Action Research in Special Schools: an Innovative Way of Training Staff

Author(s):

Lila Kossyvaki(presenting / submitting)Glenys Jones Karen Guldberg

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 05 C, Teacher Training

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-11

11:00-12:30

Room:

DSC02 (Smart Class II)

Chair:

Liz Todd

Contribution

To date, many studies have shown that the way teaching staff interact with children with special needs at school can have a great impact on their learning (Kossyvaki, 2012). However, few studies have focused on modifying adults’ behaviour and even fewer were conducted in school settings actively involving teaching staff. To this end, literature has highlighted the effectiveness of teacher education when the latter reflect on their own practice (Wenger, 1999). A very powerful medium of data collection when asking people to reflect on their practice is video recordings. Videos are increasingly used in classroom research but they have been more extensively used in research with parents. In that field the work of Kennedy (2011) is pioneering. She video recorded parents naturally interacting with their children and then videos of the best aspects of interaction were shown to them in order to build on their existing parenting skills.
The aim of the present study was to explore the extent to which staff were able to build on their good practice and alter their interactive style using action research and video recordings. Action research is a practice-driven approach where researchers and practitioners work in close partnership to produce viable improvements to real world problems. It encompasses a number of advantages as well as challenges. Bridging the gap between academic research and practice (Somekh, 1995), staff’s professional development (Denscombe, 2010) and empowerment (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006), team work (Koshy, 2005) and the close collaboration between the practitioners and the researcher are significant advantages of using action research. However, there might be some challenges. Because of the participants’ active role, the ownership of action research is a recurring debate (Reed, 2005). Criticisms against the rigour of action research and the generalisability of the findings (Koshy, 2005) are also frequent. Lack of control over real world environments (Denscombe, 2010), significant ethical restrictions (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006) and challenges to the researcher’s objectivity (Denscombe, 2010) are some other challenges which may arise.
The use of video recordings as a method of data collection has a number of strengths and limitations. The openness of the data to multiple scrutiny (Heath et al., 2010), their objectiveness (Cummins and Hulme, 1997) and their ‘longer shelf life’ (Stigler et al., 2000) are some of the strengths whereas the camera effect (Stigler et al., 2000) and the likelihood that some participants may be put off by its presence (Heath et al., 2010) are among the limitations. The present paper aims to highlight the advantages and challenges of using action research and video recordings in a special school setting. Doing action research in a special school is of substantial importance for two reasons. Firstly, teaching staff working with pupils with special needs are reported to experience high rates of stress and burnout (Male and May, 1997) and as a result need to be heard. Secondly, nowadays with teacher education for inclusion spreading across Europe (Donelly and Watkins, 2011) involving teachers’ voice and experiences in their training should be a high priority.

Method

The study used an action research methodology and involved practitioners in the research process from the outset. Three members of staff (one teacher and two teaching assistants) of an Early Years class in an autism specialist school participated. Pre intervention each member of staff was video recorded while naturally interacting with their pupils across four different activities. The researcher edited the pre intervention videos focusing on staff’s good practice. Then the videos were showed to the staff who were encouraged to comment on them. As a result of this, an initial set of principles were put together and were practised for four weeks. At the end of this period, the researcher with the staff decided on a set of final principles, which was called Adult Interactive Style Intervention (AISI). Post intervention, staff were video recorded while implementing AISI during the same four activities as pre intervention. Apart from the video recordings, focus group interviews and a self-evaluation checklist were employed to measure the extent of the post intervention change and to obtain staff’s views. Follow-up data were collected twelve months after the end of the main study to check whether the differences measured in staff’s behaviour were maintained.

Expected Outcomes

The three members of staff considerably increased the number of times they used AISI, post intervention (Cohen’s d= 6.5, Cohen’s d ≥ 0.8= large effect size). Having an active participatory role in the study was considered a very positive and empowering experience for the three of them. At follow-up, changes were maintained to a certain extent showing only a slight regression to old practices and staff still had a very positive attitude towards their participation in the study. Factors which influenced the extent to which staff changed their behaviour and difficulties posed by the fact that the study was conducted in a real world setting will be discussed. As a result of the study, the researcher gained a job in the school to train other staff in AISI using the same methodology but in 1:1 basis due to time and funding constraints. The similarities and differences of doing action research with a group of staff from the same class and in a 1:1 individual basis with staff of different classes will be discussed.

References

Cummins, K. and Hulme, S. (1997) Video- a reflective tool, Speech and Language Therapy in Practice, autumn: 4-7. Denscombe, M. (2010) The good research guide for small-scale research projects. 4th ed. Berkshire: Open University Press. Donnelly, V. and Watkins, A. (2011) Teacher Education for Inclusion in Europe, Prospects, 41:341-353. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. and Luff, P. (2010) Video in qualitative research: analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: SAGE. Kennedy, H. (2011) What is Video Interaction Guidance (VIG)? In: Kennedy, H., Landor, M. and Todd, L. (eds.) Video Interaction Guidance: a relationship-based intervention to promote attunement, empathy and wellbeing. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 20-42. Koshy, V. (2005) Action research for improving practice: a practical guide. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Kossyvaki, L., Jones, G. and Guldberg, K. (2012) The effect of adult interactive style on the spontaneous communication of young children with autism at school, British Journal of Special Education, 39(4):173-184. Male, D.B. & May, D. (1997) Stress, burnout and workload in teachers of children with special educational needs, British Journal of Special Education, 24(3):133-140. McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006) All you need to know about action research. London: SAGE Publications. Reed, J. (2005) Using action research in nursing practice with older people: democratizing knowledge, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(5):594-600. Somekh, B. (1995) The contribution of action research to development in social endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology, British Educational Research Journal, 21(3):339-355. Stigler, J.W., Gallimore, R. and Hierber, J. (2000) Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies, Educational Psychologist, 35(2):87-100. Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Author Information

Lila Kossyvaki (presenting / submitting)

University of Birmingham

Education

Birmingham

Glenys Jones

University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Karen Guldberg