PurposeThis research evaluates the impact of training on educational staff attitudes, sentiments, concerns, and efficacy in providing support for children with Autism in mainstream settings. Design/methodology/approachThe investigation adopted a pre-test/post-test, quasi-experimental, within-subject research design. Thirty-five early years educators, teachers and pupil support assistants from one Scottish Local Authority (LA) undertook training delivered by the LA's Communication and Language Outreach Service. Measures included the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale and the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale pre and posttraining. Post-training participants completed a questionnaire employing open and closed questions to assess perceived usefulness of training, application of knowledge, and effectiveness of the teaching strategies. FindingsCombining data from the three sectors there was a significant change in staff efficacy for inclusive practices (Z = -3.406, p = 0.001, p < 0.05, with a medium effect size r = 0.41) although there were differences between the sectors. There was a significant change in SACIE-R total scores (Z = -3.945, p = 0.000, p < 0.05; with a medium effect size r = 0.47), sentiments (Z = -2.763, p = 0.006, p < 0.05; with a medium effect size r = 0.33) and concerns (Z = -3.685, p = 0.000, p < 0.05; with a medium effect size of r = 0.44) subscale scores for the combined sector data. There was no significant change in the attitudes subscale scores for the combined sector data (Z = -1.106, p = 2.69, p > 0.05; with a small effect size r = 0.13) although there were differences between the sectors. Research limitationsLimitations include: small sample size, minor differences in the training in different sectors, purposeful sampling, use of questionnaire post training, variability of completion of SCAIE-R and TEIP post training Originality/value There appears to be limited research into inclusive practices for children with Autism in the UK context, which this study aims to address.
Introduction. Children’s social and emotional wellbeing is associated with subsequent academic achievement and behavioural outcomes, as well as functioning in later life. Nurturing approaches are one way of developing such wellbeing. Whole-school approaches to nurturing have been discussed in the literature, but no studies of any quality have evaluated effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether whole-school nurturing had any effect on children’s wellbeing from the perceptions of pupils, parents and teachers. Method. The present study in primary (elementary) schools is controlled, has follow-up, and multiple perspectives from teachers, parents and pupils. Pupils (n=322) from Years/Grades 1, 3 and 4 (aged 6, 8 and 9) (Years limited by school staff time availability) in three intervention and three control schools and their parents and teachers participated over two years. On a pre-post basis, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was used with teachers and parents and the Stirling Children’s Wellbeing Scale (SCWS) with pupils. Results. On the SDQ for Teachers, the pre-post Total Difficulties scores and the Prosocial scores were significantly better for the intervention than the control group. On the SDQ for Parents, both intervention and control groups improved, and there was no difference. On the SCWS for Children, again both intervention and control groups improved, and there was no difference. Discussion and Conclusion. The nurturing intervention group was significantly better than controls according to the perceptions of Teachers, but for parents and children both intervention and control groups improved. A number of recommendations for future research were made, and implications for practitioners and policy-makers outlined.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.