The Influence of Early Childhood Teachers’ Mental Health Literacy and Early Intervention for Special Needs Children: Methods
Introduction
In recent decades, it has become common knowledge that early childhood education is of fundamental importance to the overall development of all children, whether those children have developmental disabilities, are intellectually disadvantaged, or present with other special needs (Virmani et al., 2013; World Health Organisation, 2016; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007). However, despite the importance of early childhood education for all students, there are special requirements that must be met for students with special needs. Teaching special needs students in the early education classroom can be difficult for a plethora of reasons. The purpose of this discussion will be to investigate the appropriate methods for conducting a systematic review of the topic of the influence that teachers have over the efficacy and the quality of the classroom-- particularly focusing on instructors and educators that have specific knowledge of teaching special needs students in the early childhood education environment.
Conducting a systematic review can be an arduous process, and there are numerous concerns that must be addressed as part of the process (Russel et al., 2009). Each of these questions is governed by an overarching protocol, of which there are many (Russel et al., 2009). For the purposes of this discussion, an overall analysis of the methods used to conduct a thorough systematic review will be completed, including any issues associated with answering the research question and performing the synthesis appropriate to those research questions as a whole. Systematic reviews often form the groundwork upon which good research is built, and yet, there is often a misunderstanding regarding their completion and their role in research (Khan et al., 2003; Russel et al., 2009).
Methods: A Discussion
This is a systematic review of the current literature surrounding the role of the early childhood teacher’s knowledge base in the intervention in mental health issues in young children with special needs. This review collates a number of current studies and texts, focusing heavily on peer-reviewed works. Because this work is a meta-analysis of the various texts and studies available, there is no independently-gathered information to report. Of the sources collected and analysed, most are peer-reviewed studies; there are also governmental reports from reputable sources, as well as published books on the topic of early childhood education and the development of special needs education.
There are, of course, limitations to conducting a systematic review using only a meta-analysis approach to the literature. Without a coherent study group, the literature analysis relies upon the research conducted by other scientists and researchers; while studies can be culled from the analysis based on poor methods or poor data collection strategies, the researcher is still limited by the overall structure of these studies. Unfortunately, the intersectionality of special needs and mental health in Australian children has not been extensively investigated; as such, different fields were investigated in this particular meta-analysis in an attempt to ensure that the research question was answered as fully as possible. This systematic review, however, provides a good oversight into the general trends of the current research in the issues that plague early childhood educators in the special needs classroom.
One of the most important things that must be done when conducting any systematic review is determining the best way to go about doing that review. A review without coherent and cogent structures governing the development of a research question, data collection, and synthesis of data is a review that will be largely ineffective in the long run; the type of review chosen is also dependent upon the type of research that is being done. In the case of this discussion, the question is quite complex and multifaceted, so the approach taken must understand that there are many different types of studies that will be involved in the systematic review itself (Boaz et al., 2006). There are a number of important steps that must be integrated into any systematic study, however, and the different aspects of the systematic study will be investigated in some depth here.
Need
When conducting any kind of academic investigation, there will be needs. Experimental needs are often tangible and quantifiable, but for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the important needs are often much more intangible (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013). The researcher must consider the research question and topic itself; for the purposes of this study, there were a number of things that had to be considered.
First, there was a need to consider the neurological issues associated with both mental illness and special needs children; however, educational perspectives and social science perspectives should also be considered. Comorbidity of intellectual disability and mental health issues is quite high, and spotting these comorbidity issues early is fundamentally important for the overall success of the student in the long run (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010). Children who experience special needs challenges also sometimes experience mental health struggles that exacerbate those challenges (McWilliam, 2010; Mian et al., 2010; Margalit, 2012). Regardless of the special needs child or the behavioural issue that is faced, the foundational basis seems to be early advocacy for the child (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010; Margalit, 2012; Dawson et al., 2010; Dahlin, 2011; Hart Barnett & O’shaughnessy, 2015). Thus, it becomes inescapably clear that for this discussion, there is a need for a multifaceted approach to gathering and collating data.
Review Question
The following question has been determined as the research question for the systematic review of literature:
What is the role of early childhood teacher’s knowledge about childhood mental health needs, and how does this influence the early intervention of mental health in the young children?
This question will be the structure upon which the systematic review is built, and thus, some of the major search criteria will come from this particular question (Russel et al., 2009; Boaz et al., 2006). It gives clear parameters for the search: the discussion will be about early childhood education in particular—excluding older children—and will focus on students who have a comorbidity of special education needs and mental illness. Inclusion criteria for studies will include studies involving mental illness in young children, special needs and behavioural issues in young children, and so on. Studies will not be excluded if they are conducted outside of Australia; an international perspective on the topic could easily shed light onto the questions associated with these issues in Australia.
Scope
Both quantitative and qualitative studies will be used, and the studies that will be used encompass a wide variety of different areas of study. Special care will be taken to ensure that studies were culled from the social sciences, early education studies, biological sciences, and neurological sciences; this is designed to ensure that the meta-analysis that was conducted was conducted on research from as many fields as possible—providing the researcher with a more thorough understanding of the current literature. Appropriate educational strategies must be developed for educators, and these strategies will be investigated in the following section. However, perhaps more importantly, the appropriate scope of care must be defined for educators as a whole: educators must be prepared to delegate student care issues to another educator with more experience if necessary in certain extreme cases (Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010; Benn, Akiva, Arel, & Roser, 2012 Dawson et al., 2010).
Search
Studies for this investigation will be collected only from reputable databases. A number of different databases will be utilised for the purpose of this investigation, and the electronic database search will be conducted via four electronic databases: PSYCHINFO, A Education, ERIC and SCOPUS. Additional research will be conducted via the electronic database available through Google Scholar, in an attempt to collect and collate information outside the traditional electronic database searches. Searches will be conducted of peer-reviewed sources primarily, with a minor search of books and government publications. The goal will be to ensure that all the sources that are used are trusted sources, and that none of them contain poor methodology, unethical treatment of participants, or unfounded conclusions.
Screen
Many of the studies available are likely to be inadequate for the discussion in this particular case. The quality of the learning environment itself has a critical effect on the quality of brain functioning in early childhood, and reinforces children experiences (Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010). The research seems to suggest that early intervention at the preschool and day care centre level for special needs children can modify and improve their learning and life outcomes (Shonkoff, et al., 2009). However, to properly establish this as a theoretical idea, the researcher has to cull and screen many of the studies on childhood education from the search.
Common knowledge seems to suggest that school-based health programmes can be immensely powerful in the fight against early childhood mental illness, and prognoses can be excellent for children who struggle in these situations and receive help very early; early research also seems to support this theory (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010). The problem, then, becomes the definition of the instructor’s scope of duty in the classroom, and the appropriate methods by which instructors can be trained to deal with children who are exhibiting comorbidity between mental illness and special needs (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010). This interaction becomes the basis upon which the research question is based. It will be important to screen different pieces of research for the appropriate content; because this systematic review will have a multidisciplinary approach to answering the research question, the appropriate studies must be culled from the tangentially related studies. Screening studies becomes incredibly important, because the next step—coding—is time-intensive and will require that the researcher invest significant time and energy in understanding the content and context of each study (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006).
Coding
The relevant studies must also be individually analyzed for the most important information contained within (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006). This information, once collected, will be mapped, as in the following section; however, the primary concern during this step of the methodology is to extract the relevant information from the studies and abandon the irrelevant information. Not all information will be important, of course; if all the information in every study was pertinent, the meta-analysis that will be conducted would be largely useless for the academic community as a whole (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006).
Mapping
There are many different ways that mapping of the coded information can be done (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006). For the purposes of this particular research project, mapping will be done as a stage to synthesis; all the information that is coded as a result of the initial assessment of each study will be collected and then mapped based on subject matter and based on what part of the research question that particular coded information addresses (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006). When the synthesis of the information is conducted, this map can then be used to structure the synthesis and give the researcher the general structure of the synthesis as a whole (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006).
Appraise
All information collected in this study will be recent—no studies prior to the year 2006 will be utilised in an attempt to ensure that the information used is the most current information available on the topic. Literature will be collected from both Australian and international sources, in an attempt to fully understand the current research on the issue of the intersectionality of special needs students and mental health struggles.
Synthesise
Synthesis of the mapped information is one of the most important parts of the study, as this is the analytical assessment of the information that has been gathered during the course of the study. Parents and guardians, particularly those who are dealing with a child who has a known intellectual or learning disability, may often be unaware of the potential problems with comorbidity between mental illness and special needs (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010). They may also be unaware of the potential solutions or treatments that are commonly associated with mental illness. When this is the case, it becomes the role of the instructor to act as an advocate for the child and the child’s mental health (Dahlin, 2011).
The early childhood educator must also begin to fill the role of educator for the parent or guardian: the educator should begin to engage with the family and provide the family with the appropriate tools necessary to deal with the child’s mental health issues (Heller et al., 2011; Kay-Lambkin, Kemp, Stafford & Hazell, 2007; Talay-Ongan, 2010; Margalit, 2012). Benn et al. (2012) suggests that mindfulness training is one of the ways that parents and educators can effectively deal with students with special needs in the classroom (Benn et al., 2012). Improving child interactivity is foundational to child success in the classroom; for Fuchs et al. (2010), the traditional classroom can be a difficult and stressful place for the student with special needs, and mindfulness is a method by which the instructor can more easily remain connected to the student (Benn et al., 2012; Fuchs, Fuchs & Stecker, 2010). Dawson et al. (2010) suggest that for students with autism—particularly those with behavioural difficulties—early childhood intervention in the classroom can make a significant difference in mental health and behavioural health (Dawson et al., 2010). Because this study is targeted at the early childhood educator—or those interested in the field—the synthesis of the information collected must begin to address the many questions associated with the problems of comorbidity of mental illness and special educational needs in young children. Synthesis will be done through careful integration of the findings and interpretation of patterns and theories presented by the different researchers.
Communicate
The reporting of this particular review will be done based on the typical conventions associated with the systematic study (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006). The final report will contain a background of the issue, the aims of the review, a shortened version of this methodology as it has been discussed in this text, and the “results of the map and synthesis” (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013). In addition, there will be a final section of the discussion that will focus on the analysis and conclusions associated with the synthesis that was conducted for the project (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2013; Boaz et al., 2006). The purpose of this communication is to be clear, concise, and thorough in the analysis and establishment of the theoretical answer to the research question based on the research analysed in the report.
The appropriate methodology for a systematic review cannot be overstated. There is no perfect reviewing method; after all, research is often much more complex than the researcher understands, and good research questions will often lend themselves to more research questions later on (Jones & Evans, 2000). It is almost impossible to choose a perfect systematic review method, but the important part about choosing a method is ensuring that the appropriate protocol is followed and that standards and norms set by the academic community are met insofar as it is possible to meet them (Boaz et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2003).
Systematic reviews are a kind of collaboration between professional academics. They are a meeting of minds, so to speak; this is one of the things that is so powerful about choosing an appropriate methodology for the systematic review. By collecting and collating information, the researcher is providing other researchers with an excellent overview of the research available in a particular field. These syntheses may present researchers with new trends and new ideas that they might never have discovered otherwise. The methodology chosen for this particular study allows the researcher to conduct a meta-analysis of both qualitative and quantitative studies; as the subject matter overlaps medical, social science, and education issues, both qualitative and quantitative studies are necessary for an integrative understanding of the question as a whole. Synthesising different types of studies in different academic areas can be complex and problematic, but it also allows the researcher unique insight into a research question and potentially the ability to better answer this question (Boaz et al., 2006; Khan et al., 2003). Just because a meta-analysis or systematic review does not require experimental design does not mean that pre-planning and organisation are unnecessary.
References
Benn, R., Akiva, T., Arel, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2012). Mindfulness training effects for parents and educators of children with special needs.Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1476.
Boaz, A., Ashby, D., Denyer, D., Egan, M., Harden, A., Jones, D. R., & Tranfield, D. (2006). A multitude of syntheses: a comparison of five approaches from diverse policy fields. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 2(4), 479-502.
Dahlin, K. I. (2011). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 479-491.
Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter, J., Greenson, J., & Varley, J. (2010). Randomized, controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism: the Early Start Denver Model. Pediatrics, 125(1), e17-e23.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323.
Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2013). LEARNING FROM RESEARCH: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS FOR INFORMING POLICY DECISIONS.
Harden, A. (2001). Finding research evidence: systematic searching.
Heller, S., Boothe, A., Keyes, A., Nagle, G., Sidell, M., & Rice, J. (2011). Implementation of a mental health consultation model and its impact on early childhood teachers' efficacy and competence. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32(2), 143-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20289
Jones, T., & Evans, D. (2000). Conducting a systematic review. Australian Critical Care, 13(2), 66-71.
Kay-Lambkin, F., Kemp, E., Stafford, K., & Hazell, T. (2007). Mental Health Promotion and Early Intervention in Early Childhood and Primary School Settings: A Review1. Journal Of Student Wellbeing, Vol.1(1), 31-56.
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,96(3), 118-121.
Margalit, M. (2012). Loneliness among children with special needs: Theory, research, coping, and intervention. Springer Science & Business Media.
McWilliam, R. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention. Supporting Young Children and Their Families. Baltimore: Brookes.
Mian, N., Wainwright, L., Briggs-Gowan, M., & Carter, A. (2010). An Ecological Risk Model for Early Childhood Anxiety: The Importance of Early Child Symptoms and Temperament. Journal Of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(4), 501-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9476-0
Russell, R., Chung, M., Balk, E. M., Atkinson, S., Giovannucci, E. L., Ip, S., & West, K. P. (2009). Issues and Challenges in Conducting Systematic Reviews to Support Development of Nutrient Reference Values: Workshop Summary: Nutrition Research Series, Vol. 2.
Shonkoff, J., Boyce, W., & McEwen, B. (2009). Neuroscience, Molecular Biology, and the Childhood Roots of Health Disparities. JAMA, 301(21), 2252.
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC medical research methodology, 11(1), 1.
Talay-Ongan, A. (2010). Early Intervention: Critical roles of early childhood service providers L'Intervention Precoce: Les roles decisifs des prestataires de services a la petite enfance Intervención Temprana: Papeles críticos sobre proveedores de servicios para menores. International Journal Of Early Years Education, Vol.9(0966-9760), 221-228.
Virmani, E., Masyn, K., Thompson, R., Conners-Burrow, N., & Whiteside Mansell, L. (2013). Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: Promoting Change in the Quality of Teacher-Child Interactions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(2), 156-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21358
World Health Organisation. (2016). WHO | Mental health: a state of well-being. Who.int. Retrieved 15 March 2016, from http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/
