Page 40 - SEN113 SEN Magazine July-August 2021-V3

40 participants brought in a five-minute video of themselves and the child at play or completing a familiar activity. Video analysis focused on each practitioner’s use of interaction strategies (e.g. silence/waiting for the child to look towards them) using a self-rating tool. Analysis also explored the timing of the child’s communication and the SLT invited the practitioner to experiment further with a particular strategy. The practitioners reflected on their use of strategies, the impact of these and any changes in the child with regard to regulation, communicative intent, play patterns or language/speech. During the session the facilitating therapist freeze-framed the videos to highlight examples of the child’s emerging skills. At the review session participants evaluated progress, compared the first and final video clips, completed the second FOCUS and provided feedback via a qualitative questionnaire. Results and feedback An average of four to six practitioners at each of the five schools completed the programme, targeting 21 different children. Figure one shows the FOCUS total change scores for the 21 children in the study Figure one: The FOCUS total change scores for the 21 children in the study ■ Body watching, mirroring and mischief. The practitioners and special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) gave qualitative feedback through a written questionnaire based on three themes (see table one below). Conclusion and project limitations The results suggest this project was effective in promoting clinically significant changes in children’s communicative participation over a three to five month period. Based on our clinical experience we feel this is because of VERVE’s focus on the moment-by-moment interactions between the children and the practitioners. Crucially, it gives practitioners a supportive space over consecutive weeks to reflect on their own skills, with the SLT making theory accessible and relevant to the children the practitioners work with, and to celebrate the children’s emerging skills. Although our project included a small sample size and the absence of a control group, we conducted it within the everyday working school environment. Therefore, it is likely to represent a realistic setting, with findings likely to be representative of routine practice. In addition, we only used one quantitative measure of the child’s communicative participation – a rating scale completed by the practitioner who was not independent and impartial. Future studies should include use of additional objective measures carried out by independent raters. Table one: Examples of qualitative feedback provide by practitioners and SENCOs Themes Feedback from practitioners: Impact on the child Experience of using video “The child I worked with became more open... more face-to-face interaction more frequently.” “I have noticed the child is interacting with other adults around the school. He also has new friends that he speaks confidently with.” “I felt less self-conscious and found that reviewing the video was helpful... friendly and relaxed sessions helped me to focus on my aims.” Impact on the practitioner “I was able to identify positive/ negative body language from myself which made me more self-aware and able to consider the impact of both.” Feedback from school SENCOs who supported coordination of the training “Staff were proactive in reflecting on this themselves, despite not being chased up by the school. They remembered their own goals and continued to work on these.” SEN113 senmagazine.co.uk SLCN