Contradictory Narratives of Individualised Instruction Produced by Students, Their Parents and Their Special Education Teacher

Author(s):

Anna Rytivaara(presenting / submitting)Tanja Vehkakoski

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 06 C, Individualised Planning and Assessment

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-03

15:30-17:00

Room:

B026 Anfiteatro

Chair:

William Kinsella

Contribution

Along with the spread of inclusive ideology, researchers have begun to emphasise individually tailored instruction as an essential means by which to meet student academic and motivational diversity in heterogeneous, mixed-ability classrooms (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh and Reid, 2005; Persson, 2008; Tomlinson et al. 2003). As opposed to standards-based teaching, individualised instruction refers to a student-centred pedagogical strategy which aims at responding flexibly to individual students’ learning styles, readiness levels and speeds of learning in order to maximise their learning opportunities in the classroom (Stradling and Saunders, 1993; Tomlinson, 1999). In practice, Tomlinson (1999) divides the differentiated instruction into the following areas: adapting content (e.g. materials, curriculum objectives), adapting process (e.g. teaching methods, learning tasks, pace of learning), and adapting products (e.g. assessment and means to indicate learning) (see also Raveaud, 2005; Stradling and Saunders, 1993).

Although individualised instruction is widely modelled with a well-intentioned purpose to improve students’ motivation and achievements, less data exist on the meanings which students, parents and teachers give to it. Roiha (2012) found that the teachers understand differentiation in different ways, and when planning the instruction, they often have one-sided focus on students’ deficits rather than the social context (Isaksson, Lindqvist & Bergström, 2007). In addition, in the case of written individual education plans (IEPs), students’ and parents’ involvement in the planning process has been quite low and passive (Agran & Hughes, 2008; Fish, 2006; Pawley & Tennant, 2008), although students’ active involvement in the IEP process seems to improve their goal commitment and academic achievement (Barnard-Brak & Lechtenberger, 2010).

The purpose of this study is to examine the meanings which seventh-grade students (13-14-year-olds) with mild learning disabilities, their parents and their special education teacher give to individualized instruction in their narratives. The data was collected in one Finnish part-time special education setting. Part-time special education is provided in conjunction with mainstream instruction, such that students usually receive special education for 2–3 hours a week only in those subjects with which they have minor difficulties (usually mathematics and languages); otherwise, they study in their own mainstream classrooms.

The main research questions will be as follows: 1. How do the students, parents and the teacher narrate individual needs of students? 2. How do part-time special education students, their parents and their special education teacher narrate the accomplishment of individualized instruction in practice?

Method

The data of this narrative research project were collected in the school year 2012–2013 by observing lessons in the special education teacher’s classroom (part-time special education), by writing field notes and interviewing the participants. Narrative research is a loose framework where the world is viewed as a collection of stories that people tell and live by; that people live in the midst of stories they and the others tell of them. Our particular approach is the kind of multi-perspectival study which allows us to explore secondary school students’ school experiences through various stories narrated by the researchers, students themselves and their teachers and parents (for an example, see Clandinin et al. 2006; Goodson & Sikes, 2001). The participants were three 13-14 -year-old students, their mothers and their special education teacher. Two of the students had written IEPs. We conducted life-history type of interviews where the students were asked to describe themselves, their lives and their special education experiences. The mothers and the special education teacher were asked to describe their lives and the students; mothers were also asked to tell about the earlier school paths of the students. The student interviews varied between 21 and 82 minutes, teacher interviews between 46 and 81 minutes, and mothers between 86 and 124 minutes. The interviews were transcribed verbatim. The field notes were not used for this paper. In analysis, we focused on the excerpts where the participants narrate how the individuality of each pupil was paid attention to within special education. We used thematic analysis (Riessman, 2008) to understand what was said, and elements of discourse analysis to analyze how things were narrated (for example, the use of a passive form: “because English is individualized for me”). Throughout the analysis, we focused on each pupil as a separate case as well as discussed the emerging similarities and differences across the whole data.

Expected Outcomes

The data enabled us to examine the similarities and differences in the interpretations, assumptions and narrated experiences of the special education teacher, students and their parents concerning individualised instruction (see also Rogers, 2003). Although our analysis is still under process, we have preliminarily named four storylines that emerged across the data: special education as a place, being [left] outside of something; individual needs as difficulties; and instruction based on books and assignments. Our findings suggest that special education was narrated as a place for students who needed extra support in their learning, and as such, the first step of individualised instruction. As a student put it, “like, if you have problems at something then you can go there”. The study revealed that students were mostly satisfied with the received instruction whilst the mothers had more contradictory views of individualisation as a path which led into marginalization or restricted education possibilities available in future. Interestingly, the teacher narrated the students’ individual needs mostly through their diagnoses and thus, reproduced traditional special education thinking (e.g., “hearing problem”, “memory problem”, “clear learning problems”, “lack of skills”). He also emphasized the role of books in his instruction as a standard for proceeding: whether a student had “proceeded by the normal book” or “[was] proceeding, in my opinion, rather deftly with that modified book”. The different understandings of individualisation make planning and accomplishing individualised instruction a complicated issue. The study also raises questions whether individualised instruction needs to be based on one’s individual difficulties in such a strong way as here, or could, perhaps, more inclusive thinking with individual diversity replace such practices? The final study can contribute in formulating alternative and better action models in responding the individual needs of students.

References

Agran, M. & Hughes, C. (2008). Asking student input. Students’ opinions regarding their individualized education program involvement. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 31 (2), 69 – 76. Barnard-Brak, L. & Lechtenberger, D. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic achievement across time. Remedial & Special Education 31, 343 – 349. Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H. & Reid, D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice 44, 194 – 202. Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Huber, M., Murphy, M. S., Orr, A. M., Pearce, M., & Pinnegar, S. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. London: Routledge. Fish, W. W. (2006). Perceptions of parents of students with autism towards the IEP meeting: a case study of one family support group chapter. Education 127 (1), 56 – 68. Goodson, I. F., & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Isaksson, J., Lindqvist, R. & Bergström, E. (2007). School problems or individual shortcomings? A study of individual educational plans in Sweden. European Journal of Special Needs Education 22 (1), 75 – 91. Pawley, H. & Tennant, G. (2008). Student perceptions of their IEP targets. Support for Learning 23, 183 – 186. Persson, B. (2008).On other people's terms: Schools' encounters with disabled students. European Journal of Special Needs Education 23, 337–347. Raveaud, M. (2005). Hares, tortoises and the social construction of the pupil: differentiated learning in French and English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal 31, 459–479. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of the special education referral process: a case study. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education 24, 139 –158. Roiha, A. S. (2012). Teachers’ views on differentiation in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Perceptions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, abstract. Stradling, B. & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice: responding to the needs of all pupils. Educational Research 35, 127–37. Tomlinson, C. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 27, 119–145.

Author Information

Anna Rytivaara (presenting / submitting)

University of Tampere

School of Education

University of Tampere

Tanja Vehkakoski

University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.