Phase 2: Planning-implementation

The intervention block involved a ‘First Session’, followed by two coaching sessions a week and a weekly review session. This block was intended to last 10 weeks, or 20 sessions in total and is described in the subsequent sections. This phase differed from iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) in that it omitted a training session, as I believed that based on ECI recommended practices, coaching sessions presented a context that was

adequate in exploring culturally competent practice. Besides this, the First Session was not part of the original programme structure; however, I incorporated the goal setting questions as used in iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) within this session. The weekly review was also an additional component to the programme. Finally, the coaching procedures and strategies shared remained the same, although the criteria used to progress from one strategy to another was adjusted.

3.5.2.1 First session.

The plan for the First Session of the intervention block was to share assessment results from the Assessment Phase, set intervention goals, and share information about ECI and the intervention process. In alignment with a family-centred approach, I aimed to

acknowledge the parents’ intimate knowledge of their children and their understanding of ECI. I followed recommendations from King, Servais, Bolack, Shepherd, and Willoughby (2012) to listen using “skills involved in understanding the other person and demonstrating this understanding” (p. 460) before communicating information. A reflective communication style was used to encourage the parents to contribute their thoughts and ideas. The aim was to encourage engagement which was required as part of a collaborative partnership. This strategy had a dual function of providing insight into the families’ cultural context and collecting data for my inquiry.

33

First, the parents were given feedback about the assessment results. The objective was to communicate with them my understanding of their children, and to invite them to clarify or provide further information. This was followed by goal setting which was intended to be a forum to “understand the parents’ visions for their children” (Stoner et al., 2013, p. 115). After the session, the tentatively set goals were made available to the parents through DropboxTM_{. This allowed them to confirm that these indeed were their} goals before finalising them, with the purpose of demonstrating the value of their input in this partnership.

Following this, I facilitated a discussion to integrate shared understanding around ECI and language development. I asked open-ended questions to find out the parents’ personal experiences and knowledge about these topics and based my explanation on the knowledge they shared. The rationale for this method of sharing information was to establish a collaborative relationship (Kasahara & Turnbull, 2005). Two handouts were used as a visual aide for discussion (Appendix E and F). ECI recommended practices and values were discussed and linked to the strategies and activities of this intervention, for example, it was explained that coaching was used to provide the parents with

strategies to support their children in their daily life.

3.5.2.2 Coaching cycle and review.

Coaching followed the same cyclical process of iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) that is, pre- observation, observation and post-observation (Figure 2). The strategies were

introduced in the following order: environmental arrangement, modelling, mand

modelling and time delay. In the pre-observation component, I shared about the strategy using a handout (Appendix G) and video, as in iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) however, I used resources adapted with cultural relevance in mind. Once the parents understood the purpose and function of the strategy, an action plan (Appendix H) was co-created for them to practice the strategy in their daily routine. The plan was role played in the session for practice. The next component involved observing the parents using the strategy with their children through a video clip that was shared in between sessions. Finally, the post-observation component took place in the subsequent session, where the video was reviewed together. As the parents shared their perception of how the video

34

went, reflective questions were asked to encourage them to analyse their use of the strategy. This took place prior to providing feedback and suggestions. The post- observation component concluded with a summary of the discussion. Coaching provided “a structured method for accomplishing such partnerships with the focus on sharing skills, knowledge and experiences to develop competence and confidence in the key people…influencing a child’s life” (Rush, Shelden, & Hanft, 2003, p. 34).

Figure 2: The coaching cycle

The coaching cycle reviewed the same strategy multiple times to support the parents’ enactment of the strategy in different daily activities (Stoner et al., 2013). However, unlike iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) which had specific performance criteria relating to the parents’ use of the strategy, this study did not use pre-determined criteria for progression to the next strategy. Instead, information was gathered through parent discussion, compared to their video and progress that was made between each video was observed. Once there was joint agreement on the parents’ perceived competence and confidence in using the strategy independently, a new strategy was introduced in the following cycle. The intervention concluded once the parents were coached to use all strategies or after 20 intervention sessions were completed.

Pre-observation Share new strategy/review strategy AND create action plan

Observation Watch video of the

parents practising action plan Post-observation

Joint reflection of the videoed interaction and

provision of feedback/suggestions

35

An additional component to iPiCS (Meadan et al., 2016) was a 10-minute review that took place weekly, immediately after a coaching session. It began with an open question prompt or followed the parents’ lead in a topic they brought up. These are

recommended strategies for gaining a deeper understanding about the parents’ personal experience of the intervention (Westby, 1990). This step was included to continually ensure the delivery of culturally competent intervention through an open forum with the parents.