bera conference - university of leeds · web viewparticularly influential theorists in these fields...

The Engagement of Children with Learning Difficulties in Mainstream Primary Classrooms

Dr Helen May

School of EducationUniversity of Leeds

LeedsLS2 9JT

Tel: 0113 3434637Email: [email protected]

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference

September 2003Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh

Introduction This paper reports on a doctoral thesis, which examined the engagement of children with learning difficulties within the mainstream primary classroom. The research focused on the children's actions and interactions occurring spontaneously in the classroom during the delivery and the execution of curricular tasks. It aimed to further an understanding of the engagement of children in curricular activities. For the purpose of the research, engagement was defined as ‘involving oneself in an undertaking’. The ‘oneself’ part of the definition was considered significant to the study because it conveyed a focus on children's actions, whilst the ‘in’ part was important in conveying children's involvement to be socially based not socially influenced. Background Context There is a recognisable shift towards promoting the participation of children within education, particularly for those with special educational needs (SEN). This shift is evident within a policy context, where there have been two trends - firstly towards establishing children's rights to participation and secondly towards supporting children to exercise those rights. It is apparent within a research context, where there are a growing number of research projects, on which a rationale for pupil participation is being developed and substantiated. A rationale for participation is further endorsed by a theoretical context. Long-standing socio-constructivist/cognitive theories have been increasingly evident in recent years, becoming both popular and accepted ways of

This is copyright material and no content from this paper may be published without proper acknowledgement © Dr. H May 2003

1

mailto:[email protected]

thinking. They have led to changes in the way features of classroom life are conceptualised. This section of the paper will briefly examine each context in turn, for its impact upon the advancement of children's participation. Policy Context Parliamentary recognition of children's participation began with non-statutory references to children's rights. Early recommendations included taking the child's feelings and perceptions into account (DES, Circular 1/83: 2; The Elton Report, 1989) and promoting children's participation in shaping and reviewing the school’s behaviour policy (The Elton Report, 1989). The first legislative recognition of children’s rights was bestowed by the Children Act (1989) and code arising from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, ratified in 1991). They are widely publicised to have elevated the child’s role in decision-making and planning and to have secured an increasing regard for children’s civil rights and entitlement to participation (c.f. Flekkoy & Kaufman, 1997; Russell, 1996; Sherwin, 1996; Wyness, 2000).Once established in law, children’s rights were little altered. Thereafter, the trend shifted towards implementing children's rights in practice. Publications have gradually contained proportionately more about action and feasibility issues than about a rationale for children's involvement. This is evident within a document outlining principles for the involvement of children (Children and Young People's Unit, 2001). It is likewise apparent in a chapter and toolkit devoted to pupil participation, included in the revised SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001). The Code concentrates on action (required by adults) to effect pupil participation in SEN procedures (including setting targets, IEPs, assessment, annual reviews).Recently there has been a move towards supporting children’s participation rights in legislation. There is a section devoted to consultation with pupils in the latest Education act (2002a), ‘designed to encourage greater participation by children and young people in decision-making within schools’ (176). Also forthcoming statutory guidance on consulting pupils is mentioned in an action plan for the Involvement of Children (DfES, 2002b). Research Context The shift towards encouraging children's participation in education has been supported by a growing number of research studies addressing the topic. The studies recognise the child's potential contribution. Collectively, they propose the benefits of taking the child's standpoint, and offer a principled rationale for children's participation in the school and classroom.


2

There is a progressively expanding range of topics and contexts where children's participation is being sought and researched. Fielding (2001) contends that previously the topic has been approached by seeking to develop a more democratic, collective voice in school or to develop a more flexible pedagogy in order to give children greater responsibility for their learning. He argues that recent developments, embracing research into children's classroom experiences and children participation as researchers, help bridge the gap between the individual (pedagogic) and collective (school) emphasis. This partly stems from recognising that: “…..teaching and learning is becoming a legitimate focus of enquiry from the standpoint of the students as well as teachers” (Fielding, 2001:49). Amongst other authors, there appears to be a perceptible readiness that research considering the child's standpoint and set in the context of the classroom is needed. Dyson (2001) calls for practices embedded in mainstream classrooms to move towards equity for children with SEN. Rogoff (1996) regards that researching the child's active role in their development (through observation or studying children's interaction and their participation with others) has been overlooked. Rogoff’s argument is substantiated when one considers the predominance of studies that seek to elicit the voice of the child, using question-based research methods such as interviews or questionnaires. Also numerous research projects administer and evaluate initiatives to promote children's participation or elicit their perspectives. The majority of research projects focus on the teachers’ governance and encouragement of pupil participation. Consequently, research into pupil participation is predominantly based on adult intervention. These are guided by adults’ decisions about relevance or importance. The research reported herein differs from studies in the field of pupil participation by focusing on children's actions and interactions occurring spontaneously in the classroom during curricular activities. It approaches the issue from a different angle by portraying the child’s standpoint in determining his/her own participation. The research is complementary to existing studies in the field. Like other studies it recognises the importance of what children have to say and addresses the child's right to voice their opinion and have it taken into consideration. Unlike other studies, it throws light on ways of dealing with the child's participation rights pertaining to self-reliance and autonomy, including their right to conditions ensuring self-reliance and their right to freedom of expression, information and thought. It is anticipated that understanding children's engagement will support the search for appropriate intervention, so that participation can be based and built upon children's current participatory achievements.


3

Theoretical Context Theoretical support for children taking a participative role in education can be drawn from social constructivism, sociocultural and social cognitive psychology. These discern the child's actions and influence on the social world to have equivalent importance to the actions and influence of others. Social constructivist and sociocultural theories are directly pertinent to children's engagement, in their theories about the acquisition of knowledge. Concerning the child's actions, they make two interrelated propositions that knowledge is constructed in the minds of individuals and is subject to their interpretation. The theories emphasise the active and subjective processes involved in understanding (Watson, 2000). Concerning the social world, they assume knowledge develops in social contexts. The theories emphasise interactive (and language) processes. Particularly influential theorists in these fields are Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner, who collectively provoked an appreciation that the child is active as well as the environment (Valsiner, 1993, cited in Cole & Wertsch, 1996). Social cognitive theories, on the other hand, are pertinent to children's engagement because they further an appreciation of the influence of subjective processes on action in the social world. They consider how individuals make sense of situations in ways that are personal to them (Williams & Burden, 1997). Their propositions are founded on the proposal that people can exercise influence over what they do (Bandura, 1997). In the classroom context, the child's perceptions and influence are considered along with those of the teacher. The social cognitive theories have underlying principles that mirror the active, subjective and interactive tenets of social constructivist theory (c.f. table 2). Whilst social constructivist and sociocultural theories appear to apply the tenets to knowledge acquisition, social cognitive theories apply them to cognitive/affective determinants of actions (e.g. motivation, attitudes, and beliefs) and associated processes (e.g. problem-solving, self-regulation). MethodologyThe research focused on children's participatory actions and interactions during day-to-day curricular activities within the primary mainstream classroom. It was conducted over a four-month period, with seven child participants1, and four teacher participants, drawn from two contrasting school settings.Research Strategy and Principles

1 Child participants were in key stage 2, aged between 8 and 10. They had been identified by the school as having learning difficulties and were on the special needs register between stage 2 - 5.


4

A collective case-study (Stake, 1998) was chosen, for its appropriateness in seeking to understand a research issue rather than a particular case. Individuals were studied to obtain a depth of understanding, whilst several cases were studied to gain access to different perspectives, providing a breadth of understanding. The collective case-study was chosen because of its inherent flexibility (Robson, 1993), to enable a mercurial approach to be adopted that allowed for the constantly changing circumstances within the field. Its unstructured nature enabled the researcher to respond to whatever emerged and to account for insights that could not be predetermined. It was also chosen to enable the researcher to identify the complexity and ‘embeddedness’ of social truths (Adelman et al., 1980 cited in Bassey, 1999). Thereby, emergent factors and dimensions were not detached from the conditions in which they arose (Shipman, 1997). An exploratory approach was taken. This was eclectic to allow for the dynamic, transactional nature of the setting that required a balance between being proactive and reactive. The approach was iterative to give sufficient time for the study to develop, so that events could reoccur and patterns emerge. It was inductive, to further an understanding rather than confirm existing insights (May, 1997). New findings were used to shed light on previous findings to enable the discovery of new insights. Finally, the approach was dialectical by seeking many perspectives, to elaborate upon the social context, and by utilising multiple sources of evidence, to understand the actions and interactions of different participants. Research QuestionsThe research questions were intended to assimilate and reflect a sequential, emergent approach. They were as follows: 1. How do children with learning difficulties interact with curricular activities?This question refers to the investigative focus of the research, the study of children's actions and interactions in daily tasks for the core curricular subjects and ICT. 2. What factors appear salient in children's interactions?This question seeks to identify factors arising from the data collected (rather than look for pre-identified issues). 3. How can emergent factors be categorised?This question reflects the arranging and consolidating of emergent factors, in ways that did not detract from the complexity and variety of what emerged. 4. How can the emergent categories contribute to an understanding of how children with learning difficulties engage in curricular activities?


5

This question reflects the ultimate aim of the study, to address an understanding of engagement by using the emergent categories. Research Design The research was designed as a tri-staged2 process. The first stage was descriptive of the school and classroom context and planned as a period of familiarisation. For the researcher, it allowed time to become habituated and build a knowledge base from which classroom interactions could be interpreted later. It gave the participants time to become accustomed to the researcher’s ongoing presence and methods of data collection. This enabled trust to be established before transactional data was collected. The second stage focused on classroom interactions during the delivery and execution of curricular tasks. The study sought clarification by gaining access to the participants’ perspectives. The final stage was intended to occur out of the field. It was planned to be reflective, as salient aspects of the data were identified and categorised.Methods of Data Collection Methods were chosen on the basis of appropriateness in seeking to study the actions (non-verbal) and interactions (verbal) of the child in the social world. The choice of the research methods was also motivated by a desire to be informed rather than have things affirmed (Fisher, 1996), ensuring that findings were not rooted in prior assumptions. Methods were chosen to enable the researcher to attend to events as they occurred within the classroom and to listen in on the children’s interactions during their engagement in curricular activities. There were three main methods of data collection: observation, dialogue and documentation. These are summarised on table 1 on page 7.

ObservationStage

Specific method applied Description

1 Participant-as-observer3 Descriptive, narrative account - all subjects, days, school events

2Observer-as-participant4

Classroom-based, core subjects & ICT

Priority observations4 Contextual account of an individual’s actions

DialogueStage


2 Adapted from Carspecken (1996), who proposed five stages for conducting critical qualitative research. 3 Cohen, Manion, & Morrison (2000)4 Carspecken (1996)


6

1

Impromptu discussions Informal comments made to researcher

Planned discussions With teachers before & after lessons

Focused interview5 With teachers. To ascertain background information about teacher, child participants, class routines & organisation

Transcript feedback Fieldnotes written up for teachers to comment

Objectives sheet Weekly information sheet, for head & teachers (including aims, documentation/time requests)

2

Tape-recorded interactions

Table-top recorder used in core subjects/ICT

Contextual discussions With children during lessons (as feasible)To establish thoughts & reflections

Question based discussions

With teachers before, during, after lessons To establish attributed meaning & reflections

Unstructured interviewWith teachers To explore approach to teaching & learning

Impromptu discussions Initiated by researcher or othersTo address gaps in understanding

3 Follow-up interview With teachers To explore teachers’ approach Involving sorting/ordering of emergent issues

DocumentationStage


Stage 1

School documents Action plan, aims, rules, prospectus, handbook Ofsted report for contextual background

Curriculum documents Class timetable To arrange/manage research process

2

Policy documents Policy, planning, lesson objectivesFor background information

SEN documents Policy, child's file, IEP, ALSFor information

Lesson documentsChild's work, worksheets, textbookFor contextual information & to cross-check with data

Table 1: Summary of Research Methods at Stages of the Research Process

5 May (1997)


7

Data Analysis Analysis began in the field to generate questions that, in turn, guided further insights. It enabled observations and interpretations to be confirmed by participants and by further observations in the field.Interactional data were transcribed verbatim and different data sources synthesised in order to triangulate the data and represent the child's simultaneous actions and interactions, alongside those of other parties. Different methods of analysis were then tested and those that predefined or imposed considerations on the data were rejected. The transcripts for each case were annotated separately, keeping the notes in context. A process of ‘free association’ was used recording all things that sprung to mind (Dey, 1993). Thus contextual knowledge (accumulated through time in the field) became integrated. Knowledge was used as an ‘interpretive framework’ (Fetterman, 1998), to explain participants’ actions. The annotations were sorted based on salient factors, pertaining to the child and the teacher, and then by themes. The annotations were then used to elaborate upon the social event. This involved describing, explaining and interpreting the child's actions (Wertsch, 1998), as a process of ‘thick description’. It entailed moving between data sources. Evolving interpretations were checked against the child's reflections, teacher comments (analysis data) and perspectives (interview data), as well as school expectations (documented data). Subsequently, the descriptive events, known as episodes were analysed for similarities and differences across all child participants. The similarities were identified by commonalities amongst salient factors and the differences were then categorised by type. In merging both the themes (depicting the types of children's engagement) and episodes (depicting the characteristics of children's action), the findings emerged.FindingsIt was found that children's actions or interactions were salient where they did not correspond with others’ requests, actions, ideas, timing or expectations. On such occasions, their actions and interactions differed from those around them, being unique in certain ways. Differences were found between episodes and these were categorised by commonalities amongst themes. There were three distinct categories - resource engagement, focus of engagement and engagement in the task agenda. Resource engagement, concerned the children’s self-initiated use of social and physical resources in their environment when carrying out the task. Focus of engagement, incorporated factors concerned with the subject of


8

the children’s attention, which differed from others in their vicinity during the course of the task. Engagement in the task agenda concerned the differential nature of the children's responses to set curricular tasks.Within each category of engagement, differences were further categorised by commonalities amongst the characteristics of children's actions. The children's engagement could be described in three dimensions - what, when and how. What, concerned the nature of children's action. When, concerned the timing of children's actions. How refers to the children's approach, as they tackled curricular activities. Each category, with its associated dimensions is detailed below. 1) Resource Engagement What Children initiated the use of a variety of resources during their engagement in curricular tasks, whilst interacting with their physical and social environment. Children referred to physical resources (i.e. books, worksheets, wall-displays) of their own accord, without discernible prompts or instructions from others. Children initiated verbal interactions in their social environment when addressing task-relevant issues. Children sought to find out from others and convey to others. They sought confirmation, help, clarification, information, and equipment from others. Children conveyed their progress, ideas/opinions, findings, intentions, difficulty with the task, needs, and task-related information to others. There were variations in the purpose for which particular resources were utilised. Correlations were made over time, which linked resource purpose with particular people e.g. the special needs assistant (SNA) was used more to gather information, whereas peers were used more to impart information. Children rejected the use of some resources that had been provided by the teacher and acquired alternatives for themselves. Also they did not always employ resources for their designated or anticipated purpose, altering their use whilst addressing teacher requirements. When Children initiated resource use at times that did not always correspond with the classroom activities. Accordingly, children engaged social resources verbally before, during or after particular proceedings, when their attention was called for, or required, elsewhere. Children conveyed their ideas to an SNA before contributing to class discussions or before recording their ideas on paper. They addressed matters of concern with peers or the SNA during the teachers’ delivery of instructions or class discussions.


9

Children also sought and conveyed information after instructions to the contrary. Resources were also initiated as and when they were available. The teacher and SNA were called upon whenever they were in close proximity. The SNA's presence or absence had a bearing on the number of initiations instigated by certain children. How Children directed the way resources were accessed and utilised when deriving task responses with initiations being either verbal or non-verbal. Children varied the form of address used either questioning or declaring, not always using resources solely for instructional purposes but also for imparting information. Children typically used declamatory statements to convey to others and questions to seek from others. Variations were also noted in the type of data children communicated to others. Children raised ideas that challenged those of others or ones that others did not consider relevant. They asked specific questions (naming the particular operation with which they encountered difficulty) or general questions (seeking undefined assistance).Children also varied their approach by being either direct or indirect in resource interactions. Most commonly children used direct approaches, enquiring openly about an issue requiring resource assistance. Indirect approaches were common to certain interactions, where children and others executed actions without requiring verbal commands or explanations from each other. Children’s indirect initiations, errors, hesitations or non-verbal initiations were taken by others to be a cue to entice support and visa versa as a cue to respond. 2) Focus of engagement What Children often held a separate focus of engagement to that called for by the teacher or task or attended to by peers. At such moments, children either attended to separate issues rather than those demanded by the teacher/task (discrepant focus) or attended to separate issues feasibly at the same time as those demanded by the teacher/task (additional focus). A discrepant focus was discernible where children's actions or interactions had consequences for their ability to listen or interact subsequently. Children attended to certain issues related to the task, which at times did not correspond to the teachers’ instructions or delivery of information. Children attended to the quality (e.g. accuracy, presentation) and quantity of their work (e.g. proportion completed, rate of progress, pace) recurrently. Of their own accord, children also attended to items and topics unrelated to


10

the task, which neither related nor conformed to instructions or expectations. Often support materials or items in their vicinity became the focus of children's off-task attention. Certain children attended to off-task topics repeatedly, in particular discussing their health and stationery equipment. An additional focus typically involved non-verbal actions. It could not be discerned that this affected the child's attention to the speakers’ message. Children attended to task-related issues in preparation for the activity being explained, involving the non-verbal organisation of materials. They also attended to issues unrelated to the task such as parts of their body, the actions of others, or physical items (e.g. wall displays, apparel, equipment, window). When The timing of children's focus emerged as salient where it did not correspond with task requirements and/or the teacher or peers’ focus. The prominence of participants timing hinged upon occurrences in the classroom. During the task introduction, children concurrently attended to separate issues and alternated their focus of attention. The children regulated the proportion of time spent on one issue compared with another and the regularity with which issues were attended to. During task execution, the focus of children's attention did not always relate to the task instructions, since they addressed alternative issues in the time allocated to the task. Their attention alternated between task-related and unrelated matters. Children prioritised issues by time, regulating the order in which issues were addressed, the proportion of time allocated to particular issues, and the frequency with which particular issues were engaged. During the task plenary, children's attention alternated between teacher-directed events and other matters (whether task-related or unrelated). Certain children regularly engaged in task-related issues in the time allocated for plenary activities (e.g. discussion, feedback, marking). How Children directed the way issues were prioritised and addressed, in ways that proved either supportive or superfluous to the task. Physical items were addressed non-verbally, commonly alongside external demands. Children supported their task by organising materials prior to instructions to start; yet they also made equipment the subject of off-task attention. Personal matters were addressed verbally and had a distracting influence upon task endeavours. Children attended to people, largely in their vicinity, both verbally and non-verbally for task-related and unrelated purposes. Children designated certain task undertakings as requiring attention prior to (or rather than) tackling issues identified by the teacher.


11

Focusing on discrepant issues had an effect upon children's task approach and subsequent engagement in other classroom activities. Children instigated resource use, raising issues previously explained while their focus was diverted. They also used alternative strategies (e.g. copying) after being preoccupied during teacher explanations or instructions. The focus of children's attention had consequences for their participation in class activities, the instructions they undertook, the time devoted to the task, their work productivity, the punctuality of their response and their understanding of the purpose of the task. 3) Engagement in the task agendaWhat Children's responses to task requirements did not always conform or relate to the original instruction or their peers’ response. The children's responses either altered the extent of the task agenda or changed the process or outcome of the task. The extent of the task agenda was altered in the task introduction by selectively responding to certain teacher-provided opportunities and following certain instructions, but not others. They also altered its extent by instigating opportunities such as by calling out responses. During task execution, it was altered through the degree of task engagement (accomplishing more or less than instructed), the degree of task completion or by deciding on the quantity of work produced (without perceptible external influence). The task process was changed as children digressed from task instructions. Children explored the boundaries of the task, carrying out their own investigations rather than taking the word of their teacher or peer. Also they devised methods to organise and structure the task and track their own progress through its completion. The task outcome was altered by their response, where their solution to the task differed from the one accepted by the teacher. They offered atypical ideas in response to verbal questions or the written task. The form or design of their finished product did not always conform to instructions (though the children may have believed otherwise). When The timing of children's responses did not always conform or relate to the timing of instructions and/or their peers’ response. They differed in four ways. [1] Children undertook task-related action before receiving an instruction to do so, demonstrating foresight and predictive thinking. They recorded routine particulars (e.g. date, title) and assembled items of equipment (often without teacher awareness). [2] Children started or stopped the task before or after receiving instructions to do so. Certain children regularly worked beyond set time boundaries. [3] Children's speed


12

or rate of progress through the task was sometimes at variance with their peers or teacher. They worked either slower or faster than their peers or than the teacher appeared to anticipate through their actions or questions. [4] Children differed in the sequence of activities undertaken, relative to others. How Children employed techniques in the process of addressing task requirements and deriving an outcome to the task that were different to those instructed, encouraged or used by their peers. Certain techniques were initiated throughout the execution of subject-specific tasks of a similar nature. These were not observed across context. Several were systematically and methodically applied. Other ways of achieving something were utilised that traversed subject boundaries as children executed written tasks. These were not necessarily encouraged or prompted by others. Techniques were verbal (e.g. reading aloud questions before attempting to answer them) or non-verbal (e.g. using a finger to follow words on a page). Some techniques proved resistant to change by others, where irrespective of intervention children continued to apply different methods to those demonstrated or instructed. Other techniques did not conform to accepted task practice (e.g. writing down their peer or teachers’ answer). Certain techniques were also applied in conjunction with perceptible changes in the classroom context, such as in the teachers’ presence or in response to changes to the teachers approach. One child used noticeably different techniques in a lesson of two phases, one teacher-directed and one child-directed. They applied techniques in phase one to help maintain the teacher’s pace (e.g. ask content-specific question, omit instructions, convey misunderstanding), whilst in phase two they applied techniques to support them in realising their goal (e.g. ask design-specific questions, reject support, convey ideas). Interpretation of the FindingsThe findings reveal a multi-dimensional depiction of children's engagement, with categories that overview the types of engagement as well as those that describe engagement. This section of the paper considers how these emergent categories contribute to understanding of children's engagement. The three theoretical tenets, underpinning social constructivist and social cognitive theories, provide a structure by which findings were interpreted and a developing understanding of engagement addressed. As separate theoretical bodies, social constructivism and social cognitive psychology arguably emulate corresponding principles yet they approach them from different points of view.


13

The grounds for comparison and differences between their perspectives are summarised on table 2 below:

Social Constructivist/Socio-cultural Social Cognitive

Active

Children initiate actionThey select/transform/construct/ alter environmental information*

Children influence their actions†

Subjective

Children interpret informationTheir previous experiences/state of mind/capabilities affect their perceptions/understanding

Children form perceptions of themselves/others affecting their actions

Interactive

Children acquire knowledge within a social/cultural contextMeaning is co-constructed between individuals◊

Children are contributors to what happens to them: They are affected by others’ influence/perceptions Others are affected by the child's influence/perceptions

* After Bruner (1966) ◊ After Vygotsky (1981) † after Bandura (1997)Table 2: The Comparable Tenets of Social Constructivist/Socio-cultural & Social Cognitive TheoryAn understanding of engagement was found to benefit from applying each tenet in turn. An Active Dimension of EngagementIn seeking salient factors arising from the observable actions and audible interactions, factors were identified where children were seen to act and interact of their own accord, as initiators of action. These occasions were evident because there was a non-correspondence between the child's actions/interactions and the requests/actions of others. The children's initiations could be categorised, over viewing the different types of engagement. When analysed further, the children's initiations revealed the characteristics of their actions. It emerged that their initiations brought about change to the context of curricular delivery and task execution, in different ways (what, when and how). Children's


14

governance during task delivery had a transactional effect upon engagement, such that what they engaged in affected what they heard and what they heard affected what they engaged in. During task execution, children governed the nature of their action, the timing of their actions and the nature of their approach. Children thereby were influencers, not just of their actions, but also of the task context. A Subjective Dimension of Engagement Embodied within the subjective tenet are two interrelated considerations; what children bring to the context affects what they perceive and what they perceive influence how they act. Subjective factors were identified with respect to both considerations. Firstly reflected in (or conveyed through) their words and actions, was the child's task-related standpoint. Secondly, the children appeared to form perceptions about themselves, others or the task, which influenced their actions. These subjective elements offered plausible explanations for children's actions, a means to account for differences between children, and clarify why children interacted as they did. The children's personal interests and concerns were manifested in the questions they asked of others and the issues that captured and held their attention as individuals. They were also verbalised as preferences. Certain actions raised the issue of motivation, where children set and managed their own goals without perceptible external influence or reward. Children expressed their feelings about themselves or the task, which offered explanations for subsequent acts of sustained concentration or distraction. Children's interpretation of instructions, remarks and questions accounted for some differences in their task responses. Their answers also demonstrated their knowledge, skills and conceptual understanding. Children appeared to employ some strategies to compensate for their lack of understanding, such as observing others before responding or copying from peers. Prior experiences were reflected within certain repeated responses, for instance using rudimentary strategies that replicate elementary instruction. Experiences could also explain why children accurately predicted certain instructions. Forming self-perceptions of their capability to achieve appeared to be manifested in the frequency and nature of their initiations towards others. Some children regularly called upon others to make and approve task-based decisions, provide information, reassurance or confirmation. Occasionally help proved unnecessary. Forming perceptions of others was perceptible where children raised topics that others had asked about earlier. This appeared to signify that children kept the needs of others in mind, reporting what others needed as it became available. Task-concerns could also reflect the children's perceptions of others’


15

priorities (or expectations), if not their own perceptions of importance. Perceiving accuracy or neatness to be a priority may prompt them to repeatedly endeavour towards achieving those standards. An Interactive Dimension of EngagementThe interactive tenet embraces the reciprocal influence of the social, cultural context on children's engagement. This was identified on three levels. Firstly, children were influenced by others’ initiated action. Particularly prominent was the teachers’ approach. Variations in the amount of teacher talk and child input, the mode of delivery and lesson structures placed correspondingly different demands upon children in terms of listening and concentration, and had implications for their management of the task. Secondly, children's actions were influenced by the reaction of others. [a] Where children sought feedback, it was striking that others’ interpretation of their initiations and intentions was significant. The nature of feedback received was also noteworthy, since certain interactions enabled children to go beyond their requirements and explore or extend their understanding. In others however, the child's query did not get addressed. [b] Children received reactions from others (without them being sought). Children's actions were questioned and reproached where they lacked correspondence with instructions or proceedings. Accordingly, on occasions, children were questioned for attending to task matters without instructions. Such intervention could send disapproving messages about independent decision-making. Teachers raised issues in their interactions (e.g. presentation, spelling accuracy) that may have prompted children's subsequent endeavours, irrespective of the consequences on pace or quantity. [c] Teachers didn’t always comment though children's actions were discrepant. This perhaps indicated to children that the teacher found their action acceptable. Children regularly secured additional time on task in this way. Thirdly, the actions of children and others had a mutually influencing effect. Certain initiations repeatedly prompted others to respond affirmatively, raising the question of whether the regularity and type of interactions may have contributed to a mutual understanding between children and others. Some interactions exemplified a mutually influencing effect because one another’s interactions appeared to be understood by the other without the need for verbal explanation. In such cases both parties appeared to have an understanding of one another’s needs and/or intentions and apply this insight to interpret the non-verbal interactions of the other party. An implicit procedure could be inferred, based on this mutual understanding, which was consistent and routinely implemented over the course of the interaction.


16

Furthering an Understanding of Engagement Considering the each theoretical tenet in turn takes an understanding of engagement to this point. It does not account for all the findings. Further facets to the findings emerge in considering what the children's initiations signify. On one hand, there are those that demonstrate children's self-reliance, whilst on the other, there are those that denote children’s dependency on others. The theoretical tenets were then intermittently applied to advance an understanding of engagement. Certain initiations and forms of self-governance show that children thought independently and acted autonomously during task delivery and execution. There are sufficient grounds to back Wyness’s (2000) claim that research shows children to be competent social beings with an ability to control and govern their own work, its direction and progress. Children in the study exemplified lateral thinking, such as by employing resources that had not been provided. They demonstrated predictive thinking, such as by completing routine procedures before receiving instructions. Arguably children started thinking about how to proceed, before the teacher had finished the introduction. Children also signified self-assertiveness and self-management, such as by governing their approach despite instructions to the contrary. Other initiations and forms of self-governance signalled children's dependence on others. Children initiated more interactions in the presence of the SNA or teacher; rendering two counts on which dependency could be hypothesised. Firstly, was it that children did not think for themselves because they had somebody to ask instead? If so, children may have become less self-reliant and avoided autonomous decision-making in the presence of another. Secondly, was it that children were hindered from thinking for themselves because of another person’s presence and interactions? If so, children could have become accustomed to another person’s influence such that they developed perceptions of their inability to take responsibility for decisions and their consequences. Children also initiated more interactions for certain tasks, rendering dependency also possible on account of necessity. They appeared dependent upon others to execute specific demands of the task. The nature of children's interactions in the presence of the teacher (or SNA) reveals a tendency towards extrinsic (rather than intrinsic) decision-making. The frequency with which certain children engaged others to convey or seek approval/appraisal of task-based ideas exemplifies how routinely they passed responsibility for decisions to external parties. Also children asked questions seeking to know others’ decisions, such as whether they were ‘allowed’ or what ‘should’ be done, signifying that they perceived others to be responsible for those decisions or that they did not perceive themselves responsible for making decisions in another’s presence.


17

There are two emergent explanations of the children's apparent dependency on others. Firstly, that children form perceptions of themselves (and others) that effects their autonomy and secondly, that others influence children's autonomy. The Children's Influence on AutonomyChildren may well contribute to their lack of autonomy (as well as their autonomy), based on their perceptions of themselves (and others). Perceptions could work to inhibit autonomy, thus explaining their dependent actions.o Children could perceive others to be either more responsible or apt to make decisions. This could explain why they asked others to verify their creative and original ideas and decide what is right, appropriate and/or what is recorded, when required to make task-related decisions. Applying Bandura’s (1997) theory, children may have perceived that in the teacher’s presence they did not hold the power to originate actions, suggestive of them having a low self-efficacy. It could likewise indicate that children have come to accept that learning lies outside of their control in the teacher’s presence (Watson, 2000). o Children may hold perceptions of another’s role. Calling upon others to verify ideas and make decisions, could reflect that children perceive them to be ‘gatekeepers’ to the application of ideas. Children may then route decisions about appropriateness or accuracy via the parties who adjudicate their ideas before committing themselves to a decision. o Children could seek confirmation or help with decision-making to satisfy the perceived needs/requirements of others, and in doing so hinder autonomy. One teacher had stated a desire to gauge the SNA's reaction to the children's responses before choosing them to contribute to class-discussions. Those children could merely be conforming to this tacit ‘routine’, where the SNA was the gatekeeper to their verbal engagement. Routing contributions through the SNA may also increase the chance of getting their contributions recognised. The Influence of Others on AutonomyMany decisions were made on the children's behalf to support them in their work, because of their difficulties in learning. Some appeared to have mitigating influences upon children's autonomy. o The SNA made numerous decisions on children’s behalf. They determined the child's pace, approach, recordings, focus of attention and/or support requirements. They also took responsibility for aspects of work such as the retrieval and organisation of materials and/or identifying errors. The timing of their interventions, commanded a fluctuating focus of engagement, which sometimes rendered the teachers’ message incomplete. Paradoxically, whilst their interventions may have helped children


18

to utilise time more effectively, avoid deferment, extend their understanding, avoid errors and take an objective stance, children were precluded from collating all the information available, making decisions and addressing such issues autonomously. If over time children get accustomed to another person making decisions on their behalf (or utilising others’ support), they are less likely to make decisions for themselves (or without support). o Teacher-imposed decisions had implications for autonomous action. Children were more autonomous in their actions with more flexible lesson structures and less teacher-directed tasks. The choice of task was a factor, with some tasks presenting more opportunities to take responsibility, make choices and decisions than others. Teachers used structures for questioning the children that weren’t always necessary and moreover the structure appeared to suppress children's independent decision-making. Children worked through tasks at a faster rate than teachers anticipated, took different routes to achieve an answer and offered contradictory (yet equally plausible) responses. The structures teachers provide may be prompted by having, as Coupe O'Kane et al (1994) contends, a desire to protect children from failing. An Emerging Understanding of Children's EngagementIn conclusion, the research sought to further an understanding of children's engagement. It found two emerging features on which children's engagement could be understood. 1) At particular points in time, engagement emerged to be a demonstration of children’s autonomy and self-governance as well as their dependency on others. In this way, engagement is understood to be an entity, a means by which children's competence and dependence as social beings can be identified. Different types of engagement emerged by categorising their initiated actions and interactions and different dimensions to their engagement could be discerned by categorising the characteristics of their actions. These elements of the research findings demonstrate how both social and child-related factors contribute to the child's autonomy or lack of it. Children initiate and govern their actions and interactions, which in turn reflect their standpoint and perceptions, as subjective beings. However, children's actions are a response to external requirements posed by the curriculum and teacher. They depend on the teachers (and others) reaction and approaches, as initiators, governors and subjective beings in their own right. 2) Through time, engagement emerged to be a demonstration of children's learned ability. In this way, engagement is understood to be a process by which children become more knowledgeable about their classroom environment, through which they develop autonomous or dependent responses to external requirements that are applied consistently.


19

Across the types and elements of children's engagement identified, actions and interactions were repeated in response to comparable task demands. Not only was it evident that children utilised classroom procedures, routines and their previous experience (acquired over time) to direct their responses but also over time children demonstrated their own customs and strategies for completing tasks. The research shows how both children and teachers can develop ways of being that either facilitates children's autonomy or reinforces their dependency. Bibliography o Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control. New

York: W. H. Freeman and company.o Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational

Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.o Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.o Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical Ethnography in Educational

Research. A theoretical and practical guide. London: Routledge.

o Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). London: Routledge / Falmer.

o Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the Individual-Social Antinomy in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250-246.

o Coupe O'Kane, J., Porter, J., & Taylor, A. (1994). Meaningful Content and Contexts for Learning. In B. Smith (Ed.), Taking Control. Enabling People with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton.

o CYPU. (2001). Learning to Listen. Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People. London: CYPU.

o DES. (1983). Circular 1/83. London: HMSO.o DES. (1989). Discipline in Schools - Report of the Committee of

Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. London: HMSO.o Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis. A User-Friendly

Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge.o DfES. (2001). Code of Practice on the Identification and

Assessment of Pupils with Special Educational Needs. London: DfES.

o DfES. (2002a). The Education Act 2002. London: HMSO.o DfES. (2002b). Listening to Learn - An Action Plan for the

Involvement of Children and Young People. London: DfES.o Dyson, A. (2001). Special Needs Education as the Way to

Equity: An Alternative Approach. Support for Learning, 16(3), 99-104.

o Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography. Step by Step (2nd ed. Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

o Fielding, M. (2001). Editorial. FORUM for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education, 43(2).


20

o Fisher, J. (1996). Starting from the Child? Teaching and Learning from 4 to 8. Buckingham: Open University Press.

o Flekkoy, M. G., & Kaufman, N. H. (1997). The Participation Rights of the Child. Rights and Responsibilities in Family and Society. London: Jessica Kingsley.

o Health, D. o. (1989). Children Act. London: Stationery Office.o May, T. (1997). Social Research. Issues, Methods and Process

(2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.o Nations, U. (1989). Conventions on the Rights of the Child.

Geneva: UN.o Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research. A Resource for Social

Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell.o Rogoff, B. (1996). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive

Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

o Russell, P. (1996). Listening to Children with Disabilities and Special Educational Needs. In V. Varma (Ed.), The Voice of the Child. A Handbook for Professionals. London: Falmer.

o Sherwin, M. (1996). The Law in Relation to the Wishes and Feelings of the Child. In V. Varma (Ed.), The Voice of the Child. A Handbook for Professionals: Falmer.

o Shipman, M. D. (1997). The Limitations of Social Research (4th ed.). London: Longman.

o Stake, R. E. (1998). Case Studies. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. London: Sage.

o Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe.

o Watson, J. (2000). Constructive instruction and learning difficulties. Support for Learning, 15(3), 134-140.

o Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

o Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

o Wyness, M. G. (2000). Contesting Childhood. London: Falmer.


21

bera conference - university of leeds · web viewparticularly influential theorists in these fields...

Documents