Inclusion at Botany Downs Kindergarten Centre of Innovation 2006-2008

Chapter Two Our Centre of Innovation Research

Introduction

When Botany Downs Kindergarten (BDK) applied for the Centres of Innovation (COI) programme, we were already deeply engaged in inclusive practice. However, we needed to focus on specific aspects of inclusion that could be researched and shared with education colleagues. We decided to research how an inclusive environment, our use of possibility thinking and our innovative use of visual communication tools enhanced children’s learning at BDK.  

Features of our practice

We began to deliberate over suitable research questions. Four features of our pedagogy were identified as significant factors in our inclusive practice that could be integral to our research:

1. Adherence to the principle that inclusion means inclusion for all - children, families, teachers, education support workers, support workers, student teachers, pets, other local education institutions and the wider community (Casey, 2006).
2. The use of possibility thinking to seek out many and varied solutions to any possible barrier to children’s inclusion and therefore learning.
3. A focus on the use of visual communication tools in:
   1. the physical environment and in particular the use of visual communication tools in the kindergarten setting;
   2. documentation of children’s learning in children’s portfolios and other media to communicate about both learning experiences and learning achievements to family members and other interested people.
4. Our image of the child as capable and competent, and our conveying that image to each child so that she or he engages in the programme with a strong sense of self efficacy.

Our definition of inclusion – the core feature - has been described in Chapter One.

The teaching team at BDK, including the education support workers, has always reflected upon ways to vary or extend our practice to enhance learning and to overcome any challenges (barriers) to learning and participation. We experiment with new ideas, observe their effects, and adapt, adopt or drop them according to the success of actions. In 2007, we found a term that captured what we do. Cremin, Burnard, & Craft (2006) refer to the seeking out of new actions to address individual needs and interests as possibility thinking. Possibility thinking, and the actions that follow our dialogic thinking, are important for us operationalising the principle of inclusion for all.

In relation to the fourth feature, earlier informal observations at BDK indicated that children with a sense of self-efficacy were more likely to make considered decisions, and engage deeply in learning situations (Bandura, 1997; Katz, 2008). Their capacity for learning was optimised. The image of the capable child who is an active learner is central to Te Whāriki, and to our implementation of the curriculum.

The research questions

The special features of the philosophy and pedagogy at BDK are reflected in the research questions we chose for our COI research.

The overarching research question agreed upon was:

• How does an inclusive environment enhance the learning of all children?

An inclusive environment was seen to comprise the physical environment (in BDK this includes many communication technologies), the curriculum based on Te Whāriki and associated assessment documentation (see Ministry of Education, 2004), as well as the relationships between BDK teachers, children and their families and community. In the first cycle of our research we needed to do a thorough audit of our practice of inclusion and any artefacts that had come out of our possibility thinking to better describe our inclusive environment. In addition, findings from our research to do with the sub-questions (below) also helped address this overarching research question.

As indicated, one special element of the physical environment at BDK that facilitates inclusion and participation is our use of visual communication tools. The research question for this focus of our project was:

• How do visual communication tools invite and extend engagement with children and their families?

The teaching and learning principles and processes, and relationships between teachers and children and their families, are very significant for inclusion. Our question to research these features was:

• How do teachers support the development of social competence and self-efficacy in children?

These research questions assume a socio-cultural curriculum where the focus is on individuals, the interpersonal and the institution (the BDK environment) (Rogoff, 2003).

Developing research expertise

The prospect of a three-year research project was exciting, scary and a move into uncharted waters for the teacher researchers. To carry out action research, new knowledge, skills and understandings needed to be developed in the team. The Ministry contract with Dr Helen Bernstone and Dr Bill Hagan at the Manukau Institute of Technology was one of the main means for building our research capability.

Two processes were significant in the first cycle of the research. They were completing our ethics application and facilitating a series of four action research workshops.

Starting to build a community of learners

The action research workshops took the form of ‘pizza and research’ evenings. Bronwyn Glass, Dr Helen Bernstone and Dr Bill Hagan were the facilitators. In our inclusive style, we invited our extended community. The offer was taken up by our ‘buddy’ COI, Mangere Bridge Kindergarten, and our ‘buddy’ education and care centre, Pakuranga Baptist Kindergarten. Other participants included parents, student teachers and education support workers associated with BDK. The objective was to build our understanding of action research processes, to explore methods (their advantages and challenges), and to consider research ethics. We aimed to build an inclusive team that would provide the core team of teacher researchers with support throughout the COI research.

Ethics

The Botany Downs Kindergarten COI team applied to Manukau Institute of Technology, where our research associates were employed as pre-service teacher educators, for ethical approval (11^th April, Ref 06/SS/04). Their rigorous process entailed finalising the research proposal, outlining the likely research methods, and drafting consent forms with an information sheet to explain the COI research project. This process satisfied the ethics requirements in the Ministry of Education contract.

However, gaining ethical approval for the COI research was just the beginning of ethical considerations that the research presented. Research in education that breaks new ground requires robust ethical choices throughout the project. The Early Childhood Code of Ethics is not sufficient to work through research ethical dilemmas that occur (Hedges, 2002). When any challenging situation arises, the research team needs to draw on ethical principles (such as ‘Do no harm’) and members’ intuition to discuss and determine an ethically appropriate path. Bone (2005) suggests that teachers draw on experience – consciously and unconsciously – to make decisions about what ‘feels right’.

Research involving children has multiple layers of complexity, starting with informed consent. Can children give informed consent, or must the parent/s give this on their behalf? In our research project, after much debate, we decided that parents needed to sign overall consent for their child to participate in the research. The child could then be asked if they would assent to being interviewed, to their stories being used in the research report and in oral dissemination, and to his or her photographs being used on the BDK website.

A feature that we introduced in relation to these processes was reciprocal reporting. We reported back to the children and their families after any presentations. This triggered a routine where we would ask permission from our audiences to take a photograph of them in order to show the children the people to whom we were telling their stories.

We created a separate permission form asking to use personal stories and images (narrative data) on the BDK website and ‘blog’. The website permission form is very specific with individual photographs being viewed and signed off.

Research approach, methods and design

The COI programme guidelines identify ‘action research’ as the approach to be used. This approach is broad and many methods can be used (Cardno, 2003). Research cycles can start from a problem, or a curious question about an aspect of practice. We chose the latter. Our overarching research question did not entail testing a hypothesis; it was a ‘How do we?’ question. It demonstrated that we work within a social constructivist paradigm.  

Action research provides flexibility for researchers to act upon emerging information and analyses of data as the data continue to be collected. By having a focus on meaning, research furthers and enriches understanding (Chamaz, 2000). This was our experience in analysing our data on inclusion and acting on findings during the COI project.

Research methods

The definition of inclusion embraced by the teacher-researchers demanded that different ‘voices’ be heard through the data. This confirmed our decision to choose a range of methods. The methods used fall into two categories:

1. Data where children were the subjects/participants:

2. Data where adults (teachers, or families/community) were the subjects/participants:

Research design

Our first round of data collection involved reflecting upon and monitoring our practice in order to document our inclusive environment. There were many actions taken in earlier times to enhance inclusion of a child or children that had become regular practice - ‘Just what we do here.’ This phase of the research has been published in an article called ‘Documenting for inclusion: How do we create an inclusive environment for all children?’ (Glass, Baker, Ellis, Bernstone & Hagan, 2008).

In the first cycle of our research project, we identified that inclusion started long before children began attending kindergarten; it started with the first contact we had with each family. Then there were many acts of inclusion when the child and family were making the transition to kindergarten. Once children began attending, we continued to engage in possibility thinking to reduce barriers to their participation – inclusion was ongoing.

In the literature, Lyons and Kelly (2008) capture the three phases of inclusion that we had recognised in our practice. They are:

Figure 2: THE INCLUSION PHASES
(Lyons & Kelly, 2008, p. 432)

The BDK team has adopted these phases to form the framework for analysing the data and presenting our findings. The chapters that follow use these phases to present the findings while at the same time connecting the findings to our research questions.

Reading relevant material about inclusion became a regular feature of our work during the COI project.