I began data analysis as soon as I contacted the educational centres and commenced the process of interpretation of cultural representations in which I sum up the information collected into texts developed in the base of the observations, interviews and a systematic literature review (i.e. field notes and analysis of archival sources). The interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed and complemented by field notes from the direct observation written into Microsoft Office Word and translated into English and summing up the rest of the data that was classified by interpretative approaches for coding. The codes were classified by different colours and by the use of keywords, with a list of attached occurrences. The information that was already coded and classified and is represented through the composition the structure of the Bronfenbrenner model in two case studies (Milton, 2010). I developed 139 pages of analysed data from interviews from the English case study (see Appendix 1) and 140 pages after coding the interviews from the Spanish case study. These documents were complemented with another 100 pages per each case study of field notes and other complemented documents such as psychological and pedagogical reports from school staff, portfolios, and activity books.
First of all, I commenced preparing the systematic literature review to elaborate the chronosystem section, meaning that documents from previous scholars were first categorised as being empirical or descriptive and were complemented with the information from the interview, field notes or archival sources (i.e. school, national and regional policies and information from interviews). For the literature review, different sources of documentation, such as ethnographies, narratives and case studies (Moore and Carter, 1994) were selected in an attempt to give a broad picture of how early years settings in Western countries have understood inclusion over the past 40 years, principally looking the role of staff in Spain and England (McPhail, 2005), with the intention of portraying ideas that will require further analysis (Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006a). From the Symbolic Interactionism (Becker and McCall, 1990) the past experiences and history are one of the core Mead ideas(1956), in which we understand history as social symbols, recipes and products that actors draw on by the manner of dealing in meaningful way with situational problems. In the chronosystem section, I had reviewed and thematically examined empirical research and policy documents in order to consider the context of the early childhood settings, the conceptual disability model, the terminology used to describe the professionals involved, and the
84 characteristics of the children involved in the pre-primary educational system and current policies though an historical overview. They were then further grouped into different historical periods which demonstrate different ways of interpreting inclusive practices in early settings.
In order to develop the composition on levels of the bio-ecological system per each case study it was required rich data that offered the understanding of staff individual experience within the structure of the organisational system (Ezzy, 2002). I developed one table per each case study in which were defined the relations among the system (see Appendix 2).
In the following chapter, which forms the next part of the thesis, I responded to the research objectives, in which the presentation of elements were defined and after that the interaction among elements. So the information in the next chapters will be presented in the following way:
85
PART FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, REPRESENTATION,
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The following chapters respond to the PhD research question, presenting and identifying the elements that influence the roles and professional development inside or outside classroom of nursery staff and organisational learning when implementing inclusive teaching practice for children with SEN.
Each case study will be introduced and analysed independently; the analysis of the Spanish case study is presented in part Six and the English case study in Chapter Seven. One nursery classroom in a primary school in England and two other classrooms located in a primary school at the south of Spain where the same children with SEN were placed within the same primary school(ordinary classroom and integrative setting). Furthermore, the second aim of this chapter is to discuss the key issues of defined elements in each case study in the light of the literature reviewed in the second part of this thesis (in Chapters Two, Three and Four)and other scholarly publications that have been found as relevant to this study and respond to the research objectives in appendices 2and 20 are represented the table summarised the elements of the Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) model that are involved in staff roles and professional development from both case studies.
The structure of chapters Five and Six correspond with the analysis of the research objectives in the first part of each chapter, the identification and discussion of elements that influence the staff professional development and their roles when implementing teaching practices with children with SEN (see Figure Part 4).
86
FIGURE PART 4) BOS MODEL (INTEGRATING BIO-ECOLOGICAL MODEL, ORGANISATIONAL THEORIES AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM)
The BOS model has been developed based on the representation of the data collected during the research process. Themes emerged from the analysis of data from documents, observation and interviews; the three data collection methods. Themes and patterns were discovered through the analysis of data according to the three existing frameworks, symbolic interactionism, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006)model and organisational theories. The process has been deduced from by relying on categories from these three theories and inductive by identification of those
FORMAL LEARNING
NON-FORMAL LEARNING
SINGLE LOOP OF LEARNING DOUBLE LOOP OF LEARNING
PR
OX
IM
AL
PR
O
CE
SS
:
INFORMAL LEARNINGSIMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM (INTERACTIONS , RITUALS AND CULTURE)
SIMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM (INTERACTIONS , RITUALS AND CULTURE) MACROSYSTEM
Accreditation and certification, Recognition of staff roles, Commercialism, Voices of staff in national regional and school policies and culture. Resources (equity/quality). Human rights
EXOSYSTEM
Families/Friends/Internet/Communities /Books/Magazines
MESOSYSTEM
Communication/Modelling/ Mentoring/Focus groups with
parents and/or external professionals
MICROSYSTEM
Classroom culture/Activities/Learning resources/Instructional methods, Planning and assessment/Curriculum/
Collaboration
PERSON/staff role,
personal capabilities (disposition, responsibility, status, experiences)maturity professional identity, wisdom (attitudes, values ),
self-reflection
TIM
E
TRIPLE LOOP OF LEARNINGCH
RO
NO
SY
ST
EM
(p
oli
cie
s a
nd
p
ra
ctic
es
)
87 new themes, categories and patterns that emerged from the data and linked with the three theories. The BOS model has been conceptually represented by dynamic elements that interacted into the form of professional learning experienced by the research participants. The goal of this model is simplify the complexity, so the arrows specify the direct relationships in each level. The model included five key elements from Bronfenbrenner and Morris system such as person, microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem, all of which are influenced by continuous Symbolic Interactions. Different forms of learning had been linked in different levels from the system. For example, the stage of single loop and double loop of learning are represented as interaction between the person and the nearest system although according to the data, the triple loop was represented by the feedback from the different levels I said before and the macrosystem. Data states that learning strategies that were maintained were those that, according the respondents, has been implemented from their relationship with the broadest system as the result of positive feedback and results from their own chronosystem.
In the second part of both chapters, themes are categorised and conceptualised in smallest sections or conceptual categories, The experiences from the participants are compared with the findings using the theoretical background of organisational learning theories (Wenger, 1998; 2002; Argyris and Schön, 1974; 1978; 1996; Nonaka; 1995; 2010; and Senge, 1990; 1994). Therefore the participants’ experiences of formal, informal and non-formal learning were analysed. Subsequently, the links between the specific strategies and tools used by the staff in each school to acquire relevant knowledge related to inclusive practices are discussed in relation to the person, mesosystem and exosystem components from the Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998), Process-Person-Context-Time (Chronosystem) model (PPCT). In the third part, in order to explain the dynamic of learning and identify the circumstances in which learning took place, staff experiences of organisational learning about inclusion will be classified following the different loops of learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Bateson, 1973; Argyris, 1990; Wang and Ahmed, 2003). In the fourth part, I review the proximal processes, by examining the learning strategies, which are implemented and maintained by the school staff throughout the academic year.
88