a) The pupils’ perspective on the outcomes of their shared placement was in line with the responses from staff in Phase 1.
b) Only two outcome patterns emerged, as all the pupils thought that their behaviour and engagement at the AP was positive.
c) The mechanism of general confidence did not seem to relate strongly to outcomes. Instead, self-efficacy was indicated as a key mechanism.
d) Many pupils felt that a change in their aspirations had been a key mechanism in the shared placement.
e) There was little evidence that a shared placement led to confusion for the pupil. f) A greater sense of school belonging was associated with a greater likelihood of a
positive outcome.
g) Sense of belonging at the AP did not account for any of the differences in outcome. h) For those pupils who had disengaged further from the school, there was a significant
gap between their sense of school belonging and sense of belonging to the AP. i) Sessional transitions were a difficult time for the pupils and a key time when
behaviour problems were likely to emerge.
j) When pupils were able to spend time with a TA instead of going back to class over transition, they felt much more positive about the transition and behaviour was better.
k) The greater the gap between sense of belonging at the AP and sense of belonging at school, the harder it was for pupils to return to school.
l) None of the pupils felt like they had a real choice in whether they should attend a shared placement.
m) Being happy to attend a shared placement was a risk factor for negative outcomes. n) Positive outcomes did not necessarily mean that pupils agreed with the choice to
attend a shared placement originally.
o) Decisions about curriculum were strongly related to engagement, and the results suggest that pupil involvement in curriculum decisions it a key factor that facilitates
106 positive change.
p) Good partnership working fosters a sense of consistency and connectedness between settings for the pupil, and this is related to sense of belonging.
q) There was a high agreement amongst pupils that the relationships with staff at the AP were different to those at the school. This was not only about the strength of the relationship but the type which was more informal, friendly and less authoritarian at the AP.
r) A positive relationship between the pupils and the AP staff could not account for any of the change in outcomes. Conversely, there is some evidence that a greater relationship at the AP can contribute to disengagement from school.
3.6.2 Discussion
In this study, pupils’ views were gathered on their experiences of attending a shared placement between a school and an AP. As Knipe et al. (2007) found, pupils responded maturely and offered very valuable insights into their education. By considering the pupil perspective, the programme theories developed in Phase 1 have been enriched and enhanced. For example, where staff identified that pupils’ general confidence had improved, pupils reported that this was more specifically in relation to a belief in their ability to achieve in a certain area. The perceptions of the pupils have also challenged the notion that they become confused because of differences between settings. Instead, pupils explained challenging behaviour at school as a way of rejecting a school environment that they felt little sense of belonging to. One of the main aspects of this study has been the closer examination of sense of school belonging as a key mechanism. For example, pupils often had positive relationships and a high sense of belonging at the alternative provider, but this was not related to being successful at the school. When pupils became further disengaged from the school, this was related to feeling a greater sense of belonging at the AP. A more detailed discussion regarding the findings is presented in section 4.
107 Limitations of research
A main limitation of this research is that the direction of relationships cannot be known for certain. For example, the PSSM Scale indicated that outcomes were more positive when a sense of school belonging was high at the school. However, it may also be the case that pupils became disengaged for a different reason, and this caused the sense of school belonging to decrease. However, by utilising mixed methods, and examining a wide range of mechanisms and contextual factors, this limitation has been made less problematic. For example, throughout the research, the evidence suggested that sense of belonging was a mechanism and therefore something that was responsible for the outcome. Secondly, pupil outcomes were strongly related to institutional attitudes and practices such as the school retaining ownership of the pupil and willingness to include those with BESD. The strongest contextual conditions therefore promote a sense of belonging in pupils, and therefore this is further evidence that belonging is not simply a consequence of engagement or disengagement.
A second limitation of this research relates to the decision to take a deductive approach to Phase 2, following a more inductive approach during the first phase. The method used is in line with the recommendations of Pawson and Tilley (1997) and was considered a suitable approach as it creates the opportunity to confirm or refine the theory, as well as making additions for new factors. There were also practical reasons for selecting this approach. For example, it was felt that if the interview was more structured, pupils would feel less threatened and uncomfortable. It was also a consideration that the researcher did not have a relationship with the young people, and asking them to use a lot of language may have created anxiety. The approach selected allowed pupils to only use language minimally if they chose, but also gave them the opportunity to talk more if they felt comfortable. It also meant that the situation could be very visual and it is likely that these measures relieved pressure, anxiety and allowed for a rapport to be built.
Although opportunities were given to the pupils to talk more openly about their experiences, the interview situation was undoubtedly dominated by the drive to discuss
108 factors that emerged during the first phase. It is possible that this approach led to only a surface level understanding of the pupils’ views. A more open and exploratory approach may have elicited deeper information on what pupils felt was important to them. It is likely that to some extent, the adults’ view of the world was imposed upon them during the interviews, and it is acknowledged that this may have resulted in a loss of understanding of the genuine voice of the pupils.
A final limitation is that although the study extended the range of participants by including pupils, the perspective of parents has not been part of the study due to difficulties with sampling. Parents would have offered an additional viewpoint and allowed for a richer account of the contextual factors and mechanisms.
109 Section 4
Synthesis of Papers, Conclusions and Implications