Research School Network: Practitioner Enquiry Within a Specialist Setting. A journey into practitioner enquiry at Ivy House School, a 2 – 19 special school in Derby City.

Ivy House School is special school for pupils aged 2 – 19 in Littleover, Derby. All of our learners have an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). We work with learners with Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) or Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD). We recognise each young person is unique and have the added complexities, of physical, sensory and medical difficulties. The multiplicity of these means that each and every learner has their own individual set of barriers to learning. Learners with PMLD and SLD learn fundamentally differently from neuro-typical conventionally developing learners, and as such we are required to teach them differently and teach them different things (Imray & Hinchcliffe, 2014).

Students with PMLD are working at the very early stages of development within the Engagement Model, and at a developmental level of between 0 and 18 months. Imray (2005) suggested those with PMLD are likely to be pre-intentional communicators and will generally (unintentionally) communicate for needs/​wants only, have extreme difficulties conceptualising abstract concepts, have difficulty learning through imitation, be (often totally) physically reliant on others and have limited understanding of cause and effect. Less than half of the average PMLD pupil’s time at school is spent in a state where they are fit to learn because of such conditions as sleepiness, pain, discomfort, distraction etc. (Guess et al, 1990). Students with PMLD are learning the fundamental learning skills usually mastered by typical children in the first year or so of life (Lacey, 2011). The subjects may be able to provide an interesting and challenging context for practicing these fundamental skills but it is unhelpful to suggest that pupils with PMLD are learning English, Maths and Science. Many linear or hierarchical assessments will be unable to detect the very subtle changes in behaviour shown by learners with PMLD, regardless of how many ​“small steps” are provided. In real life, children’s development and learning is not compartmentalised.

Students with SLD are at a developmental level of between 18 months and 5 years. They have difficulties with communication, understanding abstract concepts, concentration, and moving things from short-term memory into the long (Imray, 2005). Lacey (2009) notes these learners typically have inefficient and slow information processing speeds, little general knowledge, poor strategies for thinking and learning, and difficulties with generalisation and problem solving. These difficulties may well be compounded by considerably higher than usual incidence of sensory, motor and health difficulties (Porter 2005b); an additional Autism Spectrum Condition diagnosis (De Bildt et al., 2005) and considerably higher than average chance of having challenging behaviours (Allen et al., 2006).

Before I talk through our school’s engagement with research, specifically through Practitioner Enquiry it is worth talking about my own involvement. Initially, I wanted to improve the CPDL (Continuous Professional Development & Learning) offer for our staff, as we needed to develop in this area. I was conscious we did not do a one size fits all approach to our training offer, as we are fortunate to have a real mixed cohort of experience, knowledge and expertise within the school and I aimed to avoid wasting valuable time on training that might cover practices our staff had already mastered for years on topics that wouldn’t directly benefit our students. When I first engaged with educational research, I thought that all of it was aimed at ​“mainstream students” and things such as cognitive load theory would have no relevance within a special school with our students. However, I was so wrong! So much so I am now an ELE for the Derby Research School, and we regularly encourage our staff to get as involved as possible with the training, events and resources they provide. I now realise just how much more important these things are for our learners, as they will face additional barriers due to their SEND, such as a reduced working memory, sensory processing disorders and so on. I now realise it is about using the research and adapting it to your own school context, trying it out, and seeing if it works in your schools, then scaling it up across the school if it is proven to have an impact. This is where our personalised CPDL offer could come in – doing what makes a difference for the specific learners within your class. We as a school are now excited about the possibilities of being research informed and having staff engaged in their own research through Practitioner Enquiry. Staff are wanting to improve because they want to know the ​“Why” and are using it to develop their own practice as well as drive improvements across the school.

Practitioner enquiry is any form of evaluation which includes the following steps:

> Identify an issue to be addressed

> Look at other resources and/​or research literature to identify possible reasons and solutions

> Identify and implement a strategy to attempt to improve the issue

> Evaluate the changes made

Have you tried a new strategy in your classroom lately? Have you planned your lessons differently? Are you looking for an alternative approach to dealing with a problem in your school?

If your answer to any of these questions is Yes, you’re already on the way to developing your skills in practitioner enquiry.

By formalising the process through careful planning, acting and evaluating, you can develop simple changes to the level of worthwhile and effective practitioner enquiry.

[Taken from Practitioner Enquiry in East Dunbartonshire Council – An Introductory Guide]

I attended the Derby Research Schools – Leading Learning: Developing an Evidence-Informed CPD Approach which really gave me the tools to get started with Practitioner Enquiry in the school. I worked with one of the facilitators to develop an implementation plan, which helped outline the active ingredients and implementation activities with realistic time scales. We then introduced Practitioner Enquiry at the start of the academic year and used our September INSET to run through everything to help staff understand why we were doing it, demonstrating how we were going to give them the tool and the time to be able to do it, and explained where the support would be to help them get going and throughout their projects. We set out that each class in our school would lead their own enquiry project (each class has 1 teacher and at least 3 Teaching Assistants who would all participate and support the same project), as would each member of the senior leadership team, with the plan that eventually all staff in the school would be engaged in the process including our site and administration team (this is still work in progress). The project would form target 3 of their Performance Management to give it the status and focus it needed, and ensured it was around addressing an area of professional development for the teacher who was leading each project as well as the TAs supporting it. However, we removed any perceived threat to it and were comfortable that we would be new to it, and projects that showed no impact were just as useful as projects that had a lot of impact. Initially all projects linked to the whole school development plan to enable us to give it the structure, support and prominence it required, but as we have developed as action researchers’ staff have been able to pick the areas they feel will have the most impact on their learners.

We applied the EAST framework to ensure Practitioner Enquiry had the best chance of being successful in the school as below:

Easy – We developed regular training, a research library in school, developed proformas for project proposals and final presentation, gained support from others who were doing it. Each project had a key question which was framed as: What impact does [intent] delivered [implementation] have on [Impact] for [whom?]?

Attractive – We pitched Practitioner Enquiry as a chance to really have an impact across the school on our learners. Staff could work on an area that would impact their class groups and gave them a personalised CPDL offer. We provided regular allocated directed time for staff to be able to engage with research and work on their projects.

Social – We developed an in-school Community of Practice and gained some outside support from local researcher’s and University lecturers to support us engage with and understand some of the research and the process of action research. We had time where staff could talk through their projects, support each other and troubleshoot.

Timely – We developed a clear plan for the year, with each half-term having a different focus so that staff had the framework and clear timelines of when certain activities needed to be done. 

In half-term one, staff identify the issue or area for change. What is going well that they would like to be even better? What is really a problem and needs to improve? What are we passionate about developing for our students? 

In half-term two, they begin to engage in the research in more detail and look at what possible solutions there may be to their issue. They decide and access any training, visits, or learning required, and begin to develop any resources as well as defining how they would baseline and measure progress once they introduced a possible research-based solution. Staff complete research proposal forms to ensure they cover what is required and allows us to look into any ethical considerations. In half-term three, staff baseline students and introduce their possible solution or new practice into their classroom. As it is an ongoing learning process, additional training, visits and adaptations can be made throughout the project to ensure it has the best possible chance of having a positive impact on students. They then continue to monitor and review their projects and adapt as required, with opportunities to reflect and adjust practice. 

In half-term six, classes evaluate what worked and what didn’t work. They write up their findings in A3 academic poster format. There is then a showcase of their projects for staff to be able to read and ask questions about each other’s work. We could then decide as a school community what projects could be implemented wider, what needed more research and what did not work and therefore could be discounted for the time being.

We really wanted a personalised CPDL approach and encourage staff to work with and visit other schools as much as possible to develop their own practice. Practitioner Enquiry provided the framework to be able to do this and helped to bring about fundamental changes in pedagogy and curriculum and thereby significantly improves the quality of students’ learning experiences (Elliot and Sarland, 1995). Our students deserve to get the best education we can provide, the evidence will show us our ​“best bets” and action research will enable us to find out what will work for our students without introducing things for the sake of it. Practitioner Enquiry enables staff to see what was is there, access training, materials, discuss with peers and go on visits to other schools. We provide the resources and time to enable staff to do this as we are keen staff drive developments within their class that can then be used across the school. This provides us with change champions – staff who are confident in key areas, are able to share the impact and provide real examples of their project to staff to support others and drive implementation throughout school. One example that was incredibly successful at Ivy House School was the roll out of the Engagement Model, which is the statutory assessment for students working below National Curriculum level and not engaged in subject specific study. Before the Engagement Model became statutory one of our class teams trialled and developed a system we could use in school. This meant we had videos of our students being assessed for each area, we had the templates and proformas that we knew worked (that were tweaked and adapted throughout the project based on findings), and we had a range of staff who could support others as they had read, understood and applied the system we developed.

To support us to become more research engaged we transformed a space in school into our staff library. We made it an engaging space with a fake fireplace, wallpaper and sofas [DFS help spruce up Ivy House’s staff room – Derbyshire Live (derbytelegraph.co.uk)]. We ensured our curriculum, documents, staff training and presentations maximised educational research and had a focus on using the EEFs Teaching and Learning Toolkit to help identify the best bets in improving outcomes for our students. We have a standing agenda item on our weekly SLT to discuss and explore research. We subscribe to ResearchEd, Impact, signpost to relevant websites and just immerse ourselves in as much opportunity to access and engage as we can in high quality research.

The following extracts are taken from ResearchEd – June Issue 4 – Evidence-based School Leadership by Dr Gary Jones:


> ​“We need to have an honest conversation about teachers’ research literacy and their subsequent abilities to make research-informed changes in their practice”.
> ​“Headteachers and senior leaders ​“talked a good game” about evidence-informed teaching within their schools, whereas the reality was that research andevidence was not embedded within the day-today practice of the school”.
> ​“Ultimately, the best evidence we currently have may well be wrong; it is certainly likely to change”.


For me it is really exciting for staff to be involved in research, developing a staff library and say we are a research informed school, however, this article brought me back down to earth. If we were to get this all up and running, and it doesn’t have any impact on improving practice, and therefore the quality of education our students receive, then what’s the point? So, we have a duty as a school to make sure that Practitioner Enquiry makes a difference and isn’t just something we do for the sake of it. It must drive forward our practice, provide us with a personalised CPDL offer and essentially help us to become better practitioners for the young people we are fortunate enough to serve.

Now I cannot write this and pretend it was all sunshine and rainbows. We introduced Practitioner Enquiry in year of the Covid pandemic and national lockdown hit us all, and rightly so, our focus moved to ensuring we could offer safe education for our students. However, I am incredibly proud to say we did not drop our research projects because of the small matter of a global pandemic. Knowing we would not be able to gather a full data set, we instead surmised based on what we had before we went into lockdown, and used research to predict what we think would happen [some examples from our first year below]. We then repicked up our projects the following year, enabling staff to develop their ideas based on their first years findings. I must also be honest and say there have been times where our focus has changed, meaning we have not been able to provide the time for staff to work on their projects and therefore had to draw back on our expectations. We have also been engaged in developing a SEND version of the Transforming Teaching project, which has really complimented our work to date but has meant we have adapted the way we complete our projects to fit in with the work and commitments around this. But this is all ok! The goalposts and challenges of working in a school are ever changing, and we must be comfortable with adapting the work we do. We have laid strong foundations for Practitioner Enquiry in our school, we have driven forward our engagement in cognitive science and educational research. We are by no means perfectly implementing this the way we intended, we want it to be a seamless part of what we do and after 4 years, we are still working towards this. But the impact it has made has been incredible and we are really glad we took the first steps as a school to work towards this.