1 / 14

Zeta Brown

Teachers’ positions of the inclusion and standards agendas and how they are practically implemented in tandem. Zeta Brown. Research questions. (1) What are teachers’ positions on the inclusive education agenda? a) to what extent do they align with their personal or professional views?

bikita
Download Presentation

Zeta Brown

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Teachers’ positions of the inclusion and standards agendas and how they are practically implemented in tandem Zeta Brown

  2. Research questions • (1) What are teachers’ positions on the inclusive education agenda? • a) to what extent do they align with their personal or professional views? • (2) What are teachers’ positions on the education standards agenda? • a) to what extent do they align with their personal or professional views? • (3) How do teachers manage these agendas simultaneously?

  3. Where did I start? • I knew I wanted to focus on teachers’ positions of the inclusion and standards agendas. • Issue of wanting to ascertain the teachers’ positions. • I looked at differing methodological routes including Kelly’s construct theory and found the Q method. • So from my position as a researcher I started with my method and that then influenced my epistemological and ontological stand point.

  4. Q-methodology • Q-methodology provides an in-depth study that investigates the complexity of differing participants’ positions on a given subject, where differences of opinion are expected. • Originally developed in the 1930’s by William Stephenson (1953) the Q-method was initially established for use in psychological, political and sociological research, which concentrates on developing a theory of the self in a measurable form. • Using a mixed method approach, combining quantitative data in the form of factor analysis, with qualitative data in the Q data and by complimenting Q with subsequent data collection methods. • Q-statements are placed on a reversed quasi-normal distribution grid.

  5. My pilot study • My pilot included three teachers from one school. • The Q results presented two factors for inclusion and one factor for the standards agenda. • From my Q analysis I discovered that all three teachers seemed to hold differing personal, professional and moral positions of both the inclusion and standards agendas. This was confirmed when I conducted the semi-structured interviews. • This data led me to develop the psychological stance within my literature review and trying to overcome the sociological/psychological divide in both their literature and their methods of collecting data.

  6. My data collection • My initial data collection was gaining my Q data. • I went into six primary schools, two schools from high socioeconomic location, two from less affluent areas, one Catholic and one Church of England schools In total I had 26 participants that correctly completed the Q process I had 48 statements each that couldn’t be readily identified to either the inclusion or standards agenda. I asked two conditions of instruction on the same Q-set, one based on the inclusion agenda and one based on the standards agenda

  7. The analysis of my initial Q data * For the inclusion agenda, the Q data produced three factors. I represented these factors in statements * Factor one: ‘I would if I could but it is practically impossible’. Eigenvalue: 8.2818. Teachers included within this factor: 1,2,3,6,8,9,11. * Factor two: ‘I try my utmost to include, even though I struggle with the practical barriers I face’. Eigenvalue: 1.9502. Teachers included: 5,12,13,17,18,19,24. • * Factor three: ‘Inclusion sounds lovely in theory, but it has practical consequences to the education of both children with special educational needs and the rest of the class’ • Eigenvalue: 1.2019 • Teachers included: 7,10,14,15,16,20,21,25,26.

  8. Initial Q data continued * The standards agenda had two factors * Factor one: ‘I have to conform to the standards agenda, even if I personally disagree with it’. Eigenvalue: 8.8882. Teachers included: 3,4,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,15,18,20 (21),21 (22) ,23 (24). * Factor two: ‘I do not agree with the standards agenda, but I feel that there is flexibility within it’ Eigenvalue: 1.8504. Teachers included: 1 2 9 10 11 16 17 19 22(23), 24 (25), 25 (26)

  9. The second phase of my data collection • Going from my collective analysis to the individual in semi-structured interviews • I presented the factors to 16 of the original participants and asked them which factor they felt best represented their position • I felt that even if there was a discrepancy (and at times there was) this would only provide more interesting data within the interviews

  10. My initial analysis of this second phase data • There appeared to be a clear divide in how teachers’ collectively described their position on my factors and the inclusion and standards agendas, associated to their locus of control. • Personal position - Professional position - Constraints within the agendas • Agendas - Professional - Guidelines (that can be personally implemented as they see fit) • From the semi-structured interviews this divide amongst the teachers appeared to be separate to the factors of the Q, which highlighted whether they believed they were constrained by the agenda or whether they felt there is flexibility within the objectives.

  11. Analysing the data from the semi- structured interviews • I started to review this data collectively amongst my participants. • Internal locus of control : Participants 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26. • External locus of control: Participants 1, 2, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21, 25.

  12. Analysis continued • I then looked at this data in relation to the years each teachers had taught. • Each teacher with an internal locus of control: Pre-Ed Reform (except for one male, who believed solely in his personal position and ignored any legislative objectives he disagreed with). • Each teacher with an external locus of control: Post Ed-Reform (except for one Pre-Ed Reform who took 8 years out of the profession and returned post the Ed Reform).

  13. What does this tell me? • Two theories: (1) Is this a psychological process these post-ed reform teachers use to negotiate the guidelines? • (2) Is the Education Reform Act influencing the type of person that now applies to become a teacher? Is the profession now attracting people with an external locus of control who performs to guidelines? • Will the teaching profession eventually consist of those with ‘commercialised’ identities and external locus’s of control? • My third phase in-depth semi-structured interviews are at present continuing the same pattern. Additionally, my inclusion agenda data represents the same pattern.

  14. My impression of my work so far • I have found my doctoral experience to be very interesting and insightful in a lot of ways. It is not only developing my skills as an academic writer, but I believe its providing me with a confidence in my own capabilities. • My doctoral experience has so far been like being on a rollercoaster, its going by very quickly and there are times were I feel frustrated with my development. However, I equally have times of utter enjoyment, when I find a good piece of literature, I have some good data in or I have a moment of reflection of what I have achieved so far.

More Related