Beyond knowledge: An insight into the practice of a ... · Ruth Cynthia Burnett BEcon Uni Qld, Dip....

Beyond knowledge: An insight into the practice of a learning support teacher

Thesis submitted by

Ruth Cynthia Burnett

BEcon Uni Qld, Dip. Teach Christchurch, MEd, QUT

June 2004

For the degree of Doctor of Education

in the Centre for Innovation in Education

Queensland University of Technology

288 credit points

FACUL TV OF EDUCATION

ADMISSION TO THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

CANDIDATE'S NAME: Ms Ruth Burnett

CENTRE/RESEARCH CONCENTRATION: Centre for Innovation in Education

PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR:

ASSOCIATE SUPERVISOR:

THESIS TITLE:

Dr Tania Asp land

Dr lan Macpherson

Beyond Knowledge: An Insight into the Practice of a Learning Support Teacher

The above-named candidate has fulfilled the requirements of the rules for the Doctor of Education degree; the standard of the candidate's work is satisfactory to the Faculty Academic Board (after considering the results in all units and the reports of all examiners); the candidate has otherwise complied with the provisions of all statutes and other applicable rules and is, therefore, eligible to be admitted to the degree of Doctor of Education.

Course Coordinator .. J�� . .............................. Date . . -:J . • . • . • . . . . .

Chair, Higher Degrees Research Committee ....

Chair, Faculty Academic Board . . A.

g:research/thesis processing/ed11/admcert

Statement of Access

I, the undersigned, the author of this thesis, understand that Queensland University

of Technology will make it available for use within the University Library and, by

microfilm or other means, allow access to users in other approved libraries. All

users consulting this thesis will have to sign the following statement:

In consulting this thesis I agree not to copy or closely paraphrase it in whole or in

part without written consent of the author; and to make proper public written

acknowledgement for any assistance which I have o btained from it.

Beyond this, I do not wish to place any restriction on access to this thesis.

QUT Verified Signature

ii

Abstract

Increasingly, schools are being asked to meet the challenges of providing inclusive

classrooms for all children. Inclusion is no longer about special education for a

special group of students. lt is about school improvement in order to bring about

the changes that are needed to classroom practices to ensure the improvement of

student learning outcomes. Inclusion is no longer a policy initiative. Rather it has

been transformed to become a process that moves a school towards inclusive

practices that will result in school improvement, heightened student learning

outcomes and greater opportunities for all students to gain equal access to

education.

This study focuses on the challenge of diversity as it translates into implementing

inclusive practices across two secondary school contexts. I have undertaken this

research in my role as a Learning Support Teacher over a period of five years.

Central to my research is a constructivist ontology and a practice epistemology that

aligns with a practitioner research methodology of action research.

Seven generalisable propositions have emerged from this research that inform the

strategies I am using to more easily accommodate legislated inclusivitiy.

These propositions include:

1. School communities need to share a common understanding of equity.

2. The school principal must provide overt leadership in moving towards an

inclusive school culture.

3. A whole-school approach is needed to narrow the gap between inclusion

rhetoric and classroom practice.

4. Pedagogical reform is the most effective strategy for catering for diverse

student learning needs.

5. Differentiating curriculum is achieved when collaborative planning teams

develop appropriate units of work.

6. School communities need to make a commitment to gather, share and

manage relevant information concerning students.

iii

7. The Learning Support Teacher needs to be repositioned within a curriculum

planning team.

Statement of Sources Declaration

I declare that this thesis is my own work and has not been submitted in any form

for another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary

education. Information derived from the published or unpublished work of others

has been acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given.

iv

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Or Tania Aspland and Or I an

Macpherson for their support and encouragement in completing this study.

I would like to acknowledge my family for their support and encouragement

throughout this doctoral journey. To my husband Dick, my son Nicholas and

daughter Zoe, your patience and understanding has always been appreciated.

To my son Nicholas, Nick Ford, Mathew lmhoff and Jill Lisserman-Berrell, I am

indebted to you for your generous technical assistance.

I would like to also acknowledge the range of critical friends, in particular Or Geof

Hill, who have given their time so generously in supporting me throughout this

study.

V

vi

Table of Contents

Statement of Access .......................................................................... i

At>stretct ............................................................................................. ii

Stettement of Sources Decletrettion ................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ............................................................................ v

Tettlle of Contents .............................................................................. vi

L.ist of F=igures ................................................................................... i){

L.ist of Tettlles ..................................................................................... ilC

Chetpter 1: Introduction ...................................................................... 1

Context of the Research Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The context of the research: A web of complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Justification for the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Findings from the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Structure of the research dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Presentation of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Presentation of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Using the CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overview of Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chetpter 2: L.iteretture Review ......................... .................................. 14

The Debate surrounding the Definition of Special Needs and Related Terms . . . . . . . 18

Implications of this debate for the practice of Learning Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Questions arising for Learning Support Practice from this Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Multiple discourses within special needs informing Learning Support practice . . . . . . 23

Implications of Multiple Constructions of Disability for Learning Support

Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Questions arising for Learning Support Practice due to the Multiple

Constructions of disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

vii

The divergence of School Policy and Teaching Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Implications for Learning Support Practice when there is a gap between

inclusion rhetoric and school and classroom practice . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Questions identified when there is a gap between inclusion rhetoric and

classroom practice: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................. 43

Teacher as Practitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Teacher as Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 45

Teacher as Doctoral Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Positioning as Practitioner Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Articulating the Inquiry Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Choosing Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 53

Models representing Action Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5?

Early Phases: Orientation - What we do is determined by what we see . . . . . . . . 57

Phase Two: Moving on - Action research is an iterative process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Phase Three: The messy real world of practice . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The action research model adopted for this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

My story of developing action research . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

An explanation of the four action research cycles that represent my

practitioner research within this study follow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Cycle 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Cycle 2 ........................................................................................................... 67

Cycle 3 ........................................................................................................... 70

Cycle 4 ........................................................................................................... 71

A model may need to be multi-faceted . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 73

Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4

Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Data Reduction . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Processing field notes to journal entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 78

Critical reflection in the light of multiple bodies of literature and practice . . . . . . . 80

The process of writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Data Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Cross-Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

viii

Conclusions: DrawingNerification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85


Identifying prepositional judgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Writing Vignettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88


Presentation: Medium/Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Chapter 4: Data Analysis ................................................................. 95

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Using the CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

VIGNETTE 1: Analytic Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

VIGNETTE 2: Analytic Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106






Chapter 5: A Concluding Chapter ................................................. 143

A Contribution of Knowledge in the building of inclusive schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Contribution of knowledge to practitioner research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7

Iterative cycles of practitioner action research- "and the beat goes on . . . . . . . " ....... 149

References . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 11 • • •• 152

A CD with Journal Entries and Artefacts is presented with this document.

List of Figures

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6:

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Figure 11:

Figure 12:

Figure 13:

Figure 14:

Figure 15:

Figure 16:

Figure 17:

Figure 18:

Figure 19:

Figure 20

Discourses informing my practice . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 3

Complexity of my research practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Thesis Structure .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 9

CD Table of Contents............................................ 10

Approaches to Inquiry .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 52

A single-loop model of a learning system: Bawd en 58

(1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iterative cycles of Action Research (Kemmis & 59

McTaggart, 1986) ................................................ .

An Action Research Spiral (Griffiths, 1990) .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 60

McNiff (1988) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... . 61

Burnett (200 1) .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 62

Cycle 1 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 65

Cycle 2 ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 67

Cycle 3 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 70

Cycle 4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 71

Components of Data Analysis .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 76

JE20020205 LessonModelling ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 79

Journal Entry Template......................................... 83

Vignette Structure .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 89

Vignettes: A conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

CD Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

List of Tables

Table 1: Criteria Identifying Action Research (Griffiths, 1990) 55

ix

Chapter 1: Introduction

The role of the Learning Support Teacher is an undertheorised area in the

dynamic field of special education. This dissertation draws on my own journey

working as a Learning Support Teacher in two secondary girls’ schools to

address this deficiency. As a result of the long-term interrogation within an

action research framework, a set of propositional judgements is developed as

the findings of this study that inform the practices of Learning Support

Teachers.

Context of the Research Study Undertaking a professional doctorate means simultaneously engaging in

workplace practice and research-orientated practice (Brennan, 1998). This

has been referred to as practitioner research. My practitioner research has

involved concurrent studies of two secondary girls’ schools governed by

religious orders. These schools were selected for the study for the principle

reason that I was employed as a Learning Support Teacher in these schools.

My position as a Learning Support Teacher in the two school contexts gave

me the opportunity of accessing real-world data (Gummesson, 2000).

My Learning Support Teacher position in School A spanned from the

beginning of 1997 to the end of 1998. At the beginning of 1999, I took up a

Learning Support position at School B where I am currently teaching. Prior to

my appointment, School B had not previously employed a Learning Support

Teacher. My practice as a Learning Support Teacher in both school contexts

involved issues within the discourses of education for students with special

needs, in particular, issues relating to inclusion and inclusive classroom

practices.

My practices as a Learning Support Teacher have been undertaken in

response to a world-wide acceptance of, and commitment to the philosophy of

inclusion evidenced by UNESCO’s (1994) Salamanca World statement on

special needs education, that demands:

• Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given

the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning.

• Every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning

needs.

• Educational systems should be designed and educational programmes

implemented to take into account the wide diversity of these

characteristics and needs.

• Those with special educational needs must have the access to regular

schools who should accommodate them within a child-centred

pedagogy capable of meeting those needs.

• Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective

means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming

communities, building an inclusive society, and achieving education for

all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of

children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-

effectiveness of the entire educational system (UNESCO, 1994,

Salamanca Statement, paragraph 2).

My research investigation has drawn from discourses1 of special needs

education as well as change management, media, litigation and accountability

and technology literature (see Figure 1, Discourses informing my research

practice). These discourses have informed my understanding of the situations

in which I have been working. I have also included an experiential discourse

of being a practitioner researcher in the field of special needs education.

My choice of title, Beyond special needs knowledge: An insight into the

practice of a learning support teacher, reflects my concerns as a practitioner,

1 Discourse is a disputed term. In this inquiry I have drawn from Knight’s (1996) explanation of discourse:‘a discourse constructs reality in a particular way, and those that work within its framework draw on its assumptions, pose questions which it deems significant, and employ its criteria for evaluating evidence and arguments’ (p.148). There are multiple discourses evident within special needs education (Carrington, 1995; Lewis, 1987) that have developed from particular constructions of disability (Fulcher, 1989; Oliver, 1987). These constructions have influenced policies and practices within special needs education which in turn have become recognisable discourses identifying particular constructions of disability (Ballard, 1995).

that knowledge relating to special needs education is available and continually

emerging as is evidence to support effective teaching practice. In order to

change school and classroom practice to cater for students with diverse

learning needs, a Learning Support Teacher needs to be informed by other

bodies of knowledge that sit outside one professional discourse. It is argued

here, that it is the coming together of the following named discourses that

provide a rich data base to inform the notion of the Learning Support Teacher.

Although Figure 1, Discourses informing my research practice, suggests that

the informing discourses that I have accessed have been sequential and fall

into neat sections, in reality there has been a lot of overlap, retracing of steps,

review, reduction and refocusing. As I have researched my practice I have not

tried to solve problems but rather I have tried to uncover some of the web of

complexity of my teaching practice (Winter, Griffiths & Green, 2000, p.30).

Figure 2, Complexity of my research practice, depicts the complexity and

interrelatedness of my research context.

Figure 1. Discourses informing my Figure 2. Complexity of my research research practice practice

My practice and research into practice have also been initiated and guided by

understandings gained through my “insider status” (Anderson & Herr, 1999,

p.12) as a researcher. I also include my tacit knowledge and understanding of

my school contexts as part of my initial research process. Cole and Knowles

School contexts A.B

My Praxis

Special Needs

Change Management

Media

Litigation Accountability

Technology

Research

?

(2000, p.6) state research acknowledges that “much of what teachers know

and express in their practice is tacit-personally held and not easily explained”.

Another aspect of my practice development and my research development

was my ongoing meetings with a mentor. Calderhead and Gates (1993, p.9)

describe the role of a mentor as “the person who acts as facilitator in the

development of reflection”. Anderson and Herr (1999) refer to this role as a

“critical friend”. In this study, my critical friend was central to my interrogation

of my own practice and the consequential theorising of that practice. His role

included reflective responding, scholarly reframing, investigative reframing,

encouraging documentation, encouraging collection of data and scholarly

reading (Hill, 2001).

The context of the research: A web of complexity

A social justice paradigm based on a human rights perspective of equal

opportunities for all children within the same classroom has underpinned the

move towards greater inclusion of students with disabilities in regular

classrooms. Inclusive education has come to signify more than what was

once described as the integration of students with disabilities in regular

schools and classrooms (Carrington & Elkins, 2002a) that may have

supported the presence of students with disabilities in regular classrooms.

Inclusion is no longer about special education for a special group of students.

Inclusive education is about school improvement in order to bring about the

changes that are needed to classroom practices to ensure the improvement of

all student learning outcomes.

More traditional models of support for students with diverse learning needs

are characterized by a withdrawal system or pullout programs (Carrington &

Elkins, 2002b) guided by special education teachers. Subsequent to the

inclusion movement, teachers involved in such programs were referred to as

remedial teachers. In the context of inclusive educational practices, the

support role of the specialist teacher has broadened to include not only the

support of students but also of class teachers. This shift has invited a

renaming of the position from one of resourcing to learning support. My

position in both school contexts has been referred to as, Learning Support

Teacher. This position may not be referred to in this way in other schools or

education systems within Australia.

The domain specific literature and my practice as a Learning Support Teacher

reveal the nature of the education of students with special needs as both

complex and contextual. The complex and contextual nature of the area of

research are outlined below with a view to portraying the context in which the

study is embedded.

The nature of special needs is complex

The practices of a teacher working within the context that includes students

with special needs is complex because of the multiple bodies of literature that

inform those practices. The primary discourses informing practices include the

literature underpinning the provision for students with diverse learning needs

as well as other discourses such as litigation, media and change management

literature. In the context of my practitioner research, these discourses are not

discrete but interrelated and have been accessed at different stages in my

research process.

The nature of special needs is contextual The definitions and criteria used for identifying and categorising students with

special needs is contextual. The problematic nature of definition is based on

the existence of possible multiple models or constructions of disability within a

particular school context. Booth and Ainscow (1998) suggest that whether an

inclusive policy is “implemented successfully or enthusiastically within a

school depends, to a very large extent, on the local school” (p.174). The

debate surrounding the definition of special needs and related terms and the

possible multiple models or constructions of disability are elaborated in the

Literature Review.

A particular school’s working model of inclusion is guided not only by policy

but also by that school’s particular mix of teacher knowledge, skills and

attitude toward students with special needs. Legal mandate and government

financial support do not necessarily result in effective practice and innovative

programming for all types of students with disabilities (Clark, Dyson, Millward

& Robson, 1999). Clark (1999) suggest that “whatever the official policy may

be, it will be interpreted, subverted and replaced by policy formulated in a

whole succession of sites through the interplay of all the actors involved in

turning policy into practice “ (p.10). This study presents evidence of this

phenomena.

As my tacit understandings and knowledge about my contexts became more

informed, I realised that my positioning within the field of special needs was at

odds with the hegemonic practices I observed in two school contexts. An

initial focus of What’s going on here? and Why? in each school context

became, How can I change things? Implicit in the methodology of action

research adopted for this study is a call for “doing something about it” (McNiff,

Lomax & Whitehead, 1996). By working this way, I was taking on an

additional role as a researcher. After enrolling in the Education Doctoral

program, I realised my way of working had been in line with Anderson and

Herr’s (1999, p.20) description of a practitioner researcher legitimating

knowledge produced out of my “own lived reality” as a professional teacher. I

was looking for links between the literature and my school context and my

own practice as a Learning Support Teacher and researcher. This study

reports on the intricacies of such a process.

Justification for the research

A school may adopt a policy of inclusion that promotes working towards the

recognition and acknowledgement of difference and eliminating barriers that

might hinder catering for the diverse educational needs of students. Whether

the policy is implemented “successfully or enthusiastically” within schools

depends on the particular school (Bailey, 1998, p.174). The complex and

contextual factors outlined point to the contentious nature of inclusion

(Vlachou, 1997, p.7). For a Learning Support Teacher, knowing and

understanding the situation in which she/he teaches is an integral part of

successfully supporting students with special needs. Within this context the

goals of Learning Support Teachers may involve changing teacher attitudes

and instructional strategies towards students with special needs. This is a

demanding task, one that is lived out differently in every context. Slee (1996,

p.12) concludes in the article, Inclusive schooling in Australia? Not yet!, that

there might well be a future for inclusive schools, but “they aren’t the schools

we presently know and subscribe to”. The challenge of creating a more

effective process of schooling for students with diverse learning needs

through the interrogation of the role of the Learning Support Teacher is central

to this research.

The practitioner research reported here has used an action research

methodology to understand two school contexts that claim to adopt a policy of

inclusion. Further, action research involved me to critically reflect as a

practitioner researcher on my practices as a Learning Support Teacher. The

rationale supporting this process is summarized by Lincoln2 (1997) who

explained:

if we can change unproductive constructions, or incomplete or misinformed constructions, or maladaptive constructions especially if we can change the meaning-making core of these constructions into something more positive, then positive change occurs in individual or group behaviour. (p.7)

This rationale would seem appropriate where there is evidence to suggest a

gap between inclusion rhetoric based on principles of social justice and the

reality of school and classroom practice in a particular context or contexts as

is the case here.

Findings from the research

My research focuses on the management of change towards the adoption of an

inclusive curriculum in two school contexts. By engaging in research that focuses

beyond the principle of inclusion to the process of managing the change towards

2 Although Lincoln (1997) was not specifically referring to special needs education, the essence of what she is saying concerning how teachers ‘construct’ their classrooms is applicable to the education of students with diverse learning needs.

inclusive schooling, I have generated a set of propositions based on the theorising of

my practice across two secondary school contexts during the last five years.

The generation of propositional knowledge at the close of the study, will

contribute to the ongoing debate and theorising of the role of the Learning

Support Teacher as central to building inclusive school commitments. In

addition, the critique of my practice as a researcher using an action research

methodology in the context of higher degree research will contribute to the

ongoing practitioner research debate, thus moving the understanding of

practitioner research forward.

Structure of the research dissertation

An overview of the structure of my research dissertation is illustrated in Figure

3 (see p.9). This introductory Chapter is followed by Chapter 2, a Literature

review; Chapter 3, an explanation of my research methodology; Chapter 4,

the analysis of the research data and a concluding Chapter 5, that draws

together conclusions I have drawn from my practitioner research, including a

contribution to new knowledge in the field.

The results of my practitioner research are represented as a series of seven

vignettes (see Figure 3, p.9). Each of the seven vignettes is prefaced by an

analytic narrative that is a reconstruction of key aspects of my research

practice that supports a particular propositional judgement.

A series of Journal Entries give support to each propositional judgement.

Journal Entries are supported by official published texts that I have called

artefacts. In this inquiry, artefacts have also included PowerPoint

presentations, Workshops and a published paper. These artefacts can be

accessed by the reader from the accompanying CD. Samples of artefacts are

included in the Appendix.

Chapter 2: Literature Review The following Literature review is presented as a series of subsections with

the following headings:

1. The debate surrounding the definition of special needs and related

terms.

2. Multiple discourses within special needs informing learning support

practice.

3. The divergence of school policy and teaching practice.

These subsections represent the issues that I have found to be at the

foreground of my learning support practice. They have emerged from my

review of literature, my tacit knowledge and the knowledge that I have gained

as a practitioner and an insider in two school contexts.

Within each subsection I have looked at the implications of the nominated

debate for the practice of learning support and I have listed the questions that

arose in my own learning support practice in response to the nominated

debate; an initial six questions arose. With consideration for overlap, the initial

six questions reduced to three questions that have shaped my research

practices for this study.

• How does a Learning Support Teacher enlist the cooperation and

collaboration from staff?

• How does a Learning Support Teacher efficiently share information that

concerns the diverse learning needs of students with staff?

• How can a Learning Support Teacher influence a whole-school

approach to incorporate inclusive practices within a secondary school

context?

The education of students with special educational needs have been

recognised as a national priority by Governments worldwide. Recent

legislation in the United Kingdom1, United States of America2 and Australia3

reflect this. One of the debates arising out of this legislation is whether

students with particular special needs should be educated in regular

classrooms. This debate is not new as the integration movement of the 1970s

and 1980s demonstrates (Clark, Dyson, Millward & Skidmore, 1997). In 1994,

representatives of 92 governments, including Australia, met in Salamanca for

the UNESCO Conference to develop an agreed statement on the education of

children with disabilities. The Conference called for the inclusion of all children

in mainstream schools, regardless of their physical, intellectual, social,

emotional or other conditions. This statement was instrumental in generating

a complex concept of inclusive education, which refined existing notions of

integration. Inclusive schooling is more than the integration of the 1970s and

1980s when students, who had been segregated for special education, were

placed in regular classes (Schulz & Carpenter, 1995, p.13).

The Salamanca Statement sets out the rationale for inclusive education,




needs.




1 In the United Kingdom, The Warnock Report, Special Educational Needs (1978), culminated in the Education Act (1981). It is this report’s perspective that education should be viewed as a matter of right and not charity and a ‘continuum of educational needs’ should be provided (Barton & Landman, 1993). 2 In the United States of America, Public Law 94 142 (1975), The Education of All Handicapped Children Act, which became reauthorised in 1997 as The Individual’s Disability Services Act or IDEA, offers a similar approach to educating children with disabilities. 3 In Australia, the principal objective of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act, (DDA, Section 3, 1992) and States’ and Territories’ anti-discrimination legislation, are to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities in education, work, accommodation, access to premises, clubs and sport. The DDA does not allow direct and indirect forms of discrimination. In relation to education, direct discrimination has implications for denying a student with a disability the opportunity to enrol at a school. The DDA also includes provision for providing disabled students with adjustments as long as these adujustments do not ‘impose unjustifiable hardship’ for the school (DDA, Section 4, 1992).











Inclusion is no longer about special education for a special group of students.

It is about school improvement in order to bring about the changes that are

needed to classroom practices to ensure the improvement of student learning

outcomes. More recent educational research in the Queensland context

endorses this (Queensland Literacy Review, 2000; QSRLS, 2001). Inclusion

is no longer a policy initiative. Rather it has been transformed to become a

process that moves a school towards inclusive practices that will result in

such school improvement, heightened students learning outcomes and

greater opportunities for all students to gain equal access to education.

Even though schools in Australia are moving more toward a system of

inclusive education (Westwood, 2001, p.5), translating this into everyday

classroom practice is problematic (Perry, 1993). As Westwood (2001)

suggests, the reality for classroom teachers to achieve inclusive classroom

practices such as “adapting curriculum, modifying resources and adjusting

teaching methods is very difficult” (p.6). In order to effectively include students

with special needs into mainstream classes, the adaptation of the mainstream

curriculum needs to take place (Westwood, 2001).

The educational agenda of special education4 proposed by Salamanca and

taken up variously by Western education systems, is commonly addressed by

4 The definition of special needs is problematic for the practice of Learning Support Teachers and reference will be made to this later in this chapter.

a specialist teacher5. In recent years, teachers in this position have been seen

to be an important part of an inclusion process within their school context. The

expectation of this position in the context called Learning Support Teacher,

articulated in role statements in the two schools in my study was to provide

teachers with relevant information concerning their students and to suggest

more appropriate teaching strategies for students with diverse or specific

learning needs. This was designed to enable teachers to adopt an inclusive

curriculum (see CD, A19981127)6.

The dilemma for many Learning Support Teachers is the resistance of class

teachers to modify their teaching practice to be responsive to classroom

diversity. Maglen (1995) suggests that some teachers believe the handling of

certain differences and disabilities requires specialist training and therefore is

outside their area of responsibility and expertise. Although it is suggested that

both special education and general education teachers should have the

teaching skills “inherent in the concept of quality education” (Lipsky & Gartner,

1987, p.71), the reality for many classroom teachers is a “low level of

understanding and skills dealing with the everyday challenges presented by

students with learning problems” (Giorcelli, 1995, p.15). Thus, the role of the

Learning Support Teacher complements a school’s mission to offer a quality

education to all students including those with special educational needs.

It is common to see advertisements7 for the position of a Learning Support

Teacher that have the following role description:

• Support of students in areas of literacy and numeracy

• Contribution to resource team

5 Literature refers to teachers in support/specialist roles of children with special needs in a variety of terms. In both school contexts involved with this research project, my position has been referred to as a Learning Support Teacher. Other titles can include Special Education Teacher, Special Education Resource Teacher, Support Teacher. 6 This is a reference for the reader to access an artefact from the accompanying CD. The artefact can be found by using the Search button from the Table of Contents of the CD and scrolling to find the relevant reference number. 7 This was the advertisement for the position of Learning Support Teacher at a medium sized secondary school that I applied for, offered the position and started the school year, 1999.

• Testing of students

• Development and supervision of learning programs

• Working cooperatively with staff

• Able to develop and extend gifted students

The role description depicted in the advertisement highlights a number of

issues that are problematic for the practice of a Learning Support Teacher.

The issues I have found to be at the foreground of learning support practice

are8:-

4. There is debate surrounding the definition of students with special

needs and related terms.

5. There are multiple discourses within special needs that can inform

Learning support practice.

6. There can be divergence between the stated school policy within a

particular discourse of special needs and teaching practice.

Each of these issues will be discussed more fully below.

The Debate surrounding the Definition of Special Needs and Related Terms

One place for a Learning Support Teacher to start their practice is to

determine how many students with special needs are enrolled at their

particular school. This initiation of practice raises questions of definition and

criteria for identifying particular categories of special needs. The term, special

needs is itself problematic. The definition of special needs has been, and still

is, undergoing change (Chan & Dally, 2001; Kraayenoord & Elkins, 1994;

Slee, 1995).

Learning support practice has been associated traditionally with students

categorised as those with physical disabilities, learning difficulties, learning

8 Professor Mel Ainscow (2001) authenticates these issues when he described three dimensions that comprise an Index for Inclusion to develop learning and participation in schools; creating inclusive cultures, producing inclusive policies and evolving inclusive practices. He emphasisesd the need for ‘clarity of definition of inclusion to enable us to move forward’ (p.1).

disabilities, behaviour and emotional problems (Westwood, 1993). In more

recent times, learning support has come to include those students who are;

• gifted and talented

• from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

• at risk for school failure for reasons related to the use or abuse of

alcohol or other drugs

• victims of child abuse or neglect

• suffering from eating disorders (Lewis & Doorlag, 1995).

Reasoner (1992, p.103) adds that schools are being overwhelmed by the high

percentage of students coming from home situations experiencing poverty,

dysfunctional behaviour, violence and abuse, the trauma of family separation

and divorce, transfers from schools to school, lack of nurturing time with

parents or adjustments to a new culture. This suggests that the field of special

needs is continually being required to expand and to be redefined in response

to the changing nature of the practicalities of special needs and the changing

nature of families, society and the expectations of schools.

Definition of the terms within the domain of special needs is also problematic.

There is a lack of universally accepted definitions and criteria for identifying

students with learning disabilities, difficulties or special needs (Casey, 1994;

Epps, Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1983; Gosden & Hampton, 2001; Kirby &

Williams, 1991; Mercer, 1997; Williams, 1991). Kavale & Forness (2000)

affirm the difficulties in providing operational definitions of learning disability

(LD) that are meaningful and significant. Keogh (cited in Kavale & Forness,

2000, p. 2) suggests the response to “what is LD? has been a long-standing

source of controversy, conflict and crisis”. Such controversy is certainly

central to the day to day responsibilities of my work as a Learning Support

Teacher.

A similar dilemma exists for the definition and criteria for identifying those

students who are gifted and talented (Lewis & Doorlag, 1995, p.447). The

definitions and criteria for categories of disability and difficulty (Bailey, 1997,

p.148) and gifted and talented (Gagne, 1993; Gardner, 1987) have changed

over time influencing the presence, prevalence or absence of a particular

special need. Most problems of definition arise in the areas of learning

difficulties and learning disabilities9, socio-emotional and behavioural

problems. Physical disabilities are more easily identified, allowing more

accurate figures to be obtained (Westwood & Graham, 2000, p.24). The lack

of a universally accepted definition in some categories has impacted on how

students with special needs have been, or have not been identified and

categorised. This has had implications for the official prevalence10 of special

needs students within schools.

The involvement of Government through funding initiatives has added to the

complexity of many of the definitional issues surrounding special needs. In the

Queensland context, in order to attract funding from both State and Federal

sources, students are required to be part of an Ascertainment Process. Strict

guidelines are in place outlining criteria for the assessment and identification

of students experiencing educational needs in stipulated

categories11(Brisbane Catholic Education, 2000). These guidelines apply to

my particular schools and similar guidelines are in place for other

denominational schools as well as the state education system. Funding is

available only within these categories and only at particular levels within each

category. The desire of schools to access funding has invited labelling and the

prioritising of needs of particular students to attract limited school resources

and limited external funding that has legal qualifications (Young, 1995). This

has had a positive impact on the identification of special needs students but

not necessarily the support that should accompany identification and changes

in teacher behaviour. 9 Lipsky and Gartner (1987, p. 70) suggest there is an ever increasing number of students labelled ‘learning disabled’. They suggest under one or another definition over half a school’s population could be included. 10 In Australia it is estimated that between 12% and 20% of students have special educational needs of some type (Ashman & Elkins, 1998; Chan & Dally, 2001, p.13). 11 In Queensland, State and Federal funding is only available to students who are experiencing educational needs in the categories of Hearing Impairment, Physical Impairment, Vision Impairment, Intellectual Impairment, Speech & Language disorders and Socio-Emotional disorders. Specific Learning disabilities (Westwood, 1993, p.11) such as dyslexia (reading problem) dysgraphia (problems with writing), dysorthographia (problems with spelling), and dyscalculia (problems with arithmetical calculation) do not attract funding.

Implications of this debate for the practice of Learning Support.

As a consequence of the Education Act (1989)12, learning support potentially

includes students with a diverse range of special needs. The reality for

practitioners of learning support is that, within any school context, there are

usually only a small number of teachers to cater for an increasing number of

special needs students13. The increase in numbers of students requiring

support has the potential to impact on the case loads of Learning Support

Teachers and can be attributed to a number of related factors: a move

towards a broader definition of special needs; improved identification and

reporting techniques and a momentum towards greater inclusion of students

in regular classes who have a disability or difficulty in learning (Ainscow,

1991; Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996; Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Villa &

Thousand, 1995). Other factors include parent expectation and the addition of

new categories, such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder, within special needs.

Therefore, within any school context, those students who may be identified as

having special needs, may vary depending on that particular school’s

definition of special needs access to funding and resources.

An understanding of the definitions, criteria and assessment practices is

integral to the practice of a Learning Support Teacher because these impact

on the way in which students receive support, both from Government and

within the school context. The increasing numbers of special need students

has impacted on the caseloads of Learning Support Teachers, assessment

responsibilities, consultation with parents and classroom teachers,

management of information and professional development for the school.

Providing in-class support for the numbers of students who require support is

difficult, even with the help of teacher aides. It is clear that the task of

achieving effective inclusion is more than one person can handle. The 12 Education Act (1989) GENERAL PROVISIONS ‘providing every student with a program of instruction and duration that has regard to the age, ability, aptitude and development of the student concerned’. 13 I suggested in a presentation (An Information System to support both teacher and learner) to the National AREA Conference, Learning Disabilities: Advocacy and Action, 1999, that increasing numbers of special needs students may have been due to improved identification techniques rather than a true increase in the incidence of certain disabilities and difficulties. Literature published since then supports this observation (Westwood & Graham, 2000, p.25).

Learning Support Teacher must work co-operatively with staff towards a

common goal (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996, p.122).

In practice, there are barriers to the success of this form of teamwork.

Because classroom teachers may feel their previous training and experience

may not have prepared them for students with special needs (Gibbons, 1998),

they have difficulty adapting curriculum and resources for varying student

ability levels, even though they may acknowledge that changes are needed

(Giorcelli, 1995; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995; Wang, 1992; Westwood, 2001).

The time for Learning Support Teachers to meet and preplan with classroom

teachers is limited. Some teachers are also uncomfortable with the presence

of another teacher in their class and may resent the intrusion. The skills for

collaboration may not be present by either the Learning Support Teacher or

the classroom teacher (Westwood, 1993). As I stated in my professional

Journal:

14In my practice as a Learning Support Teacher, I have found this role to be a complex mix of understanding students with special needs and managing limited resources of time, resources and funding in the support of students with special needs, providing professional development for teachers and changing teacher attitudes and beliefs in providing for students in their classes who have diverse needs.

Questions arising for Learning Support Practice from this Debate

The debate surrounding the definition of special needs and related terms has

brought to the fore questions that must be addressed within Learning Support

practice.

If a Learning Support Teacher is to improve inclusive teaching practices in the

regular classroom:



• How does a Learning Support Teacher efficiently share information

with staff? 14 This paragraph is presented in italics as a way of highlighting that I have drawn on my experiential knowledge in line with practitioner research.

Multiple discourses within special needs informing Learning Support practice.

Disability is a social construct (Barton & Oliver, 1992; Carrington, 1999;

Clapton & Fitzgerald, 1997; Oliver, 1987, 1990). Oliver (1990, p.11) argues

that the kind of society in which one lives will have a crucial effect on the way

the experience of disability is structured. Carrington (1999, p.258) further

argues that disability is just one form of socially constructed difference. In the

same way, learning disabilities and difficulties (Banks & McGee Banks, 1997,

p.19; Cohen & Cohen, 1986, p.xiv), giftedness and intellectual impairment

(Carrington, 1999) can be seen as socially constructed categories.

In contemporary literature two common models or constructions of disability

are referred to as the medical model and the rights-based model15. Clapton

and Fitzgerald (1997) suggested models, or constructions of disabilities have

set “the parameters”16 for responding to people with disability or in this case

students with special needs. These “parameters” can be identified in school

policies and the practices of classroom and Learning Support Teachers.

A Medical Model

The development of special education policies and practices during the last

hundred years has traditionally focused on handicap and needs and their

attendant medical and psychological assessments (Oliver, 1987, 1990). With

the development of a psychological discourse, classification techniques

developed and so too did categories of children with special needs (Lewis,

1987).

The focus of special education from this particular construction of disability

has been the identification of the handicap and the need of the individual 15 Clapton and Fitzgerald (1997)also refer to a religious model of disability but suggest a medical model and a rights-based model are now evident in contemporary society. 16 Clapton and Fitzgerald (1997) refer to ‘parameters’ that have set our response to people with disability. In this chapter, I will refer to the characteristics of social constructions that become the indicators or hallmarks that distinguish a particular social construction of disability.

(Fulcher, 1989) which has invited the labelling of students in particular ways

primarily deficit in nature. Student needs were seen as “treatable” through

programs that would attempt to change the individual to fit the demands of

education (Sleeter, 1995, p.156). Such an interpretation has seen the growth

in securing resources and expertise to provide for students with special

educational needs. This construction of disability has led to a medical model

(Sarason & Doris, 1979 cited in Jordan, Kircaali-iftar, Diamond, 1993) where

disability is regarded as a personal quality or attribute unrelated to other

causal factors that may lie in a larger social context (Biklen, 1985; Carrington,

1995; Skrtic, 1991).

The construction of disability that reflects the medical model is characterised

by a “personal tragedy theory of disability” (Oliver, 1990, p.1). People with

disability are seen as victims of a tragic happening or circumstance and, as

such, disability becomes an individual’s problem. This personal tragedy

response to disability has led to a needs based, deficit model of education for

students with disabilities. It is assumed that individuals have to adapt

themselves to society, physically and psychologically, and, educational

interventions are aimed at providing the appropriate skills to cope (Oliver,

1987). It has been deemed by historical practices that schools are the

appropriate places for such interventions.

Traditionally, schools have responded to students experiencing learning

difficulties and disabilities with the understanding that the problem lay within

the student (Ainscow, 1989, p.69). Tomlinson (1986) refers to students of this

type as “the social construction of the ESN (M)17 child” where intelligence was

considered a fixed, innate and measurable quality. Identification was aimed at

finding out what was wrong with the student and providing a “functional

account” of what the child is unable to perform due to the disability. It became

the school’s responsibility to develop remedial strategies that were

implemented to improve the student’s performance.

17 ESN(M) referred to educational subnormality, mild or moderate.

The medical model has also been a prevalent theory in the construction of

gifted and talented students (Sapon-Shevin cited in Banks & McGee Banks,

1997, p.20). Traditional paradigms have identified students by one type of test

which then became their intellectual profile, an IQ score. This narrow

definition of ability was used to identify students as gifted or not gifted.

Programs were defined for those identified and grouped as gifted students

(Renzulli & Purcell, 1995, p.173), programs designed to intervene and

address specific qualities of each individual.

The medical model has been adopted in some contexts with students from

non-English speaking backgrounds. The student’s special need arising from

the underlying assumption that the student’s cultural disadvantage would be

remedied so that academic achievement would improve after such

“compensation” (Bullivant, 1981, p.12). Explanations for this particular group

not experiencing the same levels of educational success have focussed on

the students’ lack of linguistic, cultural and experiential resources. Students

from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds are expected to accept a

school’s existing cultural hegemony. Programs were designed to “top up”

what was assumed lacking in their culture or home background (Burke, 1993,

p.31).

Although inclusion is a concept more usually applied to students with physical

and intellectual disabilities, a social construction of disability based on equity

and justice has enabled a translation of education policies to reflect an

overriding notion of inclusion where inclusion invites educational

responsiveness to students with diverse needs, interests and talents. The

social construction of special needs within a rights-based model has

translated into specific policies and practices relevant to particular areas of

special needs. For example, Sternberg (1986), Gardner (1983) and Renzulli

(1978) were among those who proposed alternative constructions to the

medical model in the area of gifted and talented.

These researchers proposed an expanded theory of intelligence18. This

construction views giftedness as not necessarily “an inborn and enduring trait”

but one “that emerges in some people, in some areas and under certain

circumstances” (Renzulli & Purcell, 1995, p.174). Gagne (1993) proposed a

differentiated model of giftedness and talent that identified giftedness as

“aptitude domains” (intellectual, creative, socioaffective, sensorimotor and

others such as extrasensory perception). From these aptitudes,“raw material”,

he suggests talents emerge through a process that is facilitated or inhibited by

a variety of socially constructed catalysts (motivation, environment,

temperament and personality). This emerging construction has had

implications for expanding the view of abilities and talents and in the provision

of an educationally differentiated curriculum for students with special needs.

A Rights-Based Model

In more recent times, the construction of disability has moved away from a

model that constructs disability as a medical, individual problem.

Governments world-wide have embraced a rights-based discourse that seeks

to address issues of social justice and discrimination (Clapton & Fitzgerald,

1997).

In the United Kingdom, The Warnock Report, Special Educational Needs

(1978) culminated in the Education Act (1981) where the language of social

justice was seen to apply to children with special needs. “Warnock should be

seen in context, as the first large body of work to challenge the 'otherness' of

special education provision” (Gold, Bowe & Ball, 1993, p.53). Language

changed from viewing children in a deficit mode to language that had

expectations of “educational opportunities of quality”. From the Warnock

Report’s perspective, education should be viewed as a matter of right and not

charity and that a “continuum of educational needs” should be provided

(Barton & Landman, 1993).

18 Gardner, Kernhaber & Wake (1996) proposes seven different intelligences; linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal.

In the United States of America, Public Law 94 142 (1975), The Education for

All Handicapped Children Act, which became reauthorized in 1997 as The

Individuals with Disabilities Act or IDEA, also offered an enlightened

approach to educating children with disabilities. IDEA stemmed from the Bill

of Human Rights.

In Australia the Commonwealth Disability Services Act (1986) and the

Disability Discrimination Act (1992) and States and Territories anti-

discrimination legislation protect the legal rights of students. In Australia, we

do not have a Bill of Rights that defines basic human rights. Fitzgerald (1994,

p.11) suggests that this can result in a “gap between human rights and legal

rights”. In Queensland, even though everybody has a basic human right to

receive an education, our legal rights do not guarantee that every child will

receive an education. Legislation19 exists to support and promote the

achievement of a full and inclusive education for a child but there is no

guaranteed “unequivocal right” to inclusion (Fitzgerald, 1994).

A rights-based model acknowledges community membership and

participation and access to employment, education and recreation. The shift

from seeing disability as a medical, individual problem to one of community

membership, access and participation (Clapton & Fitzgerald, 1997) is a shift

from the notion of disability as personal tragedy to one of disability as an

instance of social oppression (Abberley, 1987; Oliver, 1987, 1990). In this

context, the term “oppression” is not used with the meaning of abuse.

Abberley (1987) describes the term in relation to disabled people as follows:

To claim that disabled people are oppressed involves arguing a number of points. At an empirical level, it is to argue that on significant dimensions disabled people can be regarded as a group whose members are in an inferior position to other members of society because they are disabled. It is also to argue that these disadvantages are dialectically related to an ideology or group of ideologies which

19 In Australia, the Commonwealth Disability Act 1992 declared protection for all Australians on the grounds of perceived or existing disability. This was consistent with previous legislation to counter discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and ethnicity. Other laws include, Disability Services Act 1992 (Qld), Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), Freedom of Information Act 1992 (Qld), Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld).

justify and perpetuate this situation. Beyond this is to make the claim that such disadvantages and their supporting ideologies are neither natural nor inevitable. (p.7)

In keeping with this logic, Oliver (1990) defines disability as “the

disadvantages or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social

organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical

impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities”

(p.11). This definition takes up the issue of causation and constructs disability

as a social phenomenon. Therefore, a rights-based model of disability

translates very differently into social policies, where alleviating oppression of a

collective group becomes the focus, not the compensation of the individual.

This social construction of disability based on equity and justice has translated

into education policies that value what is commonly referred to as inclusion,

implying inclusion of students within class, not withdrawn from class as the

medical model promotes.

Inclusion suggests a system that brings programs to students rather than

bringing students to programs (Will, 1986, cited in Self, Benning, Marston &

Magnusson, 1991, p.26). Inclusive practices do not include separate provision

or separate structures for different types of educational need. Achieving

inclusive practices requires a service delivery model based on collaboration

and team work with regular classroom teachers and learning support. It

requires the Learning Support Teacher to work alongside the regular

classroom teacher (Graden & Bauer, 1992; Self, Benning, Marston &

Magnusson, 1991; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; West & Idol, 1987). Giorcelli

(1995) argues “the rhetoric of inclusion must be matched with the reality of

collaborative practice, with special educators working as equal partners in

classrooms with regular teachers” (p.14). This has many implications for the

reshaping role of Learning Support Teacher’s in school settings.

Implications of Multiple Constructions of Disability for Learning Support Practice.

As a consequence of the changing construction of disability, there has been a

shift of emphasis from a medical or psychological criteria of assessment and

placement, to taking into account other factors which may have a bearing on

educational progress (Montgomery, 1990; Westwood, 1993; Young, 1995).

Such an approach replaces the categories of handicap with a more flexible

definition of special needs. By moving to a human rights-based model,

learning support practice can more readily embrace the multiple differences

within special needs.

The ideological shift towards a model that is underpinned by principles of

social justice and equity has had implications for policy and practice in both

special and mainstream education. Mainstream schools have been drawn into

the provision for special needs students and the consideration that curriculum,

teaching strategies and materials and school organisation can exacerbate

learning difficulties experienced by students. Fulcher (1989, p.25) suggests

that this “alternative politics” locates “deficits in school practices, particularly in

curriculum and pedagogical practices”. These deficits must be addressed

collaboratively by teams of class teachers, Learning Support Teacher’s and

school administrators.

Further, a human rights-based model of disability has implications for the

language associated with policy and practices that is now associated with

learning support practice. The role has shifted the conceptualisation of a

Learning Support Teacher from one of remedial teacher reflecting the medical

model’s “treatable” belief of the individual, to that of resource teacher who

teaches special needs students in the resource room or contexts of

withdrawal within a mainstream setting. Stainback, Stainback and Jackson

(1992, p.4) argue that integration of special needs students into regular

classes, or mainstreaming, implies a need to fit students previously excluded

to special learning settings, into an existing mainstream.

More recent conceptualisations of support teachers20 include: Learning

Support Teacher, Enrichment teacher, Learning outcomes teacher and

Facilitator learning support. These titles illustrate a move away from the

individual and deficit as the focus of specific teaching and imply an inclusive

response to students who may have special needs that can be addressed

through responsive teaching. It also implies that learning support practice has

the responsibility of encouraging a mainstream that accommodates the needs

of all students and, that students with disabilities can be educated

predominantly in general education classrooms (Stainback & Stainback,1984;

Thousand & Villa, 1990). The notion of the resource room21 or withdrawal

room does not exist and the role of special educator is one of a collaborative

partner in consultation with the class teacher. Further, there is a recognition of

a shared responsibility between special and general teachers (West & Idol,

1987) to facilitate learning processes that invite all students to access quality

learning outcomes.

Others propose that inclusion should be one placement within a continuum of

services required to cater for the needs of all students (Casey, 1994;

Kauffman & Trent, 1991; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995). Hallahan (1998)

suggests there has been “a seeming obsession with where instruction takes

place”. Although Hallahan (1998) acknowledge that the resource room model

often meant that the special education teacher and student had no idea what

was happening in the general classroom, they argue against “the total

annihilation of special education by the full inclusionists’ (p.1). Hallahan’s

argument rests on the difficulties of successfully creating collaborative

partnerships22 between general classroom teacher and those in the role of

20 This taxonomy of titles has been developed and continues to develop as I note the various title badges worn by my colleagues and peers. 21 The rise of the ‘resource room’ model was seen as a means of including students in more general classroom activities. In the 1990s, the resource room was seen as segregationist by advocates of full inclusion who favoured a model of collaborative consultation between general and special educators (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995, p.4). 22 A study focusing on collaborative teaching, conducted by Budah, Schumaker and Deshler (1997) in a secondary setting, found both general education and special education teacher spent over half their time engaged in non-instructional behaviours. It was also found that they spent less than 10% of their time presenting content and that the outcome measures for students with learning disabilities were disappointing.

learning support/special educator. Barriers exist that hinder the success of

collaborative teaching. Kauffman and Hallahan (1995, p.15) argue that

collaborative consultation may be an excellent service delivery model, but “its

success depends on two individuals having a chemistry and good

transactions- a chemistry that is difficult to define and that occurs relatively

rarely and transactions with uncertain results on students”. Graden and Bauer

(1992) concur that “without this collaboration, inclusive education cannot be

successful since inclusion is predicated on professionals working together for

the purpose of enhancing the education of all students in the school” (p.85).

The concept of new partnerships are central to the reconstituting role of

Learning Support Teacher’s in inclusive contexts.

The literature outlined here and current legislation seem to suggest a

mandate23 for a particular construct of learning support practice; a construct of

learning support practice that is based on human rights and informed by

social justice principles. This is commonly referred to as inclusion. As a

practitioner in two school contexts, it is pertinent to note that there was not an

inclusion policy as such. In School A there was a Special Needs Policy and in

School B there was not a Policy that specifically mentioned students with

special needs. In both school contexts I have utilised the characteristics

outlined by the Salamanca Statement (see p.36) as the hallmarks of a human

rights-based construction of disability that supports the inclusion of students

with diverse learning needs.

The literature suggests that opinions vary as to the implementation of

inclusion. For example, Bailey (1998) refers to the Queensland context and

“whether the policy is implemented successfully or enthusiastically within

schools depends, to a very large extent, on the local school” (p.174). This has

implications for the practitioner of learning support. The literature suggests a

rhetorical construction of inclusion but in reality there may not be a clear

understanding of the school’s positioning within practices of inclusion. Within

23 The mandatory nature has in recent years been reinforced by litigation, involving the Queensland Education Department (1996, 2001), Hills Grammar School, Sydney (1999) and literature (Lawyers, 1998) tabling the increase in litigation cases for ‘negligence’.

any single school, there may be evidence of practices that suggest elements

of both a medical model of disability and a human rights-based model. This

too, has implications for the Learning Support Teacher.

Since the principle of inclusion is a move away from an individualised, deficit

approach of the medical model of support for special needs learners, it would

be expected that there would be a similar move away from the practices of

categorising or labelling students with special needs. Debate surrounding this

issue creates a tension for the practices of Learning Support Teachers who

are striving to implement the principle of inclusion based on a human rights-

based model. Minow (1985) recognised this problem and referred to it as the

dilemma of difference. He states that “to recognise that some children are

different, carries the risk of labelling and stigmatising them. However, to

ignore the differences runs the risk of neglecting student’s instructional needs”

(cited in Hallahan, 1998, p.3).

Kauffman and Hallahan (1995, p.64) argue that the notion of disability as a

social construction fails to identify any part of the problem as residing within

the child. These authors suggest however, that such a social discourse does

not explain the fact that students with disability do have something inherently

different about them. They make the point that labels may help explain

behaviour that is out of the ordinary and lead to a better understanding and

sensitivity toward the person. They also promote programs and

communication among those concerned; parents, teachers, specialists

(Heward & Orlansky, 1996) as central to addressing what is problematic

within this field. Labels may help also to explain the persons themselves, their

own behaviour. Opponents of labelling would suggest that we should “label

jars, not people” (Young, 1995, p.26). The negative effects of labelling have

been identified as causing “lowered student self-concept, loss of acceptability

and popularity among peers” (Dunn, 1992). Conversely, it has been argued

elsewhere (Ashman & Elkins, 1994; Schulz & Carpenter, 1995, p. 397), that

this process of labelling also may affect teacher expectations and introduce

preconceived characteristics and behaviour before meeting the student, an

aspect that reminds us of the dangers of labelling student behaviour.

The dilemma for the practice of Learning Support Teachers is to position

themselves within these conceptual tensions and provide a service delivery

model of support that suits both the diversity of student need and skills and

attitudes of teachers within a particular school context. If, as some schools

suggest, the choice is to move towards the ideal of inclusion for all students,

then general class teachers need the skills and repertoire of teaching

strategies that will enable them to adequately reach the learning needs of a

diversity of student needs. Vaughn and Schumm (1995, p.268) describe

“responsible inclusion” as acknowledging the need for a continuum of services

to meet the unique needs of students within a particular school context. Such

a continuum of services would include part-time pull-out services, tutoring,

ongoing consultation and collaboration, co-teaching between general and

special education, self-contained placement in special education classrooms.

This view challenges the reconceptualisation of special education to the

notion of full inclusion and aligns it with “keeping place in perspective”

(Kauffman, 1993, p.4). Kauffman and Hallahan (1995, p.203) reiterate this

sentiment when they explain “diversity among students is often described as

something to be celebrated” and “if diversity of students is to be celebrated,

then perhaps the diversity of services, programs and environments providing

appropriate education and habilitation should also prompt celebration”.

Because of the complexity of meeting the individual needs of all students,

Carrington (2002b, p.3) also argues that “there is no one accepted model for

organising support for students with different needs in secondary schools”.

Questions arising for Learning Support Practice due to the Multiple Constructions of disability. Implications of multiple constructions of disability for learning support

practices have emerged due to a move from an individual special needs focus

of learning disability that has been described as “reductionist” in its approach,

to the “embedded nature of an individual’s actions within social contexts”

(Chan & Dally, 2001, p.13). Clark, Dyson, Millward and Robson (1999)

describe this shift in paradigm as acknowledging the impact that the

organizational characteristics of schools have on the diversity of learners in

the classroom. Inclusion then must permeate all aspects of a school and not

be seen as a “separate task, coordinated by a particular person or group”

(Ainscow, 2001, p.4).

This view of inclusion has been referred to as a whole of school focus. Moving

special educational needs towards a whole school approach is supported by

such authors as Ainscow and Florek (1989), Giorcelli (1995), Hill and Crevola

(1999), Skrtic (1991) and Villa and Townsend (1995). This approach also

signals the changing role of a Learning Support Teacher to include not only

an advocacy role but also a role in school processes and change

management. This approach has invited questions and challenges for

Learning Support practices that include:

• How does a school develop a model that is convergent with their

school mission statement/vision and mandated legislation?

• What are the consequences if schools do not respond to mandated

legislation24?

• What are the implications for a school choosing a broader definition of

inclusion because their school mission statement/vision is aligned to

social justice issues?

The divergence of School Policy and Teaching Practice

The Warnock Report (1978) in the United Kingdom, The Individuals Disability

Services Act or IDEA (1990) in the United States, the Commonwealth

24 One of the elements that contributes to the complexity of the field of special needs is the issue of litigation. Both Commonwealth and State Legislation in Australia cover Disability discrimination. In addition, courts in America and England have been asked to decide whether principles of negligence law can be applied to teaching where students with learning disabilities have been misdiagnosed or inappropriately catered for while at school (Williams, 1996). Similarly in Australia, the Victorian Law Foundation has found it necessary to publish ‘The guide, Teachers, Students and the Law’, the first plain English guide for teachers. The guide warns liability for professional negligence could arise if a school is careless in identifying learning difficulties. The issue of accountability is heightened within the community with media titles such as, ‘Poor teachers could be sued’, The Australian, 2000; ‘Legal fear over poor education’, The Courier Mail, 2000.

Disability Discrimination Act (1992) in Australia and The UNESCO Salamanca

Statement (1994) all reflect an ideological change in the construction of

disability. The Warnock Report was the first to draw on the language of social

justice. This report was seen to apply to children with special needs and

“should be seen as the first large body of work to challenge the otherness of

special education provision” (Bowe, Ball & Gold, 1992, p.53). Language

changed from portraying children in a deficit mode to language that had

expectations of “educational opportunities of quality”.

Policies that are shaped from these Acts and Reports may reflect an

ideological shift but, as Daws (1994, p.129) argues, “policy is constructed

anew at each different site within the educational system from the level of

government through to individual schools”. Enacted policy may not support

that a shift in beliefs has actually occurred. Hogwood and Gunn (1984, p.64)

explain that a lack of paradigmatic shift can result “where the underlying

perceptions, assumptions and values of analyst and consumer are at odds or,

worse simply do not relate to one another, then very little is likely to be

exerted”. The gap between inclusion rhetoric based on social justice principles

and the reality of school and classroom practice is demonstrated by such

authors as Clark et al. (1999), Slee (1996) and Vlachou (1997). These authors

explain that resistance is endemic even in schools that have undergone

“extensive periods of evolution and consensus-building” (Clark, 1999, p.10).

As previously argued, there are multiple discourses25 within special needs

that can inform learning support practice. By establishing the characteristics of

particular social constructions of disability, they then become the hallmarks by

which a particular construction may be recognised. The ideology, the

definition and the policies and practices then become the identifying

characteristics of a particular construction of disability.

25 In my Introduction, a discourse has been defined as constructing ‘reality in a particular way. Those working within the framework of a particular discourse draw on its assumptions, pose questions which it deems significant, and employ its criteria for evaluating evidence and arguments’ (Knight, 1996, p.148).

In this study, I have sought to identify the particular social constructions of

disability that have previously been defined as the medical model and human

rights-based model. The characteristics I used as hallmarks to identify a

construction of disability that is based on a medical model reflect those

suggested by Kauffman (in Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995: 126-127).

• Some students are very different from most in ways that are specific

regarding education and special education is required to meet their

needs.

• Not all teachers are equipped to teach all students. Most teachers are

neither equipped by training nor able in the context of their usual class

size to ensure an equal educational opportunity for handicapped

students.

• Students who need special education, as well as the corresponding

funds and personnel that are required, must be clearly identified to

ensure that they receive appropriate services.

• Education outside the regular classroom is sometimes required for

some part of the school day to meet some student’s needs.

• The most important equity issue is the quality of instruction, not the

place of instruction. Equal educational opportunity must include the

option of special education outside the regular classroom and special

provisions within the regular classroom.

Slee (1995) and Stainback and Stainback (1992) would suggest that

characteristics of these type have been reconstructed to represent an

ideological shift from the traditional view of special needs that operates on an

individual needs basis of the medical model to a set that more closely reflects

a human rights-based model. These are reflected in The Salamanca

Statement,




needs.














These characteristics have been utilised in this study as the hallmarks to

identify a construction of disability that is based on a human rights-based

construction of disability.

Implications for Learning Support Practice when there is a gap between inclusion rhetoric and school and classroom practice.

Central to this study is my practice as a Learning Support Teacher. It has

been undertaken in response to a world-wide acceptance of, and commitment

to the philosophy of inclusion based on a rights-based construction of

disability that has encouraged the move towards greater inclusion of students

with disabilities in regular classrooms (Westwood, 2001). What I have

experienced could be described as a dissonance between inclusion policy

and inclusive practices. Research and literature suggests there are a number

of reasons why there is a dissonance between policy that supports an

inclusion model in a school and observed practices.

The movement towards greater inclusion of students with disabilities in

regular classrooms is not necessarily reflected by a more positive attitude and

greater acceptance by educators (Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996, p.124). This

suggests a tension or a discrepancy between a person’s underlying beliefs

and the acceptance of the philosophical underpinnings of inclusive practices.

Sergiovanni and Starratt (1988) explain this discrepancy as a result of a

teacher’s educational platform existing on two levels:

(1) what teachers say they assume, believe and intend (their espoused

theory) and

(2) the assumptions and the beliefs and intents inferred from their behaviour

(their theory in use).

When one’s espoused theory of action matches one’s theory in use, they

could be considered congruent. Espoused theories are generally known to the

teacher. Theories in use are generally not known to the teacher. This has

implications for the Learning Support Teacher as these theories in use must

be constructed from observation of teacher behaviour. Therefore, a

collaborative classroom relationship between a classroom teacher and

Learning Support Teacher is required.

Teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities are a strong force in

determining the nature of the interaction between teachers and students and

students’ achievement (Carrington & Elkins, 2002a; Carrington & Elkins,

2002b; Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996; Schulz &Carpenter, 1995; Scruggs &

Mastropieri, 1996). Many teachers and other adults may believe that less able

does mean less worthy (Schulz & Carpenter, 1995). Bender, Vail and Scott

(1995) report, “teachers with less positive attitudes utilise effective

instructional procedures with less frequency than do other teachers” (p.94).

Indifferent teacher attitudes become problematic considering the skills and

attitudes of the general education teacher toward making classroom

modifications are considered “the key” to effective mainstreaming (Chalmers,

1991). Therefore, it would be realistic to bear in mind that some students

cannot make progress in classrooms in which some teachers are neither

willing or able to accommodate the diverse nature of individual students

(Whinnery, King, Evans & Gable, 1995, p. 9). This becomes problematic not

only at the classroom level, but at the level of school policy and government

legislation. This too is highly problematic for Learning Support Teacher’s.

Some classroom teachers also hold the belief that it is not their role to

educate students with learning difficulties or disabilities. Carrington (1997,

p.101) suggests that “this stems from the historical segregation of special

education and special education training from mainstream schools”. This

belief could also stem from the fact that teachers may have the knowledge

concerning the current commitment to inclusion but their assumptions and

values relating to inclusion do not coincide with current thinking (Bender, Vail

& Scott, 1995; Wilczenski, 1992). There are also teachers who may be aware

of the commitment to inclusion but feel they do not have the appropriate skills

to deal effectively with students with special needs in the classroom (Dovey &

Graham, 1987; Munson, 1987; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994).

The implications for the practices of the Learning Support Teacher who is to

support and develop a teacher’s ability to work effectively with the diverse

needs and abilities in their classrooms (Pugach & Lilly, 1984) are immense.

The importance of this aspect of a Learning Support Teacher’s role is

highlighted by Montgomery (1990, p.238) who cites the classroom teacher as

the most important classroom resource and “the teacher’s attitude and style of

teaching can promote or deny pupils’ learning opportunities”.

Questions identified when there is a gap between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practice:

Implications for learning support practices have emerged due to a gap

between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practices. This dissonance has

invited questions and challenges for learning support practices that include:

• How does a Learning Support Teacher work in order to change the

attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards a philosophy of inclusion?



context?

Chapter 1 informed the reader that there has been multiple discourses

informing my research practice (this document p.3). Literature concerning the

conceptualisation of special needs has been of particular relevance to the

understanding of my practice and the emergence of research questions

generated here. In order to tackle these questions I sought further special

needs literature as well as literature involving change management, media,

litigation and accountability and technology as the study progressed. Bruce

(1994) suggested that the purpose of a literature review in framing a research

study is “to provide the background to and justification for the research

undertaken” and “where the style of the thesis permits, sections of the

literature review may appear in different chapters” (p.218). This chapter has

attempted to provide such a background and justification. At the outset it must

be noted that the ways in which I have used the literature throughout the

study varies from this initial purpose. Literature appears in the writings of my

Journal Entries where it more clearly shows the relevance to my research

practice. Thus this style of dissertation utilises a literature review both at the

outset and throughout the research study to inform ongoing research

practices.

My engagement with literature was not predetermined, it emerged in response

to my putting my research into practice. Winter, Griffiths and Green (2000)

support this way of working when they described good quality action research

as showing “the way in which the writer has engaged with the literature and

how the literature, whatever its source, has challenged the writer’s view”

(p.30). The literature I have engaged in throughout my research practice has

been accessed in order to guide, confirm or challenge my practice and it is in

this light I include literature as part of my data. In particular, I have accessed

change management literature throughout the course of this study in order to

inform and guide my practices as a Learning Support Teacher in

understanding and implementing inclusive practices in two secondary school

contexts. Brown (1994) supports this use of literature as data when he argues

that students need “to understand that they can treat published literature like

any other data” (p.43). The literature may not have been generated by me, but

it has been actively sought by me throughout the study in order to gain fresh

insights that would advise and improve my practice.

The issues challenging my professional practice as a Learning Support

Teacher have focussed on the gap between inclusion rhetoric based on

principles of social justice and the reality of school and classroom practice in

two secondary school contexts (Carrington & Elkins, 2002a; Clark, Dyson,

Milward & Robson, 1999; Slee, 1996;Vlachou, 1997). Even though there has

been world-wide acceptance of the philosophy of inclusion (UNESCO, 1994),

there remains debate as to how to move towards an inclusive school. This

challenge is clearly undertheorised. My research into practice has involved

taking on the responsibility of the how to move each school context towards

inclusive practices which has necessarily attracted responsibilities for change

as well as for research (Dick26, 1993). This dissertation reports on my

research practice as it relates to implementing inclusive practices across two

secondary school contexts. A subsequent set of questions has emerged that

has continually reshaped my research practices over the past three

years.These include:





• How does a school develop a model that is convergent with their

school mission statement/vision and mandated legislation?

• What are the consequences if schools do not respond to mandated

legislation?

• What are the implications for a school choosing a broader definition of

inclusion because their school mission statement/vision is aligned to

social justice issues? 26 Dick (1993) was not specifically referring to special needs education but of general change in any organisation.

• How does a Learning Support Teacher work in order to change the

attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards a philosophy of inclusion?

In the next chapter, the use of an action research framework is argued as the

most appropriate methodological approach to adopt in addressing these

questions as central to my practitioner research as a Learning Support

Teacher across two contexts during a period of five years.

It will be argued that a practitioner researcher can choose a range of

methodologies and must be guided by the nature of the questions that are

being investigated. The context specific nature of this study and my need to

simultaneously understand these contexts and the opportunities for change in

practice has led to the adoption of a methodological approach of action

research.

It is also argued that action research promotes a process of iteration which

has allowed me to be responsive to the situation thus satisfying a “fitness” for

the “function” of research in a particular context (Swepson, 1998, p.3). Such

an iterative process has allowed the elicting of three questions from the above

set that have become the focus of this study (Dick, 1993). These questions

are:-







context?

Chapter 3: Methodology

The previous chapter has argued the complex, contextual and contentious

nature of Learning Support practices. It has argued that special needs can be

conceptualised as socially constructed categories (Cohen & Cohen, 1986,

p.xiv).

The medical model historically has been central to this field. It locates a

concept of individuality and deficit as the key determinants of special needs. A

more recent model is that characterised by a human rights perspective based

on social justice which promotes a philosophy of inclusion. Such a model

promotes an understanding of inclusive education as defined by Ballard

(1997) who suggests that education needs to be non-discriminatory in terms

of disability, culture and gender. From this perspective, there should be an

emphasis on diversity where students have equal rights to access the

curriculum. This latter orientation presents inclusion as school improvement to

better meet the needs of all students rather than special education for a

special group of students.

Even though there has been world-wide acceptance of the philosophy of

inclusion (UNESCO, 1994), at the level of policy and classroom practices,

many questions can be identified concerning how to implement an inclusion

model in schools in contemporary contexts. Clark et al. (1999, p.13) argues,

“however pure and universal the principle of inclusion may be, its reality will

always be partial and compromised”.

The issues challenging my professional practice as an Learning Support

Teacher focus on the gap between the rhetoric of inclusion based on

principles of social justice and the reality of schools and classroom practices

in two secondary school contexts moving towards inclusive practice

(Carrington & Elkins, 2002a; Clark, Dyson, Millward & Robson, 1999; Slee,

1996; Vlachou, 1997). In addressing the issues that challenged my

professional practice I engaged in not only reflective practice but also on

critical interpretations of my reflections. This has necessarily involved the

recognition and articulation of my underlying value and beliefs that align with

principles of social justice. In addition to this, I have articulated an inquiry

paradigm that has underpinned my practitioner research and informed my

research practice methodology involving action research in two school

contexts.

This study has been undertaken while I have simultaneously been engaged in

my professional workplace practice and research-orientated practice

(Brennan, 1998, p.78). This is in line with Anderson and Herr’s (1999, p.20)

description of a practitioner researcher legitimating knowledge produced out

of my “own live realities” as a professional teacher. The knowledge that has

emerged from my “own lived realities” is presented in the final chapter as

seven propositional judgements. This final documentation makes a significant

contribution to knowledge in this field.

In order to legitimate this knowledge, I will argue that I went beyond than what

Humphreys, Penny, Nielsen and Loeve (1996) describe as the natural

practice of teachers to engage in reflection of everyday classroom events. I

engaged in a much deeper process that required me to critically reflect and

analyse my data in the light of specific bodies of knowledge and literature and

an articulated inquiry paradigm. My critical reflections and an analysis of the

research data in this study are reported in the form of seven Vignettes1. Each

Vignette is comprised of a series of Journal Entries, an analytic narrative, and

a critique of the Journal Entries. Such critique generates the final set of seven

propositional judgements.

1 I have drawn on the concept of a ‘vignette’ used by Connelly & Clandinin (1999), Luke and Freebody (2000), Stenhouse, (1988) and Miles and Huberman (1994) as one element of my conceptual framework and will elaborate further on this aspect later in this chapter. Luke and Freebody (2000) referred to ‘effective practice vignettes’ in relation to a Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools (2000) where each vignette was a focus on a ‘slice in time of the work of teachers’ in classrooms. Each vignette reported here is simply a snapshot across two contexts at a particular moment.

Teacher as Practitioner

When entering new teaching contexts, teachers use a number of approaches

to understand and construct meaning from the context at a particular historical

moment. Chapter 1 reviews literature that I have engaged in as a practitioner

in two school contexts. This engagement with literature has been continuous

and is in response to a need to better understand and respond to the

complexities of these contexts.

In a new context, teachers often engage in “situational analysis” (Skilbeck,

1975) which requires a full interrogation of the internal and external variables

that impact on their ideologies and practices. They also draw on their

experience and practices as teachers, calling on research and relevant

professional literature to enhance tacit and insider knowledge. Teachers are

informed by “multiple forms of knowledge” that are “representative of a variety

of ways of personal, professional, and contextual knowledge” (Cole &

Knowles, 2000, p.7). These are all aspects that demonstrate good teaching

practice and may enhance the understanding of a particular context in which a

range of professional questions may emerge. In this study, I have called on

these multiple resources to inform my teaching practices and the interrogation

of my practices. Further, I have engaged in a systematic process of

practitioner research with a view to more fully understanding my practices as

a Learning Support Teacher across two contexts.

Whilst many teachers are reflective practitioners, it would be “going too far” to

suggest that they are all operating as teacher researchers (Humphreys et al.,

1996, p. 39). In order for a reflective practitioner to be regarded as a teacher

researcher, there needs to be an alliance with “the stricter guidance of the

research paradigm” (Humphreys et al., 1996, p.39-40). With this in mind, the

following section clearly outlines the principles of practitioner research, the

research paradigm that underpins a study of this kind- one of practitioner

research.

Teacher as Researcher

To be considered research, there needs to be something more than a

constructed meaning of a problematic situation. To be considered research

there needs to be more than reflective practice. The practitioner needs to

engage in critical reflection which involves recognising the bodies of

knowledge and the paradigms that underpin the practitioner’s positioning with

regard to a given situation.

Humphreys et al. (1996, p.39) suggest that the emphasis for reflective

practitioners seems to be concerned with improving the technical aspects of

their existing practices so as to improve student outcomes. This does not

necessarily involve the recognition of underlying value and belief systems2.

There is, therefore, a need to distinguish between technical and more critical

interpretative approaches to reflective practice (Louden, 1992). Those

reflective practitioners who do engage in a “more critical interpretative

approach” within a research paradigm are engaging in practitioner research.

This view of practitioner research which forms the platform for this study

acknowledges that not only is practice viewed and reviewed, “it is changed by

the very process of the enquiry” Groundwater-Smith, 1991, p.53). McNiff,

Lomax and Whitehead (1996) refer to this as praxis, ”informed, committed

action that gives rise to knowledge rather than successful action” (p.8). In this

study I have articulated a distinction between my teaching practice and my

research practice in order to better understand “what research on practice

might look like” (Brennan, 1998) and how it has emerged within this doctoral

study as central to my practitioner research.

Teacher as Doctoral Researcher

2 Sergiovanni and Starratt (1988, p. 104) place the belief system as the central element of culture. From these beliefs emanate values, norms, standards and patterns of behaviour.

Not all research practice involves doctoral study. Some teachers undertake

research using a systematic approach addressing classroom questions and

use results of their own research to “assess, develop or improve their own

practice” (Gilbert & Smith, 2003). Teachers also have the choice of

undertaking their research in the context of higher degree research. This

means completing a masters or a doctoral program that involves research that

fulfils the requirements of a university qualification.

The Doctorate of Education to which this study is aligned, is described as

being:-

1. A doctorate with a differenc with the practitioner/researcher (my

emphasis) having an explicit aim to improve the conditions of

educational practice through their research projects.

2. A course of study that values and challenges the knowledge of those

who enter the course (my emphasis).

3. A course that is highly responsive to real world contexts and has two

demanding audiences – academics and professional practitioners. (my

emphasis)

4. A higher degree designed to focus on applied investigation and

problem solving (my emphasis) rather than on a contribution to pure

research or to theoretical knowledge

5. The practitioner/researcher will have the challenge of conducting

rigorous research. (my emphasis) (The QUT, Education 2000

Postgraduate Prospectus and the Doctor of Education Information for

Supervisors and Students).

Two challenges implicit in this definition of doctoral studies are particularly

relevant to the methodology of my research inquiry in two school contexts.

These include my positioning as practitioner research and the necessity for an

articulation of an inquiry paradigm in order to undertake rigorous research.

Each of these challenges is more fully investigated below.

Positioning as Practitioner Researcher

My role as a practitioner researcher in these “real world” contexts has

involved problem solving in the pursuit of improved pedagogy. I have

simultaneously engaged in workplace practice and research-orientated

practice (Brennan, 1998, p.78). My immediate goal as an Learning Support

Teacher was to “assess, develop and improve my own practices”. These were

positioned within specific bodies of knowledge based on empirical studies,

professional experiences and personal perspectives that have been socially,

culturally and politically constructed throughout my personal life and

professional career.

Anderson and Herr (1999) describe practitioner research as involving school

professionals legitimating knowledge “produced out of their own lived realities

as professionals” (p.20). This includes an articulation of “an epistemology of

practice that includes experiences with reflective practice, action research,

teacher study groups, and teacher narratives” (p.20). An articulation of an

epistemological position necessarily invites the articulation of a parallel or

complementary ontological position. This extends Anderson and Herr’s (1999)

position to one which would suggest that it is the inquiry paradigm that is

articulated as the basis of practitioner research. I argue further that to

articulate an inquiry paradigm requires the articulation of a researcher’s

ontological, epistemological and methodological positioning (Guba &

Lincoln,1990), as central to a study of this type.

Articulating the Inquiry Paradigm Undertaking research of any type requires the articulation of an inquiry

paradigm. As Humphreys et al. (1996, p.39-40) reminds us, the articulation of

a research paradigm is a hallmark of good practitioner research. It is my

conviction that an articulation of this type constructs the research action in

ways that enhance the accountability and rigor of research work.

With the wisdom of hindsight I can see that I did not set out on my doctoral

journey with a clearly articulated inquiry paradigm. It was only after I was

exposed to research literature during my doctoral program that I was able to

position my research more authentically with the broader field. That is not to

say that my research was therefore less rigorous. It is simply to note that the

articulation of the inquiry paradigm came after the formal coursework. Prior to

this time, my inquiry approach was guided by a body of literature3 and

intuition, more inkeeping with professional reflection rather than rigorous

research.

The term, inquiry paradigm, is disputed. I believe articulating an inquiry

paradigm is necessary to understand my positioning. Guba and Lincoln

(1990) defined and broadened the term, paradigm, coined by Kuhn (1962), to

involve three interrelated belief systems. They proposed that a research

paradigm could be identified and understood by its ontology, epistemology

and methodological positioning. Ontological beliefs answers the question,

“What is there that can be known?” (Guba & Lincoln, 1990, p. 132). Ontology

is “that branch of philosophy which deals with the order and structure of reality

in the broadest sense possible” (Knight, 1996, p. 162). Related to this realist

ontological belief is the epistemological question, “What is the relationship

between the knower and the known”. Knight (1996, p. 162) defines

epistemology as “that branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of

knowledge”. These beliefs are recognized as the starting points that

determine what this inquiry is, how it should be practised (Guba & Lincoln,

1990, p.132) and describes how it unfolded. It also provides a rationale for the

way in which I engaged with my research and my practice.

In the late nineteenth century, research practice was dominated by a

philosophy of positivism (Candy, 1989). This is evidenced by Auguste

Comte’s first of three principal doctrines of Positivism that empirical science

was the only source of positive knowledge of the world (Schon, 1983, p.32).

Such an ontological position deems that the only reliable knowledge comes

from the “heart of scientific inquiry” that answers “How can we go about

finding out?” with a methodology of empirical observations, observable facts,

3 Subsequent to enrolling in the professional Doctorate, I had completed a Masters in Education which included the Unit EDN602 Action Research and Critical Social Practice and a 24 research Project (Burnett, 1997) that adopted a methodology that had similarities with action research.

hypothesis testing, experiments and generalisations (Lewins, 1992, p.18).

This assumption comes under challenge in this study.

Practitioner research of the type reported here, acknowledges that there are

many different ways of seeing and understanding social reality and that there

can be a “changing context of knowledge production” (Seddon, 1999, p.3). An

ontological belief more suitable to human inquiry of this sort is that there are

multiple interpretations, understandings or constructions that may exist for any

one situation (Guba & Lincoln, 1990). There is no one universal truth. The

central value underpinning this study is that knowledge is constructed, an

epistemological position which is valuing knowledge being defined in terms of

human constructions (Guba & Lincoln, 1990, p.148).

In this study my ontological position, in keeping with the contemporary way in

which ontology is portrayed in special needs education, is constructivist as

outlined earlier in Chapter 2. I concur with Oliver’s (1990, p.11) argument that,

disability only can be properly understood as a social construction. He

suggests that the kind of society in which one lives will have a crucial effect on

the way the experience of disability is structured. As argued earlier, changing

values within our society towards social justice and equity principles have

shifted our perceptions of people with learning difficulties and disabilities.

Further, an opposing view to the reductionist-behavourist theory of learning

(Kroll, 1999) has emerged, arguing that individuals are ontological constructs

of the interactions they participate in within their culture. Thus, this study set

out to look at the complex interactions4 that take place in school to better

understand student development (Counsin, Diaz, Flores & Hernandez, 1995,

p.657). The constructivist position adopted for the purposes of this study

aligns with an ontological view that there is no one truth, but multiple

constructions of reality and forms the research platform on which the research

questions are posed, data is collected and analysed and the findings are

presented.

4 These ‘complex interactions’ within schools would include social, cultural and political aspects.

Practitioner knowledge of this sort emerges through a process of critical

reflection on practice. As Michael Bassey (cited in McNiff et al., 1996) noted:

Knowledge means understandings about events and things and processes; it includes descriptions, explanations, interpretations, value orientations, as well as knowledge of how these can be arrived at; in other words it includes knowledge that something is the case and knowledge how to do something; it includes theory-in-the-literature as well as the personal theory of individuals which has not been articulated in writing. (p10)

My epistemological belief is that knowledge5 arises from reflection on practice

and, as such, I undertake research about my practice in the form of

practitioner research.

Guba and Lincoln (1990, p.130) argue that to make sense of a particular

context at a particular historical moment, there is a need to understand and

“know” the unique “human qualities” of a particular situation. Because of the

uniqueness of human qualities implicit in this study, the situation under

investigation presents as a complex mix of factors. Schon (1983)

characterises real world practice of this type where:

problems do not present themselves to practitioners as givens. They must be constructed from the materials of the problematic situations which are puzzling, troubling and uncertain. In order to convert a problematic situation to a problem a practitioner must do a certain kind of work. He/she must make sense of an uncertain situation that initially makes no sense. (p.40)

This is more recently supported by Groundwater-Smith (1991, p.53) as she

engages with evidence based research in Australian schools and is clearly

central to my own practitioner research.

My practitioner research practice is positioned within a constructivist ontology

and an epistemological belief that knowledge arises from the critical reflection

on practice. According to Candy (1989) and Guba and Lincoln (1990) this

would place my paradigm of research outside the realms of traditional

5 Winter, Griffiths and Green (2000, p.27) acknowledge that there has been widespread discussion, debate and division as what should count as ‘knowledge’ in practice-based doctorates. They conclude that a claim to practice-based knowledge is “a claim to knowledge that is context bound” (p.28).

positivist research and closer to what Candy (1989) identifies as either an

interpretative (Carr & Kemmis, 1983, p.129 ) or critical (Cohen & Manion,

1985) paradigm of research (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Approaches to Inquiry

Candy (1989) uses a triangle to depict three proposed paradigms of

educational research. Each paradigm can exhibit characteristics in common

with the others and can be represented as a point on a plane. Candy (1989)

posits that few pieces of research are ever “pure” examples of any one

paradigm and researchers can position themselves on this plane. It would

seem that on the triangle, my inquiry approach in this study is positioned

along the axis of “interpretive” and “critical” inquiry approaches. Candy (1989)

and Bassey (1999) describe the interpretive research paradigm as reflecting

the ontological belief of constructivism but it has been argued that the

interpretivist approach to research has not gone “far enough” (Candy, 1989)

and that research is “designed not just to explain or understand social reality

but to change it” (Smith, 1993, p.77). Candy (1989) suggests that a critical

inquiry paradigm involves social change and therefore change in practice.

This captures the essence of the approach adopted for this study.

My research practice methodology of action research has emerged from my

articulation of a critical inquiry paradigm. This paradigm can be identified and

understood by a constructivist ontology, an epistemological belief that

Positivistic

Critical Interpretative

knowledge arises from the critical reflection on practice and a methodology

that aligns with not only the critical reflection on practice but also action that

brings about change in practice. A practitioner researcher can choose a range

of methodologies. Action research is a methodology that I have adopted in

this study in order to achieve a methodical, iterative approach to problem

identification, action planning, implementation, evaluation and reflection

(Riding, Fowell & Levy, 1998). The rationale for doing so is outlined in the

following section.

Choosing Action Research

Action research has been described as a “family” of methodologies that can

take a wide variety of forms (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Dick, 1999b; Kemmis,

1994; Somekh, 1995). Different definitions can emphasise different aspects

that particular authors think are important (McNiff et al., 1996, p.9). Alternative

definitions can reflect differing opinions and seem to be “at odds” with each

other (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead,1996, p.10). Zuber-Skerritt (1993, p.45)

claims there are no ”unequivocal” definitions of action research that would be

“universally acceptable”. What binds them together is a commonality of

approach that adopts a methodical, iterative approach to problem

identification, action planning, implementation, evaluation and reflection

(Riding, Fowell & Levy, 1998).

Action research of this type is a methodology that satisfies a “fitness” for the

“function” of research in a particular context (Swepson, 1998, p.3). It also

allows both action and research in a context where I, as practitioner

researcher, need to be responsive to the changing demands of the situation.

Action research provides the flexibility and responsiveness that is needed

where a precise research question is not possible because of the contextual

and complex nature of the situation under study. This is supported by

McKernan (1988) who describes action research as a systematic inquiry

carried out by practitioners experiencing difficulties in understanding and/or

solving problems in their settings. This clearly captures the challenges of my

work as a Learning Support Teacher across two settings.

Action Research has been used in many areas where an understanding of

complex social situations, like the two school contexts under investigation

here, has been sought. In particular, Zuber-Skerritt (1992, p.15) states the

main benefits of action research are “the improvement of practice, the

improvement of the understanding of practice by its practitioners and the

improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. It aims to

integrate research into the educational context so that research can play a

direct and immediate role in improving practice”. In this case, because action

research is pragmatic and goal orientated it encourages a mix of theory and

practice, praxis, facilitating a better understanding of the issues of concern

and offers a research orientation to interrogate the research questions. The

aim of this research is to improve the quality of human action in these

settings. “Doing something about it” is a feature the action research model

adopted for this study (McNiff et al., 1996, p.12).

This integrated approach of research and practice recognises the

appropriateness of the research being context responsive and carried out by

the people directly concerned. This is central to this study. Action research

used here “bridges the divide between research and practice” (Somekh, 1995,

p.340). The need for a “bridge” has evolved from the challenge to the

dominant scientific model of knowledge gathering and knowledge using.

Action research that is central to this study draws on an epistemological

position that Lincoln (1997, p.9) refers to as verstehen, “forms of knowledge

which are deep, structural, historical, socially located, context-specific and

accountable to and inseparable from, issues of race, gender and class”. I

have articulated an epistemology of practice that has included experiences

with reflective practice and praxis and as such, I have argued for a framework

of action research as the methodology in this research study (Anderson &

Herr, 1999, p.20).

A definition of action research that my inquiry resonates with is that of Lomax

(1990):

Action research is an intervention in our own practice intended to bring about improvements. The intervention is research based because it involves disciplined enquiry. The improvement encompasses our

current practice, our understanding of it and the contexts in which it happens. (p.11)

In my research study an action research methodology of this type has

enhanced my making connections between specific bodies of knowledge and

integrating these bodies of knowledge with my educational practices in two

school contexts. This has assisted me as a practitioner to become a

practitioner researcher, integrating research into my school contexts in order

to bring about improvements in teaching practices within the socio-cultural

and socio-political constructs of these contexts.

As previously asserted, there are a number of descriptions and definitions that

define the parameters for action research. These definitions become

problematic when judging whether a particular research study is action

research. In this study, I have drawn on Griffiths’ (1990, p.42-43) explicit

detailing of nine criterion that identify my research as action research. These

criterion are summarised in Table 1 below.

I have used Griffiths’ (1990) set of criteria as constructs to capture the

qualities of action research that are central to this research study. A summary

follows this table connecting aspects of my action research study to these

criterion.

Table 1: Criterion Identifying Action Research (Griffiths, 1990)

Criterion 1 The intention is to improve a situation rather than

to discover universal truths about it.

Criterion2 People reflect on, and improve, their own work

and their own situations.

Criterion 3 Reflection and action are tightly interlinked,

including both reflection-in-action and reflection-

on-action

Criterion 4 The participants contribute to formulating the

research questions.

Criterion 5 The participants gather the data-either

themselves or with the help of others.

Criterion 6 Reflection includes a wide understanding of

relevant theories.

Criterion 7 The research is made public.

Criterion 8 Going public means that the participants work

with others: questions and methodologies are

formulated in a “critical community”.

Criterion 9 The “critical community” is a community of equals

in respect to power: autonomous, responsible

persons.

The primary purpose of my practitioner action research was to work towards

changing and improving inclusive practices in two school contexts (Criterion

1& 2). As an “insider”, I was challenging practices and the problematic nature

of the teaching situation School A and B (Criterion 2). This focus meant I

engaged in both reflection and action. I also reflected back to experiences

during later cycles of reflection and action enabling me to refine not only my

understanding of my practice, but also my researching of such practice

(Criterion 2 & 3). Issues of concern emerged that prompted questions and my

subsequent action (Criterion 5). Data was gathered and evaluated in the light

of multiple discourses (see p.3) (Criterion 5 & 6). My research was made

public at various conferences. These included the 9th State Conference of the

Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children, 1999; AREA

(Australian Resource Educators Association) National Conference, 1999;

AREA National Conference 2000; SPELD (Specific Learning Disabilities) Qld,

2000; Combined Associations’ Conference RSTAQ (Remedial Support

Teachers Association of Queensland), SPELD, 2000; Marist Youth Care and

the Marist Brothers Education Conference, 2002. These conferences

engaged a “critical community” in the field of education providing for students

with diverse learning needs (Criterion 7, 8 & 9).

Because I am at the centre of my research process, any account I produce

must necessarily show the way in which I have come to understand my

practice and some of the lenses through which I view my practice. The search

for these understandings are reflected in the research questions that I, as the

practitioner researcher, have formulated. As such, criterion 4 is not

necessarily applicable to this study.

The iterative nature of action research has been diagrammed in a variety of

ways. I have adopted several of these diagrammatic descriptions to articulate

the way in which my action research emerged. The graphics are presented

below but are represented more dynamically in electronic form.

Models representing Action Research Representing the complex, whole process of action research is difficult.

Researchers have described the processes of action research in different

ways, producing diagrams and models to represent them (Bawden, 1991;

Griffiths, 1990; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; McNiff et al., 1996; Zuber-

Skerritt, 1996). McNiff (1996, p.51) warn that this may give the impression

that doing action research is neat and tidy. In reality, the research does not

fall into neat sections. There is “a lot of overlap, retracing of steps, review,

redirection and refocusing” (McNiff et al., 1996, p.51). This has been the case

in my research journey.

I have found several models useful in representing and understanding visually

the construction of my practice. These models have included those generated

by Bawden (1991) (see Figure 6), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) (see Figure

7); Griffiths (1990) (see Figure 8) and McNiff (1988) (see Figure 9). I have

given titles to these models that reflect my growing understanding of action

research. This growing understanding of methodology is central to the nature

of evolving practitioner research. Understanding these models helps to

understand the way in which my own model (Burnett, 2001) (see Figure 10)

for action research has been constructed and reconstructed over time,

throughout the years of this study.

I am aware that I am accepting these models on face value without attempting

to critique them. My reasoning behind this choice is that models are not

presenting themselves as truth but are visual explanations of quite complex

processes. Rather than labour the point on critiquing these models, I have

focused my critique on the model I have developed in the section (See Figure

10, p.62).

Early Phases: Orientation - What we do is determined by what we see.

A practitioner researcher has a particular perspective or positioning when

starting an enquiry. Meaning is constructed from an understanding of the

situation through the researcher’s particular frames of reference, “windows”, in

relation to particular values. The understanding and sense making of social

phenomena, Bawden (1991, p.12) suggests, is “observer-dependent” From

the perspective adopted by a practitioner researcher, meaning is constructed

in relation to a particular context (see Figure 6). This has been described as a

“first order loop” in a cycle of learning (Bawden, 1991, p.22) and captures my

earliest engagement with action research.

Figure 6. A single-loop model of a learning system: Bawden (1991)

Bawden (1991) uses the image of a “window” to describe how we make sense

of our world. The particular window we use to view our world reflects our

positioning within particular bodies of knowledge. Therefore, in order to turn

descriptions of educational practice into explanations (theories) and

knowledge, a positioning within that knowledge is required (McNiff, 1996,

p.128). When a teacher positions themself in their educational values this

allows them to recognise those values and to thus understand their approach

to the investigation more fully. This, by definition, is an act of critical reflection.

In the field of education, Bawden’s model (1991) has relevance in that the

researcher needs to position themselves within their educational values.

McNiff (1996, p.9) describe action researchers as “working intentionally

towards the implementation of ideas that come from deep-seated values that

motivate them to intervene”. At the early stages of my research, this

necessitated my thorough investigation of my own values as a practitioner

and a researcher.

There have been multiple “windows” that I have been using in my practitioner

research in two school contexts. These “windows” have been informed by

bodies of literature that have informed and continue to inform the positioning

of my professional practice. The bodies of literature have included special

needs, change management, litigation, accountability, media, research and

technology. The accessing of this literature has not been sequential as the list

might suggest. There has been “a lot of overlap, retracing of steps, review,

redirection and refocusing” (McNiff et al., 1996, p.51). The unfolding of the

study challenges the tidiness and systematic interpretations of action research

that are implied in all of the models detailed.

Phase Two: Moving on - Action research is an iterative process

Unlike Bawden’s single loop model of learning, more current orientations to

action research have been described as a series of cycles (Carr & Kemmis,

1986; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Dick,1999a, 1999b; Elliott,1991; Griffiths,

1990; Kemmis & Wilkinson,1998; Zuber-Skerritt,1993).

Figure 7. Iterative cycles of Action Research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988)

The iterative cycles illustrated in Figure 7 show the spiralling movement of

planning, acting, collecting evidence and reflecting. The cyclical nature of

action research that is depicted in this model emphasises the non-linear, yet

systematic, process of action research.

Phase Three: The messy real world of practice.

Planning, acting, collecting and reflecting are not necessarily neat, discreet

events within a cycle as the Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) model suggests.

Even as we begin to act, the practitioner researcher will already be reflecting.

Griffiths (1990) suggested that from this reflection, feedback is going on in

many ways at once and that “this is recognisable as the messy real world

practice” (p.43). This captured my own living reality. Griffiths’ (1990) model

(see Figure 8), adds an inner loop of reflection in action and an outer loop

associated with long-term reflection that was not evident in earlier models.

The model depicted below captured the constructs of this study more

accurately and the experience I had in the field.

Figure 8. An Action Research Spiral (Griffiths, 1990)

The work implicit in this study was messy as indicated, but it also had a

dynamic and involved change. I had to be receptive and responsive to this

dynamic throughout the study. McNiff’s (1988) model of action research

allows for the possibility that research may change its focus over time and

involve an expansion in the research area. This is depicted in Figure 9, McNiff

(1988, p. 57), where the central focus is the central spiral and side spirals are

used to acknowledge other non central foci. The research from this orientation

can be seen as a series of spirals, as cycles transform into new cycles. It is

possible that larger cycles may span whole phases of a research study and

cycles within cycles within cycles can be identified (Dick, 1999b). I connected

with this model of action research as the study unfolded. This model

acknowledges the issues and themes that emerged during the study

doing

monitoring

systematic observation evaluating

long term reflection

planning

(Eizenberg 1991, p.181) and mirrors more closely the complexity and

messiness of real life research for teaching practice. It enhances the earlier

work of Bawden (1991), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) and Griffiths (1990)

and provided a scaffold for me to acknowledge, that while my practitioner

research was messy and dynamic, it was also rigorous and complex.

Figure 9. McNiff (1988)

From the evolution of my thinking about and conceptualising my research

based on the reported models of Bawden, Kemmis and McTaggart, Griffiths

and McNiff, I realised that several other dimensions were missing. It was at

this point I was positioned in a way that invited me to more accurately develop

my own orientation to action research for the purpose of this study.

The action research model adopted for this study The model I have developed to describe my practitioner research draws from

the models presented and is represented as Figure 10, Burnett (2001) (p. 62).

I have taken the notion of a window from Bawden’s (1991) model; the iterative

cycles which are common place to action research are succinctly expressed

in the Kemmis and McTaggart’s (1988) model and Griffiths’ model (1990); I

have used McNiff’s (1988) side spiral to similarly indicate the side spirals of

my research. Bringing together these models represents the complexity of

research in the context of human inquiry. However, what appears neat in the

form of a model, was in reality, messy.

The model facilitates a deconstruction of my research journey and

demonstrates the methodology I have used in order to gain knowledge and

address the key research questions of this study. It is an attempt to reiterate

Bassey’s (cited in McNiff et al., 1996, p.10) all encompassing description of

practitioner knowledge- knowledge that was the key to my practitioner

investigation in this study:

Knowledge means understandings about events and things and processes; it includes descriptions, explanations, interpretations, value orientations, as well as knowledge of how these can be arrived at; in other words it includes knowledge that something is the case and knowledge how to do something; it includes theory-in-the-literature as well as the personal theory of individuals which has not been articulated in writing. (p10)

Figure 10. The model of action research adopted for this study (Burnett, 2001)

The Burnett model (2001) (Figure 10) portrays four action research cycles that

represent my practitioner research within this study. Dick (1997a) suggested

that there are many ways of describing the cycles but their essential features

include planning, acting, observing and reflecting. I identified my cycles of

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 2 Cycle 4

action research by identifying moments within the research process where

questions emerged from the planning, acting, observing and reflecting

process, calling on the research literature, my own practitioner knowledge and

tacit knowledge to do action research.

The cyclic process allowed later cycles to challenge the information and

interpretation from earlier cycles. These cycles are not discrete and in reality

the research did not fall into neat sections. There was “a lot of overlap,

retracing of steps, review, redirection and refocusing” (McNiff et al., 1996,

p.51). My research became a process of iteration that gradually refined my

understanding of implementing inclusive practices in two school contexts. This

is in line with how Winter (2002) described action research as a methodology

that “attempts to achieve understanding and to improve practice, by shifting

from action to critical reflection and back again in a spiral process of

refinement. As the research progresses, a better understanding emerges”

(p.13). In this study, uncertainty, retrospective thinking and emergent

theorising of practice are characteristics of the research that challenged me to

continually review, redirect and refocus as McNiff et al. (1996) suggests. This

resulted in the Burnett model which more clearly articulates the complex and

multi-faceted nature of the research that is central to this study. My story of

how these dynamics unfolded is discussed below.

My story of developing action research

In 2000 I enrolled in a doctoral program. Prior to enrolling in the program, I

had been investigating my professional practice as a Learning Support

Teacher in response to the issues created in School A in implementing

inclusive practices. My teaching practice had focussed on how to implement a

model of inclusive educational practices in the context of the secondary

school in which I had been employed.

Action research is typified by iterative cycles of study. This theoretical position

is messier in practice. I was working as a Learning Support Teacher in a girl’s

secondary school. I reflected on my practice and my reflection on my practice

went further than the acquisition of knowledge concerning this particular

context. It also involved critical reflection on my practice and research

practice. My articulation of these elements in my teaching was initiated by

comments made by my critical friend, who described my practice in terms of

practitioner research.

When I began asking questions about my professional practice it was not my

intent to undertake a professional doctorate. I sought to better understand my

teaching situation within these contexts at a particular time and to formulate

questions that informed the way I went about my professional practice of

learning support within each particular school context. Humphreys, Penny,

Nielsen and Loeve (1996) suggested that “all teachers reflect upon their

everyday classroom events as a natural practice” (p.39). McNiff et al. (1996,

p.8) include professional discussions with other teachers as a part of their

definition of reflective practice. This captures the stage that I was at on entry

to the study.

This reflection on my practice as a Learning Support Teacher in two contexts

has been extensively documented and is portrayed in my Journal Entries

across two school contexts. These Journal Entries can be viewed on the

accompanying CD by selecting the Search Window from the Table of

Contents on the CD. The reader can browse the Journal Entries in

chronological order or by School A or School B. For the benefit of those

readers who are unable to access the CD, a copy of all Journal Entries are

presented as a separate document, Beyond knowledge: An insight into the

practice of a learning support teacher, Journal Entries School A and School B

(1996-2002) and Artefact Samples.

An explanation of the four action research cycles that represent my

practitioner research within this study follow.

Cycle 1

(Refer to Figure 10, p.62)

In School Context A, I became concerned that the

ideology informing my construction of disability was

different to the one I felt was operating in the School.

This concern was prompted through a process of

critical reflection. Critical reflection is reflection

undertaken consciously and involves drawing

together of bodies of knowledge and positioning the

practitioner within these bodies of knowledge. I

constructed meaning of this context through a

particular frame of reference, a “window” (Bawden,

1991), that was underpinned by literature from my

Masters in Education (1997), my practitioner

knowledge, my tacit knowledge and knowledge as

an “insider”6 (see Figure 11, Cycle 1).

My initial response to these concerns was to ask myself “How does this

system work?” (Dick, 1997b) In response to this question I engaged in a

situational analysis (Skilbeck, 1975) in order to understand special needs in

School A. At this stage of my inquiry there was not a problem or hypothesis

that was clearly directing my inquiry, although the problematic nature of my

work as an Learning Support Teacher was informing my thinking. Inherently, I

knew that practice was incongruent with the espoused school policy.

In the context of a Masters in Education 24 credit point study, I undertook a

situational analysis (Skilbeck, 1975) to understand my construction of

disability that was operating in my teaching context at that particular time. I

initiated the investigation because I intuitively felt that a gap existed between

the rhetoric of inclusive education and the practices of inclusive education 6 Anderson and Herr (1999) distinguish between “insider” research that involves school professionals engaging in their own research in school contexts contributing “insider” knowledge as opposed to “outsider” university-based research. Using my “insider” knowledge in this study is in keeping with my previously argued epistemology of practice.

Figure 11. Cycle 1

operating at the school. The situational analysis aimed at clarifying my

understanding of this particular context and making my tacit knowledge

explicit. The situational analysis did not involve change but formed the initial

stages of my practitioner research journey, providing “insider” knowledge and

a platform (Wheeler, 1986) for further deliberative action.

One of the conclusions that emerged from the situational analysis was that

the discourse in this context surrounding the practices of special needs was

primarily an individualistic construction of disability and reflected a medical

model. This was incongruent with my perspective of special needs education

and the world-wide acceptance of the philosophy of inclusion (Knight, 2001,

p.16; UNESCO, 1994) as well as the school’s espoused policy of special

needs.

I used this conclusion that the discourse surrounding the practices of special

needs in this context reflected an individualistic construction of disability as “a

formative evaluation process” (Dick, 1999a) that highlighted several issues of

concern that were present at School A at that particular time:

• There was a belief that it was not a classroom teacher’s role to educate

students with learning difficulties/disabilities because of a lack of

training and knowledge.

• Teachers lacked confidence in their skills to plan for students with

disabilities and have influence over a student’s chance in learning.

• Teachers may not be aware their classroom decisions and behaviours

contradicted their espoused platform.

I was now working from the premise that most staff had a core belief system

that aligned them with an individualistic, medical construction of disability.

These concerns then guided my practice. Dick (1999a) has suggested “you

don’t need a research question or hypothesis at the start of the study beyond

a wish to know how to improve the situation”. This sentiment is central to a

study of this type. My research purpose was to focus on how I would bring

about a change situation that aligned with not only my value position

concerning inclusive education but also a value position supported by

legislation.

The issues of concern progressed my initial question of “How does this

system work?” into further questions. This way of working is supported by

Dick (1993) who advised, “at each step, use the information so far available to

determine the next step”. The questions that now guided my actions were:



• How does a Learning Support Teacher efficiently share information with

staff?

• How can a Learning Support Teacher influence a whole-school approach

to incorporate inclusive practices within a secondary school context?7

I observed my practice, engaged in critical reflection which resulted in action

and in a methodological sense, this was a complete cycle of action research.

Cycle 2

My research progressed by doing and by making

modifications in a self-reflective spiral of planning, acting,

observing, reflecting, planning. The self correction was

informed by both the literature and my intuitive knowledge. In

this cycle I explored more deeply special needs literature

(see Figure 12, Cycle 2). This literature included a

perspective that adopted a whole school approach to

inclusion (Ainscow, 1989, 1991; Giorcelli, 1995).

Issues of concern

There were several issues of concern that continued from

Cycle 1 and in addition several new issues of concern

7 These questions are the same as those established in my discussions of literature in Chapter 2.

Figure 12. Cycle 2

emerged. Each of these issues generated new questions and subsequent

actions.

Issue of concern: Not the classroom teacher’s problem There was a belief that it was not a classroom teacher’s role to educate

students with learning difficulties/disabilities because of a lack of training and

knowledge. This belief became evident from conversations I had with

individual teachers and working in-class with teachers while I was supporting

students with diverse learning needs. These concerns translated into

questions that my practices as a Learning Support Teacher tried to address.

Questions

How does a Learning Support Teacher enlist the cooperation and

collaboration from staff who do not have the same belief system? (see p.42)

Actions

My initial actions focused on enhancing the knowledge of teachers

concerning current trends influencing the field of special needs education.

These actions included whole-staff presentations introducing legislation

that guides education and antidiscrimination, the culture on which the

school was based, the School’s Policy of Special Needs, the current

numbers of students with diverse learning needs and how these students

were identified within the school.

Other actions included finding like-minded teachers who were interested in

working collaboratively with me in creating differentiated units of work.

Issue of concern: Teachers lacking knowledge and confidence Teachers lacked confidence in their skills to plan for students with diverse

learning needs. This lack of confidence then influenced a teacher’s ability to

improve student learning outcomes. In some cases, a lack of confidence was

generated by a teacher being unaware of the diverse learning needs of the

students in the class. For some teachers, knowledge of their students did not

extend to relevant teaching strategies that were available to meet student

needs or where to access these strategies. This lack of knowledge of

accessing information included teachers not being aware of the role of the

Learning Support Teacher.

Questions

How does the Learning Support Teacher efficiently share information that

concerns the diverse learning needs of students with staff? (p.42)

Actions

In order to share information with teachers I initially sought teachers out

who were like minded in catering for students with diverse learning needs.

Teaching strategies were implemented to improve student learning

outcomes and results shared with other teachers. I accessed literature on

change management in order to understand resistance when changes in

existing practices were suggested. I engaged in conversations with the

Principal to gain support for Unit planning and staff professional

development.

Issue of concern: Dissonance between teacher rhetoric and teacher practice Teachers may not be aware their classroom decisions and behaviours

contradicted their espoused platform. Although teachers supported the values

and belief systems on which the school was founded, their classroom

practices did not reflect these values and beliefs.

Actions

In order to influence changes in teaching practices in the classroom I

modelled teaching practices and shared relevant resources. I also

encouraged teachers to engage in particular professional development.

Although the Burnett (2001) model, (see Figure 10), depicts three discreet

cycles of action research in School A, in reality the cycles were interrelated.

They overlapped and smaller cycles operated within them (Dick, 1997a).

Cycle 3

As the research proceeded there was a need to access

an additional body of knowledge involving change

management. I needed to access literature involving

change management within organizations (Fullan, 1991,

1993, 2001; Goleman, 2000; Guskey, 1986; Havelock,

1973). The literature was generic rather than special

needs specific.

The title, “Beyond knowledge: An insight into the practice

of a Learning Support Teacher”, reflects the need for a

Learning Support Teacher to move beyond the bodies of

knowledge traditionally accessed in order to improve

learning outcomes for a diverse range of students.

Issue of concern: Introducing a whole school approach A whole school approach is needed in order to move from an individual,

medical approach to the support of students with diverse learning needs. This

requires teachers to have a belief that it is also their responsibility to improve

the learning outcomes of all students within their class. Changing attitudes,

beliefs and practices of teachers within a whole school requires structures that

involve more than the role of the Learning Support Teacher.

Question

How can a Learning Support Teacher influence a whole-school approach to

incorporate inclusive practices within a secondary school context? (see, p.42)

Actions

Finding like-minded teachers to work with continued to be a way of

introducing a more collaborative approach between learning support and

Figure 13. Cycle 3

classroom teachers. In order to influence attitudes and beliefs of teachers I

continually sought the support of the Principal. Part of this support was to

encourage her to overtly talk of inclusive issues at full staff meetings. I also

gained her support for the introduction of a whole school approach to the

identification and support of students with difficulties in literacy. Part of this

support included my suggestions for professional development.

Cycle 4

I have identified Cycle 4 as representing that part of

my research that has been informed by literature

concerning practitioner research. This literature has

been accessed as part of my professional doctorate

and brought another “window” or body of knowledge

to my research. My practitioner research became the

primary focus of Cycle 4.

As already argued, planning, acting, collecting and

reflecting are not necessarily neat, discreet events

within particular cycles. As I entered School B, similar

planning, acting, collecting and reflecting took place

in response to similar issues of concern that were

present in School A, which reflects the “outer loop” of

long term reflection to which Griffiths (1990) refers.

Figure 14 also depicts a departure from a central, spiralling action research

process. McNiff (1988, p. 45) uses a variation of Kemmis and McTagart’s

(1988) action research cycle that allows for other issues to be investigated as

side spirals (see Figure 9). My inquiry did not necessarily change focus, the

area of the study expanded (Eizenberg 1991, p.181). Although I have

separated the side spirals as Cycle 4a and 4b, they are clearly interrelated.

Cycle 4a involved making the results of my practitioner research public, in

particular my development of an Information System for supporting both

Figure 14. Cycle 4

teachers and learners (Burnett, 1997). I developed an Information System on

a web authoring program, Frontpage, that was published on School A’s

intranet. This development enabled classroom teachers to access relevant

information concerning students and appropriate teaching strategies. It

enabled classroom teachers to be not only aware of students with special

needs who may be in their class but also explanations of their special need

and appropriate teaching strategies. The various features I designed and

incorporated in this Information System were supported by literature within the

field of special education.

Making my practitioner research public has included presenting at various

conferences and professional network meetings. These conferences have

included Gifted and Talented, SPELD (Specific Learning Disabilities) and

AREA8 (Australian Resource Educators Association). This has been an

exciting part of my research as it has confirmed that many of my colleagues

practicing in the Learning Support field share similar concerns that the

Information System was endeavouring to address. Questions from these

presentations were valuable in “strengthening my convictions” (McNiff et al.,

1996, p.26) in going forward with this information system.

I also recognised I was part of an action research community as well as part

of a practitioner research community (EdD cohort). I also presented my work

at the Action Learning Action Research Process Management (ALARPM)

conference (2002). This provided me with an audience of fellow action

researchers to provide methodological critique. Cycle 4a also involved an

expansion of the study to include the commercial production of a CD version

of the Information System, InfoEd (Burnett, 2000) (A2000InfoEd) that was

made possible by a small Sate Government Grant. In conjunction with the CD,

was the development of a supporting website ,www.infoed.com.au (A2000website)

8 In 2002, AREA (Australian Resource Educators Association) changed to LDA (Learning Difficulties Australia0.

Cycle 4b emerges from my continuing research into practice as a Learning

Support Teacher in a new setting, School B. These practices arise from Cycle

3 and will continue to emerge as I plan, act, collect and reflect on my practice

after the writing of the dissertation for this study is complete. This is already

evident in the final pages of this volume where iterative cycles of practitioner

action research are seen to be ongoing.

A model may need to be multi-faceted

The Burnett Model (2001) is one way of articulating my research journey

across two secondary school contexts. The model is multi-faceted, drawing on

other models and diagrams to represent the whole, complex process of my

research into practice using action research. No one model can explore the

interrelatedness of the various aspects that impact on my practices as a

Learning Support Teacher. The Burnett Model (2001) is a visual device to

conceptualise the messy, reality of my research into practice. The model

forms a frame for enacting and critiquing the study, and, in doing so, makes a

further contribution to the epistemological and ontological conceptual

framework on which this study is built.

Undertaking research requires a researcher to position themselves within

three interrelated belief systems; ontology, epistemology and methodology

(Guba & Lincoln, 1990). I have argued that my practitioner research is

positioned by a constructivist ontology and an epistemological belief that

knowledge arises from the reflection on practice. I have also argued my

positioning within the field of special education as one that is aligned with the

acceptance of the philosophy of inclusion based on principles of social justice.

My ontological and epistemological positions influenced the way I constructed

meaning and came to understand the contexts of my practitioner research.

These positions therefore influenced the methodology of my research

process; what data I collected and how I analysed the data in order to

“assess, develop and improve my own practices” (Brennan, 1998, p.78). As I

am at the centre of my research process, the study reflects my truth, not

necessarily “the” truth in line with a constructivist ontology.

Data Collection and Analysis

Because of the iterative nature of action research, the action generates data

in a continuous process that requires the practitioner researcher to collect

data over a period of time. Data collection and data analysis are therefore not

necessarily sequential, but interrelated. The interrelated nature of data

collection and analysis will be elaborated further, later in this section.

Data have traditionally been viewed as numbers or text that are collected and

analysed to symbolically describe the real world for participants in a study.

Practitioner research involves professionals legitimating knowledge “produced

out of their own lived realities” (Anderson & Herr, 1999). Practitioner research

acknowledges that there are many different ways of seeing and

understanding social reality. The data for this study has been drawn from

direct observations of teacher practice, conversations with teachers and

students. The data collected in this study also includes digital representations

that include photographs, graphic displays, a website and a CD.

Published literature has also been used as data (Brown, 1994). A literature

review normally predetermines and locates the boundaries of the field in

which the literature of the study is to be located. The iterative nature of action

research invites the review of and revisiting the literature as a study

progresses (Bruce, 1994). I have engaged with literature as my research into

practice progressed to affirm and/or critically reflect on the assumptions I was

making about my particular situation. Such reflections offered, not only clarity

but also a way of moving forward with my interrogation. As such, literature can

also be seen as data which affirmed or disconfirmed my study (Winter et al.,

2000, p.28).

The data I have collected, over a period of five years, is supported by a set of

official published texts that I have called artefacts. In this inquiry, artefacts

have included PowerPoint presentations I have given at Staff meetings in the

contexts of School A and B, a range of Conferences (9th State Conference of

the Queensland Association for Gifted and Talented Children, 1999; AREA

National Conference, 1999; AREA National Conference 2000; SPELD Qld,

2000; Combined Associations’ Conference RSTAQ, SPELD, 2000; Marist

Youth Care and the Marist Brothers Education Conference, 2002), Workshops

and presented in a published paper (Burnett, 2004). Participant feedback and

their reflections have been documented from these events. This

documentation has been in the form of recording of their questions,

recommendations, critique of my work from peers and stakeholders in both

School contexts. This documentation appears in my reflective Journal Entries

as artefacts.

Documents are also included as artefacts. School documents, such as policy

documents have been used as data as they are public records and represent

an official position. Other documents such as school magazines have also

been used to reflect historical climates of opinions and contextual matters

within the two school contexts. The use of this documentation has been

central to embedding the data and its analysis in specific contexts.

Words form the focus of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.9) collected

from these observations, conversations and artefacts. This data has been

captured from an “insider’s” perspective so as to “legitimate” knowledge from

my “own lived reality” (Anderson & Herr, 1999, p.20). This data were recorded

as field notes that were later represented, through a process of analysis and

filtering, called data reduction into a reflective Journal Entry. Anderson and

Herr (1999, p.16) stress the importance of practitioner researchers keeping a

research journal in order to “monitor their own change process and

consequent changes in the dynamics of the setting”. The process I used to

write reflective journals is elaborated upon in the section, Processing field

notes to a Journal Entry (see p. 78).

I have argued that the iterative nature of action research can require the

practitioner researcher to collect data over a period of time, thus requiring the

practitioner researcher to make sense of a large quantity of data. This has

been the case in my study where my practitioner research in two school

contexts has spanned five years. Over the five years that this research report

covers, a large quantity of data was amassed. In order to analyse the data,

the management of the data became problematic.

In order to manage the analysis of the data and communicate the analysis, I

have adopted Miles and Huberman’s (1994, p.10) framework (see Figure 15).

This framework reflects the iterative nature of my practitioner action research

where there has been “a lot of overlap, retracing of steps, review, redirection

and refocusing” (McNiff et al., 1996, p.51) and more closely replicates my

research in action.

Miles and Huberman (1994, p.10) define analysis as consisting of three

concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion

drawing/verification. They describe data collection and the analysis activity as

an “interactive, cyclical process” (see Figure 15), not a sequential process.

This “interactive, cyclical process” has been evident in this study where I, as a

practitioner researcher, have moved between the four flows of activity

throughout the study. However, through my practice as a researcher, I have

come to believe that analysis involves a fifth component which has not been

identified by Miles and Huberman (1994). I have called the fifth component,

data presentation which involves both the audience and the medium of

presentation of the research. It is this projection of the data into the public

arena of peer assessment that enhances the scholarship of this type of

research (Schulman, 1993).

Figure 15. Components of Data Analysis

Data collection

Data reduction

Data Conclusion: Drawing/

Verification

Data display

Presentation: medium/audience

This framework of data collection, data reduction, data display, conclusion

drawing/verification and presentation mirrors the multiple levels of data

analysis that have occurred throughout my research study. Figure 15

illustrates that the levels of my data analysis have not necessarily been

sequential but are interactive and cyclical. Each level of the analysis is

described by way of simple explanation below.

Data collection

The data for this study was initially recorded in field notes. The field notes are

a mixture of both records of the event and my reflections of events. Field

notes were used to interpret and reconstruct events and these field notes

appear,

”processed”, as a reflective Journal Entry for a particular event (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p.9).

Data Reduction

The initial layer of my data analysis has involved data reduction. Data

reduction in my study involved processing field notes into Journal Entries,

reflecting critically in the light of multiple bodies of literature and practice and

engaging in the process of writing. Data reduction is a process that transforms

field notes by “selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting” the data (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p.10). Data reduction is described as “not something

separate from analysis” but as “part of analysis”.

Processing field notes to journal entry

A key question that is often asked of the practitioner researcher: Why did I

choose to keep a research journal? Anderson and Herr (1999) reinforce the

importance of practitioner researchers keeping a research journal. They

suggest that for a practitioner researcher, a research journal “can monitor

their own change process and consequent changes in the dynamics of the

setting” (p.16).

My field notes represented aspects of my experiences as a practitioner. As

Connelly and Clandinin (1999) describe, my field notes were “close to

experience, tend to be descriptive, and are shaped around particular events”

(p.138) such as my reflections involving conversations with teachers,

conversations with the Principal and staff presentations.

My field notes were processed from a record of events and my reflections of

these events into a Journal Entry for that particular event. The initial process I

used to transform the data into a Journal Entry was to select and categorise

the data into the categories: Event, Reflection, Critique (Critical Reflection).

As I revisited Journal Entries during the research study, further data reduction

occurred as connections were made between Journal Entries and literature.

In a journal Holly (1997) suggests a writer can reflect on various dimensions

of experience:

What happened? What are the facts? What was my role? What feelings and senses surrounded events? What did I do? What did I feel about what I did? Why? What was the setting? The flow of events? And later, what were the important elements of the event? What preceded it? Followed it? What might I be aware of if the situation recurs? (p.7)

For the purposes of this study, my Journal Entries are constructions of those

dimensions of experiences outlined by Holly (1997). My Journal Entries also

include added reflections and critique that add meaning and understandings

to those constructions and provide a rigorous dimension to the analysis of the

data.

I used the following questions to help manage and provide a consistent

framework to select, focus, simplify and transform the data from the original

field notes that reflected these dimensions of my experiences. When the

vignettes are consulted, three distinct journal levels appear as illustrated (see

Figure 16). These are:

1.1.1 Journal (Description of Event)

• What did I do?

• What happened?

1.1.2 Reflection

• Why did I do it?

• What do the results

mean in theory?

• What do the results

mean in practice?

1.1.3 Critique (Critical Reflection)

• What remains unresolved?

• What literature/practice

affirms or disconfirms

my research practice?

The questions I used in each section of the Journal Entry acted as a tool of

analysis that helped sharpen, sort, focus, discard and organise the data. This

analytic process of data reduction was necessary in order to better

understand my teaching contexts that I found “puzzling, troubling and

uncertain” (Schon,1983, p.40).

Figure 16. JE20020205 LessonModelling

I chose this format of data reduction to satisfy two demanding audiences. As

previously argued, a Doctorate of Education must satisfy University readers

and professional peers.

My professional peers, as readers of my dissertation, need to be given the

opportunity to move beyond my reality of what I did and what happened in two

particular school contexts. In order for my professional peers to relate these

Journal Entries to their reality and practice, they need to know why it was

done and what it is good for in practice.

A University audience of examiners is concerned that a Doctoral dissertation

reports a research study in a way that is more than a “collection of reflective

exercises” (Winter et al., 2000, p.25). Rather, it must present a thesis. The

Journal Entry structure used in this research illustrates a progression from a

description of an event in the first section Journal, to the second section

Reflections, to the third section Critique. It is the Critique section that

progresses the Journal Entry to a critically reflective tool where there are

reflections of what remains unresolved, what literature/practice affirms,

disconfirms my research practice. My Journal Entry illustrates how my

research practice went further than reflection. It involved critical interpretations

of my reflections in the light of literature and professional development that is

a requirement for satisfying a university audience. In this way I have

developed a rigorous manner of analysing the data through reflection, critique

and theory that successfully contributes to the building of a thesis and new

and innovative knowledge in this field. This new knowledge is captured in the

final chapter of the dissertation.

Critical reflection in the light of multiple bodies of literature and practice

The construction of the Journal Entry reflects an iterative, interpretive process

of the data. Part of the evolving nature of each Journal Entry was my critical

reflection of the event in the light of multiple bodies of literature that included

Special Needs, Change management, Technology, Research in Education

and Practitioner research and my positioning within these bodies of literature

(see p.3). There was also critical reflection of the event from the positioning of

my knowledge as a practitioner, my knowledge as an insider and my

knowledge gained from past experience. The critical reflection that occurred

for each event allowed further episodes of data reduction to occur which

enabled a further level of analysis to evolve. This cyclical process of review,

critique and reconstruction was central to my practitioner research and the

building of the journals.

I was continually making analytic choices of which aspects of the event I was

focusing on. These analytic choices sharpened the writing of each Journal

Entry so that each Journal Entry could stand alone as an Event. Miles and

Huberman (1994, p.11) describe data reduction as a “form of analysis that

sharpens, sorts, focuses, discards and organises data in such a way that

“final” conclusions can be drawn and verified”.

The process of writing

The nature of practitioner research locates my voice as central to my writing.

The data and method of data collection using field notes and a reflective

journal embraces Richardson’s (1994) view that:

I write because I want to find something out. (Writing is) a way of finding out about yourself and your topic. Although we usually think about writing as a mode of “telling” about the social world, writing is not just a mopping-up activity at the end of a research project. Writing is also a way of “knowing”- a method of discovery and analysis. (p.516-517)

I found that the act of writing in this study furthered the analysis by forcing me

to think beyond what happened and reflecting why it may have happened and

possible implications. Writing prompted new ideas, new connections and also

helped me to remember material I may have forgotten (Lofland & Lofland,

1984, p.142-143). Holly (1997, p.9) suggests that although writing soon after

an experience can be preferable, it may not always be possible which then

invites “a combination of writing as close to the time as possible and some

time later so that multiple views can emerge”. This has been the case for my

study as I moved from field notes that were written soon after each event to

Journal Entries that may have been revisited a number of times during the

course of the research study. This is in keeping with Griffiths’ (1990) outer

loop of reflection that is associated with long-term reflection, a concept that is

central to this investigation and a key to moving towards the final stage of

drawing conclusions for this study.

Data Display

Data display has been described as the “second major flow of analysis

activity” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 15). Data display, as Figure 15 suggests

interacts with data collection, data reduction in order to move towards drawing

conclusions.

In this study, the processing of field notes to Journal Entries and the

communication of data are closely linked. In order to process the field notes

into a reflective Journal Entry I designed a template that would provide a

consistent structure to present, communicate, and analyse the data. Miles and

Huberman (1994, p.10-11) refer to this as data display. They describe data

display as a “flow of analysis activity” which is “an organised, compressed

assembly of information that permits conclusion drawing and action”. They

suggest that displays help to either analyse further or take action and that the

use of displays “is not separate from analysis, it is part of analysis”. This study

actively adopted this conceptualisation as central to the research process.

The template I designed allowed each Journal Entry to follow a consistent

structure (see Figure 17). This structure guides the reader through an account

of an event, my reflections and critique (critical reflections).

Figure 17. Journal Entry Template

I have managed the data using this structure for a number of reasons. The

Journal Entry structure of Journal, Reflections, Critique created a consistent

way of sorting field notes that were at times a stream of consciousness that

included a mixture of describing what had happened, what I did, why, what it

reminded me of and so on. The consistent look of the Journal Entry adds

clarity which enhances the reader’s understanding of each Journal Entry. The

data was collected in a continuous process. I needed to access the different

sections of the Journal as I proceeded with the analysis to add new

information and reflections as the research study progressed. This is in line

with Griffiths’ (1990) outer loop of reflection associated with long-term

reflection (see Figure 8).

The Journal Entry structure highlights my writing as more than a collection of

descriptions. By using this structure, my professional practice and my analysis

process becomes transparent to readers. The need for transparency in a

What did I do? What happened?

Why did I do it? What do the results mean for my professional practice? What do the results mean for my research practice?

What remains unresolved? What literature/practice affirms my research practice?

research study such as this flows from my articulation of my positioning within

a particular research paradigm. My ontological position is constructivist where

there is no one truth but multiple constructions of reality. This study cannot be

replicated as in a positivist research paradigm. Because my study cannot be

replicated as it is particular to two school contexts, it is important that my

analysis process is transparent so that this study can have relevance to other

Learning Support Teachers in other contexts. Further, the data gains

credibility as being site specific and, as such, is not generalisable. This is not

of concern, for it is my intent that data of this type is generative not

generalisable (Macpherson, Aspland & Brooker, 2001) and is useful in

providing insights for others (Simmons, 1996) as opposed to definitive

conclusions that can be applied across contexts.

Cross-Referencing

I have also used cross-referencing within Journal Entries and between

Journal Entries to make explicit the connections within the data. Part of

making my analysis transparent has involved using the cross-referencing

facility that Microsoft Word allows. I have used cross-referencing within a

particular Journal Entry and between Journal Entries. Cross-referencing within

a Journal Entry allows the reader to recreate the analysis of my research as I

moved from an explanation of an aspect of an event that appears in the

Journal section of the Journal Entry, to the associated reflection of that aspect

and finally the critique. For example the cross-reference 1.3.2. in Figure 16

would be referring to

1.1.1 Refers to the first Journal Entry that has contributed to a particular

Vignette, in the Journal section, paragraph 1.

1.2.1 Refers to the Reflection section in this Journal Entry, paragraph 1.

1.3.1 Refers to the Critique section in this Journal Entry, paragraph 1.

As I retraced my steps writing the Journals, I found additional connections and

cross referencing, as I matched literature and its relevance, as I recalled past

experiences and cross referenced. This tracking is reflected in the cross

referencing within each Journal Entry as well as references to Journal Entries

in the same Vignette or other Vignettes.

This did not happen as a sequential series of steps. There has been “a lot of

overlap, retracing of steps, review, redirection and refocusing” (McNiff et al.,

1996, p.51).

Conclusions: Drawing/Verification

The conclusions for this study are presented in two parts, the drawing of

conclusions and the verification of these conclusions. This is consistent with

the Miles and Huberman (1994) model that refers to these two parts as a

“Gemini configuration”. I have reflected this “Gemini configuration” in the

heading below by fading out the part that is not currently under discussion.


Identifying propositional judgements.

The analysis of the data in this study has been an “interactive, cyclical

process” that has involved moving between the four “flows” of data collection,

reduction, display and conclusion drawing/verification. Because of the

interactive and cyclical nature of the analysis process I began to formulate

understandings of the research contexts. I was noting regularities, patterns,

possible explanations (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.11) which resulted in my

making tentative assertions based on the data. This analysis process is

evident in the critique section of the Journal Entry.

As part of my application for the position of Learning Support Teacher at

School B I was prompted to write a position statement (see CD,

A19981125aPositionPaper or Artefact Samples, p.130) outlining my position

within the field of special needs. I was also prompted to write four possible

scenarios (see CD, A19981125bScenarios of Learning Support or Artefact

Samples, p.133) of how a Learning Support Teacher can practice in a

secondary school setting. I made my positioning clear as to which scenario of

practice I would adhere to if I was the successful applicant. The position paper

and the four scenarios emerged from the critique of my professional practice

that I had already undertaken through my Journal work in School A. At this

point I was aware that there were seven propositional judgements emerging

from the data. Although the wording of the Propositional Judgements has

changed, my Position Statement and Scenarios of learning support clearly

show the emergence of the seven Propositional Judgements. I have identified

the earlier versions of the Propositional Judgements in the Artefact

documents, A19981125aPositionPaper and A19981125bScenarios of

Learning Support presented in the Journal Entries and Artefact Summary

document.

Subsequently, in response to an invitation to present at Marist Youth Care

and the Marist Brothers Education Conference, 2002, I formalised these

propositional judgements through the presentation of a conference paper

(Burnett, 2002) that has subsequently been published (Burnett, 2004).

The act of writing a paper for the Conference was “a method of discovery and

analysis” (Richardson, 1994, p.517). Miles and Huberman (1994, p.75)

acknowledged that as a research study progresses there is a need to

”formalise and systematise the researcher’s thinking into a coherent set of

explanations to generate propositions, or connected sets of statements”. The

initial wording of the seven Propositional Judgements became a more

“coherent set of explanations” as evidenced by the slide

(A20020716Propositional Judgements) presented at this particular

Conference (see Artefact Summaries, p.144).

The Conference (2002) title, Schools as Just Places: Finding Strategies that

Work, echoed two aspects of my work; my positioning within a rights-based

philosophy of inclusion based on principles of social justice which translates

into just and equtiable polices and practices within schools and that schools

need to be more than “just a place to be” for students for whom the curriculum

is not suitable.

The paper I wrote was accepted for presentation at the Conference and has

subsequently been published (Burnett, 2004). In this paper I referred to the

“emergent propositional judgements” from my study. At the time of writing the

paper, the propositional judgements were referred to as emergent because

the analysis of the data was still incomplete. I used the term propositional

because the data was drawn from two particular school contexts (Winter,

2002). I am not suggesting they are predictive for all school contexts. They

are judgements because these statements reflected current end points in my

practitioner research and not an accumulation of facts that can be drawn on

for the implementation of inclusive education in all school contexts. In this

sense they are generative and do not seek to create generalisations

(Groundwater-Smith, 2003).

It was the emergence of propositional judgements that influenced the way in

which the Journal Entries from School B have been finally structured. Each

propositional judgement is supported by Journal Entries that have led to the

articulation of these judgements. Until the propositions had been articulated it

had been difficult to manage and organise the Journal Entries. The

propositional judgements became an organising framework for the Journal

Entries. As new Journal Entries were written and older ones revisited, they

were mapped onto the relevant propositional judgement. Mapping the Journal

Entries onto each Propositional Judgement was refining the wording of each

Propositional Judgement thus formalising and systemising my thinking further.

The analytic process of mapping Journal Entries under emergent judgements

was also developing and testing the relevancy of using the propositions as a

conceptual framework. Positioning each Journal Entry within a propositional

judgement was a cross-checking mechanism for the relevancy of each

propositional judgement. The propositional judgements, informed by Journal

Entries, a way of making

sense of the two complex situations that were the research study.

Writing Vignettes

In order to make sense of my practitioner research in two school contexts, I

needed to deconstruct my practitioner research across contexts into a

manageable conceptual framework without losing the coherence of the

research study. To do this, I have drawn on the concept of a vignette used by

Connelly & Clandinin (1999), Erickson, (1990), Luke and Freebody (2000),

Stenhouse, (1988) and Miles and Huberman (1994) as the conceptual

framework. Luke and Freebody (2000) referred to “effective practice

vignettes” in relation to a Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools

(2000) where each vignette was a focus on a “slice in time of the work of

teachers” in classrooms.

Each vignette reported here is simply a snapshot across two contexts at a

particular moment in the history of the study. Each vignette provides a

“sketch” rather than a “fully worked picture” of two school contexts

(Stenhouse, 1988, p.52) and as such, has been a useful framework in

formualting the core judgements and addressing the key research questions

of my research study.

The structure I have used for reporting the vignettes is in keeping with Miles

and Huberman (1994) who described a vignette as “a focused description of a

series of events taken to be representative, typical, or emblematic in the case

you are doing. It has a narrative, storylike structure that preserves

chronological flow and that normally is limited to brief time span, to one or a

few key actors, to a bounded space, or to all three” (p.89). Figure 18 captures

an overview of the structure I have used for each vignette. The “narrative,

storylike structure” that Miles and Huberman (1994) refer to is what I have

called the analytic narrative.

Figure 18. Vignette structure

In my research study, each vignette follows a consistent structure (see Figure

18). Each vignette is comprised of a series of Journal Entries (JE) from

School B in chronological order. The Journal Entries chosen to be a part of

each vignette reflect and give support to the propositional judgement of that

vignette. Each vignette can be read as a single, stand alone document but in

reality, the seven propostional judgements each vignette represents, are

interrelated. A single Journal Entry may be referred to in more than one

vignette which reflects the complextiy and interrelatedness of the vignettes.

Artefacts (A), which I have referred to as the set of my official published texts

(p.74) relevant to a Journal Entry are also included within a vignette. Each

vignette is prefaced with an analytic narrative which Erickson (1990, p.162)

suggested is “the foundation of an effective report of fieldwork research”.

The analytic narrative of each vignette is a reconstruction of key aspects of

my research practice that has led to each propositional judgement. Each

analytic narrative is more than simply a description of my reseach practice

that has led to a propositional judgement. The analytic narrative elaborates on

issues arising from School A and new ones in School B. The analytic narrative

crystalises key aspects of my research practice and these key aspects are

Vignette

Propositional Judgement

Analytic Narrative

JE

JE

JE

JE

JE

A A

Propositional Judgement

School A

JE extracts

School B

JE extracts

Summary section

evidenced by Journal Entries and artefacts from School B. Extensive sections

from the critique section of Journal Entries are included in the analytic

narrative. In order to make a more fluid narrative I have changed some of the

arrangement of the text while endeavouring to maintain the intended reading.

Each vignette concludes with a summary of my positioning within each

propositional judgement.

Therefore, each of the seven propositional Judgements is supported by the

research data and is integrated into one conceptual framework:

As such, the seven vignettes present the analyisis of my practitioner research,

focusing on a “slice of time” across two school contexts. They are my

research texts that are shaped “by the underlying narrative threads and

themes that constitute the driving force of the inquiry” (Connelly & Clandinin,

1999, p.138).

Figure 19 is a visual representation of what the collection of seven vignettes

looks like in this research study.

Figure 19. Vignettes: A conceptual framework

Vignette 7

Journal Entry Journal Entry Contents

Vignette

Journal Entry

Journal Entry Contents

Vignette 1 Propositional Judgement

Both the conceptual framework of the vignette and the analytic narrative style

of writing is in keeping with satisfying “two demanding audiences” of

practitioner research that is positioned in a professional doctorate program-

“academics and professional practitioners” (QUT, 2000). The conceptual

framework of the vignette allows the reader to access an abstract of my

practitioner research by reading the analytic narrative or to move further into

my research process and make connections with individual Journal entries

that provide “evidentiary warrant” (Erickson, 1990, p.162) for a particular

propositional judgement. This should satisfy the academic audience. Denzin

and Lincoln (1998, p.501-2) described this process of “moving from field to

text to the reader” as a “complex, reflexive process” and elaborated on how

writing one’s story is a form of analysis that is captured here through the

vignettes.

The seven propositional judgements that have emerged from my practitioner

research in two contexts, do not have clear cut boundaries but are inextricably

interrelated. The conceptual framework of the seven vignettes represents,

tidily, what was messy in reality. The vignettes are interwoven in a complex

tapestry of practice, that can be read holistically in a comprehensive manner,

if that is what is required by the reader, or they may be interogated partially.


The seven vignettes present the analysis of my practitioner research. There

may be other readings of my research data that would construct alternative

understandings of the research contexts. This is congruent with my

ontological belief that there can be multiple understandings or constructions

for any one situation and an epistemological position that there is no one

universal truth. Therefore, there is a need to verify the credibility of my

particular practitioner research conclusions involving the research contexts,

School A and School B. Miles and Huberman (1994, p.11) state, drawing

conclusions is “only half of a Gemini configuration”.

As my research study progressed there were a number of opportunities to

verify my emerging propositional judgements. These included presentations at

Conferences, conversations with a range of professional colleagues and a

critical friend (Anderson & Herr, 1999) and the publication of my propositional

judgements (Burnett, 2004). These opportunities were ways of monitoring my

propositional judgements through peer review. In particular, my paper, Burnett

(2004) was required to pass through a process of review in order to be

published. As such, there was no attempt to gather perspectives from other

stakeholders as the focus of my practitioner research has been the positioning

of my learning support practice.

Presentation: Medium/Audience

As previously defined (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.10), analysis consists of

three concurrent flows of activity: data reduction, data display and conclusion:

drawing/verification. Through my practice as a researcher, I have come to

believe that analysis can also include data presentation: medium/audience.

By choosing to present my thesis electronically, I would argue I have

accessed another aspect of data analysis that has involved making choices

between a traditional structure of thesis writing and a structure that is

consistent with my epistemological positioning. Miles and Huberman (1994,

p.11) suggest that the choices the researcher makes to display data is not

separate from analysis but is a part of analysis. I would suggest the choice the

researcher makes regarding the presentation of a dissertation is also a part of

analysis. This choice of presentation will also be influenced by the audience to

whom it is presented.

The traditional structure of thesis writing and presentation of a dissertation is

generally a linear sequence of literature review, methodology, findings and

conclusion (Winter, 1996, p.25) which operates out of an empiricist

epistemology consistent with a positivist paradigm of research (Smyth,

Hattam & Shacklock, 1997). Text is also typically presented in a linear form

which limits a single way to progress through the text, starting at the

beginning and reading to the end (Foltz, 2000). The process of my inquiry

would suggest that this traditional writing framework is incongruent (Hill, 2002)

with my articulated inquiry paradigm that argues that an ontological belief

suitable to human inquiry is one where there is not one truth, but many.

The central value underpinning this study is that knowledge is constructed, an

epistemological position which is valuing knowledge being defined in terms of

human constructions (Guba & Lincoln, 1990, p.148). This epistemological

positioning is suggestive of the possibility that there is more than one way of

“structuring and transforming experiences to bring out its significance”

(Winter, 1996, p.25). I have attempted to meet such a challenge in this

context.

I have chosen an electronic medium to present my thesis because it allows a

non-linear reading of my practitioner research that remains faithful to my

nominated epistemology. Winter (1995) suggested that:

In general, the history of writing shows a continuing process of experimentation, in an attempt to do justice to the always frustrating relationship between the linear sequence of words on a page, the infinite complexities of experience, and the desire to elucidate a wider significance from particular events. (p.25)

A non-linear reading of my dissertation can also satisfy an audience other

than the traditional academic reader of higher degree research. The Doctorate

of Education, to which this research is aligned, is a course that “has two

demanding audiences-academics and professional practitioners” (QUT,

2000).

An electronic medium allows the use of hypertext. Hypertext is a term that

describes non-linear writing in which the reader can follow associative paths

through textual documents. Instead of reading a document in the order

predetermined by the author, readers of hypertext can follow their own path

thus creating their own order and meaning from the material presented.

Hypertext is accomplished by creating links between information that allows

the reader to jump to further information about a specific topic. The most

common use of hypertext these days is found in the links on World Wide Web

pages.

In the writing of my electronic dissertation I was initially able to use, Microsoft

Word, a general-purpose word processing program that offers features of

hyperlinking which allowed me to navigate more readily a large document.

This enhanced the management of the large quantity of data involved in this

study.

The facilities of Microsoft Word were sufficient in managing the writing task of

my dissertation on my personal computer. As the quantity of data and the size

of documents increased and the number of navigable pathways I was needing

to present my work increased, a loss of clarity in the linking process became

evident. This required the formulation of a specific program to present my

thesis as an electronic dissertation. The use of hypertext has allowed my

dissertation to be represented in a way that connects different sections of the

document to each other and provide connections within the sections. This

allows different pathways to be followed through the work by different readers;

readers can choose, among the links provided, those associations that are

most relevant to them. Thus satisfying the needs of different audiences.

The presentation of my thesis, as an electronic dissertation, is a part of the

interactive, iterative process of analysis of my practitioner action research.

The data and the analysis of this data is presented as Chapter 4 on the CD.

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

Introduction

The previous chapter has argued that the iterative nature of action research

satisfied a “fitness” for the “function” of my practitioner research (Swepson,

1998, p.3) in two school contexts. Action research provided the flexibility and

responsiveness to the situation that was needed as there was not an initial,

precise research question (Dick, 1993). Data collection was ongoing

throughout the study as my research into practice progressed. This

necessitated ongoing analysis of the data. The iterative nature of action

research supported an interactive, cyclical process of the data analysis that

involved data reduction, data display, conclusion drawing/verification and

Presentation medium/audience (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These aspects of

my analysis process were not sequential and have been explained in the

previous Chapter (p.74-94).

Seven propositional judgements have emerged from this interactive, cyclical

process of the data analysis. These prepositional judgements represent

current end points of my practitioner research. I have used an analytic

narrative to link my practitioner research to each propositional judgement. The

analytic narrative has allowed me to make sense of the research act itself

(Groundwater-Smith, 2003).

I have used the conceptual framework of a vignette to represent the analytic

process of my practitioner research. The vignette structure includes an

analytic narrative that uses the data, Journal Entries, artefacts and literature

to support the propositional judgement of each vignette (see Figure 18). Each

vignette is therefore representative of a propositional judgement that has

emerged from my practitioner research in two school contexts.

There are multiple pathways for the reader to access my research analysis.

The CD allows the reader the facility of hyperlinking to data which includes

Journal Entries and artifacts that support the analytic narrative in its argument

towards a prepositional judgement. However, I recognise other readers might

prefer to read the Journal Entries in chronological order. This option is

available on the CD and from the accompanying Document, “Journal Entries

1996-2002, School A and School B”. Artefacts can only be accessed from the

CD version.

The presentation of the analysis of my practitioner research satisfies the

demands of two different audiences. The analytic narrative provides a

professional practitioner with the essence of my practitioner research while

still connecting an academic audience to the data that supports the analysis.

The seven prepositional judgements represent tidily, what was messy in

reality. They are presented as separate entities but on reading it becomes

evident that they overlap each other and do not have clear cut boundaries.

The presentation of these vignettes on the CD allows the use of hypertext

which provides the reader with links within a Journal Entry, between Journal

Entries and between vignettes thus reflecting the complexity and

interrelatedness of the various aspects of my practitioner research.

Based on the data analysis presented in each analytic narrative, the following

propositional judgements have emerged from my practitioner research as a

Learning Support Teacher in two secondary school contexts over a period of

five years. These propositional judgements are not mutually exclusive but

rather complement and support each other in addressing the research

questions that have been the focus of this study:







context?

Vignette 1 For a Learning Support Teacher to support teachers and

students with diverse learning needs, school communities

need to share a common understanding of equity.

Vignette 2 A Principal must provide overt leadership.

Vignette 3 A whole-school approach is needed to narrow the gap

between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practice.

Vignette 4 Pedagogical reform is the most effective strategy for

accommodating students with diverse learning needs.

Vignette 5 Differentiating the curriculum is achieved when

collaborative planning teams develop appropriate units of

work.

Vignette 6 School communities need to make a commitment to gather,

share and manage relevant information concerning

students.

Vignette 7 The Learning Support Teacher needs to be repositioned

within a curriculum planning team.

The reader can access each vignette by following the appropriate vignette link

from the Table of Contents on the CD. (see Figure 20)

Figure 20. CD Table of Contents

Using the CD

By default the CD should run the program immediately once inserted into a

computer. However, if this does not happen (as it may be due to differing

configurations on computer systems) or you encounter errors while running

the program, install the application onto the system. The following are

instructions for doing so.

Step 1: Ensure the CD is in the drive, and navigate to your CD drive folder (in

most cases, D:\) via My Computer or Explorer.

Step 2: Locate the “setup.exe” program file and run it. This initiates the

installation process. Follow the prompts on the screen to install the program

correctly.

Step 3: Once installation is completed run the “ThesisApp.exe” file located (by

default) in the”C:\Program Files\Digital Thesis\” folder.

VIGNETTE 1: Analytic Narrative

Propositional Judgement: For a Learning Support Teacher to support teachers and students with

diverse learning needs, school communities need to share a common

understanding of equity.

From the beginning of my teaching practice at School A I was aware of the

social justice principles that guided current thinking in the provision of learning

support for students with diverse learning needs. At the end of my teaching

practice at School A I was aware that contemporary models of learning

support were not necessarily understood by teachers at the school. This was

despite a special needs policy that reflected an inclusive philosophy

underpinned by principles of social justice and equity.

In School B I was given a statement of responsibility (see CD, A19981127) for

the Learning Support Teacher which was written from a current perspective of

implementing inclusive practices in classroom teaching. Given that the

position description was written from a current perspective of inclusion, I

assumed that inclusive practices were embedded in the school culture. My

practitioner research revealed that not all teachers had a contemporary

understanding of models of learning support.

Contemporary models of learning support reflect a shift away from viewing

students with diverse learning needs as having deficits intrinsic to the

individual that required them to adapt to a curriculum rather than the

curriculum adapt to them. Such a shift requires an understanding of equity

that acknowledges difference and the catering for the individual needs of

students. These shifts distinguish a contemporary understanding of inclusion

as catering for the diverse learning needs of all students.

That these understandings were not present was evidenced by the resistance

I received when trying to implement special considerations for students with

special needs.

Teachers believed that equity meant that everybody got the same. This

belief was inaccurate and unachievable.

The explanation of this resistance was coming from three possible sources.

Firstly, teachers did not have an understanding of how legislation reflects a

changing construction of disability and difference.

Secondly, teachers may have been aware of current constructions but

believed they did not have the appropriate skills to deal effectively with

students with special needs in the classroom.

Rizvi and Lingard (1992) explain: “the idea of ‘simple equality’ as access, as involving everyone getting the same thing in the same form is neither achievable nor desirable. It is not achievable because people do not have the same means, and it is not desirable because people do not have the same needs”. (p.25) (JE20011108) Although a number of teachers were accepting and implementing special considerations, there were a number who were resisting this change in belief, that equity is synomonous with ‘the same’. My concern was how to ‘move’ the belief systems of some teachers to accept more inclusive beliefs. (JE20020304) In one instance, I assumed that a shift in attitude had taken place but in fact the supposed success was merely a function of “superficial compliance” (Fullan, 2001). (JE20020805)

A traditional medical paradigm of disability was operating which has led to a deficit model of education for students with learning difficulties/disabilities. These deficits are considered intrinsic to the student and are remediated through IEP’s (Ainscow, 1989; Slee, 1997).The school had experienced little contact with current learning support issues and as Carrier (1989) argues teachers probably had not been asked to articulate their educational understandings or beliefs. (JE19990308).

Thirdly, teachers may have had the knowledge of current social justice

principles but their assumptions and values did not coincide with current

thinking and practices.

This reflection on my practice generated a number of strategies that I used to

implement changes in the classroom teaching practice of teachers. A strategy

I used to address the problem of teacher’s lack of knowledge concerning

students with diverse learning needs was to deliver presentations at staff

meetings.

I provided teachers with a variety of powerpoint presentations that discussed

current understandings of providing for students with diverse learning needs

(see CD, A19990510; A19990816; A20000221; A20011008). This strategy

revealed that some teachers needed to be advised of the legislation guiding

education and that some teachers, although aware of these aspects needed

to change their belief system. Pope and Denicolo (1991, p.99) support this

recognition that “if practices are to change, the teachers need to examine

some of their fundamental beliefs”.

My concern was that even if teachers had positive beliefs about inclusive schooling, they may not have the knowledge or skills to differentiate curriculum. Hargreaves (1994) suggests that “the teacher is the ultimate key to educational change and school improvement” therefore professional development is needed to support the diverse learning needs of the teachers. Larcombe (1987) reiterates that the needs of teachers need to be considered as well as students. (JE20020530)

Conversations with teachers in 2002 revealed that although they had listened to presentations concerning contemporary trends in providing learning support and recognising individual learning needs, their assumptions and values did not coincide with current thinking. (JE20020412)

I recognised that in order to influence beliefs and attitudes of some teachers

there needed to be overt leadership from the Administration team. I therefore

used the strategy of presenting a powerpoint presentation for the

Administration team that explicitly linked curriculum change to a change in

beliefs and attitudes of teachers towards the meaning of equity (see CD,

A20020412). By informing the Administration team I was hoping to indirectly

influence the attitudes of some teachers.

I also worked with teachers who already had beliefs and attitudes that were

congruent with current thinking but who lacked the skills to adjust teaching

and assessment practices.

A teacher had sought my help because of her previous experience of students finding a particular assessment task difficult. She had identified a need to change her existing teaching skills in order to accommodate a more diverse range of student ability levels. She was acknowledging that tasks may need to change, teaching strategies may need to change in order provide for individual student needs and she was seeking the skills from me to do this. This teacher had similar principles of equity to mine which did not align with a ‘one size fits all ‘ curriculum. For adolescent learners, scaffolded and focused pedagogical strategies have been recognised as making a difference in the literacy performance of specific groups of students (Education Queensland, 2000). Supporting learning requires the support of scaffolding strategies (Kiddey and Robson, 2001). Providing scaffolding strategies to those students who would benefit, acknowledges a move away from delivering the curriculum in a uniform way (Clark et al, 2000). My role of learning support was providing a positive contribution to pedagogical reform in this particular department. (JE20020131)

By using the strategy of starting small with like-minded teachers I felt that I had built a mutual trust between this teacher and myself. Wallace and Hall (1994) suggest that mutual trust can only be developed through ‘repeated positive experience’. This particular teacher has returned several times during 2002 for feedback and advice on restructuring assignments. She has asked me to repeat the lesson next year. (JE20020205) A teacher recognised her own obligation to find ways to teach students that recognised their particular needs (Aber, Bachman, Campbell & O’Malley, 1994). Her beliefs concerning meeting the needs of students were reflected in the skills and strategies she was prepared to try in order to respond to individual learning styles. Her beliefs and attitudes about my role and her responsibilities as a teacher will influence the way students would be taught in her class. (JE20021101)

Although this particular teacher was open to reviewing her teaching practice

in the light of student diversity, not all teachers are likely to change and

according to Havelock (1973), there will be some “laggards”.

I also approached the Principal on a number of occasions concerning what I

perceived to be resistant attitudes of some teachers towards acknowledging

the diverse learning needs of particular students.

I

also suggested to the Principal that this resistance reflected an attitude and

belief system that was out of step with current understandings of Equity.

Information concerning students was available to teachers in several different forms. Recent conversations with teachers revealed that although they had listened to presentations concerning contemporary trends in providing learning support (see CD, A19990308; A20000221; A20011008, JE19991207) and recognising individual learning needs, their assumptions and values did not coincide with current thinking. (JE20020412) The non compliance of teachers in providing special considerations led me to encourage the Principal to give overt support to my efforts to encourage teachers to provide special considerations. The support in this instance became a directive to teachers to comply with these requests in the light of accountability issues. (JE20021030)

Equity for teachers seemed to mean students having access to the same

material and assessment which then reflected fairness. These disturbing

attitudes hindered the movement towards modifying curriculum to meet

particular student needs and resulted in a one size fits all curriculum. There

was a need for teachers to be explicitly shown how units of work can be

differentiated so as to cater for diverse learning needs. The differentiated

curriculum is learner-focused and is increasingly being seen as a necessary

condition for effective learning.

Following the conversations with the Principal and the presentation to the

Administration team, the Principal took various actions. These actions

included the Principal addressing special considerations at a Staff meeting

and issuing a memo to staff regarding special considerations (JE20020428).

Professional development was also agreed to that linked differentiating the

curriculum and issues of equity (JE20020812). A member of the

Fullan (2001, p.44) describes transforming a culture of an organisation as ‘reculturing’ which involves changing the ways things are done. The culture of a school affects the way in which a school operates and goes about the business of implementing inclusive practices (Carrington 2002, Sebba and Ainscow 1996). If a culture exists in a school that does not reflect inclusive beliefs, then it is unlikely that appropriate curriculum and pedagogical practices will be incorporated in curriculum planning.

0 (JE20020402)

The Principal had acknowledged to staff the importance of differentiating the curriculum and there was an expectation that Units of work currently being developed in Years 9 and 10 would be developed with differentiation in mind. My concern was that even if teachers had positive beliefs about inclusive schooling they may not have the knowledge or skills to differentiate curriculum. Hargreaves (1994) suggests that “the teacher is the ultimate key to educational change and school improvement” therefore professional development is needed to support the diverse learning needs of the teachers. Larcombe (1987) reiterates that the needs of teachers need to be considered as well as students. (JE20020530)

Administration team accompanied me to a professional development day

regarding special considerations (JE20020918). Subsequent professional

development has reinforced the values and traditions on which the School has

been established (JE20021202).

Presentations at staff meetings and to the Administration team raised the level

of awareness and knowledge concerning legislation guiding education and the

requirements for providing for diverse student needs. This attracted a small

number of teachers who shared a common belief system that individual

progress is central to learning and equity is not based on a one size fits all

curriculum. These teachers shared an understanding of equity that prompted

changes to their teaching practice. In order for inclusive practices to move

beyond a small number of teachers, I needed the principal to echo those

beliefs to all staff in a way that positions the school explicitly in those beliefs.

My practitioner research in School B revealed there was not a common

understanding of equity shared by the staff and in order for inclusive practices

to be implemented a shared understanding of equity needed to be agreed

upon by staff and if not agreed, complied with (JE20020523; JE20030324).


Propositional Judgement: A Principal must provide overt leadership.

The Principal of School A had provided educational leadership in the area of

special needs with her provision of a school Policy for special needs,

employing a Head of Department (HOD) of special needs and providing a

physical space (Learning support centre) for the department. This educational

leadership continued during my teaching practice at the school as evidenced

by her support for two initiatives that I introduced. These initiatives had the

potential to influence the way teachers delivered the curriculum. The Principal

provided financial support, professional development and technical expertise

to support an Information System I had developed on the school’s intranet.

The Principal also supported my initiative to work collaboratively with two

teachers to plan a Maths Unit. She approved the release of two teachers for a

day to work with me in designing a unit of work that would cater for a diverse

range of student needs.

These initiatives met with only partial success due to a number of possible

reasons. The Policy for special needs had been written by Administration and

did not necessarily reflect a shared sense or understanding among the

teachers about what they were trying to accomplish regarding inclusive

practices. This was evidenced by staff resentment of the time allocation that

was being given to me to develop the information system and to work with

teachers. The Principal ignored this resentment as a significant problem when

it was pointed out to her. The resentment of teachers and the Principal’s

response reflected a lack of awareness of some teachers of the philosophy

behind a whole school approach for the implementation of the school’s special

needs policy that is understood and shared by the school community.

School B did not have a Special Needs Policy and did not have a history of

employing a Learning Support Teacher. This had a number of implications for

my practice as a Learning Support Teacher. To raise staff awareness

concerning students with diverse learning needs, I presented at various staff

meetings (see CD, A19950510, A19990816, A20000221,A20011008,

A20020218). These presentations covered such aspects as why special

considerations are offered to students with a diversity of needs. Teachers

were unaware that particular students were entitled to special considerations

for assessment. These presentations also raised issues of how some

students would benefit from particular teaching strategies and how the

Learning Support Teacher’s role is one of support of both teachers and

students.

Special considerations was not welcomed by staff and there was continuing

resistance from teachers to implement the procedures successfully. I engaged

in various conversations with the Principal regarding the non-compliance by

teachers in order to raise her awareness of the underlying attitudes and

beliefs of some staff that were not aligned with a current understanding of

equity.

There were several reasons why I approached the Principal and not the teacher concerned when a particular student was not given special considerations. I approached the Principal because my position description stated that “the Learning Support Teacher operates directly under the direction of the Principal” (see CD, A19981127). The Principal was my line of reporting which was an advantage because I needed the support of her position of authority. I felt that I needed the direct support of the Principal for this student as it was an important piece of assessment in this subject at the end of her Year 12. I had already presented at several staff meetings the legal background for providing special considerations (see CD, A20011008) and provided staff with lists of students and the reasons why they may need special considerations. Providing special considerations was an issue that had caused negative responses from staff since special considerations had been introduced. I felt that I had exhausted the strategies available to me to explain to teachers why there was a need to provide special considerations for some students. (JE20011108)

The Principal’s initial way of dealing with this resistance was to remind and

reinforce the issue with the Deputy Curriculum in the hope that the Deputy

Curriculum would pass on this information in the context of Curriculum

meetings. Continued resistance by teachers and some members of the

Administration team concerning special considerations prompted me to

present a powerpoint presentation to the Administration team concerning the

meaning of Equity (see CD, A20020412). The Principal took several overt

actions after this presentation. Time was allocated at a staff meeting where

she clearly stated the legal issues involved and directed teachers to the

Because my role statement stipulated that I was responsible to the Principal, I used my conversations with her as a way of having a ‘voice’ on the staff. (JE20021102)

information I had provided on the school’s network or to me personally. She

also wrote a memo to all staff concerning the issue.

The principal also presented information that I had given her concerning

differentiating the curriculum and actively sought professional development for

the whole staff that clearly informed and reminded teachers about the ethos

and culture that underpins the school.

The Principal’s overt leadership concerning issues of special consideration

resulted in an increase in teachers seeking information about students

I felt the PowerPoint presentation (see CD, A20020402) I had given to Administration, which had explicitly outlined the reasons under which special considerations is allocated had prompted this explanation. I felt that the Principal was presenting an overt position that would carry weight and steer teachers to the position of implementing special considerations. Not only was the Principal giving overt support for the need for special considerations for particular students, she was also giving overt support for my role in learning support. The Memo from the Principal was reinforcing the need for teachers to be aware of their professional responsibility to adjust classroom practice for a student who has a learning disability or a learning difficulty. (JE20020428)

(1991) asserted that the “hallmark of any successful organisation is a shared sense among its members about what they are trying to accomplish. Agreed upon goals and ways to attain them enhance the organization’s rationale for planning and action”. (p.12) Even though this professional development was aimed at reminding teachers of the ethos on which the school was built, there seemed to be no real interrogation of values (Pope & Dinlico, 1991). Fundamental beliefs were not being challenged in how social justice principles related to classroom practice. Giorcelli (1999) described teachers as appearing to align with particular accepted beliefs as “puppies on the dashboard syndrome”. (JE20021202)

requiring special considerations and complying with the recommended

considerations. Some teachers did not necessarily agree but they were

complying with the provision of special considerations regarding assessment.

Although teachers may have been complying with special considerations in

terms of extra time and alternative settings, it was my perception that teaching

practice within the classroom had changed little in taking ownership for

providing for diverse student learning needs.

Reflection on my practice generated a number of strategies that I used to

implement changes in classroom teaching practice. These strategies included

seeking the support of the Principal in finding a whole school approach to

improving literacy. It was opportunistic for me to gain support for a whole

school approach as an increase in teacher skills had the potential to improve

literacy learning outcomes for all students. I was looking for support from the

Principal to show support for pedagogical change so that it did not appear to

be solely a Learning Support issue and therefore relevant to only particular

students.

I again used a management strategy of presenting an argument to the Principal who was my line of authority. I was also giving her the ‘words’ to address the problem (see CD, A20020402). It would seem that although I had given the staff similar information in the past, it was when the Principal stated the legal and equity issues, the staff complied with accessing information in order to provide special considerations. Goleman (2000) would classify this style of leadership as coercive. A leadership style that demanded immediate compliance. He described that this style worked best “to kick start a turnaround, or with problem employees”. (p.82) (JE20020428)

Seeking the support of the Principal was a strategy I used because at School

B my role statement made me directly responsible to the Principal. This

positioning of my role allowed me access to the Principal. This access was

important as I was not in a HOD position and I had not been included in the

wider curriculum planning team. (JE20000830). This lack of authority had

problems for my leadership in achieving the responsibilities that my role

statement required, which were to work closely with curriculum coordinators to develop programs and to ensure supportive learning and foster understandings of difference and ensure appropriate attitudes. (see CD, A19981127)

I also needed the support of the Principal for suggested professional

development to occur. I was suggesting professional development in the

areas of accommodating difference and improving the educational outcomes

for all students (JE19991207), improving literacy across the curriculum

(JE20010125, JE20010601, JE20010820) and using frameworks to

differentiate the curriculum (JE20020812). This type of professional

development needed to access a broader school budget for which I did not

have authority.

Research suggests that it is essential that students in the middle years continue to be explicitly taught literacy skills (Cairney, 1994; Hill, Holmes-Smith and Rowe, 1993). For this to occur overtly in secondary schools, teachers across the curriculum need to have the skills and strategies to teach these skills. Research also has found that the most effective use of resources in terms of improving school achievement is to develop the qualifications of teachers (National Research Council, 1999). Ainscow (1989) suggests that for teachers to be effective they also need to know where their students are at in terms of their existing skills and knowledge. Because ELLA tests aspects of literacy across the key curriculum areas, it shifts the responsibility of teaching literacy skills to across the curriculum rather than just English. As such, teaching literacy skills becomes a whole school approach. Hill and Crevola (1999. p.5) suggested that effective teaching and learning in schools starts with “pursuing a whole school approach”. For literacy to be accepted as a whole school approach, there needed to be support from the principal to achieve this. (JE20000717)

Another strategy I used was to suggest to the Principal that I meet with the

Administration team. This by-passed what I perceived to be the problem of my

not being a HOD. I also had conversations with the Principal regarding equity

and special considerations. The nature of these discussions focussed on

issues relating to the underlying belief systems of some staff regarding the

meaning of equity and how those belief systems were impacting on the

learning outcomes of students with diverse learning needs. These

conversations resulted in the Principal speaking to staff directly on issues of

equity and special consideration. The Principal speaking directly to staff

demonstrated a more effective, overt, unquestionable leadership in moving

the school towards an inclusive culture. More recently (2003) the Principal

adopted a more authoritative leadership style (Goleman, 2000) at a staff

meeting arguing the core values of the school as underpinning the responses

our school would take regarding the current demands from education.

Particular mention was made of the vision for the inclusive classroom and the

role of teachers as leaders in achieving this.

My practitioner research in School B revealed that when the Principal was

seen to be engaging teachers in both a coercive and authoritative leadership

style involving direct and frequent communication about the schools’ accepted

beliefs and values and vision for the school, there was a move by teachers to,

if not agree, comply and engage, in more inclusive practices.

VIGNETTE 3: Analytic Narrative Propositional Judgement: A Whole-school approach is needed to narrow the gap between inclusion

rhetoric and classroom practice.

When I entered School A there were a number of features that were moving

the school towards a whole school approach (Ainscow & Florek, 1989)

involving students with special needs. There was a school Policy of Special

Needs. Information was available to teachers concerning particular students

with special needs. A Head of Department (HOD) represented a voice for

students with special needs at HOD meetings and a special needs committee

had been formed that included representatives from the school’s

Administration team and the parent body. These structures appeared to

emphasise the importance of a whole school approach and not one that

suggested that students with special needs were the responsibility of Learning

Support Teachers.

Despite these qualities, from my teaching practice at School A I was aware

that the structures that were in place for the support of students with special

needs did not necessarily reflect an understanding by teachers that inclusion

was a shared responsibility. These reflections of my practice led to strategies

such as finding and working with like-minded teachers, improving the means

by which teachers were exposed to information concerning students and

whole staff presentations.

In School B, although there was not a Policy document for Special Needs, the

school’s mission statement (see CD, A19921024) and a statement of

responsibility (see CD, A 19981127) given to me in my learning support role in

School B was written from a current perspective of implementing inclusive

practices in classroom teaching. These documents stated that a

comprehensive range of educational programs would cater for the needs of

the individual student, suggesting that a whole school approach was in place.

From my position of insider researcher observing practices and discourses,

differentiation of instruction and assessment relevant to student needs was

not evident. There was a gap between the rhetoric of inclusion clearly evident

in the school’s mission statement and the Learning Support Teacher

statement of responsibility and my observations of teaching practices and

discourses. These reflections on practice led to strategies of introducing an

information system that could be accessed by all teaching staff (see CD,

A20020218) on the school’s computer network. There was a need for such a

system to be supported by a whole school structure in order for relevant

information concerning student needs to be transferred to the classroom

teacher. Such a whole school system promotes an understanding of inclusion

as a shared responsibility but needs the support of an Administration team in

order for teachers to access and use the information.

Initiating a whole school approach to literacy was a strategy I used in

response to a problematic aspect of the role of a Learning Support Teacher. If

a school has only one Learning Support Teacher in support of a large number

of students, the Learning Support Teacher can only provide a limited service

to individual students, groups of students or classes. In a secondary context a

student may have as many as eight different teachers across a number of

different subject areas thus providing a number of opportunities for teachers

to address aspects of literacy.

ELLA is an English Language and Literacy Assessment instrument that I had

researched and felt would be a springboard for our school to implement a

whole school approach to literacy. It is a curriculum-based assessment,

testing students’ knowledge and skills in particular aspects of literacy. It is a

criterion-referenced test that shows what students can do. The aspects of

literacy tested across the key curriculum areas of English, Science,

Mathematics, Design & Technology, Physical Education, History, Geography,

LOTE, Visual Arts, Drama, Dance and Music are Writing, Reading and

Language.

The results of the test would provide diagnostic information to teachers and

our school about student literacy achievements. This information would then

inform teaching and learning programmes in order to improve literacy

outcomes, track individual students, identify performance of different sub-

groups across the school, report on strengths and concerns in literacy and

provide parents with a snapshot of their child’s performance against a set of

criteria. (JE20000717)

Relevant professional development for teachers is a corollary for the success

of such a whole school approach.

Improving educational outcomes for all students requires a school to be

“energised” (Giorcelli, 1999). An awareness of social justice issues is a

characteristics that is seen to reflect an “energised” school. This awareness is

fostered by professional development. (JE19991207; JE20010601;

JE20010820)

Whole staff development is considered critical in improving the skills of

teachers (Ainscow & Florek, 1989). (JE200011025)

A whole school approach to improving the skills of teachers can narrow the

gap between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practice.

Research suggests that it is essential that students in the middle years continue to be explicitly taught literacy skills (Cairney, Lowe & Sproats, 1994; Hill, Holmes-Smith and Rowe, 1993). For this to occur overtly in secondary schools, teachers across the curriculum need to have the skills and strategies to teach these skills. Research also has found that the most effective use of resources in term of improving school achievement is to develop the qualifications of teachers (National Research Council, 1999). Ainscow (1989) suggests that for teachers to be effective they also need to know where their students are at in terms of their existing skills and knowledge. (JE20000717)

Professional development can enhance teacher understanding of seeing the connection between differentiating the curriculum, providing for student diversity and classroom practice. The gap between ‘inclusion rhetoric’ based on social justice principles and the reality of school and classroom practice has been demonstrated by such authors as Clark, Dyson, Millard and Robson (1999), Slee (1996) and Vlachou (1997). (JE20020812)

Promoting a collaborative approach to developing a school literacy plan was a

strategy I used to enhance the effective use of funding that was available for

the development of a school literacy plan. Such a collaborative planning

process enhanced the view that learning support requires a whole school

approach.

By asking the Principal and her Deputy to be part of the planning process I

was trying to achieve a more collaborative approach to the planning process

and to encourage the view that this funding can influence the outcomes for all

students if the money is directed at coordinated and managed professional

development as opposed to “quick-fix” solutions (Ainscow & Florek, 1989,

p.109).

The professional development would be seen to be coming from a shared

belief for the need for particular professional development rather than from a

learning support perspective. Hill and Crevola (1999, p.6) state that “beliefs

that enable effective teaching to occur need to be accompanied by expert

knowledge”. Supporting teachers in the acquisition of such expert knowledge

on a whole-school basis would narrow the gap between the rhetoric of

inclusive teaching practices and the reality of classroom practice.

(JE20020607)

The gap between inclusion rhetoric based on social justice principles and the

reality of school and classroom practice is demonstrated by such authors as

Clark, Dyson, Millward and Robson (1999) and my practitioner research in

two school contexts. This discrepancy places a Learning Support Teacher in a

position within a school environment where they have to feel around for

individual teachers who are like-minded in their attitudes and beliefs

concerning students with diverse learning needs.

In order for me to have input and influence teaching practice I needed to have access to the Heads of Departments. I also needed to have the authority to influence teaching practice. Hay (1991, p.) reiterated that if the role of support teachers is to work with the whole school in order to maximise the contact time with as many students with learning difficulties as possible, then “the status of support staff needs to be upgraded”. (JE20020226).

The repositioning of a Learning Support Teacher to a HOD position requires a

Principal and the Administration team to be aware of the ways a Learning

Support Teacher can provide support within a school and the factors that

influence the choices a Learning Support Teacher may make regarding levels

of support. The support of the Principal in repositioning the Learning Support

Teacher within a whole school approach can alter both the efficiency and

effectiveness of the support a Learning Support Teacher can offer. I engaged

both the Principal and her Deputy in conversation as a strategy of raising their

awareness of making the role of Learning Support Teacher more effective.

A Learning Support Teacher can operate in a number of different ways.

Ainscow and Florek (1989, p.100) suggest there are six possible ways a

Learning Support Teacher can provide support. These authors suggest that

one of the most efficient and effective ways is for the support teacher “to take

part in planning the curriculum”. (p.104) (JE20020131)

Restructuring of the Junior curriculum was allowing me the opportunity to

initiate conversations concerning my role in the support of both teachers and

learners. Up until now the models of support I had been able to offer students

included working with individual students, working with small groups of

students and providing in class support to particular students. These models

emphasised separate learning experiences for students with special needs

(Ainscow, 1989). Support for teachers had involved working with individual

teachers across a number of Departments. What was missing was the

opportunity to work with Departments which would promote offering a

curriculum that takes account of individual needs thus avoiding providing an

“ambulance” support model to a one size fits all curriculum (Golby & Gulliver,

1979). (JE20020510)

Presentation at staff meetings and allocated professional development days

allowed me to engage with teachers on a whole-school basis. This style of

support was in some instances more efficient than trying to engage individual

teachers in conversations that were relevant to all staff. This strategy relied on

the Principal allocating me the time for particular presentations. The most

successful of these presentations were when other teachers were involved

either offering particular strategies that were useful for particular students or

general teaching strategies that had been useful for all students.

Hill and Crevola (1999, p.6) suggest that for effective teaching to occur, there

needs to be “accompanying expert knowledge”. I had worked with individual

teachers to impart my knowledge regarding teaching strategies. I was asking

these teachers to play a significant part in a presentation to staff. I used this

strategy in order to influence the beliefs and understandings of other teachers,

particularly concerning explicit teaching strategies.

Teachers learning from the success of other teachers is an effective

professional development experience and change management strategy.

Guskey (1986, p.7) posits that “significant change in beliefs and attitudes of

teachers is contingent on their gaining evidence of change in the learning

outcomes of their students”. Part of the conversations presenting teachers

were having with other teachers at this workshop involved them sharing

information concerning why something was done and the success of it.

(JE20020722)

In order to narrow the gap between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practice

a school needs to be moving towards an understanding and acceptance that

the provision for students with diverse learning needs is a shared, whole

school responsibility. In order for this to be a reality, structures for learning

support need to be in place that are both efficient and effective for the support

of both teachers and students. Teachers need to have attitudes and beliefs

that are congruent with social justice principles and these principles need to

be overtly supported and encouraged by the Principal on a whole school

basis. These attributes of a school will then support the success of

professional development for teachers in the provision of inclusive practices

within the classroom.


Propositional Judgement: Pedagogical reform is the most effective strategy for accommodating students

with diverse learning needs.

In School A, improving teacher practice proved to be an effective strategy of

improving learning outcomes for some students, particularly those with

learning difficulties. Improving teacher practice included finding and working

with like-minded teachers and guiding these teachers towards professional

development that focused particularly on effective instruction of students with

learning disabilities. In this way I supported several teachers and expanded

their suite of teaching strategies to better cater for individual students and

thus, more adequately manage a strategy of inclusion. For some teachers

who were looking for guidance, the professional development gave them the

training and skill development they felt they needed to prepare for particular

students with special needs. The teachers who had this professional

development appeared to me more confident to work collaboratively with me

and other teachers in planning units of work that involved a learner centred

approach. It could be argued that these teachers were engaging more

professionally with inclusivity.

In School B I used several strategies to encourage teachers to use a more

learner centred approach for students with diverse learning needs. These

strategies included providing teachers with relevant information concerning

their students.

Research concerning effective teaching supports teachers knowing their

pupils well in terms of their existing skills and knowledge (Ainscow, 1989).

Stainback and Stainback (1990, p.31) explain that the process of gathering

information, defining the problem to be addressed and identifying levels of

support is fundamental in organising and implementing support for students.

(JE20000128,

(E20010129; JE20020129)

Further, I engaged in staff presentations that raised teacher awareness

concerning the particular learning needs of some students and teaching

strategies that might enhance those students accessing the curriculum. Many

of the strategies would be beneficial to all students (see CD, A19950510;

A19990816). These presentations emphasised that changes needed to be

made for some students to access the curriculum and that teaching methods

and strategies affect learning outcomes of their students.

I also continued finding and working with like-minded teachers in both

modelling teaching strategies and also providing resources for teachers.

Research in Australia (Westwood, 1995) found that a large majority of teachers (62%) attributed learning problems to factors that were student related. A significant number (14%) of teachers related family background culture as attributing to students’ learning problems. Only 10% of teacher comments reflected that curriculum content and teaching methods can cause students to have learning problems.

(JE20010820)

I had introduced the concept of explicit teaching at previous staff presentations. A teacher had sought my help because of her previous experience of students finding a particular assignment task difficult. She had identified a need to change her existing teaching skills in order to accommodate a more diverse range of student ability levels. She was acknowledging that tasks may need to change, teaching strategies may need to change in order provide for individual student needs and she was seeking the skills from me to do this. This teacher had similar principles of equity to mine which did not align with a ‘one size fits all’ curriculum. For adolescent learners, scaffolded and focused pedagogical strategies have been recognised as making a difference in the literacy performance of specific groups of students (Education Queensland, 2000). Supporting learning requires the support of scaffolding strategies (Kiddey and Robson, 2001;Martin, 2003). Providing scaffolding strategies to those students who would benefit, acknowledges a move away from delivering the curriculum in a uniform way (Clark et al, 2000). My role of learning support was providing a positive contribution to pedagogical reform in this particular department. (JE20020131)

Teachers initially approached me concerning the structuring and writing of

assignments. (JE20020131) This strategy resulted in invitations from teachers

to present lessons to their classes where I modelled teaching methods and

strategies that teachers may not have been using.

Working with like-minded teachers raised awareness of other staff and

attracted interest from teachers other than those who I had found to be

interested in using more effective teaching strategies. There was also a

shifting climate of teachers asking me to check exam papers for language that

may exclude some students from demonstrating what they knew.

By supporting a teacher’s ability to work more effectively with a range of student abilities and needs (Pugach & Lilly, 1984) I was trying to model an inclusive model of learning support that moves away from a traditional model that supports individual students within a withdrawal situation or in a one on one support situation in a lesson (Dyson, 1994). Mercer et al (1996) state that learning will be enhanced when teachers use a range of instructional approaches and provide choice in tasks and activities. (JE20021101)

By using the strategy of starting small with like-minded teachers I felt that I

had built a mutual trust between some teachers and myself. Wallace and Hall

(1994) suggest that mutual trust can only be developed through “repeated

positive experience”. This particular teacher has returned several times

during 2002 for feedback and advice on restructuring assignments. She

asked me to repeat the lesson next year.

(JE20020205).

Teachers learning from the success of other teachers is an effective professional development experience and change management strategy. Guskey (1986, p.7) posits that “significant change in beliefs and attitudes of teachers is contingent on their gaining evidence of change in the learning outcomes of their students”. Part of the conversations teachers were having at a particular workshop I had organised for the whole staff involved sharing information of why a teacher had used a particular teaching strategy and the success of the strategy. (JE20020722)

This was effective as a long term change management strategy.

The School’s focus on literacy across the curriculum exposed all teachers to

strategies that could enhance student literacy. (JE20020722) This whole

school approach also heightened teacher awareness to the consultative role a

Learning Support Teacher can have in suggesting effective teaching

strategies for particular students.

Teacher awareness for pedagogical reform was also heightened as the

school moved towards unitisation of the curriculum. My observations of Unit

planning

were that the emphasis was more on creating Units using the same resource

material without necessarily addressing the importance of teaching strategies.

A strategy I used was to work collaboratively with a teacher to design a Unit of

work in English using existing material but introducing a focus for catering for

students with different learning styles and abilities. The Unit of work modelled,

scaffolded and focussed pedagogical strategies for other teachers teaching

the Unit and were then available for teachers who would teach the Unit in the

future.

Thus it became evident that pedagogical reform invites teachers in their

professional capacity to revisit their teaching strategies in the light of current

educational research and Legislation, and the diverse range of student

learning needs in order to improve student learning outcomes. To enhance

teachers’ capacity to reflect on their teaching strategies I suggested

This teacher specifically chose to plan a Unit of work that would cater for a mixed ability class. She saw the need to vary her teaching strategies and sought the skills from me that would enable her to do this. It was my impression that previously, topics had not been taught with the needs of individual students in mind. This teacher recognised her own obligation to find ways to teach students that recognised their particular needs (Aber, Bachman, Campbell & O’Malley, 1994). Her beliefs concerning meeting the needs of students were reflected in the skills and strategies she was prepared to try in order to respond to individual learning styles and needs. (JE20021101)

professional development that was provided for the whole staff (JE19991207;

JE20010125; JE20020722) and for smaller groups. (JE20010601;

JE20010820; JE20020812)

Not all staff were receptive of the professional development.

Pedagogical reform is the most effective strategy for catering for diverse

student learning needs. The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study

(QSRLS) (2001) reiterates the findings from my practitioner research that “the

greatest contributors to student outcomes from within the school are

pedagogical and assessment practices “ and that “individual teacher practices

have a greater effect on student outcomes than whole-school effect” (p.5).

The staff resistance to the relevance of the day was indicative of their lack of understanding that literacy was the responsibility of all curriculum areas. This pointed to the fact that there was more work to be done in changing teacher attitudes towards explicitly teaching literacy skills beyond Primary school (Hill, Holmes-Smith and Rowe, 1993) and the need to be aware that there is a significant change in literacy demands from Primary to Secondary school (Cairney et al, 1994). (JE20010125)

VIGNETTE 5: Analytic Narrative Propositional Judgement: Differentiating curriculum is achieved when collaborative planning teams

develop appropriate units of work.

School A had introduced a vertical, unitised curriculum in Years 9 and 10. The

rationale for the development of a vertical, unitised approach to curriculum

delivery was to cater for the needs, interests and abilities of all students and

to provide opportunities for them to develop to their full potential. The school

saw this type of curriculum delivery as enabling students to work at their own

rate, level of ability and maturity. It allowed students to choose courses

appropriate to their needs, interests and abilities thus supporting a positive

action towards an inclusive curriculum.

To present such a learner-focused, as opposed to a one size fits all

curriculum, requires a teacher to differentiate curriculum. This may include

providing students with different ways to take in information, differing amounts

of time to complete work, different levels of thinking, different assignments

and different means to assess what has been learnt. A unitised curriculum

invites a collaborative way of working that involves a sharing of the expertise

and bodies of knowledge of the Learning Support Teacher and teachers

within a particular area of the curriculum to realise differentiation.

When I entered School A, some parents of students with learning

difficulties/disabilities were questioning the rhetoric of student choice a

unitised curriculum supported. Comments of parents were mainly regarding

inequitable assessing and reporting in the area of Year 9 Maths.

Years 9 and 10 Maths classes were streamed according to ability; Core,

Mainstream and Advanced. The students who had elected to study Core

Maths were expected to cover the same content in the same time and sit a

common test paper as the Mainstream class. The students studying Core

were ranked with the total student population of Core and Mainstream and

continually achieved the D’s and E’s of the cohort of Core and Mainstream

students. The Core Maths class had a significant number of students with

learning difficulties and teachers found behaviours within the class difficult to

manage. These issues were highlighting the need for teachers to understand

that in order to be faithful to the adopted curriculum, there needed to be

differentiation of the units that may include the altering of assessment. The

structures for collaborative planning to achieve such differentiation needed the

input of bodies of knowledge that learning support could offer. These

structures were not yet in place

Parents of some students in the Core class were questioning the relevance of

end of unit reports that graded students continually as D’s and E’s even

though the students had selected to study the least demanding Maths unit. My

strategy to encourage a more learner centred approach was to engage

teachers of these classes in conversation to gauge their support for the need

to modify the end of unit tests. Teachers were supportive of these overtures

but the Head of Department (HOD) in Maths was reluctant to alter the

assessment nor consider modifying reports. The HOD supported her position

with a claim that parents wanted the same work. Because School A had a

recognised structure of a HOD in Learning Support, I was able to use this

position to address the continuing requests from some parents supporting

modified assessment and reports. The HOD of Learning Support had the

voice to present a proposal of modified tests and reports for some students at

a meeting of the Heads of Departments. The result was that some students

would receive a modified report and modifications were also allowed in the

tests.

Modifying reports and making modifications to assessment did not address

the broader curriculum issue of differentiation that questions what was being

taught and the how it was being taught to accommodate diverse learning

needs.

Being in class and engaging teachers who had taught the Core Maths class in

conversation, revealed their lack of knowledge concerning the students with

special needs in their classes and the possible adjustments to their teaching

strategies they should be considering to better cater for the particular learning

needs of some students. These reflections of my practice informed

subsequent strategies of my practice.

One strategy I used in School A to address both the curriculum and issues of

pedagogy, was to suggest to teachers appropriate professional development

when it became available and go with them. I also initiated an opportunity for

teachers to collaboratively plan a Unit of work for a Year 9 Core Maths class.

Both strategies were endorsed by the Principal. This was a new initiative for a

Learning Support Teacher to promote a collaborative way of working towards

the differentiation of the curriculum.

These strategies resulted in three teachers coming together voluntarily to pool

their expert knowledge in order to collaboratively design a Unit of work for

Year 9 Maths. While this was a success as an instance of collaboration with

two like-minded teachers and it did improve the behaviour of the class, it was

seen by some members of the maths department as an unnecessary use of

in-school time. I had doubt that the unit of work modelled with the two

teachers would be used by other teachers within the Department.

In School B, from my conversations with a number of English teachers, there

had not been a history of English teachers working collaboratively. The

school’s move towards a unitised curriculum in Year 9 gave me an opportunity

to work collaboratively with a specialist English teacher. My role as a Learning

Support Teacher did not mean that I was necessarily conversant in every

curriculum area. But when there is the opportunity to bring together the expert

knowledge of Special Needs with the expert knowledge of a specified

curriculum area, a collaborative team can be created that has the potential to

develop curricula that recognises and works with student learning differences.

The advantage of this way of working is that when teachers work together,

they bring their dominant bodies of knowledge.

The unit would be used by other members of the English department. We

brought different skills to the planning; her knowledge of the content for the

unit and my knowledge of students who would be enrolled in the unit and my

knowledge of differentiating the curriculum using a framework that involved

Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy and Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences. The

unit was not necessarily a success with the other teachers because they did

not have the background knowledge of the frameworks and were not part of

the development process.

The specialist English teacher chose to develop the Unit of work with me and

as such we worked as a voluntary partnership. Our partnership was based on

a mutual trust of each other’s knowledge. We were able to pool our

knowledge to produce a differentiated unit of work for Year 9 English that

would cater for a more diverse range of student learning needs. Using

collaborative planning to successfully differentiate curriculum needs to

recognise that it involves a team approach so that expertise is drawn from

different team members and team members can learn from one another. The

Learning Support Teacher is just one member of a potential team.

Although this was the only instance of my involvement with Unit planning at

School B, there were other successful instances of my collaboration with

By working collaboratively with this teacher, I was providing an alternative model of support for students with diverse learning needs. This was a model based on collaboration of the classroom teacher and learning support (Graden & Bauer, 1992; Self, Benning, Marston & Magnusson, 1991; Vaughn & Schum, 1995; West & Idol, 1987). By supporting a teacher’s ability to work more effectively with a range of student abilities and needs (Pugach & Lilly, 1984) I was trying to model an inclusive model of learning support that moves away from a traditional model that supports individual students within a withdrawal situation or in a one on one support situation in a lesson (Dyson, 1994). Mercer et al (1996) state that learning will be enhanced when teachers use a range of instructional approaches and provide choice in tasks and activities. (JE20021101)

individual teachers to differentiate aspects of their Units of Work or

assessment to cater for a diverse range of learning needs.

My working with this teacher led to an invitation from her to teach her class

particular strategies for summarising. I modelled the lesson for her which then

led to other teachers asking me to repeat the lesson for their class.

This contact I feel was generated because of the exposure to professional

development teachers were experiencing in relation to all curriculum areas

sharing the responsibility of improving student literacy outcomes.

(JE20010125, 20010601; JE20020812) This professional development

coupled with the staff presentations I had given to draw attention to the

contemporary trends influencing learning support (see CD, A20000221;

A20011008) seemed to be drawing some teachers to work collaboratively with

me in differentiating aspects of the curriculum.

I had introduced the concept of explicit teaching at previous staff presentations but this was the first time a teacher had sought my help. This teacher had sought my help because of her previous experience of students finding this task difficult. She had identified a need to change her existing teaching skills in order to accommodate a more diverse range of student ability levels. She was acknowledging that tasks may need to change, teaching strategies may need to change in order provide for individual student needs and she was seeking the skills from me to do this. (JE20020131)

The teacher was complimentary of the lesson and her feedback was that the students had attempted to use the ‘chain’ deconstructing of paragraphs in the following lesson. By the end of the day another teacher from that particular subject area had asked me to teach a similar lesson for her Year 11 class. By using the strategy of starting small with like-minded teachers I felt that I had built a mutual trust between this teacher and myself. Wallace and Hall (1994) suggest that mutual trust can only be developed through ‘repeated positive experience’. This particular teacher has returned several times during 2002 to work collaboratively in the design of aspects of the curriculum. (JE20020205)

Those teachers who were voluntarily meeting with me were acknowledging

the need to cater for the diverse learning needs of their students and the role

of the Learning Support Teacher in providing a body of knowledge and

expertise in the area of curriculum differentiation. Such a collaborative

environment assisted teachers to access and clarify information concerning

students, share skills, expertise and creativity and establish responsibilities for

the ongoing support of both teachers and learners.

My practitioner research has emphasised that the classroom teacher needs

the skills and repertoire of teaching strategies to adequately cater for the

learning needs of a diversity of students. This requires the Learning Support

Teacher to offer a continuum of services that increasingly includes a shift of

emphasis from the Learning Support Teacher working alongside regular

classroom teachers to the Learning Support Teacher influencing the

classroom teacher’s pedagogy without necessarily working alongside them in

the classroom.

VIGNETTE 6: Analytic Narrative Propositional Judgement: School communities need to make a commitment to gather, share and

manage relevant information concerning students.

When I entered School A a system was already in place that allowed teachers

access to information concerning students with special needs. Lists of

students with special needs had been made available to Heads of

Departments (HODs) and a filing system had been created that enabled

teachers to access more information concerning students. Little use was

made of the files and teachers did not always have ready access to the lists of

names held by the HODs.

From my observations of classroom practice and conversations with students,

classroom teachers and the HOD of Learning Support, teachers were not

accessing relevant information concerning students for a number of reasons.

Initially, teachers may have been unaware of the students with diverse

learning needs in their classes and the information that was available. But

some teachers also felt students with particular learning difficulties/disabilities

were the responsibility of the learning support staff and it was not necessarily

their responsibility to be aware of this information.

I believed that teachers required easier access to this data in order to provide

for the diverse learning needs of students. The strategies I used in School A

to promote the need for teachers to access relevant information concerning

students with diverse needs included; whole staff presentations, sharing my

knowledge with like-minded teachers and collaboratively planning units of

work with like-minded teachers that more appropriately matched teaching

strategies and the learning needs of students. I also developed an information

system on the school network that enabled me to more efficiently manage

student information. The development of an information system on the school

network was also in response to the needs of teachers to access information

more efficiently. With a four term unitised curriculum, teachers did not

necessarily keep the one class for the entire year. This was problematic in

terms of time required by learning support trying to track both teachers and

learners.

These strategies combined to enable teachers to access relevant information

concerning a student’s background, ability level, learning

difficulties/disabilities. These strategies also provided an opportunity for

teachers to be exposed to different strategies more appropriate to student

needs.

In order to devise learner centred strategies there needs to be knowledge

about those learners. It was apparent in School A that although relevant

information was accessible and in teacher friendly language there were few

teachers accessing this information. My practitioner research in School A

revealed that there were two main reasons why some teachers did not access

the information system on the school network or learning support staff for

information. There was not a shared understanding amongst staff as to the

value of using such information and some teachers considered that students

with learning difficulties/disabilities were not their responsibility.

Separate to School A and School B. the concept of an information system

was further developed into a commercial CD, InfoEd. Features of this

information management program include:

• User friendly data input forms

• Space for student photographs

• Explanations of special needs and relevant teaching strategies

• Ability to create student reports

• Links to relevant internet sites

• Support from a website

• Ability to support a school’s policy for special needs

• Option to have different levels of security access to the program

• Ability to import student information from other data bases

• Audio facility for recording information

In School B, there did not exist a system for informing teachers about student

needs. Although there was a Year 7 testing day for students prior to entry in

Year 8, the information gathered was not shared with teachers. My practice

included not only changing some of the assessment instruments but also

informing teachers about the results and what implications these results might

have for their teaching.

At the beginning of each year I provided summary information for the relevant

teachers concerning students. In this way I raised teacher awareness to

particular student learning needs. This has been referred to as teachers being

“evidenced based practitioners”. (JE19990121)

Teachers were not only included in the administering of tests on the Year 7

testing day, but also the marking.

On one hand I was reluctant to have the TORCH marked by teachers because they did not want to do it to begin with. On the other hand, it allowed me to introduce the importance of teachers knowing whether a student had a significant difficulty in gaining information from text. Teachers who were marking the TORCH were surprised at some of the responses students gave that indicated the student had no idea of what the text was about. I could see teachers making connections between these results and how well a student might be extracting and engaging in information from texts, handouts or assessment items used in their classes. This proved an opportunity for me to stress the need for teachers to be aware of the readability of the text books or handouts that they were using and that there was a need to develop students’ strategies in constructing meaning from the information that was being presented to them (Hay, 1988). Research suggests (Duffy, 1987) that if explicit teaching strategies are used the more likely low ability readers will retain information. (JE19991018)

I encouraged the Administration to include these information sharing sessions

as part of the schedule of department meetings held at the beginning of each

school year prior to the students starting. (JE20010129; JE20020129)

To provide updated information during the Year concerning students, I

published The Learning Support News (A1999). I kept this to no more than an

A4 size publication so that teachers would not find it too time consuming to

read. This was a more efficient way of updating teachers than continually

trying to catch up with individual teachers.

A further strategy I used to inform teachers about students became possible

once the School computer system was updated. The updated system could

accommodate a network that staff could access from the staff computer room

and other computers connected to the network. I published a Learning

Research concerning effective teaching supports teachers knowing their pupils well in terms of their existing skills and knowledge (Ainscow, 1989). Stainback and Stainback (1990, p.31) explain that the process of gathering information, defining the problem to be addressed and identifying levels of support is fundamental in organising and implementing support for students. “The more comprehensive the classroom assessment package is, the more likely it will be to locate the best starting point for intervention” (Young, 1995, p.27). Sharing information with teachers was also identifying with teachers that although I supported students on an individual basis as one model of support, I was offering other types of support that included collaborating with teachers in the classroom (Stainback and Stainback, 1990.) (JE20000128)

One teacher noted as she left that this was the best prepared she had ever been concerning the Year 8 students she was to teach. I was grateful for this public acknowledgement from a staff member who I knew was well respected amongst staff. This was the first time information concerning Yr8 students had been shared with staff. In previous years results from the Year 7 testing had not been made available to classroom teachers. (JE20000128)

Support site that then played the role of updating teachers. This was a more

efficient use of my time in contacting teachers about a number of students

across Year levels.

All these focused strategies were complemented by an annual generic

strategy of making staff aware of their responsibilities regarding students with

diverse learning needs in whole staff presentations (see CD, A19990308;

A19990510, 19990816, A20000221; A200011008). In so doing I was

promoting the need for a commitment from staff to be aware of the diverse

learning needs of students.

Although teachers seemed to becoming more aware of the needs of some of

their students, there still seemed to be a perception that the numbers of

students coming to the school with learning difficulties/disabilities was

increasing. The use of the phrase “dumbing down” had been used to describe

this trend. Teachers appeared to be operating within a paradigm where they

saw the students as having an intrinsic problem that was my responsibility to

remediate.

This attitude seemed out of step with the school’s mission statement that

purported to “provide a comprehensive range of educational programmes catering

for the needs of the individual” (see CD, A99921024) and the current commitment

of catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Brisbane to provide whole-school

From my point of view as Learning Support Teacher, an electronic information system was an efficient way of providing up dated information to teachers concerning their students. This did not necessarily guarantee that teachers would access the site. Teachers of Year 8 were directed at the beginning of each school year to attend the information sharing sessions with me. I will be relying on teachers of other grade levels to access the site to gather summary information concerning their students and hopefully seek further detailed information from me. Gathering and managing the information is not problematic. What is problematic is that teachers have to see the need to know this information and believe that it is there responsibility to use this information to enhance the learning outcomes of all students. (JE20020218)

approaches to teaching and learning in response to student diversity (Catholic

Education, 2002). (JE20020129)

My practitioner research in School B suggested that the strategies I had

employed to gather and manage information concerning students to enable

me to share relevant information with teachers were only successful with

some teachers.

In order for information regarding students to be used to inform curriculum

and teaching practice and to move away from a one size fits all curriculum

there needed to be a commitment by the school community for the need to

gather information relevant to student learning needs.

My practitioner research suggests that not only must school communities

gather, share and manage relevant information concerning students but they

must also make a commitment to the need for such information gathering and

sharing.

It would seem that although I had previously given explanations to staff for the need to be aware of student needs by accessing information concerning these needs, it was when the Principal stated the legal and equity issues, the staff complied with accessing information in order to provide special considerations. Goleman (2000) would classify this style of leadership as coercive. A leadership style that demanded immediate compliance. He described that this style worked best “to kick start a turnaround, or with problem employees”. (p.82) (JE20020428)

Rosenholtz (1991, p.13) asserted that the “hallmark of any successful organisation is a shared sense among its members about what they are trying to accomplish. Agreed upon goals and ways to attain them enhance the organization’s rationale for planning and action”). (JE20021202)

VIGNETTE 7: Analytic Narrative Propositional Judgement: The Learning Support Teacher needs to be repositioned within a curriculum

planning team.

In School A Learning Support was a recognised Department represented by a

Head of Department (HOD) who met regularly with the Principal and other

Heads of curriculum. Having access to these meetings gave the Learning

Support area status within the School. The HOD of Learning Support had a

recognised voice within the curriculum planning team. This voice had several

dimensions. She was able to represent students regarding aspects involving

where support could take place for students. Issues of labelling could be

voiced and the need for change in pedagogy to cater for particular students.

Her voice was also able to represent parents, the classroom teacher and the

role of the Learning Support Teacher regarding these different stakeholders.

In School B there was not a Learning Support Department and as such there

was not a recognised HOD position. This was problematic because, as I was

not a HOD, I did not have representation on the Curriculum committee. The

position of Learning Support Teacher reported directly to the Principal.

The Learning Support Teacher operates in the school community by providing consultancy support to the Principal and Staff. This includes leading and motivating teachers to plan and implement inclusive practices in classroom teaching to provide for students with special educational requirements. (Statement of Responsibility, see CD, A19981127).

This model of organising learning support impacted on the way I practiced as

a Learning Support Teacher and the outcomes I could effectively achieve.

Although I had the responsibility for “leading and motivating teachers to plan

and implement inclusive practices in classroom teaching”, I did not have the

authority or status to achieve this effectively. To counteract this, I used the

reporting status directly to the Principal to make her aware of issues that

might have been raised at curriculum meetings had my position been that of a

HOD. Had the position been a HOD position, it would have allowed me

access to the curriculum team where the issues and tensions of inclusive

practices could have been raised and discussed. I found that my position as a

Learning Support Teacher did not allow me to directly address issues and

tensions such as; What is responsible inclusion?; How can place be kept in

perspective for student, teacher and Learning Support Teacher?; Can

difference and disability be acknowledged without labels?; and Where are the

curriculum and pedagogical deficits within school practices and how can they

be addressed?

In my current position as a Learning Support Teacher, in order to increase the

status of Learning Support I used the following strategies. I regularly engaged

the Principal in conversations concerning the resistance of teachers to

implement special considerations and the beliefs and attitudes of some

teachers concerning students with diverse learning needs.

One conversation with the Principal was in response to my concerns that

teachers were not being encouraged to see the need for accessing

information about their students in order to improve student literacy levels.

Conversations concerning the provision of special considerations with a particular teacher had revealed that she was not in favour of special considerations as she thought it ‘unfair’ to the other students. What remained unresolved with a number of teachers was the issue that teachers seemed to align fairness as everything being ‘the same’. This would result in equity. Rizvi and Lingard (1992) explain:

“the idea of ‘simple equality’ as access, as involving everyone getting the same thing in the same form is neither achievable nor desirable. It is not achievable because people do not have the same means, and it is not desirable because people do not have the same needs”. (p.25)

I approached the Principal with my concerns because my position description stated that “the Learning Support Teacher operates directly under the direction of the Principal” (see CD, A19981127). The Principal was my line of reporting which was an advantage because I needed the support of her position of authority to achieve my stated responsibilities on a whole school basis. (JE20011108)

In order to “lead” and “motivate” teachers to plan and implement inclusive

classroom practices from my current position, I recommended to the Principal

possible professional development for teachers. These recommendations

were made in order for teachers to move towards understanding and

implementing inclusive practices. This professional development was thus

seen as coming from the authority of the Principal.

I was concerned that if the Deputy Curriculum did not show overt support for implementing ELLA it would be likely that the initiative would be seen as coming from learning support and not applicable to them (JE20020131).

The Deputy Curriculum seemed to be sending an impression to the Curriculum coordinators that the introduction of ELLA was not a collaborative initiative. An email to the Principal expressed this concern. Even though the Principal had agreed with everything I had written there did not seem to be her overt support for Learning Support to be present at the Curriculum meetings. After a previous conversation where I had said that I felt I was ‘flapping out there in the wind’, I thought there would be greater recognition and support for the contribution the role could play in wider curricular issues. In order for me to have input and influence teaching practice I needed to have access to the Heads of Departments. I also needed to have the authority to influence teaching practice. Hay (1991) reiterated that if the role of support teachers is to work with the whole school in order to maximise the contact time with as many students with learning difficulties as possible, then ‘the status of support staff needs to be upgraded’ (p.4) (JE20020226)

I formally wrote expressions of concern relating to special considerations that

also included recommendations and Proposals for Learning Support

(A20010501; A20011031). I also advocated directly with the Principal on

behalf of particular students concerning special considerations. Because I

lacked an authority within the staff, I was using her status and authority to

move teachers towards inclusive practices.

Strategies for fostering understanding and concensus building include inservice and professional development (Giorcelli, 1995; Villa and Thousand, 1990). Speaking to other Learning Support Teacher’s from other Secondary schools facing similar needs to develop inclusion policy, I found that it was felt a guest speaker was considered more ‘powerful’ in initially exposing staff to information that provides theoretical and ethical considerations for the philosophy of inclusion. Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) refer to the multiple roles that a consultant can have. In this case, I was bringing Giorcelli to the school as a consultant in an authority position, an advocate for students with diverse learning needs. Lippitt and Lipitt (1986) describe this consultancy role as one that ‘proposes guidelines, persuades, or directs in the problem solving process’ (p.61). I used this strategy of using an ‘expert’ outside consultant because I was new to the school and did not necessarily have the status of an ‘expert’ insider. (JE19991207)

The cost of sending teachers to professional development involving literacy was a significant part of the Commonwealth Targeted Programs and Middle Years funding. Although it had been my recommendation to the Principal for particular teachers to engage in this professional development, there was no overall plan guiding the progress of literacy development within the school. My role of Learning Support Teacher did not include being part of the wider curriculum planning team that included the Heads of Departments. Because I was not part of the Curriculum committee I was unsure of the feedback that teachers gave concerning this professional development. I was also unsure whether those teachers who had attended shared their experiences with others in their Department. (JE20010820)

At my annual appraisal with the Principal, I focused attention on the fact that

in my role as a Learning Support Teacher, there were not sufficient

opportunities to liase with the Deputy Principals and Heads of Departments.

Because my role statement stipulated that I was responsible to the Principal, I

used my conversations with her as a way of having a voice on the staff. This

way of working had produced positive responses in the past where the

Principal had directly talked to the staff as a whole (JE20020428) or issued

memos directing teaching in particular directions (JE20020523)

(JE20021102).

The lack of the Learning Support Teacher’s positioning forced me to look

critically at the power structures within the school and to develop strategies to

work within these structures. An additional strategy to speaking with the

Principal directly involved initiating meetings with the Principal that included

other members of the Administration team to voice my concerns regarding

learning support issues and to suggest professional development or future

directions. I initiated a meeting between the Principal and the Deputy of

Curriculum.

Presenting relevant research, documents and suggested professional development at the meeting was a strategy I used to demonstrate that I had the knowledge and expertise and leadership qualities to be included in curriculum issues. I chose to do this with both the Principal and Deputy Curriculum present. I was looking for the recognition of the contribution I could make at Curriculum meetings. This was not forthcoming. My concern after the meeting was that I should have included my Statement of Responsibility along with the other documents I tabled. The Statement states ‘The Learning Support Teacher operates in the school community by providing consultancy support to the Principal and Staff. This includes leading and motivating teachers to plan and implement inclusive practices in classroom teaching to provide for students with special educational requirements’(Statement of Responsibility, A19981127) (JE20011018).

My concerns for how the beliefs and attitudes of some teachers were

impacting on the development of units of work for the restructured Junior

Curriculum, prompted me to initiate a power-point presentation to the

Administration team. The presentation focused on the belief that in order to

achieve a differentiated curriculum there needed to be a common

understanding of equity. Invoking such a strategy of presenting to the

Principal, Assistant to the Principal, the Deputy Principal of Curriculum and

the Assistant to the Principal Religious Education was recognising the power

structure within school having the potential to influence beliefs and attitudes of

teachers such that pedagogy is influenced (A20020412).

This strategy was also demonstrating that the boundaries have changed in

which a Learning Support Teacher must now operate. Because Learning

Support is a curriculum issue, the Learning Support Teacher needs to function

I initiated a meeting with the new Assistant to the Principal even though I knew Curriculum was not really part of her brief. She did, however, seem to be involved with the planning associated with the Unitisation of the Curriculum. I outlined my concerns regarding the writing of the Units of work, especially in the English Department. Teachers had been voicing their concerns to me that they were not confident in what a Unit of work was meant to look like and in some cases they were not sure how to write one and in what format. I also suggested the appropriate professional development that would address this issue. (JE20020510) I initiated a meeting with the Principal and her Deputy to talk about the CTP funding and Middle Years Funding. The proposed school plans were usually due the first week after the holidays and I did not want to be caught short of time for planning. My approach was to outline where the funding had been used in previous years and to suggest some criteria that were needed for a literacy plan. In previous years I had been asked to propose plans for the allocation of the CTP (Commonwealth Targeted Programs) funding. This year I was initiating a collaborative approach to the planning. There still was not an overarching literacy plan for the College (JE20020607).

within a team which ideally involves the curriculum subject leaders and most

importantly, school administrators. Being part of the curriculum team structure

within a school that deals with issues of pedagogy, would allow the Learning

Support Teacher to have an effective voice in recognising, articulating,

examining and guiding responses to the tensions within which the role

operates.

Chapter 5: A Concluding Chapter

In this study, I have called on multiple resources to inform my teaching

practices and the interrogation of these practices. I have engaged in a

systematic and sustained process of practitioner research with a view to more

fully understanding my practice as a Learning Support Teacher across two

school contexts.

My choice of Chapter heading, “A Concluding Chapter”, as opposed to a more

traditional heading,” Conclusions”, reflects the nature of my practitioner

research as ongoing within my professional workplace. As such, this

concluding chapter does not represent a definitive closure to my practitioner

research; rather, a drawing together of the threads of my practitioner research

that interweave in a complex tapestry of ongoing practices. “A Concluding

Chapter” conveys the underlying ontological belief of my practitioner research

that knowledge is constructed. “A”, not “The”, suggests there is no one single

truth. This is in line with my earlier proposal that this study will be generative

rather than generalisable which gives readers the option for an alternative

conclusion.

This chapter demonstrates how the critique of my practice as a researcher using

action research, has contributed to the knowledge involving the binary of practitioner

research. There has been a contribution of knowledge in the area of inclusive

education by the theorising of the role of the Learning Support Teacher as integral to

building inclusive school communities and the theorising of what research on practice

looks like. My dissertation closes with a description of a scenario that occurred in

School B as I was writing this concluding chapter. The scenario reiterates the

iterative nature of my practitioner research.

In schools today, teachers and principals are surrounded by a plethora of words and

phrases relating to the area more commonly known as special needs. These words

and phrases can include special needs, integration, inclusion, inclusive education,

inclusive practices, diverse student needs, curriculum differentiation. This language

reflects the changing conceptualisation of catering for student difference from a

traditional medical model to one that subscribes to an inclusive model that caters for

the diverse learning needs of all students.

The Salamanca Statement (1994) was instrumental in generating a complex concept

of inclusive education, thereby refining notions of integration. Inclusive education has

come to mean more than the integration or presence of students with disabilities in

the classroom. It implies providing a differentiated curriculum in every classroom in

order to accommodate a diverse range of student needs. The question is no longer

whether inclusion should be accepted practice in schools, but how to implement an

inclusion model.

Even though schools in Australia are moving towards a system of inclusive education

(Westwood, 2001, p.5), it is generally recognised there is no one accepted model of

school organisation that will promote the implementation of inclusive practices

(Carrington, 2002). Translating a complex concept of inclusive education into

everyday classroom practice is problematic (Perry, 1993; Westwood, 2001). My

practitioner research as a Learning Support Teacher has addressed the challenge of

the how, to implement an inclusion model, thereby adding to the body of knowledge

in the field of special education. In addition, the critique of my practice as a

researcher using action research will contribute to the ongoing practitioner research

debate, thus moving the understanding of practitioner research forward.

A Contribution of Knowledge in the building of inclusive schools My practitioner research in School A and B identified aspects of a traditional medical

model for catering for difference that were not in keeping with current accepted

models of inclusive education. As part of my practitioner action research in School A,

a position paper (see CD, A19981125a) and scenario 4 (see CD, A19981125b)

emerged that outlined a number of tentative propositions in how I could practice as a

Learning Support Teacher in order to more adequately move towards a model of

inclusion.

As the reflections on my Journals from School A and B progressed, these tentative

propositions were refined (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Miles &

Huberman, 1994). My research focused on the management of change towards the

adoption of an inclusive curriculum. By engaging in research that focuses beyond the

principles of inclusion to the process of managing the change towards inclusive

schooling, I have moved from a tacit understanding of the propositions to

propositional judgements. They were “propositional” because the data were being

drawn from two particular school contexts. I am not suggesting they are predictive for

all school contexts. They are “judgements” because these statements reflect current

end points in my practitioner research and not an accumulation of facts that can be

drawn on for the implementation of inclusive education in all school contexts. In this

sense they are generative of my insights not generalisable across contexts. It is my

hope that these propositions will generate conversations and discussions within and

between other teachers in other schools and in this sense they are generative.

Readers might reach conclusions that are different to the ones I have raised here.

Hence, my earlier proposition that this set of conclusions is but one set a reader can

construe.

Any school context is a complex mix of factors that influence whether a school takes

on the attributes described by Rosenholtz (1989) as distinguishing a school as a

“moving school”. My research in two secondary school contexts suggests seven

propositional judgements that enhanced the direction these schools adopted towards

being a “moving school” and thus more successfully shifting towards implementing a

whole-school inclusive curriculum. I am not suggesting that a whole school inclusive

curriculum has been achieved in each of the research contexts using these

propositional judgements but they have guided my practice as a Learning Support

Teacher in leading two particular secondary school contexts towards more inclusive

practices. Fullan (2001, p.34) concludes that change cannot be managed and

controlled but it can be understood and possibly led. The purpose of this study was to

determine simultaneously an understanding of a particular school context and the

best opportunity for change. In this study, the iterative process of action research has

allowed me to learn from my experience and apply that learning to bring about

change.

The propositional judgements that have emerged from my practitioner action

research contribute to my practice as Learning Support Teacher in, understanding

both the changes needed for a school to move towards inclusive practices and ways

of implementing these changes. The list of seven propositional judgements is not a

checklist in a journey towards inclusive school practices but a frame of reference a

Learning Support Teacher can adopt to better understand the complexity involved

and what is required for a school to move towards inclusive practices1.

1. School communities need to share a common understanding of equity 2. The School Principal must provide overt leadership in moving towards an

inclusive school culture. 3. A Whole-school Approach is needed to narrow the gap between inclusion

rhetoric and classroom practice. 4. Pedagogical reform is the most effective strategy for catering for diverse

student learning needs. 5. Differentiating curriculum is achieved when collaborative planning

teams develop appropriate units of work. 6. School communities need to make a commitment to gather, share and

manage relevant information concerning students. 7. The Learning Support Teacher needs to be repositioned within a curriculum

planning team.

My practitioner research, as part of my Doctoral work, proposes a set of

generative judgements that should not be considered in isolation, but rather

as a set of interrelated propositions. My practitioner research is not

suggesting that these seven propositional judgements are finite. I have found

these propositions useful as a part of a change process towards an inclusive

school culture in two secondary school contexts.

Contribution of knowledge to practitioner research

My study also contributes to the body of knowledge surrounding practitioner

research. In particular my study contributes to “the undertheorisation and poor

theorisation of practice” to which Brennan (1998, p.7) refers.

1 This set of propositional judgements was published as a chapter in a book in 2004. Throughout 2003, in the dissertation writing process they have been refined and are presented in a substantially different way. The publication of these propositions is also seen as part of the authentication of the research method as an indicator that I actively put my work out to peers for comment. The publication of this work is indicative of the way in which my peers responded to those ideas.

The literature I have accessed for this study suggests that the literature

available on practitioner research is limited. Anderson and Herr (1999)

describe practitioner research as involving school professionals legitimating

knowledge “produced out of their own lived realities” (p.20). Practitioner

research has its own epistemology (practice based epistemology) and works

significantly differently from traditional higher degree research (which is based

on PhD models). Brennan (1998) points to the tensions surrounding the

legitimising of such research which she suggests would lead to the need for

the redefinition of rigor.

A University audience of examiners is concerned that a Doctoral dissertation

reports a research study in a way that is more than a “collection of reflective

exercises” (Winter et al., 2000, p.25). Rather it must present a thesis. The

Journal Entry structure used in this research illustrates a progression from a

description of an event in the first section “Journal”, to the second section

“Reflections”, to the third section “Critique” It is the “Critique” section that

progresses the Journal Entry to a critically reflective tool where there are

reflections of what remains unresolved, what literature/practice affirms,

disconfirms my research practice’ My Journal Entry illustrates how my

research practice went further than reflection. It involved critical interpretations

of my reflections in the light of literature and professional development that is

a requirement for satisfying a university audience. In this way I have

developed a rigorous manner of analysing the data through reflection and

critique that successfully contributes to the building of a thesis and new and

innovative knowledge in this field.

One of the areas in which I believe this study has contributed to this limited

field of literature is my interpretation of the Miles and Huberman (1994) model.

In arguing for my methodology, I use Miles and Huberman’s (1994) model as

a framework for managing the process of analysis. Although the Miles and

Huberman (1994) model was not written as a practitioner research model, I

found it a useful model for conceptualising my study and its methodology.

Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest four concurrent flows of activity when

analysing data. In my application of this model to my practitioner research, I

have found the need for a fifth component to the model. I have called the fifth

component, Presentation, which involves the practitioner researcher making a

choice in the style of presentation of the dissertation in the light of their

intended audience. As this study is aligned with the Doctorate of Education it

has two demanding audiences- academics and professional practitioners. As

such the Professional Doctorate requires that an additional audience is to be

considered that might not have been as important in a traditional PhD.

My choice of an electronic presentation for my dissertation allows a

professional practitioner the choice of reading the essence of my practitioner

research by being able to choose the analytic narrative of each vignette while

still connecting an academic audience to the large quantity of data that

supports the analysis. The electronic presentation allows readers to access

my research analysis via multiple pathways thus reflecting the messiness of

real world practice. The iterative nature of my action research and the length

of the study has generated a large quantity of data. The choice of an

electronic style of presentation of my dissertation was also in response to the

difficulty of both managing and presenting large quantities of data. Managing

and presenting a dissertation that involves action research is generally

believed to involve large quantities of data. The electronic presentation of my

thesis contributes to the “continuing process of experimentation” of writing that

Winter (1995) refers to that attempts “to do justice to the always frustrating

relationship between the linear sequence of words on a page…and the desire

to elucidate a wider significance from particular events” (p.25).

Practitioner research is described as involving school professionals

legitimating knowledge “lived out of their own realities as professionals”

(p.20). As such, to be considered research there needs to be more than a

constructed meaning of a problematic situation and reflective practice. My

practitioner action research documented in this dissertation has been more

than reflective practice. I have been engaged in the critical reflection of my

practice that has necessarily meant the articulation of my positioning within

the field of special needs and the involvement of recognised bodies of

knowledge. I believe that I have demonstrated a set of practices that have led

to a better understanding of what “research on practice” looks like.

Although the writing of the dissertation for this study is complete, my research

into practice is a continuous process. “Practice is never static - it is always

being invented and produced” (Brennan, 1998, p.84). Similarly, my

practitioner research was already in progress when my confirmation

document was submitted in order to begin the Doctorate of Education

research component. This was reflected in the title of that document, “A

proposal for the endorsement of a research methodology already undertaken

in two research settings”. The following scenario attests to the fact that not

only is “practice never static” but also a practitioner’s research on practice is

continually being “invented and produced” and is ongoing.

Iterative cycles of practitioner action research- “and the beat goes on…….”

In School B, Year 7 students attend a testing day at the school prior to entry.

It was my experience that with the current suite of tests, students with specific

literacy needs were not being identified. These students were not being

identified until term 2 of Year 8. Identification of these students relied on the

classroom teacher referring the student to Learning Support if the student

appeared to be experiencing difficulties with the regular curriculum. Although

students sit a literacy test, ELLA, in Term 1 Year 8, the results are not

available until late Term 2. Previous years have shown that there are

significant numbers of students who would benefit from earlier identification

and focused classroom teaching strategies to address aspects of literacy.

This analysis of the current situation prompted me to involve the Principal in

order to gain support for the essence of the project and also the financial

support for the engagement of a Speech Pathologist to help construct an

appropriate diagnostic tool for use on the Year 7 testing day (Propositional

Judgement 2). I sought further support from the Principal and Deputy

Curriculum (Propositional Judgement 7) at a meeting by presenting a Briefing

Paper that had been written in collaboration with the Speech Pathologist.

In consultation with the Speech Pathologist appropriate test instruments were

designed to complement the existing testing instruments in order to gather

information that would be relevant to teachers (Propositional Judgement 6). A

collaborative team was formed that included Year 8 English teachers, the

Learning Support Teacher and the Speech Pathologist who discussed the

differentiation of the Year 8 Semester 1 English curriculum (Propositional

Judgement 5) based on the literacy needs of the Year 7 students who would

be entering Year 8 the following year.

Prior to the Year 7 testing day I invited a Year 8 English teacher to

accompany me to a workshop that covered corrective reading and decoding

and strategies that enhance critical thinking and fluent writing. Starting with a

teacher who shared a concern for catering for students with diverse literacy

needs (Propositional Judgement 1) was a strategy of starting small in building

support for the proposed project. I was also raising the awareness of this

teacher as to the need for different teaching strategies that some students

need in order to achieve improved literacy outcomes (Propositional

Judgement 5). Professional development was also offered to the Year 8

English teachers in preparation for teaching the differentiated curriculum

(Propositional Judgement 4).

It is envisaged that the approach used with the English Department in Year 8

will be reported to the English Department and to all Heads of Departments at

a Curriculum meeting. Teaching strategies will be shared and consideration

be given to how all Departments can share the responsibility of teaching

literacy skills (Propositional Judgement 3 and 7) and thus narrow the gap

between inclusion rhetoric and classroom practice.

The seven prepositional judgements are present in this scenario both

evidencing and guiding my decisions and interventions. I did not as such

check my decisions with the propositions but noticed after the fact that each

proposition was represented. However, had some aspect been overlooked the

propositions would have provided some basis for reviewing my actions.

The Learning Support Teacher’s role is considered to be an important part of

the process of inclusion within their school context. Such a position is a

complicated one. As a practitioner, I have used the results of my own

research to assess, develop and improve my own practices. This study has

given me insight into both the practices that are involved in implementing such

an inclusion process in two school contexts and hopefully will inform the

practices of other Learning Support Teachers.

148

References Abberley, P. (1987). The Concept of Oppression and the Development of a Social Theory of Disability. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2(1), 5-19. Ainscow, M. (1989). How Should We Respond to Individual Needs? In M. Ainscow & A. Florek (Eds.), Special Education Needs: Towards a Whole School Approach. London: David Fulton. Ainscow, M. (Ed.). (1991). Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton. Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schooling. London: Falmer Press. Ainscow, M. (2001). Developing Learning and Participation in Schools: Inclusion, Gold Coast, QLD. Ainscow, M., & Florek, A. (Eds.). (1989). Special Educational Needs: Towards a Whole-School Approach. London: David Fulton Publishers. Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., & Campbell, P. (1994). strategies and tactics for effective instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(3). Anderson, G., & Herr, K. (1999). The New Paradigm Wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12-21. Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (Eds.). (1994). Educating Children with Special Needs. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Ashman, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Learning opportunities for all children. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (pp. 5-38). Sydney: Prentice Hall. Aspland, T., Atweh, B., & Macpherson, I. (1997). EDN602 Action Research and Critical Social Practice. Brisbane: QUT. Bailey, J. (1997). Mapping the research and development agenda for AD/HD. In J. Bailey & D. Rice (Eds.), Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: medical, psychologica and educational perspectives (pp. 147-156). Sefton: Australian Association for Special Education. Bailey, J. (1998). Australia: Inclusion through categorisation. In T. Booth & M. Ainscow (Eds.), From Them to Us. An international study fo inclusion in education. London: Routledge.

149

Ballard, K. (1995). Inclusion, paradigms, power and participation. In C. Clark & A. Dyson & A. Milward (Eds.), Towards Inclusive Schools (pp. 1-14). London: David Fulton Publishers. Ballard, K. (1997). Researching disability and inclusive education: participation, construction and interpretation. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 243-256. Banks, J., & McGee Banks, C. (Eds.). (1997). Multicultural Education Issues and Perspectives. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Barton, L., & Landman, M. (1993). The Politics of Integration: Observation on the Warnock Report. In R. Slee (Ed.), Is There a Desk with My Name on it?: The Politics of Integration. (pp. 41-49). London: Palmer. Barton, L., & Oliver, M. (1992). Special Needs: personal trouble or public issue? In M. Arnot & L. Barton (Eds.), Voicing Concerns: Sociological perspectives on contemporary education reforms. Oxfordshire: Cambridge University Press. Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Batten, M., Marland, P., & Khamis. (1993). Knowing how to teach well: Teachers reflect on their classroom practice. ACER Research Monograph, 44. Bawden, R. (1991). Towards Action Researching Systems. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Action Research for Change and Development. Brookfield: Gower. Bender, W., Vail, C., & Scott, D. (1995). Teachers' attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilites, 28(2), 87-94. Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the Complete School. New York: Teachers College Press. Blackshaw, J., & Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1996). The Design of a Research Project. In O. Zuber-Skerrit (Ed.), Frameworks for Postgraduate Education (pp. 213-225). Lismore: Southern Cross University Press. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From Them to Us. London: Routledge. Boudah, D., Schumaker, J., & Deshler, D. (1997). Collaborative instruction: Is it an effective option for inclusion in secondary classrooms? Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 293-316. Bowe, R., Ball, S., & Gold, A. (1992). In Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge.

150

Brennan, M. (1998). Struggles over the Definition and Practice of the Educational Doctorate in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 25(1), 71-89. Brisbane, A. o. (2000). Ascertainment Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. Brisbane: Catholic Education. Brisbane, C. E. A. o. (2002). Literacy & Numeracy: A Framework for Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Brisbane. Brisbane. Brown, R. (1994). The "big picture" about managing writing. In O. Zuber-Skerrit & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in Postgraduate Education (pp. 38-50). London, UK: Kogan Page. Bruce, S. (1994). Research Students' Early Experiences of the Dissertation Literature Review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 217-229. Bulgren, J., & Lenz, B. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D. Deshler & E. Ellis & B. Lenz (Eds.), Teaching Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Strategies and Methods. Denver: Love Publishing. Bullivant, B. (1981). Race, Ethnicity and Curriculum. Melbourne: Macmillan. Burke, D. (1993). Inclusive curriculum and students from non-English speaking backgrounds. In D. Burke & A. Kay & R. Matwiejczyk & D. Rees (Eds.), ESL in the Mainstream Teacher Development Course, Workshop 1. South Australia: Department of Education and Children's Services. Burnett, R. (1999a). An Information system to springboard your school into learner centredness. Paper presented at the Springboard to a New Era: Stories of Past and Present Experiences Shaping the Future of Gifted Education For the New Millemennium, Brisbane. Burnett, R. (1999b). An information System to support both teacher and learner. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities:Advocacy and Action, Brisbane. Burnett, R. (2000a). Using technology to enhance teacher access to information about special needs. Paper presented at the AREA Conference: Learning disabilities creating a positive future, Melbourne. Burnett, R. (2000b). InfoEd presents a technological information system supporting teaching and learning. Paper presented at the SPELD, Brisbane. Burnett, R. (2002a). The Challenge of Diversity: A practitioner researcher's perspective involving two secondary schools. Paper presented at the Schools as Just Places: Providing strategies that work, Sydney.

151

Burnett, R. (2002b). Action Research: A strategy of inquiry. Doctorate of Education in progress. Paper presented at the Confronting the G aps, Brisbane. Burnett, R. (2004). The challenge of diversity: a practitioner researcher’s perspective involving two secondary school contexts. In B. Knight, W. Scott (Eds.), Learning Disabilities: Multiple Perspectives. Frenchs Forest: Prentice Hall (in print). Burnett, R., & Hill, G. (2000). Dealing with an Immunity to the Technology Bug. Paper presented at the Learning disabilities, the millenium and other bugs: A focus on teaching and learning, Brisbane. Burrello, L., Schrup, M., & Barnett, B. (1992). The principal as the special education leader. Bloomington: University of Indiana. Cairney, T., Lowe, K., & Sproats, E. (1994). Literacy in transition: An evaluation of literacy practices in upper primary and junior secondary schools. Kingswood, NSW: University of Western Sydney. Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (Eds.). (1993). Conceptualising Reflection in Teaching Development. London: The Falmer Press. Candy, P. (1989). Alternative Paradigms in Educational Research. Australian Educational Researcher, 16(1-11). Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming Critical: Knowing Through Action Research. Highton, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research.: Falmer Press. Carrier, J. (1989). Sociological perspectives on special education. New Education, 11, 21-31. Carrington. (1995). The Prevention of Learning Failure in Primary Schools. Special Education Perspectives, 4(1), 29-35. Carrington, S. (1977). Think! Do! The Impact of Teachers' Instructional Beliefs on Their Classroom Behaviour. In D. Greaves & P. Jeffery (Eds.), Learning Difficulties, Disabilities and Resource Teaching Selected papers from the Australian Resource Educators' Association 1996 Conference (pp. 99-112). Victoria: Australian Resource Educator's Association. Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. international Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(3), 257-268. Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002a). Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17(2), 51-57.

152

Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002b). Comparison of a traditional and an inclusive secondary school culture. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(1), 1-16. Casey, K. (1994). Teaching Children with Special Needs. Wentworth Falls,NSW: Social Science Press. Center, Y., & Ward, J. (1987). Teachers'attitude towards the integration of disabled children into regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 34, 41-56. Chalmers, L. (1991). Classroom modification for the mainstreamed student with mild handicaps. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27(1), 40-42. Chan, L., & Dally, K. (2001). Learning Disabilities and Literacy and Numeracy Development. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 12-19. Clapton, J., & Fitzgerald, J. (1997). The History of Disability: A History of 'Otherness'., [Web document] [1998, 1998, May 18]. Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Robson, S. (1999). Theories of Inclusion, Theories of Schools: Deconstructing and Reconstructing The 'Inclusive School'. British Educational Journal, 25(2), 157-177. Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A., & Skidmore, D. (1997). New Directions in Special Needs: innovations in mainstream schools. London: Cassell. Cohen, A., & Cohen, C. (1986). Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School A Source Book for Teachers. London: Paul Chapman. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1985). Research Methods in Education ( 2 ed.). London: Croom Helm. Cole, A. (1999). Legal fear over poor education. The Courier Mail. Cole, A., & Knowles, G. (2000). Researching Teaching Exploring Teacher Development through Reflexive Inquiry. Neehham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), Section 22(4), [Web document]. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au//lrgis/cth/consol act/dda199264/s22.html [1996, 1996, August 13]. Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), Section 3, [Web document]. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au//legis/cth/consol act/dda199264/s3html [1996, 1996, August 13]. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1999). Narritive Inquiry. In J. Keeves & Lakomski, G (Eds.), Issues in Educational Research. New York: Pergamon. Conoley, J., & Conoley, C. (1992). School Consultation: Practice and Training. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

153

Counsin, P., Diaz, E., Floes, B., & Hernandez, J. (1995). Looking Forward: Using a Sociocultural Perspective to Reframe the Study of Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(10), 656-663. Daws, L. (1994). From Chalky Towers to Class 10B Plain Street School Policy: Policy Construction at Different Sites. In B. Limerick & H. Neilsen (Eds.), School and Community Relations: Participation, Policy and Practice (pp. 119-131). Sydney: Harcourt Brace. De Vito, J. (1991). Interpersonal Communication, Human Communication: The Basic Discourse (pp. 14-49). New York: Harper Collins. Dembrowsky, C. (1992). Developing Self Esteem and Internal Motivation in at Risk Youth. In G. Walz & BlererJ (Eds.), Student Self Esteem: A Vitlal Element in Shool Success (pp. 73-83). Ann Arbor: Counselling and Personnell Services. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research (second edition ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Dick, B. (1993). You want to do an action research thesis?- How to report and conduct action research. http://www.scu.edu/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html [1999. Dick, B. (1997a). Rigour and relevance in action research. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/rigour.html. Dick, B. (1997b). Approaching an action research thesis: an overview. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/phd.html. Dick, B. (1999a). Qualitative Action Research:improving the rigour and economy. on line http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/rigour2.html. Dick, B. (1999b). Sources of rigour in action research: addressing the issues of trustworthiness and cridibility. Paper presented at the Issues of rigour in qualitative research., Duxton Hotel, Melbourne. Dougherty, A. (1990). Consultation: Practice and Perspectives. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks. Dovey, K., & Graham, J. (1987). The experience of disability : social construction and imposed limitation. Burwood, Vic: Victoria College Press. Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vaurus, L., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). The effects of explaining

154

the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterley, 3(22), 347-368. Dunn, C. (1992). Learning Disabled or Disabled Learning? Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 24(2). Dyson, A. (1994). Towards a collaborative, learning model for responding to student diversity. Support for Learning, 9, 53-60. Education Queensland. (2000). Literate Futures Report of the Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools. Education Queensland. (2000). Report of the Literacy Review for Queensland State Schools. Brisbane: Education Queensland. Education Queensland. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Eizenberg, N. (1991). Action research in medical education: improving teaching via investigative learning. In Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Action Research for Change and Development. Brookfield: Gower. Elkins, J. (1994). The School Context. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (2nd ed., pp. 71-103). Sydney: Prentice Hall. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Epps, S., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1983). Impact of different definitions of learning disabilities on the number of students identified. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 341-342. Erickson, F. (1990). Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Fitgerald, J. (1994). Include Me In. Disability, Rights and the Law in Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Adocacy Incorporated. Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive Practices: How Accepting are Teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119-133. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals. New York: Longmans. Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Educational Policy and Disability. Lewes: Falmer Press.

155

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces. London: The Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gagne, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. Heller & F. Monks & A. Passow (Eds.), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 63-85). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1987). Beyond the IQ:Educationand human development. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 187-193. Gardner, H., Kernhaber, M., & Wake, W. (1996). Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives. Fort Worth Texas: Harcourt Brace College. Gibbons, P. (1998). Learning to Learn in Second Language. Newtown: Primary English Teaching Association. Gilbert, S., & Smith, L. (2003). A bumpy road to action research. Kappa Delta Pi, 39(2). Giorcelli, L. (1995). An Impulse to Soar: Sanitisation, Silencing and Special Education. Paper presented at the Australian Association of Special Education Conference, Darwin. Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-April. Gosden, R., & Hampton, G. (2001). Generic Skills Assessment. A new problem for tertiary students with learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 20-27. Graden, J., & Bauer, M. (1992). Using a Collaborative Approach to Support Students and Teachers in Inclusive Classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum Considerations in Inclusive Classrooms, Facilitating Learning for all Students. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Greene, M. (1994). Epistemology and educational research: The influences of recent approaches to knowledge. In L.Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of

156

Research in Education. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Griffiths, M. (1990). Action Research: Grass Roots Practice or Management Tool? In P. Lomax (Ed.), Managing Staff Development in Schools: An action Research Approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Groundwater-Smith, S. (1991). Point and Counterpoint, Action Research: Issues for the Next Decade. In R.McTaggart (Ed.), Curriculum Perspectives (Vol. 11, pp. 43-65). Groundwater-Smith, S. (2003). Becoming the Vital Professional: Learning from the Workplace. Paper presented at the Paper presented to the Faculty of Education, School of Nursing & School of Human Movement Studies, Queensland University of Technology. Grundy, S. (1995). Action Research as Professional Development. Murdoch University: Innovative Links Project. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1990). Can there be a Human Science? Constructivism as an Alternative. Person Centered Review, 5(2), 130-154. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Sage: Thousand Oaks. Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Gusky, T. (1986). Staff Development and the Process of Teacher Change. Educational Researcher, 1(5), 5-12. Hallahan, D. (1998). We Need More Intensive Instruction. LD OnLine [1998, 11/10/98]. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Teachers College Press. Havelock, M. (1973). The Change Agent's Guide to innovation in Education. Englewoods Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications. Hay, I. (1991). Students with Learning Difficulties in Secondary Schools: A Whole School Approach. In A. Ashman (Ed.), Current Themes in Integration. Brisbane: St.Lucia. Healy, G. (2000, March 14). Poor teachers could be sued. The Australian, pp. 3. Heward, W., & Orlansky, M. (1996). Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education. New York: Merrill/Macmillan. Hill, G. (2001). Critical Friendship.: Mottram d'Hill & Associate.

157

Hill, G. (2002). Promoting congruence between the inquiry paradigm and the associated practices of higher degree research. Unpublished Doctoral, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (1997). The Literacy Challenge in Australian Primary Schools. IARTV Seminar Series, 69(November). Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (1999). Key Features of a Whole-School , Design Approach to Literacy Teaching in Schools. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(3), 5-11. Hill, P., Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness in Victoria:Key findings from phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Melbourne: Centre for Applied Educational Research, Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. Hogwood, B., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holly, M. (1997). Keeping a Professional Journal. Geelong, Vic: Deakin University. Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change. London: Cassell. Humphreys, K., Penny, F., Nielsen, N., & Loeve, T. (1996). Maintaining teacher integrity: a new role for the teacher researcher in school development. Research in Education(56), 31-47. Idol, L. (1997). Key Questions Related to Building Collaborative and Inclusive Schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30. Jordan, A., Kircaali-iftar, G., & Diamond, P. (1993). Who has a problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachers' beliefs about their work with at risk and integrated exceptional students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 40, 45-62. Kauffman, J. (1993). The Effects of the Sociopolitical Environment on Deveopments in Special Education. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 17(1), 3-13. Kauffman, J., & Hallahan, D. (1995). The Illusion of Full Inclusion. A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon. Texas: Pro-Ed. Kauffman, J., & Trent, S. (1991). Issues in Service Delivery for Students with Learning Disabilities. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about Learning Disabilites. New York: Academic Press.

158

Kavale, S., & Forness, S. (2000). What Definitions of Learning Disability say and don't say: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 1-20. Keeves, J., & Lakomski, G. (Eds.). (1999). Issues in Educational Research. New York: Pergamon. Kemmis, S. (1994). Action Research. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education. New York: Elsevier. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin University. Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory Action Research and the Study of Practice. In W.Atweh & S.Kemmis & P.Weeks (Eds.), Action Research in Practice:partnership for social justice in education. London: Routledge. Kiddey, P., & Robson, G. (2001). Success for all: selecting appropriate learning strategies. Calton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation. King, R., & Miller, D. (1999). Discrimination Law Issues for enrolment for Independent Schools. Brisbane: Deacon Graham & James. Kirby, J., & Williams, N. (1991). Learning Problems A Cognitive Approach. Toronto: Kagan & Woo. Knight, B. (2001). Inclusion making it happen in classes. Independent Education, 31(1), 16-18. Knight, N. (1996). Theory and Discourse in Research: Implications for Supervision of Research Students in the Social Sciences. In O.Zuber-Skerrit (Ed.), Frameworks for the Postgraduate Education. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press. Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kraayenoord, C., & Elkins, J. (1994). Learning difficulties in regular classrooms. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating Children with Special Needs. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Kroll, B. (1999). Social constructivist theory and its relationship to effective teaching of students with learning difficulties. In P. Westwood & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning Disabilities Advocacy and Action. Melbourne: AREA. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( 2nd ed.). Chicago, USA: Chicago PRess. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research findings. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

159

Larabee, D. (1998). Educational Researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 4-12. Larcombe, T. (1987). Learning Difficulties in the Secondary School. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lawler, E. (1985). Challenging traditional research assumptions. In E. Lawler & A. Mohrman & S. Mohrman & G. Ledford & T. Cummings (Eds.), Doing research that is useful for theory and practice (pp. 1-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lawyers, M. (1998). Increase in litigation cases for 'negligence'. The Independent Teacher, September. Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In S.Kemmis & R.McTaggart (Eds.), The Action Research Reader (pp. 47-56). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Lewins, F. (1992). Social Science Methodology. South Melbourne: Macmillian. Lewis, J. (1987). So Much Grit in the Hub of the Educational Machine. In B. Bessant (Ed.), Mother State and Her Little Ones. Bundoora: Latrobe University. Lewis, R., & Doorlag, D. (1995). Teaching Special Students in the Mainstream. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Lincoln, Y. (1997). From Understanding to Action: New Imperatives, New Criteria, New Methods for Interpretive Researchers. Paper presented at the Reclaiming Voice, University of Southern California Los Angeles. Lippitt, G., & Lippitt, R. (1986). The Consulting Process in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1987). Capable of Achievement and Worthy of Respect: Education for Handicapped Students as if they were Fully-Fledged Human Beings. Exceptional Children(September), 69-74. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusive Education and school restructuring. In W. Stainback & S. Staincack (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and School Reform: transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1984). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. ( 2 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lomax, P. (1990). An action research approach to developing staff in schools. In P. Lomax (Ed.), Managing Staff Development in Schools. Clevedon: Multi-Lingual Matters.

160

Louden, W. (1992). Understanding reflection through collaborative research. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding Teacher Development. New York: Teachers College Press. Macpherson, I., Aspland, T., & Brooker, R. (2001). Traversing a decade of curriculum thinking and practice: A conversational case study of curriculum leadership from down under. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. Maddux, C. (1996). The World Wide Web and the Television Generation. Computers in Schools, 12. Maglen, F. (1995). Reading Difficulties, Language/Thinking & The Failure Syndrome. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(1), 28-33. Martin, A. (2003). Motivating students to learn. InPsych:The Bulletin of the Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 25(3), 32-35. McKernan, J. (1987). Some Developments in the Methodology of Action Research: Studied Enactment. Paper presented at the The First World Congress on Action Research & Process Management. McKernan, J. (1988). The Countenance of Curriculum Action Research:Traditional, Collaborative and Critical-Emamcipatory Conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(3), 173-200. McNiff, J. (1988). Action Research: Principles and Action. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project. London: Hyde Publications. Mercer, C. (1997). Students with Learning Disabilites. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis ( first ed.). London: Sage Publications. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative Data Analysis ( second ed.). London: Sage Publications. Minow, M. (1985). Learning to live with the dilemma of difference: Bilingual and special education. In K. Bartlett & J. Wegner (Eds.), Children with special needs (pp. 375-429). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Mitroff, I. (1985). Why our old pictures of the world do not work anymore. In E. Lawler & A. Mohrman & S. Mohrman & G. Ledford & T. Cummings (Eds.), Doing research that is useful for theory and practice (pp. 18-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

161

Montgomery, D. (1990). Special Needs in Ordinary Schools, Children with Learning Difficulties. London: Cassell. Munson, S. (1987). Regular education teacher modifications for mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 489-502. Oliver, M. (1987). The Social and Political Context of Educational Policy: The Case of Special Needs. In L. Barton (Ed.), The Politics of Special Educational Needs. Needs, Lewes: Falmer. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: MacMillan. O'Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., & Fiske, J. (1983). Key Concepts in Communication. New York: Methuen & Co. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage. Perry, C. (1998). A structured approach to presenting theses: notes for students and supervisors. on line at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/cperry.html [2001. Perry, J. (1993). A critical perspective on mainstreaming. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 25(1), 14-21. Pope, M., & Denicolo, P. (1991). Developing constructive action:personal construct psychology, action research and professional development. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Action Research for Change and Development. Brookfield: Gower. Pugach, M., & Stephen Lilly, M. (1984). Reconceptualising support services for classroom teachers: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5), 48-55. Putnam, J., Spiegel, A., & Bruininks, R. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 553-576. Ramasut, A., & Reynolds, D. (1993). Developing Effective Whole Shool Approaches to Special Educational Needs: From School Effectiveness Theory to School Development Practice. In R. Slee (Ed.), Is There a Desk with My Name on It? London: Falmer. Reasoner, R. (1992). You Can Bring Hope to Failing Students. In G. Walz & J. Blerer (Eds.), Student Self Esteem: A Vital Element in School Success. Ann Arbor: Counselling and Personnell Services. Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftednessa? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184.

162

Renzulli, J., & Purcell, J. (1995). Gifted Education: A Look Around and A Look Ahead. Roeper Review, 18(3), 173-178. Richardson, L. (1994). Writing. A Method of Inquiry., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Riding, P., Fowell, S., & Levy, P. An Action Research Approach To Curriculum Development. on line http://www.shef.ac.uk~is/publications/infres/paper2.html. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (1992). Discourses of Social Justice and the Dilemmas of Policy in Special Education. Paper presented at the Social Justice, Equity and the Dilemmas of Disability in Education, Brisbane. Roaf, C. (1989). Developing Whole School Policy: A Secondary Perspective. In C. Roaf & H. Bines (Eds.), Needs, rights and opportunities. Developing Approaches to Special Eduaction. East Sussex: Falmer Press. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers' Workplace: The social organisation of schools. New York: Longman. Rosenholtz, S. (1991). Teacher's workplace: the social organisation of schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Schaffner, C., & Buswell, B. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective community schools. In W. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Brookes. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books. Schulz, J., & Carpenter, D. (1995). Mainstreaming Exceptional Students. A Guide for Classroom Teachers. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Meaningful professional development in accomodating students with disabilites: lessons learned. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 344-353. Schumm, J., Vaughn, s., Gordon, J., & Rothlein, L. (1994). General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 22-37. Scott, D., & Weeks, P. (1998). Action Research as Reflective Collaboration. In B. Atweh & S. Kemmis & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action Research in Practice. London: Routledge. Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

163

Sebba, J., & Ainscow, M. (1996). International developmentsin inclusive schooling: mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 5-18. Seddon, T. (1999). Research, Recommendations and Realpolitik: Consolidating the ED.D. The Australian Education Researcher, 26(3), 1-14. Self, H., Benning, A., Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1991). Cooperative Teaching Project: A Model for Students at Risk. Exceptional Children(September). Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (1988). Supervision:Human Perspectives. New York: McGrawHill. Simmons, H. (1996). The paradox of case study. Cambridge Journal of Education, April. Skilbeck, M. (1975). School-based Curriculum Development. School-based Curriculum Development and Teacher Education, 90-100. Skrtic, T. (1991). Students with Special Educational Needs: Artifacts of the Traditional Curriculum. In M. Ainscow (Ed.), Effective Schools for All (pp. 20-42). London: Fulton. Slee, R. (1993). The Politics of Integration- New Sites for Old Practices. Disability, Handicap and Society, 8(4), 351-360. Slee, R. (1995). Education for All: Arguing Principles or Pretending Agreement? Australian Disability Review, 2, 3-19. Slee, R. (1996). Inclusive education in Australia? Not yet! Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 19-32. Slee, R. (1998). The Inclusive School.: Falmer Press. Smith, S. (1993). Potentials for Empowerment in Critical Education Research. Australian Educational Researcher, 20(2), 75-93. Sleeter, C. (1995). Radical Structuralist Perspectives on the Creation and Use of Learning Disabilities. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disabilities and democracy: reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity. NewYork: Teachers College Press. Somekh, B. (1995). The Contribution of Action Research to Development in Social Endeavours: a position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 339-355. Soodak, L., Podell, D., & Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as Predictors of Teachers' Responses to Inclusion. Journal of Special Education(January).

164

Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Jackson, J. (1992). Toward Inclusive Classrooms. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum Considerations in Inclusive Classrooms, Facilitating Learning for all Students. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A Rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling: interdependent integrated education. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. Stenhouse, L. (1988). Case study methods. In J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 49-53). Oxford: Pergamon. Sternberg, R. (1986). A Triarchic theory in intellectual giftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swepson, P. (1998). Separating the ideals of research from the methodology of research, either action research or science can lead to better research. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/p-pswepson98.html. Technology, Q. U. o. (2000). Postgraduate Prospectus. Brisbane: QUT. Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1990). Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within their local home schools and communities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(3), 1-24. Tomlinson, S. (1986). The Social Construction of The ESN(M) Child. In A. Cohen & C. Cohen (Eds.), Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School. London: Harper and Row. Training, N. S. W. D. o. E. a. ELLA: English Language and Literacy Assessment. Tralli, R., Colombo, B., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1996). The strategies intervention model: A model for supported inclusion at the secondary level. Remedial and Special Education. Trent, S. (1998). False Starts and Other Dilemmas of a Secondary General Education Collaborative Teacher: A Case Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education, Paris. Vaidya, S. (1997). Meeting the challenges of an inclusive classroom of improving learning for all students. Education, June. Van Horn, G., Burrello, L., & DeClue, L. (1992). An instructional leadership framwork: The principal's leadership in special education. The Special Education Leadership Review, 1(1), 41-54.

165

Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1995). Responsible Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264-270. Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (1990). Administrative Supports to Promote Inclusive Schooling. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support Networks for Inclusive Schooling. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (Eds.). (1995). Creating an Inclusive School. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vlachhou, A. (1997). Struggles for Inclusive Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wallace, M., & Hall, V. (1994). Go collaborative! Subvert reform for the sake of the children. Support for Learning, 9(2), 68-72. Wang, M. (1992). Adaptive instruction: building on diversity. Theory into Practice, 14(2), 122-127. Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992). Restructuring Urban Schools: The New Futures Experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1). West, J., & Idol, L. (1987). Consultation in Special Education (Part 2): Training and Practice. Journal of Learning Disabilites, 20(7). Westwood, G., & Graham, L. (2000). How many Children with Special Needs in Regular Classes? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(3), 24-34. Westwood, p. (2001). 'Differentiation' as a Strategy for Inclusive Classroom Practice. Some difficulties identified. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(1), 5-11. Westwood, P. (1993). Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Needs. New York: Routledge. Westwood, P. (1995). Learner and Teacher: Perhaps the Most Important Partnership of All. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 19(1). Whinnery, K., King, M., Evans, W., & Gable, R. (1995). Perceptions of Students with Learning Disabilities. Inclusion Versus Pull-Out Services. Preventing School Failure, 40(1), 5-9. Wilczenski. (1992). Measuring attitudes toward inclusive education. Psychology in the Schools, 1(1), 21-34. Wilkinson, M. (1995). Action Research for People and Organisational Change. Brisbane: QUT. Williams, P. (1991). The Special Education Handbook. Milton: Open University Press.

166

Williams, P. (1996). The Law and Students with Learning Difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1(2), 4-13. Winter, M., Griffiths, M., & Green, K. (2000). The 'Academic' Qualities of Practice: what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25-37. Winter, R. (2002). Action research- including ideas and comments from Professor Richard Winter. Anglia Polytecnic University, 10-17. Winter, R. (2002). Truth or Fiction: Problems of Validity and Authenticity in Narratives of Action Research. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 143-154. Young, L. (1995). Educating Children with Learning Difficulties Putting Issues in Perspective. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(4), 26-30. Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1993). Improving Learning and Teaching Through Action Learning and Action Research. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 45-57. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992). Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and Reflections. London: Koga Page. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). Emancipatory Action Research for Organisational Change and Management Development. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New Directions in Action Research. London: Falmer Press.

Beyond knowledge: An insight into the practice of a ... · Ruth Cynthia Burnett BEcon Uni Qld, Dip....

Documents

Transcript of Beyond knowledge: An insight into the practice of a ... · Ruth Cynthia Burnett BEcon Uni Qld, Dip....