What about child development and developmental approaches?

Melanie Nind

School of Education: The Open University & Oxford Brookes University

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Cardiff University, 7-10 September 2000

Introduction to the symposium

The presenters share a common belief that learners are entitled to developmentally appropriate educational experiences. They are concerned that child development is unfashionable in teacher education and that notions of developmental readiness have lost favour in primary and special education. The papers present evidence for the benefits of developmental approaches and an argument is made for the need to get these back on to the educational agenda and part of thinking about inclusive education.

Paper 1Special schools, developmental approaches and inclusion

The topic for this paper is an inclusion initiative and action research project involving the special schools and services of one London Borough. The borough has adopted a model of inclusion that concerns itself not just with widening the scope of mainstream schools. The borough is focusing also on pupils with the most severe learning difficulties, who may be on the autistic spectrum or have challenging behaviours, and aims to bring pupils placed ‘out-of-borough’ back into the local educational community. With this comes a commitment to support the schools in developing an appropriate developmental curriculum. The initial pedagogic focus has been on Intensive Interaction, an interactive approach that emphasises the quality of the teaching process and the transactional nature of learning difficulties. Emphasis is also placed on intuitive teaching combined with critical reflection and a developmental stance, rather than on the notion of specialist ‘experts’. The presentation will highlight key issues in the project connected to the symposium theme of the importance of developmental approaches.

Keywords: inclusion, learning difficulties, developmental approaches

Melanie Nind

School of Education

The Open University

Walton Hall

Milton Keynes

MK7 6AA

Email:

Background and rationale for the project

The Intensive Interaction and Inclusion project described here is part of the wider inclusion project of one London borough. The borough’s approach can be summarised as pursuing some key themes:

  • Inclusion is about community: communities of schools and their participants and their families
  • Inclusion is about breaking down barriers to participation
  • Inclusion emphasizes more local and earlier action
  • Of prime concern are ‘pupils falling outside of the routine competence and confidence of teachers’ (in mainstream and special schools) … and extending teachers’ competenceandconfidence

Two central strands of focus and activity in the borough develop from these themes and the latter theme in particular:

Inclusive responses to pupils falling outside

of the routine competence and confidence’ of teachers:

pupils with complex needspupils with language

and behaviour support needs

work with special early years social

schoolsinclusion project

complex needs centresearly years language

centres

Intensive InteractionNurture groups

------staff development through collaborative enquiry ------

Complex needs and Intensive Interaction

The part of the wider project that we discuss here is concerned with pupils with complex needs and the use of Intensive Interaction as the focus for staff development through collaborative enquiry. Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett, 1988, 1994) is an interactive approach that emphasises the quality of the teaching and interactive process. The interactive style is modelled on the nurturing style of caregiver-infant interaction and is used with intensity and critical reflection. Practitioners of Intensive Interaction address the interactive fit between the pupils’ needs and the accessibility and meaningfulness of the educational experience in order to provide a developmentally appropriate curriculum. (The possible tension between this and the pupil’s chronological age - the age-appropriateness debate - is discussed in Nind & Hewett, 1996.) Practitioners rely on intuitive teaching combined with knowledge of early development, reflection, in-depth observation and collaborative problem-solving, rather than on the notion of specialist ‘experts’.

The initial aim of the Intensive Interaction part of the project was:

To increase the diversityof pupils that teachers in special schools feel

a)they can confidently cope with

b)they have appropriate teaching strategies for

c)they have appropriate curricula for.

The vehicle for achieving these aims was:

  • Through an exploration of Intensive Interaction for pupils with more severe learning difficulties, challenging behaviours or autism who are understood to need a developmental or different curriculum
  • Through the provision of a consultant to act as a resource for schools to use as they choose
  • Through encouragement for schools to see each other as a resource and plan and work collaboratively
  • Using an action research model, with schools identifying a problem(s) and, working with the consultant as a critical friend, reflecting on the problem(s), planning, acting, and reflecting again.

Intensive Interaction and inclusive thinking

Using the helpful distinctions between traditional and inclusionary approaches that Thomas et al (1998) adapted from Porter (1995) (fig.1), it is apparent that the Intensive Interaction and Inclusion project fits particularly well with the some of the inclusionary dimensions. These are most notably, examining teaching/learning factors, collaborative problem-solving, and developing strategies for teachers.

The aspect of the project that could be regarded as more in keeping with a traditional approach is its focus on what could be said to be a ‘technical intervention’ - special teaching or therapy – on Intensive Interaction. However, the nature of the ‘technical intervention’ of Intensive Interaction brings the focus right back round to teachers looking at their practice, examining the quality of their interactions, and reflecting on the match between what their students bring to the learning situation and the teaching and learning experiences they offer.

Fig.1

Traditional and inclusionary approaches (Thomas et al 1998 adapted from Porter 1995)

Traditional

(may include integration)
  • Focus on student
  • Assessment of student by specialist
  • Diagnostic/ prescriptive outcomes
  • Student programme
  • Placement in appropriate programme
  • Needs of ‘special’ students
  • Changing/remedying the subject
  • Benefits to the student with SEN of being integrated
  • Professionals, specialist expertise & formal support
  • Technical interventions (special teaching, therapy)
/

Inclusionary

  • Focus on classroom
  • Examine teaching/learning factors
  • Collaborative problem-solving
  • Strategies for teachers
  • Adaptive and supportive regular classroom environment
  • Rights of all students
  • Changing the school
  • Benefits to all students of including all
  • Informal support and the expertise of mainstream teachers
  • Good teaching for all

Intensive Interaction is a teaching approach that is special in the sense of being geared to a specific group of learners who are usually seen as special. It was developed for facilitating the development of fundamental social and communication abilities in students experiencing severe and complex learning difficulties. It evolved from a very particular concern with developing an understanding and practice of good teaching for these learners and their particular needs.

However, it is also firmly enmeshed with principles of good teaching for all. It is based on the ‘intuitive pedagogy’ (Carlson and Bricker, 1982) of caregiver-infant interaction -and therefore on good teaching for all at the early developmental levels. It uses the intuitive teaching and learning style that characterizes the playful interactive process between parents and their very young children. It is this, rather than a model that the students with complex needs/ learning difficulties need something fundamentally different, that underpins Intensive Interaction.

There is strong evidence that this interactive style has a positive functional relationship with development, both in young children who are developing normally (e.g. Brazelton, Koslwoski and Main, 1974; Kaye, 1979; Lewis and Coates, 1980; Schaffer, 1977) and in individuals of all ages who are yet to develop early social and communication abilities (e.g. Mahoney and Powell, 1988; Nind, 1996; Yoder, 1990). The latter group, however, are more likely to experience a different, even contrasting, interactive style or teaching approach. This reflects the differences in the ease of achieving a good interactive/ developmental match or fit, and assumptions about the need for specialist teaching and different ways of learning.

In Intensive Interaction, the difference in approach for individuals with complex learning difficulties emerges, not in the interactive style or teaching approach itself, but in the way that the style is applied. That is, the style is applied with intensity and critical reflection. Learners present themselves as at differing chronological and developmental ages/stages and for their teachers, offering developmentally appropriate experiences may or may not be intuitive. By having the developmental model central to their thinking, responses to diversity are made within an all-encompassing framework.

The project in the initial year

Four special schools were involved in the initial year of the project:

  • two all age schools for children with moderate learning difficulties
  • one nursery/infant/primary phase school for pupils with communication difficulties
  • and one all age school for children with severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties

Next year a further special school ‘for delicate pupils’ and some mainstream schools will become involved.

A steering group consisting of the heads of these schools and the associated support services was set up to agree the terms of the project and to discuss ways in which it might operate and be evaluated. A launch brought together staff from three of the special schools together with advisory, educational psychology, parent support and speech and language therapy services. The launch session introduced the rationale and principles of both Intensive Interaction and the project itself. The challenge posed was for the educational community

  • to explore the potential of the borough-wide initiative
  • to develop the project in whatever way they wanted it to go
  • to plan, act, observe and reflect, evaluate and plan again
  • and to share their experiences with others.

In the immediate term practitioners were encouraged to reflect on the launch session and think about:

  • where existing practice already fits with the principles
  • what they might do more or less of
  • how they might do it and record it
  • how they might talk about it more
  • what they might re-think and develop
  • what they want from the project
  • what support they might need
  • how they might enable each other
  • and how they might evaluate their action.

In this paper we will focus on the collaborative enquiry within two of the schools, one MLD and one SLD.

Identifying the problem 1: matters of curriculum

The first burst of action came from one of the schools for pupils with moderate learning difficulties, Maple Leaf. The headteacher presented the school as one with a caring ethos as its primary source of pride. He spoke passionately about the warmth of the school atmosphere, the good team spirit amongst its staff, and the growing emphasis on circle time and therapies in the school’s approach.

The ‘problem’ identified by the headteacher as the starting point for discussion and action was the changing nature of the school population. There was a new intake of pupils who were unlike their traditional pupil group, and the head reported that the staff had felt like ‘a tidal wave was coming at them’. The graphic image was one of being unable to turn back this tide and of a feeling of helplessness in the face of it. In response the staff had sought to regain their feeling of control and effectiveness by segregating the ‘tidal wave group’ in a class of their own. Thus, the decision had been made to stream the key stage three group resulting in what they termed an MLD and an ‘SLD’ group. In this way the ‘tidal wave’ was being dealt with - but they were very uncertain about the future.

The immediate issue was what to do with this tidal wave class now they were a more homogeneous group. The teachers, it was explained, were skilled at differentiating, but even they could not differentiate to the extent that had been required. The new class of ‘SLD pupils’ could not access the secondary school style subjects-based curriculum on offer to the traditional pupils and they needed an alternative. The idea of learning the ‘specialist technique’ of Intensive Interaction and using this was very appealing. This solution (mistakenly!) offered the attraction of not interfering with the thinking and activity of the rest of the school.

The secondary issue was the problem of pupils in the year 1 class, with communication difficulties, and again not typical of the school’s traditional MLD population. The staff involved wanted to explore whether Intensive Interaction would be an appropriate approach for these individuals.

Planning and action 1: thinking through the problem together

The willingness to share the problem with someone in the role of critical friend enabled the managers and teachers in the school to see their problem from different perspectives. To them the problem was real and urgent – requiring a pragmatic solution. To the critical friend the problem was an intellectual challenge – requiring reflection and complex problem-solving. Questioning and mirroring of their thinking helped to present the problem in different ways. Was a two-tier system in the curriculum really what was wanted? What were the implications of this for the way the pupils were regarded and valued? What alternatives were there to the two-tier system? Was it really as simple as two kinds of pupil requiring two kinds of curricula? Was it more helpful to think in terms of greater diversity of learning styles, developmental levels and teaching needs? How could the curriculum be structured to provide an all-encompassing framework for a diversity of pupils?

We explored the feasibility and desirability of slotting an interactive teaching approach into an otherwise unchanged curriculum. We looked at the assumptions behind different ways of working and the way pupils were constructed in each. We talked about the kind of environment in which interactive approaches need to be set. With some exceptions amongst the very young children, the pupils who were outside of the teachers’ routine competence and confidence were not lacking in fundamental communication or social abilities. We therefore moved a long way from the original focus of Intensive Interaction itself. We did, however, address the kinds of thinking we went through as a staff group developing Intensive Interaction, and we did return over and over again to the issue of focusing on active learners and learning processes, rather than on learning outcomes, and to the concept of achieving an appropriate match between ‘where the pupils are at’ and what schools offer.

Our discussions focussed on the support staff needed to develop schemes of work for the full range of their pupils in the secondary department. The schemes could not just focus on subject content if they were to be meaningful. This led us into the realms of what the teachers were actually teaching. Although working within a special school the teachers in the secondary department identified themselves as secondary teachers – they were teachers of subjects. The challenge was in enabling them to also see themselves as teachers of children and as teachers of learning. Exposure to special education had meant exposure to ‘specialist techniques’ such as skills analysis, but not to the child centred focus of early years practitioners.

Guided by a prevailing concern with the teaching and learning process, and inspired by some excellent resources (Babbage, Byers and Redding, 1999; Hart, 1996; Grove and Peacey, 1999), a whole-school curriculum planning framework was developed by the head of department and myself as consultant, for further development by the teaching staff. Figure 2 summarises this framework.

Fig. 2 Proposed curriculum planning framework

Learning to learn processes

General processes Subject related processes

We felt that the framework allowed staff to develop a bank of processes to draw upon in their planning. Rather than thinking about what the pupils would produce they would think about what they would do. In thinking about what pupils would do, they would think about what would help them to gain understandings of the subject, what would help them to become better learners, and what processes they would need to rehearse on a regular basis.

The schemes and lessons could be planned to achieve a balanced approach, with variations in the balance for the diversity of individuals. For some the subject emphasis might be greater, for others the priority would be learning to learn, but the demarcation between them would not be strong or permanent. This would be based not on assumptions, but on observation and reflection and would allow for differentiation without exclusion, isolation and stigma. It was also hoped that this would lead to more effective planning and teaching and learning experiences for all pupils. The planning framework is currently being tested out in action.