Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
‘Using Graphic Symbols’
A presentation by Louise Greenstock, PhD Student - Speech and Language Therapy Division
Objectives
Introduce the research Introduce the research context Consider qualitative research standards Provide a vision of the outcomes of the
research Talk about some interesting early findings
The Research
What is this research about? Why is it needed? Has it been investigated before? What are the research questions? How did I collect data and address these
questions? What will the outcomes be?
Literature and Context
Philosophy and Methodology
Multi-disciplinary
Exploratory research often draws upon more than one research area or discipline in order to bring a number of ideas together in a unique way
Considering a new research area requires careful selection of a number of contributing schools of thought and existing disciplinary areas
What is the research about? Graphic symbols –
“A graphical representation of a referent (real or abstract) usually presented individually or alongside other graphic symbols, traditionally used to support face to face communication but with other emerging purposes” (Greenstock, 2007, p.13)
Used by speech and language therapists and educational professionals
As usage increases more children have access to symbols
Lack of information and training available to practitioners
Do practitioners work together when they use symbols? COLLABORATION
Symbols
Picture Communication Symbols©1981-2008 by Mayer-Johnson LLC. All rights reserved worldwide. Used with permission
Other symbol sets include: Makaton, Widgit Literacy, Blissymbolics
Missing link
Symbols Collaboration
This is what the Government wants But does it work
when practitioners use symbols?
Ask the practitioners who use symbols
LiteratureSymbols
• Types of symbols
• Augmentative & Alternative Communication (AAC)
• Symbol users
• Use(s) of symbols
• Symbol selection and implementation
• Visual aids and autism
• Symbolic development
Collaboration• What is collaboration?
• Multi-agency partnerships, multi-disciplinary working
• Joined-up services
• Defining conditions for & barriers against
• Inter-professional working & education
• Ways of working, values and beliefs
What are the experiences and attitudes of practitioners working in Foundation Stage school settings around the use of graphic symbols?
What do practitioners think about the way graphic symbols are being used currently?
How consistent is graphic symbol use across the Foundation Stage, what implications does this have?
What is guiding/governing current graphic symbols use?
What experiences have practitioners had of working together when using graphic symbols?
Literature Research Questions
A word about inclusion …. ‘The drive for inclusion’ is a current socio-
political theme (or debate) that cannot be ignored in this research
This research touches upon practitioners’ experiences of the drive for ‘educational inclusion’
The wider context of social inclusion is also relevant
Research Context
Political agenda
Matrix of contextual themes Educational inclusion Social inclusion Demands on the Children’s Workforce Education and Health – integrated services Inter-professional learning / working
Philosophy & Strategy Exploratory (a new or under-researched area) Experiences, meanings, making sense of the world Phenomenological & interpretive Need for reflexivity
Experiences of practitioners neglected Research literature inaccessible to those it is
relevant to Giving a voice to those who use symbols An interpretation of the participants’ lived
experiences
Qualitative Research Assumptions Glogowska and Campbell; “Marshall and Rossman
(1995) describe the ‘unique strengths’ of the qualitative paradigm ‘for the research that is exploratory and descriptive ….. that searches for a deeper understanding of the participant's lived experiences of the phenomena.” (2000, p.392)
Schratz (1993); “the original voices from the field become the ‘disembodied’ voices in the discourse of quantitative research” (1993, p. 1)
Qualitative Research Requirements Yardley (2000);
sensitivity to context (social and cultural) commitment and rigour (thorough and systematic) transparency and coherence (be explicit and concise) impact and importance (disseminate findings)
Researcher must be reflexive and generate an honest and accurate ‘audit trail’
Methodology – Sampling & Ethics Sampling (purposive &
homogenous) Practitioners working in FS
school settings Experience of using graphic
symbols
All schools within research region approached
Sampling until ‘saturation’
Ratios in the population
Ethics NHS
Teachers 15
Early Years Practitioners (EYPs)
22
Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs)
16
One year & lots of hard work!
Methodology – Data Collection Semi-structured interviews (standardised interview framework
used) In-depth, relatively small sample (n = 53)
Pring (2005); “interviews … objectives are normally to understand the experiences of those interviewed rather than collect data that is strictly representative of the population” (2005, p.183)
“Complete coverage is not possible, or advantageous” (Wild, 2005)
Time consuming, complete attention of researcher BUT
Information-rich Meanings can be negotiated Issues can be explored
Analytical Philosophy Qualitative Data Analysis Phenomenology: “a profoundly reflective
inquiry into human meaning” (Van Manen, M., 2002)
Looking for meaning in the transcripts Listening to the participants ‘lived experiences’ Thematic analysis
Bracketing (phenomenological reduction)
Managing the Analysis Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis
(CAQDAS) QSR NVivo2 – qualitative data management tool
Mastery of the software part of research process
Researcher guides the analysis, don’t let the software lead you
‘Journal’ the process
Analytical Method
Engaging with each transcript individually (coding down)↕
Identifying and testing categories (coding up)↓
Seeking evidence for emergent themes↓
Testing and considering alternatives↓
Conceptual linking and building theory↓
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Coding
Early Findings – Categories Emerging ‘Experiences of using symbols for range of purposes (specific and general)’
‘Using symbols with children with specific needs (applicable to more/all children?)’
‘Children’s understanding of symbols (assessment & developmental progression)’
‘Importance of consistency when using symbols’
‘Training in the use of symbols’
‘Practitioners’ experiences of working collaboratively when they use symbols’
‘Experiences of using symbols for range of purposes (specific and general)’ Visual timetables (helping children understand what’s
happening)
Developing choice-making
Labelling resources and the environment
PECS (picture exchange communication system)
Symbols for rules and expectations (e.g. ‘good listening’)
‘Using symbols with children with specific needs (applicable to more/all children?)’
Symbols used to support: Children with autism Children with English as an additional language Children with learning difficulties Children with physical difficulties Children with specific communication difficulties ‘New children’
A number of participants said they believe symbols areuseful for ‘all children’
‘Children’s understanding of symbols (assessment & developmental progression)’ Children’s understanding of representational relationships
varies A proposed hierarchy of representational items
widely accepted and acknowledged (objects –photos – symbols – signs/speech/written word)
Use of symbols should come at appropriate stage of development
SLTs believe development should be assessed
‘Importance of consistency when using symbols’
Practitioners generally share the belief that
symbol use should be consistent within schools Practitioners should use the same symbol sets Symbols should be presented in the same ways Practitioners should know what other professionals in
the school are using (but are sometimes unaware)
‘Training in the use of symbols’
Most graduate practitioners had not experienced training
about symbols in degree courses Many educational practitioners had not had any
training in the use of symbols Many educational practitioners would like training Some SLTs deliver symbols training in schools Knowledge of using of symbols was something that was
‘picked up’ or learnt from observing others
‘Practitioners’ experiences of working collaboratively when they use symbols’ Some SLTs feel that they are seen as ‘symbol experts’ Some SLTs do not feel their knowledge about symbols is
maximised in schools Educational practitioners referred to very positive
working relationships with SLTs SLTs expressed difficulties in ensuring symbols are
implemented in schools Working relationships are important, building trust Being based in the school supports collaboration Most SLTs are not in schools all the time
Quotes
“… but you can’t just think, ‘I’m going to put symbols in and
then that’s going to be effective’, you have to think about
<um> the reasons why … that child may be wanting to use
the symbols, you have to think about the level that they’re
at, as in, ‘are symbols going to be effective?’ <Um> Are
the people that are using the symbols … trained up to use
them with that child?”
SLT 1.4 (Paragraph 69)
“… if you say to a teacher you need to be employing these
strategies or giving them advice, they can quite rightly turn
round to you and say, ‘you’ve never done this with thirty
children, it’s different’”
SLT1.5 (Paragraph 26)
“You can’t be a specialist in everything”
T8 (Paragraph 94)
Theoretical Outcomes End result: A set of themes which are conceptually
linked to form a theoretical framework encompassing the researcher’s unique interpretation of the data
What would be most useful to research population and target audience?
Academic research community, practitioners working with young children
Giving practitioners: A ‘voice’ Access to research about their profession Stimulate positive change & further inquiry
IMPROVING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
Every Child Matters ....
References Dallal, G. (1998) The Little Handbook of Statistical Practice. url:
http://www.tufts.edu/~dallal//LHSP.HTM (accessed 10/10/2007)
Glogowska, M., and Campbell, R. (2000) Investigating parental views of involvement in pre-school speech and language therapy, International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 35 (3), 391-405
Greenstock, L. (2007) MPhil – PhD Transfer Report. De Montfort University
Pring, T (2005) Research Methods in Communication Disorders, London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Schratz, M. (ed.) Qualitative voices in educational research, London: The Falmer Press
Van Manen, M. (2002) Phenomenology Online. url: http://www.phenomenologyonline.com (accessed 2702/2008)
Wild, L. (2005) Qualitative Research Social Methods (PowerPoint presentation). http://people.bath.ac.uk. Accessed 25/02/2008
Yardley, L. (2000) Dilemmas in qualitative health psychology, Psychology and Health, 15, 215-228
