The criteria for selection of the sample were that: two or three classes of children would be needed in order to establish a multiple case study (that would nevertheless be feasible in the time available); the classes should be between Year 4 and 6 so that the children would be
144
more likely to manage the metacognitive, reflective and linguistic demands of AI; and a variety of teacher experiences and views about the value of pupil participation, including a variety of contextual factors, would be beneficial.
Table 13: Possible detrimental effects of the study and associated strategies
Possible detrimental effects Strategies
Head teacher wanting to use classroom observation information for purposes other than the study (e.g. assessments of professional practice), which may have created professional vulnerability for teachers and/or teaching assistants.
Clear protocol provided at the outset about only the teachers and researcher having access to observation data in this study. Other risks to reputation and status of workers were contained through the attention given to confidentiality.
Specific children wanting their data to be part of the research project but whose parents/carers decline their consent.
Head teacher to hold a mediation meeting with parents/carers and then make a decision that is in the child’s best interests.
Teacher or teaching assistant may feel threatened by being requested to give increased control to the children in making decisions about learning activities.
I have supported the teachers with any shifts in the balance of power between children and teacher, providing reassurance that the teacher’s views must also be taken into account in an AI.
Children’s ideas not all used in the AI, as some group work and voting may
preclude them.
Children were made aware at the outset that each group would need to decide on their favourite ideas, which may not always be their own, but that each person’s ideas would always be valued. Vulnerable children or those with SEND
may not have equal voice and influence over decisions.
The adult participants planned carefully to ensure all such children were effectively supported to participate alongside their peers (using EP expertise where necessary). Some children may have been
disparaging or unkind about other children’s ideas.
Ground rules were devised together at the outset about listening to and respecting each other’s contributions.
Children may have felt vulnerable doing something new if not with their friends.
Children had the option to remain with a friend in any group work.
Teachers may feel under pressure to conduct a new intervention on top of everything else they are being expected to do, and may experience stress.
I continually monitored the implementation of the intervention, providing support and
reminding staff that they could withdraw at any time. However, within the AI, teachers were able
145
to modify the intervention itself if needed. Activities and interviews were conducted at times suggested by the teachers as best for them. During interviews with staff they may
have felt unable to share views about participation that differ from the
researcher’s stated beliefs and may have felt oppressed by perceived power imbalances between the researcher and themselves.
In the individual interviews, in my role as researcher, I attempted to redress any possible power imbalance by actively seeking to empower the participant, value their points of view, demonstrate active listening, and enable them to lead the discussions.
The researcher may have found that the amount of time required to support the project had an impact on other duties as an educational psychologist e.g.
supporting other schools, supervising a trainee, leading specialist work etc.
I had regular access to both professional
supervision and support from a Senior EP every three weeks as well as regular peer supervision and access to support and research supervision from tutors at University of Birmingham. The time available to devote to the project was negotiated in advance.
As my study was primarily exploratory, the classes were selected opportunistically: one school was known to me professionally and sought to develop pupil participation as part of its school development plan; and the other school had chosen AI independently from a range of interventions offered by a colleague within a local authority literacy project. The head teacher of the former school selected two Year 4 teachers in parallel classes to be approached for the study. The head teacher of the other school had already chosen AI jointly with the Year 6 teacher, who volunteered to participate in the research.
Table 14 provides a summary of the main similarities and differences between the teachers, the schools and the classes, including information about the number of children with SEND in each class (as recommended by Thoonen et al, 2011). The number of children with SEND and the type of SEND categorised by their primary need was described by each teacher at the planning stages of the project. I did not seek further information about severity or complexity
146
of need as I judged that the teachers’ perceptions about the nature of the children’s special educational needs would be sufficient when investigating these children’s participation and their ideas within the AI intervention.
Table 14: Similarities and differences between the three case study samples Information Case Study A
(Teacher A and Class A) Case Study B (Teacher B and Class B) Case Study C (Teacher C and Class C) Key Stage 2 2 2
Year group of pupils Year 6 Year 4 Year 4
Number of pupils in the class (Girls (G):Boys (B)) 30 (16:14) 30 (14:16) 31 (17:14) Number of pupils with SEND (G:B) 4 (2:2) 10 (5:5) 12 (5:7) SEND profile by primary need (G:B) ASD 0 0 2 (1:1) General learning 1 (1:0) 2 (1:1) 4 (1:3) Specific learning 2 (0:2) 3 (2:1) 5 (2:3) Social, emotional 1 (1:0) 5 (2:3) 1 (1:0) Number of pupils
with consent for data to be used (G:B) 29 (16:13) 26 (12:14) 28 (17:11) Number of consenting pupils with SEND (G:B) 4 (2:2) 7 (3:4) 10 (5:5) SEND profile of pupils with consent (G:B) ASD 0 0 1 (1:0) General learning 1 (1:0) 2 (1:1) 4 (1:3) Specific learning 2 (0:2) 2 (1:1) 4 (2:2) Social, emotional 1 (1:0) 3 (1:2) 1 (1:0) Characteristics of
class (as described by their teachers and observed by me)
Mostly very able and creative. Not always very focused on their work. One or two children with social,
Mixed ability. Fairly noisy and creative class. Several very dominant characters that take initiatives
Mixed ability. Quiet class mostly. Several children shy, anxious about making
147 emotional and
behavioural
difficulties that often disrupt learning. Cooperative work only good in friendship groups.
and act as leaders. Cooperative work challenging but usually successful.
follow others or wait for directions. Cooperative work often difficult and unresolved.
Teacher
characteristics (as described by their head teachers and observed by me)
Older male, disillusioned with educational changes. Very positive about participating in the research. Desires more creativity and freedom in teaching.
Young female, recently moved from a school with very high levels of pupil participation. Ambitious and enthusiastic about teaching and participating in the research. Young female, newly qualified. Eager to learn and a competent teacher. Sceptical about pupil participation but interested in being part of the research.
Years of teaching experience
Approximately 25 6 First year of teaching
SMT judgement on teaching ability Requires improvement Good (outstanding at previous school)
Good (with features of outstanding) Ofsted judgement on
school overall
Requires improvement Requires improvement Ofsted judgement on
Writing
Attainment and progress both in bottom 20% when compared with similar schools. Maths results better
Attainment and progress both in bottom 20% when compared with similar schools. Reading and maths results better
Number on roll 212 482
My relationship with the school
Coordinator of new EP literacy project where staff selected AI from a range of possible EP support and intervention. No previous knowledge of the school or teacher.
Named EP for the school. Already worked with both teachers in relation to
assessment and intervention for children within their classes and at staff training sessions.
EP role in AI Facilitator.
Present for all AI stages. Active support for one group of pupils at Discovery and Dream Stages
Facilitator. AIs occurred at same time in both classes so observation and active support shared between the two classes. Teachers therefore took more
responsibility for leading the AIs than the teacher in Case Study A Support of head
teacher for AI and participation in research
Very supportive Very supportive (although dictated the topic for the AI rather than allowing the teachers
and pupils to choose) Teacher and TA
consent to
148 participate and for
data to be reported Parent/carer consent for data to be
reported
100% 100%
Timing of AI February to July 2013 May to July 2013
Topic of AI Writing Writing
7.4 Methods of data collection