a critical review of our community project introduction...profile in order to provide information...

Community Development and Education ES6006

of 47

A critical review of our Community Project

Introduction

This assignment aims to provide a critical review of our community project. Throughout this

assignment the other two members of the team will be called W and X, to maintain

anonymity. Firstly, an overview of the project will be described, I will then go on to reflect

and critically evaluate the process we went through, the way we worked as a team, the

approach we took in relation to theory and the overall project itself as an example of

community development. Dewey (1933, cited in Smith, 1999 & Twelvetrees 2008) explained

how reflective practice is an active process which allows us to learn from exploring an

experience and developing our ideas to problem solve and improve our future practice.

Overview of the project

As part of the community project, we discovered that my school, a Special Educational Needs

and Disabilities (SEND) school, was in need of work experience (WE) placements for the

Key Stage 4 (KS4) pupils. This community we focussed on was a homogenous, KS4

community within the school, whom had ‘bonding’ social capital due to their strong relations

within the community (Woolcock, 1998, cited in Smith, 2009). They are classed as

homogenous due to their similar status. This community was believed to be marginalised as

they did not receive many business establishments accepting the pupils for WE opportunities.

This was suggested to be due to their SEND title. Thompson (2002) explained that

marginalisation is when a community is actively excluded, which includes physical and social

isolation. To overcome this marginalisation W and X’s mainstream schools were the venues

for action. They offered two pilot WE sessions to two pupils from the SEND school. These

WE links were aiming to gain ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ social capital between the SEND


of 47

school and different communities (Woolcock, 1998, cited in Smith, 2009). These two types of

social capital can generate broader identities and more resources for the community (Smith,

2009).

The pilot sessions were aimed to provide a meaningful WE opportunity in order to improve

each pupil’s self-esteem, confidence and independence, and to give them an insight into

working in a professional setting.

The process we went through

The most integral part of the community project was to conduct a needs analysis to identify

what the community needed. This should have been carried out in the form of a community

profile in order to provide information that could have helped us understand how they needed

support (Twelvetrees, 2008). Due to time constraints, a formal community profile was not

carried out, but I was classed as a ‘personal contact’ from the particular community, therefore

was able to conduct an ‘issue profile’ (Twelvetrees, 2008). An ‘issue profile’ is where some

of the issues the community had were discussed. This allowed us to fully understand what the

community needed and provided us with an analysis as a basis for action. The limitations of

this ‘issue profile’ was that we had not collected first person evidence from the community

themselves.

The pre-planning for the projects initial design was conducted over two meetings (Appendices

1 & 2). Twelvetrees (2008) claimed that the most important part of a project is pre-planning

as it allows all project members to understand the process and the desired outcomes. A logical

framework approach for planning was conducted using the ‘plan down’ approach because the

broad goal had already been decided. However, due to time constraints it was not completed,


of 47

instead the basic planning cycle was conducted. Bakewell and Garbutt (2005) acknowledged

that logical frameworks stimulate people to carefully think about the project plan and

objective. Therefore, if we had completed it we may have understood that the project was

aimed more at the personal development of the individuals within the community.

A Gantt chart was produced halfway through the project in order to provide a visual schedule

of when the project started and the aimed completion date, it also included the dates of the

main tasks. The Gantt chart was good for establishing the timeframes however, due to it not

being completed at the beginning of the project, we did not benefit from using it. We found

the dates difficult to read on the chart and it was acknowledged by Jefferies (2009) that the

chart needed updating when any dates were changed. The Gantt chart (Figure 1) showed

evidence that on-going planning was conducted due to the constant monitoring of the project.

The monitoring allowed us to review the project to ensure it was progressing as planned

(Eldred, 2002).

(Figure 1)

29-Jan 18-Feb 09-Mar 29-Mar 18-Apr 08-May 28-May

Planning

Meeting 1 at School A (Emily's School)

Meeting 2 at School A (Emily's School)

Implementation of Work Experience

Evaluation Meeting

Write up reflection

Gantt Chart for the Community Project


of 47

Once the overall basis was planned we requested permission for the project via email to our

project tutor (Appendix 3). The feedback expressed concerns about it not being a valid

community project although, it was decided as long as we focused on my school as the main

‘community’ and the other two schools as venues for action to overcome the marginalisation,

then it should be a beneficial community project. This feedback should have alerted us to

think about the overall project outcomes in more depth, which it failed to do. When the

permission was granted, we conducted the project inception event by obtaining permission

from the non-participatory stakeholders (Head Teachers and parents) and the primary

stakeholders (class teachers). Even though the Head Teachers and parents were non-

participatory they held a high importance in this project (Shuman, 2010). Turcotte (2012)

acknowledged that good relations with community stakeholders increase the chance of the

project leaving a legacy.

When working as a group it was important to hold regular meetings. This was to discuss any

business about the project. It was essential to keep records of the meetings as Delephant

(2007) pointed out that they serve as an important communication function. The actions

decided from the meetings were added to our group action plan (Appendix 4) which

emphasised the time various tasks needed to be completed by and who was assigned

responsibility for them (Levi, 2011 & Eldred, 2002). Two of our group members always

completed the action points before the assigned deadline, however one member needed

reminders. The reminders were carried out in a humorous way to avoid conflict. The action

plan was supposed to be shared with the community members, however we did not conduct

this due to their level of needs. I found our meeting minutes and action plan highly useful to

continuously check what we had recently discussed and what action was needed. We shared

out the role of taking the meeting minutes as we discovered that the person who was


of 47

completing the minutes was unable to say as much during that meeting. In a formal meeting

the role of taking the minutes is usually carried out by someone who is not involved, therefore

their input is not needed (Holder, 2005), this would have been more beneficial. For each

meeting, formal agendas should have been devised, but we decided against them as we found

them time consuming. We each attended the meetings with our own informal list of topics

and this enabled us to be actively engaged in the meetings. We conducted one formal agenda

throughout the project, this was used for the evaluation meeting so the community members

understood the timetable of the meeting (Appendix 5).

The way we worked as a team

Tuckman (Tuckman & Jenson, 1977, cited in Beck & Purcell, 2010) developed a basic model

of group development, he suggested groups inevitably go through these four distinctive

stages. Tuckman and Jenson (1977) discussed how the group stages may not be representable

for small groups, but large groups usually notice the stages. Initially, groups should be in the

forming phase, this phase appeared to happen during our first two group meetings where we

were discussing ideas for the project. This was difficult due to W being absent for the first

meeting, therefore we could not discuss many ideas (Appendix 1). After the second meeting

we had decided a hypothetical idea, so we set up a private community project discussion on

social media to enhance our group interaction (Schuman, 2010).

Secondly, Tuckman suggested is the storming phase; this meant groups should have some

conflict in order to resolve it together and develop into a stronger working team. Conflict is a

normal process of group work and West (2004) agreed by explaining how it adds creativity to

the project. We were aware that not having conflicts was acknowledged as a negative aspect

because the absence of conflict may have indicated that we had a dominant leader who did not


of 47

allow conflict or that we all lacked desire to improve our project (Levi, 2011). This suggested

that Tuckman’s theory of group development was not necessarily how all groups develop and

transform. We did however have some frustration, this was when members took a long time

to message back on the technology discussion (Appendix 6) however, we all understood we

each had different commitments therefore we did not allow this to cause conflict. The impact

of the frustration caused anxiety levels to rise in certain project members who needed

organisation.

The third phase ‘norming’ was not recognised in our group as a specific development stage.

Although, the fourth phase ‘performing’, happened quickly for us due to our motivational

drive and organisational skills, this was demonstrated by attending the school based meetings

with the pupils early on in the project (Appendices 7 & 8). We each gained a clear

understanding of the objectives of our project and we hoped it would be implemented at a

high quality level. Due to this need for high quality achievement, we continuously monitored

the on-going project and when we noticed an issue we immediately resolved it (Appendices 9

& 10) (Schuman, 2010).

Throughout the project we did not assign individual roles for each member as we consciously

gained a distributed leadership. Bennett et al (2003, p. 3, cited in Bolden, 2011) defined a

distributed leadership as “a group activity that works through and within relationships, rather

than individual action”. We shared our ideas and concerns and worked together using our

individual areas of expertise to make a final decision (Schuman, 2010). This was best for our

group project because we all had different skills and ideas to work together at a high

performance level. This was classed as social facilitation because we enhanced each other’s

performance (Levi, 2011). This leadership style was opposed to a centralised leadership


of 47

where the leader makes the decisions. Kokemuller (2016) acknowledged that a centralised

leadership reduces group conflict. This was not the case in our group where distributed

leadership worked well. Covertly however, it was acknowledged that I held a stronger

leadership role within the group due to being part of the particular community everyday as my

work role.

Belbin (1981-1993, cited in West, 2004) suggested that within any group there will be a

number of different types of individuals. Belbin’s team role theory was discussed and we

believed we were all ‘specialists’ due to having our own areas of specialism in this project.

We agreed with Belbin’s role descriptions that we were dedicated and committed, however

we did not agree that we lacked interest in each other’s subjects. We believed this project did

the opposite because it allowed us the opportunity to gain an insight and interest into each

other’s job roles. It was acknowledged that we had aspects of each team role, but not any

particular identifiable role as defined by Belbin, who insisted that a high performance team

will need a variety of all the roles (Aritzeta, Swailes & Senior, 2007).

The approach we took in relation to theory

Whilst planning the project we believed we were conducting a ‘bottom up’ approach as we

were designing the plan to meet a need. We imagined that the pupils attending the WE

sessions would have gained the ‘bridging’ link with other communities. However, when we

reflected back on the project it was understood that we conducted a ‘top down’ approach

instead (Gilchrist, 2003, cited in O’Connor et al., 2006, p. 120). This was proven by us not

communicating with the community members to find out what they needed. We as the

‘experts’ assumed their needs and asked them to be part of the project. We led the project plan

as dominating ‘experts’ and took ownership of the project (Chitty, 2013). However, it could


of 47

be argued that we did address their needs as I hypothesised what the community needed by

being a ‘personal contact’. However, this should have been consolidated and communicated

with them before being carried out.

In relation to community education, the ‘top down’ approach we used was the opposite of

Freire’s (1921-1997) educational method (Smith, 2002). His educational method ‘problem-

posing’ re-formed pupils into critical learners through the use of dialogue with the teacher and

this enabled both pupils and teachers to be active learners (Major, 2014). Freire believed that

pupils could empower themselves by taking responsibility of their own learning and making

sure their education was useful and suited to them, rather than being taught from a curriculum

which was set by the elite (Dugan, 2003). This philosophy of ‘problem-posing’ education was

not carried out in our community project. We did not allow the pupils the responsibility to

experience the planning of the community project, and therefore we did not allow them to feel

a sense of empowerment. We as the elite dominated the plan. However, it could have been

suggested that the pupils in the community would not have had the ability, due to their SEND,

to understand a sensible idea of what they needed within education.

In terms of community development, Rogers (1902-1987) emphasised the importance of

having positive relationships between the teacher and learner in order to facilitate the learning

to the highest level (Smith, 2004). Rogers pointed out that the facilitator needed to be aware

of the learners’ feelings and opinions in order to gain the pupils’ trust and confidence. This

was not carried out, as we were not aware of their opinions about the project and we did not

allow their voices to be heard. Rogers also insisted that the facilitators needed to have an

empathetic understanding of the pupils in order for their learning to increase because they felt

valued and appreciated. Throughout our project, I believe we were empathetic to the


of 47

individuals needs and we removed any barriers to their learning experience. The is

demonstrated in the qualitative evaluation data (Appendix 11) which shows they felt valued,

although it could be argued that if an outsider conducted the evaluation the answers may have

been different.

According to Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969), our community project was

in the ‘non-participatory’ level. This meant that our overall objective enabled us as the

powerholders to educate the participants, instead of allowing them to participate in the

planning of the project. If the legacy of the project continued in the future we would aim to

conduct the ‘tokenism’ level, where the participants would have the ability to express their

wishes. Ruesga and Knight (2013) explained that engagement from the community is

essential as they are the only people who understand what they really need in relation to

community development.

The evaluation of the project took place over a number of different stages. Evaluation is an

important part of a project as it measures the impact of the project and identifies the strengths

and weaknesses (Field, 2003). As part of the formative evaluation we conducted constant

monitoring, this allowed us to reflect, evaluate and improve all aspects of the project. As part

of the summative evaluation we conducted a meeting with the participants, this was

completed by asking them set questions to determine the overall standard of the project

(Appendix 11). After conducting the alternative model to evaluation (Rowlands, 1991, cited

in Smith, 2006), we realised we should have allowed the community participants to conduct

the evaluation themselves which would have allowed them have ownership of the overall

result. This would have also moderated the different perceptions therefore, reducing the bias

of the project evaluation.


of 47

The project itself as an example of community development

After reflecting on the project itself I noticed we did not achieve many benefits that a

community project would normally, for example, all of the individuals within the community

should have gained new skills, the project should have enabled the community to have more

of an understanding of community work and all of the members should have also gained a

sense of empowerment and confidence. Due to all of the members in the community not

achieving these benefits it enabled us to question if this project was linked to community

development. At the beginning we envisioned this as a community project because if the

legacy of the project had continued, the WE sessions would have allowed each member of the

community to have benefited from a meaningful WE in the wider community. However, the

WE sessions would have aimed to benefit their individual needs therefore they would have

only gained personal skills. This further demonstrated that this project was more of a personal

development project for certain individuals within the community.

Although this was not an official community project, it was an effective project for a number

of different reasons. Firstly, an in-direct indicator proved that the pupils who completed the

WE had gained some independence and confidence by being able to carry out the role without

needing prompts. From this pilot project, we gained a link at other schools for more WE

sessions in the future. We have created a basic plan providing the suitable times to attend the

WE sessions, risk assessments (Appendix 12) and permission letters (Appendix 13) and any

problems or weaknesses with the WE have been identified and eliminated. The daily WE

feedback sheets (Appendix 14) have also made the professional community within the school

aware of the outcomes of the project for the particular individuals. This has empowered them

to think about carrying on the legacy of this project in the future, by making the WE sessions


of 47

with these schools a permanent agreement. Empowerment is the core principle of community

development as it enhances people’s capacity and propensity to influence decisions that affect

them (Community Development Foundation, 2008). This demonstrated aspects of a

community project in the making, but involving the professional community within the

schools rather than the pupils. To improve the project in the future and make it an official

community project we would have to work alongside the community to allow their voices to

be heard, and with our support they would then have the power to decide the overall project

plan.

An unforeseen outcome was identified from the project which did not link to our objective

but, was still seen as a highly beneficial outcome for the professional community. We

facilitated a link between the professional community at my school and X’s school. We have

now prepared for some professionals to visit each school to discuss the different learning

happening. This will hopefully work towards both professional communities having ‘linking’

social capital.

Conclusion

To conclude, the project had many benefits for the individuals’ personal development within

the community. Even though it was not a community project it still had aspects of community

development and it allowed us as a team to work though many factors and roles. It also ended

with many positive unforeseen outcomes which will support the professional communities in

each school in the future. Positive links have been achieved and will hopefully continue in the

future, prior to more pilot work experience session, we hope a legacy of the project will

continue and benefit the individuals within the community.


of 47

Word Count: 3262

Bibliography

Abudi, G. (2010). The five stages of team development: a case study. Retrieved April 9, 2016,

from https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/the-five-stages-of-team-development-a-case-study.php

Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2007). Belbin’s team role model: development,

validity and applications for team building. Journal of management study. 44 (1). P. 96 – 117.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. 35 (4). P. 216 – 224

Bakewell, O., & Garbutt, A. (2005). The use and abuse of the logical framework. Retrieved

April 17, 2016, from http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-

the-Logical-Framework-Approach.pdf

Beck, D., & Purcell, R, (2010). Popular education practice for youth and community

development work. Exeter: Learning Matters LTD.

Belbin Associates. (2015). Belbin’s Team Roles. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from

www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.

International journal of management reviews. 13(1). P. 251-269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-

2370.2011.003.06.x

https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/the-five-stages-of-team-development-a-case-study.php

http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-the-Logical-Framework-Approach.pdf

http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/518/The-Use-and-Abuse-of-the-Logical-Framework-Approach.pdf

http://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/


of 47

Chitty, M. (2013). Top down: Bottom up. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

http://realisedevelopment.net/2013/01/top-down-bottom-up/

Community Development Foundation. (2008). Community developments role in

empowerment. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from http://www.cdf.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2011/12/CD-role-in-empowerment.pdf

Community Toolbox. (2015). Increasing participation and membership. Retrieved April 9,

2016, from http://ctb.ku.edu/en/increasing-participation-and-membership

Cupitt, S., & Ellis, J. (2007). Your project and its outcomes. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from

http://www.hcvs.org.uk/resources/yourprojectanditsoutcomes-139-146.pdf

Delephant, A. (2007). Making meetings work. London: Sage Publications LTD.

Dugan, M. (2003). Empowerment. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/empowerment

Eldred, J. (2002). Managing community projects for change. Leicester: Adult Continuing

Education.

Field, J. (2003). Evaluating community projects. Leicester: Adult Continuing Education.

http://realisedevelopment.net/2013/01/top-down-bottom-up/

http://www.cdf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CD-role-in-empowerment.pdf

http://www.cdf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CD-role-in-empowerment.pdf

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/increasing-participation-and-membership

http://www.hcvs.org.uk/resources/yourprojectanditsoutcomes-139-146.pdf

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/empowerment


of 47

Gilchrist, A. (2004). Community cohesion and community development – Bridges or

barricades? London: Community Development Foundation.

Holder, J. (2005). Aspect of minute taking as a profession: Who takes the minutes – where,

why and how? Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

http://org.intersteno.it/materiale/ConferencesVienna2005/DenHolder2005.htm

Jeffreys, J. (2009). Advantages and disadvantages of Gantt Charts. Retrieved April 6, 2016,

from http://www.pmhut.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gantt-charts

Kokemuller, N. (2016). The Advantages of centralised organizational leadership. Retrieved

April 4, 2016, from www.smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-centralized-organizational-

structure-21410.html

Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams. (3rd

Ed). London: Sage Publications Inc.

Major, T. (2014). Paulo Freire’s Education for Freedom: implications for teaching-learning

process in Botswana. National Teacher Educational Journal. 7 (1). P. 31 – 36.

O’Connor, I., Hughes, M., Turney, D., Wilson, J., & Setterlund, D. (2006). Social work and

Social care practice. London: SAGE Publications LTD.

Popple, K. (2015). Analysing community work – Theory and practice. (2nd

Ed). Berkshire:

Open University Press.

http://org.intersteno.it/materiale/ConferencesVienna2005/DenHolder2005.htm

http://www.pmhut.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-gantt-charts

http://www.smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-centralized-organizational-structure-21410.html

http://www.smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-centralized-organizational-structure-21410.html


of 47

Ruesga, G., & Knight, B. (2013). The view from the heights of Arnstein’s ladder. Resident

engagement by community foundations. National Civic Review. P. 13 – 16. DOI:

10.1002/ncr.21137

Schuman, S. (2010). The handbook for working with difficult groups. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass

Smith, M. (2006). Evaluation for education, learning and change – theory and practice.

Retrieved April 18, 2016, from http://infed.org/mobi/evaluation-theory-and-practice/

Smith, M. (2009). Social Capital – the encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved April

6, 2016, from http://infed.org/mobi/social-capital/

Smith, M. (2002). Paulo Freire and informal education. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

http://infed.org/mobi/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/

Smith, M. (2004). Carl Rogers and informal education. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

http://infed.org.mobi/carl-rogers-core-conditions-and-education/

Smith, M. (1999). Reflection, Learning and Education. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from

http://infed.org/mobi/reflection-learning-and-education/

The Global Fund for Forgotten People. (2016). The issue with marginalisation. Retrieved

April 6, 2016, from http://www.forgottenpeople.org/how-we-help/marginalised-communities/

http://infed.org/mobi/evaluation-theory-and-practice/

http://infed.org/mobi/social-capital/

http://infed.org/mobi/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/

http://infed.org/mobi/reflection-learning-and-education/

http://www.forgottenpeople.org/how-we-help/marginalised-communities/


of 47

Thompson, J. (2002). Community education and neighbourhood renewal. Leicester: Adult

Continuing Education.

Turcotte, M. (2012). Engage your community stakeholders. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from

http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/Community-Engagement-Guide.pdf

Tuckman, B., & Jenson, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and

organisation management. 2 (4). P. 43 - 48

Twelvetrees, A. (2008). Community work. (4th

Ed). Hampshire: Macmillan Publishers LTD.

West, M. (2004). Effective Teamwork. Oxford: Blackwell.

http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/Community-Engagement-Guide.pdf


of 47

Appendices

Key

Emily’s school – school A

W’s school – school B

X’s school – school C


of 47

Appendix 1 - Meeting Minutes 1 – Community project

Date and Time: 29.01.16 – 12.35pm

Location: University of Gloucestershire Lecture Room

Members Present: X & Emily Morse

Discussion:

Throughout the first session of community development and education practice groups were

given time to meet and discuss ideas for our projects with their group members.

Emily shared ideas about setting up an afterschool club which integrated mainstream children

with Special Educational Needs (SEN) children or a Saturday club to give parents respite and

children time to have fun and be included with mainstream and SEN children. After the

members discussed the logistics of staffing and time constrains of these ideas it was decided

that these would not be suitable.

It was then discussed about doing fundraising events for a local charity ‘The James Hopkins

Trust’. Richard was present and spoke to the members about making a connection with this

charity, enabling trust to be gained and then finding out what they needed may be difficult and

time consuming. So this was decided against too.

After thinking about what community’s may need, Emily explained how her SEN school

needed more work experience provisions for her KS4 pupils, X then said her school may be

able to accept a work experience student as a teaching assistant in her class.

Emily added that she would be there to support the pupil and that the pupil would gain

confidence and a new opportunity and X explained how her school staff and children will gain

more of an insight into SEN.

Emily and X were also thinking W’s school would also be willing to make this link with an


of 47

SEN school which would make two provisions for SEN pupils.

As W was absent, Emily said she would contact him with the idea and then arrange to talk

more about this next week when we are altogether.

Action Plan:

Emily to contact W (via a private social media group just for the project members).

X to keep track of the conversation and minute any information/ conversations which took

place during the week via the social media group.

Emily to type up the minutes of the discussion and send it to the members.


of 47


Date and Time: 5/2/16 12.30pm

Location: University of Gloucestershire – Lecture room.

Members Present: Emily Morse, X and W

Discussion:

Recapped ideas for project to give W a clearer understanding of proposal so far. W

agreed that the project for linking schools seems a good idea. We all agreed that initial

plans are feasible.

Emily outlined her involvement regarding supporting her pupils in each mainstream

school and the expectation she would have for them. She suggested that a different

pupil visits each school with a different role in each. W suggested a pupil could benefit

from the role of midday supervisor and supporting in his forest school lesson. X

suggested that supporting reading and phonics input in YR/1 class and supervising

continual outdoor provision could be suitable roles. All agreed.

Discussion was then held regarding reciprocal visits. X suggested a visit to each

school would be beneficial to all. W suggested 2-3 work placement visits per pupil

supported by Emily. W and X have set provisional dates to visit School A (Emily’s

School). X suggested to W that a visit to School C (X’s School) could incorporate

Outdoor Learning.

Emily noted that she has a risk assessment for her pupil which can be taken to each

placement.

Rick requested that before groups start work on their project, we send an outline to our

project tutor and obtain contact details of stakeholders for tutor to contact as a courtesy

measure.

All decided to share responsibility for recording minutes of meetings.


of 47

Action Plan:

Emily to forward minutes of last week’s meeting to X and W.

X to type and forward minutes for this week.

W and X to obtain permission for project involvement from Head Teachers.

X, W and Emily to obtain schools’ contact details for the project tutor.

X to request permission to visit each school during school hours – 2 afternoons

required.

X and W to find out if risk assessments are required by their schools for workplace

visits.

Emily to arrange consent letter for her pupils.

W to visit School A (Emily’s School) 10/02/16 in own time.


of 47

Appendix 3 - Emailed Project Proposal to the project tutor

7/2/16

Dear *****,

Myself, Emily and X have been deep in discussion and have come up with the following

proposal.

Emily works in a special school and has identified a need within that community for

meaningful work experience for her learners.

We are suggesting that the schools in which X and I work would be suitable places for that

experience to take place, thus creating links between the three schools.

In my school I will suggest to my Head teacher that the work experience takes place during

the lunch hour (Midday Supervisor role) and then for the two hours following lunch as a

helper on my Forest School sessions. Both of these activities would be accessible for Emily's

learner and something that they could make a meaningful and experiential contribution to.

X's practice works with younger children and she has suggested voluntary TA work hearing

children read as an activity suitable for Emily's student.

We will all visit each other's schools prior to the work experience itself to establish links and

to ascertain any additional needs/requirements that may be necessary.

If this is acceptable as a proposal we feel that it could have the potential to continue after our

involvement ceases, would form positive links between the three schools and, for the learners

at my and X's school help to normalise the different. Additionally, my Forest School groups

have children with an SEN within them (one with behavioural issues and one with a learning

difficulty) and it may be helpful for them to see and older student with an SEN in a role of

responsibility.


of 47

If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please let us know.

W

8/2/16

Hi W, ...and X

Thanks for the introduction to your project. I’ve had a word with Rick as I was concerned that

this may not be a community project at all. That said, I can see the way that it has been crafted

means a win-win all round and Rick had seen this one evolve.

You will need to take care to focus on Emily’s school as ‘the community’ and the other

schools as venues for action that will help to overcome the marginalisation of the community

members. In this way it should stand as a community project rather than an inter-school

activity.

And thanks X for the invitation to join your online group – I look forward to watching the

project evolve on there and through our meetings.

Best wishes

*****


of 47

Appendix 4 – Action Plan

Key – school A (Emily), school B (W) & school C (X)

Week / Ref

Objective Action Timescale Responsibility Outcome

1:A Contact W Inform of initial project proposal. Complete by 5.2.16

Emily Get view, opinions or alternative proposal

1:B Agree communication Set up agreed communication methods

Complete by 5.2.16

Emily X

Informal dialogue site Group email for sharing files and information

2:A Obtain Permission for school’s involvement

Individuals to arrange meetings with Head Teachers Discuss involvement and request times and dates for visits

ASAP X W

Permission to be involved in community based project. Agree dates and arrange cover with little or no disruption to hosting school.

2:B Complete risk assessments and check insurances

Clarify risk assessment and insurance requirements and details

12.2.16 X W

Risk assessments completed Insurance policies checked and photocopied for Emily

2:C Consent Letters Compile consent letters for parents of W/E students

12.2.16 Emily Clear and informative consent letter prepared

2: D Visit School A W to visit 10.2.16 W Emily

Meet Emily’s students and discuss suitable activities for W/E visit.

3:A Risk assessment check Complete risk assessments for individual students.

19.2.16 W X

Emily able to complete pre W/E visit administration

3:B Insurance check Check expiry date 19.2.16 W Emily able to complete pre W/E visit administration

4:A Risk assessment and Insurance check

As above Complete by 25.2.16

W Emily able to complete pre W/E visit administration

4:B Visit School A X to visit 24.2.16 X Meet Emily’s student and discuss suitable activities for W/E visit.


of 47

Complete induction and risk assessment with student.

4:C Finalise W/E dates Confirm with schools 25.2.16 Emily Complete pre W/E visit checks

4:D Permission letters Send to parents/guardians 26.2.16 Emily Gain permission for W/E visit

5:A Filter induction pack Read through and highlight relevant points; raise any issues concerning student.

Complete by 26.2.16

Emily Clear information regarding safety and wellbeing of visitors to school C; clear understanding and expectations of student.

5:B Finalise visit dates Confirm with HT of school C; inform Emily.

25.2.16 X Administration finalised for visits to school C.

6:A Copy Insurance details Forward to Emily TODAY (26.2.16) W Emily completes pre visit admin.

6:B Visit 1 to School C Accompany student to W/E. 02.03.16 Emily W/E student visit completed. 3hours

6:C Report on visit and provide student feedback

Complete summary report; feedback report; upload to community group.

03.03.16 X Emily

Feedback available to inform student and teacher. Uploaded copy to group available.

6:D Finalise evaluation meeting Agree dates with schools; Arrange times and cover if required; Book room for meeting: Confirm with group members.

Complete by 04.03.16

Group Evaluation meeting date confirmed

7:A Visit 2 to school C Accompany student to W/E. 07.03.16 Emily W/E student visit completed. 3hours

7:B Report on visit and provide student feedback

Complete summary report; feedback report; upload to community group

07.03.16 X Emily


7:C Visit 1 to school B Accompany student to W/E. 10.03.16 Emily W/E student visit completed 2 hours.

7:D Report on visit and provide student feedback

Complete summary report; feedback report; upload to community group

10.03.16 W Emily


8:A Feedback report Complete feedback; upload to community group


W Feedback available to inform student and teacher. Uploaded copy to group available.


of 47

8:B Plan tasks for visit Plan W/E tasks for student to promote independent activity


W Tasks completed successfully by student with little support required.

8:C Visit 2 to school B Accompany student to W/E. 17.03.16 Emily W/E student visit completed 2 hours.

8:D Gantt chart Complete chart as discussed at group meeting; upload to group email


Emily Visual timetable of project available for use by group members.

8:E Action plan Update action plan; upload to group email


X Clear record and working document for use by group members.

9:A Feedback report Complete feedback; upload to community group


W Feedback available to inform student and teacher. Uploaded copy to group available.

9:B Evaluation meeting agenda Complete and upload to group files


X Group members able to check details prior to meeting

9:C Student evaluation form Complete questionnaire for evaluation meeting and upload


X Group members able to check details prior to meeting

9:D Meet at school A W/E evaluation 23.03.16 Emily W X

Obtain student feedback. Evaluation of project.

10:A Evaluation Write up final reports and upload 30.03.16 X W Emily

Project documentation finalised


of 47

Appendix 5 – Evaluation agenda

Evaluation Meeting: 23rd March 2016 at 1pm: School A (Emily’s School)

AGENDA

1. Group members to discuss feedback reports-

2 per student

2. Welcome students individually and introduce unfamiliar adult

3. Student 1 to

comment on W/E

answer key questions

given feedback

4. Student 2

comment on W/E

answer key questions

given feedback

5. Thank students for their input

6. Group members discuss student feedback

7. Group discussion of project

8. Close meeting

9. AUB


of 47

Appendix 6 - Members marking sheet for the community project engagement

Assignment Specific Focus 0-29 Fail 30-39 Resubmission 40-49 Third 50-59 2.2 60-69 2.1 >70 First*

Engagement Engagement in project as an active team member

Very poor attendance. Very weak team player. Disruptive and uncooperative. Weak or no communication No attempt at including others

Erratic attendance. Poor team member. Unreliable and inconsistent. Poor communication. Little attempt at including others

Adequate attendance. Some contribution to the team. Able to complete some simple tasks. Some attempts to communicate with team. Some attempts at including others.

Good attendance. Fair contribution to team activity with some useful ideas. Volunteered to take on some tasks and completed them to a good standard. Regular and effective communication with the team. Good awareness of others with efforts made to make sure they feel included.

Very good attendance. Very good contribution to the team with lots of ideas and motivation. Proactive about taking on tasks and working with others to complete to a high standard. Reliable. Very good communicator with team and others. Very good at making other members feel included.

Excellent attendance. Excellent team player with excellent motivation and the ability to motivate others. Creative and innovative and well aware of what needs doing – works to a consistently high standard. Excellent communication skills with team and other parties involved. Excellent at engaging and including others.

Me (Emily Morse) Very poor attendance. Very weak team player. Disruptive and uncooperative. Weak or no communication No attempt at including others



Good attendance. Fair contribution to team activity with some useful ideas. Volunteered to take on some tasks and completed them to a good standard. Regular and effective communication with the team. Good awareness of others with efforts made to make sure they feel included



Anne McLaughlin Very poor attendance. Very weak team player. Disruptive and uncooperative. Weak or no communication No attempt at including others





Excellent attendance. Excellent team player with excellent motivation and the ability to motivate others. Creative and innovative and well aware of what needs doing – works to a consistently high standard. Excellent communication skills with team and other parties involved. Excellent at engaging and


of 47

including others.

Andrew Cox Very poor attendance. Very weak team player. Disruptive and uncooperative. Weak or no communication No attempt at including others






Community development and education – Practice ES6006

of 47

Appendix 7- Meeting Minutes 3 – Community project

Date and Time: 10.2.16 1.15pm

Location: School A (Emily’s School)

Members Present: Emily Morse, W

Discussion:

The meeting was arranged to enable W to meet and introduce himself to Emily’s students in

advance of the work experience/community project.

Items discussed were:

additional risk assessments needed

details of host schools (School B and C) insurance policies

the nature of the work experience: Midday Supervisor and Forest School helper

Which students would benefit most from undertaking the work experience (to be

decided by Emily and the class teacher.

The meeting was constructive and allowed the students and W to become acquainted


of 47

Action Plan:

W to type up the meeting minutes of this visit.

Emily to type up the permission forms for pupils parents.

Emily to discuss with the class teacher to decide what pupil is suitable.

W to find the expiry date of the school insurance policy.


of 47


Date and Time: 24.02.16 12.45pm

Location: School A (Emily’s School)

Members Present: X & Emily Morse

Discussion:

Discussed the induction pack for pupil visiting School C (X’s School). Emily to read

through thoroughly and raise any issues at next meeting.

X was introduced to staff and students including work experience student.

X talked through W/E expectations with student.

X, Emily and student discussed and prepared a risk assessment for the visit and

preliminary section of induction. Most to be completed at time of first visit.

Provisional dates arranged for W/E visits.

Date of next meeting 26/02/16 at FCH room HC105. Time TBC.

Meeting closed.

Student offered to accompany X on unofficial school tour.

Action Plan:

Emily to filter induction pack ready for discussion at next meeting

X to confirm WE dates ASAP and email confirmation to Emily

X to type up Risk assessment and email to Emily ASAP


of 47

Appendix 9 - Work experience session 1 – W’s school

The student from Emily’s school arrived promptly at W’s school at 12.30pm ready for his

first session of work experience. The student went straight into the playground where the

pupils were out for their lunch time break. W had a short conversation with the student about

the way the pupils were engaging in child-led play during this lunch break. The student stayed

next to Emily for the 15 minutes outside and did not engage in any of the pupils.

The pupils were asked to line up at the door in which Emily and the student followed them

into the classroom. The student sat next to Emily and W introduced them both to the pupils.

The student stayed sat next to Emily whilst the register was being taken and a discussion of

forest school was taking place. The pupils were asked to go to the hall to get changed for

forest school, the student and Emily sat outside the hall and waited until they were ready to

go.

W let us know that the pupils took a lot longer than usual to get ready for forest school

therefore the session was running late (which may cause a time issue as the student and Emily

had to leave earlier to allow time to get back to school). The class left the school at 1.45pm to

walk to the forest school site (10 minute walk away). The student was asked to carry the first

aid bag to the site and to walk at the back of the line to ensure all the pupils got to the site

safely. The student walked alongside Emily and did not support/ speak to the pupils. The

student found the walk difficult (due to asthma).

When arriving at the forest school site at 1.55pm and sat round to wait for instructions on

what the session would involve. The student was told by a teaching assistant that they she was


of 47

going to carry out a safety sweep of the site to look for any dangerous items, Emily prompted

the student to go and help and he followed her around but did not find anything dangerous.

The pupils were told to make a model of the forest school site using natural resources. The

student was prompted to find natural resources by Emily in which he would not do alone,

Emily had to gather these resources alongside him. When he had a few resources, Emily

prompted him to go and take these to a group of pupils to see if they needed them for their

model. The student needed many prompts to take the resources to the group of pupils and

when he did he did not speak to them, he just held the resources out so the group could take

them.

The student and Emily had to leave at 2.05 in order to have time to walk back to the school

site and drive back to school before the end of the day, therefore there was not many

opportunities for the student to support the activities at forest school due to time constraints.

The student expressed how much he enjoyed the experience, however Emily was concerned

as to how much he benefitted from this session due to time issues and child-led activities

which the student did not feel confident to engage in.


of 47

Appendix 10 – Feedback from session 1 at W’s school

Feedback report on Work experience session 1. W’s school.

Context: Playground at lunchtime, whole school, Midday Supervisory role Time 12.30-13.00

Student arrived, with Emily, on time and suitably dressed.

Student joined W in playground

W briefed student about MSA role

Student was introduced to any child that asked who he was

No opportunity for the student to fully engage in role arose

Student stayed close to Emily due to low confidence

Student displayed interest in MSA role but not able to engage with children or activities due to short

time-frame (30mins) and low self-confidence

Context:

Preparing for Forest School session – 11 children, 2 FS assistants, one Learning Support, student

W took student and group of children to classroom

W explained ethos of ‘child-led learning through play’ to student and informed him of the

expectations of his role in the day’s session – to be on hand if needed but to allow the

children to ‘go their own way.’

W introduced student to children, explained why he was there (student stayed close to Emily

but engaged a little with children)

Took children to get changed, W told student he could stay outside of room if it made him

feel awkward to be there when children changing. Student chose to stay outside.

When children were ready, student asked to carry first aid back and to supervise end of line

on walk down to FS base camp

Student receptive to direction, showed enthusiasm for Forest School

Context:

Forest School base camp

Time 13.30-14.30

On arriving at site, W made student aware of safety issues (proximity to water, boundary of

site).

Student was aware safety issues.

Session activity began (make 3-d model of the base camp using natural resources)

Student seemed reluctant to move away from Emily, possibly anxious?

Emily asked student if he would like to collect sticks for the children to use in their models.

Student collected some wood but not confident in his interaction with children

At end of session W thanked student for coming – student expressed that he had enjoyed

the experience and was looking forward to coming again.

Emily and student left.


of 47

General comments

Student was friendly and polite. He displayed a professional approach but, due to low self-

confidence, was not able to take a pro-active role with the experience. He was friendly towards the

children but did not actively seek to engage with them.

On reflection, W had not considered the structure of the work experience in relation to the student’s

social skills, only his physical ability. The student was reluctant to leave Emily but, due to this, he was

unable to access a meaningful experience. We have no doubt that he enjoyed the session. The time

considerations were significant in their limiting influence – the student had no opportunity to ease

himself into the work on offer, something that needs considering for future sessions.

For the follow-up session, W will have specific tasks ready for the student to complete.


of 47

Appendix 11 - Evaluation of Work Experience Project questions for Students W’s school

What did you do at your work experience placement?

Helped with the children at Forest School, looked after them and helped W with tasks.

What skills did you use?

Listening skills and confidence building.

How did you feel about the first session?

I felt ok – I helped by carrying the First Aid bag and by collecting sticks to help the children

build their 3d model of Forest School.

How did you feel about the second session?

It was at a different place and I helped with the safety check, taking photographs and talking

with the other adult assistants.

What would you like to have done?

Just Forest School

What did you enjoy the most?

I enjoyed all of it and I felt comfortable being there.

What did you not enjoy?

Missing the hot chocolate!


of 47

If it was possible, would you like to do more sessions?

I would like to continue doing the work experience.

What could be changed to make it better?

Making the sessions longer.

Is there anything else that you would like to say about your work experience?

[No response]

Evaluation of Work Experience Project Questions for Student (X’s School)

What did you do at your work experience placement?

Reading; 1-1 support in phonics; observing in PE.

What skills did you use?

Working with children.

How did you feel about the first session?

It was a bit rushed.

How did you feel about the second session?

More organised session; able to plan and revise a reading activity; Reading the book upside

down was difficult; liked to see children interested in the book and comfortable to ask me

questions.


of 47

What would you like to have done?

Felt like I was involved with everything.

What did you enjoy the most?

Reading to the children.

What did you not enjoy?

Felt uncomfortable when the children were changing for PE.

If it was possible, would you like to do more sessions?

Yes. For anyone who wants to work with children, it’s an incredible experience.

What could be changed to make it better?

Like to have a longer day.

Is there anything else that you would like to say about your work experience?

No. It was good.


of 47

Appendix 12 – Risk assessments

PLEASE ENSURE THAT THIS IS COMPLETED WITH THE CHILDREN

INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY (using photographs as stimuli)

Complete this form and return to EVO please

Date completed 24th February 2016 Class YR/1B

Staff member

present X

Activity with

date

Work experience.

TA role.

Number of

children 30

Ratio 4:30

What are the dangers? How can we stay safe?

Car Park – crossing to the entrance no

footpath

Equipment/Resources left on the

floor-trip hazard

Spillages- slip hazard

Use of class equipment/resources

Outdoor classroom-pollution in play

areas-particularly sand & gravel pit

Be aware of moving vehicles

Tidy away

Clean up

Student supervised at all times

Check before children use it – if

necessary call staff member and keep

children away.


of 47

Signature of Teacher

HLTA X

Name of Teacher HLTA X

Date 24/02/16


of 47

Appendix 13 – work experience permission letter

Dear Parents / Carers,

As part of our Work Related learning programme in Key Stage 4, we like to give our

students the opportunity to experience work in a real-life setting.

I recently have made contact with a local mainstream school to see if a student from

school can attend and complete a work experience as a teaching assistant/ classroom

support worker, the Head Teacher of the school is willing to pilot this with a 2 week

trial (1 morning a week) placement for work experience before deciding if this is

beneficial and appropriate for the students. If this work experience is beneficial we

hope to make a more permenant link with the school. I hope you will support this and

allow your child to attend a trial work experience at this school.

Please find below a placement description, risk assessment and block work placement

form for work experience at ****** School. If you wish your son / daughter to access

this work experience, please sign and return all forms as soon as possible, after reading

thoroughly. It is your responsibility to notify us of any task that you do not wish your

son / daughter to assist with.

Your son / daughter will access a two day placement at this setting.

Thank you for your support in this matter,

Emily Morse

_________________________________________________________________ __________

Placement Description

Contact name-

Student’s details- Name- Dates-

Placement details-

Placement contact-

Job- Teaching Assistant/ Classroom Support worker.

Aims and objectives- To support the school pupils in their activities and to act appropriately as a good role model.

Requirements- Flat and smart shoes and smart/ casual clothing. Working hours- 9.30-12.30 (3 hours)

The student will eat lunch with the pupils in the class or in the staff room at the school.


of 47

All work experience will be supported on a 1:1 basis by a member of school staff. Students may assist with all or some of the following tasks depending on the individual’s needs and ability to access the task. This will be at the discretion of the supporting member of school staff, and fully supervised at all times. Key tasks:

To supervise the pupils during gymnastics.

To listen to pupils read.

To generally supervise and make sure the pupils are engaged with the lessons.

Transport-Student will be driven to and from placement by the accompanying member of school staff

Employer’s Health and Safety Risk Assessment.

This employer’s risk assessment reflects what the employer has identified as the significant risks and hazards

associated with this placement. It also records the Employer’s control measures, including any prohibited

activities, prohibited locations and personal protective equipment required to minimise these risks. It should be

used in conjunction with the learner’s job description associated with this placement, in preparation for and

during work experience.

The significant risks are:

Lack of knowledge, experience and awareness-Supporting school staff will have a full induction-including

Health and Safety, a tour of the work place and welfare facilities and an introduction to all colleagues. They will

then complete their own induction to the student so all information is accessible to them according to their

individual needs. In this way, training will be given on all tasks. The learner will be fully supervised by school

staff at all times when assisting with tasks.

Slips, trips and falls-Key task-General movement around the work place: Hazard: slips, trips and falls. Control

measure: Emphasis on good housekeeping-‘Tidy as you go’ policy and spills to be cleared up immediately.

Child protection.-Learner will be fully supervised at all times, by school staff.

Equipment and Machinery.-Key task: Use of equipment: Hazard: injury due to incorrect use. Control measures:

training in use of equipment by school staff as part of induction process outlined above. Learner will only use

equipment under full supervision of school staff, and subject to competence (at discretion of school staff).

Electricity.-Electrical items are visually inspected by school staff before use. Electrical items are only used

under full supervision of school staff. Annual PAT testing.

Chemicals. Only washing-up liquid and anti-bacterial sprays are to be used, under full supervision of school

staff. Parents must inform school of any known allergies.

Other possible hazards.-Key task: car park, student to be supervised when walking from the car park into the

school. If student sees a hazard in the setting they must report it to the staff member immediately.

Signature of placement supervisor_____________________ Date ___________________________

Parent / Guardian’s signature: ____________________________ Date _________________________________


of 47

Appendix 14 – Two feedback sheets from the work experience sessions

Feedback report on Work experience session 2. X’s School 7/3/16.

Context: small group (9 pupils) year one, plus X (leading teaching) phonics session including reading and spelling small workroom Time 09.30


Children greeted student and .... X suggested student continue to support the same pupil

Student appeared more confident and happy to do this.

Student encouraged pupil to maintain appropriate attention by advising him to listen and to

talk when appropriate.

Student listened to pupil read and gave appropriate support.

Student cleared tables at the end of the session.

Student displayed a professional approach using initiative and appropriate support. He has

developed a rapport with this pupil who has benefitted from the support given. He asked where the

student was after lunch.

Context:

changing reading books

reading area

X took student to change pupils home reading books and did not remind him how to

complete this task

Student confidently collected books and replaced in correct folders.

Student displayed confidence in carrying out the task and supported X.

Context:

Reading Story

Whole class, Year one and reception mixed-29 children

Class teacher, X (TA role)

Time 10.45

Class teacher asked Student if he would like to read to the children.

He had practised the story that he had chosen and appeared keen and confident.

Read to the children, using expression and giving opinion, and showed the pictures to the

children. All children were focused and listened attentively.

When he had finished, X suggested he ask the children if they wanted to ask questions or

comment on the story.

Student listened and responded to the children showing sensitivity appropriate to their age.

Student read clearly and confidently. The children were engaged. Student spoke appropriately in the

question and answer session showing empathy and understanding of the children’s comments.


of 47

Context: Reception class only – 15 children Painting-any picture based on The Gingerbread Man story.

Student sat with groups of 4 children to encourage them to stay on task

Reminded pupils to name their work and asked questions about what they were painting

Cleared the tables at the end of the task

Student worked independently, Emily observed.

Student supported and engaged pupils in the task. His questioning encouraged the children in

recalling the story.

General comments

As per previous visit, Student was friendly and polite towards the staff and pupils. He was

professional and showed maturity in his attitude to the tasks given.

He appeared more confident and relaxed on this visit. Both the class teacher and X felt that he

contributed well was valuable support in the classroom.

During break, X was able to introduce Student to The Forest School teacher who was working on

making a pulley system with a reception child. Student engaged with the teacher and pupil. We were

then able to briefly visit the Forest School area.

At lunch time, Student gave the lunch bands out. He completed this task independently.


of 47

Feedback report on Work experience session 2. W’s school.

Context: Forest School site – Emily, student, two FS assistants, 15 Y3 children


Student met W at FS site

W welcomed student

Student asked to conduct safety sweep of FS area (checking for hazards, broken glass and

similar) in tandem with one of the other FS assistants

Student engaged in effective communication with other FS assistant and successfully

completed the safety sweep

Student had opportunity for independent action and took that opportunity

Student returned to W for further instruction

Emily was able to stand aside whilst student completing task

Student conducted themselves professionally and was not dependent on Emily’s reassurance. Was

able to engage with other assistant and completed task.

Context:

Second task – visiting each group of children and photographing them in FS context.

W asked student to take charge of camera and to walk round FS site and document children

engaging in the day’s activity (building dens)

Student effectively communicated his uncertainty regarding working the camera correctly. W

gave short tutorial, student then able to use camera

Student observed over 5-10 minute period walking around site, speaking to children and

taking photographs

Student returned to W and asked what he should do next.

Student successfully documented children engaging with the den-building activity

Student receptive to direction, showed enthusiasm for Forest School

Context:

Third task – collecting fuel

W needed fuel to be collected to use in Kelly Kettle

W asked student to collect a couple of bundles of twigs of a certain length and thickness

Student was a little concerned about ensuring the twigs were right size

W reassured student that a little variation was fine

Student collected good amount of twigs

At this point Emily pointed out that the time available to the student was coming to a close

W thanked Emily and student

Emily and student departed

General comments

Student was friendly and polite. Again, he displayed a professional approach and this time was able

to engage in tasks without being overly reliant on Emily’s presence.


of 47

W had tasks ready and in place for the student to engage with and that led him away from the

‘sphere of safety’ that Emily represented to him. The student appeared to be more confident in the

second session and more willing to engage with the work aspect of work experience.

The experience was more meaningful as, although challenges were presented to him, the student

was able to challenge his own preconceptions regarding his ability.

There was a change noted by Emily and W inasmuch as, compared to the first session, the student

appeared to be more confident, relaxed and able to engage with the process.

a critical review of our community project introduction...profile in order to provide information...

Documents