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.

Supporting therapist engagement in evidence based practice: Developing a continuing education programme through participatory action research

Therapists find it challenging to integrate research evidence into their clinical decision-making because it may involve modifying their existing practices. Although continuing education (CE) programmes for evidence-based practice (EBP) have employed various approaches to increase individual practitioner’s knowledge and skills, these have been shown to have little impact in changing customary behaviours. To date, there has been little attempt to actively engage therapists as collaborators in developing educational processes concerning EBP. The researcher collaborated with seven clinical therapists (one occupational therapist, four physiotherapists and two speech and language therapists) enrolled in a new post-qualification Implementing Evidence in Therapy Practice (IETP) MSc module to monitor and adapt the learning programme over ten weeks. The participating therapists actively engaged in participatory action research (PAR) iterative cycles of reflecting→ planning→ acting→ observing→ reflecting with the researcher. Mixed methods were used to evaluate the IETP module and its influence on therapists’ subsequent engagement in EBP activities. Data were gathered immediately on completion of the module and five months later. Immediate post-module findings revealed four components as being important to the therapists: 1) characteristics of the learning environment; 2) acquisition of relevant EBP skills; 3) nature of the learning process; and 4) acquiring confidence. The two themes and sub-themes which emerged from individual interviews conducted five months post-module expanded on the four components already identified. Theme 1: Experiencing the learning (sub-themes: module organisation; learning is relational; improving the module); and theme 2: Enacting the learning through a new way of being (sub-themes: criticality and reflection; self agency; modelling EBP behaviours; positioning self in an EB work culture). The therapists’ perspectives had by then shifted from that of a learner to that of a clinician constructing a new sense of self as an evidence-based practitioner. Findings from this study underline the importance of the process of socially constructed knowledge and of empowering learners through collaboratively designed continuing education programmes. In the student-driven learning environment, therapists chose repetitive skill-building and authentic problem-solving activities which reflected the complexity of the environments to which they were expected to transfer their learning. These findings have implications for educators designing EBP continuing education programmes, during which students develop professional ways of being.

Developing a health and wellbeing platform in a living lab setting: An action design research study

The world’s population is rapidly aging, which affects healthcare budgets, resources, pensions and social security systems. Although most older adults prefer to live independently in their own home as long as possible, smart living solutions to support elderly people at home did not reach mass adoption, yet. To support people age-in-place a Living Lab is established in one of the metropolitan areas in the Netherlands. The main goal of the Living Lab is to develop an online health and wellbeing platform that matches service providers, caretakers and users and to implement that platform in one particular city district. In this paper we describe the narrative of the action design research process that will give researchers insight how to deal with complex multi-stakeholder design projects as well as cooperation issues to develop an artifact in a real-life setting.

Action design research: a comparison with canonical action research and design science

This research in progress paper addresses the IS issue in relation to conducting relevant research while keeping academic rigor. In particular, it contributes to the ongoing academic conversation around the investigation on how to incor-porate action in design science research. In this document the philosophical underpinnings of the recently proposed methodology called Action Design Re-search [1] are derived, outlined and integrated into Burrel and Morgan’s Par-adigmatic Framework (1979)[6]. The results so far show how Action Design Research can be considered as a particular case of Design Science Research (rather than a methodology closely related to Action Research) although they can assume two different epistemological positions. From these philosophical perspectives, future works will involve the inclusion of actual research projects using the three different methodologies. The final goal is to outline and structure the divergences and similarities of Action Design Research with Design Science Research and Canonical Action Research.