Stage 4: Identifying the Schools

Following the preliminary data collection phase in the two schools from the pilot, (Arlidge Arts Academy and Bowman Hill School), and the interviews with outside professionals, the next stage began with an initial approach to the schools selected for their particular relevance to the enquiry. Now the focus was on settings specifically targeted for their particular associations with the education of pupils with Asperger Syndrome. Dr King proposed Chelsea Science and Technology College, Drake Academy, Epsom Boarding School and Flynn Road School. Professor Raymond named Glebe Street Academy. The mother of Harry, a pupil at the school, suggested Hamilton Road (USA). Inglewood Farm and Jodrell Community School in the USA were identified by Professor Morrison, (my university link). All were selected for their specialism and uniqueness in educating pupils with Asperger Syndrome. As previously stated, distinctiveness was an important element in the research. In searching for differing examples of teaching and learning in mathematics education, these diverse learning establishments were predicted to each have the potential for unique examples of such. Findings from these individual institutions, whether similar

115

or contrasting, were expected to generate a comprehensive record of mathematics teaching methodologies for pupils with AS.

Since the pilot phase contact letter to Arlidge Arts Academy and Bowman Hill explained my study adequately, few changes were required and a similar one was sent out to the other five schools in the UK, (Chelsea Science and Technology College, Drake Academy, Epsom Boarding School, Flynn Road School and Glebe Street Academy). The only adaptations comprised personalisation and an addition of a sentence naming the contact who had provided the name of the school. One day was subsequently booked at each of Chelsea Science and Technology College and Flynn Road School. At Epsom Boarding and Glebe Street two days were planned and at Drake Academy the Headteacher offered five days over which to observe various interactions and to become fully immersed in the life of each school. I spent a substantial amount of time at Drake Academy acting as a TA to Dan and various other pupils with low-functioning and classic autism. As their characteristics were so dissimilar to the other pupils in the study, none other than Dan from this school was included in the analysis.

3.4.3.1 In-school Interviews: Staff

In addition to the observation of at least one mathematics session, the programme for the visits included meetings with the Head of each school, the Head of the SEN Department, at least one TA and at least one teacher where possible. All of the programmes were fully prepared and extensive to ensure that the process of data collection would be manageable and systematic. To gain alternative perspectives of mathematics education of pupils with Asperger Syndrome, a series of semi- structured interviews were planned with teachers, Teaching Assistants and members of the management teams who were most closely involved with identified pupils.

116

Although the interviews alone were not expected to produce a complete set of reliable data, they were included in the study as I believed that the interviewees’ accounts of their longer-term perceptions of each study case pupil would provide a contributory supplement to the personally collected observational data. The information gathered was amalgamated with the data derived from interviews with professionals to balance the inevitably subjective and therefore potentially biased field notes produced by me as researcher.

All were asked an appropriate selection of approximately ten to fifteen questions from one pre-prepared question bank, (see Appendix 11: Example of Interview Question Subset), which had been composed following the pilot phase. In respect of potential time constraints, this was considered to be a sufficient list of questions to pose. Utilising the 'interview guide approach' (Patton, 1980 cited in Cohen et al., 2011:412) where the 'interviewer decides upon the working of questions during the interview' (ibid.:413), it was rare for all questions to be asked of any one respondent; they were not always appropriate and, besides, there was rarely enough time available to do so. The questions selected depended upon who was being interviewed, this because certain questions such as:

‘Do you make use of ICT?’

might be appropriate for the class teacher at one school, but not necessarily for the Educational Psychologist. It was anticipated however that there might be a number of comparative responses from the different sources to each question which would allow for generalisations be made.

The first three interview questions were not expected to contribute much to the enquiry but were selected to:

117

a) start the interview off in such a way as to put the respondents at ease before launching in with the more searching questions;

b) allow me to gain a general understanding of each school's intake procedure; c) test the respondent's knowledge of the characteristics and potential effects of the

syndrome. If limited, their answers to some of the later questions might have been invalid and would have had to be discounted.

At each school, at least 2 members of staff were selected by the Headteacher as suitable for interview, that is, all except at Hamilton Road School, where the Headteacher also had the roles of Head of SEN and class teacher so there was only one interviewee. This was a very small school where the ratio of pupils to staff was approximately 2 to 1. Similarly, at Inglewood Farm School, the Head Teacher was also the Head of SEN although at this school there were other members of staff available for interview. There were 22 interviewees in this part of the enquiry, all of whom were willing to discuss their position, daily tasks and pupils. Many of the interviews were conducted on the move or between lessons in a range of classrooms, (see Appendix 12: Diary Entries Extract), which meant that use of recording equipment would not have been practical. At times, note taking had to be left until after the interview. This element of the research was anticipated to be particularly enlightening. These personal accounts, rare as they were, were expected to provide the opportunity to compare and contrast in order to discover whether the number of differences was greater than the number of similarities between specific cases in their experiences of mathematics learning. It was hoped that the resultant thick descriptions based on these accounts (Geertz, 1973 cited in Cohen et al., 2011:442) would bring a section of each interviewee’s microcosmic world to life. Additionally, to complement the narratives from the other data sources, interviews

118

with pupils, when the opportunity arose, were deemed likely to produce rich personal accounts and provide substantial perceptions of teaching and learning preferences as experienced by them.

Table 9: In-school Interviewees: Staff School Head teacher Assistant Head Head of SEN Teacher Teaching Assistant Psycholo gist Arlidge Arts Academy √ √ Bowman Hill School √ Chelsea Science and Technology College √ √ Drake Academy √ √ Epsom Boarding √ √ √ √ √ Flynn Road √ √ Glebe Street √ √ Hamilton Road √ √ √ Inglewood Farm √ √ √ √ Jodrell Community √ √

(Shaded entries indicate that one educator fulfilled several roles.)

3.4.3.2 In-school Interviews: Pupils

It would have been desirable to use similar interview strategies for all respondents, but it was not always appropriate. In consideration of the well-being of the pupils, interviews with them could not be of the same format as those conducted with professionals. The pupil-researcher relationship is quite different; hence, an alternative strategy was required. A rapidly developed rapport needed to be in place

119

in order to ensure that each interviewee felt comfortable and would, as a result, speak candidly with me. As discussions with the pupils throughout were not actively sought but rather instigated by the respective pupils, it was clear that only unstructured interviews would be practicable. This type of interview was considered to be the most suitable as the questions would not have formed in my mind ahead of the discussions. Besides, the impromptu nature of the interviews at this stage demanded unstructured formats where appropriately relevant responses and interjections were made possible.

Finally, although the sections in this chapter have been kept separate for clarity, interleaved with the interviews, the mathematics lesson observations were also taking place, and the detail surrounding the data collection methodology relating to these observations is covered in the next section.