I could have written this blog about any school system, but I work at
Bangor University in Wales, our research team has carried out education
research (especially in special education in Wales), and there is some debate
in Wales this week about using technology to deliver educational outcomes for
young children. Follow this link for a BBC news story about increased reading
skills and self esteem in children working using tablet devices in their
educational environment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22816389
Others have already asked what exactly is the evidence for the outcomes
discussed in the story. It is not clear if a controlled research comparison has
been conducted (let alone a gold standard randomised controlled trial
evaluation), and almost certainly we do not know (if there are indeed proven
positive outcomes) which active ingredient led to any effects. The teaching is
delivered using tablet devices and the changes seem to have been attributed to
the technology. However, it seems clear that there is a peer teaching element
involved, perhaps any instruction delivered via computers as teaching machines
is more consistent and directly available to every child than is typical in a
classroom, and almost any new initiative can be driven forward by enthusiastic
teachers and/or children? So, if there are positive outcomes, there may be many
explanations and it matters what the explanation is if we are to understand the
implications for Welsh education.
My point is not to be grumpy and critical in this blog (although there
are clearly many unanswered questions). However, Welsh Government minister for
education Leighton Andrews AM has suggested in the media that all schools in
Wales can learn from the tablet-based education work in the Swansea area. First
point is that such a recommendation is unwarranted until we know WHETHER the
teaching approach works, and then HOW it works (what is actually the active
ingredient). The remainder of this blog is designed to make a couple of other
points.
A cautionary tale
Over a period of five years, a research and practitioner team from the
School of Psychology at Bangor University (myself, Dr Carl Hughes, Dr Corinna
Grindle, Maria Saville) worked with other colleagues and in partnership with
Westwood School in Flintshire and both Flintshire and Wrexham education
authorities to develop and evaluate a comprehensive educational model for young
children (Keystage 1) with autism. We took evidence from the existing research
literature on educational approaches for children with autism, especially
comprehensive behavioural models (see one of my other blogs for a summary - http://profhastings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/autism-and-evidence-4-does-aba-work-for.html)
Our main task was to use this evidence and to translate it in two main
ways. First, much of the existing research evidence focused on home-based or
specialist clinic-based early behavioural educational intervention. We were
working in a school setting, and a mainstream one at that. Second, no existing
research focused on how the behavioural model could be dovetailed with the
requirements of a national curriculum and a broader education system. I cannot
pretend that this translation was easy, but the behavioural intervention team,
teachers and classroom assistants, the school, and the education authorities
pulled together to make it work. Although we drew on much of the existing
evidence-base and the intervention approaches developed elsewhere, two
considerable changes were made to what had gone before: an emphasis on
mainstream educational integration for all of the young children with autism,
and an exercise to match the evidence-based behavioural curriculum with the
National Curriculum in Wales.
Not only was the practice developed into a model that dovetailed into
the system (thus a great example of translation of evidence-based methods into
practice), but the outcomes for the children with autism were excellent – when
compared with similar children with autism receiving “education as usual”
elsewhere in the UK (see http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/36/3/298.abstract).
This research has proved popular – it is currently the fourth most read paper
from the journal in which it was published over the past 12 months. So, someone
likes it.
The practice and research team were also able to develop new practice
and carry out evaluation of this practice to contribute to the evidence base.
An excellent example is a paper we wrote that is now available online and will
be published later this year: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1364/abstract.
This project focused on adjusting an evidence-based mainstream online reading
programme for children with autism and evaluating outcomes. The children with
autism gained up to 3 years of reading age over online
reading instruction period (sounds just as impressive as the Swansea data,
right?!). This is not a controlled research study, but the point is that
practice and evidence was being developed, and also within the spirit of the
mainstream provision. Thus, the reading instruction used a mainstream
evidence-based programme; not one developed specially for children with autism.
What has happened to this Westwood school autism provision now?
Unfortunately, the education authorities decided to close it down (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-14331574).
The cautionary tale is that evidence of outcomes is clearly not enough
for excellent practice to survive in the Welsh education system. Even the
experience of taking existing evidence-based practices and translating them to
be delivered within the existing education system is not enough. However, it
seems that nice ideas perhaps without strong evidence (in the Swansea tablets
case perhaps) do survive and thrive in the education system.
Although the Westwood school model was closed down, there is a massive
legacy from the project. First, there are still further reports on new
evidence-based practices for children with autism that will be published from
the research over the coming few years. Second, the staff (our University
experts, and also the classroom assistants we trained) have also gone on to
make a big impact elsewhere. For example, special schools in Conwy, Gwynedd,
and Anglesey have been using the online reading programme to teach children
with intellectual disabilities to read; and other schools have evaluated the
numeracy teaching model adapted by the Westwood project team. Third, the
practice and evidence developed at Westwood is being used internationally (in
England, Norway, Switzerland, and France amongst others). Fourth, and most
importantly, the children with autism and their families who were educated by
the Westwood team got a cracking education and learned a great deal of stuff
whilst they were there. I hope that it has continued to make a difference to
their lives.
Some priorities for the future
I hope that this blog doesn’t come over like a whinge about the closure
of the Westwood autism education project. Of course, we are disappointed that
the project was closed down. However, it has sent ripples of positive practice
and great outcomes for disabled children all around the world. So, Wales can be
truly proud that a small nation can do things sometimes to make a difference
across the world (thanks to Wayne Crocker of Mencap Cymru for that “quote”
today, but in a different context – I’ve just borrowed it).
What can Welsh Government do to ensure that evidence-based practice in
education in Wales gets rolled out within the education system?
First, it is clearly important that there are ways to recognise
excellent work that actually comes with strong evidence. The Westwood autism
project is an example – the model and evidence is good enough outside Wales, so
why not within? Are education experts just not aware that the data are there
and that people have already developed a translational model that has been
proven to work? I imagine that this applies to other research evidence of
practices within the Welsh education system – that good evidence is simply not
being used.
Second, there probably does need to be a stronger evidence culture
within Welsh education (and in most other education systems – this is not just
about Wales). This is needed at a number of levels. Policy makers may need to
develop more of an understanding of how evidence works and how important
evidence is. Teachers and schools also need to take some responsibility to
understand evidence, how it is produced, and its limitations and strengths.
This can start with the initial training of teachers, but it is an ongoing
professional development issue. Finally, teachers need the tools to be able to
evaluate what they do day-to-day within their classroom to ask “is what I am
doing working FOR THIS CHILD?”. Such tools exist using ongoing simple data
collection in the classroom, and are taught on the Applied Behavioural Analysis
postgraduate programmes at Universities in Wales (at Bangor – Dr Carl Hughes is
the programme director, and the University of South Wales – Dr Jenn Austin is
programme director). Another Wales strength – so make use of it!
