Introduction
This chapter presents the major themes which emerged from analysis of all the data and provides an in-depth understanding of the Thai teachers’ experiences of the implementation of Intensive Interaction. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) becoming a responsive teacher: the challenge of the transition process, 2) factors encouraging the use of Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context, 3) perceived barriers to Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context, and 4) supporting the sustainability of Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context. Each of these main themes has a number of sub-themes. The study incorporates an interpretive paradigm that explored the most likely possible interpretations around the major themes to understand the participants’ views. The series of quotations from the teachers’ interviews will be interspersed throughout the descriptions of each theme in order to support the interpretation. Some quotations were extracted verbatim in one specific transcript of teachers’ interviews but some quotations were amalgamated from more than one transcript in order to provide the more sufficiently informative and thick quotations for presentation. The thematic analysis of the perception of the Intensive Interaction teaching approach of Thai teachers is presented in table 6.1 below.
160
THEME SUB-THEME
One: Becoming a responsive teacher—The challenge of transition process
Role of the teacher and duty of pupils
Attitude to play in children’s development and the cultural imperative
Awareness of social experiences and initiated-communication
The interface of the responsive process and objective-based teaching
Improvement and change in teachers’ teaching practice
Two: Factors encouraging the use of Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context
Start from the sceptical mind Positive responses from the pupils The value of naturalistic approach Motivation from caregivers
Three: Perceived barriers to Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context
Inconsistency in teaching opportunities Suspicious looks from outsiders
Four: Supporting the sustainability of Intensive Interaction in the Thai school context
Formally structured in organisation or in IEP Teacher training
Parent training Resources
Table 6.1: Themes and sub-themes of the perception of the use of Intensive Interaction
161
Theme One: Becoming a Responsive Teacher –The Challenge of the Transition Process
The first major theme consists of five sub-themes. The first sub-theme refers to the traditional role of the teacher and the duty of pupils which were affected by Intensive Interaction adoption. Second, it presents the cultural attitude to play in children’s development and the impact of play on the role of the teacher. Then, it provides the viewpoints of Thai teachers about the awareness of social experiences and initiated-communication for their pupils. Fourth, it presents the interface of responsive process and objective-based teaching. It describes the effect the Intensive Interaction approach had on how the teachers experienced the challenge for deviating from the teacher- controlled teaching towards the responsive teaching approach. The last sub- theme described the extent and degree of changes in teachers’ teaching practices. It describes how Thai teachers observed changes from their traditional teaching approach as a result of the use of a new pedagogy of Intensive Interaction.
Role of the Teacher and Duty of Pupils
The Intensive Interaction approach challenged the Thai traditional role of teacher and the concept of teaching and learning. Thai teachers underwent a sense of radical position change from their cultural understandings of what it means to a ‘teacher’ and ‘teaching’. As a country of high power distance and collectivism, the role of the teacher is in a higher status and treats a pupil as inferior. The teachers often play their role in hierarchical authority and are treated with respect. The Thai traditional teaching and learning approach is directed and controlled by the teacher with rote-teaching and learning. In contrast, Intensive Interaction stresses child-led activities with sharing power and giving pupil empowerment, and this challenges the Thai traditional role of teacher and the teaching model. When implementing Intensive Interaction, teachers expressed their feelings about the differences between the position
162
of being a teacher in Intensive Interaction and the position of being a teacher to which they were accustomed in traditional teaching:
“I found it’s the difference in how to position myself. The former practice is that we are teachers, we have to teach. We have to be in a position where the children acknowledge we are their teachers whom they have to listen to with respect and be afraid of so they will follow what we tell them to. But this one [Intensive Interaction], mostly we let the pupils lead us and we only follow along and respond, which I found is completely difference”. (Lalita)
In this excerpt, Lalita was describing her perception of the meaning of ‘teacher’ and ‘teaching’. She perceived the traditional role of teacher as making the pupils afraid of her teacher’s role and higher status so that the pupils will be afraid of her and follow her direction with great respect and obedience to teachers’ authority. During Intensive Interaction sessions, Lalita felt a profound change to her inherited role of teacher and the concept of teaching. In the new way of teaching, she felt that she was being a follower, not a leader as in a traditional teaching approach. Areeya recounted a similar viewpoint:
“You know, as a teacher we have to teach pupils to acknowledge that we are their teacher who they have to obey. They have to listen to us with respect and to do as they are told. It is their duty. Children [with SLD] can know who their teachers are and they will obey only their teachers. You know, if children do not obey and are not afraid of us, how we can teach them?” (Areeya)
Areeya described her feeling of an embedded and rigorous sense of the role of the Thai traditional teacher, who has to remind the pupils of their role as teacher and teach in a high position and with authority. The pupils were expected to be passive and obedient, and to listen and do as they were ordered with respect to the teacher’s power. This expectation was
163
recognised as ‘the duty of pupils’ in Thai classroom culture. The view of the relationship between the role of the teacher and the duty of the pupil is deeply fixed by these expectations and has its roots in the Thai values of hierarchical social systems and grateful relationships or bunkhun, as discussed in chapter 3. Areeya held strictly to this image which seemed to be a barrier for empowering the pupils and for fostering the assertive and autonomous characteristic intended in Intensive Interaction. Lalita described the impact of shifting from the teacher’s role as a leader toward that as a follower on her first impressions:
“My very first feeling was we were about to indulge the kids, from my opinion. We must let them lead. We have to put down everything and let them start. So, at the beginning, I felt strange and contrary to what we have done when we were the ones who set the activities for them to do. Whether they were interested, we would just train them”. (Lalita)
Lalita’s example showed how she perceived the new role of the teacher as a responsive partner in Intensive Interaction. She told us that child-directed activity was viewed at the very first time as an ‘indulgence’ of a child. Indulgence implies the opposite side of ‘good discipline’ which was believed to be built by following the teacher’s orders. Culturally, apart from the familiarity with their traditional role of teacher in a hierarchical position with teacher-controlled learning direction, Thai teachers, as a second parent, also have to instil good values and morals into their pupils. Therefore, the Thai traditional role of teachers is often to entrench a strong controller’s role. Being a follower or a responsive teacher in Intensive Interaction made Lalita feel uneasy during the initial stage.
Lalita mentioned feeling a little embarrassed at first, and worried about the age-appropriateness that she saw as applying a ‘kid’s trick’ to someone grown’. She felt bashful about adopting the method for younger children with older ones, specifically making childish noises. Although some teachers
164
could do this automatically, Lalita thought it was hard when she first started because it opposed her feelings. Talking about playing with older children, she commented:
“At the beginning, I didn’t know what to play with her because she was rather grown. But it was ok with younger kids…Playing with Nonny (Autism and SLD, 14 years old) for the first time I didn’t even have courage to make noises like little children because she’s grown. When I faced her in front of me, I only saw a girl teenager...It’s contrary. It was hard at the beginning. It’s a bit embarrassing to play a kid’s trick to someone grown”. (Lalita)
After the initial stage, Lalita accustomed herself to adjusting her teaching role as a hierarchical and authority figure and joined in with pupils. She described the positive changes of her feeling in the teacher’s role:
“Now, we can play and we better get along. I don’t have to be strictly aware of my status as a teacher. What I like is we demote ourselves to meet with the kids half way. It’s easier to get along with them. Other methods completely separate teachers’ status from pupils’. But this one, we meet half way”. (Lalita)
Here, Lalita told of her feeling of changing her teacher’s role in Thai tradition and she did not need to remind herself of that role. She implied that her feeling of being a controller teacher was reduced. During Intensive Interaction sessions, to some extent, she allowed the pupil to be in charge and in control of her own activities. She implied that the negotiation between being a controller and follower allowed her to meet the needs of the pupil halfway. Meeting halfway facilitated her to get along better with her pupil. Lalita talked about how her feeling of being a new mother of a 3-month old baby seemed to soften her feeling of being a controller. She often brought her baby girl to the school and she also started the use of Intensive Interaction with her baby.
165
All teachers in this study recognised the cultural meaning of the role of teacher and teaching, and the duty of pupils in the Thai classroom, but in practice they applied them to varying degrees. Some of the teachers did not strictly embrace the traditional role of a teacher. For example, Malisa, a senior teacher who also has a musical skill and often used musical equipment in her teaching activity, showed her viewpoint on the role of the teacher:
“When I teach children it’s more like we are playing with children. I keep in mind that to approach children, I have to be one of them. We are naturally their friends. So when this way becomes a teaching technique, I feel this is what I’m always like. I don’t care that others will think that I don’t perform like a teacher”. (Malisa) (My emphasis).
Malisa clearly considered her role to be a friend to her pupils rather than as a performing the role of teacher in a way that is culturally expected by others. Here, Malisa implied that she knew the concept of being a Thai teacher, but she did not fully conform. She also showed her feeling of confidence to be in the teacher’s role that she preferred. She implied that her playful teaching style was not a general way of teaching expected by other teachers and outsiders around her.
Since my first visit of the Intensive Interaction teaching session, Malisa demonstrated her nature to readily connect to Intensive Interaction principles and employed it with a 13 year old girl with autism and SLD. She showed her ability to tune in rapidly with her pupil without the barrier of body hierarchy and head as some teachers, like Areeya, felt. She naturally laid on the floor [the consenting pupil was leaning on the floor while other pupils worked in groups] and imitated her pupil’s behaviour by playing with her own figures, while smiling, even though she used to think that by repeatedly playing with figures, her pupil was demonstrating a weak point that she had previously intended to eliminate. Her natural use of silence, minimal
166
language, pauses and celebrations were well employed. Her personality, beliefs and confidence rapidly connected her to the child’s world.
Benjaporn provided another example of the notion of the traditional role of teacher from her perspective:
“I don’t like children to be afraid of me. If children fear us they won’t come near us. I want to have children near me, smile and be willing to come when I want them. Here we were trained to be in a high status over children. Teacher and children are separated in different places, different corners. We have to make them afraid of us as we are their teacher. Otherwise we will be unable to control them for discipline and cannot teach. But I don’t like that way”. (Benjaporn)
Benjaporn described her feelings of dislike towards the idea of being a teacher in keeping with dominant customs. She did not like the traditional classroom of having a hierarchy where the teacher should make the pupils afraid of her. Pupils were separated to be in their place in silence and could only come and communicate when the teacher wanted them to. In my observation, Benjaporn was rather against the traditional role of teacher where it made pupils passive and did not encourage them to initiate or express their thought, feelings and needs. Benjaporn preferred to enable pupils to freely express their feelings and needs without fear of the teacher’s authority. Here, we knew how Benjaporn was trained to be a teacher in the Thai classroom. It also reminded us that whilst Areeya and Lalita adopted the training experiences in their work with pupils with autism and SLD, Benjaporn did it in a contrary way. The next extract provides a perspective from the only male teacher in this study, which highlighted the role of men in Thai culture as described by Sivaluck:
“Sometimes I felt irritated and annoyed to be controlled by children. I don’t understand why we have to follow them because we
167
normally lead. We have to recognise they’re the leader of the activities, it’s like they forced us to play with them. So deeply, as they’re the leaders and have to pull us towards them, I feel it’s a bit awkward”. (Sivaluck)
Sivaluck described, during the early stages, irritation and annoyance at letting the children be in charge of the teaching activity, which normally was led by the teacher. Sometimes he felt pupils were forcing his actions and this made him feel irritated as they demanded he play along and let the pupil lead. In keeping with the role of leader and the assertive nature of many men in Thai society as described in Thai femininity, p. 77-78, Sivaluck tended to be more dominant and overriding in his personality than Thai female teachers in this study. He felt more challenged to be in a child-led activity that seemed to impact on the personality of men more than women. Although annoyed, Sivaluck appeared relaxed, flexible, creative and confident during Intensive Interaction sessions. This was possibly because he normally had the nature of loving to play with pupils in his teacher-led style. He also had a sense of humour and was not entrenched in the role of teacher by keeping pupils distant and making them fear him.
Despite their various adoptions and practices of the teacher’s role they all recognised its cultural meaning and expectations in Thai society. It seemed, because of this recognition, all Thai teachers in my study have highlighted their experiences as not feeling like they were in ‘a role of teacher’. When referring to their role in Intensive Interaction, teachers used words such as ‘friends’ and ‘someone who has similar age’, not like traditional teachers or ‘parents’, to describe their feelings toward their pupils. As Areeya and Neelanoot commented:
“With Intensive Interaction, we feel it’s informal to be with the children. It feels like we live together like a mother and a child”. (Areeya)
168
“When I played with them, they may have felt like I am as a friend of them, something like that, not as a teacher”. (Neelanoot)
Dareeka described why she did not perform like a teacher and moved towards the new role of ‘older kid’ when doing Intensive Interaction sessions.
“We act as if we are an older kid to them, not the teachers. When we play with children, we will feel like we are kids too. It’s more like siblings who have a very narrow gap between their ages. If our ages are too far apart, it’s hard to talk. But if it’s only a few years then it’s much easier to talk”. (Dareeka)
Here, Dareeka talked about removing her hierarchy and authority in the teacher’s role by acting more like ‘a child’ whose age was not very far apart from the age of the pupil. Doing this would narrow the gap between the teacher’s status in a high power distance and the inferior position of the pupil, which then facilitated a flat line pupil-teacher interaction to allow two-way communication to occur between her and the pupil. Dareeka described the vertical interaction within the Thai school context that tends to be more authoritarian with one-way communication from teacher to pupils. Whilst Intensive Interaction requires teachers to communicate responsively with, and empower, the pupils, like Dareeka, all teachers in this research removed the hierarchy and authority of the teachers’ role toward ‘other roles’ where they did not feel like a traditional Thai teacher. This helped to foster the occurrence of play and two-way communication.
169