Supporting Primary Students with Learning Difficulties: An Ecological Perspective

1. Well-being Conference Presentation 24th November 2008 SUPPORTING PRIMARY STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES: An ecological perspective PHIL READ

2. Thesis title: Supported by an Australian Research Council Strategic Partnership with Industry Research and Training Scheme Award, with the Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) as the Industry Partner.

3. What are the needs of primary students with learning difficulties? • What are the most effective way of achieving improved outcomes for these students? • Is there a relationship between contextual factors (e.g. type of support, school demographics) and the level of stakeholder satisfaction?

4. An ecological approach … examines the interactions between stakeholders and their non-living surroundings, such as the school, family and external service provider environments Cole, P. G. and Chan, L. K. S. 1990. Methods and Strategies for Special Education. Prentice Hall, Sydney.

6. present & past

7. REQUIREMENTS: • do not impose a structure upon or delimit participant response but at the same time allow for cross site analysis and comparison • be capable of and flexible enough to place participant responses within the contexts in which they are formed ie. identify the frames of reference • provide opportunity for further exploration, as the need arises, of the interactions and outcomes of stakeholder perceptions • THESE REQUIREMENTS SUGGESTED : • in-depth interviewing of all stakeholders • school level observation and examination of documentation • an emergent research design such as Grounded Theory allowing opportunities to re-visit and build upon participant response and observation

8. Grounded theorydesigns are systematic, qualitative procedures researchers use to generate a general explanation (called a Grounded Theory) that explains a process, action or interaction among people. The procedures for developing this theory include collecting primarily interview data, developing and relating categories (or themes) of information, and composing a model that portrays the general explanation. In this way the explanation is grounded in the data from participants. From this explanation, you construct predictive statements about the experiences of individuals. • John Creswell (2008) – Educational Research 3rd ed. p61

9. Why does a Gap MAINTENANCE situation exist for third wave students with learning difficulties?

10. What is gap maintenance?

11. What might be the reasons for the longevity and persistence of learning difficulties?

12. Almost half of the children who had been behind in reading in grade 2 still had reading difficulties at 13-14 years, while almost two-thirds had spelling and /or maths difficulties. Overall, more than 80 per cent had learning difficulties of one kind or another. Whether or not they had received remedial assistance did not seem to affect outcome.

13. If you consider a school community to be a system, an ecological system that reaches or establishes an equilibrium of some form or another, you have a useful basis for approaching the question of why a Gap Maintenance situation existed for the students with LDs in my sample or put another way - explaining the longevity and persistence of LDs

14. Factors operating within the system or ecology • Direct factors: easily recognisable or identifiable as having the potential to affect the quality of a student’s educational programme • Homeostatic factors: • subtle, indirect • capable of combining synergistically with other factors to affect the quality of a student’s educational programme • can mask the presence or effect of other factors.

16. Stakeholder interaction diagram

17. Examples of homeostatic factors at work: 1. A “blank slate” 2. Stakeholder satisfaction

18. YEAR LEVEL TRANSITION: What was lacking? • detailed academic achievement / work samples • information about learning characteristics and needs • information on the previous year’s learning outcomes/goals • what major programmes, resources and support modes have been used and their success or failure

19. SCHOOL REPORT FORMAT

20. YEAR LEVEL TRANSITION: What was lacking? • detailed academic achievement / work samples • information about learning characteristics and needs • information on the previous year’s learning outcomes/goals • what major programmes, resources and support modes have been used and their success or failure

21. YEAR LEVEL TRANSITION: What was lacking? • detailed academic achievement / work samples • information about learning characteristics and needs • information on the previous year’s learning outcomes/goals • what major programmes, resources and support modes have been used and their success or failure

22. What did stakeholders perceive to be successful outcomes for a student with LDs? How aligned were their views? Did they know what other stakeholders thought were successful outcomes for the student?

23. What did stakeholders perceive to be successful outcomes for a student with LDs? 4 main domains (Curriculum Specific 59%, Affective 20%, Task Related 16% and Social Skills 5%) How aligned were their views? Poor in the all domains except Curriculum Specific - but this only can be claimed at Major curriculum area or strand levels of specificity Did they know what other stakeholders thought were successful outcomes for the student Very low in 4 out of 5 sites - 39% of S/Hs either didn’t know or were unsure

24. Figure 25 The levels of Specificity for S/H Nominations of successful outcomes

25. What did stakeholders perceive to be successful outcomes for a student with LDs? 4 main domains (Curriculum Specific 59%, Affective 20%, Task Related 16% and Social Skills 5%) How aligned were their views? Poor in the all domains except Curriculum specific - but this only can be claimed at Major curriculum area or strand levels of specificity Did they know what other stakeholders thought were successful outcomes for the student Very low in 4 out of 5 sites - 39% of S/Hs either didn’t know or were unsure

26. YEAR LEVEL TRANSITION: What was lacking? • detailed academic achievement / work samples • information about learning characteristics and needs • information on the previous year’s learning outcomes/goals • what major programmes, resources and support modes have been used and their success or failure

27. SLIP THROUGH THE NET BEHAVIOURS • not being a behaviour problem, • being quiet and lacking in confidence, • tending not to seek help from the teacher when problems are encountered, instead utilising informal peer support (desk partners) to assist in completing work and understanding teacher instructions, • being selective about or limiting school related information provided to parents, • having work habits which appear to be good and seeming to be on task, but with a low productivity (spending most time drawing elaborate page headings but little work actually done etc.), • copying a peer’s work, hanging back/ fiddling at the start of a written task to allow desk partner copying

28. Slow start to the year– loss of instructional time

29. Who was most satisfied with the educational program received by the student with LDs?

30. A lack of information about the student’s relative academic performance A classroom environment that catered very well for the student’s affective needs Student classroom coping strategies The nature of primary school reporting Level of parent and student satisfaction with the educational program The student’s unrealistic perceptions of the severity of their LDs A lack of specificity of learning outcomes Low levels of collaboration between home and school The school was providing extra support

31. Stakeholders who are satisfied with a system are less likely to seek change in that system thereby contributing to the system’s equilibrium

32. OVERVIEW Primary students with LDs in this sample show evidence of a gap maintenance situation An ecological perspective explains this in terms of the presence of and interaction between a range of DIRECT and HOMEOSTATIC factors The nature of the homeostatic factors combined with low levels of collaboration and communication between sub-systems result in the establishment of a GAP maintenance equilibrium The system is dynamic and there is evidence that a change even in one factor can significantly change a gap maintenance equilibrium to a gap closure equilibrium

35. Due to the interaction and presence of a range of homeostatic and direct factors a GAP MAINTENANCE rather than GAP CLOSURE equilibrium is established • key stakeholders are satisfied given the level of available resources and their knowledge of the programme • problems, issues or concerns in one part of the system were unlikely to be shared, containment reducing the likelihood of change • a failure to build - stakeholder knowledge and experiences about the student’s learning needs and characteristics unshared and poorly documented • learning outcomes at functional levels of specificity and measurability were rarely set, impeding judgements about the efficacy of instruction The cycle repeats - new year / new teacher

38. Consider the Words • Consider the Context • Consider the Internal Consistency • Consider the Frequency of Comments • Consider the Extensiveness of Comments • Consider the Intensity of Comments • Consider the Specificity of Responses • Consider What Was Not Said • Find the Big Ideas • Krueger, R.(1998). Analysing and Reporting Focus Group Results. Californaia:SAGE.