Education,health and care plans: What do we know so far?

The Children and Families Act, 2014 and the new Special Educational Needs and Disability SEND Code of Practice (DfE and DoH, 2014) has led to reforms in how children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities are supported in England. Now, five years on, research has begun to emerge exploring the implementation of the new statutory assessment process, the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and the outcomes of the process in England. This article seeks to review current research about the introduction of EHC needs assessment process and plans. It highlights three key themes: experiences of the process, reflections on the EHC plans and the outcomes of the process. Whilst parental involvement has improved, and there is some evidence of multiagency work, the views of children and young people continue to be marginalised, and EHC Plans are highly variable in quality, indicating that person-centred approaches are not yet fully implemented. This indicates a need for further research on how to effectively involve CYP with SEND in statutory processes and support.     

The road to self-assessment: exemplar marking before peer review develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report

Lack of clarity about assessment criteria and standards is a source of anxiety for many first-year university students. The Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning (DUAL) programme was designed as a staged approach to gradually familiarise students with expectations, and to provide opportunities for the development of the skills required to successfully complete assessment tasks. This paper investigated the students’ perceptions of the first two components of the DUAL programme, which assist first-year biology students to engage with stated assessment criteria and standards in order to develop their capacity to make judgements about scientific report exemplars, their peers’ scientific reports and ultimately their own. The study found strong evidence (96% of responses) that the marking and discussion of exemplar reports with peers and demonstrators clarified expectations of scientific report writing. A key feature of this element of DUAL was the opportunity for structured discussion about assessment criteria and standards between peers and markers (demonstrators). During these discussions, students can clarify explicit statements and develop a tacit knowledge base to enhance their ability to judge the quality of others’ work and their own. The peer review exercise (the second element of DUAL) was not rated as highly, with 65% of students finding the process helpful for improving their report. The negative reactions by a sizeable minority of students highlight the need to clearly communicate the expectations and benefits of peer review, with a focus on how the process of giving feedback to peers might benefit a student as much as receiving feedback on their own report.     

Rethinking e-learning support strategies

This paper discusses an e-learning support team model developed as part of a new e-learning strategy within a tertiary education polytechnic. Based upon a community of practice model, the e-Team supports the establishment of e-learning and m-learning (mobile learning) throughout the institution as a catalyst for the adoption of social constructivist pedagogy. The paper reviews and reflects upon the impact of strategies for creating and supporting communities of practice across the institution along with the ways this model is achieving the breaking down of the barriers to ‘e’ and ‘m’ learning adoption among lecturers. This model helped to move lecturers from non-engagement to legitimate peripheral participation and onto full participation within the institution’s e-learning community, and ultimately enabling social constructivist learning environments for students. This model based on a community of practice framework for e-learning support is potentially transferable to other educational contexts.     

Control of pigeons’ keypecking by the left-right arrangement of stimuli

Control of pigeons’ keypecking by conditionalities in the spatial arrangement of two element stimuli (designated A and B) was investigated. In Experiment 1, reinforcement for keypecking was made conditional upon the left-right location of A and B: Reinforcement was available when A was on the left and B was on the right (AB), but not on BA, AA, or BB trials. The pigeons successfully discriminated the rewarded AB configuration, but only after a stage in which a particular element in a particular location (e.g., A on left) primarily controlled pecking. Experiments 2 and 3 systematically replicated these findings and included controls to discount discrimination of the AB compound on the basis of the temporal order (e.g., A followed by B) rather than the spatial configuration of the elements. During a generalization test in Experiment 4, the elements were presented singly either in the left (AX, BX) or right (XA, XB) positions. As would be expected had the animals learned “A on the left, B on the right is rewarded,” responding on AX trials exceeded that on XA trials, and responding on XB trials exceeded that on BX trials.     

Control of pigeons’ keypecking topography by a schedule of alternating food and water reward

Food- and water-deprived pigeons keypecked for food or water reinforcement on alternate trials. Under one condition, explicit stimuli on the key provided information about the trial outcome; under another condition, only the alternation schedule provided this information. Latency and/or response rate differences between food- and water-rewarded trials emerged during both conditions. Response topography also differed on food- and water-rewarded trials. These differences, as revealed by duration and force measurements of the keypeck and by human ratings of the pecking responses as being water- or food-related, were anticipatory in nature. These results not only extend previous work on reward alternation and reward-specific response topographies, but also have implications for theories of animal memory. In particular, these results are amenable to memory models that assume that an animal “codes” information that later must be recalled.     

The Early Development of Children's Communication about Nested Spatial Relations

This investigation examined how the nature of the spatial relation influences young children's ability to remember and communicate about nested landmarks. Of particular interest was whether young children are more likely to use a supporting than a proximal landmark to disambiguate identical landmarks (e.g., "it's in the basket on the table" vs. "it's in the basket next to the table"). 3- and 4-year-olds hid objects in a dollhouse and described their locations. Children had to disambiguate the target primary landmark by relating it to a supporting or proximal secondary landmark. Both age groups almost always provided the primary landmark, but 4-year-olds were more likely to provide the secondary landmark than were 3-year-olds. Moreover, children were more successful at providing supporting than proximal secondary landmarks. These results suggest that both referential communication skills and biases in coding location influence children's communication about nested landmarks.     

Pigeons’ spatial memory: V. Proactive interference in the delayed matching of key location paradigm occurs only under restricted conditions

In the delayed matching of key location procedure, pigeons must remember the location of the sample key in order to choose correctly between two comparison keys. The deleterious effect of short intertrial intervals on key location matching found in previous studies suggested that pigeons’ short-term spatial memory is affected by proactive interference. However, because a reward expectancy mechanism may account for the intertriai interval effect, additional research aimed at demonstrating proactive interference was warranted. In Experiment 1, matching accuracy did not decline from early to late trials within a session, a finding inconsistent with a proactive interference effect. In Experiment 2, evidence suggestive of proactive interference was found: Matching was more accurate when the locations that served as distractors and as samples were chosen from different sets. However, this effect could have been due to differences in task difficulty, and the results of the two subsequent experiments provided no evidence of proactive interference. In Experiment 3, the distractor on Trialn was either the location that had served as the sample on Trialn ? 1 or one that had been a sample on earlier trials. Matching accuracy was not inferior on the former type of trial. In Experiment 4, the stimuli that served as samples and distractors were taken from sets containing 2, 3, 5, or 9 locations. Matching accuracy was no worse, actually slightly better, with smaller memory set sizes. Overall, these findings suggested that pigeons’ memory for spatial location may be immune to proactive interference. However, when, in Experiment 5, an intratrial manipulation was used, clear evidence of proactive interference was found: Matching accuracy was considerably lower when the sample was preceded by the distractor for that trial than when it was preceded by the sample or by nothing. Possible reasons why interference was produced by intratrial but not intertrial manipulations are discussed, as are implications of these data for models of pigeons’ short-term spatial memory.