Graphic symbols have been traditionally used in special education schools, but with inclusion on the education agenda their usage has been introduced in many mainstream schools as well. However, there is scant literature exploring the factors that influence the implementation of these symbols as a whole school approach.
OBJECTIVE:
To uncover the factors that promote or impede the use of graphic symbols usage at the whole school level in inclusive primary schools.
METHODS:
Two inclusive primary schools, in England and Cyprus, were identified via a postal survey. Following the phenomenology of pedagogy, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews, close observations, visual evidence of symbol use and the researcher keeping a reflective journal. The data were subject to thematic analysis with the themes being drawn from the aide-mémoire.
RESULTS:
Factors that promote the usage of graphic symbols are the knowledge and expertise of those using them and the leader's good managerial skills and the latter's professional role. Factors that can impede the usage of graphic symbols include the classroom teachers' negative attitudes and lack of time.
CONCLUSION:
Individuals who are graphic symbol champions need to be given the authority to influence existing practices in the schools.
ThomasG. Inclusive schools for an inclusive society. British Journal of Special Education. 1997; 24(3): 103-107.
2.
VislieL. From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2003; 18(1): 17-35.
3.
PhtiakaH. Educating the other: A journey in Cyprus time and space. In BartonL. and ArmstrongF., eds. Policy, experience and change, cross cultural reflections on Inclusive Education. London: Springer Books; 2007.
4.
PieridouM. Special and Inclusive Education in Cyprus: Case study of a school unit with regards to the implementation of the educational legislation 113(I)/99 in educational practice. Ph.D. University of Cyprus; 2013.
5.
UNESCO. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: Unesco; 1994.
6.
HodkinsonA. Inclusive and special education: Inclusive and special education in the English educational system: Historical perspectives, recent developments and future challenges. British Journal of Special Education. 2010; 37(2): 61-67.
7.
PijlSJ, MeijerCW. and HegartyS. Inclusive education: A global agenda. London, New York: Routledge; 1997.
8.
BartonL. Emancipatory research and disabled people: Some observations and questions. Educational Review. 2005; 57(3): 317-327.
9.
FarrellP. Special education in the last twenty years: Have things really got better? British Journal of Special Education. 2001; 28(1): 3-9.
10.
NorwichB. Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability: international perspectives and future directions. London, New York: Routledge; 2008.
11.
SebbaJ, AinscowM. International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education. 1996; 26(1): 5-18.
12.
BoothTA. Perspective on inclusion from England. Cambridge Journal of Education. 1996; 26(1): 87-99.
13.
RixJ, HallK, NindM, SheehyK, WearmouthJ. What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review. Support for Learning. 2009; 24(2): 86-94.
14.
ParryJ, RixJ, SheehyK, SimmonsK. The journey travelled: A view of two settings a decade apart. British Journal of Educational Studies. 2013; 61(4): 385-399.
15.
GlennenS, DeCosteDC. The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego: Singular Pub. Group; 1997.
FlorianL, HegartyJR. ICT and special educational needs: A tool for inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2004.
18.
SheehyK, RixJ, Fletcher-CampbellF, CrispM, HarperA. Conceptualising inclusive pedagogies: Evidence from international research and the challenge of autistic spectrum disorder. Erdelyi Pszichologiai Szemle (Transylvanian Journal of Psychology. 2013; XIV(1).
19.
HughesC, RungLL, WehmeyerML, AgranM, CopelandSR, HwangB. Self-prompted communication book use to increase social interaction among high school students. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2000; 25(3): 153-166.
20.
WellingtonW, WellingtonJ. Children with communication difficulties in mainstream science schools. School Science Review. 2002; 83(205): 81-92.
21.
CrosskeyL, VanceM. Training teachers to support pupils' listening in class: An evaluation using pupil questionnaires. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2011; 27(2): 165-182.
22.
AndreouE,MavrouK.Differentiated instruction with the use of symbols, for universal design for learning, in inclusive education [H δ ι α φ oρ oπ oι η μ εν η δ ι δ α σ κ α λ ι α μ ε τ η χ ρ η σ η τ ω ν σ υ μ β o λ ω ν γ ι α τ o σ χ ε δ ι α σμ o μ α θ η σ η σ γ ι α o λ oυ σσ τ η ν ε ν ι α ι α ε κ π α ι δ ε υ σ η ]. In TsaggaridouN, MavrouK, SymeonidouH, PhtiakaL, and SymeouIE, eds. The Crisis and the Role of Pedagogy: Institutions, Values and Society. Nicosia, 8-9 June 2012. Nicosia: Cyprus Pedagogical Association; 2012.
23.
MavrouK, CharalampousE, MichaelidesM. Graphic symbols for all: Using symbols in developing the ability of questioning in young children. Journal of Assistive Technologies. 2013; 7(1): 22-33.
24.
JohnP, VanceM. Evaluation of a principled approach to vocabulary learning in mainstream classes. Child Language Training and Therapy. 2014; 30(3): 255-271.
25.
GreenstockL. Using graphic symbols: An investigation into the experiences and attitudes of a range of practitioners using graphic symbols with children in the Foundation Stage (three to five year olds) school settings. Ph.D. De Montfort University; 2009.
26.
GreenstockL, PampoulouE. An introduction to two pieces of recent research in the use of graphic symbols. Journal of Communication Matters. 2010; 24(2): 32-35.
27.
Von TetzchnerS, BasilC. Terminology and notation in written representations of conversations with augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2011; 27(3): 141-149.
28.
PampoulouE. Graphic Symbol Set Selection Considerations by Speech and Language Therapists: A pilot study. MSc King's College London; 2006.
29.
WellingtonW, StackhouseJ. Using visual support for language and learning in children with SLCN: A training programme for teachers and teaching assistants. 2011; 27(2): 183-201.
30.
GreenstockL, WrightJ. Collaborative implementation: Working together when using graphic symbols. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 2011; 27(3): 331-343.
31.
McCartneyE. Barriers to collaboration: An analysis of systemic barriers to collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 1999; 34(4): 431-440.
32.
SheehyK, DuffyH. Attitudes to Makaton in the ages on integration and inclusion. International Journal of Special Education. 2009; 24(2): 91-102.
33.
PampoulouE. The use of graphic symbols in primary inclusive schools: An exploration of teachers' and speech and language therapists' experiences of graphic symbols. King's College London (Unpublished Thesis); 2015.
34.
PattonMQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage; 2002.
35.
FinlayL. Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology and Practice. 2009; 3(1): 6-25.
36.
Van ManenM. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: Althouse Press; 1990.
37.
Van ManenM. Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching. Curriculum Inquiry. 1994; 24(2): 135-170.
38.
FinlayL. A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: Explicating the ``phenomenological psychological attitude''. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology. 2008; 39(1): 1-32.
HycnerRH. Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In: BrymanA. and BurgessRG., eds. Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1999.
41.
CoffeyA, AtkinsonP. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.
42.
Van ManenM. Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2014.
43.
MesibovGB, SheaV, SchoplerE. The TEACCH approach to autism spectrum disorders. New York: Springer; 2004.
44.
MavrouK. Assistive technology as an emerging policy and practice: Processes, challenges and future directions. Technology and Disability. 2011; 23(1): 41-52.
45.
De BoerA, PijlSJ, MinnaertA. Regular primary schoolteachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2011; 15(3): 331-353.
46.
LindqvistG, NilholmC, AlmqvistL, WetsoGM. Different agendas? The views of different occupational groups on special needs education. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2011; 26(2): 143-157.
47.
Rosen-WebbSM. Nobody tells you how to be a SENCo. British Journal of Special Education. 2011; 38(4): 159-168.
48.
TissotC. The role of SENCos as leaders. British Journal of Special Education. 2013; 40(1): 33-40.
49.
FlorianL, LinklaterH. Preparing teachers for inclusive education: using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2010; 40(4): 369-386.
50.
PampoulouE, PieridouM. Investigating collaboration in four inclusive primary schools in Cyprus. 18th Conference of the Junior Researchers of EARLI (European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction). Nicosia, 30 June-4 July; 2014.
51.
LindqvistG, NilholmC. Making schools inclusive? Educational leaders' views on how to work with children in need of special support. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2013; 17(1): 95-110.
52.
DerisAR, Di CarloCF. Back to basics: Working with young children with autism in inclusive classrooms. Support for Learning. 2013; 28(2): 52-56.
53.
MorseJM. Designing funded qualitative research. In NormanK. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
54.
CreswellJW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications; 1998.
55.
DevereuxK, Van OosteromJ. Learning with rebuses: Read, think and do, Stratford-upon-Avon, National Council for Special Education; 1984.
56.
MamasC. Understanding inclusion in Cyprus. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2013; 28(4): 480-493.
57.
FthiakaH. Special and inclusive education in Cyprus [Eι δ ι κ η κ α ι ε ν ι α ι α ε κ π α ι δ ε υ σ η σ τ η ν K vπ ρ o]. Athens, Taksideftis, 2007.
58.
PampoulouE, DetheridgeC. The role of symbols in the mainstream to access literacy. Journal of Assistive Technologies. 2007; 1(1): 21-27.
