Essay: Enhancing SLCN learning in SEND children through music intervention

The aim of this Action Research study was to investigate whether selected early years pupils in Foundation Stage (FS), with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), would experience any impact on their speech, language and communication (SLC) skills through a music intervention.
Context and position
School M (pseudonym) is a four-form entry school, with 870 children on role. 89% of pupils speak a language other than English, compared to the national average of 20.8%, with more pupils than usual joining the school at the very early stages of learning to speak English (Appendix 1), making School M a diverse community. The proportion of SEND in school M is 2.2%, which is 0.6% lower than the national average of 2.9% (Appendix 1). There is a total of 94 full time employed staff, in which 48 are teachers and 29 are Teaching Assistants (TA) or Learning Support Assistants (LSA) (Appendix 1).
I am the Music Leader and Specialist, as well as a Planning, Preparation and Assessment (PPA) cover teacher across all phases from Reception to Key Stage two. Music classes are taught once every fortnight to each year group, approximately eighteen times a year.
How might this affect your research approach?
As my research is being conducted within my school, I will assume the position of an insider researcher. This will be beneficial as I already know and have secure relationships with all the participants (Costley, 2007). I know the institution well, having worked there for six years, and will know the structure needed to conduct and implement the research. The research will be small-scale and the disposition of the investigation will be specific, as it aims to suggest something new in a current practice (Costley, 2007). The research follows a cyclical pattern based on an Action Research model. The focus of the investigation was based on children who had already or were in the process of being diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As this group of children had great need in their speech, language and communication (SLC), their Learning Support Assistants (LSA) which accompanied them, as one-to-ones, were used to provide feedback about their behaviours and share details and progresses made, if any. The participants were chosen by a subject that I and the Special Education Needs Coordinator (SENCO) believed they would be sufficiently motivated by and engage with, which was music. The LSA’s were trained by me, a participant observer, in music intervention sessions so I could demonstrate and model structure and expectations. A lead LSA was put in charge to run the main sessions with the children without me present.
What is the problem that needs to be solved?
Children should gain a full and rounded experience of all curricular activities offered in an educational institution such as a school. Given the government’s initiative to promote preparedness for life in 2014 (OFSTED, 2014), it relies on schools providing all children every opportunity to participate in all educational activities, including non-core subjects such as music. I was concerned that the SEND pupils were not as involved or having access to the same experiences as their peers, as they were continuously missing music lessons, inferring that a system of inequality exists. It also put into question, the value the institution places on music and the value and impact of this within children’s education.
The rationale for this study was based on the observation that children with SEND were not joining music lessons, as they attended other interventions at the same time, therefore missing a clear majority of music lessons throughout the year. School M believes in inclusion for all students, based on their inclusion policy, yet this particular group of children were consistently missing out on their music education.
Extensive research has shown the impact of music and speech, language and communication (SLC) therapy, such as Wiseman (2015), Farnell (2015) and Simpson and Keen (2011), however, there seems to be little research on music interventions (MI). This study aims to focus on music and whether there are any enhancements or improvements to the SLC of SEND children through a MI.
The decision to focus on children from Foundation Stage (FS) is based on the existing body of research that suggests early intervention is beneficial to the development of any child. Feldman (2004) considers early intervention crucial as it can prevent or reverse developmental issues within a child. Similarly, Jones (2006) believes that early intervention is key when working with children with SEND. This will be explored further in the literature chapter.
What are you aiming to achieve through your research?
The music portion of the National Curriculum (NC) was reduced from a thirty plus page booklet, to one page in the new 2014 curriculum. This appeared to be a metaphor for the value placed on a seemingly important subject. The fundamental part of the new NC that stood out as a music teacher, is the first line in the “Purpose of Study” segment that states that ‘Music is a universal language that embodies one of the highest forms of creativity. A high-quality music education should engage and inspire pupils to develop…’ (DFE, 2014). However, that is highly unlikely to happen if schools do not place an emphasis on the subject and students do not attend the lesson.
The purpose of conducting this research is to determine whether or not a MI will provide opportunity to assess whether music promotes learning and generates any further speech, language and communication in children who have a need. This study is not about musical ability or improvement within the music curriculum, but a way of using a motivational and engaging subject to improve a learning need.
The importance of running such a study could lead to further development within the school and education system, in growing the prominence of music as a learning tool, not just playing instruments and singing, but through intervention, to help motivate and enhance speech, language and communication in children with SEND.
My belief is that music is important and crucial for a young person’s identity (Odena, 2009). Music is a universal connector which is powerful for individuals as well as communities (Hallam, 2010). Music in school generates a way of thinking creatively, developing skills that can be transferable in other contexts of life like active listening and performing. In my opinion, music is far less about singing and more about an education tool that can be used in a way that maths and English cannot necessarily be used.
Research question
Several questions were asked of this study, but the key focus will be to examine the following:
What is the impact, if any, of early years music intervention on children’s speech language and communication needs (SLCN)?
To consider factors for progress within speech language and communication, I have broken down the research question into three sub-questions to answer the research question.
a. How does a one-to-one/group music intervention framework affect SEND (SLCN-ASD) students’ SLC behaviour patterns within a specific mainstream school setting?
b. within and outside the intervention room?
c. What is the role of feedback, motivation and engagement on children’s SLC behaviour patterns?
History of inclusion
When referring to inclusion in educational settings, it is often meant for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Although perceptions began to change in 1880 around SEND, the concept of inclusion was not a prime focus until The Warnock Report (1978) which centred around the integration of SEN in mainstream schools where possible. By 1994 The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) changed the focus of integration to inclusion. The difference between reports is that the responsibility is placed on the school as opposed to the emphasis being on the need the child has. This also means that it encourages community, facing up to inequitable perspectives and creating a more all-encompassing society. Inclusion in contrast, is more complex in the services being offered in mainstream school. It is expected that children with SEND are planned for, supported and accommodated for within the same learning environment as a mainstream child (Vitello and Mithaug, 2013).
The current SEND code of practice (COP) (DFE, 2014) recognises that there should be high quality teaching, putting more emphasis on the teacher’s responsibility for the learning within the classroom that there had not been before. However, it does not further clarify what inclusion should look like within an educational setting. I believe that parents should have a voice when it comes to educational decisions for their children, nevertheless, teachers and educational practitioners are trained and have experience in what is necessary for the optimum educational development in school and therefore I believe that schools should have a final stance about the children with SEND that attend their school. This is as a result of some schools not having the correct training, facilities or provision of the children that go to the school, often as a result of lack of ‘funding dedicated to SEND children which has also been frozen for several years putting council budgets under increasing pressure at a time when there is already a squeeze on funding’ (Pells, 2017). The possible issue with the SEND COP (2014), is perhaps its lack of clarity in defining what inclusion is.
Definition of Inclusion
Different theories exist in the literature regarding the definition of inclusion. Ainscow et al (2006) explains that are varying definitions, some descriptive, some prescriptive and none founded on one perspective, within a country or school. Similarly, Makoelle (2014) believes that there is a global confusion about the definition, perception and concept of what inclusion is. Therefore, by lack of definition there are different practices that take place in many educational settings worldwide (Makoelle, 2014).
Although there are varying and differing definitions, the following definitions of inclusion have been chosen for this research. Peters (2007) defines inclusion as the ‘right of all individuals…with equal opportunity…meaning more than physical integration…within a flexible curriculum, adequately prepared teachers and a…community culture that goes beyond tolerance to acceptance.’
This definition infers a sense of justice for those who have a special need. The concept of equality being a right, as opposed to something that is awarded to a person is emphasised in Peters (2007) definition, as he suggests clearly that inclusion is more than just mixing children together. In my current school setting I have seen the physical integration of children with special educational needs (SEND) confused with inclusion. This is often seen when a child with SEND is forced to integrate in a mainstream activity or lesson even though there is no consideration to the learning happening by the child with SEND. Frequently, it comes to mind that as an educator we fail the children by failing to treat them as individuals, not groups or sects of children.
My argument with Peters 2007 definition however, is that children do not have equal opportunities. Farrell (20) proposes that being a mainstream member of a class is not going to have an equal opportunity to learn the same information at the same level, verses a child who has an educational difficulty or need. He goes on to express that it would be unrealistic for a teacher to teach or assess both children on the same work, who have different needs (Farrell). I would argue that children need equity within the classroom not equality. UNICEF’S definition of equity supports Farrell’s notion of equity not equality. Equity involves guaranteeing all children’s rights to education, and their rights within and through education to recognise their abilities and ambitions (UN Girls’ Initiative, 2010). Equity ‘requires implementing and institutionalizing’ provisions that help ensure all children can achieve these aims (as above p.3 2010)
The second definition that resonates with my personal belief, is by the DfES (2004) who assert that inclusion is about the quality of a child’s experience and how they are supported in their learning. This is crucial as it takes into consideration the need(s) of each child but, not allowing the need(s) to be the sole focus of the child.
The topic of inclusion has seemingly been a governmental focus, due to the implementation of the Inclusion Development Plan, initiated by the government in 2008, to help support practitioners in providing a high-quality education for children with SEND in educational settings. The reason for this programme may have been because of the contentions with the definition and consequently, practitioners not knowing how to support children with SEND and what that may look like within the classroom. However, this document is no longer used in schools since the new SEND code of practice in 2014, suggesting that perhaps inclusion is no longer a focal point for the government and in turn educational institutions.
Klibthong (2012) claims there are four main models of inclusion: full, cluster, reverse and social. Full inclusion focuses on the immersion of all children, those with needs or not, into a program, service or in this case an intervention. The cluster model is a group of children with additional needs who join in a program that operates alongside a mainstream program. The reverse inclusion model is a few mainstream children contributing in a program that largely supports children with additional needs and the social inclusion model is children with SEND who are accommodated for in a specific setting and come together with ‘typically’ progressing children at times for social experiences. Klibthong’s (2012) research explores the idea of schools having a full inclusion model, which means adapting cultures, practices, values and beliefs. The concern I have is, whether schools implement full inclusion at all. Different models are useful for different times however a full inclusion model should be at the centre of a school’s ethos. Furthermore, what that looks like in practice for every institution and practitioner is arduous to measure. Within my research I have used the full inclusion model to demonstrate how a full inclusion model can be used within an educational setting, and hopefully encourage School M to implement this full inclusion in other aspects of the school.
Social model of disability
Two models that are often highlighted when focussing on inclusion is the medical and social model. The medical model is based on the language and concepts of medical frameworks in an educational setting (Trussler and Robinson, 2015). This model of thinking is based on the disability rather than the person. The second model is the social model. This deals with the environment of a learner, the attitudes towards the learner and curriculum play a role in the learner’s abilities. Odena (2009, p.1) states that social inclusion is the opportunity for young children to have a non-discriminatory and equal chance to access resources and services which aid their development and well-being. When viewed through the perspective of the social model children with SEND are more likely to experience positive experiences and outcomes (Trussler and Robinson, 2015).
The social model which states that a person’s disability is valued on the social constructs around disability, that makes it problematic, not the child or the disability itself. The medical model places its emphasis on the disability whereas the social model highlights the societal perspectives of disability. The social model is an advocate for those who have been oppressed by the political views of society (Shakespeare and Watson, 2010). The viewpoint of the social model is to look at the environment, teaching styles, curriculum and approaches that may be the barrier to learning (Trussler and Robinson, 2015). A criticism of this model is that it can minimise the medical diagnoses and cause practitioners to overlook labels which can be supportive and helpful in gaining more support and resources (Riddick, 2012).
In my opinion however, the best way to operate is in a balanced way, using both models. The focus should be about the development and progress of the child (Trussler and Robinson, 2015). The medical model is useful for a researcher to explore what has been previously investigated, but in conjunction with the social model the researcher could explore the environment for the child. If both are implemented the child should have the best outcome.
Learning socially
Klibthong (2012) states that inclusive education must give all children the opportunity to ‘co-construct knowledge with teachers rather than being assimilators of packaged knowledge’ (Klibthong, p.72 ,2012). My argument would be that children with SEND should be given the opportunity to co-construct knowledge with their peers, parents and resources. Children with SEND should not be limited to the opportunity to learn within a modern-day classroom, which are often modelled on a social-constructivism framework.
Social-constructivism (SC) is similar to constructivism, both being child-centred, but SC is the ability of creating knowledge through collaboration and interaction with others and the use of dialogue to build knowledge (Watkins, 2007). As explained by Pritchard (2009), both current and prior knowledge are involved in dialogue. He also highlights that learning occurs in a variety of places, not just in educational settings and social interactions with anyone, can lead to a learning opportunity (Pritchard, 2009). Mercer’s (1995) social constructivist views are clear in his approach towards dialogue in the construction of knowledge. He is clear that as well as dialogue being key, having clear goals, contextualisation and structure are key also. Wray and Lewis (1997 in Pritchard) state there are four components to effective teaching in SC; enough prior knowledge to learn new information, interaction socially, meaningful contexts and metacognition. The issue with this theory is that it is centred around mainstream children who do not have needs with their speech, language or communication (SLC). Watkins’ (2007) describes quality learning with dialogue and creating knowledge collaboratively, however the children within this research are not able to do that. Dialogue is a large part of social constructivism in a mainstream classroom with mainstream children. The children used within this research are unable to work collaboratively or socially, they have very limited prior knowledge due to their specific SEND and are inept in communication. What is not clear here, is the expectations of what social constructivism looks like with children who have SEND, particularly pertaining to a SCL need. As inclusion is so fundamental in the modern classroom, it is interesting that within this way of teaching there has not been a consideration that there are different levels of needs and social constructivism may not help within a mixed ability classroom, particularly that with SEND children in it. It also highlights how important SLC is within education and society. Without a competent grasp of SLC, learning could present itself as being a large barrier to learning.
Speech language and communication
Speech language and communication needs (SLCN) became a large focus in 2008 when the government created the four-year inclusion development programme (IDP) which was a strategy for leadership teams and practitioners to support children with SEN from early years to secondary school (The National strategies, 2008). The programme intended to address the concerns over speech language and communication (SLC) skills that practitioners had observed within school settings. The strategy placed an emphasis on equality of opportunity for children five and below and focused on the ability to be alert to early signs of need and support to reduce later difficulties (EYFS stat framework).
Children need a good foundation of SLC to be able to become competent readers and writers, in which schools should be developing their own methods for the improvement of SLC (National strategies, 2008). There are various reasons as to why children may develop SLCN such as: ear infections, a specific learning difficulty, genetics or lack of stimulation and support. Hart and Risley (1995) believe that vocabulary growth is powerfully affected by how much dialogue parents have with their children. They found that children from parents who had a profession gained vocabulary at a quicker rate than children in working class or families who were on government funding. Hart and Risley (1995) also discovered that children from professional families heard a higher proportion of praise than their working class and government-funded counterparts. Similarly, Wasik, Bond and Hindsman (2006) support the idea that many children raised in poverty have restricted contact with opportunities to acquire and deepen language and literacy skills.
This is evident from Whitehurst and Lonigan, (1998) study where they found that children who arrived in year one (5 years old) with an underpinning in preliteracy skills, interest and motivation to learn, were better prepared to engage in the complex task of learning to read, in comparison to children whose foundational skills were scarce or absent altogether.
However, ‘for most children there is no clear cause’ for SLCN (The national strategies, 2008 p.9) Hence, early intervention is paramount. According to Farnell (2015), due to the nature of speech and language being a developmental issue, early and persistent intervention that accelerates development is essential. Likewise, Campbell & Ramey (1994 in Wasik) affirm the positive impact an intensive early intervention program can have on ‘children’s reading achievement and general cognitive ability’ (Campbell & Ramey, 1994 in Wasik 2006 p.64)
The Bercow report (2008) also addresses the importance for early intervention, maintaining the importance and value there should be on recognising a child’s difficulty early on and then tending to it to support both the child and family. The report states that children with inadequate early language skills at five years old, are four times more likely than their counterparts to have weak reading levels at age 11 (I CAN 2017).
The model that is often used in speech therapy is the language development pyramid which describes the language progression of a child.
The initial stage of communication is commenced from birth however the accumulation of these skills differs from child to child. The first stage, attention and listening is the ability for a child to be able to physically hear, and listen and pay attention to language. These skills need to be in place before language is acquired. Attention is a skill which matures from birth and is the ability to look and listen to what people are saying or doing (http://www.coventrychildrensslt.co.uk/families.html).
Children learn about communication through playing with toys and people and so they need the opportunity to play. Play has a specific order of development. There is ‘exploratory play’, which helps babies learn about the physical properties of objects. ‘Functional play’ is where toys are used intended for their purpose, before progressing to ‘pretend / symbolic play’ where children learn that an object can be used to represent something else. Once children can do this they also comprehend the idea that words can symbolise real things, therefore making links between words and objects.
Social skills are also developed through play. Through play children learn to pursue others, share, collaborate, alternate turns and negotiate through playing with others (http://www.ckspeechtherapy.com/speech-language-development-further-information).
Understanding Language, also known as receptive language is the ability for children to process and understand words, sentences and conversations. This enables them to make sense of the world. At this stage it includes comprehending and following instruction and answering questions (Sullivan, 2016). With a solid foundation of listening and attention and play skills, children will improve their understanding of language. Often young children can comprehend a lot more than they can vocally.
Expressive language is a child’s ability to organise thoughts into words and sentences, in a way that is coherent and is grammatically accurate (Sullivan, 2015). At this stage children are learning how to talk, using words and then sentences to communicate their message and join in conversations. Often single words are said and then children move on to join two words together and build on from there (coventrychildrensslt.co.uk).
At the peak of the pyramid is speech which includes pronunciation, skills and fluency of speech. At this point children develop their skill of different speech sounds, so they can be understood by others. (http://www.coventrychildrensslt.co.uk/families.) Some children continue to develop speech sounds up until the age of seven and some have difficulties with words as they are talking. Children might repeat or elongate words or sounds. Occasionally, children can have a ‘block’ when trying to say a word or sound and the sound does not come out. These difficulties in fluency are often known as a stammer or stutter. Difficulties with any type of speech and language should be referred to a SLCN therapist who is trained and experienced to manage fluency difficulties (http://www.ckspeechtherapy.com/speech-language-development-further-information).
This model of SLC, although used by music therapists is a model that I have chosen to use to base my assessment of the participants within the study. This will be explained further in the assignment.
SLCN and Music
A vast amount of research into SLCN and music is based on children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Although one out of the four children this research was conducted on had been statemented with autism, the rest of the group were not at the beginning of the research. Since then, one child was diagnosed as having ASD and the other two were awaiting their diagnoses. The level of literature based on SLCN on children with ASD also highlights the limited research on music and SLCN independent of autism or another SEND. Wiseman (2015) explains that interventions produced for children with ASD would address areas of difficulty- specifically social interaction, communication, comprehension and imagination. I would argue that any intervention created for any child that has a difficulty, is crafted with those specificities in mind. Although every child deserves to be treated as an individual and their education shaped around the individual need, the outcome of teaching children with any SEND should be the same (Bercow, 2008). Every educator should be providing children, with or without SEND, the best possible education to give them a head start in life and prepare them for their future. The following literature is based on how music and SLCN is addressed in children with ASD.
Odena (2010) states that musical activities have benefits such as developing verbal memory, motor control and emotional and communication skills. Music therapy has also been said to improve social and communication skills, especially with children on the autistic spectrum. Similarly, Wiseman (2015) believes that music can address some of the issues children with SEND can have such as social interaction, communication, emotional responsiveness, imagination and rigidity of thought. She considers that building interventions based on interests can develop a better life. Kirschner and Tomasello (2010) propose that music and dance are effective tools for constructing positive collective experiences causing a feeling of community and bonding between children. Farnell (2015) suggests that there is a connection between music and language. Both have structures that need to be adhered to, pitch in both speech and music and memory and attention. However, the criticisms of research based on SLCN and music, is the clear shortage of unanimity about their effectiveness (Wiseman, 2015). Gold et al (2006) research on ‘gestural and verbal communicative skills’ during a music provision although providing some evidence of positive development of skill, is criticised for its generalisations and lack of follow up after the intervention (Simpson and Keen, 2011). Often it is found that participants or groups are small as found in Simpson and Keen’s 2010 study, using only three young children (Simpson and keen, 2011). In 2004, Whipple conducted a meta-analysis of music and ASD finding that music was an effective intervention, however her study was heavily founded on ‘unpublished manuscripts, with only three articles published in peer reviewed journals being included’ (Simpson and Keen, p.1508, 2011), which suggests that the topic of SCLN and music is still under researched and researchers find it problematic to support their own thesis based on minimal research conducted. Also, the skills obtained during studies are not transferable to other contexts as explained by Simpson and Keen (2011) about Gold et al 2006 study and Edgerton’s 1994 study (Wiseman, 2015).
Rolvsjord et al. (2005, in Wiseman) does state that therapy is arduous to evaluate and therefore no one intervention has the solution. It does however, highlight the need for more research to be conducted in this area.
Feedback, Motivation, Engagement
Hattie and Timperley (2007) proposes that ‘feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement…’ (Hattie pg. 81 ,2007)). As well as motivation and engagement, the way in which the children respond and interact with the one-to-ones, is going to have an impact on the children’s behaviour and progress. School M have made feedback a focus within the last two years and believe that oral feedback is based on the learning and not whimsical praise or feedback about self (Hattie and Timperley,2007). Having clear feedback allows for children to correlate a correct behaviour or action with our goals and expectations for them. Positive feedback, can increase the likelihood of students returning to or persisting in an activity (Deci et al.,1999). As the LSA’s are the adults responsible in the sessions, I will be modelling to them the expectations of constructive feedback. Based on government documentation in 2013 it is believed that interventions delivered by trained teaching assistants, or this case LSA’s, could work (APPG, 2013).
Much of the current literature on motivation, pays attention to findings that present motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, as more complex than early research initially implied. Lemos and Verissimo (2013) maintain that over the years, motivation has been at the centre of discussions due to the correlation motivation has had within school contexts. They also claim that often motivation is simplistic as students advocate intrinsic motivation over extrinsic, to achieve in academic tasks. However, Reeve (2005) includes 24 motivation theories in his works which supports Jones’ (2009) argument that there are various ‘mini-theories’ as opposed to main ideas and concepts about academic motivation. This leads to varied understandings and perspectives of what motivation is and how it can be best used in education. As motivation is an abstract concept, it is not measurable and so individuals have to use their own pedagogy to apply what motivation means for them in an educational context.
Motivation can be categorised into two distinguishing theories; intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is centred on doing a task or activity because of inherent interest. Extrinsic motivation is based on doing something because it leads to another outcome. From this many learning theories have become areas of focus for researchers. For example, Self-determination theory (SDT) coined in 1985 by Deci and Ryan (2000), believe that people have innate psychological needs such as autonomy and competence (Niemiec and Ryan, 2009). SDT suggests that if these universal needs are met, then children will remain intrinsically motivated. Niemiec and Ryan (2009) report that many studies have been conducted around the concept of intrinsic motivation and they conclude in their findings, that students are more inclined to learn better and are more creative if they are intrinsically motivated.
However, the literature mentioned is founded on practitioners who can use specific instructional strategies with mainstream children who do not have SEND. However, in my experience the theories that have been reported, can be seen and used in educational contexts with children who have SEND.
Motivation and SEND
Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) are considered to have lower levels of engagement in terms of frequency and duration in comparison to children who are not, having a direct impact on their learning (Simpson et al, 2013). Consequently, exploring ways to engage children with SEND will significantly benefit them educationally.
Motivation appears to be positively related to both ASD and learning. Koegel and Koegel (1995) establish that motivation is a crucial aspect in autism, which affects communication and many other indicators including ‘self-stimulation, aggressive behaviour, self-injurious behaviour’, and many more (Koegel and Koegel, p.74, 1995). Koegel, Koegel and Singh (2010) recognise that academic motivation in children with Autism can rely on motivational elements placed within teaching and learning.
Wiseman (2005) believes that music intervention is an effective tool for building on the interests and strengths of a child, to reward development in learning as a motivational device. Cosden et al (2006) supports Wiseman’s findings of the importance of motivation but includes that when the subject of intervention is appealing and is constructed on their competency of a child with ASD, then it brings a sense of achievement and builds self-esteem. Hinton and Kern (1999) report that interventions that incorporate children’s interests within educational tasks, can minimise disruptive behaviour and increase engagement and responses which in turn might create constructive early learning experiences that stimulates children’s future aspirations to continue learning (Bowman et al., 2001), reiterating the importance of early intervention. As children begin learning from an early age, incorporating motivational elements into teaching and learning tasks as early as possible may benefit them so there are less disruptive behaviours and therefore support learning (Bowman et al., 2001).
The perspective from Mancil and Pearl (2008) is that using restricted interests may serve as motivators in various academic lessons and activities such as math, science, reading, and history (Mancil and Pearl, 2008). Restricted interests are the topics or subjects that often children with autism will be fixated on and pursue for a long period of time (Mancil and Pearl, 2008). Lim (2012) reports that music is motivating and interesting which therefore influences the speech and communication of children with ASD (2012). For example, music could be embedded within other areas of the curriculum so that the child with ASD takes more of an interest in a non-musical task, using a motivator to encourage different facets of learning.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is essential because allowing students to have the opportunity to make choices, enables them to develop skills of demonstrating control, responsibility, self-regulation and self-management in their environment (Cabeza et al, 2013). Cabeza et al. (2013) through Vanderbilt University and funded by the Tennessee Department of Education, conducted research to find out how schools across Tennessee are currently addressing self-determination within the curriculum (Cabeza et al. 2013). Within the research they looked at seven component skills they associate to SDT. These were: choice making, decision making, problem solving, goal setting and attainment, self-advocacy and leadership, self-management and self-regulation, self-awareness and self-knowledge. For ‘related arts classes’ (which I will deem as music lessons for this research) the ability for children to make choices was 82%, the highest opportunity to develop these skills in the curriculum (based on the data provided). Self- advocacy and leadership was 46% which is the lowest figure for opportunities given within a music class. This could be due to the way in which the curriculum is designed or what the teachers consider to be self-advocacy and leadership opportunities.
On average, the arts were one of the higher scoring subjects, where SDT skills were being fostered. Curriculum areas that provided the most opportunity for SDT skills were the ‘special education classes, which emphasises the role that specific SEND lessons and interventions have for children with SEND to acquire and progress in these specific skills. Nevertheless, this does not mean forsaking other subjects like music, as giving opportunities to children with SEND to advance their learning.
The criticism of this study however is that the percentages only reflected schools offering the courses or subjects mentioned and there were no further details about what types of schools in Tennessee these were, whether mainstream or special educational needs schools. In addition to this, the research states that 333 schools replied to their survey which is 37.8% of schools in the entire state, which means the data could change significantly if reconducted. This research is not reliable or valid as it could not be replicated in the same way and the judgements made in the study would change depending on the schools or area and cohort of children, that the research is done in. Consequently, the validity is also in question due to the design and methods of the study.
Nevertheless, this study does emphasise the importance of SDT in the curriculum and therefore supports the argument that there is a necessity that when teaching children with SEND, practitioners are giving them the opportunities to learn by enabling them to be motivated intrinsically for educational progress. It also shows the benefits music has as a subject to enhance skills for children with SEND.
Jones (2009) presents a model of motivation to use by practitioners who design interventions that will enhance learning. Using previous research, Jones describes his model encompassing five key factors to consider when designing an intervention to boost motivation and therefore impact learning. Within the study children are led through the five stages starting with: Empowerment, usefulness, success, interest and caring (Jones, p.273, 2009). Empowerment refers to the perception of power the student has over their learning. Usefulness is the ability for students to understand why their learning is useful (although this may not always happen). Success is about the challenge, knowledge and kills provided for them to succeed. Interest is having topics that are interesting for the children and caring is demonstrating the care of the child’s wellbeing and overall success of attainment. This model of MUSIC is principally about the practitioner and how they implement their five components within their teaching, or in my case an intervention. Overall the success of this social model is based on the time and planning put into creating a tool that should enhance learning, although more will be discussed further into this paper.
Motivation to learn, can also be shaped by’ self-concept, task performance, and community’ (Hartmann, 2013). A child’s view of themselves and how they view the world has a large impact on their ability to make progress. Bandura (1991) coined the term social cognitive theory (SCT), founded on the psychological view that learning is affected by behavioural, environmental and cognitive factors. Bushwick (2001) maintains that ‘the role of social learning is therefore a necessary link in understanding autism.’ Bushwick (2001) explains that social learning is completed in a cyclical manor which is an accumulation of skills. Although my research is based on SLCN needs, the element of ASD is important as this does link to one and potentially the rest of the participants. The research is fundamentally built on children who have ASD and therefore this literature is still crucial to my study.
R. L. Koegel & Mentis, (1985) note the difficulties in motivation within autism literature. They also state that motivating children with ASD has been the core of some intervention approaches (R. L. Koegel & Mentis, (1985). Studies by researchers have shown that motivation is a significant component of effective instruction and that motivational levels can fluctuate over time (Keen, 2009)
The definition of engagement is said to be complex and difficult to define (Davis, 2012) . With participants who present as ASD, engagement can be complex as children with ASD often spend minimal time actively engaged with the people around them, than mainstream children (McWilliam & Bailey, 1995). Therefore, capturing their interest and using subjects that will have them engaged is an opportunity for them to practise skills and improve within their SLC (Keen, 2009).
Intervention verses therapy