Initial Teacher Education and School Based Activities: Pedagogical Decision Making and Special Educational Needs

Author(s):

Hazel Lawson(presenting / submitting)Brahm Norwich(presenting)Tricia Nash

Conference:

ECER 2012

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 04 A, Parallel Paper Session

Parallel Paper Session

Time:

2012-09-19

09:00-10:30

Room:

FCEE - Aula 4.9

Chair:

Vivienne Griffiths

Contribution

The challenge for initial teacher education (ITE) to prepare all teachers to teach a diversity of pupils, including children with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities, is recognised internationally and given impetus from widespread moves towards inclusive education (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011; WHO, 2011). In England, concerns have continued to be expressed about the inadequacy of initial training in this aspect of teaching (OFSTED, 2008), although SEN has an apparent priority focus in recent government ITE proposals (DfE, 2010).

The relatively low priority of special needs aspects in English ITE can be partly attributed to the complexity of the partnership model of initial training in which school based experiences and mentoring have assumed greater importance. Since the introduction of SEN aspects in the initial training standards, the predominant model for these aspects can be described as one of ‘permeation’, whereby SEN elements are supposed to be integrated into subject teaching knowledge and practice on campus and in school. But, such permeation can become invisible to trainees and is not consistently supported in school placements. Trainee teachers spend a significant proportion of their training in schools gaining practical classroom experience with the support of school-based teacher-mentors (18 weeks in a one year primary programme and 24 weeks in a secondary programme). With regard to special educational needs, however, this school-based preparation may not necessarily provide the required coverage and, being dependent on the specific provision within the school, experiences may be very variable (OFSTED, 2008). Through programme input it is generally hoped to provide knowledge, influence attitudes and give some introduction to practice (Lambe, 2007; Mintz, 2007). Teachers' beliefs and attitudes, however, are also influenced by the norms and cultures of a school (Jordan and Stanovich, 2003) and shaped by their interactions with teachers in schools through their school placements (Pearson, 2009), so attention to special educational needs is important in school placements as well as in university programmes.

This paper asks how trainee teachers engage in making decisions about what they ‘do’, their pedagogical decision making, in relation to the teaching of pupils with SEN. This particular focus is drawn from the wider findings of a national project which investigated what and how trainee teachers learn about teaching pupils with SEN in the school-based part of their ITE programme, The project also examined university/school partnership, school organisational and classroom pedagogic processes. The questions examined in this paper are:

What (sort of) pedagogical decisions do trainees make regarding pupils with SEN?
How do trainees make these decisions? On what basis?
Where and how have they learned their pedagogical responses?
How do these relate to wider pedagogical practice?

Responses to these questions contribute to knowledge about designing and supporting school based activities to enhance initial professional learning to teach pupils with SEN.

Method

The research project involved 3 primary and 3 secondary one year postgraduate ITE programmes (PGCE programmes). These were selected as they used one of three different approaches to preparing trainees for teaching pupils designated as having SEN in the school-based part of their programme: •A specific practical SEN teaching task •Another kind of school-based planned activity about SEN (eg a pupil study task) •No specific planned SEN task beyond usual classroom teaching of pupils with SEN Three placement schools per programme were identified with one or two trainees on placement in each school. The project involved 18 schools and 32 trainees. For each school, data were gathered over a 2-3 day period. Data collection included: documentary data; observations of trainees’ classroom teaching; and semi-structured interviews with trainees, school tutors and mentors, senior teachers with responsibility for initial training, the school SEN coordinator and the university visiting tutor. The trainees’ interviews included a ‘stimulated recall’ of the observed lesson/s (Calderhead, 1981) and reflection upon two hypothetical vignettes/scenarios (Alexander and Becker, 1978). Data analysis processes involved collation and analysis of all data at a school level, then cross-school comparison in relation to the different types of task, primary/secondary phase.

Expected Outcomes

Data analysis indicates a range of trainee pedagogical decisions in relation to pupils with SEN, for example, about the use of teaching strategies, expectations, management of teaching assistants and organisation of the classroom. The origins of the knowledge base for these decisions were identified as school placement experience, prior experience before teacher training and as a relationship between the university course and the school placement. In relation current theories around SEN pedagogy, research suggests that pedagogy for pupils with SEN consists of the approaches used in ordinary teaching, extended, explicitly emphasised or intensified for particular individuals or groups of pupils (Davis and Florian, 2004; Lewis and Norwich, 2005). Our findings support this, in that trainees approached teaching for pupils with SEN as a general teaching issue, as part of their whole class planning. This may be regarded as positive and ‘inclusive’ in not singling out specific children. However, following their supervising teachers’ model of differentiated planning, when adapting their general pedagogical approach, they tended to align pupils with SEN with groups of ‘lower attaining’ pupils. In this way, these pupils’ individual specific SEN may not be considered, a finding consistent with some recent US research (Zigmond et al. 2009).

References

Alexander, C. and Becker, H. (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93-104. Calderhead, J. (1981) Stimulated recall: a method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 211-217. Davis, P. and Florian, L. (2004) Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: A scoping study. DfES Research Report RR516. London: DfES. DfE (Department for Education) (2010) The importance of teaching. Norwich: The Stationery Office. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2011) Teacher education for inclusion across Europe – Challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Florian, L. and Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 5, 813-828. Jordan, A. and Stanovich, P. (2003) Teachers' personal epistemological beliefs about students with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3, 1, unpaginated. Lambe, J. (2007) Northern Ireland student teachers’ changing attitudes towards inclusive education during initial teacher training. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 1, 59-71. Lewis, A. and Norwich, B. (eds) (2005) Special teaching for special children? Maidenhead: OUP. Mintz, J. (2007) Attitudes of primary initial teacher training students to special educational needs and inclusion. Support for Learning, 22, 1, 3-8. OFSTED (2008) How well new teachers are prepared to teach pupils with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. London: OFSTED. Pearson, S. (2009) Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 559-568. World Health Organisation (2011) World report on disability. Geneva: WHO. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A. and Volonino, V. (2009) What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 4, 189-204.

Author Information

Hazel Lawson (presenting / submitting)

University of Exeter

Exeter

Brahm Norwich (presenting)

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Tricia Nash