Information or Formative Tool? Teachers’ experiences of the Individual Education Plan

Author(s):

Åsa Hirsh(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Format:

Paper

Session Information

09 SES 03 C, Individual Education Plans: Evaluating Practices and Perceptions

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-18

17:15-18:45

Room:

FCT - Seminario 2

Chair:

Mary-Anne Holfve-Sabel

Contribution

The study that will be presented at the ECER conference is part of a compilation thesis in which all included studies share the same research objective, defined as the Individual Education Plan as part of teachers’ assessment practice.

The study is carried out in Sweden, where all compulsory school pupils since 2008 receive an Individual Education Plan (IEP) twice a year. The purpose of the plan is twofold; to assess and provide information about pupils’ present levels of knowledge, and to be a formative and concrete tool in each individual’s learning process (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2008).

In two previous studies, focus has been on the document and its content (Hirsh 2011a, 2011b), through analysis of 379 collected IEPs from grades 3, 5 and 8 in Swedish compulsory school. The current study, based on interviews with teachers, aims to explore the relation between document and pedagogical practice. The main research question is:

· In what ways do teachers perceive of the IEP as documentation practice and pedagogical tool?

In an article from 2007, Habib and Wittek proposes a tentative framework to support empirical analysis of portfolios as pedagogical tools for formative and summative assessment in higher education. Although the IEP is not the same as a portfolio, there are clear similarities between the two, in that both are meant to function as documentation and basis for assessment, as well as pedagogical tools.

The term IEP can be used and perceived of in various ways. It is generally used with reference to the actual document as a physical artifact, but often also with reference to working patterns that arise when the document in various ways is put into practice. Moreover, the use of the IEP - writing the document as well as putting it to practice - might also lead its users (in this case the teachers) to new modes of “IEP thinking” and/or acting as a result of the IEP experience. Teachers’ perception of the IEP and its functions must therefore be understood and discussed on different levels.

Building on Habib and Wittek (2007), three sets of ideas are used in analyzing and discussing the data material of the present study; Watofsky’s notions of primary, secondary and tertiary artifacts (Wartofsky, 1979), the concepts of inscription and translation (Akrich & Latour, 1991; Säljö, 2005), and Wertsch’s notions of mastery and appropriation (Wertsch, 1998).

Different forms of IEP work, as well as other related documentation and assessment practices, are used in a number of countries in Europe and internationally. Previous studies (e. g. Hirsh, 2011a; Tennant, 2007) point to several similarities between countries using IEP:s, although national contexts vary in terms of frames and purposes of IEP and IEP work. Research that increases the understanding of this topic is therefore relevant beyond the specific context in which the study was conducted.

Method

The empirical data consists of 15 semi-structured interviews with teachers of different stages of compulsory school (5 primary school teachers, 5 middle school teachers, 5 secondary school teachers), lasting for 50-70 minutes each. All were transcribed verbatim. The analysis process was inspired by qualitative content analysis as described by Graneheim and Lundman (2004). All transcribed text was divided into meaning units based on analysis questions put to the text. The meaning units were condensed and subsequently labeled with codes. This first step was a way of getting to know and systematize the data material in a thorough manner. The second step was a categorization of the manifest content, where a category should be understood as a group of manifest content that shares a commonality. The third step of the analysis concerned the interpretive level, where themes emerged. A theme can be seen as an expression of the latent content of the text. Three main themes, in terms of qualitatively different ways of perceiving the IEP as documentation practice and pedagogical tool, emerged. As a means for comparing and understanding the differences between the three ways, Engeström’s structure of a human activity system is used (Engetsröm, 2001).

Expected Outcomes

At the time of writing this abstract, the study is still a work in progress. It is, however, possible to distinguish three main ways of perceiving the IEP. • Teachers who view IEP writing only as giving information. The purpose of the IEP is reporting and controlling. The document is made visible in practice twice a year, when it serves as a basis for the parent-pupil-teacher meeting. • Teachers who view IEP writing foremost as information, but also describe it as having an impact on their way of viewing individual pupils and their needs. Thus, as a tool for their own thoughts, teachers describe the IEP as indirectly visible in everyday practice. • Teachers who view the IEP foremost as a formative tool, affecting the way they think of, organize and operationalize their teaching. The content of the document is revised from week to week, along with the pupils’ making progress. The importance of the pupils understanding the purpose and content of their own IEP:s is emphasized. Pupils are, usually on a weekly basis, scheduled to work with their individual IEP targets. Results will be elaborated and discussed in relation to the theoretical concepts described above.

References

Akrich, M & Latour, B. (1991). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (259-264). London: MIT Press. Graneheim, U.H. & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and work, 14(1), 133-155. Hirsh, Å. (2011a). A tool for learning? An analysis of targets and strategies in Swedish Individual Education Plans. Nordic Studies in Education, 31(1), 14-30. Hirsh, Å. (2011b). The Individual Education Plan – a gendered assessment practice?. (In press). Assessment in Education, Priciples, Policy and Practice. Habib, L. & Wittek, L. (2007). The Portfolio as Artifact and Actor. Mind, Culture and Activity, 14(4), 266-282. Swedish National Agency for Education. 2008. Allmänna råd för den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen [Advices for the Individual Education Plan with written assessments] Stockholm: Fritzes. Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande och kulturella redskap [Learning and cultural tools]. Stockholm: Norstedts. Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research. Support for Learning, 22(4), 204-208. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models. Representations and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Author Information

Åsa Hirsh (presenting / submitting)

Jönköping University

School of Education and Communication

Jönköping

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.