To Understanding How Teaching Assistants View Their Role In Managing Behaviour And What The Points Of Tension Are

Author(s):

Emma Clarke(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES E 05, Inclusive Education

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-21

15:30-17:00

Room:

W2.10

Chair:

Shosh Leshem

Contribution

Research question:

How do teaching assistants (TAs) view their role in managing behaviour and what are their points of tension are in fulfilling this role.

Aims:

• to interrogate the role of the TA in managing classroom behaviour in the UK and how this is evolving;

• to identify factors which UK TAs perceive both enable and constrain them when managing behaviour;

• to explore how TAs understand the teacher : TA boundaries in relation to managing behaviour;

• to model UK TAs’ perceptions of the relationship between TAs, teaching Staff and school behaviour policies.

The research aims were drawn from literature and experience working with TAs and are concerned with understanding and exploring tensions from TAs’ perspectives.

This paper will reflect on the specific challenges facing teaching assistants (TAs) in the UK when managing behaviour. It will consider existing research into this area and why the paucity of specific research is problematic. The paper will also highlight some of the conflicts in the UK which impact, either positively or negatively on TAs ability to manage behaviour. These include TA role definition, deployment and the wider pedagogical aspects of their evolving role.

These conflicts are not unique to the UK with the equivalent TA role in many developed countries also struggling with the issues highlighted. The Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) have developed a similar approach to England in the deployment of their TAs, providing pedagogical support to both individuals and groups of children. In recent years, with thirteen percent of the UK’s education budget (Sharples et al., 2015) spent on TAs'.

Prior to the landmark UK ‘Deployment and Impact of Support Staff’ (DISS) publication (Blatchford, Russell & Webster, 2012), the largest piece of research conducted into TAs worldwide there was a lack of exploration of TAs’ work in general. However, exisiting research resonates not only in the UK and Europe, but as far afield as Hong Kong (Trent, 2014) and the US. Yet, Giangreco et al. (2010) suggested that the available research did little to help answer questions related to ‘appropriateness’ or ‘effectiveness’ of TA deployment under the current model.

The outward display or ‘visible’ aspects of managing behaviour and the external presentation of the relationships which influenced TAs in their management behaviour were the foci of this research. A consideration of the multiple and differing realities of those involved (Robson, 2011; Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013), the ‘shared visions of knowledge’ which were constructed during the course of people’s ‘everyday lives’ (Burr 2003) and how this affected their understanding were needed to address the research aims. This view of knowledge as context based and relativist led to the constructionist epistemology which underpinned the research.

The research adopted a position which does not ‘add’ women in, ‘but begins from their perspective’, was ‘grounded in the daily experiences of women’ and the ‘goings on in women’s lives’ (Letherby, 2003). As a result of the issues which arose the research was required to place itself within a feminist context. This was exemplified by the entirely female cohort of the first group of UK TAs sampled and the largely female dominated role of the TA (with ninety two percent of all TAs in the UK being female (DfE, 2014). Its aims were also to be ‘contextual, inclusive, experiential, involved and socially relevant’ (Nielsen, 1990), which were achieved by the use of a range of qualitative methods focusing on the participant voice.

Method

Methodology or Methods/ Research Instruments or Sources Used: The study involved two discrete groups of TAs in the UK. The prime group of TAs were all purposively sampled from the same primary school. In order to support the findings from the original respondents, a second slightly larger purposive sample of TAs who were undertaking a professional course with a university provider were drawn upon. Data collection was dovetailed with questionnaires. For the prime group of TAs (n=13) in the school researched these contained a range of questions (n=22) and sub questions both closed (x=11) and open (y=18), as well as the opportunity to add any notes which respondents thought might be pertinent. Individuals from those offering to participate further in the research were selected for a focus group (n=11), which helped to understand how opinions were structured. The focus group began with participants being asked to rank a range of predetermined statements and the discussion was then focused by a range of very open ended questions. The activities and questions selected for the focus group were arrived at after reflecting on the key themes and gaps from the questionnaire data and themes which emerged from continued reading. Semi-structured interviews (n=4) comprised the final round of data collection within the school researched. Respondents were provided with a list of interview questions and were asked to choose both a convenient time and a place to be interviewed. These were chosen as they allow flexibility but also ensure all of the necessary detail and responses are collated. Questions for the interviews were derived from themes emerging from continued reading, from the analysis of the data collected as part of the focus group, questionnaire and documentary analysis. Data collection methods with the second group of TAs included the dissemination of a questionnaire (n=17) and an analysis of pertinent recruitment data (n=38) as well as the continuation of an extensive literature review.

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings: The findings currently reflect the key themes from literature and show some tentative areas of tension for TAs. These at present appear to be conflicts between ‘helping and supporting the teacher’ which TAs felt was a key part of their job, and knowing ‘your place’. This dichotomy was commonly cited and was mentioned by all of the TAs interviewed. This can be seen to be linked to a lack of clear definition of the TA role and inconsistent relationships with teachers. One of the main findings at this stage appears to be the myriad of conflicts which exist for TAs when managing behaviour. The continuing evolution of the role in the UK and other countries has resulted in a lack of a shared, clear and cohesive understanding of TAs. Research (Blatchford et al., 2007) found a lack of clarity on roles and the degree of ‘autonomy’ TAs should experience, confusion over the terms; ‘teaching’, ‘support’ and ‘supervision’, as well as ‘ambiguity over responsibilities’ and fundamental issues concerning ‘role creep’ and ‘professional identity’. Blatchford et al. (2013) cautioned that much of the expansion of TA’s role had happened ‘with little debate, public discussion or research’ and that despite the significant pedagogical work TAs now routinely undertake it was a ‘black box’, ‘the lid of which is rarely, if ever, lifted’. It can be seen that how TAs manage behaviour that is an area which is defined by dichotomies and conflict. Ongoing research in therefore needed to examine the nature of this conflictual modelling of TAs and behaviour in practice.

References

Blatchford, P. et al., 2007. The role and effects of teaching assistants in English primary schools (Years 4 to 6) 2000–2003. Results from the Class Size and Pupil–Adult Ratios (CSPAR) KS2 Project. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), pp.5–26. Burr, V., 2003. Social Constructionism. Second Edition, Hove: Routledge. Department for Education, 2014. Statistical First Release School Workforce in England: November 2014. London:DfE Giangreco, M.F., Suter, J.C. & Doyle, M.B., 2010. Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools: A Review of Recent Research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), pp.41–57. Letherby, G., 2003. Feminist Research in Theory and Practice, Buckingham: Open University Press. Robson, C., 2011. Real World Research Third Edition, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Russell, A., Webster, R. & Blatchford, P., 2013. Maximising the impact of Teaching Assistants, London: Routledge. Russell, A., Webster, R. & Blatchford, P. & Blatchford, P., Russell, A. & Webster, R., 2012. Reassessing the Impact of Teaching Assistants., London: Routledge. Savin-Baden, M. Howell Major, C., 2013. Qualitative Research the Essential Guide to Theory and Practice, Oxon: Routledge. Sharples, J., Webster, R. & Blatchford, P., 2015. Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance Report, London: Educational Endowment Foundation Trent, J., 2014. “I”m teaching, but I’m not really a teacher’. Teaching Assistants and the construction of professional identities in Hong Kong schools. Educational Research, 56(1), pp.28–47.

Author Information

Emma Clarke (presenting / submitting)

Bishop Grossetetse University

Teacher Development

Lincoln

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.