Author: alfcoles

The spread of the worldwide pandemic of Covid 19 with all the strict measures and restrictions applied to minimize its impact on people’s lives have posed a serious challenge to the conduct of my research project. For instance, conducting fieldwork such as interviews and classroom observations during such circumstances was problematic and challenging for me.

The first issue I faced was to pass my progression and upgrade to the PhD level. My panel meeting was decided to be on the 25^th of March 2020, at the first hit of the pandemic when information about the disease was vague and scary. Like all international students in the UK, I decided to flee to my country with my two daughters, trying to take all the precautions to reach home safely. At the same time, I had to think about all the necessary arrangements to have my panel discussion online, bearing in mind that internet connectivity is an issue back home. During the eight-hour flight from the UK to Oman, I had a sleepless night, trying to comfort my two young daughters and assure them that things will be alright and we will reach home safely. I reached home four days before my panel discussion and started my twenty-one days quarantine period alone with my two daughters in a small, rented flat for this purpose. Having to self-isolate in a different place other than my own house was difficult because, as a mum, I had to take care of the three of us alone and on the top of this, I had to prepare for my progression meeting. I am grateful to the compassionate support I got from my supervisors, family, and friends, who gave me the courage to keep going and pass the progression discussion successfully. I will not also forget the professional conduct of the process I experienced as the two examiners in my panel were very insightful and considerate of the whole situation.

The second issue I encountered was recruiting enough participants for my research project. It was not possible for me to contact the college students directly as I had originally planned to engage them in my research. The lockdown measures applied in my national context at that time banned any face-to-face communication between people, so I had to contact the participants via emails first. In such complicated and uncertain circumstances, it was hard to get positive responses from them because they are not used to communicate via emails regularly. Therefore, I had to use my personal relationships with the heads of departments and teachers to encourage the students to respond to my emails. However, securing students’ participation via this way failed too as I did not receive a single reply to my emails from the students whom I have contacted. Hence, I decided to try another alternative. I got the help of a teacher who teaches an elective course to these students and had them all in two WhatsApp groups. I requested him to add my number in the two groups and to introduce me to the students. I introduced myself and my research to them and I requested them to text me directly in case they were interested to participate with me. After several reminders, I managed to get a positive response from four students who helped me to recruit the rest of the participants.

The third challenge was changing to online data collection in my research. I found it very difficult to communicate with the participants virtually because they only insisted on voice interviewing. Disconnecting their cameras and being unable to see them during the conversation was a weird situation for me. I could not read their facial expression or body language, which were important aspects in the communication process because they could help me understand and contextualize their responses to my questions. That was missing during the talks! In the beginning, I felt a bit disconnected during the first conversation. However, I decided to adjust myself to the new situation and accept and respect the participants decision. Appreciating and acknowledging that their participation is voluntary legitimated their request for security. Hence satisfying this need was indeed an essential ethical consideration. I tried to fulfil it because I believe that making the participants feel safe and comfortable during the data collection process results in much in depth data.

The final issue I faced during the second phase of the data collection was the college closure and the cancellation of the rest of the term due to my country’s decision to go into a total lockdown. This decision created a dilemma for me. Cancellation of studies means no online classes available for me to conduct the classroom observations. The other important issue which is directly linked to my research was that my participants will not be available because this was their final term. They will be graduates! I had to face the challenge and to take a decision in consultation with my supervision team. Discarding the data I had already gathered and start over again was not a wise thing to do, especially after the struggle I had to recruit volunteer students for the first phase of the data collection. Besides, cancelling the classroom observations and relying solely on interviews data pose a big limitation in my study because one of my research aims is to triangulate data from different sources. Therefore, I decided to recruit new participants for the focus groups to gather data for the second phase. It was not an easy thing to do, but my good rapport with students and constant communication with teachers helped me to attract and convince other students to participate with me.

It is true that researching in a pandemic is still challenging for me, but I discovered that I can be resilient and adaptable to such new and unexpected situation. All the hardships I have encountered so far, whether in passing the progression discussion or during the data collection process, taught me to be flexible and responsive to a high extent, which I am sure will benefit me in my future research endeavours.

by Salma Al Saifi

Two of the readings we have discussed in the TLC community this year are: Beyond business as usual: Higher education in the era of climate change (Facer, 2020) and Envisioning Black space in environmental education for young children (Nxumalo & ross, 2019). In this post I seek to make a connection between some of the ideas presented in these readings and possibilities offered by narrative inquiry.

 

Facer (2020) proposes that we might reshape existing knowledge structures of universities by collaborating across disciplines and drawing on knowledge traditions which can be excluded, with the result that we might then be better placed to consider the ‘complexity of sustainability challenges’ (p.56). Facer also suggests bringing students and teachers together as key in developing programmes ‘adequate to the emotional, intellectual and practical realities of living well as individuals and with others in the era of climate change’ (p.49).

 

Narrative inquiry is an example of a knowledge tradition living on the margins of what is widely accepted as academic research yet narrative methodology perhaps holds potential for the reshaping of knowledge structures. For my PhD I explored the experiences of three early career primary mathematics teachers through narrative inquiry. As I inquired, I encountered what might be termed grand narratives of deficit associated with the teaching of primary mathematics. I observed these narratives as perpetuated by a fast-paced drive to establish ‘what works’ and a quick recourse to making distinctions between novices and experts. Some reflections since completing my PhD, offered at a recent TLC gathering, have been on Slow processes I consider as inherent to narrative inquiry. Ulmer (2017) uses Slow (with a capital letter) to mark it as different from everyday uses of the word slow. Taking from Ulmer’s ideas, my use of Slow indicates thoughts of being slow and knowing slow. I currently describe these Slow narrative processes as:

• being with all aspects of a research process all of the time;
• seeking to show rather than tell;
• being comfortable and confident in uncertainty.

 

In the era of climate change it seems we can no longer pretend to be able to know ‘what works’ and definitions of novices and experts have been irreversibly disrupted. The Slow processes outlined above perhaps offer shapes for different knowledge structures, spaces in which it becomes possible to hear a range of voices and so engage differently with the complexity of lived experience. I offer more detail next.

 

In contrast to knowledge traditions that separate a research process into constituent parts, narrative inquiry deals with every aspect of a research process all of the time. Studies cannot be wrestled into sections titled ‘data analysis’ or ‘ethics’ or ‘literature review’. Rather, these ways of knowing bump up against each other and the boundaries between them dissolve. The blurred way of shaping knowledge offered by narrative methodologies may perhaps be helpful in supporting engagement with the complex challenges we face in learning to live in more sustainable ways.

 

In adopting a showing rather than telling position, narrative inquiry invites varied interpretations, so opening opportunities for discussion about ‘what’ might be important to know and ‘how’ we might come to know. The article byNxumalo & ross (2019) is powerful in contrasting showing and telling ways of knowing. The first half of the article tells of persistent narratives of deficit associated with environmental education for Black children in North America. In the second half of the paper we are shown how these issues might be lived, through fictional narratives. The article as a whole speaks to all of the knowings Facer (2020) outlines: complex, emotional, intellectual and practical.

 

In being comfortable and confident in uncertainty the impulse to make a fast grab for a discernable truth is relinquished; instead space is made to consider what ‘might’ be, or ‘could’ be. This more uncertain position is again illustrated in the second half of the Nxumalo & ross (2019) paper, with the fictional narratives offering awarenesses of what our futures might be like depending on changes we do, or do not, make.

 

Of course every research tradition has its limits. Narrative research typically takes place over a long period and in a time when the need to act fast becomes more and more pressing, it is perhaps somewhat counterintuitive to suggest a move to slower ways of being and knowing. However, some knowings, ethical ones in particular, take time. Possibly then, Slow knowledge traditions and those based on faster principles might act in complementarity so enabling different knowings of the complexities of living well with ourselves and others in an era of climate change.

 

Facer, K. (2020). Beyond business as usual: Higher education in the era of climate change. Retrieved from www.hepi.ac.uk

 

Nxumalo, F., & ross,  k. m. (2019). Envisioning Black space in environmental education for young children. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(4), 502–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592837

 

Ulmer, J. B. (2017). Writing Slow Ontology. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416643994

 

Caroline Ormesher is a teacher educator at Bath Spa University. She recently completed her PhD at the University of Bristol. These views are her own.

 

With the pea season almost upon us, and many children, parents, and teachers looking for a break from screens, I would like to highlight the potential topical relevance of Friedrich Froebel’s peas work, or ‘sticks united by peas’, which I came across recently in “A Practical Guide to the English Kindergarten” written by Bertha Ronge in 1854. Ronge studied under Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten (or ‘infant gardens’), before moving to Britain and opening the first English-speaking kindergartens, in Tavistock Place, London, in 1851, and a few years later in Manchester and Leeds.

For Froebel, brought up in a small village in the Thuringian forest in Germany and originally an apprentice forester, communing with nature was at the heart of education. He went on to become an assistant to a professor of crystallography in Berlin, which led to an epiphany:

The stones in my hand and under my eyes became forms of life which spoke a language I understood. The world of crystals clearly proclaimed the structure of man’s life to me and spoke of the real life of his world. (Froebel 1967, p.39)

This revelation made sense of the child’s love of playing with building blocks:

in his [sic] own development he follows the course of Nature and imitates her [sic] modes of creation in his games. He likes to build and to imitate the structuring of form which we find in Nature’s first activity, in the formation of crystals. (p.38)

Wooden building blocks became central to Froebel’s set of six ‘Gifts’ to support children’s play in kindergarten, spawning a legacy of blocks as toys which continues in Lego, Minecraft and Roblox today. Famously several key 20^th century architects, including Le Corbusier, Buckminster Fuller and Frank Lloyd Wright were brought up with Froebel’s blocks and acknowledged their influence on their designs and so, arguably, much of the modern built environment.

As children grow older and more dextrous Froebel also recommended ‘occupations’ – crafts such as weaving, painting, paper-folding and ‘peas work’, which involved building crystalline and other structures by using peas to join the points of thin wooden sticks, similar to cocktail sticks. Buckminster Fuller – famous for designing geodesic domes – recounted his experience at a Froebelian kindergarten in New England around 1900:

One of my first days at kindergarten the teacher brought us some toothpicks and semi-dried peas, and told us to make structures. With my bad sight, I was used to seeing only bulks. I had no feeling at all about structural lines. The other children, who had good eyes, were familiar with houses and barns. Because I couldn’t see, I naturally had recourse to my other senses. When the teacher told us to make structures, I tried to make something that would work. Pushing and then pulling, I found that the triangle held its shape when nothing else did. The other children made rectangular structures that seemed to stand up because the peas held them in shape. The teacher called all the other teachers in primary school to take a look at this triangular structure. I remember being surprised that they were surprised. (Quoted in Brosterman p.84)

In a curious loop back to crystals, when researchers discovered polyhedral structures of carbon atoms in the 1980s they named them ‘fullerenes’ after Buckminster Fuller’s architectural designs.

During lockdown I attempted some peas work with my 10-year old niece who I was bubbled with (results pictured below). Apart from their biodegradability, and the fact you can eat any left over, one satisfying aspect of peas is that they set hard overnight giving the structures some permanence. The main tip I would pass on is that garden peas – fresh, soaked from dry, or defrosted from frozen – are better than petit pois, or tinned marrowfat peas, which both tended to disintegrate on being pierced. Sweetcorn, hard berries and other veg would probably also be suitable, or whatever is in season outside.

Having struggled to read some Froebel in English translation, for me Bertha Ronge’s book was a better contemporary introduction to his ideas. Clearly a labour of love, it is written in beautifully crisp Victorian English, with painstakingly hand-drawn illustrations – complete with endearing mistakes (see eg the alphabet in the picture, top) – and some unexpectedly fresh-sounding insights on the psychology of child development, such as babies’ attachment to caregivers, years before Freud was born. It also communicates a philosophical relationship with nature which seems to resonate with 21^st century new materialists such as Jane Bennett, who in Vibrant Matter (2010) echoes Froebel’s sentiment on sensing life in objects in her environment she previously thought of as inert: “I caught a glimpse of an energetic vitality inside each of these things, things that I generally conceived as inert” (p.5).

Recently I was glad to notice some teachers keeping the tradition alive on Twitter, at #SticksAndPeas.

 

Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.

Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

Froebel, F. (1967) in Lilley, I. M. Friedrich Froebel: A selection from his writings. Cambridge University Press.

Ronge, J., & Ronge, B. (1854). A practical guide to the English Kindergarten.

 

Blogpost written by Michael Rumbelow

On 12^th March 2020, the World Health Organisation declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak to be a pandemic.  What followed this announcement was to become the largest global disruption to education in history.  1.6 billion learners in 190 countries were affected, as nations implemented regional lockdowns and school closures to curtail the spread of COVID-19 (UN, 2020).  Since then, as the virus circulated widely in society across the globe, school closures have been implemented nationally, regionally, locally, and reactively based on infection rates.  This article follows on from my presentation on ‘COVID-19, school closures and inequality’ at the TLC roundtable event (March 2021).  It summarises the immediate education policy response relating to COVID-19 in English schools.

In England, national school closures were announced by the government on 23rd March 2020 with the stated aim of ‘reducing transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), to protect the NHS and save lives’ (Gov.UK).  Legislation enacted on 25th March 2020 in the form of the Coronavirus Act 2020, further strengthened national powers to shut educational institutions to almost all pupils.  Children of critical workers were encouraged to attend school, as were vulnerable children, including those who are looked-after, have an education, health and care (EHC) plan and those who have been identified as being vulnerable and who could therefore benefit from continued full-time attendance (Gov.UK). While there is an acknowledgement that school attendance data has been inconsistently reported since March 2020, the headline figures for 17^th April 2020 showed that while 61 per cent of schools were open only 0.9 per cent of pupils were attending at this time (Gov.UK).

From 1^st June 2020, primary schools welcomed back pupils in reception, year 1 and year 6, alongside the priority groups outlined above, and from 15^th June it was expected that secondary schools would also offer some face-to-face support for pupils in year 10 and year 12.  However, by the 18^th June 2020 only 34 per cent of year 6 pupils and 10 per cent of year 10 pupils were attending; and by just before the summer holidays this number had only increased modestly to 44 per cent and 14 per cent respectively (Gov.UK).  These figures highlight the potential disadvantage to those not attending, especially as at this time there was no requirement for schools to offer online learning.

By the end of August 2020, it was the government’s view that ‘the prevalence of coronavirus (COVID-19) has decreased, our NHS Test and Trace system is up and running and we are clear about the measures that need to be in place to create safer environments within schools’ (Gov.UK).  This meant that all pupils, in all year groups, returned to school full-time from the beginning of the Autumn term 2020.

 

‘Returning to school is vital for children’s education and for their wellbeing. Time out of school is detrimental for children’s cognitive and academic development, particularly for disadvantaged children. This impact can affect both current levels of learning and children’s future ability to learn therefore we need to ensure all pupils can return to school sooner rather than later’.

(Gov.UK)

 

However, on 10^th September 2020, only 92 per cent of state schools in England had fully reopened and attendance nationally was 88 per cent.  By the end of October 2020 attendance had fallen further to only 86.2 per cent, with 55 per cent of secondary schools and 20 per cent of primary schools reporting pupils absent through self-isolating.  By the end of the Autumn term in December 2020, attendance was only 85.5 per cent, with 63 per cent of secondary and 22 per cent of primary schools now reporting pupils absent through self-isolating (Source: Gov.UK). This reduction in school attendance coincided with an alarming increase in COVID-19 rates nationally, stoked by the emergence of a new more contagious variant.  So, from 5^th January 2021, the decision was made to once again close all schools in England.  However in this second wave of school closures some schools welcomed increased amounts of children considered ‘vulnerable’ as they used their ability to identify those children who would ‘benefit from continued full-time attendance’ including ‘those who may have difficulty engaging with remote education at home (for example due to a lack of devices or quiet space to study)’ or those ‘who need to attend to receive support or manage risks to their mental health’ (Gov.UK).  By the end of January 2021, attendance in primary school was 22 per cent, but just 5 per cent in secondary schools.

The data summarised in the article calls into question provision for our most vulnerable children, especially at a secondary level.  It particularly highlights the potential impact of pupil absences as schools reopen.  Indeed, missing school due to absence is typically associated with substantially greater negative effects, and these effects are greater for disadvantaged children.  Sharp et al. (NFER, 2020) found, that of those pupils who were able to return in June, senior leaders reported only 56 per cent did, and that this fell to 45 per cent for Pupil Premium pupils.  This highlights a strong relationship between income, and willingness to return to school, which could further exacerbate inequalities, risking a situation where the children who are most able to cope with home learning return to school, leaving their more disadvantaged peers at home.

 

Post written by Victoria Bowen, PhD Researcher in Education, University of Bristol.

Members of the TLC met to further a discussion on climate change education and possible research interests which could be taken further.  The article we read beforehand was:

Joseph Henderson, David Long, Paul Berger, Constance Russell & Andrea Drewes (2017) Expanding the Foundation: Climate Change and Opportunities for Educational Research, Educational Studies, 53:4, 412-425.

This article looks at what research has offered the knowledge base of climate change education and points to this as insufficient before outlining some possible avenues for further research.

At the Zoom meeting we were in small groups to begin with, looking closely at the text of the article (a good way to keep focused!) which raised issues of teachers’ anxieties over teaching climate change – in part as this requires dealing with individuals’ values and the fact that this ‘includes entertaining the possibility that those [values] might need to change.  This can often invoke anxiety and resistance’ (p.149). For example, neo-liberal values and ideas on wealth, materialism, economic development and individual goals may need to be reviewed. Are teachers prepared for this and professionally supported in doing so?

Back in the main room we discussed some of the ideas further and our interests included: how young people think and feel about the issue, what their perspectives are and how and to what extent these views are reflected in the curriculum.  Coming from different angles another interest was: the nature and purpose of climate change pedagogy – various comments on what a critical pedagogy for climate change education could/should look like were suggested and research into an evidence base for such a pedagogy could be an avenue to explore.

An interest in the content knowledge for teaching climate change was raised, including the question of what do teachers access when preparing for teaching and do they feel ready for teaching one of the biggest challenges facing the world? How can it be effectively addressed in subjects outside science and geography? What should teachers say when students express their sadness or worries openly? This linked to a question over whether the current curriculum offered a framework broad enough to deal with the scale of the issue – not referring to climate change on a global scale – but that students need more than the facts. What should they do with those facts?  How should they respond? The affective dimension of climate change education is considered by David Hicks who presents a model for curriculum development which draws upon knowing, feeling, choosing, acting.

Academic and teaching staff, and PGR students, with varied experiences all showed interest in working together in order to responded to the paper’s call for more educational research into climate change education.  The GW4 Climate Change Network was highlighted as a transdisciplinary network involving researchers working with teachers to provide active support for research on climate change education. The TLC meeting was packed with ideas (we ran out of time but didn’t overrun!) and there seemed to be lots of possibilities to take forwards. The group were asked to share readings or other materials which could stimulate further discussion at the next meeting in March.

By Nicola Warren-Lee

THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK IS NOT A HYPERBOLE!!

What book has had the most impact on you recently?

The Equal Classroom: Life changing thinking about gender. By Lucy Rycroft-Smith with Graham Andre

In the opening section of this book Lucy asks the reader ‘How much thinking have you done about gender?’ Well, what a good question! How much do we as educators examine how we might impact on the experiences of students under our care? I brought this book during lockdown 1.0, a week before my progression meeting, to see how I could walk the walk as well as talk the talk as a feminist thinker. What I did not expect was to go on a personal journey of uneasy realisation, revisiting past experiences, and analysing the biases and gaps in my own thinking.

What is the book about?

In this book Lucy joins forces with other contributors, including Graham Andre (from the documentary No more boys and girls: can our kids go gender free? definitely worth a watch by the way!) to talk honestly, and at times personally, about gender. The discussions focus on the many challenges faced by students both in the school environment and wider societal context. The author(s) consider the socio-cultural and biological discourses around gender, the impact of gendered expectations and experiences from toys to PE and school uniform rules, issues around sexuality, relationships and consent, and gender as presented in games and media including classroom texts. Each chapter can be read in isolation, and quite rightly the author(s) do not pull any punches; each topic discussed in detail, before challenging the strongest counterarguments, and ending with a thinking task for you as reader. The practical nature of this book means that the author(s) not only highlight the issues but asks the reader to consider how they could and should respond. If you are looking for an easy read, this is not it! The book is brutally honest and the sub heading of ‘life changing’ applies to both you as reader, and as a result the students that are in your sphere of influence.

Would you recommend this book?

100% yes

I would also highly recommend watching the documentary No more boys and girls: can our kids go gender free? I found a version on YouTube.

Blog Post written by Rachel Helme

A recent report (Moore et al., 2019) placed improving behaviour in schools as a central priority for education contexts. For young people with ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder], the classroom can be a particularly challenging environment for them as they are often more inattentive (Kofler et al., 2008), and display more off-task (Imeraj et al., 2013) and disruptive behaviours (O’Regan, 2018). As such, young people with ADHD require more support from educators in the classroom, but this is typically hindered by a limited teacher knowledge of ADHD (Kendall, 2016) and of evidence-based ADHD-specific interventions, both in the UK (Moore et al., 2016) and internationally (Arcia et al., 2000). In a review of UK teachers’ own perspectives, Moore et al. (2017) recognise the importance of informed pupil-teacher interactions, and the need for evidence-based interventions to effectively assist educators in their daily practice in the classroom.

In light of the above, Dr. Simon Brownhill and Dr. Frances Knight at the University of Bristol School of Education have recently undertaken an exciting exploratory project which set out to establish the extent to which there is a need for an ADHD Teacher Toolkit for the classroom (March-July 2020). Funded by an award from the Economic and Social Research Council Impact Acceleration Account 2019-23, the project built on research by Knight and Brownhill (2019) which explored professionals’ experiences of ADHD behaviours in the classroom (Knight et al., in prep) and identified both unsuccessful and successful behaviour management strategies to best support young people in reaching their potential (Brownhill et al., in prep). This research revealed a distinct lack of ADHD-specific training for professionals, meaning that they found themselves unprepared to manage challenging ADHD behaviours and so had to ‘learn by osmosis’ in the classroom context. The need for an effective and evidence-based ADHD Teacher Toolkit emerged from this research. It was felt that the success of a Toolkit would only be achievable with the inclusion of experienced insights from a suite of professionals and people who were active in their support of young people with ADHD. As such, the following key stakeholders were involved in six interactive online workshops (one hour each) which were used to formulate the content, features and strategies that an ADHD Teacher Toolkit should contain:

• those at a classroom level – class teachers, teaching assistants and Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (11 participants),
• those at an operational level – Educational Psychologists (4 participants),
• those at a strategic level – Headteachers, members of the Senior Leadership Team, and Heads of Department (6 participants),
• those who are experts in their child’s needs – parents/carers (2 participants), and
• those for whom ADHD directly impacts on a personal level – young people with ADHD (4 participants).

This rich and varied range of perspectives has helped to develop an underlying philosophy for the proposed ADHD Teacher Toolkit, as well as generating a suite of potential content in different formats that will ultimately help to shape an effective and usable classroom intervention which embraces an integrated, whole-school approach. Practical suggestions include:

Digital features of the Toolkit	Physical features of the Toolkit
Video scenarios of classroom situations with demonstrations of what teachers can do (and what they should not do)	Cue cards/set of cards or a bookmark for teachers to refer to quickly when needed
A discussion/ideas forum as a place for professionals to ask questions and input suggestions	Objects to facilitate discussion with learners that help to focus conversations. These could also be used throughout a lesson to help learners to focus
Web links to other organisations, support networks and training courses linked to ADHD	Posters showing role models of successful adults with ADHD
Interviews with a range of learners with ADHD to capture their voices	Sets of cards with discussion prompts to use in continuing professional development sessions with education staff, e.g. discussing how to deal with a particular ADHD-related scenario
Links to contemporary research	Booklet with suggested management strategies
Video presentations	Mini whiteboards and pens
Simulation activities that help others to understand what it is like to have ADHD	Practical games

A rigorous analysis of the data generated from this project, initiated by Jennifer Norris (Research Assistant), yielded a number of important conclusions and recommendations which are offered below in the form of ‘Key Takeaways’:

There is a professional need for a Toolkit because:	The Toolkit should be…
Many teachers have misconceptions about ADHD that need to be challenged, and some teachers do     not believe ADHD exists.	Educational and Practical Promoting empathy and understanding. Challenging misconceptions. Recognising that ‘one-size-does-not-fit-all’.
Teachers often have very little, if any, ADHD-specific training.
Teachers need to know how to support students with attentional difficulties, e.g. ADHD, with or without a diagnosis.	Collaborative Enabling young people to take ownership and responsibility of their behaviour and actions. Facilitating a sharing of strategies between parents/carers and teachers.
There is an increased need for understanding about ADHD, not only that of teachers but other stakeholders.
There is a need for communication between teachers, parents/carers, young people and other professionals.	Accessible Be easy for teachers to access when needed. Be accessible in terms of language, presentation, and format.

Looking ahead, Dr. Knight and Dr. Brownhill intend to use the findings from this project as a solid grounding for a large Nuffield Foundation Research Grant which would fund the physical development of an effective, evidence-based ADHD Teacher Toolkit (2021-24).

Post written by Dr. Simon Brownhill and Dr. Frances Knight, University of Bristol School of Education