Palispis Jeff P.

BSED Eng 1

Application of Prejudice Reduction Theory to Program Design and Implementation Essentially, the process of social categorization, or stereotyping, seems to lead to prejudice, exclusion, and discrimination in consistent ways that are independent of whatever perceived difference forms the basis of that stereotype (Aronson, 1999; Devine, 1989; Dovidio et al., 2000; Jones, 1997; Opotow, 1990). Because exclusion and discrimination have a tendency to escalate in intensity, violence can all too often be the end result (Opotow, 1990; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982). Further, we need to recognize that while the process of stereotyping is an inevitable by-product of human information processing, what one does in response to awareness of stereotyping can be influenced in positive ways (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Devine, 1989; Devine et al., 2000; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996a). Although the social-cognitive processes reviewed so far function at the individual level of analysis, what's ultimately desired from most prejudice reduction initiatives is to eventually generate change at the community or organizational level of analysis (at minimum). In order to do this, the behavior of individuals within a social setting must change in ways that not only reflect modification of these aforementioned social-cognitive processes, but also reflect efforts to modify the norms for including diverse others in the community or organization they are a part of. Given the current state of knowledge about these processes, at least eight factors seem to be essential to the development of communities that are more inclusive: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Knowledge of the automatic nature of cognitive processes related to social categorization (Brewer, 2000; Devine, 1989; Dovidio et al., 2000; Frey & Gaertner, 1986; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), Knowledge of how these cognitive processes set up affective reactions to others (Devine & Vasquez, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2000; Snyder, 1984; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974), Knowledge of how these reactions motivate excluding individuals on the basis of how they are categorized (Jones, 1997; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982), Knowledge of how the intensity of efforts to exclude others tends to escalate (Opotow, 1990; Sidanius et al., 1999; K. K. Smith, 1982), Knowledge of the role of mindfulness (which includes the qualities of openness to new information, awareness of more then one perspective, and creating new categories) in beginning to interrupt this process (Langer, 1989; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996a; Devine et al., 2000), Skills in perspective-taking and empathy to successfully interrupt this process (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Aronson et al., 1978; Bridgeman, 1981; Stephan, 1999), Skills in communication and conflict resolution to successfully address situations where intolerance occurs (Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; Pedersen, 1993), Integration of factors 1-7 to build motivation and commitment to enact them on a day-to-day basis in their interactions with others (Devine et al., 2000; Devine & Vasquez, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2000; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; R. S. Smith & Habbel, 1996b).

6. 7. 8.

These eight factors have critical implications for the cultivation of competence in constructive interaction with diverse others. First, since many of the processes under discussion are automatized, exercises that illustrate the operation of these automatic thought processes are helpful in raising consciousness and mindfulness (Devine et al., 2000). Second, the need for developing skills and the motivation to implement them (as well as knowledge of concepts) requires an experiential, highly interactive approach to educating participants. Stephan & Stephan (1984) support the idea that experiential pedagogy is more effective than didactic approaches to prejudice reduction (for an alternative view, see McGregor, 1993). Third, since promoting more tolerant interactions among one's peers can be a demanding and frustrating task (cf. Devine & Vasquez, 1998), it is important that these workshop experiences provide the opportunity for fun and the development of group cohesion for ongoing support. Finally, since what is ultimately sought is a change in organizational culture, it is imperative that those in formal and informal leadership positions commit themselves to both the value of this kind of learning and to following through on applying it in their community on a day-to-day basis (Brewer, 2000; Dovidio et al., 2000; Stephan, 1999). The design and implementation of the "Dealing with Differences" program was informed by all of these theoretical considerations.

Design
The evaluation of this program was informed by three traditions of qualitative analysis in behavioral science, one of which is action research (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rappaport, 1977), in which the intent of the researcher is as much to provide feedback to change agents so they can more effectively intervene in their social settings, as to "objectively" determine causality. The second tradition guiding this evaluation was ecological psychology (Barker, 1968; Rappaport, 1977), in which the researcher explores system-level interconnections of individual or small-group factors. Finally, the third tradition utilized was grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), in which identification and categorization of critical elements in a particular setting is sought in terms of their congruence with existing theory. Since 'Dealing with Differences" was designed with specific psychological principles in mind, these principles form the starting point for applying the traditions of action research, ecological psychology, and grounded theory to investigate this program's effects on participants. From this starting point, the evaluation will focus on how the program design relates to participants' experience of the program. Do participants report the same factors as being central to the program's effectiveness as the theory would suggest? Or, are other issues more important to explore? Participant responses to questions were initially coded according to thematic categories that reflected the theoretical structure of the program design. Their responses sometimes led to adjustment or addition of questions throughout the data collection process. Finally, additional codes emerged from patterns in participant responses that were not anticipated (the verbatim responses of all participants are available from the author upon request). The patterns of codes were then compared with what would be expected based on theories of prejudice reduction and conflict resolution (especially Aronson, et al., 1978; Bridgeman, 1981; Habbel & R. S. Smith, 1993; and Pedersen, 1993). This approach reflects the grounded theory tradition of qualitative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), which moves from generalized theory to the specifics of causality in a given locale and back again to verify in what ways theory gets qualified in particular circumstances. In addition to noting the content of responses to interview questions, codes were ranked in terms of the top three most frequently mentioned. The results and conclusions were then summarized and a member check was conducted to verify both the fidelity of the transcribed responses to participants' intended message and any alternative interpretations of results. For the PSOC data, a MANOVA was conducted to determine whether the means of responses for the subscale scores was significantly different between the first and second administrations. The data from the inclusivity questionnaire to which both participants and non-participants responded were also compared via MANOVA.

Appropriate Support

Background. Inclusive education/mainstreaming is a key policy objective for the education of children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities. Aims. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. The focus is on evidence for effects in terms of child outcomes with examination also of evidence on processes that support effectiveness. Samples. The review covers a range of SEN and children from pre-school to the end of compulsory education. Method. Following an historical review of evidence on inclusive education/mainstreaming, the core of the paper is a detailed examination of all the papers published in eight journals from the field of special education published 2001-2005 (N=1373): Journal of Special Education, Exceptional Children, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Remedial and Special Education, British Journal of Special Education, European

Journal of Special Needs Education, and the International Journal of Inclusive Education. The derived categories were: comparative studies of outcomes: other outcome studies; noncomparative qualitative studies including non-experimental case studies; teacher practice and development; teacher attitudes; and the use of teaching assistants. Results. Only 14 papers (1.0%) were identified as comparative outcome studies of children with some form of SEN. Measures used varied but included social as well as educational outcomes. Other papers included qualitative studies of inclusive practice, some of which used a noncomparative case study design while others were based on respondent's judgements, or explored process factors including teacher attitudes and the use of teaching assistants. Conclusions. Inclusive education/mainstreaming has been promoted on two bases: the rights of children to be included in mainstream education and the proposition that inclusive education is more effective. This review focuses on the latter issue. The evidence from this review does not provide a clear endorsement for the positive effects of inclusion. There is a lack of evidence from appropriate studies and, where evidence does exist, the balance was only marginally positive. It is argued that the policy has been driven by a concern for children's rights. The important task now is to research more thoroughly the mediators and moderators that support the optimal education for children with SEN and disabilities and, as a consequence, develop an evidencebased approach to these children's education.

http://cie.asu.edu/volume6/number13/index.html#Applying http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000709906X156881/abstract