The Implementation of Relationships and Sexuality Education In-service Training: Findings From a Mixed Methods Study.

Author(s):

Saoirse Nic Gabhainn(presenting / submitting)Christina Murphy

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

08. Research on Health Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

08 SES 12 A, Researching Health Promoting Schools: Potentials and Challenges of Mixed Methods

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-21

09:00-10:30

Room:

FFL - Aula 11

Chair:

Leena Paakkari

Contribution

It is indisputable that sexual health is an issue for young people. In the last thirty years, there has been a reduction in the age of sexual initiation coupled with an increased percentage of adolescents engaging in sexual intercourse (Seiverding, Adler, Witt, & Ellen, 2005). Schaalma et al. (2004, p. 256) also note that: "worldwide, approximately half of 16-year olds are sexually active and partner turnover, which facilitates the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), is at its highest amongst young people.”

School-based sex education (SBSE) is arguably the most effective way of targeting adolescent populations (Schaalma, Abraham, Gillmore, & Kok, 2004). There is a need to ensure that SBSE is implemented, particularly as sex education is a contentious issue within social policy (Measor, Tiffin, & Miller, 2000; Thomson, 1994), with much disagreement on the content and objectives. Research into health education programmes, such as SBSE, can “monitor programme implementation to determine whether they are being implemented as planned, corrected when required, and improved when needed” (Cohen, Jones, Kickbusch, Madonald, O’Byrne, & Vince Whitman, 1996).

There are numerous factors that affect programme implementation. One vital element is the role of the programme implementer. Some examples of implementer effects on programme implementation are highlighted in Greenberg et al.’s (2004) conceptual model of school-based implementation. These vary from implementer training to implementer characteristics and behaviour. The model also recognises that school-based programme implementation is affected by a variety of other factors, such as features of the community or district.

Recent research in Ireland has highlighted issues with the implementation of Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE) in general (Geary & Mannix McNamara, 2003; Nic Gabhainn, O’Higgins, & Barry, 2007; Roe, 2010) and problems associated with the implementation of Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) specifically (Mayock, Kitching, & Morgan, 2007). It was reported that 88% of young people received SPHE classes; while in contrast, 74% of students did not receive RSE classes (Roe, 2010). One of the findings of the report RSE in the Context of SPHE was the need for improved teacher training with regards RSE (Mayock et al., 2007).

Training has been highlighted as problematic with regards RSE (Mayock et al., 2007) however no research has been conducted on the training itself. This research aims to explore the implementation of RSE in-service teacher training (stage one) and its effect on RSE programme delivery in the classroom (stage two). This paper will present findings from stage one; on the implementation of RSE in-service training to teachers. The research questions addressed during stage one were:

a) How do trainers plan, deliver and evaluate in-service teacher training in RSE?

b) How do teachers experience and value the in-service training in RSE that is offered?

Ethical approval was obtained from the National University of Ireland, Galway’s research ethics committee. Approval for the study was also granted from the national co-ordinator and steering committee of the post-primary SPHE and RSE support service.

Method

A mixed method (MM) approach was employed in this study. The MM approach involves the mixture of both qualitative and quantitative approaches within a research project. The underlying hypothesis of MM research is that the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods provides greater understanding of research problems than either method alone (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). A model of school-based implementation was derived from a review of the literature (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2004). The MM approach was then employed to examine components of this model as they relate to the implementation of RSE. Research methods included lesson plans, questionnaires self-report forms, and non- participant observation. These methods were used to explore both the implementation of RSE in-service training and RSE delivery in the classroom. All four SPHE and RSE regional managers in the country participated in this project. The researcher attended 70% of all RSE in-service trainings offered to post-primary teachers in Ireland over a 4 month period in 2011. A total of 79 teachers, who attended these RSE in-service trainings, completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 69.6%.

Expected Outcomes

Data from trainers Trainers developed and followed their training plans well, but were less clear on evaluation issues. They highlighted a range of perceived barriers to implementing RSE training;. Teachers’ unwilling attendance, a lack of support for teachers upon returning to school, and the possibility of schools using ‘ethos’ as a reason for non-delivery of RSE. Data from teachers Overall teachers’ rating of training was high and in most cases the rating equalled or exceeded the trainer’s self-rating score. Training was positively received with all teachers strongly agreeing or agreeing that they enjoyed the training. Almost all teachers (99%) strongly agreed or agreed that they had the necessary skills to deliver RSE. However, the issue of teacher’s voluntariness to attend in-service training presented during this study. The majority of teachers (86%) attended training voluntarily and with principal support. However, 4% attended without principal support and 5% attended involuntarily. The remaining 5% gave other reasons for attending such as, “it was not compulsory but recommended” or that they were “advised to.” It also emerged that over 10% of teachers had been teaching RSE prior to receiving any training in the area.

References

Cohen, S., Jones, J. T., Kickbusch, I., Macdonald, H., O'Byrne, D. J., & Vince Whitman, C. (1996). Research to Improve Implementation and Effectiveness of School Health Programmes. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2004). The study of implementation in school-based prevention research: Theory, research and practice. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Mayock, P., Kitching, K., & Morgan, M. (2007). Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in the Context of Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE): An Assessment of the Challenges to Full Implementation of the Programme in Post-primary Schools. Dublin: Crisis pregnancy Agency; Department of Education and Science. Roe, S. (2010). Life skills matter – not just points: A survey of implementation of Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) and Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) in second-level schools. Dublin: Government Publications. Schaalma, H., Abraham, C., Gillmore, M., & Kok, G. (2004). Sex education as health promotion: what does it take? Archives of sexual behavior, 33(3), 259-269. Seiverding, J. A., Adler, N., Witt, S., & Ellen, J. (2005). The influence of parental monitoring on adolescent sexual initiation. Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 724–729.

Author Information

Saoirse Nic Gabhainn (presenting / submitting)

National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Christina Murphy

National University of Ireland Galway

Heath Promotion

Galway

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.