Presented at ISEC 2000

Individualised Educational Intervention in an Inclusive Classroom

Olga Imellou (Athens University, School of Philosophy, Athens, Greece)

Abstract

The Individualised Intervention Program in the Classroom (I.I.P.C.) was applied to five fifth-grade pupils who were characterised as low achievers in Sentence Completion, Graphemic Discrimination and Right - Left Body Discrimination sub-tests of Athena Test for Diagnosis of Learning Difficulties in order to improve their scores. The Learning Together co-operative learning model was used to group the 26 pupils of the class into four-pupil heterogeneous teams considering control groups. I.I.P.C. was designed for the five selected pupils but the whole class got involved in its activities. Intervention consisted of 1 8 sessions, 6 for every sub-test, which took place at the end of the language lesson and were thematically attached to the particular unit each time. It included word games, board games, etc that were closely observed by the researcher, offering hints useful for future intervention. I.I.P.C. was planned co-operatively by, the researcher/special and the general educator. Pre-test and post-test measures indicated that the scores of the selected children had improved 3.9, 5.1 and 3.45 times over the scores of the corresponding control groups in the three sub-tests. All pupils reported that they enjoyed working together with the intervention material.

Key words: individualised intervention, classrooms inclusion, co-operative learning, learning difficulties, elementary school, qualitative research.

Introduction

In Greece, in recent years, inclusion is a subject under debate, but although general education teachers seem open towards this particular educational policy (Padeliadu & Lampropoulou, 1997, p. 180), it has only recently been generalized by means of legislation (Special Education Act 2817/2000). Inclusion is a term that usually refers to pupils who previously attended a special school or the resource room of a general school (Croll et al., 2000, Kroustalakis, p.22). Pupils already enrolled in general education classrooms, who for various reasons experience obvious or subtle difficulties and are often marginalized by their peers also need special treatment by means of curriculum, classroom management and material. This is also called inclusion (Ainscow and Memmenasha, 1999, p. 104). For this particular pupil population the solution lies with the classroom general education teacher who does not always believe he has the necessary knowledge and abilities to resolve difficult managerial problems on his own (Carter, 1991; Gersten, Walker & Darch, 1988; Landrum, 1992, Parrilla et al , 1997). This study is an attempt to present a positive alternative that could support the general school educator and the approximately 18% of the pupil population. This pupil population experiences special educational needs that are not officially stated and that are usually met by their classroom teachers alone without any specialist's help (Hornby et al. 1997, p.1).

Co-operative learning approach as a means to inclusion

In order to accomplish inclusion for the pupils already integrated by means of enrollment in a classroom it is essential to adapt an inclusion model that fits best to the particular setting. Among several models already implemented successfully, this study was based on Team Teaching of the Consultation Model in which the consulting teacher works jointly with the general education teacher to plan and teach lessons, adapt strategies, manage behavior and develop materials (Webber, 1997, p. 43). For reasons referring to research objectives, the research project was limited to one classroom case study (Paraskevopoulos, 1993; Mason, 1996; Creswell, 1998; Charoupias, 1999).

Although the special educator's focus is pupils with special educational needs and intervention is mostly addressed to them, it is of great importance to organize the classroom not only for the pupils who experience those needs, but for all the pupils in that classroom (Ainscow, 1996, p. 72-73; Ainscow, 2000).

Co-operative learning represents one way of adapting instructional strategies in order to meet the demands of an inclusive classroom (Keenan, 1997, p. 125). Co-operative group learning activities, when they are planned and implemented skillfully, usually have a positive impact upon academic, social and psychological achievement (Matsagouras, 1995, p. 18; Ainscow, 2000, p. 113). With assistance, from an adult or from his peers, every child can do more than he can do by himself -though only within the limits set by the state of his development, his zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 103; 1997, p. 144; Xeromeritou, 1997, p. 105). Group co-operation is designed to provoke zones of proximal development within which pupils of various abilities can find support by means of thinking externalization and striving for consensus, even if some members of the group are not capable of full participation (Brown et al., 1996). What remains the same in the many co-operative learning principles' application are the co-operative incentive and the task structures that aim at achieving cognitive as well as non-cognitive goals in typical classrooms (Slavin, 1983, p. 3).

In our study the Learning Together Model of co-operative learning was selected for the implementation of the Individualized Intervention Program in the Classroom (I.I.P.C.). The Learning Together Model (L.T.M.) was developed by David and Roger Johnson in 1975 and it involves pupils working together in four to five-member heterogeneous groups on assignment sheets. The groups hand in a single sheet and receive praise as a group based on how well they are working together and how they perform on the group task (Slavin, 1983, p. 28). Preceding the implementation of the intervention program, pupils were gradually introduced to co-operative learning by working in pairs at first and in threes later with material presented by the special and the general educator. Groups were formed after observation of the classroom's interactions and after studying the sociogram that was generated by the pupils responses in questions referring to their likes and dislikes (Tsiplitaris, 1996, p. 70). Extra care was taken not to mix intervention subjects with those pupils that formed the control groups.

The study

This study is the outcome of the collaboration between a special education teacher/researcher, a general education teacher and the pupils of the fifth grade of an elementary school of a typical middle-class suburb of Athens in Greece. After a period of classroom observation and acquaintance, all the pupils of the classroom were assessed with AthenaTest for Diagnosis of Learning Difficulties. AthenaTest is a standardized screening test that is administered individually. It consists of fourteen (14) sub-tests and evaluates cognitive abilities that research has shown are relevant to learning difficulties (Paraskevopoulos et al, 1999). The foci of our study were Sentence Completion, Graphemic Discrimination and Right - Left Body Discrimination sub-tests of AthenaTest.

Subjects of the intervention study were five pupils who were found to be low achievers in these particular sub-tests and who seemed to have no other obvious problems (e.g. behavioural or emotional problems). All relevant information came from the classroom teacher and the researcher's observations.

In the Sentence Completion sub-test one subject was selected and in both Graphemic Discrimination and Right - Left Body Discrimination two subjects were selected. In the last two sub-tests, the selection of the two subjects corresponded to different developmental age or to different approach of perception (direct or mirror right - left body discrimination). As a result there was only one variation in Sentence Completion and two variations in both Graphemic Discrimination and Right - Left Body Discrimination in the same session of the intervention. In every session a neutral intervention was prepared for all the pupils that were not part of the intervention groups. The neutral intervention looked like the real intervention but was not practicing the cognitive abilities the real one did. Control groups consisted of other low achievers in the relevant sub-tests. The study lasted for a six-month period and the researcher was present in the classroom the first two successive hours of the school language lesson (a 90 minutes period, without a break). The intervention activity usually took place at the end of the 90 minutes period and lasted from 5 to 45 minutes. The number of sessions was 18 and the total intervention time was 350 minutes, with mean session time 19.4 minutes. The total intervention time in Sentence Completion was 90 minutes (mean session time 15 minutes), in Graphemic Discrimination 125 minutes (mean session time 20.8 minutes) and in Right-Left Body Discrimination 135 minutes (mean session time 22.5 minutes) (see Appendix VI).

In an equal number of sessions for every sub-test, intervention time was divided, as the table 1shows.

Table 1: Intervention time per sub-test

The study conducted was a qualitative research and particularly a participatory action research and a classroom case study. Quantitative data were also selected by means of the results presented by the standardized AthenaTest for Diagnosis of Learning Difficulties. This latter category of data is mostly presented in this paper.

Intervention material

I.I.P.C. is an intervention program that consists of eighteen (18) sessions, six (6) for every sub-test. Its material corresponds to the cognitive abilities it is designed to develop or strengthen but that quality remains hidden from the pupils. Its fun-like activities are presented and are indeed experienced by pupils as games or as activities whose major role is to make them work together co-operatively and successfully. Intervention material, although it is designed for three different cognitive abilities, is thematically focused, oriented, individualized, a means to inclusion, documented, organized, multi-faceted, peer-assisted, challenging/appealing and rewarding. The I.I.P.C. intervention material is:

1. Thematically focused on the school curriculum and practically in accordance with every particular unit the teacher is presenting on the day of the session. Its full inclusion in the school program makes it more appealing to the teacher and more welcome to the classroom pupils.

2. Oriented towards the cognitive abilities assessed by AthenaTest. Since its main function is to develop or strengthen the cognitive abilities in which the particular pupils had achieved low scores, it is important to address these abilities but, hopefully, in an imaginative way that does not refer directly and obviously to AthenaTest. These particular cognitive abilities are integrated in the intervention activity process and not in the final outcome, which is usually used as a target for the pupils involved. In the I.I.P.C. the means are more important than the actual goal.

3. Individualized. Every session was planned with one or two particular pupils' profile in mind and those pupils and their groups were working with the intervention material. The other pupils (control groups) were working with neutral material that seemed the same but was not, since it was not oriented towards the cognitive abilities assessed by AthenaTest.

4. Means to inclusion. Although every session is individualized, its group implementation and the lack of evident elements of segregation offer a solid basis for the inclusion of the pupils who are characterized as low achievers.

5. Documented. Every session was observed and its process was recorded on a specially structured sheet of paper that could be easily filled. Remarks and comments could be recorded and the pupils' responses to the whole procedure could offer valuable information for the teacher and for future intervention.

6. Organized on the basis of developmental ages. Every session can be adapted to respond to the needs of four different groups of developmental ages. Since the developmental age shows the degree of maturity a certain pupil has obtained on the day of the assessment, it is a very important indicator of the degree of difficulty the educational intervention material should have (Paraskevopoulos, 1999, p. 149-150). In the intervention for the improvement of Graphemic Discrimination there were two subjects that belonged to different developmental ages.

7. Multi-faceted. That characteristic implies that the material of a session could be used in different ways meeting different needs each time or that it could be easily adapted to match a certain child's profile. In some sessions for the improvement of Right - Left Body Discrimination the material could be used differently (e.g. turned upside - down) with no changes in its format in order to be used by children who had difficulties in direct right - left body discrimination or in mirror right - left body discrimination.

8. Peer-assisted. Since the intervention's implementation is focused on group functions, a key element that provides additional strength to the instructional part of its realization is peer teaching. In the four-member heterogeneous groups formed by the Learning Together Model of co-operative learning, interactions that have the form of giving and receiving explanations are positively related to learning (Slavin, 1983, p. 64).

9. Challenging, appealing and fun like. The presentation of a session is a major factor for the pupils' motivation and its success. Taking the form of word games, board games, crosswords, treasure hunting etc, the intervention material opens up the door to new adventures and new experiences not usually anticipated in a language lesson classroom. As a result the intervention activities are not considered a typical lesson but a fun game and the pupils are not aware of all the knowledge levels they are acquainted with, although in most cases an activity can include information relevant to many different school subjects embedded in its plot. This characteristic is very important for the pupils who are not considered as low achievers and who can also benefit in many ways by taking part in the intervention activities.

10. Rewarding. Every group performance is evaluated by means of their member co-operation and the outcome of their working together. The evaluation mode can differ according to classroom preferences and to the particular setting and the group scores can be recorded on tables hanging on the classroom display boards (Charoupias, 1999).

I.I.P.C.' s characteristics and the potential of its implementation allow a special design in an educational/electronic environment (multimedia) with slight modifications that are implied by the means of application (Georgiadis et al., 1993). Such a multimedia application would be of great importance for the learning support teachers and the pupils (Kirklees Education Advisory Service, 1999).

The importance of co-operation between general and special education teacher

The success of an intervention program designed for certain individuals and implemented in the classroom, with all the pupils getting involved, is strongly dependent on the successful co-operation between the classroom teacher, who usually is a general educator, and the special education teacher.

According to the Consultation Model of Inclusion a special education teacher may assist a general education teacher to adjust, redesign and monitor classroom strategies for individual pupils. Additionally he may provide behavioral observations, diagnostic assessments, coaching, collaborative planning and actual resources (Webber 1997, p. 42). Being objective he can offer remarks based on classroom observation and pupils' profiles that could be valuable for all the necessary adaptations.

In real life situations no consultation can take place without a communication system working effectively between the two teachers. In our study the general and the special educator/researcher decided to work together in order to plan the preparatory steps and the actual implementation of the intervention program. Planning was scheduled formally once a week when the classroom teacher had a lesson-free academic hour and informally in breaks when the two teachers could share their thoughts about the classroom's function when the two teachers were present.

The general education teacher discussed the intervention timing and duration, the behavior problems he was anticipating and the classroom profile. The special education teacher discussed the children' profiles that were based on AthenaTest, the thematic unit the session would be based on, the children the intervention would be focused on in every session, the material that would be used and alternative ways to tackle the anticipated problems. They also discussed management issues, teaching strategies and behavior modification techniques. As a result of their collaboration the general education teacher was responsible for the overall instruction of the language lesson that was before every session and the special education teacher was responsible for the implementation of every session of I.I.P.C.

Outcomes

A. The subjects of the intervention

After the implementation of I.I.P.C. and the completion of the final assessment, the scores in the three sub-tests of AthenaTest before and after the I.I.P.C. were examined. In Sentence Completion, pretest and posttest measures indicated an improvement of 21 developmental months and 1 developmental quotient for the experimental group, while the mean improvement of the control group was 6 developmental months and 0 developmental quotients. Thus, the experimental group improved 3.5 times over the control group (see Appendices I & II).

In Graphemic Discrimination, pretest ant posttest measures indicated an improvement of 65 developmental months and 5 developmental quotients for the first experimental group while the mean improvement of the corresponding control group was 23 developmental months and 1 developmental quotient. Thus the first experimental group improved 2.8 times over the control group.

The same procedure has shown an improvement of 40 developmental months and 3 developmental quotients for the second experimental group while the mean improvement of the corresponding control group was 10.3 developmental months and 0.3 developmental quotients. Thus the second experimental group improved 3.9 times over the control group.

In the second experimental group particularly slow pace was observed in one subject during the I.I.P.C. activities. Examination of the particular subject had shown that the subject could not benefit fully from the activities because the other members of the team worked at a higher pace. The subject was given two of the I.I.P.C. graphemic discrimination activities again and all their steps were completed. The final results were taken after the second partial implementation of I.I.P.C.

Taking into account the results of both experimental groups in Graphemic Discrimination sub-test, we can conclude that their achievement improved 3.4 times over the achievement of the control groups (see Appendices III & IV).

In Right-Left Body Discrimination, pretest ant posttest measures indicated an improvement of 2 points for the experimental group of direct right-left body discrimination while the mean improvement of the corresponding control group was 1.5 points. Therefore the first experimental group improved 1.3 times over the control group.

The same procedure shows an improvement of 2 points for the experimental group of mirror right-left body discrimination while the mean improvement of the corresponding control group was 0.3 points. The second experimental group improved 6.7 times over the control group.

Taking into account the results of both experimental groups in Right-Left Body Discrimination sub-test, we can conclude that their achievement has improved 4 times over the achievement of the control groups (see Appendix V).

Table 2: Pretest-Posttest measures comparison - Sentence Completion

Table 3: Pretest-Posttest measures comparison - Graphemic Discrimination

Table 4: Pretest-Posttest measures comparison - Right-Left Body Discrimination

B. The other pupils of the class

Although I.I.P.C. was designed for the pupils of the experimental groups, as we have already mentioned, it was implemented within groups with all pupils participating in its activities. Being thematically attached to the unit of the particular school lesson, intervention activities were an integral part and a pleasant way to continue and complete the language lesson. They presented an educational alternative that not only was likeable to the pupils but also offered them knowledge in either obvious or subtle ways.

Interviews of all the pupils of the class, that were conducted in small groups by the researcher, indicated that they enjoyed working co-operatively and that the activities were fun. Pupils learned to accept each other by working on group material with all the gains a group activity has to offer. The absence of any remark referring to segregation (of the low achievers) shows that inclusion was accomplished. We quote some of the pupils' words.

"It was fun!"

"Before, lesson was boring, tedious. Now with co-operation we make it simpler."

"The language lesson has changed a lot. It became a feast! Our language lesson seems to have flourished!"

"These activities have given colour to our co-operation. We feel the lesson became more pleasant."

"One of the activities was a board game and that made a great impression to me. It was wonderful!

Conclusion

A classroom may consist of 26 pupils of the same chronological age but this in fact means very little in educational terms. Every person has quite a different personality, synthesis of cognitive abilities and learning style. A teacher must know every possible element of his/hers pupils and for that purpose assessment is a vital step in the educational process.

AthenaTest has come to fill a gap in the field of psychological assessment in Greece, presenting a tool that can be administered by the teacher as well. Every AthenaTest assessment leads to a psycho-diagnostic diagram that represents the cognitive profile of every person. From that point on intervention must follow if it is needed. In many assessment tools the suggested interventions have a private character taking the form of a one to one, teacher - child interaction. Classroom teachers usually do not have the luxury of spare time to accommodate the low achieving pupils with a program that could be implemented on a person to person basis and, since it is unethical to suggest private lessons at home, intervention in the classroom is the next possible solution. What is needed here is an I.I.P.C, an intervention that may be individualised but could also be implemented to the whole class. The implementation of such a program needs the support of a special education teacher who would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the school's provision for children with Special Educational Needs, the support of a Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (Hornby et al., 1995, p. 15). Although the role of the SENCO is well established in the U.K., its implementation in Greece needs further research (Polychronopoulou, 1999; Charoupias, 2000).

Co-operative learning represents an effective way of implementing inclusive schooling for pupils who experience learning difficulties. The demanding task of developing the appropriate material that could benefit all the pupils of the classroom, along with the pupils that experience learning difficulties, was successfully completed by I.I.P.C., presenting a positive outcome and a real alternative for the critical support of teachers (Dyson, 2000, p. 94). The I.I.P.C. offered every pupil opportunities to work in a group, accept all members of the team and be accepted by them, learn in a non-conventional and pleasant way and get motivated for the actual learning experience. I.I.P.C., from the teacher's perspective, presents an easy to implement way of including all pupils to the learning process. Its material was developed to facilitate inclusion and assist general education teachers to meet the diverse needs of pupils at different levels of development within a classroom.

Appendix I

Pre-test - Post-test Measures Comparison (Developmental Ages)

Appendix II

Pre-test - Post-test Measure Comparison (Developmental Quotients)

Appendix III

Pre-test - Post-test Measure Comparison (Developmental Ages)

Appendix IV

Pre-test - Post-test Measure Comparison (Developmental Quotients)

Appendix V

Pre-test - Post-test Measure Comparison (Points of Success)

Appendix VI

Acknowledgements

This study was supported partially by a grant from the State Scholarship Foundation (I.K.Y.) (30th Interior Scholarship Program in Special Education) and by an educational full pay leave from the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religion. My thanks also go to the education officers, the headmaster and the teachers of the 7th Elementary School in Vironas, Athens, and to Mr George Yiotis in particular for his willingness to share his classroom experiences with me.

References

Ainscow Mel (1996) Creating classrooms for all. 2nd Panhellenic Congress of Special Education: A school for all. Co-education of children with and without special needs, 2-4 February, Athens: School of Philosophy, Athens University.

Ainscow Mel, Memmenasha Haile-Giorgis (1999) Educational arrangements for children categorized as having special needs in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14 (2), 103-121.

Ainscow Mel (2000) Reaching Out to All Learners. In Daniels Harry (ed) Special Education Re-formed. Beyond Rhetoric? Chapter 6, Falmer Press.

Brown A.L., Metz K. E., Campione J. C. (1996) Social Interaction and Individual Understanding in a Community of Learners: The Influence of Piaget and Vygotsky. In Tryphon A. and Vonèche J.(eds). Piaget - Vygotsky. The Social Genesis of Thought. Chapter 9. Psychology Press, U.K.

Carter J. F.(1991) REI: What regular educators are saying. In R.B. Rutherford, Jr., S.A. DiGangi & S.R. Mathur (eds) Severe behavior disorders of children and youth, 14, 11-17. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Charoupias A. P. (1999) Case Study. The necessity of using this method in Special Education. Jr School and Life, 12, 444-450, Athens (in Greek).

Charoupias A.P. (1999) Display Boards as a support learning factor for persons with special educational needs in Special Education School Units. Jr. Open School, 73, 26-30. Athens (in Greek).

Charoupias A.P. (2000) The Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator in Greek Special Education: First conclusions from the implementation of a pilot program for the inclusion of a child with hearing impairment in a general school. European Special Education Congress: Trends and Perspectives in the Education of Persons with Special Needs in European Community Today. 12-14 May, Rethymno, Crete, Greece (in Greek).

Creswell J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publicatons.

Croll P. and Moses D. (2000) Ideologies and utopias: Education Professionals' Views of Inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15 (1), 1-12.

Dyson Alan (2000) The Inclusive School. In Daniels Harry (ed) Special Education Re-formed. Beyond Rhetoric? Chapter 5, Falmer Press.

Georgiadis P., Gyftodimos G., Kotsanis Y., Kynigos C. (eds) (1993) Proceedings of the Fourth European Logo Conference. University of Athens, Department of Informatics. 28-31 August, Athens, Greece.

Gersten R., WalkerH. , & Darch C. (1988) Relationship between teacher's effectiveness and their tolerance of handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 433-438

Hornby Garry, Davis Gregan, Taylor Geoff (1997) The Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator's Handbook. A guide for implementing the Code of Practice. Routledge.

Keenan Sandra M. (1997) Program elements that support teachers and students with learning and behavior problems. In Zionts Paul (ed.) Inclusion strategies for students with learning and behavior problems. Perspectives, experiences and best practices (pp.117-138). Pro-ed, U. S. A.

Kirklees Education Advisory Service (1999) Proving Improvement. School Self-Evaluation Pack. U.K.

Kroustalakis S.G. Children with Special Needs. Athens.

Landrum T.J. (1992) Teachers as victims: An interactional analysis of the teacher's role in educating atypical learners. Behavioral Disorders, 17, 188-193.

Mason Jennifer (1996) Qualitative Researching. Sage Publications

Matsagouras I. (1995) Group-centered teaching and learning. Theory and Practice of teaching in groups. Ekdoseis Grigori, Athens (in Greek).

Padeliadu Susana and Lampropoulou Venetta (1997) Attitudes of special and regular education teachers towards school integration. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 12(3), 173-183.

Paraskevopoulos I. N. (1993) Methodology of Scientific Research. Volume 1. Athens.

Paraskevopoulos I.N., Kalantzi-Azizi A., Giannitsas N.D. (1999) AthenaTest for Diagnosis of Learning Difficulties. Psychometric Laboratory. School of Philosophy. Athens University. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Parrilla Angeles, Hernandez Elena and Murillo Paulino (1997) Developing a shared approach to support: a support group case study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 12( 3), 209-224.

Polychronopoulou S. (1999) The Ministry's of Education Educational and Social Policy for the Provision of Special Education Services to Children with Special Educational Needs. Jr. Nea Paideia, 90, 87-103 (in Greek).

Slavin Robert E. (1983) Co-operative Learning. Longman Inc.

Tsiplitaris A.F. (1996) Psychosociology of the Classroom. Athens (in Greek).

Vygotsky L. S. (1962) Thought and Language. The M.I.T. Press. Cambridge.

Vygotsky L.S. (1997) Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes. Gutenberg, Athens (Greek translation).

Webber Jo (1997) Responsible inclusion: Key components for success. In Zionts Paul (ed.) Inclusion strategies for students with learning and behavior problems. Perspectives, experiences and best practices (Chapter 2). Pro-ed, U.S.A.

Xeromeritou A. (1997) Special Education: Theoretical Principles - Research Data and Educational Intervention. University of Patras Publications (in Greek).

Index