Arnstein , who is credited with leading work on Citizenship Participation, sets out eight levels of participation: Manipulation, Therapy, Informing , Consultation , Placation , Partnership , Delegated Power , Citizen Control.
According to Pain et al. Participatory Action Research is collaborative research, education and action used to gather information to use for change on social or environmental issues. It involves people who are concerned about or affected by an issue taking a leading role in producing and using knowledge about it. Much as Lawrence Stenhouse in the s called for teachers to carry out their own classroom research Stenhouse, , current developments in co-produced research seek to draw together and develop new democratic models of participation.
Such collaboration can lead to collective development of new understandings and bring about change — with and for those involved. Such work frequently draws on constructs from Communities of Practices theory Wenger, ; Hart and Wolff, , adapted to promote collaborative practices to strengthen and develop co-produced community research.
Of the 20, 14 had no prior experience of ORIM and all had some prior experience of working with parents. ORIM identifies four key roles for parents whereby they can provide Opportunities , Recognition , Interaction and a Model of literacy and distinguishes four key strands of early literacy: environmental print , made popular mainly by US research during the s Payton, ; Baghban, ; Schickedanz, ; Bissex ; Goodman et al.
Schools and pre-school centres have used the ORIM Framework systematically to plan practical work with parents, which supports and extends their literacy role with their children Nutbrown et al.
The project focused on how practitioners in early years settings could make meaningful use of the ORIM Framework to support their work with parents to promote early literacy experiences. An important dimension to the project was to co-create an ongoing discussion, through joint working, group discussions and innovations of practitioners and researchers, in order to establish a democratic, two-way process of KE.
The FELDP project involved a series of three residential events to facilitate the co-creation of inclusive sessions where the programme of work was mutually agreed between the research team and all project practitioners.
The residential meetings provided a space for practitioners to appraise the ways in which they had used and adapted the ORIM Framework for work with children and families on literacy and other curriculum areas.
The 20 project practitioners used and adapted the ORIM Framework to: extend their existing family literacy practices;. In order to evaluate the first aspect — work with parents on early literacy development — all sessions were documented by the practitioners who summarised their work in posters, slide presentations and leaflets which were added to the project web site [2].
These materials, created by the practitioners for other practitioners and for parents, were used together with post-project interviews with all practitioner participants to identify their views of the usefulness and effectiveness of ORIM in their projects. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and checked by the practitioners. As the exercise involved co-produced KE work, it was important from the outset to consider the ethics of collective ownership. This was discussed at length with project participants and it was agreed that participants and their settings would be acknowledged unless they requested anonymity, though none did.
Specific permissions were obtained from project participants and from the families they worked with to use information and images they provided. The success of the project depended on all involved sharing ideas and practice, with each other and then more widely.
Work done by individual participants and colleagues in their settings if others got involved is fully acknowledged. Our starting point on ownership was that everyone who contributed should be recognised for their part in the project. The final report to the ESRC also listed project participants and their places of work. All participants commented on the report and received copies, and the materials they developed were placed on the project web site.
Specific permissions were sought to use photographs, on the web site and in other forms of dissemination. As part of the ethical review process the project was reviewed by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee and the project abided by those codes of practice for research ethics and integrity. All involved gave informed consent and confirmed that they understood and were happy with the aims and workings of the project. Some of the new metho-ethical challenges, faced by researchers Nutbrown, , p.
Keeping the issues of ownership, power and participation centre stage throughout the research process is the responsibility of all researchers, never more so when it involves co-production of research. The 20 practitioners worked in 14 settings or contexts, Table II summarises the types of settings, the focus of work and the issues and interests they sought to address.
Nine settings had one representative each at the meetings, five had two and one setting had three representatives attend. The ORIM Framework was adapted and adopted by practitioners to develop work with the families in their own learning communities: A Saturday morning event for 40 families at an independent pre-school promoted the concept of environmental print.
Parents said information about early writing development helped them to recognise achievement. Reading sessions for bilingual parents in a primary school focused on home learning. A Community Childcare Centre introduced a book loan scheme. Despite initial reluctance, many families now borrow books. A Saturday Family Writing event was well attended. Practitioners reported enhanced toddler communication, improved toddler behaviour and noted increased parental confidence and self-esteem.
Of the 14 practitioner projects summarised in Table II , space permits the inclusion of just two here. These two examples have been selected to show variety in the settings and the different uses of ORIM to work with parents.
Example 1, written by the pre-school teacher, illustrates work on early writing and environmental print and Example 2, jointly written by the pre-school leader and the Local Authority Early Years Consultant, focuses on books and reading. Fixed Figure 1. Fixed Figure 2.
These examples show how practitioners in two contrasting pre-school contexts used the ORIM Framework to develop work with parents. An estimated total of 6, families in different parts of the country came within the reach of the project. However, we need to consider whether this particular framework was the influential factor or whether such engagement could have happened without ORIM.
When interviewed, all practitioners said they continued to use ORIM in various ways: ORIM incorporated into a school strategic plan for family learning, literacy home visits using ORIM to support home-school transition, regular family literacy workshops, adapting ORIM for two-year-olds, whole team development to promote family involvement, working in different languages and extend ORIM to environmental artwork, maths and play.
Some also were attracted by the opportunity to engage in research and be part of a group with a shared focus:. The University team have an excellent record of really thinking deeply about disadvantaged, hard-to-reach parents and families and it was the challenge of wanting to learn and do some action research LA consultant. It was just the sharing of ideas and information and how everybody had a different spin on the content and the vastness of the ideas that were coming round Reception class teacher.
ORIM is threaded through Peep programmes - it helps practitioners to see and value what parents and carers are already doing to support children's learning. The more that we as parents and carers know about how children learn and develop, the easier it becomes to:. It makes you take the time to talk and listen more when sometimes we feel very busy. Skip to main content. Log in. We provide a selection of letters that have been collected from environmental print, including magazines, leaflets, food packaging, or from freely accessible alphabet designs on the internet.
The children are provided with a mark-making pack containing a personalised notebook in which they can write and draw, a pack of felt-tip pens, and resources to encourage them to notice and form the different letter shapes.
The pack also has an alphabet mat and a laminated letter formation card with an erasable dry-wipe pen to encourage practise and experimentation with letters. Mayer , p. For our second event we explored environmental print more deeply, as we go out into the local community.
During our walk to the shop, children are encouraged to spot print in the environment and use their booklet to see how many different letters and numbers they can see on road signs, street names or shop signs. When we get to the shop, each family uses a pictorial shopping list to buy the different ingredients needed to make playdough.
Children are encouraged to find ingredients in the shop and tick them off on their shopping lists before paying for them at the till. We discuss with parents the effectiveness of being able to take some time to shop slowly and involve children in finding items. Following our shopping trip, we make playdough with families on our return to school, using the ingredients we have bought.
This ensures that children's literacy experiences are meaningful, contextual and make sense to them. Families are provided with a playdough recipe, which they are encouraged to read and follow, as we discuss modelling being a literacy user to children. The pictorial additions to the recipe help children and parents whose first language is not English, or who may still be novice users of English to follow the recipe too.
Families understand the importance of giving literacy real-life context. At the second home visit, following the shopping trip and playdough making, more playdough is provided, along with a goody bag, containing a selection of cutters, bun cases and a small rolling pin.
We model being a play-partner alongside children using the dough. Parents and siblings also join in as we talk about how the dough feels and point out the different shapes the children are making. The open-ended nature of playdough means that there is no right or wrong way to use it, so there is no pressure to produce something in a certain way.
Children are usually so enthusiastic about using their playdough that they often add their own sets of tools and resources to use with it before the home visit, to which we then add even more. Short , pp. It encourages children to ask questions and pose problems as they think about what they read.
0コメント