On the Ground

My methodological approach draws on Bundegaard and Gulløv (2006). They believe that because young people spend such a large proportion of their time in school, it is necessary to observe their interactions with professionals to understand how they can enact their own agency within that setting. As such, I spent five months in the school during the spring and summer terms, constructing data with participants, through observation of lessons, focus groups and 1:1 interviews. An ethnographic approach was also useful due to its flexibility, and the capacity to modify and update practice as the study progressed (Eder and Corsaro 1999): young people and interacting with them are not always predictable!

Before formally observing young people, I met with each of them during tutor-time to discuss my role, the project and whether (or not) they wished to participate. Once I had obtained young people’s consent to observe them in lessons, I observed them in lessons, making fieldnotes, and at times, actively participating and engaging with the lessons.

I observed lessons across eleven different subjects and three groups, with nine different teachers, who were teaching the nine participating students. The young people participating had varying levels of need, from severe difficulties to mild, with two individuals holding a statement of SEN, where dyslexia was the primary need. Three participants had intersecting needs: one student had dyscalculia, another had Autism, and another had English as an Additional Language. The sample of students, while providing the opportunity to explore effects of different types of dyslexia-related need did not provide capacity to explore any gendered issues, as only one participant was female.

The first phase of data construction with young people, following lesson observations, took the form of focus groups. Group sessions were used so that young people had a chance to interact with and get to know me, as well as the project. Through working as groups with their peers, power differentials (because of my position as ‘adult’ in an educational setting) between young people and me were minimised; they had the support of their peers. The group activities helped to build a rapport with participants, prior to me interviewing young people individually (Bryman 2012). I designed group sessions to last for 20 minutes and to take place during tutor time, to minimise impact on students’ learning time. Each focus group had two or three participants and five group sessions took place.

In the first focus group, young people were given various proformas as well as plain paper for sharing their experiences relating to their dyslexia. As noted by Punch (2002) standard worksheets may not be accessible to individuals, depending on their literacy levels. With this in mind and drawing on Porter et al. (2012) who noted the potential of drawing, collages and mood boards for engaging with young people, various proformas such as mind maps, blank paper and story-boards were provided in the first session so that young people were not obliged to write. They were also given the option of writing frames, in case they did prefer to write. The students chose to use the mind map format. However, upon reflection after the first session it was clear that using the proformas was not suitable for the process; the young people were unsure of which one to use and took a large amount of time to decide. In subsequent sessions, we discussed whether they wanted to draw, write or have me write their ideas down. One group of students chose to draw and make their own notes, with me adding elements towards the end of the session. In three of the five sessions, young people asked me to note their views on their behalf. This allowed them to better interact with each other, and not rely on me to facilitate discussion. Once young people’s discussions had finished, I read out what they had discussed and checked with them that the content was accurate.

Young people who wished to do 1:1 interviews were then interviewed during the summer term. Full details of participants can be found in Table 1. Semi-structured interviews lasting between 16 and 23 minutes were undertaken to ensure that common themes and topics were discussed with each participant (Bryman 2012). They were undertaken in a glass-fronted room (in line with the School Safeguarding Policy). Prompt materials in interviews were used; we looked through students’ outputs from the focus group sessions. Additionally, an interview schedule covering the following themes was devised to ensure that they were covered in each interview:

What is your understanding of dyslexia? How do you think dyslexia affects how people learn in the classroom? How do you think that dyslexia affects how people feel in the classroom? How do you think that having dyslexia affects people’s feelings about themselves? How do you like to be helped in class? How do teachers help you? Do you think it matters if people are told that they have dyslexia? Why? Do you think that being dyslexic is an important part of who you are? Why and how?

Table 1

Participant Details.

Year Group Name Status Needs1 Observation Details Focus Group Inter-viewed? Duration 7 John SEN Register Dyslexia Main-stream English 2 Yes 19:09 7 Alexander SEN Register Dyslexia Mainstream English 2 Yes 19:08 7 Emily SEN Register Dyslexia & other needs Learning Skills 1 Yes 19:14 7 Samuel SEN Register Dyslexia Main-stream English and Literacy Plus 1 Yes 19:13 8 Alfie SEN Register Dyslexia & other needs Not observed 2 Did not wish to take part NA 8 Connor SEN Register Dyslexia Main-stream English 5 Yes 16:40 8 Jake SEN Register Dyslexia Main-stream English 5 Yes 19:28 8 Callum Statement Dyslexia & other needs Main-stream English and Small Group Literacy 3 No parents did not consent NA 8 Josh Statement Dyslexia and other needs Main-stream English and Small Group Literacy 3 Yes 16:17 9 Benjamin Statement Dyslexia Small Group Literacy, Main-stream Science and Geography 4 Yes 20:07 9 David Statement Dyslexia & other needs Small Group Literacy and Main-stream Geography 4 Yes 22:49

1 I have not given full details of the participants’ needs as this constitutes information that could identify the young people.