Kay Shanahan, Keith Topping and Judy Bamford
This paper describes a collaborative project designed to promote inclusion, operated between one class in a special school for children with severe learning difficulties and many children in a mainstream primary school. It involved, on both sites, structured cross-school, cross-ability reciprocal peer tutoring in Makaton and mathematics. Evaluation in cognitive, social and affective domains was carried out employing naturalistic observation.
Social inclusion initiatives for children with severe learning difficulties developed apace and showed great promise through the 1980s. For instance, many special schools made arrangements to 'twin' with local mainstream schools, in the hope that shared experiences would offer a wider range of stimulation and modelling to the exceptional children and broaden the awareness of the mainstream children.
However, it was not always easy to structure these shared experiences so that they were mutually productive - merely 'being there' was hardly true integration. As the financial climate in education worsened and teachers in mainstream and special schools struggled to cope with the National Curriculum and the torrent of other changes, such initiatives were increasingly in danger of being treated as a low priority.
Fortunately teachers are remarkably resilient. Worthwhile enterprises continued to develop and attitudes on all sides became still more open (Carpenter, Moore & Lindoe, 1991). Meanwhile special schools themselves undertook a drive towards curricular 'normalisation', as they strove to relate the National Curriculum framework to the special needs of their pupils.
In the mathematics area, this latter movement resulted in a number of useful publications, such as those from East Sussex County Council (1990), Robbins (1991), Manchester Teacher Fellows (1993) and Sebba, Byers & Rose (1993). In this context, interest grew in the use of mathematical games, since children with learning difficulties seemed above all others to need to learn mathematical c oncepts in an interactive, experiential way. The work of Roy McConkey & Dorothy Jeffree has been seminal in this field (McConkey & Envoy, 1986a, 1986b; McConkey, 1987; Jeffree, 1989).
Partially as a reflection of the increasing demands to 'do more with less', interest in peer tutoring as a structured vehicle for promoting interactive and cooperative learning has also grown in recent years (Topping & Ehly, 1998; Topping, 2001a). Research evidence has accumulated on the effective involvement of special needs pupils as both tutees and tutors (Osguthorpe & Scruggs, 1990), the latter format serving to underscore the valuing of the individual and his or her unique strengths. Reciprocal peer tutoring has become increasingly common in groups of mainstream pupils (Topping, 1992), but is, as yet, relatively rare with mixed special needs and mainstream groups.
In Highfields special school, almost all classes are 'linked' with a different local mainstream school. In Class 7 there are eight children aged 12 to 14 years who participate in weekly exchange visits with St Patrick's Primary School. One week the Highfields children visit St Patrick's and the next week pupils from St Patrick's visit Highfields. A visit to Highfields typically consists of between 8 and 10 Year 6 primary school children from one of two parallel classes visiting Class 7 for an afternoon. The following week four members of Class 7 go from Highfields to St Patrick's for an afternoon.
The link facilitates social integration on both sides. Fortunately the schools are within walking distance. Teachers from the two schools always meet in September to plan and update the programme for the year. The Class 7 teacher (KS) also gives a talk to Year 6 parents in St Patrick's explaining the programme to them early in the new academic year. The parents have always supported the link.
The primary school pupils are prepared for a visit to Highfields by their own class teacher, through explanation and discussion. During the visits activities are organised and guided by the Class 7 teacher. There are a variety of introductory games (including a musical one) and news is exchanged. The Highfields pupils teach the St Patrick's pupils some Makaton signs to help them communicate whilst in the special school, and practice of Makaton signing usually follows. After a session in the ball pool and refreshments prepared by the hosts, the visitors usually become more settled and confident and begin expressing their curiosity about life in Highfields. The primary pupils assist Class 7 pupils with dressing and choose their partners for playing games.
The following week the Highfields teacher takes four pupils to St Patrick's. They are met in the playground by the host pupils who had visited Highfields the previous week. Afternoon school begins with music in the hall. The Highfields pupils have little difficulty conforming to the organisation and rules of the session. Irrespective of disability, the children then climb two flights of stairs for an exchange of news and free discussion with a whole class. The primary school children feel free to ask further questions and some wish to refresh their understanding of Makaton signs.
The Highfields children then leave the whole class and adjourn to the library with the host pupils. In addition to mathematical games, pairs of pupils use computers and share story books. The host children prepare refreshments at playtime and then everyone goes out into a playground containing over 200 children. After break, activities continue as before. The following week a different set of primary school pupils renew the cycle.
During these interactions, the Highfields pupils are learning to mix with larger and much more varied groups of peers and adults, to cope with different physical environments and make decisions regarding choice of partner, activities and games. They are also exposed to a wide range of behavioural expectations.
During the peer tutoring activities, the Highfields children benefit from a two-to-one tutorial ratio, which is considerably better than most schools can offer. As the linking arrangements are reciprocal, even members of the Highfields class who are not able to cope with a visit to a primary school are able to receive visits from mainstream pupils in the familiar and secure context of their own classroom. The arrangements also mean that the eight primary school pupils who welcome the Highfields pupils to their school develop relationships which are sustained for longer than one brief meeting. As well as developing caring and hospitable attitudes, the primary pupils come to know the limitations and needs of individual Highfields children in some detail.
The primary school teachers feel it is important that their pupils' personal and social education includes contact with those who are perhaps less able intellectually but who, nevertheless, have other valuable skills and personal characteristics. The primary school pupils have learnt Makaton signs very quickly and enjoy using these with their own families as well as with Highfields pupils. The mainstream pupils enjoy the experience of helping, but generally avoid an excess of sentiment or pity and can be quite hard taskmasters. Many of the primary school pupils go on to do topic work or projects on various aspects of disability. There is a mutual exchange of greeting cards at Christmas and Easter. The primary school pupils perform a pantomime in Highfields which is attended by all the pupils. These positive relationships extend into chance meetings out in the local community.
The mathematical games used in this peer tutoring context will now be considered in more detail.
A variety of methods for parental involvement and peer tutoring in basic skills have been developed in the Y UK in recent years (Topping & Wolfendale, 1985; Wolfendale & Topping, 1996). Under the umbrella term Paired Learning, methods such as Paired Reading, Cued Spelling and Paired Writing have been designed (see Topping, 2001b).
'Paired Maths' has also been developed and researched (Topping & Bamford, 1998a,b). Unlike the other Paired methods, is based on specific materials. Kits of mathematical games were assembled for this purpose (Arora, Bamford, Spavin & Vaughey, 1988; Bamford & Topping, 1991a, 1991b). Much of this work involved parental tutoring using mathematical games appropriate to Year 0-2 children in National Curriculum Key Stage 1.
The games were selected to meet a number of criteria. They should be enjoyable, allow equal competition between members of the pair, be easy to understand, encourage discussion and the development of mathematical language, be flexible and allow extension activities, be attractive and well packaged, be inexpensive and not look like 'schoolwork'. They were mostly three dimensional, including a mix of items carefully selected from toyshops and those produced from everyday materials on a 'cottage industry' basis. All posed mathematical problems and required mathematical skills linked to KSI Statements of Attainment. The games were grouped into categories according to the predominant mathematical content: matching/bonds, shape, order, pattern/strategies, conservation and counting.
The results of a study in which the Key Stage I games were used with parent-child pairs at home were most encouraging (Arora & Bamford, 1989; Harrison, 1989). The games were used with a representative group of pupils in mixed-ability classes in mainstream schools and were not specifically targeted on special needs children. Striking gains in confidence in mathematics were evident in many cases - in parents and children alike. Subsequently, further kits of games were developed linked to Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3, with the expectation that these were more likely to be used for peer tutoring in mainstream schools.
Given the Highfields pupils special needs, the Key Stage I kit seemed the most appropriate basis for peer tutoring. A smaller kit especially for this project was created by selecting a cross-section of the games in the standard KSI kit. Criteria for choice included: durability, safety, brevity, manipulability, attractiveness, low distraction, compactness and cohesion of pieces, size, quality of instructions, goal orientation, age appropriateness, multi-sensory aspects and variety of levels of complexity. Subsequently, the whole of the mainstream primary class were allowed to familiarise themselves with the rules and materials of a variety of games and decide which they liked best and which were most feasible for the Highfields children. The most popular and usable games are listed in Table 1.
The mathematical games were played every week in both schools for 20 to 30 minutes. A game would be played by two, three or four pupils depending upon the choice of the pupils themselves and the format of the game.
The primary school children were very fair but firm. They encouraged the Highfields pupils but expected them to participate fully in throwing dice, counting and generally keeping to the rules. They proved very adept at explaining and simplifying the rules where necessary. During the sessions, a great deal of language usage was evident, mathematical vocabulary being introduced, explained and reinforced by the primary school pupils. Words like 'more', less', and so forth began to appear more frequently in the vocabulary of the Highfields pupils. All of the pupils laughed a great deal, and the Highfields pupils thoroughly enjoyed the one-to-one attention and the element of competition, since, of course, the aspect of random chance in many games meant anyone could win or lose.
During these sessions, many of the Highfields pupils showed entirely different facets of personality. Some hitherto rather passive pupils became much more lively, extrovert and interested. Pupils who were usually quiet became more verbal. Others proved surprisingly quick to learn. A socially withdrawn child became more responsive to other children.
The primary school pupils also benefited, and often it was the less able primary school child who shone in this situation. Some were initially very shy, but all were interested and very willing. Teachers from both schools came to see their pupils in a different light. In addition, special school pupils and staff were kept in contact, not only with mainstream children, but, also with mainstream teachers.
As the weeks went by, the Highfields pupils learnt increasingly sophisticated skills, both specific and general. For example, improvements in specific skills of matching and ordering were paralleled with development in general skills such as turn-taking. Preferences for individual games became more clearly defined. In some games, the playing pieces were still too small to hold and too difficult to manipulate. The variety of games available meant that boredom did not set in and pupils were quick to discard the less popular games.
Subjective evaluation, based on teacher observation, included gains in the cognitive, social and affective domains. However, it would be difficult indeed to evaluate in quantitative terms the full range of outcomes for either set of pupil participants. Many variables were in operation and the ascription of particular gains to specific causative factors would prove problematic. Attempts to separate out the impact of individual factors by quasi-experiments would risk destroying the organic effectiveness of the whole.
The value of the total scheme in terms of social interaction, language development, skill learning and sheer enjoyment was obvious to the teachers during the sessions. For Highfields pupils, the scheme made accessible many games which were previously considered beyond their competence. Some gains were observed to generalise across time and space. Some Highfields pupils can now play some of the games with a fellow Highfields classmate under only minimum supervision.
Highfields pupils learned a great deal of mathematical language and, along the way, acquired a certain amount of reading sight vocabulary, for instance discrimination between yes and no on dice, start and finish on a board, and so on. Levels of concentration on games increased considerably. Perhaps the most telling indicator was the frequent requests to the class teacher to play mathematical games at other times.
Certainly well-organised reciprocal peer tutoring can be recommended as a positive framework for truly integrationist experiences. Given wider use of this methodology, more quantitative evaluation research should become possible.
With thanks to the following: Kathy Bradley and Chris Sutcliffe from St Patrick's RC J & I School; David Howson, John Shipman and other participating staff from Highfields School, and the staff of Tumshaws Special School, Kirklees.
Arora, T., Bamford, J., Spavin, L. and Vaughey, S. (1988) Multiplying Attainments Through Home Support: MATHS Project Handbook. Huddersfield: Kirklees Psychological Service.
Arora, T. and Bamford, J. (1989) Multiplying Attainments Through Home Support: Parent Involvement In Maths. Paired Learning, 5, 9-47.
Bamford, J. and Topping, K. (1991a) Mathematics Games Kit: Level Two: Key Stage 2. Huddersfield: Kirklees Psychological Service.
Bamford, J. and Topping, K. (1991b) Mathematics Games Kit: Level Three: Key Stage 3. Huddersfield: Kirklees Psychological Service.
Carpenter, B., Moore, J. and Lindoe, S. (1991) Changing Attitudes. In C. Tilstone (Ed.) Teaching Pupils with Severe Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton.
East Sussex County Council (1990) Does it Add Up?: National Curriculum Guidelines for Severe learning Difficulty Schools. Hove: East Sussex LEA.
Harrison, P. (1989) Numbers game. Times Educational Supplement, February 17.
Jeffree, D. M. (1989) Let Me Count. London: Souvenir Press.
McConkey, R. (1987) Interaction: The name of the game. In B. Smith (Ed), Interactive Approaches to the Education of Children with Severe Learning Difficulties. Birmingham: Westhill College.
McConkey, R. and Envoy, J. (1986a) Count Me In. Dublin: St Michael's House.
McConkey, R. and Envoy, J. (1986b) Games for learning to count. British Journal of Special Education 13, 2, 59-62.
Manchester Teacher Fellows (1993) Mathematics For All. London: David Fulton.
Osguthorpe, R. T. and Scruggs, T. E. (1990) Special Education Students As Tutors: A Review And Analysis. In S. Goodlad and B. Hirst (Eds) Explorations in Peer Tutoring. Oxford: Blackwell.
Robbins, B. (1991) Mathematics for all. In R. Ashdown et al. (Eds) The Curriculum Challenge: Access to the National Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: Palmer Press.
Sebba, J., Byers, R. and Rose, R. (1993) Redefining the Whole Curriculum for Pupils with Learning Difficulties. London: David Fulton.
Topping, K. J. (1992) Cooperative Learning And Peer Tutoring: An Overview. The Psychologist, 5 (4), 151-61.
Topping, K. J. (2001a). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge MA: Brookline Books.
Topping, K. J. (2001b). Thinking reading writing: A practical guide to paired learning with peers, parents & volunteers. New York & London: Continuum International.
Topping, K. J. and Bamford, J. (1998a). The paired maths handbook: Parental involvement and peer tutoring in mathematics. London: Fulton; Bristol PA: Taylor & Francis.
Topping, K. J. and Bamford, J. (1998b). Parental involvement and peer tutoring in mathematics and science: Developing paired maths into paired science. London: Fulton; Bristol PA: Taylor & Francis.
Topping, K. J. and Ehly, S. (Eds.) (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah NJ & London UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Topping, K. J. and Wolfendale, S. W. (Eds) (1985) Parental Involvement in Children's Reading. London: Croom Helm; New York: Nichols.
Wolfendale, S. W. and Topping, K. J. (Eds.) (1996). Family involvement in literacy: Effective partnerships in education. London & New York: Cassell.
This paper was originally published as:
Shanahan, K., Topping, K. J., and Bamford, J. (1994). Cross-school reciprocal peer tutoring of mathematics and Makaton with children with severe learning difficulty. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22 (3), 109-112.