Study

last updated:October 2009

How did pupils benefit from their teachers’ action research around inclusion?
Many of the teachers involved in the research reported that groups of pupils who had been the target of much of the inclusion work were participating more, showing significantly increased motivation and in some cases were attaining at a higher level as a result of some of the changes.

Pupils themselves were also involved in the action research process. Samples of pupils from all the schools completed questionnaires before, during and after the project and took part in focus groups. This helped the researchers and teachers to find out how inclusive pupils thought that their lessons were. It also allowed pupils to make suggestions about how lessons could be made more inclusive. Pupils identified five areas which were important to them in making lessons more inclusive and the teacher researchers responded to many of these aspirations.

Having opportunities for active involvement
The teacher-led projects demonstrated several ways in which pupils could be more actively involved in lessons. These included increasing pupil participation by getting pupil responses using individual whiteboards and inviting pupils to set their own group targets for lessons with a view to achieving rewards at the end. Practitioners might like to read a case study which shows how three schools tackled inclusion by working on group talking skills of pupils. This led to increases in pupil involvement reported by the teachers concerned.

Being able to understand the work
Pupils believed that a key feature of inclusivity is that everyone should have a clear understanding of the work they are asked to do. Some of the practical ways in which teacher researchers tackled this issue included the development of language aids for Welsh speaking pupils and production of constructive marking schemes that supported understanding.

Having and making choices
Pupils felt that it was important that they were given genuine choices about their learning in some areas. Some of the teacher researchers responded to this request by offering pupils some choice in the way that they learned, for example, by providing a range of learning materials from which pupils could choose in a lesson.

Teacher interest in and responsiveness to pupil views
Pupils said that inclusivity for them meant teachers showing a genuine interest in and response to their views, on an ongoing basis. Examples of changes in practice which resulted from pupil requests included increasing the amount and structuring of group work in some lessons, and the introduction of a pupil mentoring scheme. Practitioners may like to read a case study from our earlier RfT about low attaining pupils which showed how a primary school considered its own inclusion strategies, asked pupils for their opinion and subsequently improved practice for low attaining pupils. 

Mutually respectful and warm relationship with teacher
The final area which pupils identified as important in inclusion was the development of good pupil-teacher relationships. While none of the teacher research groups directly targeted this element of inclusion, many of the projects reported this as an indirect benefit. For example, one set of teacher interviews highlighted that the teachers from that department had realised they needed to engage more individually with certain pupils in class, getting to know pupils better and connecting more strongly with each one. This resulted in pupils staying more on task.

How did the teachers benefit from being involved in the project?
The research found that there were five main benefits to teachers involved in action research projects focused on inclusion:

• motivation and energy increased
• understanding about inclusion was enhanced
• practice improved
• teachers shared greater openness to new ideas and challenges, and
• teachers disseminating learning to other teachers.

Motivated and energised teachers
The teachers involved generally found the action research process both motivating and energising. Several teachers expressed a sense of enjoyment in working with a small group of colleagues on questions of practice.  They enjoyed the opportunity to be creative and reflective together and to work with colleagues they did not usually connect with. Practitioners may like to read a case study which describes how two teachers from the same school benefited both personally and professionally from acting as mentors to each other’s action research.

One head of department acknowledged that as an older, more experienced teacher he found it harder to reflect and change his practice but that this process had provided the energy for him to do it, saying: 
‘It has changed my teaching because there is now much more dialogue between the pupils and me about the nature of the work and what I’m doing.  We explore the objectives and the reasons for doing what we’re doing’.

Some of the teachers also expressed surprise and satisfaction from the sense of achievement that came with spending time addressing difficult issues around inclusion that were often ignored due to other pressures on teacher time.

Enhanced understanding
Teachers were required to reflect on issues of inclusion together and this led to enhanced individual understanding. For example, groups reported greater consideration of their pupils’ learning and participation, and a better understanding of class dynamics. They also placed greater value on understanding how pupils learn. In addition several teachers reported a realisation that their relationship with pupils could be further developed by explicitly working on it.

Improved practice
Many of the teachers involved saw the project as an excellent opportunity to ‘re-think their teaching’. A group of three teachers from one of the schools pinpointed some practical improvements through the project. These included realising the benefits of finding something to praise about each child and making dialogue with pupils more constructive. For another group, time to share and improve practice was appreciated and had been sustained in departmental meetings. One teacher explained:

‘The best part of it was sitting down and talking with other members of staff and deciding what we’re going to do…we actually sat down every so often for an hour and we were talking about actually what we were doing as our practice and that was good, getting a lot of feedback off everybody else…Since then we’ve decided to carry that on in science meetings, making sure we have a time when we just talk about practice’.

Greater openness
Because the action research occurred over nine months for each teacher group,  many of the groups established enough trust to remove defensiveness about practice and develop openness to the ideas of others when it came to, for example, effectively motivating pupils. As a by product, a number of teachers reported that lessons had become much less stressful as a result of their change in practice.

Disseminating learning to other teachers
In some schools, the learning and practice spread to other staff (and therefore pupils) and they planned to re-use the action research model to unlock future staff potential.
Several of the schools linked the outcomes of the project together with appraisal needs, further professional development processes, and other agendas such as assessment for learning. One headteacher reflected on the action research model: ‘if you allow it, if you trust in it, then you will actually see that there will be a difference, and perhaps a difference in approach, that will be longer lasting than some ‘quick-fix inset’ that you think might solve some of your problems’.

What particular issues did the school inclusion projects focus on?
Seven schools in the project chose a particular ‘problem’ which they had identified in their school as the focus for their research. We give examples from four of these schools below.

Improving pupil motivation in science
Science teachers trialled alternative teaching approaches in order to tackle the disengagement of a number of pupils in science in this school. Examples of how pupil motivation was tackled included collecting and using pupil feedback on the quality of lessons and a positive assessment scheme for marking.

Addressing girls’ under-attainment in history
This group focused on disaffected girls in Year 8 who were under-attaining in history compared with the boys. The teachers trialled a range of approaches, including: creating a pupil subject council (with representation from the target group), an anonymous ‘pupil voice’ suggestion box, teacher observations of lessons which looked closely at the way the target pupils responded to alternative teaching approaches, and shadowing the target pupils to see how they responded to other lessons. Several significant and specific changes in practice were subsequently carried through and presented at an inset day and at other schools, including work on learning targets.

Engaging boys in mathematics
Another teacher action research group decided to target their interventions at boys in two Year 9 classes who were on the borderline of achieving a good grade at GCSE. The target pupils reported negative emotions and low confidence in mathematics and were negative about teacher-led activities. As a result the teachers made some changes to practice, for example involving more group and pair work. Another action was the creation of bigger more kinaesthetic tools, including A3 laminated graphs which pupils could write on and wipe off.  The teachers felt that they ‘took the curriculum apart’, asking themselves how they could respond to pupils’ needs. The development of resources was significant, with resource-sharing being introduced across the whole department. Practitioners may like to read a case study which gives more detail on this action research project and describes how the facilitator supported the two teachers involved.

Tackling disaffection in science
The science department in one school decided to focus on ‘the first fifteen minutes’ of their lessons, having identified some disaffected pupils in Year 10. The action was centred around three principles: ‘meet and greet, have a starter and have the lesson objectives displayed’. The action was acknowledged as an element of assessment for learning, but the fact that it came from teacher research was highly significant. The assessment for learning (AfL) coordinator, herself a senior science teacher, explained:
‘One of the things that has happened as a consequence…is we as a whole school started this term with those three principles that the action research group established with us. The little group has been a great source of little ideas, inspiration, small snippets of ideas to just go and do with a particular class’.

What activities did the school inclusion projects focus on?
Some of the teacher research groups focused their action research on inclusion on a particular form of intervention. We have summarised four of these projects below:

Use of individual pupil whiteboards
One group, in a bilingual school (Welsh and English being spoken), decided to trial the use of individual portable whiteboards during language lessons. The idea was to support pupil engagement in learning and to provide teachers with immediate feedback about who needed more input. An observation checklist was developed to measure behaviour before and after whiteboard use.

Peer mentoring
Another group felt that an exclusive pursuit of academic achievement was damaging to the experience of a large number of pupils and teachers. This group of teachers were responsible for pastoral support and therefore decided to pilot a peer mentoring scheme to tackle disaffection, matching sixth formers with lower school pupils at risk of disaffection. Impact was measured by increases in self confidence of mentees, especially in relation to learning. Mentors were trained and then met their mentees two or three times per week for a term and a half.

Coloured filters to improve reading
A teacher group running a research project relating to SEN support decided to evaluate the effectiveness of coloured filters in assisting pupil reading, including those with dyslexia.  The conclusions from the pilot led to the practice being spread across the school.

Pupil reward scheme
Another project centred on a pupil reward scheme which tried to improve form tutors’ constructive engagement with pupils. Questionnaires and interviews elicited pupils’ views on the existing reward scheme. School leadership backed the project by supporting a trip for the form group earning the most reward points in a term. There was a marked drop in the number of sanctions given to pupils in the four participating form groups as compared with the non participating groups.

Practitioners may like to read a case study which describes how another school used action research to tackle inclusion by developing a specific activity. In this case the school introduced a particular model (the ‘TASC wheel’) which resulted in improvements to both lesson planning and pupils’ thinking skills. 

How did teachers identify areas for action?
The teachers involved in the action research projects chose the issue which they wanted to work on and the actions which they were going to take using the data gathered from pupils about their attitude to learning, and facilitated group reflection and discussion. The teacher researchers were supported by their educational psychologist facilitators to use the ‘theory of change’ model. This model required the teachers to consider and predict how change would occur after an intervention. Thinking through the complexities of a chain of consequences to a long term objective helped participants’ understanding of how and why an action should be taken.

The facilitators led teacher focus groups at the start of the project, to bring the teachers together and to structure a group conversation to help explore group dynamics, teacher engagement, and teachers’ thinking about pupil participation and how teacher actions can influence it.

Facilitators helped the teacher groups decide the focus of their group’s action research in three phases:

• describe the problem – articulate in detail the pupil behaviours that caused them concern and how they related to lack of inclusion
• identify some causes – identify possible reasons for this relative disengagement, and
• suggest some approaches – approaches which might help such pupils to become more engaged.

Consideration was given to what had already been done, if anything, either by individual teachers or at a strategic level. The group considered whether the problem could be best solved by individual teachers, other staff or both.

The approach was useful for stimulating debate and moving towards group agreement, although incorporating varying teacher perspectives was a complex and often lengthy process. For example, some teachers believed poor motivation of pupils lay ‘within the child’ and thought specialist teachers had responsibility for meeting their needs. Other teachers felt that lack of participation was caused by the wider social environment and believed that changes in classroom practice could solve the problem. Finding time and space to hold this kind of debate within the groups was a crucial part of the action research model.

How was the action research facilitated and supported?
Each group of teacher action researchers was facilitated by an educational psychologist who was attached to that school. The facilitator had regular contact with the teachers, helping them to choose a focus for action and helping to maintain momentum within the project. The facilitator arranged and managed meetings to allow support, planning and reflection to take place. One of their primary roles was to provide challenge, to encourage the teachers to reflect and take risks.

The study identified six areas in which facilitators supported the action research groups:

• identify a focus of shared importance
• identify a focus connected to pupil engagement and attitude to learning
• maintain collaborative relationships within the group
• maintain momentum without taking ownership
• offer non-directive support, and
• enable a balance between action and reflection.

The facilitators devoted much time and energy to helping groups of teachers to identify a focus which all teachers agreed as being important and connected to inclusion. The teacher researchers concluded that educational psychologists were well placed to take on the facilitator role because the work of an educational psychologist is typically pupil centred and because social justice and improving the educational experience of all (especially marginalised groups) are central to the values and practice of their profession.

The facilitators were also challenged to maintain both the collaborative relationships and the momentum of the teacher research groups. Several schools found their facilitator’s role to be effective when it was ‘distant and persistent’. The distance allowed the teachers to keep the ownership of their own action research, while the persistence meant that momentum was maintained and other priorities did not take over. Practitioners may like to read a case study which describes in more detail how one of the educational psychologists successfully facilitated the action research of a pair of teachers.

Offering non-directive support was a critical challenge to facilitating action research. Several teachers indicated that they were used to a more traditional form of professional development in which an ‘expert’ directs the teacher to new methods for improving pupil learning. One teacher reported that: ‘We would have liked our educational psychologist to have given more guidance and leadership…and suggested new ideas for us to implement instead of us having to come up with the ideas’.

However the researchers made it clear that action research should not be led by an expert, but facilitated by a critical friend. One facilitator explained: ‘I felt that my role was to talk about the process, what action research is, to be encouraging to staff, and to be a sounding board when needed.’

The final challenge for the facilitators was to help the teachers strike a balance between action and reflection. Some groups took a long time to identify a focus while others tended to rush into action without pausing sufficiently to reflect on their shared goals for the project. The researchers concluded that the educational psychologists were useful at helping to create space for critical reflection because they were outside the school hierarchy and therefore seen as independent. Several groups reported that their facilitator helped them think more deeply about inclusion instead of becoming immediately task focused as they usually would.

Practitioners might like to read a case study which describes the ways in which teacher action research was supported and facilitated in one network of schools.

What school conditions needed to be in place for action research about inclusion to thrive?
The researchers linked a number of factors in school with the successful outcome of teachers’ action research. Practical support and encouragement needed to be explicitly offered to the teacher researchers. Senior management within school had significant influence over these factors, which included:

• allowing time and space to be set aside for planning, implementation and reflection
• encouragement from senior managers to the teachers involved
• ensuring participation in the research was voluntary
• making research meetings high priority for the teachers involved, and
• linking the action research to other agendas and school priorities.

The study found that the teachers often took some time to understand the action research model and to see its potential benefits. Furthermore, inclusion was viewed as a complex and slippery issue to define.

When asked to reflect on the factors that are important to support action research, all of the teachers said that time, both when teaching and during non-contact time, was of major importance, but difficult to realise in practice.

The process benefited from the support and buy-in of senior managers. This was often in the form of ‘back-stage’ support rather than active participation, for example by ensuring teacher researchers were allocated time and resources to support their ongoing action research efforts. More than one teacher group negotiated extra non teaching time in order to meet and progress their research.

A feature of the action research model is that it stood in contrast to the common alternative of top-down management by initiative and/or prescribed action for teachers. The researchers concluded that this was why some of the teachers found it challenging to take control and ownership of a process of change, even in their own classroom. One of the headteachers reflected on what she had learned from the project: ‘I think that this new way of thinking is that we have got to come up with the answers for ourselves…we’re empowering the teachers to be self-reflective and to actually come up with the answers for their own pupils and our own teaching…the element of experiment is a good, valid experience in itself’.

Senior managers who offered sustained support allowed the teacher research groups to choose their own focus, but then to exploit links to other agendas. For most schools ‘inclusion’ was a high priority anyway. What the action research was able to do was to pinpoint some specific areas for action which could then be linked to other development work in school.

How and why did teachers become engaged in action research?
The action research projects took place over nine month cycles, requiring teachers to invest a large amount of time and energy into the process. To be successful, the teachers needed a high level of commitment to the project and to be engaged in it from the start.

Most of the teacher action research groups were made up either of teachers from the same department or at the same level (e.g. heads of year or heads of department). Motivation to participate was therefore often centred on a common area of interest. The teachers in several of the action research groups quickly identified the same groups of pupils on which to focus the action research and this helped to cement group commitment early on. The researchers also noted that competition between departments could also stimulate enthusiasm. In one school the history department was involved in the first cycle of research. When it came to cycle two, five departments bid to be involved and the maths department was chosen. Informal conversations between history teachers and the head of the mathematics department had convinced him that it would be worthwhile for his team to be involved.

At the teacher level, two areas of personal motivation for involvement were reported by individual teachers:

• personal development, especially in order to enhance personal profile in school and career prospects, and
• a desire to improve engagement and practice with a particular pupil group.

Career progression was seen as a valid reason for participation. One of the group leaders was promoted to SENCO shortly after the project was completed. In one school the teachers were chosen to participate by the headteacher without any consultation. This caused some initial resentment and the group took time to become engaged in and understand the process. Teachers were more engaged if they had volunteered to take part.

One final area of teacher engagement which the researchers identified was varying levels of participation in discussions. The collaborative action research model required teachers to be frank about difficulties as well as successes in practice. Observation of teacher groups showed a number of teachers who chose not to engage at this level. Some teachers were nervous about sharing and collaborating, evidenced by a reluctance to engage in frank discussions with colleagues about their practice. Groups which established an expectation of sharing both success and challenge were more successful in developing teacher talk and learning.

What were the essential characteristics of successful action research?
The researchers concluded that there were three essential elements to action research:

• collaboration
• ownership, and
• attention and reflection.

 
Collaboration
Collaboration between teachers was necessary if teachers were to become more fully engaged in working on pupil learning and participation. Collaboration allowed available resources and the skills, experience and ideas of other group members to be used to the full.

Ownership 
Teachers needed to identify with and feel ownership of the issue being tackled if they were to engage fully. There were professional risks in taking part in the action research, so teachers needed to feel happy with the focus of their research. Ownership by the school leadership as well as the individual teachers made it more likely that the action research initiative was given time over other competing school agendas.

Attention and reflection
Attention and reflection were central to the process of action research, especially when considering an area as wide and complex as inclusion. Groups needed to set aside time to review what they had done and systematically evaluate the consequences of their actions. These stages were necessary if teachers were to refine and develop their interpretations and solutions, rather than simply continue with new practice without reflecting on its value. Facilitated group time helped teachers to begin to shift some deeply-held assumptions about pupils, their colleagues, themselves and their practice.

Part of the process of attention and reflection for this project was the sharing of progress between teacher action research groups from different schools. Comparison with the action research in other schools was a source of ideas and motivation.

Realism
A final area which the researchers identified as important in successful action research on inclusion was to keep it grounded in ‘the real world’. The researchers concluded that it was unrealistic to expect teachers to divorce themselves from the reality of their social and professional relationships and to expect too much from the action research model.
For example, the same teachers were observed at one time justifying their current practice with difficult pupils and explaining pupils’ difficulties as being a result of factors outside of the school’s control, and, at other times, stressing the value of talking to pupils and stressing the importance of changing practice.
The researchers concluded that the action research process should allow teachers to articulate these seemingly conflicting views at different times. The researchers concluded the model was a potentially powerful tool for improving practice, but one which needed to be set in the context of busy teachers with conflicting priorities and pupils with rich and complex influences on their lives.

How was the evidence gathered and analysed?
The research was carried out in seven comprehensive secondary schools in six local authorities (four in Wales, two in England). It was led by researchers from the faculties of education at Trinity College, Carmarthen and the University of Manchester. The aim was to develop inclusive practice using action research.

A group of teachers in each school developed a piece of action research aimed at enhancing pupils’ attitude to and engagement with learning. Educational psychologists facilitated the process through regular contact with each group.

The project took place over two nine-month periods which meant that the process could be improved the second time, based on findings from the first.

Evidence was generated at three levels:

Teacher level
eachers’ knowledge and opinions about action research and inclusion were assessed by questionnaire and focus groups at the start of the project (46 teachers). Researchers visited the teachers for further interviews during and at the end of the project and there were four networking days for the teachers with video conferencing between the English and Welsh groups. They asked the teachers to reflect on what they thought of the process and what impact it had had on their practice and their pupils. They also interviewed the six educational psychologists individually and during regular project meetings.

School level
The researchers interviewed the seven headteachers at the beginning and end of the project and teachers themselves added to feedback about school level factors. The researchers also made classroom observations and staff discussions during school visits. Each local authority provided background information on each school.

Pupil level
The pupils completed three questionnaires before and after the teacher-led projects. These tested pupils’ assessment of the inclusivity of lessons. One questionnaire explored what pupils thought of classrooms which had enquiry and a more individualised approach to learning. The other questionnaires measured ‘What I think about school’ and ‘Myself as learner’. This data was backed up by pupil focus groups. Altogether, 649 pupils were involved in the research.

Implications
Teachers might like to consider the following questions in making use of the findings of the study:

• The study showed the value of collaboration in improving practice, through reflective discussion with colleagues and mutual encouragement. Could you make more use of collaboration with colleagues to improve your practice, for example by using departmental meetings to reflect on practice?
• Some of the teachers were encouraged by the fact that focusing their action research on inclusion had made them look for different ways to engage pupils who they had previously seen as difficult to engage, for example by finding things to praise about each pupil or by creating large visual teaching aids. How might you look, with colleagues, for new ways to include groups of disengaged pupils?
• The study concluded that collaborative action research can bring personal and professional benefits to teachers which are as important as improvements in classroom practice. Could you do more to invest in your own learning and professional development, for example by joining an action research project or finding a mentor?

School leaders might like to consider the following implications:

• Several headteachers at schools involved in the study came to see the value of supporting long-term action research, as opposed to more traditional ‘quick fix’ one-off inset training. How might your school expand the opportunities for teachers to engage in research and enquiry?
• The study also stressed the need for deep thinking, honest reflection and listening to pupils, before making choices about the best action to improve inclusion. How can you ensure that your staff are given this time to reflect, rather than moving to the action phase too quickly?
• The study also showed the benefits of having educational psychologists facilitate action research, especially their non directive approach and relative distance from school management. How might you make use of external partners to facilitate enquiry and CPD within your school?

Gaps in the research
Gaps that are uncovered in a piece of research have a useful role in making sure that future research builds cumulatively on what is known. But research also needs to inform practice, so practitioners’ interpretation of the gaps and follow-up questions are crucial. We think the following kinds of studies would usefully supplement the findings of the summary:

• case studies of approaches by teachers which have had a direct and significant positive impact on inclusion or the implementation of action research
• studies which look at what factors best support teachers in carrying out action research
• studies which look more closely at the areas of inclusion which are best suited to development through action research, and
• more research on how best to disseminate the positive learning from action research, both within and between schools.

What is your experience?
Do you have any evidence regarding strategies for improving inclusiveness through action research? Do you have action research or enquiry based development programmes that are designed to explore inclusive practice?  We would be interested to hear about examples of effective approaches, which we could perhaps feature in our case study section.

Your feedback
Have you found this study to be useful? Have you used any aspect of this research in your own classroom teaching practice? We would like to hear your feedback on this study, which we can share and use to inform our work. Click on the link 'Tell us what you think' above to share your views with us.