Sex and Relationships Education for Special Educational Needs - An exploration of the quality of provision

Bray, Paul

doi:10.31124/advance.12826382.v1

Preprints are early versions of research articles that have not been peer reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Sex and Relationships Education for Special Educational Needs - An exploration of the quality of provision. (2015).pdf (1.23 MB)

Download file

Sex and Relationships Education for Special Educational Needs - An exploration of the quality of provision

preprint

posted on 2020-08-27, 22:53 authored by Paul BrayPaul Bray

Mixed methods research; a new paradigm

Positivist - Quantitative *Pupil progress and assessment/attainment data. *Parental ‘check list’.*Questionnaires.

Anti- positivist - Interpretive Historical and documentary research Retrospective ex post facto research - Qualitative *Informal Interviews.*Literature review (including policy and curriculum guidance).

Anti- positivist - Participatory - Qualitative *Presentations. *Observation. *Informal discussions. *SRE ‘group’ sessions.

Anti- positivist - Investigative research - Qualitative *Observation. *Informal discussion.*SRE group work. *Parental workshops.

Anti- positivist - Pragmatism - Qualitative *Mixed Methods approach

Critical theory - Critical pedagogical - Ideology *Reflection on SRE for SEN *Schemes of Work and quality of SRE provision.

Critical theory - Reflective - Action research *Observation. *Informal discussions. *Pupil session discussions. *Assessments - planning ahead. *After course assessments – planning ahead. *Informal Interviews.

_{I am confident that permission, where needed, had been gained and that the rights of everyone taking part were upheld. I do not believe that there are any other ethical concerns to be addressed within this particular research study.}

_{Other guidelines that were followed were;}

_{Government Office for Science (2007) Rigour, Respect and Responsibility: A Universal Ethical Code for Scientists. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISPartners/GoScience/Docs/U/universal-ethical-code-scientists.pdf}

_{Research Councils UK (2009) RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct: Integrity, Clarity and Good Management. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/grc/grcpoldraft.pdf [last accessed 10/01/12].}

_{ESRC’s (2010) Framework for Research Ethics, to which the AHRC also refers. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf}

_{The University of St Mark & St John’s ethics policy.}

History

Declaration of conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest

Corresponding author email

paul@insightts.co.uk

Lead author country

United Kingdom

Lead author job role

Postgraduate Student

Lead author institution

Plymouth Marjons University

Human Participants

Yes

Ethics statement

I am confident that permission, where needed, had been gained and that the rights of everyone taking part were upheld. I do not believe that there are any other ethical concerns to be addressed within this particular research study. Other guidelines that were followed were; Government Office for Science (2007) Rigour, Respect and Responsibility: A Universal Ethical Code for Scientists. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/BISPartners/GoScience/Docs/U/universal-ethical-code-scientists.pdf Research Councils UK (2009) RCUK Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct: Integrity, Clarity and Good Management. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/grc/grcpoldraft.pdf [last accessed 10/01/12]. ESRC’s (2010) Framework for Research Ethics, to which the AHRC also refers. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf The University of St Mark & St John’s ethics policy.