The aim of this research was to explore the facilitators and barriers of implementing COGMED in a primary school. The following table has been created to offer a concise summary of the above sections on the facilitators and barriers of implementing COGMED in a primary school, providing a response to the overarching research question, "What are the facilitators and barriers to implementing COGMED Working Memory Programme in the primary school with Year 5 and Year 6 pupils?”.
Table 5.1: A table to show a summary of this study's findings on the facilitators and barriers of implementing COGMED.
Pupils' views on the Facilitators and Barriers of COGMED Facilitators
Most of the pupils liked the programme.
Liked the games
Perceived to help with memory
Barriers
Boring and frustrating, difficult to complete
Computers didn’t always work
Missing lessons was perceived as a negative aspect of COGMED Teacher views on the Facilitators and Barriers of COGMED
Facilitators
Easy to implement – as didn’t need a lot of training to deliver it / a room or a teacher to deliver COGMED.
Not essential to have a knowledge of working memory
Not labour intensive / teachers did not need to supervise the pupils
Perceived to engage the pupils
Pupils who persevered most on COGMED were the ones the teachers thought had made the most progress.
Cost effective
The data from the COGMED monitoring system was perceived
Barriers
COGMED was time consuming, it was difficult to deliver the
programme every day
COGMED did not fit with
teachers' agenda: particularly as pupils had to miss a lesson to undertake COGMED
Teachers thought that only a few pupils benefitted from COGMED (however only 30% of the pupils received 20 sessions or more.)
Selection: – teachers found it difficult to know who to select for the programme
140 to be useful.
pupils with processing, attention, behaviour difficulties, no patience and no resilience.
Teachers found it difficult to judge the impact of COGMED
Cost: perceived to be expensive
Lack of technical assistance and support on implementing the programme.
Lack of communication between staff was a perceived barrier. Other findings from the teachers or pupils that weren't perceived as either a
facilitator or a barrier.
Teachers did not understand working memory which may have affected the pupil selection and expectations of COGMED.
Some teachers reported that they would not use COGMED again.
One pupil adapted the programme
Training time was an issue: more than a 30 minute session was too long
The pupil who appeared to benefit from COGMED had not had the most sessions.
This research identified that there were various barriers which were perceived to have affected the implementation of COGMED. Durlak and DuPre (2008 p337) argue that "expecting perfect or near perfect implementation is unrealistic". A significant conclusion from the research is that the findings of this study link with the literature on implementation factors identified by Durlak and Dupre's (2008) meta-analysis, which has been discussed through the previous sections in this chapter. The framework for effective implementation by Durlak and DuPre's (2008) was comprised from their meta- analysis on over 500 studies of programmes implemented with children and young people in real world settings by non-researchers. The 500 studies identified barriers and enablers to implementation success (see appendix iv). Therefore factors affecting the facilitators and barriers of implementing COGMED, discussed in the above sections in this chapter, have been collated and summarized and comparisons have been made between the perceived COGMED implementation factors and aspects of implementation factors highlighted by Durlak & DuPre's, (2008) meta–analysis (see Table 5.2)
141 Table 5.2: A table to summarize the key implementation factors for COGMED in
relation to the framework for effective implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008, p.335).
I. Community Factors
A. Funding: cost of the intervention emerged as directly relevant to the implementation of COGMED. The funding and cost of the programme was described by the teachers as both a facilitator and barrier.
B. Policy: relating to the school’s need to demonstrate academic attainment. Policy was a factor in the implementation of COGMED as the staff indicated that they were able to use COGMED’s monitoring system to demonstrate pupil progress. However there are limitations of COGMED's monitoring system (see Section 5.4.1) and therefore programme implementers may consider how they might monitor pupil progress.
II. Provider Characteristics
Perceived Teacher self efficacy and skill proficiency emerged as both
facilitators and barriers of implementation. The identified facilitators were that a high level of knowledge of computers and working memory was not required. The skill proficiency in relation to the teacher's perceived ability to select the pupils was a barrier. Therefore staff may benefit from training to select pupils for the programme. Programme implementers should be given the opportunity to develop an understanding of the programme before commencing delivery. III. Characteristics of the Innovation
Compatibility and adaptability of the intervention emerged as both facilitators and barriers to implementation. A facilitator was that COGMED was
compatible with the school’s agenda as they needed to deliver a working memory intervention. A barrier was that COGMED was perceived as time consuming and difficult to deliver every day and within particular school terms, therefore before the commencement of the COGMED programme
implementers should consider whether they have the capability and capacity to deliver the sessions. Consideration could be given to the delivery of shorter sessions.
142 IV. Factors Relevant to the Prevention Delivery system: Organisational
capacity
The integration of new programming is the degree to which the staff can integrate an innovation into existing routines and practices and this was identified as a factor influencing implementation. A facilitator was that the programme was perceived to be not labour intensive, as the school did not need to allocate a teacher to deliver the programme. Access to headphones and ICT was considered a facilitator. Therefore programme implementers should ensure easy access to headphones and ICT equipment.
Effective communication between staff was also a barrier. Programme implementers may consider frequently allocating time to discuss the delivery of COGMED within other programme implementers.
V. Factors Related to the Prevention Support System
Training and technical assistance were key factors of implementation. A barrier was the lack of technical assistance and a lack of support on how to modify the programme if a pupil was experiencing difficulties, therefore all programme implementers should be able to access support and technical assistance.
Table 5.2 shows that there are a number of facilitators and barriers identified in the study which fit with Durlak and DuPre's (2008) framework for effective implementation. The local context is regarded as an important element in implementation of a programme (Durlak and DuPre, 2008). It is acknowledged that the implementation factors outlined in Table 5.2 are the findings from one school context and therefore are not entirely generalizable. However Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 may be useful for researchers or professionals to utilise as it may highlight key implementation issues for consideration in their own contexts. The remaining sections of this discussion will offer a critique of the study including limitations, reflections on my research journey, identify the implications of the research findings and will finally conclude by identifying considerations for future research.
143