Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS One
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Exploring the acceptability, feasibility, and
appropriateness of a communication-friendly
classroom tool for use in Irish schools: A
qualitative inquiry
Aoife Lily GallagherID
1☯
*, Rachel Murphy
2☯
, Johanna FitzgeraldID
3☯
, Carol-
Anne Murphy
1☯
, James Law
4☯†
1Faculty of Education and Health Science, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick,
Ireland, 2Faculty of Education and Health Science, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, 3Faculty of
Education, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland, 4School of Education, Communication and
Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
☯These authors contributed equally to this work.
† Deceased.
*aoife.gallagher@ul.ie
Abstract
Background
Ten percent of the school-aged population have speech, language, and communication
needs (SLCN) that impact access to the curriculum. Successful implementation of class-
room-based SLCN interventions can reduce barriers to learning, thereby improving educa-
tional outcomes for this vulnerable population. The challenges of implementing innovations
in educational settings are well-documented, yet limited studies have addressed such con-
siderations when developing, and piloting universal level SLCN interventions for use in Irish
schools.
Methods
A qualitative exploratory study was undertaken to establish the acceptability, feasibility, and
appropriateness of a universal level SLCN intervention. An advisory panel of teachers (n =
8) and children with SLCN (n = 2) were engaged as co-researchers in the study. The Com-
munication Supporting Classrooms Observation Tool, developed as part of the Better Com-
munication Project in the UK, was trialled across a diverse sample of school settings (n = 5).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with school practitioners and school leaders,
and a deductive content analysis was undertaken using the domains of the Consolidation
Framework for Implementation Research.
Discussion
The observation tool was viewed as acceptable with suggested additions. Integrating use of
the tool within existing data-informed, school self-evaluation processes aimed at supporting
school improvement was noted as a potential means of supporting implementation. A knowl-
edge gap in relation to school-based models of support for SLCN was identified which may
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 1 / 22
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Gallagher AL, Murphy R, Fitzgerald J,
Murphy C-A, Law J (2023) Exploring the
acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of a
communication-friendly classroom tool for use in
Irish schools: A qualitative inquiry. PLoS ONE
18(6): e0287471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0287471
Editor: Emily Lund, The University of Alabama,
UNITED STATES
Received: September 26, 2022
Accepted: June 6, 2023
Published: June 22, 2023
Copyright: ©2023 Gallagher et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The dataset cannot
be shared publicly because it contains potentially
identifying participant information. Data are
available from the Faculty of Education and Health
Sciences Ethics Committee at the University of
Limerick (contact via EHSResearchEthics@ul.ie)
for researchers who meet the criteria for access to
confidential data.
Funding: ALG received the award for the research
project from the Health Implementation Science
negatively impact implementation. An implementation strategy targeting coherence, cogni-
tive engagement and contextual integration is indicated if the tool is to be normalised into
routine practice in Irish classrooms. Implementation needs appeared to vary at the school
level.
Conclusions
The importance of early-stage exploration to guide implementation planning with regards to
developing and testing universal level interventions for SLCN in schools is highlighted.
Engaging an advisory panel provides important insights to guide implementation decisions.
Findings suggest an adaptive design is required when planning implementation studies tar-
geting classroom setting.
Introduction
According to findings from international studies, approximately 10% of children in every
classroom present with [1,2]. Whilst limited robust prevalence and service data exists about
children and young people with speech, language, and communication needs (SLCN) of
school-age in Ireland, findings from studies that have been conducted in the Irish context sug-
gest that children with SLCN are disproportionately under-identified during the school years
[3], and that there may be limited knowledge and understanding of these needs amongst
school practitioners [4].
Childhood SLCN can occur in association with a bio-medical condition, because of impov-
erished language exposure, or with no obvious cause as a part of a neurodevelopmental disor-
der [5]. Difficulties may occur in comprehension and expressive language and can impact
negatively on the development of literacy and socialization [5,6] As teaching, learning and
assessment is primarily language-based, individuals with SLCN can experience many barriers
to accessing the curriculum [7,8], resulting in poor educational attainment [9–11]. Lifelong
negative sequelae of unmet SLCN are well-documented, and include increased risk of social
isolation, poor mental health, and reduced employability [12,13].
Prior to school entry, interventions targeting SLCN are delivered by a speech and language
therapist (SLT) typically in primary healthcare settings. At school-age, SLCN becomes the
responsibility of both the SLT and teacher, who must work collaboratively to plan and deliver
SLCN interventions in school [14,15]. To address the needs of individuals with SLCN in Ire-
land, three distinct tiers of intervention exist; interventions delivered at a universal level (sup-
port for all); interventions delivered at a targeted level (support for some); and interventions
delivered at a specialist level (support for few) [16,17]. This tiered approach, underpinned by
public health and response-to-intervention educational principles [18–20], ensures early and
accurate identification of needs, more equitable access to appropriate support, and cost-effec-
tive allocation of specialist resources [21,22].
Successful implementation of SLCN interventions at the universal level is an essential com-
ponent of the tiered model of delivery [21,23]. Integration of SLCN methods into routine
teaching practice can reduce language barriers to learning and assessment. The response of
individual students to class-based interventions can be monitored and can inform resource
allocation decisions for more expensive targeted and specialist level interventions.
An SLT working in school will deliver interventions across all levels of support. At the spe-
cialist level, they will deliver interventions directly to the child, whereas at targeted and
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 2 / 22
and Technology Research Cluster at the Health
Research Institute, Limerick, Ireland https://www.
ul.ie/hri/health-implementation-science-and-
technology-hist. The funders had no role in study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to
publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
universal levels, much of the work of the SLT is akin to the role of implementation facilitator;
that is, working closely with school practitioners to deliver SLCN interventions through educa-
tion and coaching [23,24].
To date, research for school-aged children with SLCN has focused more on specialist level
SLCN interventions, rather than interventions at a universal level [24,25]. Issues of feasibility,
acceptability and relevance of SLCN interventions in relation to their use in the school setting
are reported in the literature [26,27], with evidence to suggest that such issues have resulted in
reduced treatment fidelity, and in turn, less favorable outcomes for children with SLCN [28–
30].
Implementation science in communication sciences research
A vast range of evidence-based programmes have been developed for use in schools for chil-
dren with special educational needs, and successful implementation of such interventions is
acknowledged to be fraught [31,32]. Implementation science is a field of inquiry which allows
the study of methods to support the systematic uptake of evidence into routine practice [33].
The potential of implementation science as a means of supporting the uptake of evidence-
based programmes in schools is well-established [33–35]. Most school-based implementation
studies have targeted emotional behavioral difficulties [34,35], literacy needs [36], and/or
autism [37,38].
Whilst the potential of implementation science in the field of communication science has
been discussed for some time [39,40], the application of implementation frameworks and the-
ories in research is in its infancy. In a recent scoping review, researchers reported that the
majority of studies addressing implementation considerations focused on interventions for
adult populations in hospital settings, with only eight percent of studies focused on SLCN
interventions in educational settings [41]. Of those, two studies involved early years settings,
and the remaining three studies did not report the use of an explicit implementation science
framework. A scoping review is currently being undertaken to map the use of implementation
science concepts and frameworks that may guide the development of universal level school-
based SLCN intervention research [42].
Successful implementation of SLCN interventions at a universal level presents unique chal-
lenges. The desired outcome when addressing such a foundational skill as language and com-
munication is not necessarily the delivery of a discrete programme with sufficient fidelity for a
requisite number of hours, across a defined number of weeks, but is often sustained changes in
teacher interactional patterns and language use throughout the school day and across teaching,
learning and assessment tasks. Such changes go to the very heart of the craft of teaching. In
terms of the intervention itself, there can be a cross-sectoral ‘task shift’ element at play,
whereby techniques and methods developed in one field (health) are to be implemented by
actors from another (education), potentially exacerbating issues of fit [43,44]. There are also
several well-documented barriers related to the role of the SLT as implementation facilitator in
schools. These barriers relate to professional differences in perspectives about SLCN [45–47],
in addition to many logistical and systems level challenges [43,44].
The ‘communication supporting classroom observation tool’
The ‘Communication Supporting Classrooms Observation Tool’ (CSCOT) was developed in
the UK as part of a national government-funded research project, the Better Communication
Research Project, and was co-led by JL [48,49]. See S1 File for a copy of the tool. The CSCOT is
an observational booklet that practitioners can use to reflect on three core aspects of the class-
room setting related to speech, language, and communication. These include: (a) the language
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 3 / 22
learning environment (i.e., the physical environment and learning context); (b) language
learning opportunities (i.e., the structured opportunities that are present in the setting to sup-
port language development) and (c) language learning interactions (i.e., the ways in which
adults speak to the children within the setting).
Each section includes a list of strategies that are shown to be effective in supporting com-
munication. The tool allows the observer to record their observations in relation to the three
language learning dimensions. For example, in relation to the language learning environment,
it can be noted whether certain elements that promote language and communication are pres-
ent. In terms of language interactions, the number of times (out of five) that these behaviours
were observed can be recorded. There is also an option to note any additional comments in
relation to the dimensions.
The tool is underpinned by social constructivist learning theory which holds that children
learn language best by using naturalistic methods in their everyday environment whereby the
adult scaffolds communicative opportunities within their zone of proximal development [50].
In the context of this study, the teacher is the actor who will implement the tool and techniques
such that the child has increased opportunities to produce verbal output, and to gain effective
feedback to support their language development.
Our reasons for choosing to trial this tool were threefold: first, the tool was developed based
on high quality research evidence [51–53]; second, the tool has been previously trialed in UK
primary schools in early years classrooms up to year 2, with positive outcomes [54]; and third,
the focus of the intervention in adjusting interaction in the classroom was a priority identified
in our previous work with children and young people with SLCN [46].
As many elements within the core dimensions of the tool are not age-specific but more gen-
eral strategies to support communication, we took the view that it was worth exploring the
acceptabilty, feasibility and appropriateness of the tool for use beyond the original early years
classroom settings that it had been trialed in. We therefore recruited practitioners from across
any primary school years which include children aged 5 years to 12 years. Given the lack of
tools available for use in post-primary classrooms to support communication [24,48], we
decided to further extend the study to include these settings also. Post primary schools include
children aged 12 to 18 years.
Research questions
Our research questions were as follows:
1. How acceptable, feasible, and appropriate is the CSCOT from the perspective of speech and
language therapists, teachers and school leaders working in Irish schools?
2. What changes, if any, are required to the tool to enhance the acceptability, feasibility, and
appropriateness of the tool for use in school settings in Ireland?
3. What contextual considerations are important in planning future research in relation
implementation of the CSCOT in the Irish school context?
We defined acceptability as the perceptions of implementation stakeholders (i.e., teachers,
SLTs, and school leaders) regarding whether the tool is agreeable or satisfactory. We defined
appropriateness as the perceived fit, relevance, and/or the compatibility of the tool for use in
Irish schools. By feasibility, we meant the extent to which the tool could be successfully used or
carried out within the school settings [55]. Implementation strategies were taken to be active,
targeted methods and techniques needed to facilitate adoption, implementation, and sustain-
ment of the tool such that it can become ‘normalized’ or embedded into routine practice [56].
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 4 / 22
Methods
Study design
A qualitative description study was undertaken [57], using directed content analysis [58]. The
qualitative study was a ‘current situation’ exploration [59], with the aim of using the findings
to inform the planning of a future pilot study. The research team included two female white
lecturers in speech and language therapy (ALG, CAM), one female lecturer in education (JF),
one white female research assistant (RM), and one white male lecturer in speech and language
therapy (JL). Analytical records were kept by members of the team in order to reflect on the
ways in which their beliefs, and values influenced their interpretation of the data.
The study included public patient involvement. Teachers and children with SLCN were
invited to be part of the study in the role of co-researchers to provide guidance to the research
team about the suitability of the tool prior to the trial, and at the end of the study to provide
views based on the findings as to whether the tool should be further tested [60].
Two advisory panels were set up. One panel comprised children and young people with
SLCN of primary age, and of post-primary age (n= 2). The second panel included teachers
from primary and post-primary settings (n= 8). Given the importance of addressing power
imbalances in facilitating authentic engagement with the children and young people with
SLCN [61,62], the two groups operated independently. Meetings were held online using a
humble inquiry approach [63] and were facilitated by ALG and RM.
No substantive changes were recommended by the advisory panels prior to trialing the tool.
The children with SLCN were particularly in favour of the elements of the tool that involved
peer to peer opportunities to use language in classroom. Post-primary teachers were of the
view that most elements of the language learning environment section would not be consid-
ered relevant for use in their setting, and that some minor changes to the language of the other
sections may be required.
Methodological assumptions
The underpinning assumptions of this study are aligned with subjectivist epistemology, that is;
a recognition that the subjectivity of the researcher is intimately involved in the research pro-
cess. Within this paradigm, however, we take the position that objectivity is an ideal that we
can strive to attain by enhancing transparency and credibility of the research. For example, we
used a database to track coding decisions and kept analytical memos. We held analysis meet-
ings as a research team to interrogate the data, exploring alternative lines of reasoning, and to
identify areas for critical reflection [61,64]. We reported the study in accordance with the Stan-
dards for Reporting Qualitative Research criteria [65].
Ethics
Ethical approval was granted a priori for this study by the Faculty of Education and Health Sci-
ences’ Human Research Ethics Committee, at the University of Limerick (ref: 2020_05_10).
Written consent was obtained from the participants in the study.
Setting, sampling, and recruitment
The Irish education system is made up of primary school and post-primary school (also
known as secondary school). There are approximately 3000 schools in the Republic of Ireland.
Typically, children start primary school at age 5 years and post-primary level at 12 years. In
primary school, students are taught by one teacher who teaches across all subjects, whereas in
post-primary settings, students are taught by different subject teachers.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 5 / 22
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the interplay of factors that might influence imple-
mentation of CSCOT in Irish schools, and to be able to match barriers to specific implementation
strategies [66], a maximum variation purposeful sampling strategy was employed [67]. We
recruited schools by education level (primary and post-primary level), location (urban and rural
settings), and socio-demographic needs which were identified by Delivering Equality of Opportu-
nity in Schools (DEIS) status. DEIS forms part of the Department of Education social inclusion
strategy to help children and young people who are at risk of or who are experiencing educational
disadvantage in the Irish educational system. Information leaflets and posters were circulated
about the study via established teaching networks (n= 4), professional teaching bodies (n= 2) and
via social media (twitter). Within each school, we sought to recruit a wide range of professionals
who work within the Irish education system. In schools where a speech and language therapist vis-
ited regularly, we aimed to recruit them to trial the use of the CSCOT with a teacher.
Materials
As described, the CSCOT is used by a pair of practitioners to identify changes in the classroom
environment to optimise communication and includes guidance on what to observe, with examples
and explanations of each item. An electronic copy was provided to participants, with the option of
printing a paper copy. Practitioners decided when and with whom they would trial the tool with.
Participants were sent a short instructional video on using the tool and were invited for a virtual
discussion with the lead investigator (ALG) to address any queries prior to the study. Participants
trialed use of the tool during a 40-minute lesson, and then met to discuss their findings to identify
changes in their practice that might optimise communication for the children in their classroom.
Data collection
A short online questionnaire was developed using the Qualtrics survey tool to gather back-
ground data about participants. The questionnaire, completed in February 2021, included 10
questions related to each participant’s current role, school setting (size, number of students),
years of professional experience, and their level of qualifications. The CSCOT was trialed by
participants between March 2021 and June 2021. Post trial, participant dyads attended an
online interview. The interviews lasted approximately 40 minutes and were facilitated online
via Microsoft Teams. ALG facilitated the practitioner interviews, and JF facilitated interviews
with school leaders. RM acted as observer. Topic guides were developed in advance and shared
with the participants (see S2 File for questionnaire and topic guides).
Data analysis
To guide data collection and analysis we used the domains of the Consolidated Framework for
Implementation Research (CFIR) [68]. The CFIR is a meta-theoretical framework developed
to create a consistent vocabulary for domains and constructs in implementation science
research and has been utilized extensively in implementation science studies in a variety of
research contexts. The CFIR includes thirty nine constructs organised into five domains: outer
setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individual, intervention characteristics, and pro-
cess. Outer setting includes external influences on an organization such as policies and incen-
tives, whereas inner setting includes influential factors related to the structure, culture, and
resources of an organization. The domain characteristics of the individual includes factors
related to the implementor that may influence implementation such as self-efficacy, and
knowledge and beliefs about an innovation. Characteristics of the intervention encompasses
factors related to the innovation itself such as adaptability, trialability, complexity, and cost.
Process includes factors that would support successful implementation of an innovation for
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 6 / 22
example whether or not there is a formally appointed internal leader involved in implementa-
tion of an innovation.
ALG, RM and JF were involved in transcription and analysis. Automatic transcripts of the
interviews were generated via Microsoft Teams, and checked for accuracy by RM and ALG.
Aligned with the underpinning the assumptions of this subjectivist study and our position
within this paradigm that objectivity is an ideal that we can strive to attain by enhancing trans-
parency and credibility, coding was undertaken independently by two researchers (ALG and
RM), and all analytical decisions between researchers were tracked via the recording of analyti-
cal notes on NVivo (V 12.1).
Open codes were then organised using the domains of the CFIR. Three analysis meetings
were held to interrogate the findings of the analysis, and to agree the final codes (ALG, JF and
CAM). Points of discussion in analytical decisions within the team centred around differences
in terminology across education and health, and were resolved through dialogue, and by
cross-checking definitions of the CFIR in relation to the codes.
A summary of the findings in relation to the intervention characteristics was presented to
the advisory panels by ALG and RM once the analysis was complete.
Results
Sample characteristics
The tool was trialed in five school sites across the Republic of Ireland: three primary and two
post-primary schools. One school was classified as DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity
in Schools), a programme introduced in Ireland in 2006 aimed at providing additional
resources to schools with high proportions of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged
backgrounds who are at risk of educational failure. Characteristics of the schools included in
the study are presented in Table 1.
Participants included: school leaders (n= 3), class teachers (n= 5), SLTs (n= 1), special
education teachers (n= 2), and special needs assistants (n= 1). Seven participants had under-
taken formal studies at a postgraduate level in addition to their professional teaching qualifica-
tion. Professional experience in the sample ranged from 5 years to 22 years. Further
participant details are outlined in Table 2.
‘Communication supporting classroom observation tool’
Five key concepts were identified across the dataset related to characteristics of the tool: (a)
advantages; (b) relevance; (c) complexity; (d) adaptability; and (e) affective and relational fac-
tors. See Table 3 for illustrative quotes in relation to intervention characteristics.
Table 1. School characteristics.
School
Reference
Type Setting Sex Location N
Pupils
SLT
a
service DEIS
b
S1 Primary Urban Mixed Leinster 285 No No
S2 Primary Urban Mixed Leinster 400 Yes No
S3 Post-primary Urban Mixed Munster 1100 No No
S4 Primary Urban Girls Munster 220 No No
S5 Post-primary Urban Girls Leinster 165 No Yes
S6 Post-primary Rural Boys Munster 230 No No
a
SLT = speech and language therapy.
b
DEIS is a school designated as serving a population of high socio-economic needs.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t001
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 7 / 22
Advantages. Participants discussed several advantages of the tool. The tool could facilitate
opportunities for novel, goal- oriented conversations about language and communication in
the classroom. By providing a shared point of reference, it had the potential to strengthen col-
laborative relationships between teachers and SLTs. Practitioners also noted that the tool could
enhance practitioner self-efficacy as it helped to identify and reinforce good practice. Collabo-
rative reflection was viewed as an effective means of improving teaching practice.
Relevance. Practitioners across both primary and post-primary school settings identified
the language learning interaction items as most relevant. Suggested additions included: (a) the
use of questions to optimise communication, (b) supporting peer-mediated interaction, (c)
optimising use of language when giving feedback, (d) comprehension checking strategies, (e)
reciprocal teaching, and (f) strategies to support more complex grammar use in the classroom.
One special education teacher described the need for items that focus on facilitating the use of
complex grammar in the classroom.
Views differed about the relevance of items related to the use of space for learning. Post-pri-
mary teachers noted the wording of many items in this section as relevant only for early pri-
mary school years. Two primary teachers reported that they had little control over the way
physical spaces were allocated in their school. Two further participants viewed the use of space
as an important influencing factor when optimising communication, suggesting the use of
space should go beyond the classroom. For example, one teacher described that they would
seek spaces outside of the classroom to enable students participate more actively in drama les-
sons. Teachers working in post-primary school settings reported that unless they had a base
classroom, it was difficult to personalise the space for certain cohorts and/or individual
children.
Complexity. Participants believed that the tool was easy to use, with clear, culturally-
appropriate language. The simplicity of the tool was described as an advantage in order to gain
buy-in from peers. Participants indicated that a relatively short amount of time observing a
Table 2. Participant characteristics.
School
code
Participant
code
Role Sex EQF
a
Level of
qualification
S1 P1 Deputy Principal Male Level 7
S1 P2 Teacher Female Level 7
S2 P3 SLT Female Level 7
S2 P4 Special Class Teacher
b
Female Level 7
S3 P5 SENCO
c
& Deputy Principal Female Level 7
S3 P6 Teacher Female Level 7
S4 P7 Teacher Female Level 7
S4 P8 Teacher Female Level 6
S5 P9 SNA
d
Female Level 6
S5 P10 Teacher Female Level 6
S5 P11 Principal Male Level 6
S6 P12 Deputy Principal Female Level 6
a
EQF = European Qualification Framework.
b
A special class teacher is a teacher that is responsible for teaching in a class attended by students with more complex special educational needs. The class typically
involves a small class size and is located within a mainstream school setting.
c
SENCO = special educational needs coordinator is a teacher usually tasked with leadership and management of special education provision in schools.
d
SNA = special needs assistants are employed to address the medical and/or care needs of children and young people in school.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t002
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 8 / 22
lesson using the tool provided a surprising amount of data to inform lesson planning. One
post-primary subject teacher noted that the layout of the tool made it look more time intensive
than it was.
Adaptability. Teachers across primary and post-primary settings discussed the adaptabil-
ity of the tool as a positive feature. Adaptability was discussed as a critical characteristic of any
innovation in a school setting. Teachers described how they juggled their plans throughout the
day and highlighted the need for tools that can be used across whole classroom groups, small
peer-led groups, a 1:1 meeting with a student, and both inside and outside the classroom. One
teacher stated that if they perceived that an intervention is too prescriptive, they would be
highly unlikely to use it.
Affective and relational matters. The nature of the relationship between the observer
and observee was discussed by participants as an important consideration when using the use
Table 3. Participant views of the CSCOT for Use in Irish schools.
Intervention
characteristics
Descriptive summary of findings Illustrative quotes
Advantages Opportunities for conversations about language and communication “There is definitely a lot of classrooms with different children where it
would be a great starting point to open up a conversation or to have that
kind of like starting point for planning or goal setting around
communication. . .” (P10, subject teacher, post-primary)
Effective tool for reflecting on practice “Yeah, I see it as more of a teacher self-reflection tool. So, it’s more of a
reflection of your own practice. . .Like it would help in my own planning
in how I write my lesson plans. Becoming aware of my own practice and
how I can improve myself as a teacher. That would be where I’d see
myself using it” (P8, class teacher, primary)
Potential to support collaborative relationships “I think it was a very positive experience. And really helpful to be kind of
highlighting the importance of supporting language across settings. And
to kind of have that shared language between us and something that was
collaborative” (P7, speech and language therapist, special class)
Relevance Items within the language learning interaction section were most
relevant, with some recommended additions
“Maybe a bit more on actually explicitly teaching grammar in sentences
and things like that. . . and obviously a class teacher will miss it. . . when
you listen to it every day you can miss it. I don’t think we do enough of
the sentence structure work at the moment and teachers don’t know
where to start with that” (P7, class teacher, primary)
The relevance of items related to the use physical spaces is dependent
on the individual school setting
“In our school, we (teachers) have our own base classrooms which is
brilliant but even with that you are taking in a different cohort each
lesson you know? . . .so, the spaces that are required are very different for
every lesson” (P12, deputy principal, post-primary)
Complexity Easy to use, efficient in yielding actionable knowledge for the time
spent
“I think in terms of ease of administration, it was pretty easy to go
through, the time commitment wasn’t too much” (P2, class teacher,
primary)
Easy to explain which would help when engaging staff in
implementing.
“. . .I’d say I would probably have buy-in from 70% to 80% of staff about
this tool if we were to roll it out. Yeah, cos I’d say they would engage. . .I
would only need 20 minutes out of staff meeting to show them” (P10,
subject teacher, post-primary)
Adaptability Tool allows for flexible use across learning contexts as determined by
the practitioner.
“I’d like ideas or tools like this that I know that I can use in a moment
because I think sometimes if you’re too rigid on the plans that you have
made then the tail is kind of wagging the dog if you know what I mean, I
wouldn’t probably use something if it interfered with me responding to a
student or a learning situation” (P7, class teacher, primary)
Affective/
Relational factors
The nature of the tool as an observational tool is potentially exposing/
anxiety provoking for teachers, and should be used between
practitioners in trusting professional relationships
“So yeah, like I think there’s a massive need for something like this, but I
think it would be important that it’s done in a way that is supportive
between two people who trust each other. You know on a kind of, you
know, level playing field that you know we’re both there to work on
communication where it’s not one better than the other” (P5, Special
Educational Needs Co-ordinator & deputy principal, post-primary)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t003
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 9 / 22
of the tool. Participants believed that where there was a relationship of trust and equality, the
tool had many advantages. Conversely, they were of the opinion that where a trusting relation-
ship had not yet been established, or where power imbalances exist, the observational element
of the tool could feel exposing or unsafe. A special needs assistant discussed initial feelings of
anxiety in relation to the observational nature of the tool. Some teachers shared the view that
use of the column to record the frequency of teacher communicative behaviours could feel
‘testing.’
Practitioner level considerations
Three key concepts were identified across the dataset related to practitioner level consider-
ations. These included: (a) self- efficacy, (b) values and beliefs, and (c) knowledge and under-
standing of SLCN and SEN. See Table 4 for illustrative quotes in relation to practitioner level
considerations.
Self-efficacy
The most frequently coded construct within this domain was self-efficacy. Practitioners
reported that given the reflective and potentially exposing nature of the tool, practitioners
would need to be confident in their own abilities to use it. One class teacher proposed that if a
practitioner had less teaching experience, this may impact their willingness to use the tool. A
positive attitude towards change was viewed as necessary by practitioners if the tool was to be
implemented on an ongoing basis. Participants reported that i a practitioner was not moti-
vated to improve their own practice, then engagement with reflective processes was unlikely.
Table 4. Illustrative quotes related to practitioner level factors.
Practitioner level
factors
Descriptive summary of findings Illustrative quotes
Self-efficacy A positive approach to change, a belief in one’s own abilities
to affect change and a commitment to lifelong learning
“So, if there is a teacher who mightn’t feel very confident about their
ability or classroom management it might be a little more difficult” (P4,
special education teacher, special class, primary)
A lack of teaching experience may act as a barrier to
implementing the tool
“We have a lot of new teachers. Young teachers. A lot of people mightn’t
be brave enough to pick this up. A lot of people wouldn’t say yeah come
on in, observe me. They wouldn’t be as okay with it” (P8, class teacher,
primary)
Values and Beliefs Practitioners who value collaboration and who routinely
work with others in the classroom would be more likely to
implement the tool.
“Yes, it would work well in our school. . . For stations because you always
have other adults in the room for stations anyway, and then it wouldn’t be
intimidating like, then you’re not the only one being watched” (P2, class
teacher, primary)
Knowledge &
understanding of SLCN
a
&
SEN
b
Practitioners who are not familiar with the continuum of
support for children with SEN may not use the tool
“I mean, I have seen withdrawal (from the classroom) for absolutely
everything you can think of. . .instead of sorting the classroom. . .so in
that classroom, that is where it won’t be used” (P11, principal, post-
primary)
An awareness and knowledge of SLCN is critical to see the
benefit of the tool and to use it.
“Subject teachers probably need more awareness raising around speech
and language communication needs in the classroom because we know
it’s a hidden disability So, you would have to raise awareness around it for
say the maths teacher or the science teacher before they would see the
benefit of it. . .” (P10, subject teacher, post-primary)
Experience of co-practice with an SLT would facilitate
implementation
“I think it would nearly have more of a place or more of a need in a
setting where an SLT or teacher might work together and be tuned in to
all of those strategies. Yeah I think the need for it is huge across settings.
But yeah maybe an awareness piece is required first in normal schools”
(P8, class teacher, primary)
a
SLCN = speech, language, and communication needs.
b
SEN = special educational needs.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t004
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 10 / 22
Values and beliefs. Practitioner values and beliefs were the second most coded construct.
Teachers who value professional development and who engage with additional formal and
informal learning opportunities would be more inclined to use the tool, as would the teacher
who is committed to inclusive pedagogy. Practitioners who value working collaboratively with
others, and who engage in the co-delivery of lessons as part of their normal routine would use
the tool more readily than those who prefer to work in isolation.
Knowledge and understanding of supporting SLCN in school. Knowledge of special
educational needs policy, an understanding of the continuum of support model, and an under-
standing of the nature and impact of SLCN on learning were identified as essential by partici-
pants if the tool were to be used in school. Participants believed that without this foundational
knowledge, the perceived benefits and/or the relevance of the tool amongst practitioners
would be reduced. Some practitioners expressed the view that the tool would be more readily
used where a teacher and SLT work regularly together such as in a specialist setting.
Contextual considerations- inner setting. Inner setting factors relate to characteristics of
the school that might influence implementation. Three core concepts related to this domain
were identified: (a) engaged leadership (b) learning culture, and (c) implementation climate.
See Table 5 for illustrative quotes in relation to inner setting factors.
Table 5. Illustrative quotes related to the inner setting.
Inner setting factors Descriptive summary of findings Illustrative quotes
Leadership engagement Engaged leadership is critical to innovation in schools “Leadership has changed in the school recently...and straight away
progress is being made. . . I know for example the new management
are supportive of teachers going on ...the master’s for the special
needs coordination and that kind of stuff. . . Changes in the structure
at the moment has made it so much better already” (P10, subject
teacher, post-primary)
Distributed leadership where everyone proactively engages in
change
“Staff actively engage everybody and make everybody feel welcome
and that they have a voice, and that gives us energy for change as a
group” (PI, deputy principal)
A culture of learning
and shared values
When teaching staff are supported to upskill, when learning is
valued and when there is sufficient time and space for reflective
thinking and evaluation, innovation is possible.
“Yeah, anything that you want to try, anything new. . . he’s very
supportive. . . So, because we’re both in special ed at the moment.
. . .you know like doing this course, for example, that’s no problem.
Same when C. did reading recovery, you know, it’s encouraged,
actually, that’s why we are so up for trying new things. . . it is so
important for change” (P7 class teacher, primary)
Where there are shared collective values, change is possible ‘We all really value equity. . .so I think we are all very aware of what we
want to achieve. . . that’s what drives us as a learning school” (P2 class
teacher, primary)
Implementation climate Top down, bureaucratic demands act as a barrier to leading
change in schools
“We applied for additional SNA access in April, and we were granted
nothing for 120 pages of an application. . .we reapplied a month later
because we got a one page back to request more information. . . So, we
reapplied in May or the start of June with 170 pages of an application.
Like loads of information on the specific children. And that we also
were given no extra allocation of SNA for that at that time. So, we
reapplied at the start of September, and we heard nothing for 3 weeks
and eventually I had to email. like when you are doing that all hours,
what hope of me being able to lead on anything new happening” (P1,
deputy principal& class teacher, primary)
Enforced leadership roles are not conducive to innovation ‘During it (enforced time in acting school leadership role) you just
keep going but afterwards when I took a step back and took time to
reflect it definitely affected me, my happiness, my sense of worth like,
as well, a little bit. I work very hard; I’ve done lots of additional
courses. I really care about the kids. I care about my work, but the
administrative work is just so frustrating and no time for anything
new whatsoever.’ (P12, deputy principal, post-primary)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t005
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 11 / 22
Engaged leadership. All participants spoke of the critical role of engaged leadership in
implementing changes in classroom practice. When the principal of the school prioritises a
new initiative, and directs time and resources to it, staff are more likely to implement innova-
tive practices. Conversely, without engaged leadership, participants reported that initiatives
were highly unlikely to become embedded into routine practice.
The importance of empowering others towards a model of distributed leadership and col-
lective ownership of change was discussed by school leaders and practitioners alike. Practition-
ers were of the view that a school principal who listens to staff views and builds on their
priorities for change can make school improvements happen. The importance of understand-
ing the dynamics of change in schools on the part of school leaders was also discussed as
important.
A learning culture. A learning culture was identified by all participants as critical for
change. While many of the teachers interviewed had been supported by their school leader to
complete additional qualifications and training, this was not considered sufficient to foster
such a culture. Participants described the need for further learning opportunities both within
their school setting, as well as with teachers from other schools. In one setting, where there was
scheduled, protected peer learning time embedded in the school calendar, teachers reported
feeling supported to try new methods. Views of the effectiveness of the outside speaker in cre-
ating a learning climate were equivocal. Some teachers expressed the view that such speakers
brought useful knowledge, but others viewed the outside speaker as disempowering to teach-
ers, acting as an impediment to them taking on leadership roles around their own professional
learning.
The importance of having a collective vision and shared values as a school community was
discussed by practitioners. One school leader noted that because all the staff were committed
to redressing inequities of access to education, it helped sustain a series of practice changes in
relation to inclusive pedagogy. One school leader gave practical examples in their own leader-
ship practice where they had instigated changes to timetables and cycles of work to enable col-
laborative reflective sessions, which resulted in changes to classroom practice.
Implementation climate. All participants spoke of excessive administrative workloads
and change fatigue as negatively impacting their absorptive capacity for change. From the per-
spective of school leaders, such demands were described as particularly challenging, leaving
limited energy for innovative thinking. One school leader spoke of being ‘forced’ to take on a
leadership role temporarily to fill a vacancy in school, describing the sense of isolation and
burden of management responsibility during this time. Many practitioners and the school
leaders interviewed described being at saturation point because of the administrative demands
of their job. They reported that any innovation not fitting with existing work cycles and sys-
tems already in place in school were unlikely to succeed. One participant stated that just setting
up the observation meeting and a follow up peer discussion for the pilot was challenging.
Factors related to the outer setting
Outer setting factors include macro level influences on implementation of innovations in
school. Two key factors were identified across the dataset related to the outer setting: (a) exter-
nal policies and incentives and (b) partnerships and connections. See Table 6 for illustrative
quotes in relation to outer setting factors.
External policies and incentives. Participants felt that schools are inundated with direc-
tives from the Department of Education, and that these directives negatively impact the poten-
tial for innovation in schools. School leaders discussed how these demands hindered their
ability to lead change. School inspections were discussed by all participants as an unpleasant
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 12 / 22
driver of change. Participants felt that inspection findings had to be complied with and priori-
tised over any school-driven initiatives.
Mixed messaging in education policy with regards inclusion and special education was also
discussed by school leaders and practitioners as a potential barrier to implementing the tool. A
lack of understanding of SEN models of support was also discussed by participants as a poten-
tial obstacle to implementation of the tool in some school settings.
Partnerships and connections. All participants discussed the lack of connectedness with
their local SLT health services as a barrier to implementing the tool. Only one of the schools in
the study had a regular visit from an SLT. Participants described being ‘left alone’ to deal with
the SLCN of children, reporting limited knowledge of strategies they could use to meet these
needs in the classroom. Teachers suggested that the tool could help support collaborative plan-
ning with the SLT in an ideal world but given the lack of SLT visits, they were of the view that
such potential was unlikely to be realised.
Factors related to the implementation process
This domain relates to the processes that would support use of the tool in the school setting.
Two key factors were identified across the dataset related to the implementation process: (i)
Planning, and (ii) Champions. See Table 7 for illustrative quotes in relation to implementation
planning considerations.
Planning. Practitioners and school leaders identified planning at a school level as essential
if the tool were to be embedded into routine practice. Frequently discussed factors across both
primary and post-primary school settings were timing, compatibility with existing processes
and procedures, and regularity of use. Participants described the school year in terms of teach-
ing blocks of eight weeks and advised that the tool should be planned to be used early in the
Table 6. Illustrative quotes related to the outer setting.
Outer Setting Descriptive summary of findings Illustrative quotes
External policies and
incentives
Department of Education as a driver of (unpleasant)
change which must be complied with hinders innovation
‘But the other thing is we’re expecting a whole school inspection next week. And
that’s another thing like. There’ll be loads of stuff to do after that. We have to sort
the things they say, the department expects it. . . You know she (the inspector) is
only going to give out about things. So, I’m like (sigh) a bit disillusioned.” (P1,
deputy principal & class teacher, primary)
Lack of clarity regarding professional roles and
responsibilities in relation to SLCN and SEN
“Some subject teachers think it is not their business, it is for the SET to do work
with the child, the SET is paid to do that work. . . and the department doesn’t really
help with that giving money to new specialist roles or settings. . .I mean, I have
seen withdrawal (from the classroom) for absolutely everything you can think of. . .
I’d walk into meetings with large groups of people, and they would be saying “she’s
doing this and she’s doing that” and then the SET will say “ok I’ll take her every
Tuesday for 40 minutes and we’ll draw pictures and I’ll say that’s special
education.” (P11, school principal, post-primary)
Partnerships and
connections
A lack of partnership with local SLT services means
schools and teachers go it alone
“. . .like in relation to then contacting external groups like the speech and language.
That is very difficult. Sometimes you get work handed to you that has speech and
language difficulties. But it generally tends to be basic and photocopied so I am
none the wiser. I could do with the help from the SLT. . . . Imagine it would be
great to see it. I’m sure the SLTs are sitting somewhere as well going God it would
be great to go in into schools” (P7, class teacher, primary)
The tool could enable partnerships of trust and to bridge
differences across health and education
“. . .kind of like an ongoing relationship with teachers in terms of like checking in
and that kind of thing, like when you work with someone ongoing you know you
can build trust and that is important for SLTs and teachers you know because they
are so different. Different backgrounds and different ways of thinking about things.
So, this could be useful, but you would have to know each other first and trust each
other.” (P3, speech and language therapist, special class)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t006
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 13 / 22
first eight weeks of the school year. The importance of regular opportunities to review the tool
was also highlighted. Leaving too long a gap of time between first using the tool and reviewing
changes in practice would impact implementation. Participants agreed that the tool would be
most compatible in school settings where co-teaching was already in place in the classroom.
Schools and teachers who are unfamiliar with co-teaching would require more awareness
building about the tool and would require more support to use it.
Champions. The role of the champion was also noted as important by participants. Where
one motivated person gets behind a new idea in a school, participants felt they can be very effec-
tive in engaging others. Participants cited examples of how support from a known and trusted
colleague had resulted in school changes being maintained. Without support, participants
viewed it unlikely that new initiatives such as the CSCOT would be used routinely. One pair of
participants noted that external facilitation had also been effective provided it is sustained,
describing a project which was successful for the duration that an external facilitator was
involved but which failed to be maintained once that individual moved on to another school.
Table 7. Illustrative quotes related to the process of implementation.
Process Descriptive summary of findings Illustrative quotes
Planning Embedding use into the whole school
evaluation process is critical to
implementation
“. . .bringing it in under the school self-evaluation plan.
Because if there’s already an established school self-
evaluation team in the school. You’re not going in
saying this is new where are you going to put it?” (P12,
deputy principal, post-primary)
Protected time needs to be scheduled
schoolwide for collaborative reflection
“If it (protected time) was available that would
definitely encourage people to do it because it’s the
thought of doing it and then having to go back over it
again yourself is something that might turn me off” (P2
class teacher, primary)
Implementation timing is important “I think the time of year introducing everything in a
post primary school is so important. That’s what I
would say August September is a good time when I’m
introducing the needs especially of our first years and
updating teachers on our needs of our second to sixth
years” (P10, subject teacher, post-primary)
Use of the tool needs to be regular, fitting
with teaching cycles of work
“Take our block of teaching. . . we have we’ll say 8
weeks or nine weeks starting September October then a
break and then another eight weeks teaching. Wouldn’t
it be fabulous if this could be completed every nine
weeks. To implement you know maybe different
strategies I would say at least three to four times a year.
Because once a year you forget you know”
“Schools could complete this tool at the start of the year
and review two months later. Don’t wait too long.
Review it within a short space of time not at the end of
the year. At the end of the year, we’re hanging. We’re
gone you know” (P5, special education needs
coordinator & deputy principal, post-primary)
Implementation needs to be built into
existing collaborative practices
“. . . you really do want to get to where you have the
two teachers actively leading the class already to use the
tool–setting up something extra even if it only takes 30
minutes can feel almost impossible some days” (P6,
subject teacher, post-primary)
Champions A champion in the school is needed to
engage others in implementing the tool
“Yeah, it’s interesting to hear how like sometimes it can
take one really motivated person to kind of just lead it a
little bit and then you know the practice changes.
Through that, rather than say or, there’s a new policy
that that seems to be not enough in itself.” (P1, deputy
principal & class teacher)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471.t007
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 14 / 22
Discussion
We engaged stakeholders working in Irish schools to trial the use of the ‘Communication
Friendly Classroom Tool’ (CSCOT), developed as part of the Better Communication Research
Project in the UK. The tool was trialed by a diverse sample of practitioners, in a range of school
settings. The aims of the study were to evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriate-
ness of the tool, and to gain insights into the strategies required to support the adoption,
implementation, and sustainment of the tool in Irish schools. An advisory panel of teachers
and a further panel of children with SLCN were engaged as co-researchers to review the tool
prior to trialing it, and to make recommendations based on the findings as to whether further
research involving the tool was warranted.
Participants viewed the CSCOT as acceptable, suggesting several advantages to its use. The
adaptability of the tool was noted as a positive intervention characteristic. In relation to con-
tent, the Language Learning Interaction, and the Language Learning Opportunity sections
were deemed relevant by participants across both primary and post-primary settings, with
some suggested additions. Consistent with the views of the teachers in the advisory panel, the
Language Learning Environment was considered to have limited relevance for post-primary
mainstream settings.
The tool was viewed as particularly compatible for use in classrooms where co-teaching is
routine practice. Although potentially exposing, where used with a trusted colleague, partici-
pants noted that the tool could be validating of their practice. Benefits of the tool as a shared
point of reference about communication and interaction in the classroom between SLTs and
teachers were identified by the participants who trialed it. However, participants noted the
lack of connectedness between schools and health services at the outer context level meant that
such a benefit was unlikely to be realised.
There were several intervention-related factors which were not discussed by practitioners
involved in trialing the tool. For example, the source of the intervention i.e., where it was
developed and/or the evidence behind the tool were not a focus of interest. This is surprising
given the emphasis on evidence-informed practice in health and education training and in
continuing professional development of teachers and SLTs [69,70]. Participants did not dis-
cuss the cost of the tool as an influencing implementation factor. This finding is also unex-
pected as resource issues are frequently cited as a barrier to implementing new innovations in
the context of public health and public education systems elsewhere [71].
At the practitioner level, consistent with previous studies, the importance of self-efficacy of
teachers, and their values and beliefs (in this instance relation to inclusive education) were
identified as influential factors in implementing the CSCOT [72–74]. The lack of knowledge
about the continuum of support model for SEN and about SLCN identified in this study has
been documented in Ireland and elsewhere previously [4,9]. If teachers do not understand
their role in ensuring the delivery of universal level SLCN supports, then they may not see a
need for the tool. Gaps in knowledge about the impact of SLCN on learning may also nega-
tively impact tension for change. Tension for change, or the degree to which stakeholders per-
ceive the current situation as needing to be improved, is known to influence the likelihood of
implementing innovations [74,75].
Practitioners were of the view that school settings vary in relation to their training needs
with regards to understanding the continuum of support, the role of the class or subject
teacher in supporting SLCN, and the use of reflective tools. These finding suggest that a
dynamic training approach as part of an implementation strategy in a future pilot study is indi-
cated. Such an approach includes methods of ascertaining a baseline in relation to such knowl-
edge and motivation and allows for a more responsive and feasible educational strategy [76–
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 15 / 22
78]. Given the reflective nature of CSCOT, explicit teaching of evidence-based problem-solv-
ing models such as a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, and facilitation techniques such as coach and
consult may enable modelling and simulation use of the tool [66]. In the context of current
SLT service delivery and school support models, such a training strategy could be co-designed
by an SLT and school staff, as ownership of training can increase motivation [79,80].
Participants spoke of the importance of facilitators in engaging and supporting others in
change in the school context. Given that there are designated roles to lead on implementation
of schoolwide SEN supports, and that engaging and supporting school staff in the implementa-
tion of SLCN programmes is a core component of the role of visiting SLTs, there is potential
capacity for both an internal school champion and an external SLT facilitator to support
implementation of the tool. Previous research related to SLT work in schools suggests that
where these professionals have a clear scope and role, many of the barriers to relationship-
building and leading on change can be overcome [81]. As partnerships between academia and
schools have been shown to be effective in sustaining changes in classroom practice, both
internal and external facilitators of CSCOT would benefit from opportunities for cross-agency
professional learning networks and/or engagement with communities of practice at a regional
level, to support implementation of the tool across schools [82–84].
Whilst adaptability and fit were positive features of the CSCOT, there was strong agreement
across all stakeholders that integrating the CSCOT into schoolwide (inner setting) systems
would be essential to support implementation of the tool. This finding is consistent with previ-
ous studies which show that inadequate attention to system influences can undermine even
the most well-resourced and thoughtful implementation strategies [31,32]. It was proposed by
stakeholders that the tool could be integrated effectively into the school self-evaluation process,
and school provision mapping processes undertaken in Irish schools [85,86]. The reflective
nature of the tool was perceived to fit well with such data-informed decision-making
approaches to action planning. Integrating the tool into these processes would address many
of the issues raised related to planning of the use of the tool in terms of teaching cycles of work
in the school context.
Consistent with implementation studies in school contexts internationally, the essential role
of the school leader in promoting a learning climate, and capacity for change is highlighted [87–
90]. Where the school leader signals their commitment to an innovation, and ensures it is inte-
grated into inner context systems, participants were of the view that new practices can be sus-
tained in Irish classrooms. It is noteworthy that the school leaders in this study view their own
capacity to lead on innovation as being negatively impacted by the bureaucratic demands of the
Department of Education. Nonetheless, individuals in these roles have described successful
methods of leading on change despite the administrative demands of the outer setting. Findings
are clear that school leaders will be critical partners in the planning, and delivery of any future
implementation universal level SLCN intervention in Irish schools. A summary of the views of
the tool from those who trialed it were shared with the two advisory panels. Both teachers and
children agreed that the tool should be further tested in Irish schools. Post-primary teachers
suggetsed the need for further consideration of the language of the tool for their setting, and the
removal of the Language Learning Environment section prior to testing.
Strengths and limitations
A careful sampling strategy enabled rich descriptive data to be captured in relation to the inter-
vention characteristics, and implementation of the CSCOT tool in a diverse sample of Irish
schools. Whilst we did succeed in sampling both primary and secondary schools, only one
post-primary school in the sample was designated as DEIS. Given we know that speech,
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 16 / 22
language, and communication needs are disproportionately represented in populations of
high socio-economic need, including an additional DEIS primary school would have provided
further insights into the feasibility, relevance, and appropriateness of the CSCOT related to
this specific setting.
Because we sampled by school, and only one school recruited was receiving regular support
from an SLT at the time of the study, it was not possible to explore views of the CSCOT as a
tool to support collaboration between an SLT and class teacher as was planned. Including the
perspectives of SLTs in the next stages of the research will be essential given these professionals
are responsible for conducting much of the practice of implementation of SLCN interventions
in schools.
In this exploratory study, practitioners were given the autonomy to choose which lesson,
which age ranges, and with whom they trialed the tool. As the next stages of the research
would be experimental in nature, it will be necessary to either specify when the tool is best
used, or to record the impact of these differences in use across sites.
Finally, it is important to note that the qualitative inquiry was undertaken during the
COVID pandemic, an unprecedented time of change in schools. This may have influenced
practitioners and school leaders’ views in relation to absorptive capacity for change.
Conclusions
Successful implementation of universal level interventions in school can ensure the participa-
tion and achievement of children and young people with speech, language, and communica-
tion needs. Findings from this exploratory study with stakeholders from a purposive sample of
schools has provided important insights into the acceptability, feasibility, and acceptability of a
tool aimed at optimising communication and interaction in the Irish school context.
The critical role of school leaders in building capacity for change in Irish schools is
highlighted. Useful suggestions with regards to contextual integration of the tool were gener-
ated. Differences at a school level in relation to implementation needs were noted, suggesting
the need for an adaptive study design in a future pilot study. Data from the study has the
potential to guide the co-development of a feasible implementation strategy with stakeholders.
The importance of early-stage exploration to guide implementation research planning in
schools is highlighted.
Supporting information
S1 File. The communication supporting classroom observation tool.
(PDF)
S2 File. Background questionnaire and topic guides.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the advisory panels for their contribution to the research project
since its inception. We would also like to thank the practitioners and school leaders who took
part in the study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Johanna Fitzgerald, Carol-Anne Murphy, James
Law.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 17 / 22
Data curation: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Rachel Murphy, Johanna Fitzgerald.
Formal analysis: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Rachel Murphy, Johanna Fitzgerald, Carol-Anne
Murphy.
Funding acquisition: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Johanna Fitzgerald, Carol-Anne Murphy, James
Law.
Investigation: Aoife Lily Gallagher.
Methodology: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Johanna Fitzgerald, Carol-Anne Murphy, James Law.
Project administration: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Rachel Murphy.
Writing – original draft: Aoife Lily Gallagher, Johanna Fitzgerald.
Writing – review & editing: Rachel Murphy, Johanna Fitzgerald, Carol-Anne Murphy.
References
1. McLeod S, McKinnon DH. Prevalence of communication disorders compared with other learning needs
in 14,500 primary and secondary school students. Int J Lang Com Dis. 2007; 42(1):37–59. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13682820601173262 PMID: 17454236
2. Norbury CF, Gooch D, Wray C, Baird G, Charman T, Simonoff E, et al. The impact of nonverbal ability
on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study. J Child
Psychol Psychiatr. 2016; 57(11):1247–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573 PMID: 27184709
3. Gallagher AL, Galvin R, Robinson K, Murphy CA, Conway P, Perry A. The characteristics, life circum-
stances and self-concept of 13 year olds with and without disabilities in Ireland: a secondary analysis of
the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study. PLOSONE. 15, e0229599–e0229599. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0229599.
4. Gibbons M, Coughlan K, Gallagher AL. Hidden in plain sight: a qualitative exploration of teachers and
children’s perspectives on supporting developmental language disorder in school. 2022. Adv Comm
Swallow. Prepress, 1–10.
5. Bishop D, Leonard L. Speech and language impairments in children: causes, characteristics, interven-
tion and outcome. East Sussex: Psychology press; 2014.
6. Cain K, Oakhill J. Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: a cognitive perspec-
tive. UK: Guilford Press; 2007.
7. Alloway TP, Tewolde F, Skipper D, Hijar D. Can you spell dyslexia without SLI? Comparing the cognitive
profiles of dyslexia and specific language impairment and their roles in learning. Res Dev Dis. 2017;
65:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.04.013 PMID: 28486125
8. Dockrell J, Lindsay G. The ways in which speech and language difficulties impact on children’s access
to the curriculum. Child Lang Teach Ther. 1998; 14(2):117–33.
9. McGregor KK. How we fail children with developmental language disorder. Lang Speech Hear Serv
Sch. 2020; 51(4):981–92. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00003 PMID: 32755505
10. Conti-Ramsden G, Durkin K, Toseeb U, Botting N, Pickles A. Education and employment outcomes of
young adults with a history of developmental language disorder. Int J Lang Commun Dis. 2018; 53
(2):237–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12338 PMID: 29139196
11. Ziegenfusz S, Paynter J, Flu¨ckiger B, Westerveld MF. A systematic review of the academic achieve-
ment of primary and secondary school-aged students with developmental language disorder. Autism
Dev Lang Impair. 2022; 7: 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415221099397 PMID: 36382072
12. Eadie P, Conway L, Hallenstein B, Mensah F, McKean C, Reilly S. Quality of life in children with devel-
opmental language disorder. Int J Lang Commun Dis. 2018; 53(4):799–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1460-6984.12385 PMID: 29577529
13. Law J, Rush R, Schoon I, Parsons S. Modeling developmental language difficulties from school entry
into adulthood: Literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009; 52
(6):1401–16. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0142) PMID: 19951922
14. Gascoigne M. Supporting children with speech, language and communication needs within integrated
children’s services. 2006. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
476.1646&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 18 / 22
15. UNESCO. The UNESCO Salamanca Statement.1994. Available from: https://www.european-agency.
org/sites/default/files/salamanca-statement-and-framework.pdf.
16. Rix J, Sheehy K, Fletcher- Camppbell F, Crisp M, Harper A. Continuum of education provision for chil-
dren with special educational needs: a review of international policies and practices. 2013. Available
from: https://ncse.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Continuum_appendices_07_08_13.pdf.
17. Department of Education and Science. Special educational needs, a continuum of support. 2007. Avail-
able from: https://assets.gov.ie/40642/674c98d5e72d48b7975f60895b4e8c9a.pdf.
18. Ehren BJ, Nelson NW. The Responsiveness to Intervention Approach and Language Impairment. Top
Lang Dis. 2005; 25(2):120–31.
19. Department of Education and Skills. Supporting children with special educational needs-guidelines for
schools. 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/56c43-supporting-pupils-and-
students-with-special-educational-needs-guidelines-for-schools/.
20. Greenwood CR, Carta JJ, Walker D, Watson-Thompson J, Gilkerson J, Larson AL, et al. Conceptualiz-
ing a public health prevention intervention for bridging the 30 million word gap. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review. 2017; 20(1):3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-017-0223-8 PMID: 28150059
21. Law J, Reilly S, Snow PC. Child speech, language and communication need re-examined in a public
health context: a new direction for the speech and language therapy profession. Int J Lang Commun
Disord. 2013; 48(5):486–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12027 PMID: 24033648
22. Lindsay G, Ricketts J, Peacey LV, Dockrell JE, Charman T. Meeting the educational and social needs
of children with language impairment or autism spectrum disorder: the parents’ perspectives. Int J Lang
Commun Disord. 2016; 51(5):495–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12226 PMID: 26952185
23. Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Speech and language therapists in schools. 2016.
Available from: https://www.rcslt.org/members/slts_in_schools/role_of_the_slt.
24. Ebbels SH, McCartney E, Slonims V, Dockrell JE, Norbury CF. Evidence-based pathways to interven-
tion for children with language disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(1):3–19. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1460-6984.12387 PMID: 29696726
25. Dockrell JE, Howell P, Leung D, Fugard AJB. Children with speech language and communication
needs in England: Challenges for practice. Front Educ. 2017; 2:35.
26. Dockrell JE, Lindsay G. Children with specific speech and language difficulties—The teachers’ perspec-
tive. Oxf Rev Educ. 2001; 27(3):369–94.
27. Campbell WN, Selkirk E, Gaines R. Speech-language pathologists’ role in inclusive education: A survey
of clinicians’ perceptions of universal design for learning. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2016; 40
(2):121–32.
28. Glover A, McCormack J, Smith-Tamaray M. Collaboration between teachers and speech and language
therapists: Services for primary school children with speech, language and communication needs. Child
Lang Teach Ther. 2015; 31(3):363–82.
29. McCartney E, Boyle J, Ellis S. Developing a universal reading comprehension intervention for main-
stream primary schools within areas of social deprivation for children with and without language-learn-
ing impairment: a feasibility study. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2015; 50(1):129–35. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1460-6984.12124 PMID: 25181284
30. McCartney E, Boyle J, Ellis S, Bannatyne S, Turnbull M. Indirect language therapy for children with per-
sistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: outcomes from a cohort intervention. Int J
Lang Commun Disord. 2011; 46(1):74–82 9p. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820903560302 PMID:
20337570
31. Locke J, Olsen A, Wideman R, Downey MM, Kretzmann M, Kasari C, et al. A tangled web: the chal-
lenges of implementing an evidence-based social engagement intervention for children with autism in
urban public school settings. Behav Ther. 2015; 46(1):54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.05.
001 PMID: 25526835
32. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation
on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008; 41(3–
4):327–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 PMID: 18322790
33. Domitrovich CE, Greenberg MT. The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs
that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. J Educ Psychol Consult. 2000; 11(2):193–221.
34. Lyon AR, Bruns EJ. From Evidence to Impact: Joining Our Best School Mental Health Practices with
Our Best Implementation Strategies. School Ment Health. 2019; 11(1):106–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12310-018-09306-w PMID: 31709018
35. Domitrovich CE, Bradshaw CP, Poduska JM, Hoagwood K, Buckley JA, Olin S, et al. Maximizing the
implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 19 / 22
Adv Sch Ment Health Promot. 2008; 1(3):6–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730x.2008.9715730 PMID:
27182282
36. Komesidou R, Feller MJ, Wolter JA, Ricketts J, Rasner MG, Putman CA, et al. Educators’ perceptions
of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of screeners for developmental language disorder and
dyslexia. J Res Read. 2022; 45(3): 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12381 PMID:
36250042
37. Locke J, Lawson GM, Beidas RS, Aarons GA, Xie M, Lyon AR, et al. Individual and organizational fac-
tors that affect implementation of evidence-based practices for children with autism in public schools: a
cross-sectional observational study. Implementation Sci. 2019; 14(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13012-019-0877-3 PMID: 30866976
38. Drahota A, Aarons GA, Stahmer AC. Developing the Autism Model of Implementation for autism spec-
trum disorder community providers: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2012; 7:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1748-5908-7-85 PMID: 22963616
39. Douglas NF, Burshnic VL. Implementation science: tackling the research to practice gap in communica-
tion sciences and disorders. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2019; 4(1):3–7.
40. Douglas NF, Campbell WN, Hinckley JJ. Implementation science: buzzword or game changer? J
Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015; 58(6):S1827–S36. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302
PMID: 26502033
41. Douglas NF, Feuerstein JL, Oshita JY, Schliep ME, Danowski ML. Implementation science research in
communication sciences and disorders: a scoping review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022; 31
(3):1054–83. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00126 PMID: 35104415
42. Gallagher A, Murphy C, Fitzgerald J, Law J. Addressing implementation considerations when develop-
ing universal interventions for speech, language and communication needs in the ordinary classroom: a
protocol for a scoping review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2022; 4(41).
43. McCartney E. Barriers to collaboration: an analysis of systemic barriers to collaboration between teach-
ers and speech and language therapists. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1999; 34(4). https://doi.org/10.
1080/136828299247379 PMID: 10884910
44. McCartney E. ‘Hard health’and ‘soft schools’: research designs to evaluate SLT work in schools. Child
Lang Teach Ther. 2004; 20(2):101–14.
45. Gallagher A, Murphy C, Conway P, Perry A. Consequential differences in perspectives and practices
concerning children with developmental language disorders: an integrative review. Int J Lang Commun
Dis. 2019; 54(4):529–552. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12469 PMID: 30945410
46. Gallagher AL, Murphy CA, Conway PF, Perry A. Engaging multiple stakeholders to improve speech
and language therapy services in schools: an appreciative inquiry-based study. BMC Health Serv Res.
2019; 19(1):226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4051-z PMID: 30987610
47. Gallagher AL, Murphy CA, Conway PF, Perry A. Establishing premises for inter-professional collabora-
tive practice in school: inclusion, difference and influence. Disabil Rehabil. 2020; 43(20):2909–2918.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2020.1725154 PMID: 32064960
48. Dockrell, Lindsay G, Roulstone S, Law J. Supporting children with speech, language and communica-
tion needs: an overview of the results of the Better Communication Research Programme. Int J Lang
Commun Dis. 2014; 49(5):543–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12089 PMID: 24961589
49. Law J, Tulip J, Stringer H, Cockerill M, Dockrell J. Teachers observing classroom communication: An
application of the Communicating Supporting Classroom Observation Tool for children aged 4–7 years.
Child Lang Teach Ther. 2019; 35(3):203–20.
50. Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes: Harvard university
press; 1978.
51. Law J, Dennis JA, Charlton JJV. Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary
speech and/or language disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 1. Art. No.:
CD012490. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012490/
information.
52. Law J, Garrett Z, Nye C. Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech
and language delay or disorder. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 3. Art. No.:
CD004110. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004110/
full.
53. Law JLWR, S. Wren, Y. Zeng, B. Lindsay, G. ’What Works’: interventions for children and young people
with speech, language and communication needs. 2012. Available from: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/16323/1/
DFE-RR247-BCRP10a.pdf.
54. Dockrell JE, Bakopoulou I, Law J, Spencer S, Lindsay G. Capturing communication supporting class-
rooms: The development of a tool and feasibility study. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2015: 31(3); 271–286.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 20 / 22
55. Lyon AR, Cook CR, Locke J, Davis C, Powell BJ, Waltz TJ. Importance and feasibility of an adapted set
of implementation strategies in schools. J School Psychol. 2019; 76:66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2019.07.014 PMID: 31759470
56. Proctor EK, Powell BJ, McMillen JC. Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and
reporting. Implement Sci. 2013; 8(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-139 PMID: 24289295
57. Bradshaw C., Atkinson S., & Doody O. (2017). Employing a Qualitative Description Approach in Health
Care Research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 4, 2333393617742282. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2333393617742282 PMID: 29204457
58. Elo S., & Kynga
¨s H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62
(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x PMID: 18352969
59. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F, Burns B, et al. Implementation research: a
synthesis of the literature. 2005. National Implementation Research Network. http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu.
60. Ramanadhan S, Revette AC, Lee RM, Aveling EL. Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data
for implementation science: an introduction. Implement Sci Commun. 2021; 2(1):1–10.
61. Lyons R, Carroll C, Gallagher A, Merrick R, Tancredi H. Understanding the perspectives of children and
young people with speech, language and communication needs: how qualitative research can inform
practice. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2022.2038669 PMID:
35188849
62. Donnelly M, Kilkelly U. Participation in Healthcare: the Views and Experiences of Children and Young
People. Inter J Child Rights. 2011; 19(1):107–25.
63. Schein EH, Schein PA. Humble inquiry: the gentle art of asking instead of telling. Oakland: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers; 2021.
64. Sattar R., Lawton R., Panagioti M., & Johnson J. Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: A guide to
using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis. BMC Health Ser Res. 2021; 21(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-06049-w PMID: 33419430
65. O’Brien B. C., Harris I. B., Beckman T. J., Reed D. A., & Cook D. A. Standards for reporting qualitative
research: A synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.
1097/ACM.0000000000000388 PMID: 24979285
66. Leeman J, Birken SA, Powell BJ, Rohweder C, Shea CM. Beyond “implementation strategies”: classify-
ing the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implement Sci. 2017; 12
(1):125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0657-x PMID: 29100551
67. Sharma G. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int J App Res. 2017; 26; 3(7):749–52.
68. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of
health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation
science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4(1):50.
69. Slavin R. E. Evidence-Based Education Policies: transforming Educational Practice and Research. Ed
Res.2002; 31(7), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007015.
70. Roddam H., & Skeat J., Eds. (2012). Embedding evidence-based practice in speech and language ther-
apy: International examples. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Backwell.
71. Ashok M., Hung D., Rojas-Smith L., Halpern M. T., & Harrison M. Framework for research on implemen-
tation of process redesigns. Qual Man Healthcare. 2018; 27(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.
0000000000000158 PMID: 29280903
72. Barcelona JM, Centeio EE, Hijazi K, Pedder C. Classroom Teacher Efficacy Toward Implementation of
Physical Activity in the D-SHINES Intervention. J School Health. 2022; 92(6):619–28. https://doi.org/10.
1111/josh.13163 PMID: 35304761
73. Williford AP, Wolcott CS, Whittaker JV, Locasale-Crouch J. Program and teacher characteristics pre-
dicting the implementation of Banking Time with preschoolers who display disruptive behaviors. Prev
Sci. 2015; 16(8):1054–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0544-0 PMID: 25627344
74. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organi-
zations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004, 82:581–629. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x PMID: 15595944
75. Simpson DD, Dansereau DF: Assessing Organizational Functioning as a Step Toward Innovation.
NIDA Science & Practice Perspectives. 2007; 30:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1151/spp073220 PMID:
17514069
76. Brennan A, King F, Travers J. Supporting the enactment of inclusive pedagogy in a primary school. Int J
Incl Educ. 2021; 25(13):1540–57.
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 21 / 22
77. Maher EJ, Jackson LJ, Pecora PJ, Schultz DJ, Chandra A, Barnes-Proby DS. Overcoming challenges
to implementing and evaluating evidence-based interventions in child welfare: A matter of necessity.
Child Youth Serv Rev. 2009; 31(5):555–62.
78. Fallon LM, Cathcart SC, DeFouw ER, O’Keeffe BV, Sugai G. Promoting teachers’ implementation of
culturally and contextually relevant class-wide behavior plans. Psychol Sch. 2018; 55(3):278–94.
79. Locke J, Lee K, Cook CR, Frederick L, Va
´zquez-Colo
´n C, Ehrhart MG, et al. Understanding the organi-
zational implementation context of schools: a qualitative study of school district administrators, princi-
pals, and teachers. Sch Ment Health. 2019; 11(3):379–99.
80. Gregson JA, Sturko PA. Teachers as adult learners: Re-conceptualizing professional development. J
Adult Educ. 2007; 36(1):1–18.
81. Gallagher AL, Eames C, Roddy R, Cunningham R. The invisible and the non-routine: a meta-ethnogra-
phy of experiences of intersectoral work in schools from the perspective of speech and language thera-
pists and occupational therapists. J Interprof Care. Forthcoming 2022.
82. Higgins MC, Weiner J, Young L. Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal
of Organizational Behavior. 2012; 33(3):366–88.
83. Patton K, Parker M. Teacher education communities of practice: More than a culture of collaboration.
Teach Teach Educ. 2017; 67:351–60.
84. Azorı
´n C, Harris A, Jones M. Taking a distributed perspective on leading professional learningnet-
works. School Leadersh Manag. 2020; 40(2–3):111–27.
85. Department of Education and Skills. School self-evaluation guidelines. 2016. Available from: https://
assets.gov.ie/25263/dcc85452ad6d451f89ed8e7b1967f200.pdf.
86. Fitzgerald J, Lynch J, Martin A, Cullen B. Leading inclusive learning, teaching and assessment in post-
primary schools in ireland: does provision mapping support an integrated, school-wide and systematic
approach to inclusive special education? Educ Sci. 2021; 11(4):168.
87. Fitzgerald J, Radford J. Leadership for inclusive special education: a qualitative exploration of SENCOs’
and principals’ experiences in secondary schools in Ireland. Int J Incl Educ. 2022; 26(10):992–1007.
88. Ainscow M, Sandill A. Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and
leadership. Int J Incl Educ. 2010; 14(4):401–16.
89. Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Farahnak LR, Sklar M. Aligning leadership across systems and organizations
to develop a strategic climate for evidence-based practice implementation. Annu Rev Public Health.
2014; 35(1):255–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182447 PMID: 24641560
90. Lyon AR, Cook CR, Brown EC, Locke J, Davis C, Ehrhart M, et al. Assessing organizational implemen-
tation context in the education sector: confirmatory factor analysis of measures of implementation lead-
ership, climate, and citizenship. Implement Sci. 2018; 13(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-
0705-6 PMID: 29310673
PLOS ONE
Use of a communication-friendly classroom tool in Irish schools
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287471 June 22, 2023 22 / 22
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.