Team-teaching for inclusive learning: Purposes, practices and perceptions of a team-teaching initiative in Irish post-primary schools

Background. Schools unequivocally privilege solo-teaching. This research seeks to enhance our understanding of team-teaching by examining how two teachers, working in the same classroom at the same time, might or might not contribute to the promotion of inclusive learning. There are well-established policy statements that encourage change and moves towards the use of team-teaching to promote greater inclusion of students with special educational needs in mainstream schools and mainstream classrooms. What is not so well established is the practice of team-teaching in post-primary settings, with little research conducted to date on how it can be initiated and sustained, and a dearth of knowledge on how it impacts upon the students and teachers involved. Research questions and aims. In light of the paucity and inconclusive nature of the research on team-teaching to date (Hattie, 2009), the orientating question in this study asks ‘To what extent, can the introduction of a formal team-teaching initiative enhance the quality of inclusive student learning and teachers’ learning at post-primary level?’ The framing of this question emerges from ongoing political, legal and educational efforts to promote inclusive education. The study has three main aims. The first aim of this study is to gather and represent the voices and experiences of those most closely involved in the introduction of team-teaching; students, teachers, principals and administrators. The second aim is to generate a theory-informed understanding of such collaborative practices and how they may best be implemented in the future. The third aim is to advance our understandings regarding the day-to-day, and moment-to-moment interactions, between teachers and students which enable or inhibit inclusive learning. Sample. In total, 20 team-teaching dyads were formed across seven project schools. The study participants were from two of the seven project schools, Ash and Oak. It involved eight teachers and 53 students, whose age ranged from 12-16 years old, with 4 teachers forming two dyads per school. In Oak there was a class of first years (n=11) with one dyad and a class of transition year students (n=24) with the other dyad. In Ash one class group (n=18) had two dyads. The subjects in which the dyads engaged were English and Mathematics. Method. This research adopted an interpretive paradigm. The duration of the fieldwork was from April 2007 to June 2008. Research methodologies included semi-structured interviews (n=44), classroom observation (n=20), attendance at monthly teacher meetings (n=6), questionnaires and other data gathering practices which included school documentation, assessment findings and joint examination of student work samples (n=4). Results. Team-teaching involves changing normative practices, and involves placing both demands and opportunities before those who occupy classrooms (teachers and students) and before those who determine who should occupy these classrooms (principals and district administrators). This research shows how team-teaching has the potential to promote inclusive learning, and when implemented appropriately, can impact positively upon the learning experiences of both teachers and students. The results are outlined in two chapters. In chapter four, Social Capital Theory is used in framing the data, the change process of bonding, bridging and linking, and in capturing what the collaborative action of team-teaching means, asks and offers teachers; within classes, between classes, between schools and within the wider educational community. In chapter five, Positioning Theory deductively assists in revealing the moment-to-moment, dynamic and inclusive learning opportunities, that are made available to students through team-teaching. In this chapter a number of vignettes are chosen to illustrate such learning opportunities. These two theories help to reveal the counter-narrative that team-teaching offers, regarding how both teachers and students teach and learn. This counter-narrative can extend beyond the field of special education and include alternatives to the manner in which professional development is understood, implemented, and sustained in schools and classrooms. Team-teaching repositions teachers and students to engage with one another in an atmosphere that capitalises upon and builds relational trust and shared cognition. However, as this research study has found, it is wise that the purposes, processes and perceptions of team-teaching are clear to all so that team-teaching can be undertaken by those who are increasingly consciously competent and not merely accidentally adequate. Conclusions. The findings are discussed in the context of the promotion of effective inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I believe that such promotion requires more nuanced understandings of what is being asked of, and offered to, teachers and students. Team-teaching has, and I argue will increasingly have, its place in the repertoire of responses that support effective inclusive learning. To capture and extend such practice requires theoretical frameworks that facilitate iterative journeys between research, policy and practice. Research to date on team-teaching has been too focused on outcomes over short timeframes and not focused enough on the process that is team-teaching. As a consequence team-teaching has been under-used, under-valued, under-theorised and generally not very well understood. Moving from classroom to staff room and district board room, theoretical frameworks used in this research help to travel with, and understand, the initiation, engagement and early consequences of team-teaching within and across the educational landscape. Therefore, conclusions from this study have implications for the triad of research, practice and policy development where efforts to change normative practices can be matched by understandings associated with what it means to try something new/anew, and what it means to say it made a positive difference.

Identifying sources of global contention in constraint satisfaction search

Much work has been done on learning from failure in search to boost solving of combinatorial problems, such as clause-learning and clause-weighting in boolean satisfiability (SAT), nogood and explanation-based learning, and constraint weighting in constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Many of the top solvers in SAT use clause learning to good effect. A similar approach (nogood learning) has not had as large an impact in CSPs. Constraint weighting is a less fine-grained approach where the information learnt gives an approximation as to which variables may be the sources of greatest contention. In this work we present two methods for learning from search using restarts, in order to identify these critical variables prior to solving. Both methods are based on the conflict-directed heuristic (weighted-degree heuristic) introduced by Boussemart et al. and are aimed at producing a better-informed version of the heuristic by gathering information through restarting and probing of the search space prior to solving, while minimizing the overhead of these restarts. We further examine the impact of different sampling strategies and different measurements of contention, and assess different restarting strategies for the heuristic. Finally, two applications for constraint weighting are considered in detail: dynamic constraint satisfaction problems and unary resource scheduling problems.

Planning the deployment of fault-tolerant wireless sensor networks

Since Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are subject to failures, fault-tolerance becomes an important requirement for many WSN applications. Fault-tolerance can be enabled in different areas of WSN design and operation, including the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer and the initial topology design. To be robust to failures, a MAC protocol must be able to adapt to traffic fluctuations and topology dynamics. We design ER-MAC that can switch from energy-efficient operation in normal monitoring to reliable and fast delivery for emergency monitoring, and vice versa. It also can prioritise high priority packets and guarantee fair packet deliveries from all sensor nodes. Topology design supports fault-tolerance by ensuring that there are alternative acceptable routes to data sinks when failures occur. We provide solutions for four topology planning problems: Additional Relay Placement (ARP), Additional Backup Placement (ABP), Multiple Sink Placement (MSP), and Multiple Sink and Relay Placement (MSRP). Our solutions use a local search technique based on Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedures (GRASP). GRASP-ARP deploys relays for (k,l)-sink-connectivity, where each sensor node must have k vertex-disjoint paths of length ≤ l. To count how many disjoint paths a node has, we propose Counting-Paths. GRASP-ABP deploys fewer relays than GRASP-ARP by focusing only on the most important nodes – those whose failure has the worst effect. To identify such nodes, we define Length-constrained Connectivity and Rerouting Centrality (l-CRC). Greedy-MSP and GRASP-MSP place minimal cost sinks to ensure that each sensor node in the network is double-covered, i.e. has two length-bounded paths to two sinks. Greedy-MSRP and GRASP-MSRP deploy sinks and relays with minimal cost to make the network double-covered and non-critical, i.e. all sensor nodes must have length-bounded alternative paths to sinks when an arbitrary sensor node fails. We then evaluate the fault-tolerance of each topology in data gathering simulations using ER-MAC.