From Segregation via Integration to Inclusion

Theory and Practice

Autor:in - Georg Feuser
Themenbereiche: Theoretische Grundlagen
Textsorte: Artikel
Releaseinfo: In: Haselbach, Barbara / Grüner, Micaela / Salmon, Shirley (Hrsg) (2007): Im Dialog: Elementare Musik- und Tanzpädagogik im Interdisziplinären Kontext / In Dialogue: Elemental Music and Dance Education in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Schott Music, Mainz. ISBN 978-3-7957-0596-1
Copyright: © Georg Feuser 2007

1. Integration Starts in our Heads!

A person needs a y o u to become an I. (Martin Buber)[1]

The person develops the I according to the y o u that we offer him/her. (Georg Feuser)

To report on From Segregation via Integration to Inclusion – Theory and Practice means drawing attention to a particularly dynamic process, that is in its fourth decade of development in German-speaking countries. The old saying Paths develop in that we go down them is particularly relevant for the subject that I am speaking about here. It outlines the intention to start from a pedagogy, that from its beginning was scientific, based on the division of labour and intention but that at no time in its history could really be called universal, but rather was according to various criteria highly selective and segregative. The intention is to progress to ≫universal public education≪ where all children and adolescents with their differing levels of development, differing learning experiences and possibilities – even if we call them disabled – and including children with other languages, nationalities and religions are allowed to learn together. This is a step towards an educational system that no longer selects or segregates and can be called inclusive. This again, we hope, would have an innovative influence on developing a society that is carried by the sense of community and orientated on common welfare, which is blatantly missing today. This can be clearly seen in the OECD research, particularly in the IGLU and PISA survey in the fact that access to higher education is not primarily a question of cognitive abilities and school performance, e. g. in reading or mathematics, but is dependent on the social status of the family, its social class and migration background. Children from higher social classes are recommended for grammar school 4.18 more times than children from lower social classes. Children whose parents were both born in Germany have a 4.69 better chance of being recommended than children where both parents were born outside of Germany[2].

Good things come to those who wait does not apply to our society’s educational reality and in the same way neither to the history of pedagogy nor to the development of integration. The latter, with only four decades, has not had enough time. Without doubt it needs a few more generations and changes of attitude in order to combat an ideology of education that has existed for many centuries with its privileges and authority. Whether integration has enough chances of survival and whether the intended potential for change will be effective, depends last but not least on the quality of the integration and how it is implemented and practised. Integration starts in our heads – namely in ours! Our own ability to change our attitudes is the central resource of integration and this is confirmed more than ever today. After having briefly described the state and the present position of integration and expounded its problems, I would like to make further basic statements and proposals on the central theme of this Symposium In Dialogue and illuminate these.

The aforementioned research studies demonstrate the necessity for and the quality of integration for the learning of all children and pupils. But the politicians responsible use the educational dilemma that has been revealed by this research to legitimise an even stricter selection and segregation that starts even younger. A level of thinking that reaches out beyond the thesis – it’s best to use Beelzebub to get rid of the devil – doesn’t seem to have yet established itself to any extent in educational policy. In fact the opposite is true: they are trying to improve the results of the segregation and outward differentiation in the educational system by using those means that caused the deplorable calamity. At the moment one only needs to look back historically in order to anticipate the further development of integration and the efforts at persuasion that are still necessary.

In education today it should be pedagogically self-evident that integration is a fundamentalconcern in progressive education and not a modernistic fitting-in with an extended understanding of pluralism in the realm of culture. This understanding only partially allows integrative teaching in kindergartens and schools according to the motto ≫divide and conquer≪ in order to pacify the desires of parents and specialists who don’t really understand the way of the world. Looking back to the Age of Enlightenment and to the consequences of the French revolution relevant to culture and politics, the concerns of progressive education are already qualified in two clear aspects to be found in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). In his educational novel Emile he writes:

Men – be humane, that is your first duty. Be humane toward every condition, every age, toward all that is not foreign to humanity. What wisdom is there for you outside of humanity?[3]

and thereby characterises the imperative of humanity. In Contrat Social he writes:

Seek a form of association that with its total combined strength defends and protects the person and property of each individual member and through which each person, in that he is united with all, listens only to himself and remains as free as heretofore. [4]

Hereby he characterises the imperative of democracy, a second unalienable standard in progressive education and integration. We can clearly see that integration is a progressive educational[5] process that is qualified by the principles of humanisation and democratisation within the educational systems. Integration therefore necessarily demands an inner school reform requiring rejection of a hierarchical school system by practising ≫universal public education≪ that enables inner differentiation by means of ≫developmentally logical didactics≪ (Feuser). This enables all children in a very heterogeneous group to co-operate without exception in their learning though using a common theme. An educationally relevant definition is: integration requires a ≫universal public education and developmentally logical didactics ≪ through which all children and pupils play, learn and work together on a shared theme in co-operation with one another, at their respective developmental levels (taking into consideration their present levels of competence in perception, cognition and behaviour) and orientated on the ≫next zone of development≪.

We can find the central substance of this transformed into the educational task of integration in a book by Edouard Seguin (1812–1880) – in a certain sense the intellectual father of Maria Montessori (1870–1952) – in his book Idiocy and its treatment by the physiological method (1866). In it he demands that the central concerns are the unity of a person within humanity and means and tools of education, which have become disconnected. If the educational demands of integration are taken on to the level of didactics, so proceeding from the general to concrete demands, then we can go back 400 years to Wolfgang Ratke (1571–1635) and Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670). Comenius (1985 German/1967 English) defines didactics as the whole art of teaching all things to all men[6] because we certainly all have the same nature[7] . This has its basis in a view of the world and of man that there is nothing in the visible universe which cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or touched, and the kind and quality of which cannot in this way be discerned, it follows that there is nothing in the universe which cannot be compassed by a man endowed with sense and reason[8] . He can already state nor can any man be found whose intellect is so weak that it cannot be improved by cultivation [9].

Besides the brief description of the situation in society and in educational policy and their economical and class orientated background this refers us to two further facts that are fundamental for integration: firstly, to be able to realise their being anchored in our view of the world and view of mankind and in the awareness of the fundamental human abilities to discover the world through dialogues (particular to the species) that are always relational and co-operative. As an example, one only needs to think of a mother who is looking after and breast-feeding her newly-born child. The basis lies in the person-to-person and person object-person relationship that the child gradually acquires and that we later find represented in joint play with objects or in learning together with regard to educational subject matter.

Secondly, we can see however that we must refer to pedagogy and teaching. Standard pedagogy still avoids any serious implementation of integration and is supported by every conceivable educational policy. Through the continuing practice of separation ≫normal≪ education violates human rights and the professional ethical responsibility that it has for children and pupils. Let me refer to statements that were also ratified by our countries, e. g. the UN-World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (1983) which states: […] The education of disabled persons should as far as possible take place in the general school system[10], e. g. the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) in which the following demands are made: the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development[11] e. g. the UNESCO Salamanca Statement of 1994 in which all governments are asked to adopt the principle of inclusive education as a matter of law or policy[12] or when emphasized that regular schools with an inclusive ethos are the most effective way to combat discriminatory attitudes, create welcoming and inclusive communities and achieve education for all[13] and those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools[14] as well as in the final report which states that the largest reason for learning difficulties lies in the school system itself.

Special Education still revels in letting the excluded disabled children and pupils get remedial help and tuition in segregated areas – according to the dogma of highest possible homogeny in groups and classes – while the professionals busy themselves in discussions concerning the secondary issues of how to define ≫integration≪ and ≫inclusion≪. Because this powerfully determines the present debate I include the following small digression: in the 19th and 20th centuries, stemming from the Latin, that has established itself in our language, ≫integration≪ means – in terms of integer and integrare whole, uninjured, restored, complete; integralis: complete and integratio: renewing[15]. The sociological meaning is relevant and understands integration as the linking of diverse individuals or groups to form a social and cultural entity[16].

The concept of Inclusion stems in the same way from the Latin and from Middle Latin and means ≫include, inclusive, implied≪ – whereby ≫inclusive≪ is the opposite of ≫exclusive≪. This concept describes a state of ≫wholeness≪ that, if we follow it logically, and as far as it didn’t previously exist, can only be reached through the process of integration. Areas and topics that could direct us into forming theories of integration, for justifying questions, for empirical research and for the realisation of the right to integration in education and society only find peripheral consideration – from my point of view this is the main reason, considering all the background mentioned here, for the unbalanced and endangered state of integration[17]. Integration describes a process of transforming a level of understanding in educational science that is orientated towards emancipated and equal participation for all in education for all into the educational (practice) of ≫universal public education≪. This uses the ≫developmentally logical didactics≪ and the ≫inner differentiation≪ that these imply to negate processes of exclusion and reductionist education. In this way Integrative Education is repealed and can be referred to eventually as inclusive.

Nowadays the practice of exclusion and segregation still reigns. A paradigm shift has not taken place although it is scientifically founded. Special Education is not in a critical situation which, in fact, is its actual crisis[18], while integration finds itself in a fundamental crisis. Although the integration of disabled people has proved that it is even possible to receive a diploma in Special Education – as for example with Pablo Pineda at the University of Malaga – where for years, people with Down’s Syndrome were only judged as mentally disabled, the possibilities of integration for all and the behaviour of society towards disabled people diverge largely. 97 % of people with Down’s Syndrome never see the light of day. In contrast Martin Buber states that one can only call a society human to the extent that it confirms its members[19].

[1] Buber, Martin, 1965: Ich und Du, in: Buber, M.: Das dialogische Prinzip, Heidelberg, p. 32

[2] cf. Bos 2004, p. 28

[3] cf. Bos 2004, p. 28

[4] Rousseau 1977, p. 17

[5] German: Reformpädagogik (Ed.)

[6] Comenius 1967, p. 5

[7] ibid., p. 67

[8] ibid., p. 43

[9] ibid., p. 56 / p. 67

[10] Art. 120

[11] Art. 23. 1/3

[12] point 3

[13] point 2

[14] point 3

[15] Duden, Bd. VII, 2001, p. 365

[16] Duden, Bd. V, 1999, p. 1959

[17] Feuser 2006

[18] Feuser 2000

[19] Buber 1975, p. 26 (transl. Shirley Salmon)

2. A Person Needs a ≫You≪ to Become an ≫I≪

Having roughly outlined the concerns of integration and set them in the context of educational developments, the second part of my lecture based on Martin Buber’s (1878 – 1965) statement, will be orientated on the basic principles of integration. The statement a person needs a ≫you« to become an ≫I«[20] can be understood as a universal description of the psychosocial condition of human existence. Conversely a person will consequently become that ≫I≪, to whom we are the ≫you≪. This refers to a basic relationship in human development that can only be understood as co-ontogenesis of systems and as a superordinate philosophical understanding of evolution as co-evolution. While Special Education loses itself in tautological debates that select marginal areas and have a euphemistic nature, or necessary career evidence that is much more than serves or is warranted by the subject matter, there is a dearth of research work dealing with questions of personality theories implicit in integration[21] and with the requirements of an orientation on natural philosophical contexts. These are, for example, important for an understanding – in terms of the human sciences – of the importance and organization of intersubjectivity, a development of induced learning and for questions concerning the logic of human development itself. Accordingly, areas that could be leading in forming theories of integration, for creating questions important for empirical research and for the realisation of the right to integration in education and society only attract peripheral interest. Once again, I can only point to the interrelations without being able to justify and amplify them adequately. Nevertheless, this can be shown in a few examples:

We can find access to an adequate understanding of human development and its trends up to so-called ≫pathological≪ phenomena not, astonishingly enough, in the humanities but there, where the natural sciences, in recognition of the complexity of living systems, observe, describe, explain and understand inherent altruistic regulation of behaviour that secures their existence. The foundations of such explanations can lie particularly in system-theoretical, self-organizing and critical-constructivist theories. I refer to them as ≫post-relativistic≪ in that they rest on Albert Einstein’s (1879–1955) model of space and time in explaining the universe and in the realisation of Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906), who is now regarded as one of the greatest theoreticians, that processes of transformation result from the interaction of many atoms, that determine the nature of matter and are based on the quantum theory description of the microcosm as found by Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) und Erwin Schrodinger (1887–1961). Heisenberg recognizes the basic limitation of accuracy of measurements (uncertainty principle), whereby a world view orientated on determinability and predictability collapses. One could say that Schrodinger (1986) makes the impreciseness calculable with his equations and he writes: The reason that our feeling, perceiving and thinking »I« doesn’t appear in our natural scientific view of the world can be easily expressed in words: it is this world view.[22]

It is particularly difficult in a pedagogy of the social sciences to leave the fixed view that sees ≫handicap≪ as an individual category whose basis springs from the observation of corresponding characteristics or ≫symptoms≪, and to postulate the fundamental explanation and comprehension of actions that are judged as ≫psycho-pathological≪ as stemming from the interaction between a person and his environment. The post-relativistic theories of cognition make clear that everything that exists is a result of interaction. This steers us to look at the area of ≫between≪ which in our topic is relationships between behaviours. Even if the actions are created by a self-organising system, they have not however resulted from it alone. A complex living system reconstructs the events that have been experienced through interchange with the world from the perspective of these events and from the methods by which they are implemented. Constructivism clarifies the way these processes do not run exclusively in a deterministic and linear way, but only approximately, with certain probabilities for particular evolutionary drifts. We can summarize these moments in a simple model which represents the interchange of the individual with his/her environment on the horizontal plane, which in education impresses us as ≫learning≪, while the vertical plane can be interpreted as the process of self-organization and self-construction of reality which we understand as≫development≪.

I spoke of spatial-temporal processes. Time creates structures and organises the system that structures us, that regulates our internal functioning and, with reference to the spatial factor, how we relate to other entities. These are spatial and have large dynamics of movement that develop in time. In these spatial-temporal actions there also emerges that which we can refer to as ≫dialogue≪. Rene Spitz (1887–1974) demonstrates such a dialogue in a short film[23] that shows how an eight-month old child reacts to a mask representing a human face: we see a lively child who smiles, demonstrates complex activation, turns towards the object very attentively, approaches it and seizes it, resumes eye-contact and investigates the eyes and forehead of the mask in a persistent and concentrated manner. An intense, reciprocal and co-operative dialogue with the moving mask that took place according to the child’s intentions.

Afterwards in the next film clip we can see a child in a similar situation who is double the age, but who is however severely hospitalized and deprived through the loss of his primary person of attachment and because of his placement in an institution. This child is organically as healthy as the first, establishes eye-contact but afterwards does not react adequately to the mask face. He doesn’t move, doesn’t smile and doesn’t explore. No dialogue takes place – he is ≫derailed≪ as Rene Spitz (1976) puts it. This child is in a state of extreme isolation.

Dialogue and co-operation have largely collapsed; the child is thrown back on itself. The observable level of development is clearly reduced. The normal zones of development that would be available are blocked and the zone of actual development[24] available to the child under these conditions is not even that of a new-born child. The extensive loss of reciprocal communication which recognises and satisfies the child’s needs is responsible for a severe emotional impairment resulting from the lack of relationship and bond. This in turn reduces the cognitive possibilities. Resulting from the adaptation to the existing external conditions of social isolation the child drifts into a borderline situation of safeguarding his own existence to such an extent that he has to rely on auto-compensation.

This can be seen later in the short film clip, where the child starts to cry as a known person approaches him and, when physical contact occurs, he starts to see-saw rhythmically with his legs. In order to overcome the stress that this situation has caused, the child must create time using his own movements which in turn provides structure and order – in order to save his system from breaking down and to safeguard his existence! How could this succeed better and generally than with rhythmical moments – through stereotyped movements? Under the continuation of external isolating conditions and simultaneously conditions of internal isolation, as we can see in this film of a 27 year-old woman, who, from childhood, has had severe autism. The resulting self-inflicted injuries are an expression of already established depersonalisation and deconcentration of physical self-perception. This shows a need to use one’s own body as an object to communicate with and in this way to survive the condition of extreme isolation when d i a l o g u e can no longer be established. I think it is obvious that a person develops him/herself according to the ≫you≪ that we offer – and the implications this has concerning the question of integration.

[20] Buber 1965, p. 32

[21] Buber 1965, p. 32

[22] On this subject see the works of e. g. Jantsch, Prigogine, Stengers and Nicolis. Dealing with these interrelations shows clearly how relative the separation of the natural and social sciences has become and that its overcoming should be strived for more than ever.

[23] Short video examples were shown during the lecture; cf. Mantell 1991 for the film clips stemming from Rene Spitz

[24] Vygotskij 1987

3. Integration Means Constructing the ≫Other≪

In a conversation that took place between Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Franco Basaglia (1924-1980) Basaglia stated: It is important not only to think about the »Other« but to construct it [25]. Here, the ≫other≪ refers to integration. Later Sartre continues:

The Other must develop from overcoming that which already exists […] The pivotal point is practical experience. It is the exposed flank of ideology[26].

With this I would like again to focus our attention on questions of integration. How could this take place more clearly on this occasion than to look again at previous thoughts and actions, remembering Mimi Scheiblauer (1891–1968) and her work. A short sequence from the film Ursula oder das unwerte Leben[27] that was made in her honour, presents us with ≫Anita≪ and shows clearly how external rhythmic structures synchronise with the inner personal rhythm, take her with them and in this way stabilise the perception, cognition and behaviour of a girl who is classified as mentally disabled[28].

If we understand each system as a network – and the sequence with Anita showed this wonderfully – then as soon as the conditions of all the network’s participating components reach a mutually satisfactory state in a spontaneous overlapping collaboration – the system ≫emerges≪. It arises through the coupling of the system’s components, a synergy as Herman Haken (b. 1927) showed. Such structural formations can be ascribed to uniform principles. One can also describe integration in these terms. It clarifies these issues in the areas of rearing, education and teaching on an appropriate scientific and cultural level. This shows how highly complex systems such as the participating children, pupils, care-workers, teachers and therapists are involved in processes of joint learning; while satisfying the needs of the individuals, form a network in which the common emerging characteristics build an ≫attractant≪ which makes the combined learning of all, including the teachers, a process that induces and promotes development. This can also be clearly seen in my concept of DCSCAT (Dialogue-Centred, Substitutive, Co-operate Action Therapy) – a basic therapeutic process used in working with an autistic woman who harmed herself[29], that is integrative in spite of taking place with an in-patient. The film sequence[30] also shows the efficiency of integrative work when we think back to the previous scenes in which severe self-imposed injuries took place in spite of fixation. We can conclude that human beings deduce information about things through human beings and about human beings through things.

[25] Basaglia-Ongaro/Basaglia 1980, p. 39 (transl. Shirley Salmon)

[26] ibid., p. 40 (transl. Shirley Salmon)

[27] Ursula or the life not worth living (Ed.)

[28] Anita, the girl who is classified as mentally handicapped, plays a rattle exactly in time with Mimi Scheiblauer. When the piano music stops, Anita puts the rattle down, brings her hand in front of her eyes and rocks in a fixed, stereotype manner. At the cessation of the external stimulus the synchronization of her own personal inner rhythm has to follow as self-compensation.

[29] Feuser 2001, 2002

[30] On the 10th day of working together this woman prepares breakfast on a trolley in order to bring it to the table in another room.

4. Integration is Co-operative Activity in the Group

I had the great possibility and, looking back, the chance to observe the learning and development of children from kindergarten age up to the end of secondary education in exclusively integrated contexts according to the concept developed by myself[31]. This was the best time of my professional life. The principles of regionalisation, decentralisation, of shared teaching and learning between all members of a multi-professional team of experts and of integrating therapeutic demands into educational processes were proved in kindergartens and schools. It can hardly be denied or overlooked that integration today has lost its balance politically and professionally. Everyone who is interested in implementing these ideas – in which the shown synergetic effects innovate development for all children through induced learning – should thus be moved to reflect on the core of this progressive educational process and not let arbitrary choice reign in the place of the cultivation of knowledge in the human sciences. The formula, that democracy demands pluralism, is rhetorical; it is mostly brought into the field against the stringent foundation and scientifically sound practice of integration. I cannot imagine a greater pluralism than is to be found in genuine integration that is encountered through the heterogeneity of the people involved. In my view, integration has stagnated for the following reasons:

  • The possibilities of dialectic thinking, understanding and explaining (of) the development of the human personality developed in materialistic Special Education[32] and in the categorical education theory and concept of general education[33] remain ignored.

  • A corresponding didactical reception has not taken place.

  • The integration movement is today more apolitical than it has ever been in the thirty years of its development in Germany and Austria.

Scheiblauer already demanded: With regard to the visually impaired, hearing impaired and those with speech impairments – they should, wherever possible, be taken into a normal class. People with a physical disability should not be pitied or put to one side. Both lead to isolation[34] . I would like to finish with a statement from Stephen Hawking (b. 1942) who, with his severe disability, is Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University and is working on a Theory of Everything. He says, according to his biographer:

It is very important that disabled children should be helped to blend with others of the same age. It determines their self-image. How can one feel a member of the human race if one is set apart from an early age. It is a form of apartheid.[35]

[31] Feuser 1987, 1989, 1995; Feuser/Meyer 1987

[32] Jantzen 1987, 1990; Feuser 1995

[33] Klafki 1996, 2002

[34] Brunner-Danuser 1984, pp. 137–138 (transl. Shirley Salmon)

[35] Ferguson 1992, p. 156


Basaglia, Franco, 19782: Die Institutionen der Gewalt, in: Basaglia, Franco (Hrsg.): Die negierte Institution oder Die Gemeinschaft der Ausgeschlossenen, Frankfurt/Main, S. 122–161

Basaglia-Ongaro, Franca/Basaglia, Franco, 1980: Befriedungsverbrechen, in: Basaglia, Franca/

Basaglia, Franco (Hrsg.): Befriedungsverbrechen. Über die Dienstbarkeit der Intellektuellen, Frankfurt/Main, 1980, S. 11–61

Bos, Wilfried u. a., 2004: IGLU. Einige Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich. Zusammenfassung ausgewählter Ergebnisse, Hamburg

Buber, Martin, 1962: Reden über Erziehung, Heidelberg

Buber, Martin, 1965: Das Dialogische Prinzip, Heidelberg

Buber, Martin, 1975: Urdistanz und Beziehung, Heidelberg

Buber, Martin, 1996: I and Thou, New York

Brunner-Danuser, Fida, 1984: Mimi Scheiblauer – Musik und Bewegung, Zürich

Comenius, Johann A., 1967: The Great Didactic, transl. into English by M. W. Keatinge, Russel & Russel, New York

Comenius, Johann A., 1985: Große Didaktik (Didactica magna), Flitner, Andreas (Hrsg.), Stuttgart

Ferguson, Kitty, 1992: Stephen Hawking. Quest for a theory of everything, Bantam Books, London

Feuser, Georg, 19873: Gemeinsame Erziehung behinderter und nichtbehinderter Kinder im Kindertagesheim – Ein Zwischenbericht, Selbstverlag Diak. Werk e.V., Bremen

Feuser, Georg, 1989: Allgemeine integrative Pädagogik und entwicklungslogische Didaktik, in: Behindertenpädagogik 28, 1989/1, S. 4–48

Feuser, Georg, 1995: Behinderte Kinder und Jugendliche. Zwischen Integration und Aussonderung, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

Feuser, Georg, 2000: Grundlagen einer integrativen Lehrerbildung, in: Feyerer, Ewald/Prammer, Wilfried (Hrsg.): 10 Jahre Integration in Oberösterreich. Ein Grund zum Feiern? Beiträge zum 5. Praktikerforum, Linz 2000, S. 205–226

Feuser, Georg, 2000: Zum Verhältnis von Sonder- und Integrationspädagogik – eine Paradigmendiskussion? Zur Inflation eines Begriffes, der bislang ein Wort geblieben ist, in: Albrecht, Friedrich/Hinz, Andreas/Moser, Vera (Hrsg.): Perspektiven der Sonderpädagogik. Disziplin und professionsbezogene Standortbestimmung, Berlin, 2000/a, S. 20–44

Feuser, Georg, 2001: Ich bin, also denke ich! Allgemeine und fallbezogene Hinweise zur Arbeit im Konzept der SDKHT, in: Behindertenpädagogik 40, 2001/3, S. 268–350

Feuser, Georg, 2002: Qualitätsmerkmale integrativen Unterrichts, in: Behinderte in Familie, Schule und Gesellschaft 25, 2002/2/3, S. 67–84

Feuser, Georg, 2002: Die »Substituierend Dialogisch-Kooperative Handlungs-Therapie (SDKHT)« – eine Basistherapie, in: Feuser, Georg/Berger, Ernst (Hrsg.): Erkennen und Handeln. Momente einer kulturhistorischen (Behinderten-) Pädagogik und Therapie, Berlin, 2002/a, S. 349–378

Feuser, Georg, 2006: Integration – aus der Balance geraten? In: Erziehung und Unterricht, 156, 2006, 1–2, S. 38–48

Feuser, Georg/Meyer, Heike, 1987: Integrativer Unterricht in der Grundschule – Ein Zwischenbericht, Solms-Oberbiel

Haken, Hermann/Haken-Krell, Maria, 1992: Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Wahrnehmung. Synergetik als Schlüssel zum Gehirn, Stuttgart

Haken, Hermann/Wunderlin, Arne, 1991: Selbststrukturierung der Materie. Synergetik in der unbelebten Welt, Braunschweig

Hawking, Stephen W., 1988: Eine kurze Geschichte der Zeit, Reinbek bei Hamburg

Hawking, Stephen W., 1996: A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books

Jantsch, Erich, 19842: Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, München

Jantsch, Erich, 1980: Self Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications (Systems Science and World Order Library. Innovations in Systems Science, Califonia

Jantzen, Wolfgang, 1987/1990: Allgemeine Behindertenpädagogik, Bd. I u. II, Weinheim/Basel

Klafki, Wolfgang, 1996: Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik, Weinheim/Basel

Klafki, Wolfgang, 1993: Schultheorie, Schulforschung und Schulentwicklung, Weinheim/Basel

Leontjew, Alexej N., 1973: Probleme der Entwicklung des Psychischen, Frankfurt/Main

Leontjew, Alexej N., 1982: Tätigkeit, Bewusstsein, Persönlichkeit, Pahl Rugenstein Verlag, Köln

Mantell, Peter, 1991: René Spitz 1887–1974. Leben und Werk im Spiegel seiner Filme, Köln

Maturana, Humberto R./Varela, Francisco J., 1990: Der Baum der Erkenntnis, München

Maturana, Humberto R./Varela, Francisco J., 1987–1998: The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Shambhala, Boston

Prigogine, Ilya, 1985: Vom Sein zum Werden, München

Prigogine, Ilya/Nicolis, Grégoire, 1987: Die Erforschung des Komplexen, München/Zürich

Prigogine, Ilya/Stengers, Isabelle, 1986: Dialog mit der Natur, München/Zürich

Prigogine, Ilya/Stengers, Isabelle, 1993: Das Paradox der Zeit. Zeit, Chaos und Quanten, München/Zürich

Rödler, Peter, 20002: Geistig behindert: Menschen, lebenslang auf Hilfe anderer angewiesen? Neuwied/Kriftel/Berlin

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1977: Gesellschaftsvertrag, Stuttgart

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1979: Emile oder Von der Erziehung – Emile und Sophie oder Die Einsamen, Stuttgart

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1997: »The Social Contract« and Other Later Political Writings, transl. Victor Gourevitch, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Salmon, Shirley, 2001: Wege zum Dialog – Erfahrungen mit hörgeschädigten Kindern in integrativen Gruppen, in: Salmon, Shirley/Schumacher, Karin (Hrsg.): Symposion Musikalische Lebenshilfe. Die Bedeutung des Orff-Schulwerks für Musiktherapie, Sozial- und Integrationspädagogik, Hamburg, 2001, S. 71–92

Schrödinger, Erwin, 1986: Geist und Materie, Wien

Séguin, Edward, 1912: Die Idiotie und ihre Behandlung nach der physiologischen Methode, Hrsg.: Krennenberger, S., Wien [siehe auch: Séguin, Edward, 1994: Idiocy and its treatment by the physiological method, New York]

Spitz, René A., 1976: Vom Dialog, Stuttgart

Varela, Francicso J., 19933: Kognitionswissenschaft – Kognitionstechnik, Franfkurt/Main

Vygotskij, Lev S., 1974: Denken und Sprechen, Akademie Verlag, Berlin

Vygotskij, Lev S., 1985, 1987: Ausgewählte Schriften, Bd. I, 1985; Bd. II, 1987, Pahl Rugenstein Verlag, Köln


Georg Feuser: From Segregation via Integration to Inclusion. Theory and Practice. In: Haselbach, Barbara / Grüner, Micaela / Salmon, Shirley (Hrsg) (2007): Im Dialog: Elementare Musik- und Tanzpädagogik im Interdisziplinären Kontext / In Dialogue: Elemental Music and Dance Education in Interdisciplinary Contexts. Schott Music, Mainz. ISBN 978-3-7957-0596-1

bidok - Volltextbibliothek: Wiederveröffentlichung im Internet

Stand: 07.02.2017

zum Textanfang | zum Seitenanfang | zur Navigation