A case-study of interactions between two students with special educational needs and

their teachers, teacher-aides, and peers in an inclusive primary school setting.

Elshke Chadinha, Gaye Tyler-Merrick & Lawrence Walker College of Education

University of Canterbury Sixth Educational Psychology Forum

Hamilton 2-3 December 2013

1

Introduction Special Education Policy (MoE)Success for All – Every School, Every Child (MoE, 2010)

New Zealand Disability Strategy (2001).

“When schools are demonstrating inclusive practice, they adapt to fit the student rather than making the student adapt to fit the school” (MOE, 2013).

“..people who have special educational needs (whether because of disability or otherwise) have to same right to enrol and receive education in state schools as people who do not” (Section 8 Education Act, 1989).

2

Introduction National Administration Guidelines 1 (2009) “Each board,

through the principal and staff, is required to develop and implement teaching and learning programmes to provide all students in years 1-10 with opportunities to achieve for success in all areas of the National Curriculum.”

National Education Goals 2 and 7 (2009) state that providing “Equality of educational opportunity for all New Zealanders, by identifying and removing barriers to achievement.” and that “Success in their learning for those with special needs by ensuring that they are identified and receive appropriate support”.

3

Introduction An important factor which influences student learning is the

type and number of high quality interactions - especially 1-1 interactions between the teacher, teacher aide and students .

The type of training teachers and teacher aides have can affect the quality of these interactions (Cameron, Cook, & Tankersley, 2012).

Teachers and TA influence peer interactions – need to teach social interactions between peers & students with SEN.

Simply placing a student with SEN in a classroom will not automatically result in inclusion for the student (Terpstra & Tamura, 2008).

4

Introduction

Teachers gave more task-related interactions and more negative feedback. Limited use of praise with all students (Chow & Kasari, 1999).

Students with SEN receive mostly 1:1 interactions from teacher-aides (Cameron, Cook, & Tankersley, 2012; Logan & Malone, 1998 ).

Students with Down Syndrome had fewer interactions than their typical peers and that the interactions they did receive tended to be more negative (Rietveld, 1989).

Most 1:1 interactions focus on academic interactions by teacher. TA used more prompts and organised materials (Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Webster, Koutsoubou, & Bassett (2010).

5

Introduction

• Teacher-aides and students with special needs have their own “island” in the classroom - excluded from the classroom culture as well as the learning activities – this action negatively influences peer interaction and is a barrier to inclusion (Causton-Theoharis, & Malmgren, 2005; Giangreco & Broer, 2005).

• Some teachers do not include students with special needs in the social life of the classroom (Education Review Office, 2010; Ward, 2011).

6

Research question

What are the types and the number of interactions that occur between two students with special educational needs (ORS funded) and their teacher, teacher-aide and peers in an inclusive classroom setting?

7

Method Participants

ORS funded students John: Aged 9 years, 0 month, Year 4 , Autism, Buddy system

in place for a.m. break. Jane: Aged 12 years, 1 months, Year 6 ; Global Delay PLUS – their Teachers, Teacher Aides and peersSetting Inclusive primary school setting – Christchurch Class Roll: John = 28 Jane = 30Decile: 7Ethics: Approved by UC-EHEC

8

Method Case study design

Interactions - Behaviour Codes Developed (based on Rietveld,1989)

• Types of interactions identified and defined (n = 12 for classroom and n = 9 for playground).

Data Collection & Analysis Classroom 12 X 20 minute video recordings during

curriculum activities (interactive activities – developmental time, reading & maths).

Playground - 12 x 15 minute lunch time direct observations

All interactions coded via frequency or duration recordings 9

Method Reliability

100% IOA for classroom observations 97% IOA for playground observations

Procedures:Classroom: During interactive activities – set up video and let to play. Play-time: Researcher observed & recorded child unobtrusively in play ground.Teacher, Teacher Aide, target student and peers all requested to “carry on as usual”

10

Method Observation codes

Classroom interactions Playground

11

1. Instruction (I)

2. Behavioural (B)

3. Social (Instructional social and non-instructional social)

4. Academic (instructional academic and non-instructional academic)

5. Prompt (P)

6. Praise (general or specific).

7. Closed question (CQ)

8. Open question (OQ)

9. Negative comments (NC)

10. Negative nonverbal (NNV)

11. Positive verbal (PV)

12. Positive nonverbal (PNV)

1. Unoccupied behaviour

2. Onlooker

3. Solitary play

4. Parallel play

5. Associative play

6. Co-operative play

7. Inappropriate interaction

8. Initiating/sustaining interaction with adult

9. Adult initiating/sustaining interaction with child

Results –John

12

Results –John

13

Results -John

14

Results - Jane

15

Results -Jane

16

Results - Jane

17

Summary Results

• TA interacted most of the time with both students.• Interactions very limited with teacher and peers. • Interactions were mainly procedural or academic instructions.• Some evidence of peer initiated interactions in class but very

limited.• John received both positive/negative interactions. • Jane received more positive than negative social interactions.

18

Summary ResultsClassroom

John spent majority of his time with the teacher aide, some time with the teacher and limited time in group situations.

Jane spent most of her time 1:1 with teacher-aide. Limited to no interaction in whole class or in group situations.

John: when teacher-aide not present some increase in interaction with teacher.

Jane: when teacher-aide not present increased interactions with peers.

19

Summary ResultsPlayground

• John had very limited social interactions with peers. • Buddy system in place for John – Peer interaction was more

teacher-like than peer–like.• John acting inappropriately resulted in removal from buddy

system for 6 observations - rather than be taught the necessary skills to use.

• Jane’s peers came and played with her.• Physically difficult for Jane to join in with some activities -

removed herself to on-looker play.• Teachers redirected Jane to play with peers if she wanted to

socialise with them. Except for one occasion - reliever at school and interacted with Jane all of lunch.

20

Conclusions

• Supports to and adds to the limited literature on this topic. Given NZ education policy for inclusion – lack of research.

• Most interactions with TA.• Not high quality interactions – instructional/ procedural /

academic. • Very limited interactions with peers (class and play ground). • No peer / teacher engagement – social activities.

21

Future DirectionsAnalyse the teacher data: their knowledge of SE

policy/procedures in school and its implication to their everyday teaching/practice.

Very small study so replication is required.Develop PD programme for Teachers and Teachers Aides on how

to increase meaningful interactions both social and academic for students with SEN and their classroom peers.

Compare interactions with typical peers/SEN. Access academic records to make links whether or

not academic interactions were beneficial in academic growth.

22

Questions

23

References • Cameron, D., Cook, B., & Tankersley, M. (2012). An analysis of the different patterns of 1:1

interactions between educational professionals and their students with varying abilities in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(12), 1335-1354.

• Chapman, R., Larsen, S., & Parker, M. (1979). Interactions of first grade teachers with learning disordered children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(4), 20-25.

• Chow, V., & Kasari, C. (1999). Task-related interactions among teacher and exceptional, at-risk, and typical learners in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 226-232.

• ERO (2010). Including students with high needs. Wellington.

• Giangreco, M., & Broer, S. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26.

24

References • Logan, K., and Malone, M. (1998). Comparing instructional contexts of students with and without

severe disabilities in general education classrooms. The Council for Exceptional Children, 64:3, 343-358.

• Ministry of Education (2010). National administration guidelines. Retrieved from: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/EducationInNewZealand/EducationLegislation/TheNationalAdministrationGuidelinesNAGs.aspx. 12/02/2013

• Ministry of Education (2010). National education goals. Retrieved from: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/EducationInNewZealand/EducationLegislation/TheNationalEducationGoalsNEGs.aspx. 12/02/2013

• Ministry of Education (2013). Our education system: Special education. Wellington. Retrieved from: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation.aspx. 26/09/2012.

• Ministry of Social Development (2001). National Disability Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.odi.govt.nz/nzds/. 12/02/2013

25

References

•Rubie-Davies, C., Blatchford, P., Webster, R., Koutsoubou, M., & Bassett, P. (2010). Enhancing learning? A comparison of teacher and teaching assistant interactions with pupils. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21(4), 429-449.

•Rietveld, C. (1989). An evaluation of 7 to 12 year old children with Down's Syndrome in home and school settings: A follow-up study of children from the Christchurch early intervention programme. Christchurch, Education Department - University of Canterbury. 89-1.

•Terpstra, J., & Tamura, R. (2008). Effective social interaction strategies for inclusive settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(5), 405-411.

•Ward, A. (2011). Let's Talk about Teacher Aides. Kairaranga, 12(1), 43-50.

26