What the resource is:
This is the second systematic review using the EPPI protocol in a series that is focusing upon effective pedagogical approaches in use in mainstream classrooms with children with special educational needs, aged 7-14 years. This second review expands the focus of the previous year to investigate the nature of the interactions between teachers, support staff and pupils.

The aims of the resource:
The context that led to the aims of the review are outlined succinctly by the authors of this review:
“The growing demand for inclusive practices within mainstream schools has resulted in classroom teachers having to take direct responsibility for the individual learning needs of all pupils within the setting, and reduced the expectation that support staff should be the primary practitioners for children with special educational needs (SEN). The belief in a need for special pedagogical approaches for these children has also been widely critiqued (e.g. Norwich and Lewis, 2001; Hart, 1996) and there has been a growing focus upon the teaching practices that can be, and are, more broadly used by mainstream practitioners. Central to all these approaches are the interactions that both create the learning context and operate within it.”
(extract from the summary)

The overall review question for the three-year project was:

Q1 What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms?

This review in the second year focused on the more specific question:

Q2 What is the nature of the interactions in pedagogical approaches with reported outcomes for the academic and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs?

Key findings or focus:
The review authors state that the term “Special educational needs” became part of the UK educational and legislative landscape because of its definition within the Warnock Report (DES, 1978). They suggest that the term has come to be used in ways not originally intended in that it has become associated with in-child deficit rather than contextualised difficulties with learning. They further state that it has also become a bureaucratic means of identifying and distributing funding, professional support and other resources and that the term has come to be linked with dependency (Corbett, 1996) and not the wants or rights of individuals (Roaf and Bines, 1989).

This review selected studies that focused on pupils aged 7-14, with special educational needs, in mainstream classrooms. They had to include pedagogical approaches, offer an indication of pupil outcomes, and be empirical (in that they involved the collection of data). They also had to be written in English and published after 1994. Included studies were then organised by keywords to provide a map that gave an overview of the studies and the research undertaken. This map included 109 studies from an original set of 2,812. From these 107 studies seven were selected for the main review according to further inclusion criteria.

The analysis of the studies found the following emerging themes:

  • interaction and the mediating role of the teacher
  • interaction, cognitive level and engagement
  • interaction and the learner’s voice
  • interaction and knowledge as contextually grounded

These themes can be seen to be central to the teachers role as described by the 2007 standards, the development of assessment for learning, the personalisation of learning and teacher interventions to aid learning. Recent work on P levels provide an example of enabling engagement at the appropriate cognitive level. These themes are further articulated in the main findings of the review and support related findings by Lewis and Norwich.

  • Positive teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs (SEN) are reflected in the quality of their interactions with all pupils and to pupils’ self concept.
  • Teachers who see themselves responsible for the learning of all promote higher order interactions and engage in prolonged interactions with pupils with SEN, while teachers who see others (e.g. support staff) as primarily responsible engage in non-academic and low level nature interactions.
  • Interactions with successful academic and social outcomes are characterised by questions and statements that involve higher order thinking, reasoning, and personal perspective. The teachers who enable students to achieve these outcomes spend most of the available time in these high-quality on-task interactions as opposed to the low-quality off-task interactions.
  • High quality interactions are those in which teachers offer learners the opportunity to problem-solve, to discuss and describe their ideas, and to make connections with their own experiences and prior understandings, while those teacher interactions that are less successful focus on procedural matters, behaviours and general classroom management.
  • Pupils with SEN participate more fully when encouraged to identify their thoughts and assisted to document them, particularly through one-to-one discussion with the teacher. Teachers should elicit prior knowledge and understanding, and use questions and answers to assess the nature of pupil’s thinking rather than as a check on whether they can provide the answer the teacher wants.
  • Successful interactions are commonly based in learners’ experiences, being meaningful to learners in the here and now of their lives, involving direct experiences and realistic problems, offering multiple opportunities to engage with the learning situation and others within it.

The review states that the implications of these findings are as follows:

  • Teachers need to recognise that all pupils are their direct responsibility.
  • They need to draw out pupils understandings, encouraging further questioning and links between new and prior knowledge.
  • These interactions are more likely to be effective if they are situated within activities that are hands-on, personally relevant and offer a range of opportunities to engage with the concepts, and with others’ understandings of those concepts.

Worthy of particular note in relation to pupil voice was the “importance of the teacher eliciting prior knowledge and understanding was also evident, and, in two studies, it was noted that this enquiry had resulted in teachers being impressed by the thinking and conceptual understanding of pupils with special educational needs”.

The quality, authority and credibility of the resource:
The review employed the eppi protocol and involved authors with significant credibility in the area of special educational needs and inclusion.

The review considered 2,812 papers before focussing on the results of seven studies published since 1994. Such a wide ranging review adds credibility to the findings.
The authors, however, note that there is a shortage of evidence about the nature of teaching approaches that effectively include children with SEN in mainstream classrooms. In addition there is a shortage of evidence about teachers working alone within inclusive settings, and about their interactions with pupils, particularly in relation to interactions involving tactile and signed modes of communication.

The implications for ITE tutors/mentors:
The findings from this study reinforce a number of agendas within the 2007 QTS standards. These include pupil voice and participation, personalisation and assessment for learning which lead to the planning of appropriate teaching and learning activities that the teacher monitors. The authors note that teachers in training need to actively consider the implications of these findings.

The report provides an opportunity for tutors to explore trainees’ existing attitudes to inclusion and in particular beliefs and assumptions regarding responsibility for learners with Special Educational Needs and the role of specialist teachers or special education teachers.

The relevance to ITE students:
These above implications arising from the findings reinforce other research and guidance on good practice in relation to pupils encountering difficulties in their learning. For example, the study by Lewis and Norwich (2001) on pedagogy in relation to learners with special educational needs suggested that there was a continuum of pedagogical principals that could be applied. A number of the 2007 standards for QTS are relevant to the findings and are listed below with links to relevant articles. Trainees and student teachers will need to show that they are taking responsibility for all the learners in their classroom even if there are other adults working with them. They need to ensure that their planning takes into account the barriers to learning encountered by pupils and that this planning needs to be based on understandings of the different barriers that each child may encounter. This in turn suggests a pedagogy that is active and allows pupils to demonstrate, share and extend their knowledge within a given area.

Reviewed by:
Mike Blamires

References:
Corbett J (1996) Badmouthing: The Language of Special Needs. London: Falmer Press. DES (1978)

Warnock, M. (1978) Special Educational Needs. Report of the Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (Warnock Report). London: HMSO. Department of Education

Hart S (1996) Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing Children’s Learning through Innovative Thinking. London: Paul Chapman.

Norwich B, Lewis A (2001) Mapping a pedagogy for SEN. British Educational Research Journal 27: 313-330.

Rix J, Hall K, Nind M, Sheehy K, Wearmouth J (2006) A systematic review of interactions in pedagogical approaches with reported outcomes for the academic and social inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. Technical report. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Roaf C, Bines H (1989) Needs, rights and opportunities in special education. In: Roaf C, Bines H (eds) Needs, Rights and Opportunities: Developing Approaches in Special Education. London: Falmer, pages 5-19.

Related Resources:
Davis, P and Florian, L (2004) Teaching Strategies and Approaches for Pupils with  Special Educational Needs: A Scoping Study (DfES Research Report RR516) Nottingham: DfES

Find out more

Related Articles

Share this review on your social networks: