The responsive teaching approach of Intensive Interaction was perceived both positively and negatively amongst the teachers. Following a tradition of rigorous teacher-controlled pedagogy, the teaching technique used was pre- planned activities with a set of words for pupils to imitate the teacher’s speech. The technique was a linear step with obvious structured activity controlled by the teachers from start to finish. The pre-planned teaching outcome was mainly focused on the limits of building the social relationship and mutual pleasure. Conversely, Intensive Interaction is spontaneous and responsive. The teaching process is not a linear teaching pattern and it may not be taught as an orderly structure. Interaction focuses on the response to the interactive process that a pupil creates and allows her/him control over her/his direction of learning. This is not in a familiar pattern for the teachers.
179
In general, teachers were categorised into three groups: those with an autonomous feeling, a loss of autonomous feeling, and a fluctuating feeling.
An Autonomous Feeling
Some teachers in the study were able to adjust themselves towards responsive teaching. They articulated that Intensive Interaction reduced their stress and anxiety in trying to carry the pupils forward with their assignments to reach the objectives they had pre-planned, which the pupils mostly failed to achieve. This caused tensions amongst teachers and the pupils themselves were unhappy. While applying the responsiveness of Intensive Interaction, they experienced fun and were relaxed:
“The reason I like Intensive Interaction is it’s fun and I’m happy to do it. It’s not tiring or stressful because we respond accordingly to what the children do. When we planned the activities [using picture and word for speech training] that the children couldn’t do, we were stressed and the children were unhappy”. (Dareeka)
These teachers showed the abilities of creative and flexible roles in designing play environments and were willing to explore a variety of ways to achieve their goals in a new way of teaching. Importantly, Dareeka, and other teachers in her group indicated, an uncomfortable feeling about the didactic method and therefore were eager to try a new way of working:
“Pupils with autism will stick too much to schedule. If something does not happen according to the schedule, they cry a lot. When they go outside or move to other school it will cause a problem because the outside is flexible and uncertain, and they cannot deal with it... And now pupils do not need to speak anymore because everything is scheduled. When they want to go to the toilet, they just pick up the picture and give it to me, they do not need to communicate to anyone, just pick up the picture and get
180
what they want. I think this is the weak point of TEACCH”. (Benjaporn)
Here, Benjaporn articulated the pitfalls of her current teaching programme. She concluded that, although TEACCH programmes helped the pupils know what would orderly occur in a daily routine, and this helped the pupils to be calm and do things by themselves better, this programme did not facilitate the flexible thinking and communicative ability which pupils with autism need.
Malisa is another example of someone who tried to search for a new way of teaching to develop social and communicative abilities for her pupils with autism and SLD:
“I have been seeking a teaching technique to develop social and communicative skills for pupils with SLD and autism. The existing teaching methods we have are stressful for both the pupils and me. The latest teaching technique that I’ve been trained is Floor Time technique, but it did not work with my pupils”. (Malisa)
Malisa preferred teaching within a playful atmosphere. She found that all previous teaching approaches were not pleasurable for both the pupils and her. Floor Time was the latest technique that she was very interested in but could not employ it with pupils with SLD and autism.
After implementing Intensive Interaction, these teachers articulated that the pupils obeyed them more and were willing to do things as the teachers asked them to. Benjaporn described doing things or other activities was faster than before
“Being with us, she thinks she can trust us. After that, it’s like we can talk, we can tell. She believes me more. We have more good
181
understandings. She is now able to do what she has to do faster and understand more what I said”. (Benjaporn)
Sivaluck mentioned that he used to wonder why children did not follow the activity that he normally led. After Intensive Interaction sessions he stated:
“Now I know if we want a child to follow us we have to follow him first. Intensive Interaction helps me to have control over the child”. (Sivaluck)
These teachers further confirmed that this approach could improve teachers’ attitudes to work and confidence in teaching. They felt they were more able to deal with their pupils than ever before, both in teaching sessions and in daily activity. The pupils’ obedience and willingness to do as they were told were repeatedly reported amongst the teachers:
“I’m confident in teaching 100 percent. The more I can play with them the more I feel confident. I feel I can understand them much better. Now I feel I am able to handle them more and that they are willing to do what I ask them to more than before”. (Dareeka)
A Loss of Autonomous Feeling
For Areeya, however, responsive teaching provided an uncomfortable challenge. Whereas Intensive Interaction was perceived by the above teachers as simple, fun and relaxing, Areeya maintained that it was complicated, exhausting, and stressful:
“Sometimes, it’s hard and I feel stressed. I think, think and think hard. Sometimes my head hurts as we cannot interpret what the children mean, what they want us to do and so we were rejected. It seems like the children felt guilty when they cannot do what they were
182
told by us. Likewise, I felt anxious when I did the thing that was not right as the children wanted”. (Areeya)
As the communicative exchange of Intensive Interaction needs interpretation and joining in with what pupils were doing and exploring, Areeya found that it was difficult because she could not interpret what some pupils meant. She found it was hard to respond appropriately and consequently was rejected. She sometimes described her feeling of being anxious, guilty and unsuccessful during teaching sessions. Areeya compared her own feelings of anxiety and guilt when she could not provide the ‘right’ response the pupils wanted with the same feeling of pupils who felt anxious and guilty when they could not do as they were expected by the teacher.
Areeya found it difficult to respond in child-led play. She had a limited willingness to prepare for any learning that immediately happens. During Intensive Interaction sessions, I observed that it was quite difficult for Areeya to use appropriate ‘pauses’ or ‘waiting’ and thus she often had a one-way interactive play with her pupils. Although Areeya and her pupils had a fun time and the pupils laughed a lot, the session was often initiated by the teacher. The use of fewer pauses resulted in the pupils often waiting for her to start.
As mentioned previously, Areeya has a strong idea of the traditional roles of teachers and the duty of pupils. She personally tended to be strict and distant from pupils, making pupils feel inferior to her. After Intensive Interaction sessions, Areeya wanted to step back into the role of controller and thus she perceived the result of Intensive Interaction as causing her a loss of control over her pupils:
“But somehow Intensive Interaction also has a downside that we have to play with them...After that, it’s like they could step out from the frame and when we put them back in, they wouldn’t listen to us. They think they used to be able to play with this person and
183
she never scolded at them, so they did not respect us, and wouldn’t listen and follow what we told them to as before”. (Areeya)
Areeya clearly pointed out that she lost some control over the pupils. She perceived that responsiveness to child-led play can cause the duty of pupils to start to slip out of the frame. As discussed in chapter 3, in the Thai classroom, teachers tend to control everything in their classes and make pupils afraid of them. Teachers felt comfortable in their authority and have power over pupils all the time. In Intensive Interaction sessions, the characteristic of child-led play teaching approaches built up familiarity and courage in pupils. It seemed that the teacher’s authority and power were affected by the reduction of pupils’ fear of the teacher and increasing pupils’ assertiveness.
Since Areeya held strictly to the image of ‘being Thai pupils’ in a feminine oriented country, she emphasized the building of good characteristics and training discipline according to Thai custom in her pupils very much. This included respect, obedience and following without disagreement. If any pupil shows an opposite manner, they will be considered as disrespectful and disloyal to their own teacher and thus the teachers themselves will ‘lose face’, which is a significant matter for Thai teachers. Whilst some teachers, such as Benjaporn, Dareeka and Malisa were able to balance the role of controller and follower in teaching and felt their authority increased, Areeya maintained the loss of her authority. Adjusting and balancing her role as a teacher in two pedagogies was challenging.
Areeya perceived that the adoption of a playful sound in an Intensive Interaction session caused pupils to not be afraid of her:
“When we do Intensive Interaction, we use a soft and playful sound. We did not scold them. Children would get used to it and
184
wouldn’t listen to us like the previous time. He wouldn’t do as he was told. When he did something wrong and we told him to stop, he did not stop and still did it again. He did it again you know. This is the downside of playing with them, as they become familiar with us and do not fear us anymore”. (Areeya)
Normally, Areeya used a sharp (hard) tone to control a child’s behaviour and to manage her classroom. Conversely, in intensive Interaction, she used a soft and playful tone with pupils and she perceived this kind of sound built up familiarity, which caused pupils to disobey her orders when Areeya wanted to step back into the role of controller teacher. Areeya perceived that Intensive Interaction has built some characteristics that are inconsistent with the values that she held in Thai collectivism. These characteristics included expressing less fear toward the teachers, self-assertiveness, and being more autonomous. She considered these new characteristics as a downside of Intensive Interaction, which gave her an uncomfortable feeling as she preferred the characteristics of pupils fearing the teacher, and being passive and culturally dependent.
Areeya is more directive, stimulating and intrusive in her interactive style. She did not believe in a minimal language on the basis that if she repeatedly talks daily to pupils, pupils will finally be able to talk. She believed strongly that students could understand what she communicated and therefore chose to use language in the level that she considered age appropriate for her pupils.
This may affect her ability to respond contingently to her pupil’s exploration. For instance, a young boy with severe autism had often punched himself so hard on his chin and forehead that he cried. After Intensive Interaction sessions, he did it in a happy and more fun way and tried to invite Areeya to copy his acting, but she refused and demanded he stop doing it:
185
“I am feeling if we follow their lead letting them think and play following their own preference. Sometimes, we do not know what way the children imagine in their play. We are sometimes afraid that we have different thoughts and cannot tune in accordingly with the children….Now I do not imitate Art anymore. When he did it I asked him to stop and told him that it was not a good thing to do. If we imitate him he will think it is good. We have to tell him directly what good or bad is”. (Areeya)
Areeya was afraid of the different thought between her and pupils. She was worried about allowing pupils to explore in their play. For example, if she imitated repetitive behaviour, the pupil would do this more. She had a strong belief that pupils would develop their learning if they stopped such repetitive behaviour. After our discussion, she still showed her unwillingness to respond to the pupil exploring his own way of learning. Areeya is a clear example showing the Thai culture of collectivism and high uncertainty avoidance. She cannot accept that pupils can have agency in their learning and is against the notion of constructing knowledge from the pupil’s exploration. In her beliefs, the teacher is the only source of knowledge and has to directly and explicitly transmit to the pupils what ‘good or bad’ is. In my observation, Areeya also referred to a limitation of good Karma in the pupil’s previous life when the pupil could not develop his learning as she expected.
A Fluctuating Feeling
For Jutima, her implementing process was in a state of flux. Her understanding of Intensive Interaction was often shifting, although she acknowledged that learning through interactive play was desirable for pupils and she was happy to see the effectiveness of Intensive Interaction from her teaching sessions. After teaching sessions, Jutima expressed surprise in the pleasing outcome which she had not expected. She articulated her increased belief and motivation to use Intensive Interaction with other pupils:
186
“I’m very amazed at how it works. At first, I’m quite against a little in my mind but I do as you suggest. When he made sounds I responded, when he was playing with his hand I played the same. One day whilst we were playing with our hands (we each played with our hand), he grabbed my hand and put it in his hand like he was trying to make it into a lump and he smiled. In that day I was amazed with its good outcome. It’s fun and effective. He is normally absent-minded, inattentive, and does not look at anyone, or smile. He walked all the time… I never saw him do this before. So I was amazed and believed a lot more and want to do it with other children too”. (Jutima)
When asked about her feelings during Intensive Interaction implementation, Jutima expressed her feeling of freedom in teaching and learning. She stated:
“Normally I like the new thing. What I like in Intensive Interaction is that it gives a freedom both to myself and children. Earlier we have to plan small objectives in advance which made me stressed. I always gave myself pressure to achieve the pre-planned objectives. But doing Intensive Interaction, we do not need to divide a big goal into small objectives, so I don’t feel pressured”. (Jutima)
In that moment, Jutima identified with Intensive Interaction, but in the next she shifted and felt frustrated:
“I don’t see the clear steps of what I should do. Normally, the Thai teaching system would require objectives and end targets. There were fixed steps for you to follow from 1, 2, 3, 4…We would like a clear path from start to finish. We are sometimes worried and don’t know what to do exactly. We’ve got loads of questions during doing it. Have we finished the first stage of yours [Intensive