Children Group Experiences

124 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 31 No. 1© The British Psychological Society, 2014

Hearing the unheard: Children’s constructions of their Nurture Group experiencesRhian Griffiths, Rosanna Stenner & Una Hicks

There is a growing body of evidence pointing to the associated benefits of nurture group provisions forvulnerable children and young people identified as experiencing social, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties (Cooper & Whitebread, 2007; O’Connor & Colwell, 2002). Consequently, there are anincreasing number of such provisions in schools (Cooper & Whitebread, 2007). However, closerexamination of the literature reveals children’s views on their nurture group experiences have neither beensought or heard. Since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, empowerment of childrenand young people, ensuring they have been consulted and heard, has become integral to legislation andguidelines for professionals. This brief practitioner pilot offers a novel, exploratory insight into children’s constructions of their

nurture group experiences in one primary school in Wales. This nurture group adhered to the ‘classic’ modelas outlined by Bennathan and Boxall (2000); and was located within the mainstream school. The childrenregistered every morning and spent a minimum of one day a week in their mainstream classrooms. Theparticipants consisted of two girls and six boys in KS2 (ranging from 7 to 11-years-old). Six of the childrenwere attending the nurture group and two had recently reintegrated full time into their mainstream classes.The children had attended the nurture group provision for between one and three terms. The researchersspent time following the nurture group routine with the children prior to the focus group, which wasadapted to accommodate the children’s needs and incorporated into the nurture group’s circle time. Thefocus group allowed for information to be elicited and shared through various age-appropriate means,including the election of a soft toy mascot, paired discussions, and the use of post-it notes with scribes onhand. Thematic analysis of the children’s elicited constructions revealed themes broadly consistent with thetheoretical underpinnings and aims of the ‘classic’ nurture group model. These included environmentalfactors, relationships, self-regulation and learning. The findings emphasised the insight children have intotheir experiences and their ability to express what works for them and why. The responsibility and benefitsof professionals actively seeking and valuing the voice of the child is discussed. The child-centredmethodology used may be a valuable vehicle for further research and practice within educational psychologyand other disciplines which seek to empower children and young people by eliciting the voice of the child. Keywords: Nurture Groups; voice of the child; empowerment; child-centred methodology; emotional andbehavioural difficulties; researcher practitioner.

Empowerment and the voice of the child

SINCE THE United Nations Conventionin 1989 on the Rights of the Child, givingchildren and young people a voice has

become an integral component of a vastamount of legislation and literature in the UK(DfES, 2001; HM Government 2003, 2004).More specifically, the Welsh Government(WG) has adopted the child’s voice at theheart of all of its legislation, making it statutoryin 2010, and has translated it into the sevenCore Aims for all children and young peoplein Wales (Welsh Assembly Government, 2005).Additionally, Estyn (Her Majesty’s Inspec-torate for Education and Training in Wales)has incorporated seeking pupils’ views intotheir inspection framework, seeing the voiceof the child as a key element of a successfullearning environment (Estyn, 2008).

The benefits and positive outcomes ofpupil participation have been documentedfor individual children and young people,staff, organisations and communities(Kendall et al., 2008; Lyle et al., 2010). Thesebenefits include gains for the learners them-selves in terms of engagement, self-esteem,confidence and personal skills and develop-ment (Lyle et al., 2010). Better relationshipsbetween school staff and pupils have alsobeen reported. At an organisational level,benefits include changes in organisationalpractices, services and facilities, policy andstrategy developments. At a community level,research has highlighted improved commu-nity safety, an improvement in the image ofchildren and young people within thecommunity and an increase in children andyoung people providing support for theirpeers within their communities (Kendall etal., 2008). The value of actively involvingchildren and young people in research andpractice appears to lie in both the invaluablemessages conveyed to researchers and policymakers as well as in the empowerment ofchildren and young people (Cullingford,2006; Reid et al., 2010; Sellman, 2009).

Given such benefits, it is unsurprising thatthe number of studies which seek the percep-

tions of pupils continues to grow (Reid et al.,2010). Against this backdrop, there is a distinctdearth of research which seeks to advocate theviews of young people with additional learningneeds such as those with social, emotional andbehavioural difficulties (SEBD) (Sellman,2009). Davies (2005) draws attention to thelarge body of literature on pupil voice in rela-tion to their educational provision from main-stream settings compared to the sparseliterature from SEBD pupil’s perspectives. Ofthis literature it is predominantly secondaryschool SEBD pupils’ perspectives which havebeen sought (Cefai & Cooper, 2010; Michael& Frederickson, 2013; O’Connor et al., 2011;Sellman, 2009). Findings from these studiesindicate that children in this population canand do convey valid, challenging, and valuablemessages regarding the make-up of thecurriculum and the environments they feel tobe conducive to their learning.

Given these benefits, pupil voice shouldrightfully underpin, and be an integral partof, all professional practice for thoseworking with children and young people. Ofthose professionals, educational psycholo-gists (EPs) are said to be in a good positionto elicit children’s views neutrally, ensuringthat they are included in proposed plans fortheir education (Department for Educationand Employment [DfEE], 2000). EPs them-selves have reported that valuing children’sviews is one aspect of their role that theyperceive to be valuable to schools (Ashton &Roberts, 2006). Todd, Hobbs and Taylor(2000) argue that a central concern for everyEP should be how to develop professionalpractice that genuinely enables the views ofchildren and young people to be heard.

Given the widely accepted role of the EPas a scientist-practitioner (Fallon et al., 2010)it is also important for EPs to consider ways ofeliciting children and young people voiceswhen engaging in research related to educa-tional interventions underpinned by psycho-logy. One such intervention developed by anEP to address the needs of children andyoung people with SEBD is that of nurturegroups (Bennathan & Boxall, 2000).

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 31 No. 1 125

Hearing the unheard: Children’s constructions of their Nurture Group experiences

Background and context of Nurture GroupsA nurture group (NG) is a form of educa-tional provision initially developed for youngchildren experiencing social, emotional andbehavioural difficulties (O’Connor &Colwell, 2002). Since the introduction ofNGs in the 1970s the number of NG provi-sions within local authorities across the UKhas grown exponentially (Cooper & White-bread, 2007). The evidence base for NGs isgrowing with a substantial number of empir-ical evaluations reporting a plethora of posi-tive outcomes. (Bennathan & Boxall, 1998;Binnie & Allen, 2008; Cooper et al., 2001;Cooper & Tiknaz, 2005; Cooper & White-bread, 2007; Gerrard, 2005; Iszatt &Wasilewska, 1997; MacKay et al., 2010;O’Connor & Colwell , 2002; Reynolds et al.,2009; Sanders, 2007; Scott & Lee, 2009).

The rationale for NGs is largely based onattachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978;Bennathan & Boxall, 2000; Bowlby,1969/1981, 1973, 1980; Cooper & Tiknaz,2005) and a sociocultural theory of learning(Vygotsky, 1978). For the young to learn effec-tively, they need to feel secure and connectedto attuned adults they can trust, as well assecure emotionally and physically within theirenvironments. In the absence of these condi-tions, the young child becomes insecure,fearful and anxious. This elicits survivalrelated attachment behaviour which can bemaladaptive in mainstream settings. Thepupils who attend NGs often have experiencesof trauma, poor care at home or within theauthority and disadvantages or impairments inlearning. NGs, therefore, aim to enable theseyoungsters to (re)experience attuned,nurturing care through intensive interactionswithin a predictable and safe environment.The goal is that key adults will model positiverelationships and provide a safe environmentfor them to learn and practice the social,emotional and behavioural skills needed todevelop and maintain relationships. Theseskills are thought to form the foundations toenable functioning, managing and thrivingwithin a mainstream classroom environment.

A ‘classic’ NG (Bennathan & Boxall,2000) comprises of between 10 to 12 pupils,with two adults mediating the learningwithin the group. The nurture provision isbased on-site in the child’s mainstreamschool with children spending a minimum ofone half day in their mainstream classroomsand registering there in the mornings. NGstaff develop a context within the provisionwhich models, fosters and develops relation-ships and social interactions that are respon-sive, consistent and caring. The daily routineis explicit, uniform and predictable.

These espoused NG principles andprocedures advocated by Bennathan andBoxall (2000) are not always observablewithin practice. Cooper, Arnold and Boyd(1998) identify four variants of the classicNG provision. Variant one refers to the‘classic’ NG as described above. Variant twotermed ‘new variant NGs’ have the sameunderlying principles as the ‘classic’ modelbut differ with respect to organisationand/or structure. Variant three, referred toas ‘groups informed by NG principles’, differfundamentally from both ‘classic’ and ‘newvariant’ models in respect to their organisa-tion and structure, whereby NGs may takeplace during lunchtimes or as after schoolclubs. Variant four is described as ‘aberrantNGs’. This variant simply bears the name ofthe NG and fundamentally contradicts the‘classic’ model both in terms of definingprinciples and structure.

Research evidence and gap in theliteraturePublished research into NGs can besummarised under four categories: schoolplacement and individual support effects(Iszatt & Wasilewska, 1997; Sanders, 2007),classroom teacher and whole school effects(Binnie & Allen, 2008; Cooper & White-bread, 2007), cognitive and educationaleffects (Cooper & Tiknaz, 2005; Cooper &Whitebread, 2007; MacKay et al., 2010;Reynolds et al., 2009) and the social,emotional and behavioural effects onstudents attending or who had previously

126 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 31 No. 1

Rhian Griffiths, Rosanna Stenner & Una Hicks

attended NG provisions (Bennathan &Boxall, 1998; Binnie & Allen, 2008; Cooperet al., 2001; Cooper & Whitebread, 2007;Gerrard, 2005; O’Connor & Colwell, 2002;Sanders, 2007; Scott & Lee, 2009; Seth-Smithet al., 2010).

A review of the literature indicates thatresearch has predominantly sought parentaland teacher reports to explore constructs ofinterest. Despite being the primary stake-holders, the perspectives of the childrenattending NG provisions are heavily under-represented within the literature. Only twostudies were identified which qualitativelyexplored the perceptions of the pupilsattending NG provisions (Bishop & Swain,2000; Cooper et al., 2001). Bishop and Swain(2000) retrospectively elicited the views ofpupils who had previously attended a NGprovision in order to gain evidence forreopening a closed NG provision. In thisstudy the children identified the supportthey received, the activities they engaged inand the respite from being in a mainstreamclassroom as being beneficial. Cooper et al.(2001) as part of their research, conducted alarge number of individual interviews withchildren attending NG provisions across 25schools in two local authorities. The childrenidentified aspects of the nurture provisionthey perceived as beneficial, including thequality of the relationships with NG staff, thepleasant nature of the NG environment inrespect to the physical attributes and thepredictability of the NG routines. Thoughthe large sample size is commendable theresearchers themselves acknowledge thehigh level of demand characteristics arisingfrom the interview context as well as the lackof generalisability due to the different vari-ants of nurture provisions the children hadattended. A more naturalistic form of elic-iting the child’s voice and acknowledgingthe variant of NGs may overcome some ofthese difficulties.

Methodology rationaleGersch (1996) suggests that without suitablevehicles for children to express their beliefs,

their genuine involvement is impossible.The focus group (FG) methodology hasbeen proposed as a suitable vehicle forchildren to express their views and beliefsand has been used by a number ofresearchers to gain pupils’ constructionsrelated to their education within a schoolenvironment (Cullingford, 2006; Horowitzet al., 2003; Reid et al., 2010).

FGs can provide a platform for youngchildren to share their views in a naturalisticenvironment through the social interactionsfacilitated between peers. They can provide acontext where children experience a highlevel of comfort, a decrease in self-conscious-ness and an increase in their ability to expressthemselves through a dialogue they arecomfortable with (Kennedy et al., 2001). FGsoffer a methodology that is sufficiently flex-ible to accommodate a wide range ofchildren’s needs (Horowitz et al., 2003)whilst providing an interactive and evaluativeperspective to child centred research(Kennedy et al., 2001). FGs can arguablyovercome some of the difficulties associatedwith quantitative research measures that riskmissing the child’s unique perspective.Through their interactive and participatorynature FGs also have the potential to reducedemand characteristics that can arisebetween an adult and child in an individualinterview context (Kennedy et al., 2001).With this in mind, the current researchersadopted and adapted a FG methodology tomeet the two-fold aims of the research.Firstly, the researchers sought to elicitchildren’s constructions of their NG experi-ences in order to contribute ‘their voices’ tothe literature. Secondly, the researcherssought to adhere to the principles underpin-ning EP practice in relation to eliciting andhearing the voice of the child within a scien-tist-practitioner and researcher role. Centralto the methodology was the aim of placingthe children and their daily routine at thecentre of the research process. For thisreason the researchers spent a morningfollowing the usual nurture group routine,including the sharing of food and partici-



pating in circle time activities. The adapta-tions made to the FG format, in order to facil-itate inclusion, encompassed involving thechildren in forming explicit, age appropriateboundaries for the FG. The ice-breaker activ-ities; the utilisation of different methods ofrecording the children’s construction, forexample, verbal responses, scribing, paireddiscussions which were fed back to the groupand written responses. Questions andprompts were formulated with the intentionof providing a skeleton format to the FG andto stimulate discussion around the children’snurture group experiences. Thus, the adap-tations made to the FG were aimed atensuring that the social, emotional andbehavioural needs of this vulnerable popula-tion were suitably addressed to maximisetheir participation and provide a contextwhere they felt comfortable and empoweredto share their views.

MethodologyThis research was undertaken as part of adoctoral training programme in educationalpsychology. The NG was situated within alarge dual-stream (Welsh and Englishmedium) school within a deprived area ofWales. The NG had been established for asignificant period of time and followed the‘classic’ NG variant.

The NG provision was an onsite facilityemploying two full time members of staffand was exclusively for children attendingthe school. Children enrolled in the NG hadbeen identified as having additional learningneeds in the areas of social, emotional andbehavioural development. This vulnerablegroup of children attended the provision foreither morning (Key Stage 2 [KS2]) or after-noon (Key Stage 1 [KS1]) sessions. Thechildren then spent the remainder of theday in their mainstream class, with theexception of one full day a week being allo-cated to their mainstream classroom. TheNG had been recognised by Estyn as anoutstanding feature of the school’s provisionfor learners with ALN (Estyn, 2010).

ParticipantsThe sample comprised of eight children(two girls, six boys), six of whom were at thetime attending the NG provision and twowho had recently reintegrated back intotheir mainstream classrooms. All of thechildren were currently in KS2 aged between7 and 11 years of age. The length of time thatthe children had attended the NG varied,ranging between one and three term’s atten-dance. KS2 attendees were chosen on thepremise that this older cohort may be moredevelopmentally able to articulate theirthoughts and feelings (Horwitz et al., 2003).

ProcedureBilingual information sheets and informedconsent forms were sent to the children,their parents, and the school two weeksbefore the FG was to be conducted. Thesheets and forms were also adapted for thechildren to ensure they were as child friendlyas possible. These adaptations includedpictures of the researchers and symbolicrepresentations. It was hoped this wouldhelp the children feel more familiar with theresearchers and aid understanding of whatparticipation would entail.

After written informed consent wasobtained, two researchers travelled to theschool to facilitate the FG. In an attempt tobuild rapport with the participants and makethe FG as child-centred as possible theresearchers engaged in the daily routine ofthe NG for a morning session prior to datacollection. The routine included the sharingof breakfast and a circle time session.

The FG lasted for approximately onehour. During the FG the NG staff vacated theclassroom in an attempt to avoid anydemand characteristics elicited by their pres-ence. The children were made aware ofwhere they could find the staff if needed.The researchers verbally verified thechildren’s informed consent, anonymitywithin the study, and their right to withdraw,or not answer/contribute, at any time. Thechildren and the researchers sat in a circlewith the dictaphone recorder in the middle.



The children were made aware of therecording apparatus and were consultedagain regarding consent and anonymity.Name badges were made and the group wasencouraged to outline some ‘ground rules’with regard to appropriate behaviour withinthe group. Two short, fun, ice-breaker activi-ties were facilitated by the researchers andwere felt to have added to the relaxed natureof the group. These activities also served tomix the children up in terms of seatingarrangements.

The researchers presented the first ques-tion aimed at eliciting the participants’perceptions of the NG in the relativecomfort of a dyad with a familiar peer. Eachchild within their pair was asked to:‘Share three things you think about the NGwith your partner.’

Each child then shared his/her partner’sthoughts with the whole group. By conveyingtheir partners’ thoughts it was hoped thatpressure would be alleviated from individ-uals and this would yield richer information.

The second activity within the FGcomprised of a post-it note activity adaptedfrom Reid et al. (2010). The post-it noteactivity required that children:‘Write down on separate sticky notes what youthink is the same, and what you think isdifferent, about the NG and your other class inschool.’

The researchers were available to scribe, orfurther explain the concept of the activity forthe children if needed. The children thenstuck their answers onto two separate flipcharts, one for same and one for different.The interactive and largely non-verbalnature of this task was to enable the childrenwho did not feel as confident or able toverbalise their responses to contribute theirthoughts and feelings. These contributionswere read aloud for the purposes ofincluding the data in the transcription foranalysis. Feeding the information responsesfrom the post-it note activity back to thegroup also stimulated discussion betweenthe children. When the discussion came toan end the researchers moved on to the final

pre-formulated question. The third question followed a circle time

format using a teddy, chosen by the children,for all to contribute any other informationthey wanted to share about how they thoughtand felt about the NG. The children wereasked:‘How does it make you feel being in the NG?’

The teddy mascot provided a mediumthrough which most of the children wereable to share their thoughts and feelings.Whilst the medium initially followed a circleformat in providing a clear structure for allthe children to contribute, they soon beganpassing the teddy amongst themselvesduring discussion. The teddy proved a usefulreminder that the children should try not totalk over one another.

Following the process, the researchersand children took part in a game chosen bythe children. The children were thanked fortheir time and for sharing their thoughts.The researchers then spent some timelooking at the children’s work which theywere eager to share. This activity, as well asthe distribution of stickers and formaldebrief sheets formed the child centreddebriefing process.

ResultsThe recording of the FG, including theresponses mediated by the researcher’s ques-tions, the Post-it note responses which wereread aloud, and the constructions sharedduring discussions following individualresponses, were transcribed and analysedusing thematic analysis based on the sugges-tions by Braun and Clarke (2006). Theresearchers initially conducted the primaryanalysis separately in order to increase thevalidity of the themes identified. The sepa-rate primary analysis yielded largely consis-tent themes that subsequently formed theprimary theme map. Collaboratively theresearchers refined this map into a finaltheme map (Figure 1). The broad themesidentified were the environment, learning,self-regulatory behaviour and relationships.



What are the key themes that were elicited fromthe FG?The themes described are based on the viewsexpressed by the children throughout theFG. The researchers acknowledge that theseare based upon their constructions of thechildren’s views.

Theme 1: EnvironmentWithin this theme the subthemes of groupsize, familiar and comfortable surroundings,sharing breakfast and predictability wereidentified. Sharing breakfast appeared to beparticularly salient in their responses. Thefollowing are examples of statements said bythe children:‘we have sercel (circle) time and relas sashon(relax session).’‘it’s a small crowd.’‘we have sofers (sofas).’‘I feel good… umm we don’t have teachers likeMiss A and Miss B and they help us, and inclass (mainstream) I show off a bit because wehave more people and I fight for attention.’

Theme 2: LearningWithin this theme the subthemes of scaf-folding, rewards and recognition were iden-tified. The following are examples ofstatements within this theme:‘so when you finish your work you can playgames or go on the laptop or something.’‘and then we can read, Miss A can read, andwe can have a little swap.’‘when we do work Miss A, Miss A will help us,she won’t just ‘oh go and do this’ she helps usout and stuff.’‘she tells us like… she tells us stuff like, um youdo this, and like she like helps me figure it out,like so, she tells us, she doesn’t like just tell usthe answer, she makes it easier.’

Theme 3: Self-regulatory behaviourWithin this theme the subthemes of copingstrategies, awareness, behavioural controland emotional control were identified. The

children were able to identify and articulatethe strategies they had adopted sinceattending the NG to manage their behav-iour. The following are examples of state-ments within this theme:‘umm I don’t lose my temper as I used to… I can sometimes, but I don’t lose it as much.’‘Miss told me, umm, I write it down, like youcan always write things down on a piece ofpaper, like we got “all about me” books, so wehave ‘I feel silly one’, ‘I feel sad one’.’‘and then umm, I think about it again, I thinkabout it but if I think I am going to do it, I justgo and sit somewhere and think about it, I don’t like people coming to talk to me oranything.’

Theme 4: RelationshipsWithin this theme the subthemes of friend-ships, availability, feeling like a family,belonging, predictability and trust wereidentified. The following are examples ofstatement within this theme:‘ummmm it’s like a family and my friends inhere.’‘I like to come in here and talk to Miss A andMiss B, because it helps me improve and stuff.’…and get more friends so you don’t feel alone.’‘Erm, I got loads of friends in ‘ere, feels likefamily…’

DiscussionThe aims of the current pilot study were two-fold. Firstly, the researchers sought to elicitchildren’s constructions of their nurturegroup experiences in order to contribute‘their voices’ to the literature. Secondly, theresearchers sought to adhere to the princi-ples and legislation underpinning EP prac-tice in relation to eliciting and hearing thevoice of the child. In doing so, they feel thata unique, child-centred methodology wasdeveloped to ensure participant empower-ment. Discussion will initially focus on theresearch findings in relation to thechildren’s constructions of their NG experi-ences followed by a discussion of the ways inwhich the children were placed at the centreof the research process.





Figu

re 1: F

inal The

me Map

.

Environm

ent

Learning

Relation

ships

Rewards

Scaffolding

Feeling lik

e a Fa

mily

Availability

Pred

ictability

Group

Size

Sharing

Brea

kfast

Familiar and

Comfortab

leSu

rrou

ndings

Friend

ships

Pred

ictability

Belong

ing

Trus

ting

Reco

gnition

Self-R

egulatory

Beha

viou

r

Coping

Strategies

Awaren

ess

Beha

viou

ral

Control

Emotiona

lCo

ntrol

The information shared by the childrenduring the FG formed a data set rich in bothbreadth and depth of constructions. Thelevel of insight demonstrated by the childrenis consistent with the findings of otherresearchers who have sought the pupil voicewith children of similar ages on othermatters such as school attendance (Reid etal., 2010).

Four overarching themes were generatedfrom the data set; the environment,learning, self-regulatory behaviour and rela-tionships. The children’s constructionswithin these themes emphasised the insightthey had into their experiences and theirability to express what works for, and helps,them and why. Broadly speaking, the themesgenerated from the children’s constructionsof their nurture group experiences arecongruent with the theoretical underpin-nings of NGs as identified within the litera-ture (Bennathan & Boxall, 2000; Cooper &Tiknaz, 2005; Cooper & Whitebread, 2007).The children’s constructions within the ‘rela-tionships’ theme included a heavy focus onthe quality of the interactions between peersand teachers and particularly the feeling ofbelonging to a ‘family’ within their NG. Thevalue the children placed on relationships isin line with the findings of studies whichhave sought secondary school SEBD pupils’perspectives on their education provision(Cefai & Cooper, 2010; Michael & Freder-ickson, 2013; O’Connor et al., 2011;Sellman, 2009). The children demonstratedan awareness of the impact the NG provisionhad on themselves in the immediate context.The children also revealed an awareness oftheir thoughts and feelings regarding thelonger term impact of the provision. Thechildren talked about the wider array ofstrategies they had developed whilstattending the NG which they could nowdraw upon for managing their behaviour.The children emphasised their experiencesof relationships within their NG. Facilitatingthe formation of such relationships are aprimary aim of NG interventions as under-pinned by attachment theory (Bowlby, 1987)

and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory oflearning (Vygotsky, 1978).

Within the ‘learning’ theme the childrenidentified a number of mediated learningstrategies they perceived as beneficialincluding regular breaks and reducing taskcomplexity. These perceptions could also beattributed to the scaffolding learningapproach advocated by the socio-culturaltheory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The‘environment’ theme encompassed the highnumber of environmental factors thechildren identified as contributing to theirpositive regard for their NG, including thesharing of food and the comfortable andfamiliar surroundings. These findings couldbe attributed to the theoretical position ofMaslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943)which is also recognised as an underpinningof NGs (Cooper & Whitebread, 2007).

These findings are consistent with thesmall number of studies which have soughtchildren’s views of their NG provisions(Bishop & Swain, 2000; Cooper et al., 2001).For example, Cooper et al. (2001) foundthat the children perceived the quality ofrelationships with NG staff, the pleasantnature of the physical NG environment andthe predictability of the NG routines as bene-ficial. It is worth noting that this study didnot differentiate participants by the variantof NG they attended. It could be suggestedthat this generalisation may impact greatlyon the attendees’ experiences given that thedifferences between variants can be substan-tial, as previously outlined. In addition, themethodology adopted could be criticiseddue to possible demand characteristics asso-ciated with individual interviews.

Attempts were made in the current studyto overcome the acknowledged shortcom-ings of demand characteristics in Cooper etal.’s (2001) study by adopting a child-centredmethodology. In addition, by isolating the‘variant’ of NG being studied, in thisinstance the ‘classic’ NG, there was greatercapacity for the researchers to attribute thefindings to the specific NG provision. Theanalysis of the children’s constructions



within this study are, broadly speaking, inline with the espoused theory of ‘classic’ NGprinciples and thus this NG provisionappears to be an example of theory in action(Argyris & Schon, 1974). The NG in ques-tion was recognised by Estyn as being anoutstanding feature of the school’s provisionfor learners with ALN (Estyn, 2010). Thesefactors may have impacted on the children’spositive evaluations of their NG experiences.Revisiting the children at the NG to exploretheir interpretations of the themes gener-ated during thematic analysis may haveenriched and extended the findings of thisexplorative study. Furthermore, it is acknowl-edged that the generalisability of these find-ings is limited due to the individual contextof the single NG, the small sample size andthe individuality of the constructionselicited. Although this research is small inscale, the methodology provides a platformfrom which to explore children’s experi-ences of NG provisions which differ from the‘classic’ variant. By structuring the focusgroup experience in an engaging, rule basedmanner, it was sought to overcome theaccepted difficulty of small group discussionsin which some participants, notably theolder members of the group, can seek tocontrol the conversation (for a furtherdiscussion on qualitative approaches, seeGreig et al., 2013).

Despite these shortcomings of thepresent research the methodology employedis considered to have offered a valuablevehicle for achieving the primary aim of theresearch, to elicit the children’s construc-tions of their NG experiences. Theresearchers were mindful of the ethicalconsiderations of working with children andyoung people (BPS, 2009; HPC, 2008) andof the social, emotional and behaviouralneeds of this vulnerable population(Sellman, 2009). The child-centred processmay have empowered the young participantsto share their experiences, possibly by indi-rectly increasing their feelings of safety andsecurity. It is felt that an environmentconducive to conducting research ‘with’ the

children and young people rather than ‘on’or ‘to’ them was created. This process isbelieved to have mediated the rich, revealingdata set elicited. The elements considered tohave been of particular importance tocreating this environment include the use ofage appropriate information sheets withpictures of the researchers and close liaisonbetween the researchers and the NG staffprior to data collection, ensuring that theyoung participants were reminded andprepared for the research. They appearedexcited to have ‘their time’ to share ‘theirviews’ on the day. With the aim of extendingthe feelings of familiarity and buildingrapport the researchers had liaised with theNG staff and arranged to spend the morningfollowing the NG routine alongside them.The young participants served theresearchers breakfast and were eager toshare their NG with them including the envi-ronment, their work and their achievements.The FG took place during the daily circletime session. They also led the process ofgenerating positive behaviour expectationsfor the session. The soft toy mascot served asa visual aid to regulate group dynamics andbehavioural expectations throughout thesession. The ice-breaker activities wereinvaluable in further developing rapport,creating a relaxed atmosphere and ensuringthat the children’s positioning within thecircle was mixed with the aim of avoidingdominant dyadic relationships. The varia-tion in activities employed to elicit thechildren’s constructions were suitably flex-ible to accommodate the range of develop-mental stages and skill sets within the group.The variety of activities including paireddiscussions and written communicationenabled quieter members of the group toshare their experiences.

The children were aware from the outsetof the purpose of the research and how thedata obtained would be used. It was felt thatby explicitly sharing with the young partici-pants that the data obtained would bewritten into a report, and be presented at auniversity conference, they would see the



purpose and impact of the research and feelmore empowered to share their views. Theywere eager to discover who would be inter-ested in the research and were reminded ofthe anonymity and confidentiality of theresearch.

The young participants appearedengaged by the interactive, participatorynature of the methodology. As a result, thisgroup of young people with additionallearning needs, demonstrated that they havevaluable insight into what environments areconducive to their learning, what strategiessupport their development and why. Theresearchers consider that the methodo-logical consideration given to the primaryaim of this research provided a platformwhere the participants felt that they couldexpress their views, in their own space and intheir own words. The methodology providednot only a valuable vehicle for eliciting thevoice of the young (Gersch, 1996) but also ameans of empowering this particularly vunl-

nerable young group . It enables them tobecome active participants in their educa-tion and in making decisions surroundingtheir education. The authors believe thisbrief pilot study potentially motivates furtherresearch and professional practice, particu-larly within the role of the EP (Todd et al.,2000), and advocate similar methodologiesin practice to ensure that children andyoung people are active participants who arelistened to and heard. EPs are in a good posi-tion to facilitate change through sharingthese practices and supporting other profes-sionals to use and implement similarmethodologies.

Address for correspondenceRhian GriffithsSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3AT. Email: [email protected]



Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E. & Wall, S.(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological studyof the strange situation. New Jersey: LaurenceErlbaum & Associates.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice:Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ashton, R. & Roberts, E. (2006). What is valuable andunique about the educational psychologist?Educational Psychology in Practice, 22(2), 111–123.

Bennathan, M. & Boxall, M. (1998). The Boxall profile.London: Nurture Group Network.

Bennathan, M. & Boxall, M. (2000). Effectiveintervention in primary schools: Nurture Groups.London: Fulton.

Binnie, L.M. & Allen, K. (2008). Whole schoolsupport for vulnerable children: The evaluationof a part-time Nurture Group. Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties. 13(3), 201–216.

Bishop, A. & Swain, J. (2000). The bread, the jam andsome coffee in the morning: Perceptions of aNurture Group. Emotional and BehaviouralDifficulties, 5(3), 18–24.

Bowlbly, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol 2:Separation, anxiety and anger. London: HogarthPress.

Bowlbly, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol 3: Loss,sadness and depression. London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1987). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1:Attachment (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematicanalysis in psychology. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3(2), 77–101.

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2009). Code ofEthics and Conduct: Guidance published by theEthics Committee of the British PsychologicalSociety. Retrieved from:http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf

Cefai, C. & P. Cooper (2010). Students withoutvoices: The unheard accounts of secondaryschool students with social, emotional andbehaviour difficulties. European Journal of SpecialNeeds Education, 25(2), 183–198.

Cooper, P., Arnold, R. & Boyd, E. (1998). The natureand distribution of NGs in England and Wales.Cambridge: University of Cambridge School ofEducation.

Cooper, P., Arnold, R. & Boyd, E. (2001). Theeffectiveness of Nurture Groups: Preliminaryresearch findings. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 28(4), 160–166.

Cooper, P. & Tiknaz, Y. (2005). Progress andchallenge in Nurture Groups: Evidence fromthree case studies. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 32(4), 211–222.

Cooper, P. & Whitebread, D. (2007). Theeffectiveness of Nurture Groups on studentprogress: Evidence form a national researchstudy. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 12(3),171–190.

Cullingford, C. (2006). Pupils views of the schoolexperience. In R. Webb (Ed.), Changing teachingand learning in the primary school. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE)(2000). Educational psychology services: Current role,good practice and future directions. Report of theWorking Group. London. The Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001).Special Educational Needs Code of Practice.Nottingham: The Stationery Office.

Davies, J.D. (2005). Voices from the margins: Theperceptions of pupils with emotional andbehavioural difficulties about their educationalexperiences. In P. Clough, P. Garner, J.T. Pardeck& F. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of emotional behaviouraldifficulties. London: Sage.

Estyn (2008). Having your say – young people,participation and school councils. Cardiff: Estyn.

Estyn (2010). A report on the quality of education in YsgolGynradd Gymunedol Aberteifi. Cardiff: Estyn.

Fallon, K., Woods, K. & Rooney, S. (2010). A discussion of the developing role ofeducational psychologists within Children’sServices. Educational Psychology in Practice, 26(1),1–23.

Gerrard, B. (2005). City of Glasgow nurture grouppilot scheme evaluation. Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties, 10(4), 245–253.

Gersch, I. (1996). Involving the child in assessment:Creating a listening ethos. Educational and ChildPsychology, 13(2), 31–40.

Greig, A., Taylor, J. & MacKay, T. (2013). Doingresearch with children: A practical guide (3rd ed).London: Sage.

Health Professionals Council (HPC) (2008).Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.Retrieved from:http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10002367FINALcopyofSCPEJuly2008.pdf

Horwitz, J.A., Vessey, J.A., Carlson, K.L., Bradley, J.F.,Montoya, C. & McCullough, B. (2003).Conducting school-based focus groups: Lessonslearned from the CATS project. Journal ofPaediatric Nursing, 18(5), 321–331.

HM Government (2004). The Children Act. Norwich:The Stationery Office.

HM Government (2003). Every Child Matters.Norwich: The Stationery Office.



References

Iszatt, J. & Wasilewska, T. (1997). NGs: An earlyintervention model enabling vulnerable childrenwith emotional and behavioural difficulties tointegrate successfully into school, Educational andChild Psychology, 14(3), 121–139.

Kendall, S., Straw, S., Jones. M., Springate, I. &Grayson. H. (2008). Narrowing the gap in outcomesfor vulnerable pupils: A review of the research evidence.Slough, Berkshire: NFER.

Kennedy, C., Kools & Krueger, R. (2001). Methodo-logical considerations in children’s focus groups.Nursing Research, 50(3), 184–187.

Lyle, S., Hendley, D. & Newcomb, J. (2010). The Teaching and Learning Research Programme inWales: Improving learning by taking account oflearners’ perspectives. Retrieved from:http://www.pupilvoicewales.org.uk/uploads/publications/534.pdf.

MacKay, T., Reynolds, S. & Kearney, M. (2010). Fromattachment to attainment: The impact ofNurture Groups on academic achievement.Educational and Child Psychology, 27(3), 100–110.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–96.

Michael, S. & Frederickson, N. (2013). Emotionaland behavioural difficulties. Improving pupilreferral unit outcomes: Pupil perspectives,Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Publishedonline: 24 May.

O’Connor, T. & Colwell, J. (2002). The effectivenessand rationale of the ‘Nurture Group’ approachto helping children with emotional andbehavioural difficulties remain withinmainstream education. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 29(2), 96–100.

O’Connor, M., Hodkinson, A., Burton, D. &Tortensson, G. (2011). Pupil Voice: Listening toand hearing the educational experiences ofyoung people with behavioural, emotional andsocial difficulties (BESD). Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties, 16, 289–302.

Reid, K., Challoner, C., Lancett, A., Jones, G.,ApRhysiart, G. & Challoner, S. (2010). The viewsof primary pupils on school attendance at KeyStage 2 in Wales. Educational Studies, 36(5),465–479.

Reynolds, S., MacKay, T. & Kearney, M. (2009).Nurture Groups: A large-scale, controlled studyof effects on development and academicattainment. British Journal of Special Education,29(3), 204–212.

Sanders, T. (2007). Helping children thrive at school:The effectiveness of a Nurture Groups.Educational Psychology in Practice: Theory, Researchand Practice in Educational Psychology, 23(1),45–61.

Sellman, E. (2009). Lessons learned: Student voice ata school for pupils experiencing social,emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotionaland Behavioural Difficulties, 14(1), 33–48.

Seth-Smith, F., Levi, N., Pratt, R., Fonagy, P. & Jaffey,D. (2010). Do Nurture Groups improve thesocial, emotional and behavioural functioning ofat risk children. Educational and Child Psychology,27(1), 21–34.

Scott, K. & Lee, A. (2009). Beyond the ‘classic’Nurture Group model: An evaluation of part-time and cross-age Nurture Groups in a Scottishlocal authority. Support for Learning, 24(1), 5–10.

Todd, L., Hobbs. C. & Taylor, J. (2000). Consultingwith children. A booklet of working approaches forconsulting with children. Newcastle: University ofNewcastle.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (2005). Childrenand young people: Rights to action, strongerpartnerships for better outcomes. Cardiff: WAG.



Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Societyand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

Documents

Children Group Experiences