Exploring the training experiences of trainee educational psychologists in supporting children and young people with literacy difficulties.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Exploring the training experiences of trainee educational psychologists in supporting children and young people with literacy difficulties.
Authors:	Maries-Collier, Freya, Woods, Kevin
Source:	Educational & Child Psychology. Mar2023, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p29-43. 15p.
Subjects:	People with learning disabilities, Educational psychologists, Occupational training, Career education, Professional education
Geographic Terms:	England
Abstract:	Aims: This research aims to build a national picture of the range of training that trainee educational psychologists (TEPs) in England receive in relation to literacy difficulties and/or dyslexia (LitD/D), and how this goes on to influence their professional practice. Method/Rationale: The practice of educational psychologists (EPs) in working with children and young people with LitD/D has been described as inconsistent, as different EP services use different definitions, policies and diagnostic pathways. A lack of consensus in knowledge and practice may have negative implications for the principle of equality of access and the positioning of EPs as evidence-based practitioners. Focus groups were held across five universities, with 24 TEPs in their second or final year of the three-year professional doctorate training programme taking part. Transcripts were analysed thematically. Findings: TEPs' training and professional experiences varied, with some perceiving that identifying and supporting children with LitD/D was not indicated as a priority concern in their practice placements. Limitations: This was an exploratory study, which may limit the transferability of findings. However, the range of patterning of views and variation of opinions discussed by the participants suggest that a fair representation of TEPs' experiences and perceptions was captured through the focus groups. Conclusions: Considering TEPs acknowledged a desire to feel more competent in supporting children with LitD/D, there are implications for the content and approach of training programmes, and a need for more a directive role for professional legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection

Description
Abstract:	Aims: This research aims to build a national picture of the range of training that trainee educational psychologists (TEPs) in England receive in relation to literacy difficulties and/or dyslexia (LitD/D), and how this goes on to influence their professional practice. Method/Rationale: The practice of educational psychologists (EPs) in working with children and young people with LitD/D has been described as inconsistent, as different EP services use different definitions, policies and diagnostic pathways. A lack of consensus in knowledge and practice may have negative implications for the principle of equality of access and the positioning of EPs as evidence-based practitioners. Focus groups were held across five universities, with 24 TEPs in their second or final year of the three-year professional doctorate training programme taking part. Transcripts were analysed thematically. Findings: TEPs' training and professional experiences varied, with some perceiving that identifying and supporting children with LitD/D was not indicated as a priority concern in their practice placements. Limitations: This was an exploratory study, which may limit the transferability of findings. However, the range of patterning of views and variation of opinions discussed by the participants suggest that a fair representation of TEPs' experiences and perceptions was captured through the focus groups. Conclusions: Considering TEPs acknowledged a desire to feel more competent in supporting children with LitD/D, there are implications for the content and approach of training programmes, and a need for more a directive role for professional legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	02671611
DOI:	10.53841/bpsecp.2023.40.1.29