Supporting Teachers in Their Work with Shy Students
A multi-method study of how schools and school leadership teams support teachers’ work with children who are perceived as shy.
Stine Solberg
Department of Special Needs Education Faculty of Educational Sciences
University of Oslo
2022
© Stine Solberg, 2022
Series of dissertations submitted to the
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo No. 347
ISSN 1501-8962
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission.
Cover: Hanne Baadsgaard Utigard.
Print production: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo.
III
© Stine Solberg, 2022
Supporting teachers in their work with shy students. A multi-method study of how schools and school leadership teams support teachers’ work with children who are perceived as shy.
IV
V
Abstract
Shy students are experienced by teachers as withdrawn, quiet, and anxious. Although these behaviors do not disadvantage all shy students, they can lead to educational under-performance and long-term difficulties. Classroom teachers are usually the first to identify and help these students but there is a lack of knowledge on how teachers are supported in this work. This thesis addressed this gap by examining how Norwegian elementary school teachers are supported in their work with students they perceive as shy. The thesis takes the perspectives of both school leaders and classroom teachers and addresses how school leadership provides teachers with support, and how teachers negotiate support from school-related networks. The findings provide an original contribution to knowledge about how teachers find support for shy students, who sit below the threshold for statutory interventions.
The study is designed as an exploratory, sequential multi-method study. In the first phase of the study, school documents, school visits and interview data were used to examine how teachers were supported. The participants were members of school leadership teams in three schools where there had been success with shy students (n = 10) and classroom teachers who had recognized successful experiences with shy students (n = 19). In the second phase of the study, a questionnaire was designed based in phase one findings, identifying the use teachers’ strategies with shy students, and how they experienced support from their schools. The participants were teachers from elementary schools across Norway (n = 329).
The thesis consists of three Papers. Paper I addressed how school leadership teams interpret the demands on the school arising from student shyness, what they recognized as potential problems in relation to shy students and how they responded to their interpretations.
Their responses were analyzed by examining the strategies and resources they used and why they were used. Findings indicated that shy student behaviors could place demands on teachers which could require support beyond the universal support expected of inclusive schools. Social teachers were key in implementing and monitoring these Tier 2 preventative strategies. However, teachers were described by school leaders as first responders to shy children, and responsible for
identifying who might need these preventative responses, but they were doing so without any guidance from school documents or policies.
Paper II therefore addressed the networks of support available to teachers, and what they potentially offer to class teachers and their shy students. How teachers negotiated the support in ways that enabled them to focus on teaching and helping shy children as learners was also examined. Data comprised post-observation recall interviews, individual interviews and focus groups with teachers. Qualitative responses where teachers could elaborate on types of or needs for support from the national teacher questionnaire were also analyzed. Analyses were guided by
VI
three cultural-historical concepts which explain professional relationships. Four networks were identified: teacher teams; school resource1 teams; school leadership teams and families. With peers the negotiation was horizontal, drawing on shared concerns with children as learners; with school resource teams teachers negotiated upwards by recognizing and addressing the priorities of the resource teams; with leadership teams the school Principals worked relationally and
pedagogically with teachers to enable their agentic responses to challenges; while with families teachers worked sensitively to elicit the what mattered for the families and encourage relational collaborations with school professionals. However, this study revealed that teachers differ in access to and use of support in schools.
In Paper III a two-sided focus was therefore applied, examining both how teachers
experience support in their work with shy children, and if different profiles of teachers in terms of experienced support exist, and their potential characteristics. A descriptive and person-centered analysis of nine statements of support were analyzed. A main finding was that teachers in general experienced support. They, however, did not receive additional resources as part of that support.
Furthermore, two profiles of teachers existed in the data. One profile consists of teachers experiencing significantly more support than the other profile of teachers. Class size is the only background variable associated with the probability of profile membership.
Five key conclusions are discussed; The importance of 1) making shy students visible in school organizational narratives and policy documents; 2) making visible the resources available to teachers as one way of supporting them in their 'first-responder' responsibilities; 3) clarifying the roles of key stakeholders for preventative work and interventions for students beneath the statutory level of intervention, for example social teachers, and external agencies; 4) developing teachers’ relational competencies, and 5) researching into class size as one school feature that might impact teachers’ experiences of available support resources.
In conclusion, this thesis contributes to knowledge on how schools support teachers working with students below the threshold for statutory special needs intervention. It provides insights into actions in activities that school leadership teams take, extending our knowledge on how institutions recognize and respond to the needs of teachers working with shy students. The thesis also addresses the teachers’ perspectives, revealing that although teachers indicate that they receive support from school networks, they do not uniformly receive additional resources.
1 Resource teams consist of within school professionals (e.g. Principals, Deans, social teachers, classroom teachers) and external agencies. They have, among other things, the responsibility to identify and discuss students who might need special needs intervention, or other support, both pedagogical and social.
VII
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to the teachers and school leaders whom participated in this study; for sharing your valuable knowledge and insights with me. Being welcomed back to the field of practice to learn from you was a great honor.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my brilliant supervisors, Associate Professor Geir Nyborg and Professor Anne Edwards. Geir, thank you for trusting me with a position in this important and exciting project, and for your continuous engagement in the whole process of my PhD work. Your insights and experiences from the school system are inspiring.
Anne, thank you for introducing me to the field of cultural-historical theory, and for respectfully and patiently helping me carve out my arguments. Both of you have shared with me your expertise in ways that enhanced my project manifold. Thank you for your patience, availability and encouragement these past few years. I could not have asked for a better team. My
appreciation extends to the Research Council of Norway, for funding the project that I am part of.
I am deeply grateful for the cooperation with co-authors and project colleagues. Thank you to Associate Professor Liv Heidi Mjelve for our office discussions, and for your help in making difficult concepts a bit clearer. To Dr. Anne Arnesen for your time, endless discussions, patience and encouragement in introducing a method that was new to me. My gratitude extends to Professor Ray Crozier for your helpful insights at the beginning of my PhD.
My appreciation also goes out to the two research groups that I have been part of;
Inclusion and Diversity, and Behavioural Emotional and Social Difficulties. Being part of these engaging teams has been both a source for inspiration and support. Thank you to the Department of Special Needs Education for the opportunity to engage in teaching activities and expand my horizon together with students.
I would also like to thank Professor Liv Duesund for encouraging this journey; you have been an inspiration and a mentor since I started at the Department of Special Needs Education years ago.
I also owe a special thanks to Professor Jennifer Vadeboncoeur at the University of British Colombia, Vancouver for welcoming me to commence on the Canadian adventure. Thank you for asking eye-opening questions, and for engaging in discussions that broadened my understanding.
Thank you to Professor Eli Ottesen at the Department of Teacher Education (ILS),
University of Oslo for an immensely useful and constructive midway evaluation, and to Professor Eyvind Elstad at ILS for sharing valuable insights at the final reading; for asking the right
questions and challenging my thinking.
To my colleagues at the department whom I have shared this special time with; I cannot thank you enough for contributing to such an inclusive, fun and open-minded environment.
VIII
Marika Vartun and Kathrine Høegh-Omdal; thank you for always answering my questions and offering your support. A special mention to my former roomie Siri for our much needed office talks, to Terje for our invaluable morning-meetings, to Åse for our lemonade bench chats, and to my hallway neighbors throughout these years; Eva, Andréa, Veerle, Christiane, Anita, Hanne, Gøril, Silje H, Silje I, Tonje and Magnar. I am sincerely grateful for how you all have contributed to such a wonderful, inspiring and friendly working environment. Thank you also to Astrid, Mia and Nicolai; for all the fun times we have had, and will have in the future.
Huge thank you to my friends; for taking me out when I needed it the most, and for celebrating the victories along the way, no matter how small. A special mention to Kine for listening to several of my lectures, and spending numerous hours discussing my research.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family, whom I struggle to thank in words. To my sister Marte; you have been my rock since the day we were born, and you have never wavered in your belief in what I can do. Thank you for pushing me when I needed it the most. To my dad and Hanne; thank you for keeping up with the Wednesday tradition of making dinner; it is an enormous help and delightful space for family time. To my mum and Steinar; you are home away from home and provide me with a much needed space for relaxation. To my husband Richard; thank you for being my greatest support throughout my years in education.
Thank you for taking on the Canadian adventure with no questions asked (except ‘when are we going?’), and for always understanding when I needed the extra time at work. You are my partner, my IT-guy, and the greatest father in the world. And finally, an enormous thanks to my daughter Nora; you taught me what is most important in life. You are the funniest person I know, and my biggest inspiration. I love you.
IX
Part I: Extended Abstract
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1. Overarching Aims of the Thesis ... 2
1.2. Structure of the Extended Abstract ... 4
2. Literature Review on Shyness: Why Research Shyness in School? ... 5
2.1. Shyness as a Psychological Phenomenon ... 5
2.2. Shyness as a Potential Impediment to Learning ... 7
2.3. Reflections on How Shyness is Understood in this Thesis ... 8
3. Literature Review on Whole School Approaches to Inclusion, Prevention and Teacher Support ... 9
3.1. The Norwegian School System in Brief ... 9
3.2. Inclusion: A Key Starting Point ... 10
3.3. Prevention in the Framework of Inclusion ... 11
3.4. Distributed School Leadership for Teacher Support ... 13
3.5. Brief Summary and Gaps in Current Research ... 14
4. Theoretical Framework for the Study ... 15
4.1. Vygotsky and Teachers ... 15
4.2. Object of Activity, Object Motive and Motive Orientation ... 16
4.3. The Planes of Analysis Employed in the Study ... 17
4.4. A Cultural-Historical Approach to Understanding How Support is Negotiated ... 18
4.5. Brief Summary ... 20
5. The Design of the Study and Research Methods ... 21
5.1. The Sequential Multiphase Design ... 21
5.1.1. General Overview of the Qualitative Phase of the PhD Study: Phase I ... 23
5.1.2. General Overview of the Quantitative Phase: Phase II ... 24
5.2. The Participants ... 24
5.2.1. Sample: Phase I ... 24
5.2.2. Sample: Phase II ... 27
5.3. Data ... 28
5.3.1. Qualitative Data: Phase I ... 28
5.3.2. Quantitative Data: Phase II ... 32
5.4. Analysis ... 34
5.4.1. Analytical Process: Phase I ... 34
X
5.4.2. Analytical Process: Phase II ... 36
5.5. Brief Summary ... 37
5.6. Research Quality ... 38
5.6.1. Reliability in Phase I ... 38
5.6.2. Reliability in Phase II ... 39
5.6.3. Validity in Phase I ... 40
5.6.4. Validity in Phase II ... 42
5.6.5. Applicability: Phase I ... 44
5.6.6. Generalizability: Phase II ... 44
5.6.7. Key Limitations ... 44
5.7. Research Ethics ... 46
6. The Papers ... 48
6.1. Summary of the Papers ... 48
6.1.1. Paper I ... 48
6.1.2. Paper II ... 49
6.1.3. Paper III ... 50
7. Discussion and Implications of Key Findings ... 51
7.1. Theoretical Contributions ... 51
7.2. Methodological Contributions ... 53
7.3. Practical Contributions ... 53
7.4. Implications and Future Research ... 56
7.5. Some Final Reflections ... 57
References ... 59
Appendices ... 70
XI
List of Tables
Table 1A. Overview of the Papers……….3
Table 4A. Planes of Analysis………...17
Table 4B. Summary of the Relational Concepts………..19
Table 5A. Main Project and PhD Project Design……….22
Table 5B. Overview of the Phases and the Papers………...22
Table 5C. Leadership Composition in the Three Schools………25
Table 5D. Overview of the Teachers' Previous Participation………..25
Table 5E. Overview of Participants in the Group Feedback Interview………...27
Table 5F. Overview of Interview Material………...28
Table 5G. Excerpt from Group Feedback Interview………31
Table 5H. Example of Translation………...36
Part II: The Papers
XII
XIII
Part I
Extended Abstract
XIV
1
1. Introduction
Timid. Quiet. Less verbal. Inhibited. Looking at the floor. Keeping in the background. There are a number of phrases to describe the behavior of people who we perceive as ‘shy’2. Shyness is a phenomenon well known to most; it is an everyday phenomenon, as well as one that has been researched for decades, particularly within the field of psychology (Schmidt et al., 2020), yet debates about its nature persist. From a psychological perspective, shyness is a relatively stable temperamental and personality trait characterized by individual differences that vary with regard to wariness and anxiety in the face of social novelty and perceived social evaluation (Crozier, 1995; Rubin et al., 2009). However, from a social interactionist perspective, shyness is a fluid phenomenon that arises in interaction with the environment people find themselves in (Scott, 2019). Nonetheless, from both perspectives, shyness can be experienced as limiting the opportunities for engagement and interaction in social situations and can impact negatively on attainment (Evans, 2010; Hughes & Coplan, 2010). School offers particular challenges for shy students, not the least of which, are demands for their active participation, that may increase shy behaviors (Crozier, 2020; Lund, 2016; Mjelve et al., 2019). These demands, in turn create demands for schools and teachers to create potentiating conditions for students that allow for participation and engagement (Nyborg et al., 2020), and provide these students with effective strategies and interventions (Cordier et al., 2021).
Being able to identify and adapt to students who are displaying shy behaviors to the extent that they are hindrances to social interaction and academic achievement is key to ameliorating potential difficulties. As such, Norwegian teachers have a responsibility for providing students with inclusive practices by meeting the needs of all students in accord with the Norwegian Educational Act (1998), §1.3 and adapting their teaching to every child. However, analyses undertaken for Paper 1 suggest that these adjustments by teachers are carried out without guidance from school policies (Solberg, Edwards, & Nyborg, 2020), or the additional resources that can stem from the implementation of policies.
Lying below the threshold for statutory special needs interventions can have
consequences. For example, students displaying internalizing behaviors are less likely to access additional support compared to students displaying more obvious needs through, for example, externalizing behaviors (Green et al., 2018; Gresham & Kern, 2004; Splett et al., 2019; Weist et
2 In this extended abstract, I use the term “shy students” when referring to the students who are timid, less verbal, anxious and so on, while acknowledging the heterogeneity of the phenomenon. For example, Mjelve et al.
(2019) found that although teachers find shyness to be a useful tool for identifying students in need of psychosocial support, e.g. reduce anxiety, the concept might also be used as an overextension; e.g. shyness is used in situations in which the student’s behavior is due to a difficult home situation.
2
al., 2018). Much depends on teachers’ awareness of shyness and knowledge of how to make pedagogic adjustments in the classroom (Korem, 2016; O'Connor et al., 2014). It is therefore essential to provide teachers with the help and resources to support students who are at risk of being invisible in a classroom environment that demands active participation and cooperation (Crozier, 2020; Mjelve et al., 2019; Nilsen, 2020).
But shyness does not only manifest itself as reticence that impedes a student’s engagement with the flow of classroom life. High anxiety arising from shyness can also impede involvement in wider school activities such as recess or moving about the school, consequently, shyness can be a phenomenon that requires a whole school response. In a newly published systematic review and meta-analysis, Cordier and colleagues found that effective interventions for shy students are indeed school-based, combining individual and group interventions, facilitating peer interactions using clinical strategies such as exposure or modelling (Cordier et al., 2021). One consequence of this finding is that an examination of how schools support teachers, or provide students and teachers with access to appropriate resources, is needed.
1.1. Overarching Aims of the Thesis
This thesis is part of a larger project3 (henceforth referred to as the main project). The main project has examined how elementary school teachers identify shy behaviors, and what strategies they utilize to support these students (Mjelve et al., 2019; Nyborg et al., 2020). This PhD thesis extends the focus on teacher strategies by examining how teachers are supported in their work with these children.
The thesis consists of two parts; a) an extended abstract and b) three studies reported in three separate publications (Papers I-III). The overall aim is to examine how elementary schools, and in particular school leadership teams, support teachers’ work with shy students. As a former social teacher, I am keen to conduct research to make a difference; that has an impact on practice.
I do this by recognizing teachers and school leadership teams as motivated actors within the practices that they inhabit, and by trying to grasp how they, through engagement and
participation, create supportive environments for shy students and teachers. The overarching aim of this thesis therefore reflects an interest in the practical question of how teachers are supported.
Achieving this aim will, I hope, allow an improved understanding of what support teachers need
3 Supporting Shy Students – A National Study of Teaching Practices led by Associate Professor Geir Nyborg and Associate Professor Liv Heidi Mjelve at the Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo. The project is funded by The Research Council of Norway.
3 in order to work responsively with shy students, and the role of school leaders in enabling this work. The overarching research question is:
How do schools and school leadership teams support teachers’ work with students who are perceived as shy?
This overarching question was addressed by examining the following research questions in three different papers, as indicated in Table 1A.
Table 1A
Overview of the Papers
Paper I Paper II Paper III
Paper title Leading for school inclusion and prevention? How school leadership teams support shy students and their teachers.
Working relationally with networks of support within schools: Supporting teachers in their work with shy students.
Teachers’ experiences of school-based support in their work with shy students.
Research questions
1. How do school leadership teams interpret the demands on the school arising from student shyness: What are their object motives when addressing student shyness?
2. How do they respond to these interpretations: With what tools and why?
1. What are the networks of support available to teachers, and what do they potentially offer to classroom teachers and their shy students?
2. How do teachers negotiate the support that enables them to focus on teaching and helping shy children as learners?
1) How do teachers experience support in their work with shy children?
2) Do different profiles of teachers in terms of
experienced support exist, and if so, what characterizes them, and do demographic
background variables have any effect on the potential profiles?
Brief summary
Paper 1 examined the motivated actions of school leaders towards supporting teachers in their work with shy children, in an
exploratory qualitative study using three case schools.
Findings indicated teachers to be first responders to shy children, and to identifying who might need preventative efforts beyond the universal school efforts.
Consequently, in Paper 2, the focus was on examining what networks of support teachers identified in their work with shy students, and how they negotiated support in these networks. This study revealed, among other things, that teachers differ in access to and use of support in schools.
In Paper 3, quantitative questionnaire data on a national sample of teachers were used to examine how teachers experience support, if teachers differ in experienced support from school, and if school structures could help us understand potential
differences.
Publication status
Solberg, S., Edwards, A., &
Nyborg, G. (2020). Leading for school inclusion and prevention? How school leadership teams support shy students and their teachers.
Scandinavian Journal of
Solberg, S., Edwards. A., Mjelve L. H., & Nyborg, G.
(2020). Working relationally with networks of support within schools: Supporting teachers in their work with shy students. Journal of Education
Solberg, S., Nyborg, G., Mjelve, L. H., Edwards, A., &
Arnesen, A. (2022). Teachers’
experiences of school-based support in their work with shy students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111,
4
Educational Research, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0031 3831.2020.1788156
for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR).
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824 669.2020.1854760
103628.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2 021.103628
1.2. Structure of the Extended Abstract
In chapters two and three, I present literature reviews summarizing and extending the reviews presented in the papers concerning both shyness, and teacher support in inclusive schools. In chapter four, I discuss the theoretical framing of the thesis. In the fifth chapter, I discuss the methodological considerations of the thesis to augment the details in the papers. In chapter six, I provide summaries of the three papers and in chapter seven, I discuss the main findings of the project, including the theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions and potential implications. The papers are included in the second part (II) of this document.
5
2. Literature Review on Shyness: Why Research Shyness in School?
Shyness can be a fuzzy term that overlaps with several constructs (Coplan & Rubin, 2010) and there are a variety of ways of understanding it, each of them with potentially different
consequences for what teachers can do to support shy students. The variety of interpretations of the concept of shyness (Crozier, 2020) is evident in decades of research (Schmidt et al., 2020), across a number of disciplines. The question raised in the heading is therefore an important one, as shyness is both an everyday concept that a lot of people recognize within themselves and others, as well as an academic concept. Concerns have also been raised about pathologizing a commonly occurring behavior or experience (C. Lane, 2007). There are two broad ways of approaching the question of why research shyness in school. One is to approach shyness as a within-person psychological problem that has implications for how an individual interacts with their environment (McCormick et al., 2015), the other is to regard shyness as a potential impediment to learning; contextualizing shyness within school and the wider landscape of children’s development (e.g. Crozier, 2020; Lund, 2008).
As each of the three articles in this thesis contains review sections, the present review takes a meta-perspective on shyness as a phenomenon. I clarify the different theoretical
underpinnings of approaches to shyness by clarifying the stances taken in the papers (sub chapters 2.1. and 2.2.), and how shyness is understood in this thesis (sub chapter 2.3.).
2.1. Shyness as a Psychological Phenomenon
Poole and Schmidt (2019) summarize the theoretical and empirical evidence for shyness as a psychological problem, pointing to the heterogeneity in understandings. For example, in the early work of Buss (1986) a distinction between fearful shyness that is closely linked to physiological stress arousal, and is maintained by dysregulated fear systems, and self-conscious shyness, in which the individual perceives to be socially evaluated was proposed. This understanding is also evident in later research (see e.g. Coplan et al., 2021; Rubin et al., 2009). Shyness has also been related to chosen solitude (Coplan & Rubin, 2010; Coplan et al., 2021). However, shy individuals can have a high motivation for affiliating with others, but are hindered by social fear and negative social evaluations (Asendorpf, 1990). This approach-avoidance conflict is generally seen as unwelcome, potentially leading to negative experiences, for example depression, boredom and anxiety (Coplan et al., 2021; Nelson, 2013). Others discuss shyness from a personality
perspective, where Poole and Schmidt (2019) conclude;
6
By capturing heterogeneity in personality styles, we are able to more precisely understand the
development, maintenance, and function of different subsets of the population. Importantly, we are able to identify putative protective factors that may place some individuals on a more positive developmental path. (Poole & Schmidt, 2019, p. 4)
Key here is the focus on protective factors and creating positive developmental paths, which in a school context could mean that one must also attend to the environment and transactional processes between the shy student and others in the environment. Although a psychological way of addressing shyness does not automatically entail shyness being a problem in school, these different ways of theorizing the phenomenon have contributed to the thesis in several ways.
Firstly, a temperamental way of understanding shyness is helpful in understanding why and how children differ in their responses to school (McCormick et al., 2015), without
pathologizing these differences. However, research does indicate that teachers can experience shy students as struggling within school (Mjelve et al., 2019), leaving them at risk of being ignored or invisible in classrooms (Nilsen, 2020). Furthermore, these students might display behaviors such as refusal to speak, speaking quietly or briefly, avoiding eye contact, blushing, having a hunched posture, hovering outside a group of peers playing or talking, over-anxious behavior or clinging to parents or teachers (Coplan et al., 2008; Coplan & Rudasill, 2016; Mjelve et al., 2019). Although these behaviors are not problematic in themselves, some of them might be at odds with school expectations, for example taking initiative and verbal participation (Nyborg et al., 2020). These behavioral descriptions were also an important part of identifying teachers who had developed sound strategies to meet the needs of students displaying these behaviors, and for the subsequent selection of school leadership teams who supported teachers in this endeavor (Appendix A).
Secondly, a psychological understanding alerted me to the variety of evidence concerned with protective factors in the environment for shy students (see e.g. Crozier, 2020; Coplan et al., 2020). Various studies point to the importance of specific teacher strategies to increase classroom participation (Kalutskaya et al., 2015; Nyborg et al., 2020), support peer relationships (Buhs et al., 2015), as well as the teacher-child relationship positively interacting with school adjustment (Arbeau et al., 2010). There is also ample evidence revealing the different implications that shyness can have in school and on a child’s future development. The evidence includes:
internalizing problems (Karevold et al., 2011; Kopala-Sibley & Klein, 2017), being
underestimated academically (Hughes & Coplan, 2010), potentially lower academic achievement (Valiente et al., 2021), peer relationship difficulties (Bowker et al., 2021; Hymel et al., 1990), or less teacher-student closeness (Chen et al., 2021; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009). As this thesis addresses a leadership perspective on teacher support, a gap in knowledge has been
7 revealed; namely how these potential problems are addressed and protective factors put into place within schools for student and teacher support.
Thirdly, the methods used in identifying shyness from a psychological perspective have been useful for understanding how teachers can identify shy students. Shyness within
psychological perspectives is often measured within the quantitative research tradition, with some studies using behavioral observation (see e.g. Coplan et al., 2008), or different psychometric measures for shyness (see e.g. Coplan et al., 2004; Kopala-Sibley & Klein, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017), or even biological correlates to shy emotional expressions (Poole & Schmidt, 2020). As a result, there is a deal of clarity about what constitute shy behaviors that has been helpful when discussing shyness with school leaders and teachers.
2.2. Shyness as a Potential Impediment to Learning
Scott and Lund have been prominent in research employing an interactionist perspective on shyness. They mainly use interviews with self-identified shy individuals (Scott, 2004a; 2004b, 2007, 2019) or teacher-identified high school students (Lund 2008; 2016) and bring their experiences to the fore. They are therefore providing insights into how people perceive their shyness, the reasons for their shy behaviors, and how these are managed in everyday life. For example, Lund (2008) takes the perspectives of 15 female students between the age of 14 and 18, to examine the “…emotional and behavioural problems associated with shyness at school” (Lund, 2008, p. 78). Here, Lund points to explanations for the reticence and silence strategies of these adolescents, be they social, such as bullying, genetic, such as ‘always been like this’ (Lund, 2008, p. 83), or contextual such as an insecure school environment. The perspective provided by Lund is important when we discuss if and when the shy behavior becomes a problem and for whom it is a problem. Although some shy students are more vulnerable than others, one main conclusion is that these students’ shyness is to a great extent a learned experience that calls for schools and teachers to take action by changing structures and practices (Lund, 2008). This point is echoed in her later research, where she notes its importance in school settings that value and demand active participation through verbal engagement and cooperation (Lund, 2016). As such, the teachers have responsibilities not only for creating safe environments for these students, but for helping students step forward academically and socially. Importantly, Spooner et al. (2005) found that shy children felt best when their shyness was recognized by the teacher (the child self-reported and the teacher rated the child as shy) as opposed to being shyness being "hidden" (the child felt shy but the teacher did not rate them that way). Although Scott’s research does not discuss shyness directly as impediment to learning, her view is that shyness is a response to the dynamics of social
8
interactions, including imagined mutual perceptions, evaluations and consequential reactions. For Scott shyness is viewed as a distinctive affective state (Scott, 2019), in that people can experience shyness, but how it arises and develops is discussed as a relational process, rather than as a temperamental state. The interactionist perspective alerted me to the role of the environment in addressing students’ shyness, which in turn led me to examining how leadership teams in schools contribute to an environment of support.
2.3. Reflections on How Shyness is Understood in this Thesis
The approaches discussed so far in this sub-section could be seen as broadly either within person or interactionist. My starting point was to read the somewhat essentialist accounts of what shyness was, but I quickly moved on to read the more interactionist interpretations. I was initially satisfied with the nuances provided by each of these broad accounts, but the more I worked with the data and cultural historical ideas, the more I recognized that my analytic starting point is what
Stetsenko (2008; 2015) calls a relational ontology. What I am interested in, are the experiences of the teachers who find themselves with responsibility for enabling the engagement of shy students in school life. This notion of experience is captured in the Russian word perezhivanie (Vygotsky, 1935/1994). The attention to experiences, or perezhivanie, demands attention to how teachers are experiencing their world, and the actions that arise from the interpretations they are making, within the practices they are part of. Furthermore, a relational ontology encourages a view on differences among humans as a result of interactions with the environment, and the role of cultural mediation and support provided to individuals; therefore taking forward my intentions of
examining how teachers are supported.
The overview of a range of interpretations of shyness reveals that, while the ontological presumptions underlying the idea of shyness differ across interpretations, the claims and
implications agree that the teacher is an important provider of specific strategies, and creator of safe environments for these children (Buhs et al., 2015; Coplan et al., 2017; Kalutskaya et al., 2015; Korem, 2016; Lund, 2008, 2016; Nyborg et al., 2020; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009;
Zee & Roorda, 2018). In doing so they attend positively to the uniqueness of every child
(Vadeboncoeur, 2017). Although it is clear that shy behaviors demand attention from teachers, it is not clear how teachers are supported in their work with these children. Considering the many potential implications for teachers, and the responsibility they have for meeting diverse students’
needs, I now turn to a review of studies on teacher support in the context of inclusive schooling.
9
3. Literature Review on Whole School Approaches to Inclusion, Prevention and Teacher Support
While there are many ways to capture the dynamics of teacher support, the present thesis focuses on: School leadership and schools’ systemic support of teachers in their work with shy students, how teachers negotiate support, and their experiences of support. The study recognizes school leaders and their leadership teams as key actors in the improvement of classroom and school conditions (Leithwood et al., 2020; OECD, 2020), as well as resource allocation (Bryk &
Schneider, 2002). Singh and Billingsley (1998) suggest that Principals’ leadership and support are important for teachers’ commitment through clear visions and expectations, recognizing teachers’
accomplishments, and as providers of resources and information. Leadership is also key to
supporting adaptive education within a framework of school inclusion, as clearly stated in the new Norwegian curriculum (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). In this chapter, I discuss research on whole school approaches to inclusion, prevention within the framework of inclusion and teacher support in their work with shy students. But first I address some important
information on the Norwegian school system that contextualizes the overall study.
3.1. The Norwegian School System in Brief
Norway currently has 2776 grade 1 to 10 schools (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2020). The present study has focused on teachers and school leaders in elementary schools (grades 1-7). All students have the right to a contact teacher who has the responsibility for practical, administrative and social-pedagogical tasks in the class, including cooperation with caregivers. This often means that students have the same teacher throughout elementary school.
In 2017, the government introduced the teacher norm (‘lærernormen’) which determined that there should be a maximum of 15 students per teacher in grades 1-4, and 21 students in grades 5-10 (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2020). As of late 2020, 75 % of students in grades 1-4 attended a school with fewer than 15 students per teachers, whereas 93
% of schools with students in grades 5-7 met the criterion of the norm. Although the norm provides teachers with more time for each student, there are indications that school leaders experience that it also decreases the flexibility schools have to allocate resources to where they are needed, for example special needs education provision (Sandsør et al., 2020).
Norway has a national curriculum, and the newest curriculum (‘Fagfornyelsen’) was introduced in the fall of 2020. In this curriculum, subject competency objectives are provided for grades 2, 4 and 7 and 10. There is considerable local discretion with regards to meeting the competence objectives, for example in terms of teaching strategies, working methods and content.
10
Therefore, a central tenet and principle in the Norwegian school is adapted education. Although there are discussions of changing the term to ‘universal education’ (NOU 2019: 23), the data in the present study were collected before these discussions arose. Nilsen (2020) points out that
“This principle should, as far as possible, be implemented through the general education, whereby all pupils are given challenges and support corresponding to their abilities” (Nilsen, 2020, p. 982).
Variations with regards to all aspects of education are included; syllabus, working methods, organization and learning materials (Nilsen, 2020). Students who do not receive a satisfactory learning outcome from the general education, have the right to special needs provision/education in accord with The Norwegian Educational Act (1998) §5.1, which entails more comprehensive adaptation, for example in teacher competencies and content. Importantly, adapted education therefore embraces variation and differentiation in the ordinary classroom, and through special needs education provision. The crucial principle is to provide all students with education according to their needs and abilities. Closely related to this principle is inclusive education.
3.2. Inclusion: A Key Starting Point
It is crucial to contextualize this study of how teachers are supported in their work with shy children within the framework of inclusion, as teachers have a major responsibility to engage students within inclusive practices (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2021; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011;
Nind & Wearmouth, 2006). Although inclusion is one of the biggest challenges facing school systems world-wide (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010), there is no single definition of what it is, or a single model of what an inclusive school looks like (Ainscow, 2020; Ainscow et al., 2006;
Göransson and Nilholm, 2014; Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). Inclusion can be placed on several dimensions; the physical dimension (e.g. placement and location), social dimension (e.g. students’
experiences of connectedness and community), and academic and cultural dimension (e.g.
adapting the content of the curriculum within the community of the classroom; Nilsen, 2020;
Buli-Holmberg et al., 2015). Seeing inclusion on these dimensions entails a balancing act between creating a community whilst adapting the content and pedagogy to the needs and abilities of the individual. White Paper4 Meld. St. 6 (2019-2020) on inclusion and prevention, argues that inclusion is relevant for all students, and inclusion therefore entails all dimensions, not just for example physical placement. Thus, education in Norway aims at catering for every student within
4 White papers (Meld.St.) are drawn up when the Government wishes to present matters to the Storting that do not require a decision. White papers tend to be in the form of a report to the Storting on the work carried out in a particular field and future policy. These documents, and the subsequent discussion of them in the Storting, often form the basis of a draft resolution or bill at a later stage (Norwegian Government Security and Service
Organisation, n.d.).
11 the framework of schools being inclusive communities (Buli-Holmberg et al., 2014). Ainscow et al. (2006) make a similar point in an international context:
…inclusion is concerned with all children and young people in schools; it is focused on presence, participation and achievement; inclusion and exclusion are linked together such that inclusion involves the active combating of exclusion; and inclusion is a never-ending process. Thus an inclusive school is one that is on the move, rather than one that has reached a perfect state. (Ainscow et al., 2006, p. 27)
This definition resonates with inclusion as a phenomenon for all students, not just students who meet the threshold for special needs education. Furthermore, the definition embraces a focus on participation in the here-and-now of schooling and society, and sees inclusion as continuously developing. This definition usefully points to key challenges for shy students, as both presence and participation are potentially difficult for shy students in relation to the demands of schooling such as their oral participation. As Nilsen (2020) points out, social and academic dimensions of inclusion are especially threatened in the case of quiet and withdrawn special needs students, as they are at risk going unnoticed by teachers and of making themselves invisible. Lastly, the definition offers a whole-school perspective by pointing out that the schools are not static entities;
but respond and adapt to changing demands, with consequent demands on school leaders.
As mentioned, school inclusion in Norway is carried out through adapted education, a key principle to ensure that individual students receive education adapted to their abilities (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017; The Norwegian Educational Act, 1998, §1.3), and is closely related to inclusion as “implying respect, sensitivity and responsibility for the diversity of human beings” (Fasting, 2013, p. 264). In the principle of adapted education is also the idea of providing measures as soon as potential difficulties in learning are identified. For shy students, this means preventing difficulties both in the here-and-now and for the future.
3.3. Prevention in the Framework of Inclusion
According to the White Paper Meld. St. 21 (2016-2017) early preventative efforts in schools embrace early intervention when difficulties arise or are identified, as well as learning and the promotion of development early in children’s’ lives. In the White Paper, efforts at inclusion are suggested to be described as threefold, including the universal offers for all students, more intensive measures within general education for some students who are at risk of struggling or already struggling, and specific measures for students in need of special needs help. Students with social, emotional and personal difficulties are also mentioned within this framework. In
international research, these preventative efforts are sometimes described as Tiers for support, in
12
which Tier 1 activities embrace all students and are therefore universal, Tier 2 entails more targeted support to support in the here and now and prevent the escalation of difficulties; whereas Tier 3 relate to individualized and specified support, including helping children to re-integrate into mainstream schooling (see e.g. Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Doll, 2019; K. L. Lane, 2007;
Walker et al., 1995). These three Tiers are part of a three-level prevention framework, that in brief, entails providing students with measures according to their identified needs (Arnesen et al., 2014; Walker et al., 1995). Early preventative interventions therefore include actions that aim at preventing difficulties arising throughout the life span, and providing measures immediately when support is needed (Befring, 2014; Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2021). While adapted education is key to these early efforts, what it entails in practical terms can be unclear (Jenssen & Lillejord, 2010).
Therefore, attention needs to be paid to strategies for early prevention across all involved stakeholders, including leadership and teachers (Bjørnsrud & Nilsen, 2021).
Although efforts are made at universal support through creating inclusive classrooms, there are particular problems with regard to Tier 2 support in schools (Debnam et al., 2012;
Newcomer et al., 2013; Stormont & Reinke, 2013), including for children displaying internalizing problems (Splett et al., 2019; Weist et al., 2018). Bjørnsrud and Nilsen (2021) point out that guidelines for early interventions are not specified within the curriculum, but are rather weak, nonspecific, and unclear. Furthermore, Weist et al. (2018) observe that “In many cases, schools do not have systems, data, or evidence-based interventions in place to support students with
internalizing problems and, thus, fail to successfully serve them” (Weist et al., 2018, p. 174). They point to a need for research that documents practices for students experiencing internalizing problems, to enhance early identification, and measures across Tiers. Similarly, a Norwegian report on schools’ preventative efforts for student mental health pointed to a lack of teacher support in carrying out preventative measures and suggested further research into the preventative efforts of schools (Holen & Waagene, 2014). A small-scale UK study with 49 teacher participants made a related point (Shelemy et al., 2019). It revealed that teachers expressed a need for “clearly defined referral routes and guidance for what to do when passing on concern about a student”
(Shelemy, et al., 2019, p. 108) a finding echoed and extended by Briesch et al. (2020). These research contributions, combined with weak curriculum guidelines for early efforts, clearly provide direction in terms of research needed on early efforts and prevention in order to enhance inclusive practices for all, including students displaying internalizing behavioral difficulties.
Shyness in the context of prevention would usually not meet the threshold for statutory special needs intervention, but still demand tailored teacher support and attention (Mjelve et al., 2019; Nyborg et al., 2020), including recognizing when additional help is needed (Reinke et al., 2011). Thus, we are beginning to understand how teachers make adaptions for shy students within
13 the school context. However, teachers seem to either lack knowledge about, or access to, school resources to guide interventions in their work with students with emotional and behavioral
problems (Holen & Waagene, 2014; Reinke et al., 2011; Stormont et al., 2011), which can include shy students, or how to proceed, either in identifying or intervening, when concerned about such students (Briesch et al., 2020; Shelemy et al., 2019). These findings are supported by research that indicates that teachers are less likely to be concerned about students displaying internalized problems (Gresham & Kern, 2004; Splett et al., 2019), or less likely to access help for them, compared to children displaying disruptive externalizing behavior (Alter et al., 2013; Splett et al., 2019).
The discussion in this section has begun to point to three challenges in teachers’ work with shy students from a school perspective. First, the responsibility for identifying the needs of shy students rests on teachers. Second, schools seem to lack policies and guidelines for teacher support in this area. Thirdly, teachers seem to lack knowledge about or access to the resources to help them with students displaying internalizing difficulties. These points will be developed in the following discussion of distributed school leadership for teacher support.
3.4. Distributed School Leadership for Teacher Support
Implicit in the argument of whole school support for preventative efforts for shy students within the framework of inclusion are the theoretical underpinnings of distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006). Although there is no universally accepted definition of distributed leadership (Harris, 2013) this thesis sees it as “leadership practice [that] is constructed in the interactions between leaders, followers, and their situations” (Spillane, 2006, p. 26), with its notion of multiple leaders in both formal and informal positions, and the distribution of responsibility for tasks. The
distributed leadership perspective has had a methodological implication for this thesis. It informed the recruitment of leadership participants; allowing a focus on locating the leaders involved in supporting teachers in their work with shy students. This recruitment was helped by the way the distributed perspective reflects the distribution of roles commonly found in Norwegian elementary schools; where responsibilities are shared between the Principal, Assistant Principals, Deans, and other personnel, such as social teachers, in quite complex patterns of responsibility, particularly in so-called successful schools (Møller et al., 2005).
Bryk and Schneider (2002) writing on relational trust in schools point to the importance of agreement regarding role relationships, including personal obligations and the expectations of others. Relational trust also presupposes respect by taking into account different views, role competencies, and personal integrity. This research has made a huge impact on the ‘connective
14
tissue’ that trust can be in cooperative endeavors within schooling, though there is arguably too little detail on how trust is negotiated. This thesis attempts to address this gap in detail by examining in how teachers negotiate support in both the classroom and in wider school systems.
3.5. Brief Summary and Gaps in Current Research
To summarize, the present review of research has identified a need for research into how teachers are supported in their work with shy students; students who sit below the threshold for statutory special needs interventions. The dearth of research on this topic raises questions about how the need for preventative efforts offered to shy students are met; the management and resources related to teachers’ work with shy students; and how teachers negotiate for these. Consequently, the present study has aimed at investigating what school leaders do to support teachers; how teachers negotiate for support in their work with shy students; and how teachers experience support in this work.
15
4. Theoretical Framework for the Study
In this chapter, I briefly outline the origins of cultural-historical accounts of human action and learning in the work of Vygotsky and Leont’ev, but focus primarily on the more recent extensions of their work by current scholars who are concerned with institutional practices and the actions and activities that occur within them. My Vygotskian, cultural-historical, approach strongly resonates with my previous experiences as a social teacher, and the insights derived from his legacy were an important reminder of teachers’ potential roles in providing for shy students.
Moreover, this framing has enabled me to address the research question through an analysis of how the motivated actions of leaders and class teachers were located within the practices of schools. The ontological basis of the study is therefore most evident in the analytical tools that I take from cultural-historical theory. My engagement with a relational ontology became clearer to me as I examined whether and how teachers negotiated their way through historically and socially constructed practices to find support for shy students.
4.1.Vygotsky and Teachers
For Vygotsky, education was seen as an intervention for equity, and he discussed education as “a systematic, purposeful, intentional, and conscious effort at intervening in and influencing all those processes that are part of the individual’s growth” (Vygotsky, 1926/1997, p. 58). With education as an intervention, teachers are crucial to children’s unfolding development. Importantly,
Vygotsky asks us to recognize that learning is anchored in social practices, where children propel themselves forward as learners within the developmental niches they inhabit. Creating that niche and supporting children’s engagement with it as learners requires teachers to see themselves as managers of the social environment:
Thus, the teacher must shoulder a new burden. He has to become the director of the social environment which, moreover, is the only educational factor. Where he acts like a simple pump, filling up the students with knowledge, there he can be replaced with no trouble at all by a text book… (Vygotsky, 1926/1997, p. 339)
He explained further: “From the psychological point of view, the teacher is the director of the social environment in the classroom, the governor and guide of the interaction between the educational process and the student” (Vygotsky, 1926/1997, p. 49).
Vygotsky’s attention to social practices took him to a view of disability and responses to it that informs my focus on how teachers can create environments that allow all children to flourish.
16
For him, teachers were dealing with social consequences of a disability, and not the disability itself (Vygotsky, 1924/1993). For teachers supporting shy students, the key message is for them to recognize their role in creating supportive classroom and school conditions that recognize the shy students’ strengths and needs without pathologizing them. In the present thesis, it also includes a
focus on what teachers and school leaders see as their objects of activity and their object motives.
4.2. Object of Activity, Object Motive and Motive Orientation
The interest in school leaders’ and teachers’ actions in activities in practices led to an examination of their objects of activity and object motives; what they are working on and why. Both concepts owe their place in cultural-historical theory to Leont’ev (1978). Rather than separating people’s motived action from the societal conditions, the practices they inhabit, he argued that “society produces the activity of the individuals forming it” (Leont'ev, 1978, p. 51). The object of activity is a person’s interpretation of what they are working on, such as the withdrawn behavior of a shy child. This interpretation arises in the dialectic of a person with intentions and a societally shaped activity; when we look at a potential problem, we see what our experience and culture has trained us to see. Our interpretations are revealed in the object motive, which reflects a person’s
interpretations of the object of activity. Object motives will differ from person to person as they interpret objects of activity through the prism of their own personal experiences and
responsibilities.
If we apply Leont’ev’s logic to teachers working on a shy child’s withdrawn behavior in a classroom, we can say that the withdrawn behavior is the object of activity. However, teachers, school leadership and other professionals with their different experiences, both personal and professional may have different object motives in relation to the same child and therefore interpret the shy behavior in different ways. Consequently, collaboration to support the child can be helpful because together they can expand and enrich interpretations of the child’s behavior and possible responses to it. Recognizing different motives and responses is relevant to the present study, as it pertains to how different actors within school practices can collaboratively share and align their motives in order to build rich pictures of the children; their strengths and their needs.
Hedegaard has extended Leont’ev’s work to include attention to how institutional practices mediate societal expectations, such as those found in national policies; “The way I conceptually extend Leontiev's theory is to locate the social conditions in the institutional practices” (Hedegaard, 2014, p. 189). This development of the relationship between person and society is particularly useful when examining how schools with their sets of institutional practices take forward Norway’s national policies on school inclusion in relation to shy children.
17 Hedegaard has also built on Leont’ev’s concept of object motive in ways that are helpful to understanding how phenomena are interpreted and responded to. Her key idea is motive orientation, which she describes in relation to learners as “a movement initiated by the child’s emotional experience related to the activity setting” (Hedegaard, 2012, p. 21). Motive orientation is therefore a way of understanding what people see in a task or problem and the reasons for their responses to it. Motive orientations arise in and are supported by the practices we inhabit. I therefore now turn to Hedegaard’s guidance on the relationships between society, institutional practices and the motivated actions of those who inhabit the practices.
4.3. The Planes of Analysis Employed in the Study
In line with the aim of the study, the reasons for the support that is offered, how support is offered and the motivated actions that marked the take-up of support within the practices of schools were examined. Consequently, a framework that could connect individual actions within day-to-day activities with institutional practices and their purposes was needed (Stetsenko, 2008; 2015). To do so, Hedegaard and her insertion of the institution in the dialectic indicated in Leont’ev’s explanation of the relationship between person and society was used. Hedegaard’s work as a developmental psychologist focuses on what she describes as a wholeness approach to studying children by accessing how children experience and respond to demands, in activities, and the opportunities they have for action; all in which occur within institutional practices that are located within societal expectations (Hedegaard, 2012). This framing has subsequently been used by others to explain the motivated actions of professionals (Edwards, 2020; Edwards, Chan, & Tan, 2019; Edwards, Fleer, & Bøttcher, 2019; Munk, 2020). In Table 4A we can see a broad outline of the different analytic focuses and the potential links between these different planes of analysis.
Table 4A
Planes of Analysis (Adapted from Hedegaard, 2014, p. 192)
Entity Process Dynamic
Society Political economy Societal needs/conditions
Institution Practice Values/motives/objectives
Activity setting Activity/situation (with potential for individual learning)
Motives/demands
Person Actions (learning arising from
individual engagement in the activity)
Motive/intentions
18
In addressing the different research questions, I used different planes of analysis as points of entry into understanding how teachers’ work with shy children is supported. In Paper I the institutional perspective is the point of entry, as the leadership team interviews provided access into the purposes of the practices and school leaders’ motive orientations within the practices. The interviews offered an opportunity to recognize and describe recurrent demands in practices, which, for these school leaders, entailed schools and teachers being able to meet the needs of all students.
Within cultural-historical approaches the term ‘practice’ has a specific meaning summarized by Edwards as follows: Practices are “knowledge –laden, imbued with cultural values and emotionally freighted by the motives of those who already act in them” (Edwards, 2010, p. 5). This view of practices demands attention to how people navigate and negotiate them.
Thus, in Paper II, I took on the perspectives of classroom teachers to enhance my understanding of how teachers are supported based on their motive orientations, and negotiation of support. In Paper II, the focus was on individual teachers’ interactions with the institutional affordances in their schools: The points of entry here were the activity settings such as teacher team meetings.
While these were the entry points, I was also intent on examining the actions that were taken as teachers’ negotiated support within those settings. To do this, the relational concepts developed by Edwards were employed (Edwards, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2017b) and summarized in Table 4B, and elaborated on below.
The planes of analysis provided by Hedegaard has provided direction for the project, as well as a theoretical argument for taking into account different voices, and different entry points in order to examine different perspectives on the phenomenon of how teachers are supported in their work with shy children. Consequently, the two Papers gave access a variety of
interpretations of the needs of shy students and what support is offered to teachers. The insights derived from these Papers informed the questionnaire discussed in Paper III.
4.4. A Cultural-Historical Approach to Understanding How Support is Negotiated To examine in more detail how teachers negotiated support for their work with shy students I employed the three relational concepts that have been developed to explain collaboration within a cultural-historical framework. They are relational expertise, common knowledge and relational agency (Edwards, 2005, 2010; 2017b; 2020) and are outlined in Table 4B.
19
Table 4B
Summary of the Relational Concepts
Relational expertise Involves knowing how to know who can help i.e.
have knowledge of available resources.
Is the capacity to elicit the motive orientations, the
‘what matters’ for others when they are interpreting a problem.
Is the capacity to be clear about one’s own motives in relation to the problem.
Is the capacity to recognize long-term common goals through discussion of each other’s motive
orientations.
Common knowledge Is built where people from different practices or with different roles or positions within the same practices come together to tackle a problem.
Comprises the motive orientations, the what matters for each participant, as they orient towards the problem using their own specialist expertise and is used as a resource to enable and calibrate joint action on the problem.
Relational agency Involves expanding interpretations of the problem drawing on the common knowledge that has been created.
Is evident in the collaborative unfolding of agentic responses to the problem and may involve holding back while another leads and leading when others hold back.
These three concepts have allowed for some precision in explaining the negotiation processes employed by teachers when trying to access support for their work with shy children. Examples of how they were employed are given in Paper II, consequently only a few are given here. An
example of relational expertise entailed teachers revealing their own interpretations of a child to a family, whilst listening to the interpretations and experiences of family members. An example of creating common knowledge was expanding on their interpretations of a shy student’s behavior with families in order to understand the child’s strengths and needs in different contexts. An example of relational agency was the classroom teachers’ capacity to cooperate with the social teachers in their school in order to address both what the shy children’s behavior means, as well as what demands they entailed for the teacher.
20
4.5. Brief Summary
Foregrounding the institutional plane has extended the main project’s focus on teachers’ strategies in supporting shy students, providing nuances that contextualize and extend the person centered focus. The cultural historical framework has been useful for discussing how teachers and senior leaders read the demands they encounter in in relation to shy students in school and classroom settings, the activities they take part in in those settings, and the motivated actions they take (Edwards, Chan, & Tan, 2019; Munk, 2020). As Edwards (2010, p. 139) underlines, Hedegaard's planes of analysis can help researchers “keep an eye both on institutional practices as historically formed and on how they are experienced and manipulated by the actors within them”.
As such, the cultural-historical framing allowed me to analyze how actors (leadership and teachers) read the demands of students and the institution, intertwined with the expectations from society. The cultural-historical stance supports the ontological assumptions underlying this thesis;
namely that teachers are active agents within the activity settings that they operate in, including classrooms, teachers’ meetings, and in interactions with senior colleagues. However, this framework has also challenged me to reflect on shyness as a dialectical phenomenon, as CHAT provides a useful framework for challenging individualistic notions of difficulties or disabilities (Bal et al., 2020, p. 38). This theoretical frame has both shaped and inspired the methodological considerations in this thesis, and provided me with a useful set of resources for both planning, analyzing and discussing the implications of the findings for the support of teachers in their work with shy students.
