A Vehicle for Learning

Most of my professional life has involved working with children and young people (CYP) with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD). My other main professional interest has always been assessment. I am not going to get overly detailed on whether it is formative or summative, just a broad notion of assessment. It was the focus of my MA dissertation on Socio-Cultural Approaches to Assessment for Learners with PMLD. I came to this via a disillusionment with the insistence that we must apply numbers to assessment approaches in order to measure progress. We jumped through hoops with P Scales (2014); their commercial offspring; Progression Guidance (2009) and the bizarre notion that all students (with SEND) will make the same amount of progress over the same time frame i.e. two levels of progress over a key stage. I happened to discover the Narrative Assessment Framework from New Zealand on a google search and decided that I wanted this to be the focus of my MA research.

It was very refreshing to use narrative as a means to assess progress. Using Carr’s (2001) learning story model I documented a number of events which showed how a student in my class engaged with people, objects and the environment. I used various ways to demonstrate how the learning stories captured progress by linking to their outcomes within their Education Health and Care Plan, identifying which curriculum outcomes they reflected and which specific learning intentions the learning stories exemplified. I involved those who worked with the student, the focus of my study, to read the learning stories and comment on the assessment I made using them. It was not until I sat down to analyse my data that I recognised something missing in the learning stories and subsequent interviews, which was not acknowledged in the learning process. I will return to this missing element later.

CYP with PMLD may have all or a combination of severe physical impairments, medical conditions and sensory impairments as well as being nonverbal. Assessment models, even those designed for CYP and PMLD, follow two specific learning theories, namely behaviourism and cognitivism (Simmons and Watson 2014). Simmons and Watson (2014) highlight behaviourist approaches including preferred stimuli assessments, use of microswitches to develop contingency responses and consideration of behaviour alert states. Cognitivist approaches include Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett 1994) and responsive environments (Ware 2003). I have spent many years as a classroom teacher and a senior leader in attempting to show how CYP with PMLD have made progress using these approaches. Despite varying amounts of success, my inability to account for learning in this way has led me to believe these approaches fail to fully acknowledge learning in the way I observed. I accept that learning will be made in small steps, although I continue to question who selects these small steps and how we know they are meaningful to the CYP, when we are reliant on the same developmental theories. Simmons et al (2008) highlight this in their research, referring to it as a ‘pre-x symptomology’. They argue that the focus of PMLD studies has tended to be centred around cognitive psychology and behaviourism and it has ignored the lived experiences of CYP with PMLD.

There is much in the Rochford Review (2016) I welcome, particularly for its honesty and integrity. Where I disagree is with the decision that for those who do not follow a pre-determined route to learning, we should focus on cognition and learning. I do not feel compartmentalising learning for CYP with PMLD works and by doing this leads to a misunderstanding of the learning process. Some argue the deterministic approach to learning leads to further exclusion and discrimination (Devecchi 2013). Furthermore, there is little mention of PMLD in the SEND Code of Practice (2015 DfE/DoH), in fact, Colley (2018) highlights just two occasions and neither of these relate to learning. In addition, the SEND CoP (2015 DfE/DoH) does not cohere with the Rochford Review (2016) in that the review never mentions target setting or targets whereas the SEND CoP (2015 DfE/DoH) very much advocates the use of SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timed) targets. My heart sinks when I see different assessment schemas that attempt to break down developmental milestones into even tinier chunks. I am therefore exploring an alternative approach to assessment for CYP with PMLD as part of my PhD study.

As mentioned, there was a missing component to assessment when I analysed the data for my MA dissertation. The missing element was the body. For a CYP with PMLD the body is the ‘vehicle for learning’. It cannot be compartmentalised into categories. It makes me think about the holistic nature of learning for CYP with PMLD. In my view it isn’t recognised in assessment models currently used in classrooms (e.g. Routes for Learning (WAG 2006) or Engagement Profile Scale (Carpenter et al 2015). Depending on whether you believe CYP with PMLD should follow a National Curriculum or a specialist curriculum there is still the tendency to focus on compartmentation in some way (formal curriculum by subject or Specialist curriculum by Cognition and Communication.) You don’t have to search too hard to find curriculum on (specialist) school websites to find models that adhere to one or the other of these approaches. Aoki (2004) calls this approach to the curriculum as curriculum-as-plan, and to use his words “it is imbued with the planners’ orientations to the world” (p.257). As an alternative to this Aoki (2004) proposes we consider the ‘lived curriculum’. Aoki (2004) posits that a teacher understands the ‘uniqueness’ of the students they teach as daily interactions unfold. The curriculum-as-plan subverts the lived curriculum as it is created for a generic pupil population, veiling the uniqueness of the individual. The multiplicity of a lived curriculum challenges the formalcurriculum-as-planand allows the teacher to create a ‘retextured landscape’ (Aoki 2004 P.258).

In seeking a way to re-imagine assessment for CYP with PMLD I had to find a different philosophy that may help me understand the process of learningin a different way. Bear in mind I am at the beginning of my research and I am making no claims just exploring other possibilities. In my search I discovered the work of the philosopher Merleau-Ponty, through the research of Simmons and Watson (2014), and decided to explore this further. It led to the discovery of the theory of embodiment and the work of Gallagher, Zahavi, Eccleston, Rocha and Fuchs. I realised there was a gap in the field of PMLD, in that there are no considerations of a phenomenological approach to assessment. And so, my journey begins to explore how the body becomes a vehicle for learning and the implications for pedagogy and curriculum, specifically for CYP with PMLD. My blog title was inspired by Aoki’s view of a ‘retextured landscape’. My blog title ‘Learning Architexture’ aims to convey the complex nature of learning, its multiplicities and directions as well as its sensuality, particularly as experienced through the body.

I look forward to sharing my insights as my study unfolds.

References

Carpenter. B, Egerton. J, Cockbill. B, Bloom. T, Fotheringham. J, Rawson, H and Thistlethwaite. J, (2015) Engaging Learners with Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities: A resource for teachers and teaching assistants.Routledge
Carr. M, (2001)Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. SAGE
Colley, A. (2018 To what extent have learners with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties been excluded from the policy and practice of inclusive education?International Journal of Inclusive Education
DCSF (2009) Progression guidance: improving data to raise attainment and maximise the progress of learners with special educational needs, learning difficulties and disabilitiesCrown Copyright
Department for Education (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice:(0 to 25 years) Statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities Crown Copyright
DfE (2014) P scales: attainment targets for pupils with SEND Crown Publication
Devecchi, C. (2013) Beyond development: applying the human development paradigm to identifying children with special needs and disabilities. Paper presented to: British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, University of Sussex
Nind, M. and Hewett, D. (1994) Access to Communication: Developing the Basics of Communication with People with Severe Learning Difficulties through Intensive InteractionLondon: David Fulton
Pinar, W.F and Irwin, R.L, Ed. (2004) Curriculum in a New Key: The Collected Works of Ted T. AokiRoutledge
Simmons, B., Blackmore, T., & Bayliss, P. (2008). Postmodern synergistic knowledge creation: Extending the boundaries of disability studies.Disability and Society, 23(7), 733-745. Simmons. B, and Watson, D. (2014) The PMLD Ambiguity: Articulating the Life-Worlds of Children with Profound and Multiple Learning DifficultiesKARNAC
The Rochford Review: Final Report (2016)Review of assessment for pupils working below the standard of the national curriculum tests. Crown
Ware, J. (2003) Creating a responsive environment for people with profound and multiple learning difficulties(2nd ed.) London: David Fulton

Profoundly Reflective

Blog Interrupted

It has been a while reader. I do have several blog posts half written in a folder, but life takes over sometimes, and I neglected to complete and publish them. So, I thought it was time to step back and reflect on where I am currently as I enter the fourth year of my doctoral studies. I have learned so much through the process with the opportunity to read widely, including literatures specifically about PMLD but also philosophy, and how this is applicable to me as a teacher of children with PMLD but also as a researcher. I have welcomed much conversation with colleagues and PhD students within and beyond my own school and university, as well as engaging with a fabulous group of people virtually on Twitter.

Lives Lived Well

I attended the book launch of Colley and Tilbury’s new book this week entitled “Enhancing Wellbeing and Independence for Young People with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties: Lives Lived Well” I think the outcome of the survey that Andrew conducted illuminates some incredibly urgent issues, not just for the schooling and education (I state both purposefully) of young people with PMLD but also thinking about their families and communities. It provides an imperative call for action to address some of the social injustices these young people and their families face. It also showcases the work of Chailey Heritage School, and as Julie Tilbury expressed at the event, we should be focused on what is most important for children with PMLD. We have bent ourselves out of shape to fit children with PMLD within a high stakes accountability system that focuses on personal responsibility. The value of a young person in education is inextricably linked to how much money they can make for the economy post schooling. We have lost a sense of collectiveness, community and belonging, and the importance of these for everyone’s wellbeing. Andrew’s exploration of independence and wellbeing in part one of the book is timely. I do hope school leaders in special schools will take the time to delve into this book and reflect on how they develop curriculum and provision specifically for young people with PMLD.

Teacher Professional Development

My blog posts and much of my thinking have been theoretical or philosophical. As a process this has been important to me, but I also understand those who become frustrated by it, as it may be difficult to see its application or meaning to our daily practice as teachers of children with PMLD. I respect this viewpoint. However, I pose a challenge too. With the inability to access initial teacher training for teachers in special schools (specifically for children with severe and profound and multiple learning disabilities), how can we expect teachers to develop innovative approaches to pedagogy without a wider exploration of theory/philosophy? Currently, the same theories are used to argue for different positions. For example, the underpinning theories of both the P scales (DfE 2011) and the engagement model (DfE 2020) are the same. So, how can we be expected to believe that by discontinuating the P Scales and introducing a new tool will make a difference when based on the same theories? My argument/my hunch/my intuition is that it will not.

Routes for Learning

I have spent more time in recent years delivering training, for senior leaders, teachers, and teaching assistants, about Routes for Learning (2020). Some have never heard of it, and some believed it was outdated so had not considered it for some time. However, I would say the revised version is excellent. Please do visit the website and explore the resources. Let’s remember however, Routes for Learning is underpinned by theory, learning theories. Key concepts from behaviourism and cognitivism are utilised in the development of the route map. Whether we are aware of it or not, these concepts inform our practice. These concepts are also stated and explained within the Routes for Learning materials. I believe that understanding these concepts helps teachers in developing their practice. For those of us interested in research, it also helps us to develop our critical thinking and reflect on those theoretical positions.

You may think I am contradicting myself here. Let me clarify why I mention my increased use of Routes for Learning in my own work. Put simply, I am relying here on the adage of ‘you can only break the rules when you know what the rules are’. I came to my critical view of the foundational learning theories and the practice of assessment of children with PMLD, through my own lived experience. My curiosity in exploring other theories came from my position as a practitioner by questioning the dominant theories embedded in assessment frameworks.

Behaviourism

Over a decade ago, when I worked as a deputy headteacher in a school where teachers were frustrated by the P Scales, we reviewed our approaches to teaching. We used Penny Lacey and Mark Collis professional development book entitled “Interactive Approaches to teaching: A Framework for INSET.” In this book, Collis and Lacey (1996) critique behaviourism and articulate an interactive approach as an alternative for pedagogy. An understanding of theory and the impact on practice really supported the staff team in reviewing and developing new approaches to teaching. For a detailed critical analysis of behaviourism and PMLD then it is important that I reference Ben Simmons and Debbie Watson’s book “The PMLD Ambiguity”. If like me you are feel intuitively that we may be missing something in our teaching, then I urge you to read it.

Our practice, whether we are aware of it or not, is still influenced by the French philosopher Descartes and the scientist Newton. Firstly, Descartes describes a dualism or a separation of the mind and body, whereby the body is a slave of the mind. Secondly, Newton’s physics still influences our view of assessment, in terms of what is observable and logical (measurable and reliable). This technical-rational approach is the dominant feature of our practice as teachers of children with PMLD. Despite the challenge I encounter to my theoretical explorations, I argue that considering alternative theories helps me to engage critically with existing practice. I discovered the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty by reading ‘The PMLD Ambiguity’ and I was inspired to read his philosophy more widely. Merleau-Ponty critiques behaviourism in detail and presents his own view of an embodied life in Structure of Behaviour (1967) and the Phenomenology of Perception (2012). So, what does this have to do with children and PMLD in the context of assessment? To build my argument, I will take you on a whistle stop tour of my thinking, to begin to re-think our approach to assessment for children with PMLD

A Reflective Pedagogy

Thinking critically about the assessment of children with PMLD and challenging the foundational learning theories was drawn from my lived experience of teaching. I turned to the work of Donald Schon and ‘reflection-in-action’ to reframe my thinking about assessment. Schon’s defines a model of technical rationality. To state it in the context of my study, it establishes the teacher is an objective observer who is situated outside of the boundaries of learning that the child with PMLD experiences. The teacher must maintain this distance to be a spectator of the action. How many of us have attended (or even set up) moderation meetings where the topic of conversation reverts to positivist notions of objectivity and reliability? Moderation urges us to make technical-rational judgements on students’ responses in mechanistic ways, for example, stimulus response or cause and effect. Interestingly, the engagement model asserts a reflective pedagogy, which the Department of Education (2020) defines as teachers having “a good understanding of how children develop” (you need theory here) and “enable(s) them to accurately assess the pupil’s achievements and progress.” Furthermore, a reflective pedagogy “involves the use of assessment information to plan relevant and motivating educational experiences for each pupil” (p.13). I wonder to what extent this is truly a reflective position or, is it situated within what Schon describes as a technical-rational model?

Merleau-Ponty has a wide influence in research that ranges from artificial intelligence to embodied cognition to child psychology. His focus on the importance of the body and the development of embodiment is an important element of my own research. A central concept of phenomenology is intentionality. It is not the English definition of intention as in ‘the will to act’, instead it refers to the threads that connect us to the world. He argues we experience the world through our bodies. Furthermore, we experience the world with others. Our embodied experience of the world is primal, or ‘before theory’ or what Merleau-Ponty calls ‘pre-reflective’. Thinking this way is important because I was taken with Joanna Grace’s (2017) assertion that children with PMLD ‘live in the now’. If we take this view of ‘the now’ then it is primal or pre-reflective. Donald Schon presents an alternative model to the technical-rational one presented earlier that helps reframe a reflective pedagogy in exploring the ‘now’ of assessment. In this model, the teacher would treat each moment as unique and uncertain; she is an agent and as such shapes it and is a part of it (Schon 1983 p.163). Teachers then become part of the process of learning. It is not an objective stance or as Haraway (1988) calls it ‘a god trick’. We cannot stand outside of an event as a spectator as teachers of children with PMLD. Put simply, I am asserting that assessment of children with PMLD is relational and embodied rather than technical and rational. Therefore, the aim of my research is to explore what it means if assessment is relational and embodied.

Schon’s work was not phenomenological, however Vagle (2010) connected reflection-in-action and phenomenology together to form a new iteration of phenomenology he calls post-intentional phenomenology (Vagle 2018). Vagle’s theoretical and methodological approaches frame my own work. There is not space here to expand on this (that’s for another blog post), however, I want to draw attention to my motivations for researching assessment of children with PMLD. It did not emerge from a theoretical position, nor do I expect my research to present a new theoretical framework or model. My interest is drawn from the lived experience of being a teacher of children with PMLD and the exploration of teachers as practitioners, both my own experience and that of other teachers.

The Death of School

To return to the beginning of my blog, I position my own work alongside Andrew Colley and Julie Tilbury’s book about lives lived well. Research should be about social change (and this is central to Vagle’s post-intentional phenomenology) and the challenge for society is to consider what happens to young people at the age of nineteen. There is a cliff edge currently. Despite the assertion in the Code of Practice for SEND (DfE/DoH 2015) that we prepare young people for adulthood, I wonder if the Department for Education or Health or indeed OFSTED know the reality of adult life for people with PMLD. In recent times, the young people with PMLD I taught have no longer been offered a college place at the age of nineteen. Many have little more than a social care package without clear purpose or meaning to the young person. It is ultimately left to families to carve out an adult life in isolation, in a society that has little understanding of the young person with PMLD or their family. As Colley and Tilbury (2022) state,

“We must be clear that the lives of people with PMLD have value and that they deserve to live lives well, not because they can work and pay taxes but because they are members of the same communities as us and of their own” (p.189)

I believe we need to make a distinction between school and education for young people with PMLD. To illuminate this, I quote Rocha (2015) who argues the death of school “would be a time when schools would continue to exist but would cease to be believed in” (p.112). It is a timely reflection. For example, there is a continued tension between the existence of special schools and the ideal of an inclusive system, and if their existence represents inclusion at all. Rocha ponders new possibilities for education that ‘emerge from the narrow womb of the politics of modern-day compulsory schooling and the psychometrics of managerial teaching” (2015 p.113). Furthermore, he posits that schools provide rich sites for the exploration of what education is about but the technical-rational model I described earlier distorts and narrows our conceptions of education. In my own research, I aim to expose the ways in which current assessment practice and the foundational theories distort and narrow the conceptions of education for young people with PMLD. I hope to produce and provoke new conceptions of education reimagined collectively rather than individualistically.

References

Colley, A. and Tilbury, J. with Yates, S. (2022) Enhancing Wellbeing and Independence for Young People with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties: Lives Lived Well Routledge

Collis, M. and Lacey, P. (1996) Interactive Approaches to teaching: A Framework for INSET. David Fulton Publishers

Department of Education (2020) The Engagement Model Crown

Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years Accessed from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/send-code-of-practice-0-to-25

Department of Education (2011) Using the P Scales to Assess Pupils’ Progress Crown

Haraway, D. (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective Feminist Studies 14,3: 575-599

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967) The Structure of Behaviour Translated by Alden L. Fisher Beacon Press

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012) Phenomenology of Perception Translated by Donald A. Landes Routledge

Rocha, S.D. (2015) Folk Phenomenology: Education, Study, and the Human Person Pickwick Publications

Schon, D.A (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action Routledge

Simmons, B and Watson, D (2014) The PMLD Ambiguity: Articulating the Life-Worlds of Children with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities KARNAC

Vagle, M.D. (2018) Crafting Phenomenological Research 2^nd Edition Routledge

Vagle, M.D. (2010) Re-framing Schon’s Call for a Phenomenology of Practice: a post intentional approach in International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives Volume 11, 2010 Issue 3

Welsh Government (2020) Routes for Learning: Guidance Crown

Profoundly Performative

This blog is the second in the series I call Profoundly… This article engages with new materialism which challenges dualisms such as mind/body, inherent in humanist philosophies. I employ this approach to imagine a performative assessment model for Students with PMLD.

Definition: Assessment is a consideration of someone or something and a judgement about them (Collins Dictionary)

Let’s begin with a tracing

Regardless of the framework, model or tool we have at our disposal to assess students with PMLD, ultimately any consideration or judgement is framed by evaluative conditioning (stimulus-response), contingency awareness (cause and effect), object permanence and memory (see Imray and Hadfield 2019; Imray and Colley 2017; Imray and Hinchcliffe 2014). I suggest the phenomenon central to assessment is the process of learning. This is understood as the interaction between learner and environment (Standards and Testing Agency 2020; Ware 2003). The concepts defined above, dominate the approach to assessment, creating a closed knowledge system. In other words, our understanding of the process of learning (as experienced by a student with PMLD) is limited, and the nature of assessment is fixed.

French philosophers Deleuze and Guittari (1988/2004) define a closed knowledge system as a ‘tracing’. “Tracing’ is important as it establishes a ‘particular status quo’, for example, where students with PMLD are situated within a national framework of curriculum and assessment (Hickey-Moody 2008 Pg.356). This ‘tracing’ is best exemplified in the presentation of ‘Routes for Learning’ (Welsh Assembly Government 2006). Evaluative conditioning, contingency awareness etc. are founded on dualistic assumptions. The dualism refers to the separation of mind and body whereby the process of learning is centred in the brain. This is evidenced in the recently published guidance for assessment entitled ‘the engagement model’. The Standards and Testing Agency (STA 2020) suggest we can “prepare the brain” to help with memory (Pg.11). So, how can we reconceptualise the relationship between the learner and their environment in order to challenge brain centred approaches to the process of learning?

Here is the problem

The theories of learning that underpin evaluative conditioning, contingency awareness etc., are predicated on internal mental representations and external objects in the world. This is evident in PMLD education through the promotion of objects of reference. The expectation is that an object will come to represent something to the student, whether it be an activity (paint brush for art) or place (tree bark for park) (Jones et al 2002). Bergson (1988) challenges this internal mind/external world by asserting that perception is not representational but is rather concerned with the action and movement of a body. Therefore, this implies that the process of learning is performative rather than representational.

A performative stance means that “knowing does not come from standing at a distance and representing but rather from a direct material engagement with the world” (Barad Pg.49). Furthermore, Barad (2007) asserts that a performative stance is an embodied practice as opposed “to matching linguistic representations to pre-existing things” (Pg.59). Fundamentally, I want to conceptualise a performative model of assessment for students with PMLD.

Here is the theory

The concept of reflection pervades education as a metaphor for knowledge, which is apparent in theengagement model guidance. The STA (2020) suggest that “reflective pedagogy is when teachers and other professionals have a good understanding of how children develop” (Pg.13). The concept of reflection relates to ‘mirroring’ or ‘sameness’ and as such fails to recognise difference. Haraway (1992) proposes a different optic phenomenon, which is ‘diffraction’, arguing that “diffraction does not produce ‘the same’ displaced, as reflection and refraction do” (Pg.300). Diffraction allows us to conceptualise a performative assessment model in order to explore emerging ‘difference’ instead of capturing the ‘same’.

Barad (2007) draws on the concept ‘diffraction’ from quantum physics. In short, diffraction refers to emergent phenomena that occurs from the moment two waves encounter one another. Barad (2007) illustrates this by considering what happens when two pebbles are dropped in a still pool of water, thereby creating waves which expand and overlap to form a new wave. This is referred to as a diffractive pattern and the pebbles are referred to as the diffractive apparatus. Haraway (1992 Pg.300) states that “a diffraction pattern does not map where differences appear, but rather maps where the effects of difference appear.” In other words, we are not looking at the effect of the pebbles dropped in the pool but at the subsequent effects that emerge from them being dropped.

The western world asserts that learning processes are situated in the mind, and as such, occur through interactions between human beings (Lenz-Taguchi 2010, my emphasis). Acquisition is a metaphor for learning which implies that knowledge is like an object that we can collect and represent in the mind (Plauborg 2018). Instead, Plauborg (2018) suggests that acquisition is “of something we already were and are a part of” (Pg.4). Lenz-Taguchi (2010) argues “as humans we must understand ourselves as material objects in the world, just as any other being and matter” (Pg.47). Therefore, the process of learning is not about the interaction between the learner and the environment but is rather about emerging from an intra-action between all entities, human and non-human. It is an entanglement with the world rather than engagement with something. Barad’s (2007) Intra-action is the central concept for the development of a performative assessment model.

Intensive Intra-action

I propose the term ‘Intensive intra-action’ here as a performative assessment model. To clarify, it does not relate to communication, as in ‘intensive interaction’, just merely a play on words. I want to consider new ways of knowing that are both embodied and material. Intra-action relates to ‘learning as enacting change’ focusing on the relationship, not only between humans, but all matter i.e. real and natural objects, technology etc.(Rotas 2016). This is pertinent as the curriculum we create for students with PMLD is based on the material, namely objects, for example in sensory stories, messy play and sensory curriculum areas (art, cooking). These relations are created through movement, which can be as subtle as a blink of an eye or a wiggle of a finger. Therefore, Rotas (2016) posits that “knowledge-making is an emergent event of relation with animate and inanimate matter” (Pg.182).

In order to illustrate this, I will provide a concrete example. It is evidenced by Elly Chapple in ‘The shoe-ness of a shoe’, an observation of her daughter. It is best expressed in her own words here: –

I remember clearly when I watched Ella for a period of nine months repetitively work her way through the box of shoes at our front door. It’s a crate, nothing glamorous, but boxes are helpful for things having a place when you can’t see. She would sit daily, twice a day, prior to going anywhere and go through the entire shoe box, mouthing and feeling every single one. Laces, Velcro…,, zips, leather, suede, fabric, different sizes, smells and shapes. … After nine months, one day she simply put the last shoe down, turned from the box and stood up. She sat down in her chair and promptly said ‘boots’ and indicated to her foot. (Chapple 2019)

So, taking ‘intensive intra-action’ as the performative assessment model, what are the key aspects that we can draw from this illustration? Thinking diffractively, I am able to challenge external notions of obsessive behaviour precisely because we are looking at what emerges from Ella’s intra-action with the shoe, as opposed to focusing on the repeated interaction with it. It illustrates that learning occurs from intra-action from both human and non-human entities, as demonstrated in Ella’s relationship with the box of shoes, not just the shoes but the space it inhabits and the box that contains them. It asserts the acquisition of knowledge as something that is already there, and that Ella is a part of. Movement is central to the learning process; she is feeling different aspects with her mouth, hands and fingers. Knowledge emerges from Ella’s intra-action with matter; with the textures of the laces, Velcro, leather and zips. It demonstrates an entanglement rather than an engagement. She is not merely engaged with the shoe, but through her performative actions, matter (both human and non-human) creates the event where knowledge emerges. Therefore, the process of learning is an ongoing ‘becoming’, in juxtaposition with notions of fixed outcomes; and as such is enacted in practice (Orlikowski and Scott 2015).

Let’s be Cartographers

The ‘tracing’ or concepts such as evaluative conditioning, contingency awareness etc. and the current theoretical foundations for the assessment of students with PMLD, fail to recognise their lived experiences. Imray and Colley (2017 Pg.84) argue education asserts that “children must learn like us and learn to be like us” and we miss the opportunities for students to ‘direct’ their own learning in a meaningful way. It also perpetuates ‘sameness’ over recognising ‘difference’. Lenz-Taguchi (2010) states “pedagogical practices are being increasingly mainstreamed and normalised” (Pg. 4), which I suggest affirms our obsession with ‘sameness’. Interestingly, Carpenter (2011) argues we are ‘pedagogically bereft’, in other words, lacking the responsive teaching and learning approaches for those with complex and profound learning disabilities. What perplexes me is why do we refer back to the same theoretical foundations for the learning process if this is the case?

So instead, let’s be cartographers. I refer to the concept of ‘map’ as defined by Deleuze and Guittari (1988/2004). A cartographer creates maps, which are ‘open and connectable in all dimensions’, ‘susceptible to constant modification’ and can be ‘adapted and reworked by any individual’ or ‘social formation’ (Deleuze and Guittari 1988/2004 Pg.12). Diffraction as a concept can help us. As Haraway (1992) suggests “Diffraction is a mapping of interference, not of replication, reflection, or reproduction” (Pg.300). Furthermore, Barad (2007) argues that ‘the notion of diffraction’ provides “a tool of analysis for attending to and responding to the effects of difference” (Pg.72). Students with PMLD are a heterogenous group. We need to be able to constantly modify, adapt and rework how we think about the process of learning and ensure we have a meaningful assessment model. Conceptualising our assessment practice as performative allows us to be creative and responsive, to acknowledge our entanglements with the world as the foundation for knowledge creation and celebrate the ‘difference’ that students with PMLD bring to our lives.

References

Barad, Karen. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bergson, H. (1988) Matter and Memory (N.M. Paul and W.S. Palmer Trans.) New York: Zone

Carpenter B (2011) Pedagogically Bereft! Improving learning outcomes for children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. British Journal of Special Education 38 (1) 38–43.

Chapple, E. (2019) The Deafblind world: The ‘Shoe-ness’ of a Shoe. Accessed from https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/the-deafblind-world-the-shoeness-of-a-shoe

Deleuze, G. and Guittari, F. (1988/2004). A Thousand Plateaus. Bloomsbury

Jones. F, Pring, T. and Grove, N. (2002) Developing communication in adults with profound and multiple learning difficulties using objects of reference International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders vol. 37, no. 2, 173–184

Haraway, D. (1992) The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for inappropriate/d Others. In Cultural Studies Ed. Grossberg, L. Nelson, C and Treichlar, P. New York: Routledge

Hickey-Moody, A.C. (2008) Deleuze, Guittari, and the Boundaries of Intellectual Disability Pg.353-370 in Disability & the Politics of Education, Ed. By Gabel, S.L. and Danforth, S. Peter Lang Publishing

Imray. P, and Colley. A, (2017) Inclusion Is Dead: Long Live Inclusion. Routledge Focus

Imray, P and Hadfield, M. (2019) EQUALS Pre-formal (PMLD) Curriculum EQUALS

Imray, P. and Hinchcliffe, V. (2014) Curricula for Teaching Children and Young People with severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties: Practical Strategies for educational professionals Routledge

Lenz-Taguchi, H, (2010) Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. Routledge

Orlikowski, W. J. and Scott, S. V. (2015) Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of Management Studies, 52 (5). pp. 697-705

Plauborg, H. (2018) Towards an agential realist concept of learning. Article in Subjectivity October 2018 Springer Nature Limited

Rotas, N. (2016) Moving Towards Practices that Matter Pg.179-196 in Pedagogical Matters: New Materialisms and Curriculum Studies Ed. By Snaza, N. Sonu, D. Truman, S.E. and Zaliwska, Z. Peter Lang

Standards and Testing Agency (2020) The Engagement Model Crown Publishing

Ware, J. (2003) Creating a responsive environment for people with profound and multiple learning difficulties 2nd ed. David Fulton Publishers

Welsh Assembly Government (2006) Routes for Learning: Assessment Materials for Learners with Profound Learning Difficulties and Additional Disabilities. Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government.

Profoundly Over-coded

This blog will form a series of blogs I have named ‘Profoundly ….’, with the first one entitled ‘Profoundly Over-coded’. The different aspects of this series relate to conceptualising and reconceptualising PMLD as well as the phenomenon central to my PhD thesis, which is the ‘process of learning’. These blogs are particularly aimed towards those who work with and care for those with PMLD but also, I hope they will have meaning more broadly for those who work with and care for people with intellectual disabilities.

The concept of ‘code’, presented here, belongs to French philosophers, Deleuze and Guittari. For the purposes of this blog it can be considered as the way in which we order the world; the components that fix the ‘identity of the whole’ (Delanda, 2016 Pg. 22). So, for the purposes of my research, it refers to the policy and statutory guidance that encompasses education and special educational needs and disabilities. They incorporate ‘the written rules and standard procedures’ that affect all organisations within the system (Delanda, 2016). Put simply, schools can be considered as ‘the whole’ and the statutory requirements form ‘the components’ that fix it. Within the limits of a blog, I will refer specifically to the recent review of statutory assessment arrangements for students below the national curriculum tests (The Rochford Review 2016) and subsequent assessment guidance for students with PMLD, the engagement model (Standards and Testing Agency 2020).

The engagement model guidance (STA 2020) frames PMLD as learners ‘with serious cognitive impairments and learning difficulties’, operating ‘at very early stages of cognitive, physical, social and emotional development’ (Pg.7). The five areas (initiation, persistence, exploration, anticipation and realisation) contain the following concepts; evaluative conditioning (stimulus-response), generalisation, attention and contingency awareness (cause and effect). Even a cursory review of PMLD literature will reveal that these concepts pervade it (see Imray and Hadfield, 2019; Imray and Colley, 2017; Imray and Hinchliffe 2014; Barber and Goldbart, 1998). Reference to PMLD and learning within statutory guidance have long been dominated by these concepts (See The P Scales 2014; Routes for Learning 2006). The development of policy and guidance are processes that seek to normalise learners and as such the identity of students with PMLD has become fixed (Feely 2016). Deleuze and Guittari (1988/2004) define this as over-coding.

Van Manen (2015) states, “The theoretical language of child ‘science’ so easily makes us look past each child’s uniqueness toward common characteristics that allow us to group, sort, sift, measure, manage and respond to children in preconceived ways” (Pg.62). The common characteristics of evaluative conditioning (stimulus-response), generalisation, attention and contingency awareness (cause and effect) distort the uniqueness of a student with PMLD. Uniqueness within the Rochford Review (2016) is considered as atypical, while Imray (2019) further considers learning of students with PMLD as abnormal. It provides further evidence for the over-coding of PMLD through totalization, creating binary relationships such as typical/atypical, normal/abnormal (Deleuze and Guittari 1988/2004). I am not suggesting that there is not a difference. I am not subjecting myself to political correctness nor am I aiming to deny the realities of impairment (cognitive, sensory or physical). However, what I am arguing is that the landscape of educational achievement and pedagogy is framed by a technical or scientific discourse, whereby philosophical debate in society has been eclipsed(Wrigley 2019).

The Engagement Model (STA 2020) exists within this technical or scientific discourse, it states, “Observational assessment is central to understanding what the pupil knows and what they can do. It is the most reliable way of building up an accurate picture of the pupil’s progress.” (Pg.13) Furthermore it claims that through observations teachers can establish the nature of responses, whether or not acts are intentional, if acts are a direct response of a stimulus or if the specific qualities of a stimulus result in a response (STA 2020). In addition, it claims that the model is unique, provides insight into provision and it is learner-centred focused on abilities rather than disabilities (STA 2020). As this is stated in policy and guidance it is then subsumed into practice as fact. It does provide a perspective, but it is not the only one.

Wrigley (2019) considers approaches evident in the engagement model guidance as behavioural reductionism. It is defined by the focus on “causal relations between stimulus and response as observable components of behaviour” and “almost completely forgets emotional, social, and cognitive aspects of experience.” (Reich et al, 2016 Pg.1002). In addition, there is an increasing interest in connecting neuroscience to the education of students with PMLD by utilising brain scans as a means to understand thinking and assumes learning as brain centred (Bakhurst 1997; Wrigley 2019). This asserts that, for the student with PMLD, the process of learning and the practice of assessment is disembodied.

For students not following a subject based curriculum the approach to assessment relies on understanding causality through observation. Sayer (2000 Pg.14) states “The conventional impulse to prove causation by gathering data on regularities, repeated occurrences, is therefore misguided: …What causes something to happen has nothing to do with the number of times we observe it happening.” In which case, the teacher as intervener or teacher as ‘navigator of learning’, no longer seem justifiable. I am more interested in the dynamic interactions between myself and my students which is semiotic rather than technical (Wrigley 2019). In other words, I view pedagogy as a process that involves the production of meaning.

The process of learning for students with PMLD can be understood through the interaction between learner and environment (STA 2020; Ware 2003). I do not question the sensory approaches applied within a curriculum for students with PMLD. However, in the western world, the body is perceived as an object with the mind taking precedence; evident in such idioms as ‘mind over matter’ (Burkitt 1998). Perceiving the process of learning in this way, through evaluative conditioning, generalisation etc. presents issues for us in understanding how students make meaningful connections. It creates a dualism, one being a rational mind and the other being a sensorial body (Stolz 2015).

In response to over-coding, Deleuze and Guittari (1988/2004) suggest we “decode,” or put these processes in flux. By doing so we shift from fixed theories that define PMLD, to the concept of ‘becoming’. This involves the exploration of the connections between the student and all forms of matter, both human and non-human (as provided in a sensory curriculum) and provides multiple ways for the process of learning to emerge. Hickey-Moody (2008) suggests by applying the concept of ‘becoming’ to intellectual disability it “offers a method for thinking about difference that is positive and productive because it reads bodies in relation to their contextual positioning and the actions they take.” (Pg.365). This method challenges fixed notions of PMLD, or external notions of learning, to understanding ‘the universe is always in motion’ and always ‘becoming’ (Feely 2016).

Ultimately, I want to move away from fixed identities that limit an understanding of the lived experiences of students with PMLD. Shifting thinking from what students can ‘become’ (e.g. fixed outcomes) to the concept of ‘becoming’, or from ‘predetermined’ to ‘emergent’ changes our understanding of assessment. Therefore, the process of learning is no longer mechanical and technical but instead affective, embodied and material.

References

Bakhurst D (1997) Activity, consciousness, and communication. In: Cole M,

Engestrom Y and Vasquez O (eds) Mind, Culture and Activity: Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–163.

Barber, M. and Goldbart, J. (1998) Accounting for learning and failure to learn in people with profound and multiple learning disabilities: Published in Lacey P & Ouvrey C [1998] People with Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities: A Collaborative Approach to Meeting Complex Needs David Fulton Publishing

Burkitt, I. (1998) Bodies of Knowledge: Beyond Cartesian Views of Persons, Selves and Mind. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 28

Delanda, M (2016) Assemblage Theory. Edinburgh University Press

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988/2004). A Thousand Plateaus. Bloomsbury

DfE (2014) P scales: attainment targets for pupils with SEN Crown Publication

The Rochford Review: Final Report (2016) Review of assessment for pupils working below the standard of the national curriculum tests. Crown

Feely, M. (2016) Disability studies after the ontological turn: a return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism, Disability & Society, 31:7, 863-883

Hickey-Moody, A.C. (2008) Deleuze, Guittari, and the Boundaries of Intellectual Disability Pg.353-370 in Gabel, S.L. and Danforth, S. (2008) Disability & the Politics of Education Peter Lang Publishing

Imray, P. (2019) Is it a good thing to identify people as having profound and multiple learning disabilities? PMLD Link Vol 31 No 2. Issue 93

Imray. P, and Colley. A, (2017) Inclusion Is Dead: Long Live Inclusion. Routledge Focus

Imray, P and Hadfield, M. (2019) EQUALS Pre-formal (PMLD) Curriculum EQUALS

Reich, K., Garrison, J. & Neubert, S. (2016) Complexity and Reductionism in Educational Philosophy—John Dewey’s Critical Approach in ‘Democracy and Education’ Reconsidered. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48:10, 997-1012,

Sayer A (2000) Realism and Social Science. London: SAGE.

Stolz, S.A. (2015) Embodied Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47:5, 474-487

Standards and Testing Agency (2020) The Engagement Model Crown Publishing

Van Manen, M. (2015) Pedagogical Tact: Knowing What to Do When You Don’t Know What to Do. Routledge

Ware, J. (2003) Creating a responsive environment for people with profound and multiple learning difficulties 2nd ed. David Fulton Publishers

Welsh Assembly Government (2006) Routes for Learning: Assessment Materials for Learners with Profound Learning Difficulties and Additional Disabilities. Cardiff. Welsh Assembly Government.

Wrigley, T. (2019) The problem of reductionism in educational theory: Complexity, causality, values. Power and Education 2019, Vol. 11(2) 145–162

Introducing Myself

I am a teacher and senior leader working in special schools for over twenty years. I have a particular interest in students with profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD). I am currently a PhD student utilising post-intentional phenomenology to frame my research.

I wanted to blog publicly as I feel there is a limited literature that covers PMLD specifically; focused on learning, assessment and pedagogy. I believe that by writing my blog I can share some of the thinking as it develops through my doctoral studies.

This blog considers the nature of profound and multiple learning disabilities. The central phenomenon in my research is ‘the process of learning’. This stems from my professional experience as a teacher and senior leader in special education. My research is framed by phenomenology, and as such reference will be made to the concepts that stem from this philosophy and its traditions, as well as exploring the thinking of different philosophers.

I am particularly interested in post-intentional phenomenology as this explores the edges and margins of phenomenology and post-structuralism, with specific reference to Deleuze and Guittari. It also encourages a dialogue with other theories and as such, I engage with feminist theorists and their ideas. Of course, consideration of philosophy, theories and concepts are specifically related to PMLD and the central phenomenon (process of learning).

This blog is intended as an academic venture. However, I do hope it has value to a range of professionals working within the PMLD field as well as parents and carers of children and young people with PMLD. Beyond this group of people, it may be relevant to other researchers who are interested in phenomenology, post-structuralism and new materialism. I would be very happy to discuss my research with those who have an interest in any of the aspects mentioned above.

I do feel very strongly that philosophical debate is absent in education and more widely in society. In my view teaching is in danger of becoming purely technical and scientific, which I believe limits our ability to understand the lived experiences of students with PMLD specifically, but also for others with intellectual disabilities. If I can share some alternative philosophical persepctives that support thinking in different ways about PMLD and intellectual disabilities, and raise awareness of how these perspectives may impact on policy and guidance, then this blog will have been a worthwhile venture.