equal value upon the knowledge and contributions [that are valu-
able to] the collective production of meaning.
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

As Nel (2013, 1) explains, inclusion should mean that ‘everyone in any community [is] respected,
accommodated and valued’: it entails that every child is viewed as a ‘child/human being first with his/
her own specific needs and is not stereotyped and/or labelled because of poverty, illness, disability or
any other barrier to learning’. More simply stated, inclusion ‘essentially embraces the challenge of
providing the best possible learning environment for all children’: ‘all inclusion and exclusion are
socially created’ (Nel 2013, 2, emphasis in the original text). Ainscow and Miles (2008, 17) provide
a useful typology of five perspectives which people deliberate on or deal with inclusion:
(a) inclusion concerned with disability and ‘special educational needs’; (b) inclusion as a response to disciplin-
ary exclusions; (c) inclusion as being about all groups vulnerable to exclusion; (d) inclusion as the promotion of
a school for all; and (e) inclusion as Education for All.

Inclusive values
The perspectives provided by Ainscow and Miles (2008) are underpinned by a number of inter-
twined values that are fundamental to inclusive education: ‘equality; rights; participation; respect
for diversity, [concern for] community, sustainability, non-violence, trust, honesty, courage, joy,
compassion, love/care, optimism/hope, and beauty [in] gratuitous acts of kindness’ (Booth 2011,
310–313). These values can guide the development of productive relationships and social engage-
ment among children (learners) throughout their lives (Booth 2011; Booth and Ainscow 2011).
These values also foster social justice praxis in value-based environments which embrace social
class, ethnicity, gender, age, culture, illness, and disability (Bassani 2007, 19–32). Such environments
where relationships are important can often effect change that is critical for children’s meaningful
existence in schools and beyond (Cornwall 2015, 64).

Productive relationships beneficial to collaborative and constructive partnerships

In this paper, which argues for a Community of Practice (CoP) as an inclusive model to support chil-
dren with SEBD, we draw on Laluvein’s variations of participatory inclusive practices aimed at form-
ing and developing productive relationships, which permit ‘joint meaning making and continuity of
agreed strategies’ (Laluvein 2007, 248). Laluvein (2010a, 36) located 10 lucrative ‘variations, or typol-
ogies of “working together” … ’ and emphasises that some of these variations are deemed to be more
effective than others. Laluvein (2010a, 36) views ‘these variations of participatory practice, or ver-
sions of “working together” [as a description of] a spectrum of relationships’. These include variants
such as: mutually supportive; antagonistic; restricted participation; benign ignorance; convertible;
positive deception; procrastination or wait, see and monitor; compensatory; complementary; and
networking (Laluvein 2007, 223–224). Laluvein (2010a, 36) refers to Corbett’s (1997, 56)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

understanding of relationships and states that ‘it would be more accurate to say that these relation-
ships are “sketched” rather than “plotted” along a continuum because the relationships [being dis-
cussed] are dynamic, and pass through “various stages of in-between-ness” … ’. This implies that
potential relationships range from ‘established partnerships’ to ‘irreconcilable relationships’. The
‘established partnerships’ meet ‘the joint requirement of being both models of participatory practice
and [of addressing] the needs’ of various stakeholders, thus children with SEBD could benefit from
them (Laluvein 2007). At the other end of the continuum there are relationships that have little
possibility of ever benefiting children with SEBD (Laluvein 2010a, 36). At the centre of the spectrum
of relationships are ‘the “in-betweens” or relationships that are not easily described as being either
“established”, “emergent”, or “irreconcilable” as partnerships’ (Laluvein 2010a, 36). It is important to
take account of these typologies when creating a CoP as an inclusive model to support children with
SEBD.
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

Collaborative and constructive partnerships

Pugh and De’Ath (1989, 33) describe partnership as ‘[a] working relationship that is characterised by
a shared sense of purpose, mutual respect and willingness to negotiate’. This implies ‘a sharing of
information, responsibility, skills, decision-making and accountability’ (Pugh 1989, 5). In the
realm of inclusive education ‘traditional individualistic intervention roles’ need to give way to ‘a
more collaborative support approach’ (Nel 2013, 30) that aims at embracing collaborative partner-
ships with dual equal roles (Engelbrecht 2007). Laluvein (2010b, 176) emphasises that ‘partnership
suggests a locus which permits negotiation and interchangeability of roles’. The focus therefore
should be on creating an all-inclusive culture for children in schools regardless of their challenges,
and to be aware of the need for productive relationships, and equal power relations among stake-
holders (Laluvein 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Nel 2013; Paternite 2005). Effective implementation of current
inclusive policy thus necessitates collaborative and constructive partnerships involving all the role
players, learners (children), parents, teachers, schools, policy developers and designers (Departments
of Education), support professionals, heads of departments, school principals, community members,
community structures and other professionals such as Mental Health coordinators (Botha and Wol-
huter 2015; Nel et al. 2014). These role players need to form constructive and productive working
relationships marked by a shared sense of purpose, mutual respect and a commitment to negotiated
collaboration. Their partnerships must be grounded on inclusive values and directed by ‘a principled
approach to the development of education and society’ (Nel 2013, 5). As Booth (2011, 309) argues,
‘values should prompt actions’. Trust as a facet of social capital is especially important as social trust
is tied to the ‘quality of life in our communities’ as well as people’s ‘personal happiness’ (Saguaro
Seminar 2001, 7).
Booth (2011, 317) highlights inclusion as ‘increasing participation for all, reducing all forms of
exclusion, creating settings and systems that respond to diversity in ways that value people equally
and most importantly as a principled approach to development in education and society’. This can-
not be realised without close attention to the children’s specific social context as ‘[it] is one of the
factors that determine the form of the implemented inclusive education policy and participation
[that] is a key element of inclusive education policies’ (Leonardi, Koutsogeorgou, and Meucci
2015, 54).
Taking the main characteristics of inclusion into account, this paper draws on a constructivist
paradigm of inquiry and is underpinned by Ecological Systems Theory (EST).

Constructivist paradigm of inquiry

Howell (2013, 89) posits that a constructivist paradigm is ‘based on the assumption that there is a
distinction between the social world and the natural world’. Greene (2000, 986) states that ‘construc-
tivist inquirers seek to understand contextualised meaning … : the meaningfulness of human actions
 4 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

and interactions – as experienced and constructed in a given context’. Co-construction of knowledge

is thus subjective, experiential and contextual involving ‘active engagement which produces knowl-
edge and understanding’ (Laluvein 2007, 74).

EST perspective
EST is a well-developed theory that accentuates the importance of taking into account an ‘entire eco-
logical system’ in which human development takes place ‘in order to understand human develop-
ment’ (Bronfenbrenner 1994, 37) and to offer effective support. The ecological system consists of
five socially systematised subsystems (structure of the environment), the microsystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, macrosystem and the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner 1994; Paquette and Ryan 2001).
This is important as children with SEBD are or may be involved ‘in more than one community
or microsystem [at school; at home; in community] and are subject to the influence of [these] differ-
ent ecosystems’ (Laluvein 2007, 79). According to Bronfenbrenner (1994, 37), ecological subsystems
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

are valuable in human development as they ‘support and guide human growth’. Consequently, in
order to understand human development ‘one must look not only at the child and [his/her] immedi-
ate environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as well’ (Paquette and Ryan
2001, 1).
EST, or what Paquette and Ryan (2001, 2) refer to as Ecosystemic Theory, is concerned with the
relationships of systems in an individual’s environment from a socio-cultural view of development.
Brenfenbrenner (1994, 37–41) and Paquette and Ryan (2001, 2) explain social–environmental sys-
tems as follows:

. Microsystem: Entails the structures in which individuals have direct contact, relationships and
interactions with their immediate environments, such as at family, school, peer group, church
(places of worship) and neighbourhood. At the microsystem level, individuals’ relationships
have an effect ‘away from [them] and toward [them]’. For example ‘a child’s parents may affect
[the child’s] beliefs and behavior, however the child also affects the behaviour and beliefs of the
parent’ (Paquette and Ryan 2001, 2).
. Mesosystem: This system is concerned with the interconnections between microsystems such as
the parents, teachers, coaches, peers and friends at school or at church and in their
neighbourhood.
. Exosystem: This system is concerned with interconnections between the individual’s immediate
context and the social systems in which the individual does not operate. For instance, the child
may have to give up extracurricular activities if a parent is retrenched.
. Macrosystem: Individuals’ cultural values, belief systems, bodies of knowledge, life styles, customs
and laws. The macrosystem may be viewed ‘as a social blue-print for a particular culture or sub-
culture’ (Bronfenbrenner 1994, 40). At school level, the macrosystem includes education policy.
. Chronosystem: This layer is related to the time dimension in the child’s environment. Both
internal elements, ‘such as the physiological changes that occur with the aging of a child’ and
external elements ‘such as the timing of a parent’s death’ in individuals’, are time dimension attri-
butes and properties of surrounding environments (Paquette and Ryan 2001, 2). Bronfenbrenner
(1994, 40) emphasises that ‘a chronosystem encompasses change or consistency over time not
only in the characteristics of the person but also the environment in which that person lives
(e.g. changes over the life course in family structure, socioeconomic status, employment, place
of residence, … and ability in everyday life)’.

Against this theoretical backdrop, this literature review paper reports on document analysis as a
qualitative research method, and what emerged when it was used to explore the international litera-
ture on supportive and innovative inclusive practices that are used to meet the pressing needs of
school children with SEBD. First, we briefly describe the processes used in our documents analysis.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Second, we present the findings that emerged during the thematic analysis of the data. Third, we out-
line a CoP as an inclusive model. Fourth, we present a CoP as an inclusive model that provides a
means of bringing change and enhancing the Social capital of children with SEBD. Lastly, we
spell out the implications of adopting a CoP as an inclusive model in schools to address children’s
SEBD.

Research design and methodology

In our qualitative research, we employed document analysis to address the following question: How
are children with SEBD in school contexts being supported? This kind of research is described as ‘a
systematic procedure for reviewing [and] evaluating documents – both printed and electronic (com-
puter-based and Internet-transmitted) material’ (Bowen 2009, 27). The data corpus comprised lit-
erature such as empirical research articles, research reports, post graduate studies as well as
printed and electronic books that focused on innovative inclusive practices for school children
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

with SEBD, including aggressive and violent behaviour. We used document analysis because we
not only wanted to trace change and development in the way children with SEBD in school contexts
are supported, but also to add to the existing knowledge base on inclusive approaches to teaching
school children with SEBD.
We decided to use thematic analysis, as the best way of capturing ‘[repeated patterns of] meaning,
gain[ing] understanding, and develop[ing] empirical knowledge’ (Bowen 2009, 27). Braun and
Clarke (2006, 79) define thematic analysis as ‘a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting pat-
terns (themes) within data’. This analytical methodological process encompasses ‘finding, selecting,
appraising (making sense of), and synthesising data contained in [the selected] documents’ (Bowen
2009, 28). The six phases of thematic analysis we used were based on Braun and Clarke (2006,
86–93):
. We familiarised ourselves with the various data sources by reading and re-reading the data sources
whilst we made lists of initial ideas;
. We used the list of ideas to systematically generate initial codes in efforts to organise the data into
meaningful groupings that could form the starting point of recurrent patterns throughout the data
set. We focused on patterns of conceptualisation and relationships between the data patterns;
. We combined various codes in a table format in order to search for possible significant broad
themes and sub-themes;
. We used the review of the themes to refine the initial themes used to delineate the coded data as
well as the way they interrelate and the extent to which the analysis seems to be complete
. We defined and named the themes, identifying the essence of each theme in the context of our
research (purpose and research question) and what each theme captured;
. We used the identified themes to report on the findings.

From a constructionist perspective, the six phases enabled us to investigate ‘the ways in which
events, realities, meanings, experiences … are the effects of a range of discourses operating within
society’ and to extract latent themes (Braun and Clarke 2006, 81). We were able to trace current
trends in the support given to children with SEBD as well as the development and implementation
of innovative practices to offer better support to these children in schools. The findings with regard
to the three main themes are discussed below.

Findings
Vulnerability of children with SEBD
Most studies reveal that the antisocial behaviour of these children alienates friends, peers as well as
teachers and negatively affects their social competency as well as their academic achievement (e.g.
 6 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

Botha, Myburgh, and Poggenpoel 2012; Botha and Wolhuter 2015; Kourkoutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler
2015). There is ample research on disquieting exclusionary practices and inequalities, which infringe
on these children’s basic rights and strengthen current injustices (see Ainscow and Miles 2008; Botha
and Wolhuter 2015; Leonardi, Koutsogeorgou, and Meucci 2015; McGregor et al. 2014; Mills,
Riddell, and Hjörne 2014). One such exclusionary practice stems from the strong international
trend towards using student academic achievement and good order as a marketing tool for schools
(Mills, Riddell, and Hjörne 2014; Schmidt Neven 2010).
Children with SEBD develop various psychological symptoms such as social withdrawal, learning
disabilities, lack of concentration, insufficient motivation, disengagement from school, anxiety and
depression, ranging from minor to serious problems, and in some instances they develop aggressive
and or violent behaviour. Their behaviours may not be consistent: for instance, they may waver
between withdrawal (from families, peers, schools and class activities) and resorting to antisocial
behaviour (such as aggression and violence) that reduces social competence (Botha and Wolhuter
2015). In most situations their behaviour has a critical effect on their academic achievement and,
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

in turn, their motivation and their self-esteem (Dalton 2010; Kourkoutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler
2015). A complicating factor is that many children with emotional and behavioural difficulties fre-
quently lack the skills needed to develop and maintain constructive and productive relationships
with others (Botha 2013; Kauffman and Landrum 2013; Myburgh and Poggenpoel 2009). One of
the reasons is that these children have difficulty in identifying as well as making sense of social
cues such as non-verbal communication. Their ‘inefficient acquisition of social skills’ often means
that they resort to aggressive and violent behaviour (Botha, Myburgh, and Poggenpoel 2012). Not
only do they find it difficult to establish and maintain effective ‘socially responsible behavior’, but
they also sometimes ‘[fail] to perform competently the skills they hold’ (Didaskalou, Vlachou, and
Stavrousi 2015, 296). Their inability to adjust and cope in the social domain has long-term negative
effects on many aspects of their lives and on their overall mental health (Campos et al. 2015).
In short, it is evident that children with SEBD in schools struggle to establish or maintain effective
relationships. Their antisocial behaviour makes them vulnerable to exclusion, isolation or rejection
and social marginalisation by their peers, teachers, schools and families, which deprives them of
opportunities for the optimal and appropriate social development that social inclusion in teaching
and learning environments could offer. It seems clear that schooling systems need to be fundamen-
tally restructured (Kourkoutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler 2015; Mash and Wolfe 2010; Nel 2013; Sapon-
Shevin 2007).

Various approaches and intervention programmes: an ongoing transition

The focus of the traditional psychiatric approach is on providing medical treatment to individuals.
As a result, it has no interest in the holistic development that collaboration between various individ-
uals such as teachers, schools and other professionals in the children’s social domain could provide
(Merrell 2002).
While our thematic document analysis confirms the value of numerous external therapeutic inter-
ventions when dealing with children with SEBD, it also reveals a serious inadequacy in the medical
approach. This fails to recognise the importance of inclusivity and so does not give sufficient atten-
tion to ecological variables as well as the complex interactions between various systems (Nel et al.
2014). It seems that this medical deficit model sees ‘the problem [as] inherently within the child’
(Nel 2013, 20). This results in labelling or categorisation of children, an essentially discriminatory
process. The socio-ecological model moves ‘away from the assumption that barriers to learning
only exist within the child, and acknowledges that there are also barriers in the society and system
that create stumbling blocks for children to achieve their optimal learning potential’ (Nel 2013, 21).
Earlier research by Merrell (2002) indicates that school-based interventions seem to be more effec-
tive at supporting children with psychological challenges than traditional psychiatric approaches.
Actively involving various stakeholders such as teachers and parents in trying to make sense of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

the problem, as well as during the actual implementation of the intervention, is an essential ingre-
dient in successful support (Kourkoutas and Xavier Raul 2010; Reddy et al. 2009).
Traditional psycho-educational approaches favour punitive techniques aiming at controlling
individuals’ behaviour so focus on compliance with rules underpinned by behaviourism (Bock
and Borders 2012; Cheney and Jewell 2012). Strong criticism has been directed against psycho-edu-
cational programmes. Not only do their punitive techniques appear to have long-term negative
effects, but their intervention is limited to enforcing conformity to rules rather overcoming the
real problems that cause the antisocial behaviour (Bock and Borders 2012; Cheney and Jewell
2012). Cheney and Jewell (2012) and MacGregor et al. (2014) warn that behavioural approaches
that are punitive in nature tend to exacerbate children’s antisocial behaviour, especially aggressive
behaviour. The fundamental problem is that the causes of children’s antisocial behaviour are not
being addressed.
School-based mental health programmes are either incorporated into the curriculum or used only
as interventions in crisis situations (Christner, Mennuti, and Whitaker 2009). Some aim at overall
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

psychosocial well-being as well as inclusivity while others focus on particular psycho-educational

techniques and offer training and support to teachers and parents (Christner, Mennuti, and Whi-
taker 2009). They may be implemented by external teams, interdisciplinary teams, special education
teachers or even teachers who are not trained in special needs education (Christner, Mennuti, and
Whitaker 2009).
An eco-systemic approach, on the other hand, is informed by the notion of ‘the interplay between
interacting systems’ (Ahmed and Suffla 2007, 88). From a community psychology perspective,
Ahmed and Suffla (2007, 88, emphasis in the original text) assert that ‘the eco-systemic framework
remains one of the most influential [perspectives that in essence subscribes to the view] that any
phenomenon can be explained as a function of various interacting systems’. An eco-systemic
approach thus embraces the ‘individual, family, community and society’ (Ahmed and Suffla 2007,
88). It promotes an inclusive culture and ethos in schools, as opposed to the traditional approach
in which the various stakeholders function in isolation (Botha and Wolhuter 2015).
It seems that there are a number of approaches and interventions that could benefit vulner-
able children. However, only some of these seem able to meet the urgent needs of children with
SEBD through social integration, and a commitment to the values and practices of inclusive
education.

Challenges that hamper the provision of effective support

Traditional education views learners’ academic achievement as the most important index of the effec-
tiveness and quality of school practices (Mills, Riddell, and Hjörne 2014). It generally does not take
account of what UNICEF (2011, 7) describes as the essential role of education, ‘processes of socia-
lization and identity formation, which are vital for economic growth and individual and national
advancement and can act as an important vehicle for social cohesion’. Schools and teachers in the
traditional mould need to understand the role that psychological and social factors play in academic
success (Kourkoutas, Vitalaki, and Fowler 2015; Schmidt Neven 2010).
At present, schools generally refer children with SEBD to external professionals. In practice this
means that due account is not taken of how these children’s function in school contexts (Kourkoutas,
Vitalaki, and Fowler 2015; Levine 2007; Ysseldyke and Algozzine 2006). Other problems are that
these children are labelled or pathologised and that the ‘remedies [offered] do not always translate
into every day or classroom practices’ (Cornwall 2015, 64). As Levine (2007) argues, the development
and implementation of intervention programmes are often ineffective because the policy designers
and programme developers, teachers and researchers concerned do not work collaboratively.
They also lack sufficient understanding of the constituents of effective social, emotional and behav-
ioural support, including attention to the specific contextual, situational or environmental factors
(Botha and Wolhuter 2015; Levine 2007).
 8 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

Teachers’ negative experiences of children with SEBD encourage them to stereotype these lear-
ners, a major obstacle to the development of positive attitudes to these challenging children (see
De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011; Kourkoutas, Georgiadi, and Xadjaki 2011). At the same time, tea-
chers lack the repertoire of skills and techniques that can be used to meet children’s needs or deal
constructively with their disruptive behaviour: according to Overall, De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert
(2011, 342) they perceive themselves as lacking the necessary ‘knowledge’ and not ‘competent and
confident’. They tend to apply punitive practices that reinforce maladjustment and in many situ-
ations strengthen antisocial behaviour (Schmidt Neven 2010).
Ineffective teacher training in managing SEBD of children in classrooms and at schools means
that teachers tend to refer these children to external professionals for treatment (Ysseldyke and
Algozzine 2006). The literature cites ineffective inclusive education training in particular as a reason
for teachers’ lack of understanding and knowledge of the range of inclusive approaches that could be
used as well as the need for effective collaboration with other stakeholders (other teachers, officials
from education departments, families, communities, researchers, psychologists, counsellors and
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

other support services), a prerequisite for inclusive education (Jennings and Greenberg 2009; Nel
2013; Scheuermann and Hall 2012).
School practices are not informed by research findings. Many teachers are either not aware of the
latest research findings or are unable to understand their relevance, partly because research findings
are sometimes presented in abstract terms. Researchers need to contextualise their research findings
and give concrete examples of ways of applying them in schools so teachers can offer better support
to children with SEBD (Simpson and Mundschenk 2012). It should also be noted that it is not only
research findings that are not being translated into improved practice in school classrooms, but also
legislation and policy documents, including school curricula documents.
These themes highlight the urgent challenges to educational practice. These include systemic,
structural, organisational, procedural, contextual, developmental challenges as well as the implemen-
tation of various curricula and programmes.

Discussion
The extensive research already done provides many examples of approaches and interventions that
could promote inclusive education. What emerges clearly is that there is an urgent for schools and
teachers to develop effective forms of collaboration with the various stakeholders. In particular, they
need to reconfigure the relationships with one another taking account of their different contexts,
diverse knowledge bases and the ‘power’ relations that hamper efforts to support children with
SEBD. The findings clearly highlight the detrimental impact of ineffective support interventions
and/or programmes that do not involve active engagement in collaborative and constructive partner-
ships, not only on the children themselves but also on society at large. This is obviously not in the
best interests of children with SEBD. What is needed is an environment that encourages all the sta-
keholders to share their diverse social knowledge and fully commit to constructive relationships
based on trust and respect.
In the light of the above discussion, we would argue that a CoP as an inclusive model constitutes
best practice to support children with SEBD in schools. It offers an effective means of responding to
the global imperative to adopt innovative, inclusive practices to support children with SEBD in
schools. In the next section, we briefly outline the case for implementing a CoP as an inclusive
model, referring especially to its ability to enhance the Social Capital of children with SEBD.
In combination, inclusion, communities of practice and social capital constitute a constellation of
intertwined values, are frameworks that are collaborative and participative in nature in which social
relationships are collectively and socially negotiated allowing for the acquisition of transferable
knowledge and skills. These values and productive relationships should underpin collaborative
and constructive partnerships that aim at a deep desire for social justice.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

A CoP as an inclusive model

The solution to the complex problem of children with SEBD lies in mutual engagement of all stake-
holders, including researchers, in a collaborative approach aimed at creating a positive school
environment that supports socio-emotional and academic development (Cohen 2013; Doll 2013;
Simpson and Mundschenk 2012). There is extensive support for a CoP as a means of bringing
together diverse group/s of people in or from various dynamic social structures, who are involved
in multiple levels of shared practice (Cambridge, Kaplan, and Suter 2005; McLaughlin and Talbert
2006). A CoP has three fundamental dimensions: a collective domain of interests; the community
(mutual engagement with a high connectivity: strong social relationships); and practice with a shared
repertoire (Ferguson 2012; Hoadley 2012; Wenger 1998, 2006). Wenger (1998) posits that a CoP can
be viewed as a framework of learning in all its social dimensions and points out the relationship
between an individual and his/her social world. Ferguson (2012, 138) describes CoP as:
Groups of people who join together to work on a common project [with] [t]he purpose and nature of the com-
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

mon project to share concerns about an issue, to deepen their knowledge and expertise about the issue by inter-
acting or co-operating with others, in an ongoing way.

Ferguson (2012) sees learning at the heart of the CoP. Laluvein (2010b, 177) takes a similar view,
explaining that ‘mutual engagement and learning are at the heart of the “community of practice”
which is defined both by its membership and by the practice in which membership engages’. Con-
versely, ‘people who work alongside each other in a [group/school/department] without mutual
engagement cannot be said to be part of a community of practice’ (Herne 2006, 2). It seems clear
that ‘the variations in mutual engagement and shared repertoires across groups [call for] a “commu-
nity of practice” framework to be adopted to deal with a wide diversity of groups’ (Laluvein
2010b, 177).
In arguing for a CoP as an inclusive model, we adopt Laluvein’s (2007, 82) view that it requires ‘a
social setting in which learning occurs through dialogue’. Learning through dialogue creates oppor-
tunities ‘for the potential sharing and co-construction’ of information with others (Laluvein 2007,
82). This situated and collective learning occurs through quality social interaction: ‘individual learn-
ing is emergent and involves opportunities for participation in the practices of a community as well
as the development of an identity’ (Laluvein 2007, 82) which bestows ‘a sense of belonging and com-
mitment’ (Handley et al. 2006, 642). Wenger (1998, 272) explains that learning is understood as a
process of social participation: ‘[b]uilding complex social relationships around meaningful activities
requires genuine practices in which taking charge of learning becomes the enterprise of a commu-
nity’. This requires participation on equal footing, where members have the opportunity to offer
divergent perspectives irrespective of whether they are more or less experienced (Laluvein 2010b;
Nel 2013). In a CoP framework, the emphasis is not on individuals engaging in practice, but rather
on the participation of individuals in a group, which has the denotation of ‘belonging, mutual under-
standing and progression along a trajectory’ (Laluvein 2007, 85). Through social participation, par-
ticipants in a CoP have the opportunity not only to share their diverse information about their
practices, but also have an opportunity to contribute different types of knowledge that create and
transform communities (Laluvein 2007). Thus the participative process allows for practices in
which knowledge production is negotiated and socially constructed (Ferguson 2012; Handley
et al. 2006; Laluvein 2007; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998, 2006, 2009; Wenger-Trayner 2006).
In the context of an education system, all the various role players, such as children, parents,
families, community members, teachers, school principals, heads of departments, education depart-
ments, administrators, policy makers, curriculum designers and developers, psychologists, counsel-
lors, care givers, health, welfare professionals and researchers, have to work interactively and
mutually engage in forming learning communities committed to joint knowledge production
(Botha 2013; Botha and Wolhuter 2015; Cooper and Jacobs 2011; Laluvein 2007; Nel 2013). Laluvein
(2007, 2010b) who draws on Lave and Wenger’s theory of ‘community of practice’ argues for a CoP
 10 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

framework as an analytical lever for reconfiguring the various relationships among the various role
players.
Therefore, these role players need to participate dynamically in a CoP committed to forming part-
nerships that work towards a collective vision to address aspects of education and society that cause
serious concern. In this context, their common interest or concern is support for children with SEBD
in schools, thus their partnerships seek to be beneficial to all. This constitutes their collective domain
of interest and purpose. Members of the CoP would be able to share a wide range of information
(knowledge created by means of social learning through their mutual engagement and constructive
participation) as well as experiences with regard to their work (practice) (Wenger 2006).
Laluvein (2010b) refers to research by Paechter (2003) and Herne (2006) that explore the role of
power relations in a number of communities of practice. Herne (2006, 16) highlights that ‘issues of
power relations, status, opacity/invisibility of practice and access [play a significant role and sustain
the identity of a CoP and] can also insulate them from outside influence and engagement’.
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

Power relations within a CoP

In the context of supporting children with SEBD in schools, there are various role players from
diverse settings whose positions give them legitimate power. Magee and Galinsky (2008, 216)
argue that power is ‘related to one’s control over valued resources [and /or uneven] control over
valued resources in social relations’. However, as (Laluvein 2007, 70) points out, the ‘operation of
power relationships relies upon the compliance of subordinates’.
Within a CoP various stakeholders who mutually engage and forming partnerships, have diver-
ging social norms, expertise, experiences and stands on inclusion and the social, emotional and
behavioural difficulties of children. These may affect the degree of participation and the ability to
exercise power in the CoP. Therefore it is important to ‘explore [and to be aware of] the implications
of the distribution of power’ among role players at various levels (Laluvein 2010b, 181). It is essential
for participants to exchange knowledge through dialogue within their CoP; participants should be
able to share their internalised or tacit knowledge freely without the restriction of power issues
such legitimate power or expert power. Lunenburg (2012, 2) refers to legitimate power as positional
power or the ‘ability to influence others’ behaviour because of the position that person holds within
an organisation’. This is important as many stakeholders, such as teachers, principals in schools and
other individuals from the Department of Education, hold positions in hierarchical structures.
Expert power, on the other hand, derives from an individual’s ‘ability [to] provid[e] expert advice,
knowledge and information required by others’ (Faiz 2013, 385). Although the expertise of stake-
holders or participants is important, in their CoP, power relations such as expert power should
not leave the other participants feeling less experienced or less knowledgeable and thus constrain
them from engaging or sharing their knowledge or experiences. Laluvein (2007, 71) emphasises
that the need for ‘more productive relationships’ that create spaces for participants to contemplate
‘constructive partnership based upon equality and mutually grounded in the shared belief that all
knowledge is partial’.
The preceding discussion illustrates some of the imperatives with regard to power relations. The
gap between the gatekeepers who are in authoritative positions and others must be narrowed (Magee
and Galinsky 2008, 12).

A CoP as an inclusive model: provides a means of bringing change and enhancing

the social capital of children with SEBD
Laluvein (2007, 68) asserts that social capital theory ‘serves as a framework for understanding how
relational and purposeful action together with particular social contexts’ is able to ‘account not only
for the actions of individuals in particular contexts but also for the development of social organis-
ation’ (Coleman 1998, 80). Laluvein’s rationale is that ‘social capital, because it adheres in relations
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

among people, functions as a resource for achieving goals and realising interests’ (Laluvein 2007, 68).
Bourdieu (1986) notes different forms of capital that include social, economic and cultural capital.
For Bourdieu (1986), social capital is related to one’s social connections that one is able to use to gain
access to knowledge or power. Helliwell and Putnam (2004, 1436) assert that ‘social networks [are]
associated norms of reciprocity and trust’ which contribute to production of knowledge as well as
well-being. Individuals as well as communities gain social capital by forming effective social net-
works transversely. Bartkus and Davis (2009, 1) argue that ‘at the core, social capital theories help
[to] explain behavior’, providing important theoretical perspectives that increase ‘inquiry into the
causes of behavior to include a wealth of new additional factors – such as trust, networks and
norms’. This accentuates the need for the members of a CoP to reach consensus on the complex
choices, decisions and judgements they have to make and to base these on community norms as
part of their commitment to offering trustworthy support (Bartkus and Davis 2009; Booth 2011).
Our suggested model of a CoP is informed by Social Capital Theory as a multidimensional theory
(Bassani 2007, 20) that embodies different aspects or facets of social capital such as trust, diversity of
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

friendships and socialisation (Saguaro Seminar 2001, 8–10). We support the view taken by Holland,
Reynolds, and Weller (2007, 98) that social capital is a ‘concept that encompasses the values that
people hold and the resources that they can access. These both result in, and are the result of, col-
lective and socially negotiated ties and relationships’. As Bourdieu (1986, 5) explains, ‘membership in
a group provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively owned capital, a credential
which entitles them to credit’.
People make sense of social capital using ‘two traditions of social theorizing [so that] it is seen as a
concept dealing with the dilemma of collective action and integration, or as one dealing with social
injustice and inequality’ (Holland, Reynolds, and Weller 2007, 98). Some researchers who take a com-
munity psychology perspective argue that social capital ‘operates at an individual, or micro-social, level
and a collective, or meso-and macro-social, level’ (Perkins, Hughey, and Speer 2009, 36). They see
social capital primarily ‘as the value of an individual’s social relationships’ meaning individuals gain
from participation in their communities and their social relationships. At a secondary level, they see
it ‘as a quality of group networks, institutions, communities and societies’ that emphasises collective-
ness (Perkins, Hughey, and Speer 2009, 36). The view taken by Bourdieu (1986, 5) is similar:
the amount of social capital held by an individual depends on the extent he or she is able to mobilize a social
network and the capital (including the economic, cultural or symbolic capital) held by the members of that
network.

Individuals form socially and culturally appropriate partnerships: sets of individuals getting
together around a shared purpose to achieve individual and group goals in their shared domain
thus forming constructive partnerships (Cambridge, Kaplan, and Suter 2005; Wenger 2006, 2009).
Lesser and Storck (2001, 831) posit ‘that the social capital resident in [a community] of practice
leads to behavioral changes’: interactive participation in them ‘provides members with a sense of
identity both in the individual and in a contextual sense [thus] how the individual relates to the com-
munity as a whole’. It is important to note that there are various forms of communities of practice
and although their success is determined by ‘their [specific] context’ all forms are informed by a
‘basic structure’ that includes domain, community, and practice (McDonald et al. 2008, 222).
Helliwell and Putnam (1999, 15) accentuate ‘the effects on education of trust and social engage-
ment, two key variables often used as measures of social capital’. A CoP creates opportunities for
people, including children, to acquire social capital through shared learning across disciplines and
boundaries in an interactive engagement. Members of a CoP are able to increase their effectiveness
by being able to draw on diverse theoretical frameworks, perspectives and practices as well as their
own social capital developed through social engagement (Deppeler 2012). In collective social engage-
ment researchers who are part of a CoP are able to explain their research findings and work with
teachers to translate the findings into relevant contextualised intervention or support for children
with SEBD. Teachers in a CoP benefit from opportunities for professional development that enable
 12 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

them to acquire a greater understanding of the needs of all of their learners. Furthermore, they
develop a repertoire of skills and strategies they can use in inclusive classrooms to offer effective sup-
port to children who display SEBD. A CoP thus makes collective partnerships and engagement poss-
ible as opposed to the current situation in which individual stakeholders at various levels work in
isolation without the benefit of being able to draw on the expertise of their partners. All stakeholders,
including children will benefit from mutual engagement in the processes of social participation
which generates contextualised knowledge (Lave and Wenger 1991), a very important aspect of
implementing inclusive education successfully (De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011).
A CoP embraces values that are fundamental to inclusive education such as trust, equality and
equity, encourages social cohesion, develops social competence, is characterised by collective action
and respect for diversity; and provides opportunities to enhance the social capital of various stake-
holders through collaborative and constructive partnerships. This inclusive model could bring about
positive changes in the way in which children with SEBD are supported.
If this inclusive model is not introduced, these children will be deprived of their right to have their
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

educational needs met, leaving them at risk of school failure and the escalation of their antisocial
behaviour in adulthood.

The relevance and operation of social capital

Bourdieu (1986, 5) accentuates that ‘[s]ocial capital like other types of capital is unevenly distributed,
mobilised, utilised, transformed and exchanged in society’. We therefore address social capital as a
relational concept underpinned by an EST perspective. In broad terms, the notion of social capital is
closely related to the social networks that enable people to act together to achieve shared goals thus
they are able to mobilise their social network to develop their social capital. These networks have two
elements: ‘relationship structure’ that embodies the size of the network, and its configuration and
identity and ‘relationship content’ that includes norms and values (Bartkus and Davis 2009, 2). Social
capital involves inherent and learned behaviour (Portes 1998). The children with SEBD will have the
opportunity to learn from and with other participants in their CoP in ways that will develop their
social capital and cultural capital. This will in turn provide them with the opportunity to participate
in a range of actions that not only contribute to their own social and cultural capital but will also
contribute to the social and cultural capital of the CoP in which they participate constructively in
productive relationships. Children with SEBD therefore become active creators in their CoP and
not victims of unequalled and ineffective support.

The implications of adopting a CoP as an inclusive model in schools to address

children’s SEBD
Adopting Wenger’s (2006) three dimensions that relate to educational practices makes internal and
external demands. Teachers, school principals and heads of departments (managers) need to know
how to plan and organise their inclusive educational practice. They also need to be able to create
collaborative systems that make it possible for all stakeholders to use their expertise to support chil-
dren with SEBD in schools. Externally, education departments, administrators, policy makers, cur-
riculum designers and developers, parents, therapists, care givers and researchers have to be
committed to engage in mutual negotiations and form constructive partnerships. This necessitates
various role players’ changing aspects that foster or promote undesirable power relations that hinder
the progress of children with SEBD as well as others within their CoP.
The children must be able to share and develop their social capital to operate at an individual as well
as at community level. This requires providing them with opportunities to develop social, emotional
and academic skills that will help them build positive social relationships, and enhance their self-esteem
and self-concept. The ultimate goal of the CoP must be to create lifelong learning competences so that
children with SEBD can contribute constructively to society throughout their lives.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

Conclusion
A CoP as an inclusive model is underpinned by EST. It provides a way for the various stakeholders to
build productive relationships on multiple levels of practice and thus offer effective support to chil-
dren with SEBD. It embraces social engagement in practices that are directly related to the role of
schools, families and communities. It also provides opportunities to enhance the social integration
of children with SEBD in schools and beyond as well as to co-construct knowledge (constructive
social learning) about ways of supporting these children in their immediate contexts in their com-
munities. Not to adopt a CoP as an inclusive model would be to miss an opportunity to provide effec-
tive and inclusive support for children with SEBD, enabling them to enhance their social capital. The
marginalisation of these children will continue as long as various stakeholders continue to work in
isolation, and little account will be taken of contextual factors. Power relations among teachers,
parents and Departments of Education as well as other stakeholders will continue to leave children
with SEBD vulnerable and marginalised. It is vital that schools do all they can to ensure the effective
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

socialisation of all children, but children with SEBD are in urgent need of particular attention.
Taking active steps to promote their overall well-being as well as their personal and academic devel-
opment in an inclusive manner is an international priority for education.

Notes on contributors
Johan Botha is Associate Professor in Life Orientation and Learner Support in the Faculty of Education Sciences,
North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. He is currently an active member of the Education and
Human Rights in Diversity (Edu-HRight) Research Unit in the Faculty of Education Sciences. His research field is edu-
cation, psychology of education and mental health, with a specialisation in aggression, violence, behavioural difficulties
and (post)conflict.
Elias Kourkoutas is currently Professor of Psychology and Special Education in the Department of Primary Education
at the University of Crete. He has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Department of Psychology at the University
of Liege, Belgium. He taught for several years at the Technological Educational Institute of Larissa (Greece), as well as
in many European universities, as Visiting Professor or invited Professor.

References
Ahmed, R., and S. Suffla. 2007. “The Mental Health Model: Preventing ‘Illness’ or Social Inequality.” In Community
Psychology: Analysis, Context and Action, edited by N. Duncan, B. Bowman, A. Naidoo, J. Pillay, and V. Roos, 84–
101. Cape Town: UCT Press.
Ainscow, M., and S. Miles. 2008. “Making Education for all Inclusive: Where Next?” Prospects 38: 15–34.
Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. “A Survey into Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Inclusion
of Children with Special Education Needs in the Ordinary School in One Local Education Authority, Educational
Psychology.” An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 20 (2): 191–211.
Bartkus, V. O., and J. H. Davis. 2009. “Introduction: The Yet Undiscovered Value of Social Capital.” In Social Capital:
Reaching Out, Reaching in, edited by V. O. Bartkus, and J. H. Davis, 1–16. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bassani, C. 2007. “Five Dimensions of Social Capital Theory as They Pertain to Youth Studies.” Journal of Youth
Studies 10 (1): 17–34.
Bock, S. J., and C. Borders. 2012. “Effective Practices/Interventions for Students with Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders.” In Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD (Advances in Special Education),
Vol. 23, edited by J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, and A. F. Rotatori, 61–82. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Booth, T. 2011. “The Name of the Rose: Inclusive Values into Action in Teacher Education.” Prospects 41: 303–318.
Booth, T., and M. Ainscow. 2011. The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. 3rd ed.
Bristol: CSIE.
Botha, J. 2013. “The Current State and Challenges Aggression and Violence in South African Schools Pose: A
Multidimensional Approach in context.” In Education and Teacher Education Worldwide: Current Reforms,
Problems and Challenges, edited by K. G. Karras, P. Calogiannakis, C. C. Wolhuter, and N. Andreadakis, 141–
152. Heraklion: University of Crete. Department of Primary Teachers Education & Laboratory of the Study and
Research of History of Education and Teacher Profession.
Botha, J. 2014. “Behavioural Issues: Aggression and Violence.” In Life Orientation for South African Teachers, edited by
M. Nel, 293–250. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
 14 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

Botha, J., C. Myburgh, and M. Poggenpoel. 2012. “Peer Aggression by Secondary School Learners in a South African
School Setting: Effects of Race, Ethnicity and Gender.” Journal of Psychology in Africa 22 (3): 409–414.
Botha, J., and C. Wolhuter. 2015. “A Psycho-Educational Programme as Intervention to Reduce Destructive
Behaviour: Addressing Aggression in the South African Context.” In Innovative Practice and Interventions for
Children and Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas, and A. Hart,
431–457. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited
by J. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press.
Bowen, G. A. 2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):
77–101.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1994. “Ecological Models of Human Development.” In International Encyclopedia of Education,
edited by T. Husten, and T. N. Postlethwaite, 1643–1647. New York: Elsevier Science.
Cambridge, D., S. Kaplan, and V. Suter. 2005. Community of Practice Design Guide: A Step-By-Step Guide for Designing
& Cultivating Communities of Practice in Higher Education. Louisville: EDUCAUSE.
Campos, L., F. Palha, V. S. Lima, P. Dias, A. Duarte, and E. Veiga. 2015. “A School-Based Innovative Practices for the
Promotion of Social, Emotional and learning Skills in PORTUGAL.” In Innovative Practice and Interventions for
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

Children and Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas and A. Hart, 152–
183. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cheney, D., and K. Jewell. 2012. “Positive Behavior Supports and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.”
In Advances in Special Education: Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD, edited by J. P.
Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, and A. F. Rotatori, Vol. 23, 83–106. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Christner, R. W., R. B. Mennuti, and J. S. Whitaker. 2009. “An Overview of School-Based Mental Health Practice from
Systems Service to Crisis Intervention.” In School Based Mental Health: A Practitioners’ Guide to Comparative
Practices, edited by R. W. Christner and R. B. Mennuti, 3–24. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J. 2013. “Creating Positive School Climate: A Foundation for Resilience.” In Handbook of Resilience in
Children, edited by S. Goldstein and R. B. Brooks, 411–422. New York: Springer.
Coleman, J. 1998. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” In Education: Culture, Economy and Society,
edited by A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. S. Wells, 80–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, P., and B. Jacobs. 2011. From Inclusion to Engagement: Helping Students Engage with Schooling Through Policy
and Practice. Oxford: Wiley.
Corbett, J. 1997. “Include/Exclude: Redefining Boundaries.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 1 (1): 55–64.
Cornwall, J. 2015. “The Human Element in Education: Nurture, Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of Academic
Inclusion.” In Innovative Practice and Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties
and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas and A. Hart, 60–82. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dalton, B. W. 2010. “Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior.” In Noncognitive Skills in the Classroom: New Perspectives on
Educational research, edited by J. A. Rosen, E. J. Glennie, B. W. Dalton, J. M. Lennon, and R. N. Bozick, 145–168.
Research Triangle Park: RTI International.
De Boer, A., S. P. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. “Regular Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive
Education: A Review of The literature.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (3): 331–353.
Deppeler, J. M. 2012. “Developing Inclusive Practices: Innovation through Collaboration.” In What Works in
Inclusion? edited by C. Boyle and K. Topping, 125–138. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Didaskalou, E., A. Vlachou, and P. Stavrousi. 2015. “Defining, Identifying and Assessing Social and Personal Skills
Difficulties of Students with Special Educational Needs: The Special Education Teachers’ Perspectives.” In
Innovative Practice and Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edi-
ted by E. Kourkoutas, and A. Hart, 295–325. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Doll, B. 2013. “Enhancing Resilience in Classrooms.” In Handbook of Resilience in Children, edited by S. Goldstein, and
R. B. Brooks, 399–410. New York: Springer.
Engelbrecht, P. 2007. “Creating Collaborative Partnerships in Inclusive schools.” In Responding to the Challenges of
Inclusive Education in Southern Africa, edited by P. Engelbrecht, and L. Green, 175–185. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Faiz, N. 2013. “Impact of Manager’s Reward Power and Coercive Power on Employee’s Job Satisfaction: A
Comparative Study of Public and Private Sector.” International Journal of Management and Business Research 3
(4): 383–392.
Ferguson, R. 2012. “Let’s Find a Way to Learn About our Rights: Communities of Practice as ‘Spaces’ for Women and
Girls to Learn about their Human Rights.” In Safe Spaces: Human Rights Education in Diverse Contexts, edited by C.
Roux, 131–150. Amsterdam: Sense.
Greene, J. C. 2000. “Understanding Social Programs through Evaluation.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited
by N. K. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 981–999. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Handley, K., A. Sturdy, R. Fincham, and T. Clark. 2006. “Within and Beyond Communities of Practice: Making Sense
of Learning through Participation, Identity and Practice.” Journal of Management Studies 43 (3): 641–653.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

Helliwell, J. F., and E. D. Putnam. 1999. Education and Social Capital. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Working Paper Series, no. W7121.
Helliwell, J. F., and E. D. Putnam. 2004. “The Social Context of Well-Being.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B: Biological sciences 359: 1435–1446.
Herne, S. 2006. “Communities of Practice in Art and Design and Museum and Gallery Education.” Pedagogy, Culture
& Society 14 (1): 1–17.
Hoadley, C. 2012. “What is a Community of Practice and How Can we Support it?” In Theoretical Foundations of
Learning Environments, edited by G. H. Jonassen, and S. M. Land, 287–300. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Holland, J., T. Reynolds, and S. Weller. 2007. “Transitions, Networks and Communities: The Significance of Social
Capital in the lives of Children and Young People.” Journal of Youth Studies 10 (1): 97–116.
Howell, K. E. 2013. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. London: Sage.
Jennings, P. A., and M. T. Greenberg. 2009. “The Prosocial Classroom: Teacher Social and Emotional Competence in
Relation to Student and Classroom Outcomes.” Review of Educational Research 79: 491–525.
Kauffman, J. M., and T. J. Landrum. 2013. Characteristics of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and
Youth. Boston, MA: Pearson/Merrill.
Kourkoutas, E., M. Georgiadi, and M. Xadjaki. 2011. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Pupils’ Social Dysfunctions: A
Combined Qualitative and Quantitative approach.” Social and Behavioral Science 15: 3870–3880.
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

Kourkoutas, E., E. Vitalaki, and A. Fowler. 2015. “Resilience Based Inclusive Models of Students with Social-Behavioral
and Learning difficulties or disabilities.” In Innovative Practice and Interventions for Children and Adolescents with
Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas, and A. Hart, 8–45. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Kourkoutas, E., and M. Xavier Raul. 2010. “Counselling Children at Risk in a Resilient Contextual Perspective: A
Paradigmatic Shift of School Psychologists’ Role in Inclusive Education.” Social and Behavioral Science 5: 1210–
1219.
Laluvein, J. 2007. “Parents and Teachers Talking: A Community of Practice? Relationships between Parents and
Teachers of Children with Special Educational Needs.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Laluvein, J. 2010a. “School Inclusion and the ‘Community of Practice’.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14
(1): 35–48.
Laluvein, J. 2010b. “Parents, Teachers and the Community of Practice.” The Qualitative Report 15 (1): 176–195.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leonardi, M., E. Koutsogeorgou, and P. Meucci. 2015. “Measuring Functioning and Disability in Children with
Disability using ICF-CY Biopsychosocial Mode.” In Innovative Practice and Interventions for Children and
Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas, and A. Hart, 46–59. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lesser, L. E., and J. Storck. 2001. “Communities of Practice and organizational Performance.” IBM Systems Journal 40
(4): 831–841.
Levine, J. E. 2007. Learning from Behavior: How to Understand and Help “Challenging” Children in School. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Lunenburg, F. C. 2012. “Power and Leadership: An Influence Process.” International Journal of Management, Business,
and Administration 15 (1): 1–9.
Magee, J. C., and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. “Social Hierarchy: The Self-Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status.” Academy
of Management Annals 2 (1): 351–398.
Mash, E., and D. Wolfe. 2010. Abnormal Child Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
McDonald, J., P. Collins, R. Hingst, L. Kimmins, B. Lynch, and C. Star. 2008. “Community Learning: Members’ Stories
about Academic Community of Practice, in Engineering Communities.” Paper presented at the 31st HERDSA
Annual Conference, Rotorua, 221–229.
McGregor, G., M. Mills, K. te Riele, and D. Hayes. 2014. “Excluded from School: Getting a Second Chance at a
‘Meaningful’ Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (6): 608–625.
McLaughlin, M. W., and J. E. Talbert. 2006. “Developing Communities of Practice in Schools.” In Building School-
Based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement, edited by M. W.
McLaughlin and J. E. Talbert, Vol. 45, 38–63. New York: Teachers College Press.
Merrell, K. W. 2002. “Social–Emotional Intervention in Schools: Current Status, Progress, and Promise.” School
Psychology Review 31: 143–147.
Mills, M., S. Riddell, and E. Hjörne. 2014. “After Exclusion What?” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (6):
561–567.
Myburgh, C., and M. Poggenpoel. 2009. “Meta-Synthesis on Learners’ Experience of Aggression in Secondary Schools
in South Africa.” South African Journal of Education 29 (4): 445–460.
Nel, M. 2013. “Understanding Inclusion.” In Embracing Diversity Through Multi-Level Teaching. For Foundation,
Intermediate and Senior Phase, edited by A. Engelbrecht, H. Swanepoel, and M. Nel, 1–39. Cape Town: Juta.
 16 J. BOTHA AND E. KOURKOUTAS

Nel, M., P. Engelbrecht, N. Nel, and D. Tlale. 2014. “South African Teachers’ Views of Collaboration within an
Inclusive Education System.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (9): 903–917.
Paechter, C. 2003. “Learning Masculinities and Feminities: Power/Knowledge and Legitimate Peripheral
Participation.” Woman’s Studies International Forum 26 (6): 541–522.
Paquette, D., and J. Ryan. 2001. “Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.” Accessed July 3, 2015. http://pt3.nl.
edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf.
Paternite, C. E. 2005. “School-Based Mental Health Programs and Services: Overview and Introduction to the Special
Issue.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 6: 657–663.
Perkins, D. D., J. Hughey, and P. W. Speer. 2009. “Community Psychology Perspectives on Social Capital Theory and
Community Development Practice.” Journal of the Community Development Society 33 (1): 33–52.
Portes, A. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:
1–24.
Pugh, G. 1989. “Parents and Professionals in Pre-School Services: Is Partnership Possible?” In Parental Involvement:
Developing Networks between School, Home, and Community, edited by S. Wolfendale, 1–19. London: Cassell.
Pugh, G., and E. De’Ath. 1989. Working towards Partnership in the Early Years. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Reddy, L. A., E. Newman, C. A. De Thomas, and V. Chun. 2009. “Effectiveness of School-Based Prevention and
Intervention Programmes for Children and Adolescents with Emotional Disturbance: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal
Downloaded by [North West University] at 19:54 10 December 2015

of School Psychology 47: 77–99.

Saguaro Seminar. 2001. Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey; Executive Summary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Accessed April 25, 2015. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/
communitysurvey/results6.html.
Sapon-Shevin, M. 2007. Widening the Circle. Boston, MA: Bacon Press.
Scheuermann, B. K., and J. A. Hall. 2012. Positive Behavioral Supports for the Classroom. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson
Higher Education.
Schmidt Neven, R. 2010. Core Principles of Assessment and Therapeutic Communication with Children, Parents and
Families: Towards the Promotion of Child and Family Wellbeing. New York: Routledge.
Scriva, M., S. Heriot, and E. Kourkoutas. 2015. “Emotion Regulation and Interpersonal Schemata in Depressed and
Aggressive Youth: Implication for School and Community Based Practices.” In Innovative Practice and
Interventions for Children and Adolescents with Psychosocial Difficulties and Disorders, edited by E. Kourkoutas,
and A. Hart, 113–151. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Simpson, R. L., and N. A. Mundschenk. 2012. “Inclusion and Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.” In
Behavioral Disorders: Practice Concerns and Students with EBD, edited by J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, and A. F.
Rotatori, 1–22. Bingley: Emerald Group.
UNICEF. 2011. “The Role of Education in Peace Building. A Synthesis Report of Findings from Lebanon, Nepal and
Sierra Leone.” Accessed April 26, 2015. http://www.unicef.org/videoaudio/files/EEPCT_PeacebuildingSynthesis
Report.pdf.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. 2006. “Communities of Practice: ABrief Introduction.” Accessed February 23, 2015. http://wenger-trayner.
com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/06-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf.
Wenger, E. 2009. Introduction to Communities of Practice: A Brief Overview of the Concept and Its Uses. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E. 2006. “Introduction to Communities of Practice: A Brief Overview of the Concept and its Uses.”
Accessed February 23, 2015. http://wenger-trayner.com/theory/
Ysseldyke, J., and B. Algozzine. 2006. Working with Families and Community Agencies to Support Students with Special
Needs: A Practical Guide for Ever Teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

View publication stats