Some strategies do not fall readily into the one of the above three approaches. Four in particular are worthy of mention.
Assistive technology. An assistive technology (AT) device is defined in US legislation as ‘any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customised, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of children with disabilities.’
A recent review of the literature on the use of computer assisted instruction with learners with mild and moderate disabilities found that, although mixed, research supported the its use to raise academic achievement, particularly when it is used as a tool for extended practice of previously learned concepts (Fitzgerald & Koury, 1996). A Swedish study investigated the effects of an interactive multimedia computer programme on reading and communication skills of six-year-old learners, 11 with autism and nine with mixed handicaps. The former group increased both their word reading and phonological awareness, but these were not sustained during follow-up. A similar, but weaker pattern was found for the second group. It was concluded that such interventions should be individually based (Heimann et al., 1995).
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Some learners with special educational needs have significant difficulties in communicating with others using speech. Augmentative communication is used to supplement whatever existing methods of communication a learner has, while alternative communication represents an attempt to replace the lost means of communication.
In an analysis of 50 single subject experimental studies carried out across a wide age range, the effectiveness of AAC was examined. The results showed that interventions were effective in terms of behaviour change and generalisation, although to a lesser extent with maintenance over time (Schlosser & Lee, 2000). A US study investigated the effects of a classroom-based augmentative communication intervention with non-verbal and behaviourally and cognitively challenged adolescents. Picture communication boards, as well as natural language, were used and resulted in increases in communication and positive behaviours and participation in a more complex curriculum (Cafiero, 2001).
Phonological awareness is an oral language skill that involves the ability to notice, reflect upon and manipulate (move, combine, and delete) the individual sounds in words. (Torgesen and Mathes, 1998) It involves two processes: (a) the awareness that speech is made up of sounds, and (b) the ability to break down these sounds and manipulate them.
In a meta-analysis carried out in the US by the influential National Reading Panel (2000), an effect size of 0.53 was obtained for the impact of phonological awareness instruction on reading. An Australian study evaluated the effects of phonological processing skills training for learners aged nine-14 years with persistent reading difficulties. The results showed that improvement in the learners’ phonological processing skills led to considerable improvement in their reading accuracy and reading comprehension. Extending the length of the training time significantly improved the transfer of skills to the reading process, especially for those with severe phonological processing skill difficulties (Gillon & Dodd, 1997).
Quality of the indoor physical environment. This strategy is aimed at ensuring that all the elements of the indoor physical environment that may affect students’ ability to learn are optimal. It involves attending to such matters as the design and arrangement of furniture, acoustics, lighting, temperature, air quality, and safety.
A study conducted in New York City showed that students in overcrowded schools scored significantly lower in both mathematics and reading than similar students in less crowded conditions (Rivera-Batiz & Marti, 1995). A Swedish study investigated the impact of air quality on absenteeism in two day-care centres. The introduction of electrostatic air cleaning technology reduced the level of absenteeism from 8.31% to 3.75% (Rosen & Richardsom 1999). A New Zealand study examined the effects of sound-field amplification (SFA) for four learners with Down syndrome aged six to seven years. The results showed that the learners perceived significantly more speech when a SFA system that amplified the investigator’s voice by 10 decibels was used (Bennetts & Flynn, 2002). See also Chapter Fifteen of the present review.
12.4 A Scale for Evaluating Teachers’ Use of Evidence-based Strategies
In a paper presented at a UNESCO conference, Mitchell (2009) outlined a scale for evaluating teachers’ use of the strategies outlined above. The scale is designed to be used in carrying out a needs analysis for teachers’ professional development. This could involve the following three steps:
Step One. Teachers are asked to complete a questionnaire, rating their use of the 22 key strategies. The questions are intended to provide a broad picture only and provide a basis for a more detailed analysis to be conducted in the next step.
Step Two. This step would normally involve an independent evaluator who would build on a teacher’s questionnaire responses and would use a combination of an in-depth interview, classroom observations and document inspection to evaluate the teacher’s use of the 22 strategies. Mitchell noted that it might be possible for some teachers to carry out a self-evaluation of their use of the strategies, thus obviating Step One.
Step Three. On the basis of information obtained in the previous two steps, a professional development programme is designed.
EXCERPT FROM A SCALE FOR EVALUATING STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCING LEARNING (DRAFT)
David Mitchell, 2015
NB: This Scale has yet to be peer-reviewed and tested for reliability. It should not be used until these steps have been taken and a revised form provided. Readers of this draft are invited to provide comments.
Criteria
|
Indicators
|
Evaluation
|
Employs co-operative group teaching
The teacher regularly uses co-operative group teaching in which all learners work together in small learning groups of 6 to 8, helping each other to carry out individual and group tasks. Groups are usually mixed ability, but are sometimes comprised of learners with similar ability. The teacher teaches group process skills and carefully supervises group interactions.
Reference
Mitchell, 2014b, pp.35-46.
|
In most lessons the teacher uses co-operative group activities.
The teacher uses a combination of (a) mutual assistance groups in which learners are encouraged to help individuals to carry out tasks, and (b) ‘jig-saw’ type groups in which all learners contribute to a group task.
Mostly, groups are comprised of learners with mixed abilities.
The teacher teaches group process skills and carefully supervises group activities.
|
All the indicators are regularly met.
The teacher occasionally uses both forms of co-operative group activities with ability groups and mixed ability groups.
The teacher occasionally uses mutual assistance groups.
None of the indicators are met.
|
Employs peer tutoring
The teacher regularly sets up peer tutoring in which one learner (a ‘tutor’) provides learning experiences for another learner (a ‘tutee’). Such tutoring is mainly used to promote fluency through practising or reviewing skills or knowledge. The tutors are taught to follow a structured lesson format. Each dyad works for no more than 10 minutes at a time for 8-10 sessions.
Reference
Mitchell, 2014b, pp.47-57.
|
In most lessons the teacher uses peer tutoring.
The peer tutoring is used for practice and review of previously taught material.
Tutors are taught to use a structured lesson format.
Care is taken in matching tutors with tutees.
|
All the indicators are regularly met.
The teacher regularly uses peer tutoring, but not all the other indicators are met.
The teacher occasionally uses peer tutoring.
None of the indicators are met.
|
12.5 A Final Word
The overarching theme of this chapter is that teaching must become more based on empirical evidence of what has been proven to be effective strategies for improving students’ outcomes. A secondary theme is that, in order to bridge the research-practice gap, it is necessary that teacher education - both pre-service and in-service must be upgraded to deliver programmes based on evidence (see also Chapter Eighteen). Only by doing this will teaching be able to lay claim to being a true profession.
12.6 Summary
Educators are increasingly expected to be responsible not only for helping students to achieve the best possible outcomes, but also for using the most scientifically valid methods to achieve them.
Evidence-based teaching strategies may be defined as ‘clearly specified teaching strategies that have been shown in controlled research to be effective in bringing about desired outcomes in a delineated population of learners’.
All students, including SWSEN, benefit from a common set of strategies, even if they have to be adapted to take account of varying cognitive, emotional and social capabilities. What is required is the systematic, explicit and intensive application of a wide range of effective teaching strategies.
To constitute evidence, research studies should meet criteria such as the following: (a) treatment fidelity, (b) reliable and valid measurement of behavioural outcomes, (c) adequate control of variables, (d) freedom from contamination, (e) adequate follow-up, (f) replicated in more than a single study, and (g) cost effectiveness.
Strategies that have a strong evidential base for use with SWSEN (and other students) may be grouped under four headings, according to their predominant underlying assumptions about how learning takes place: social, behavioural, constructivist and mixed.
A scale for evaluating teachers’ use of evidence-based teaching strategies is described.
In order to bridge the research-practice gap, it is necessary that teacher education - both pre-service and in-service must be upgraded to deliver programmes based on evidence.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1
In almost every country, inclusive education has emerged as one of the most the dominant issues in the education of SWSEN. In the past 40 or so years the field of special needs education has moved from a segregation paradigm through integration to a point where inclusion is central to contemporary discourse. Even so, in many countries the concept of inclusion is not unproblematic, both conceptually and practically (Hegarty, 2001). This chapter presents material on seven themes relating to inclusive education: the concept, its origins, international perspectives, approaches to its implementation, evaluating inclusive education inputs, related research evidence, and critiques.
From the outset, it must be said that inclusive education is a complex, if not a problematic concept. Despite the internationalisation of the philosophy of inclusive education (UNESCO, 1994, 2008), for a range of historical, cultural, social and financial reasons its implementation has been uneven across the world. It has been a particularly problematic concept in developing countries, where resources are limited and fewer than 2% of children with disabilities receive any form of education, let alone in inclusive settings.
Inclusive education affects not just the conceptualisation of special educational needs and the nature of education provided for SWSEN, but it calls into question the broader aims of education, the purposes of schools, the nature of the curriculum, approaches to assessment, and schools’ accommodation to diversity. Hence, some of the principles of inclusive education are traversed elsewhere in this review, in particular in the introduction (Chapter One) and the chapters on the educational context (Chapter Eight), curriculum (Chapter Ten), assessment (Chapter Eleven), pedagogy (Chapter Twelve), teacher education (Chapter Eighteen), and universal design for learning (Chapter Twenty-four).
13.1 The Concept of Inclusive Education
A succinct definition of inclusive education is provided by Lipsky & Gartner (1996, 1999), who described it as students with disabilities having full membership in age-appropriate classes in their neighbourhood schools, with appropriate supplementary aids and support services. To Antia et al. (2002), inclusion denotes a student with a disability unconditionally belonging to and having full membership of a regular classroom in a regular school and its community. They contrasted this with ‘integration’, or ‘mainstreaming’, both of which imply that the student with a disability has the status of a visitor, with only conditional access to a regular classroom, but primary membership of a special class or resource room.
In their review of 28 European countries, Meijer et al. (2003) described three different approaches to including pupils with special educational needs: one-track (including almost all pupils in the mainstream), multi-track (a variety of services between mainstream and special needs education), and two-track (two distinct educational systems). In this chapter, the main focus is upon the first of these – the one-track approach.
In recent years, the concept of inclusive education has been broadened to encompass not only students with disabilities, but also all students who may be disadvantaged. Earlier, Skrtic et al. (1996) had argued that inclusive education goes far beyond physical placement of students with disabilities in general classrooms, but should involve schools meeting the needs of all their students within common, but fluid, environments and activities. This broadened conceptualisation of inclusive education was recently articulated in the meeting at the forty-eighth session of the UNESCO International Conference on Education, held in Geneva in November 2008, where it was acknowledged that ‘inclusive education is an ongoing process aimed at offering quality education for all while respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learning expectations of the students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination’ (UNESCO, 2009, p.126).
13.2 The Origins of Inclusive Education
Advocacy for inclusive education revolves around three main arguments. Firstly, several writers claim that inclusive education is a basic human right. For example, Christensen (1996) argued that exclusion or segregation of students with special needs is a violation of their human rights and represents an unfair distribution of educational resources. Similarly, Lipsky & Gartner (1996, 1999) asserted that inclusive education is a fundamental right, derived from the principle of equity, which, if recognised, would contribute significantly to a democratic society. This is also emphasised in UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement (1994) and by Slee (2001), the latter considering that inclusive education is about the cultural politics of protecting the rights of citizenship for all students. Writing from a British perspective, and as a person with a disability, Oliver (1996) argued that the education system has failed disabled students by not equipping them to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens, while the special education system has functioned to exclude them from both the education process and wider social life. He thus saw inclusion as a political as well as an educational process.
Secondly, as Lipsky & Gartner (1996, 1999) pointed out, in designing educational programmes for students with disabilities, the focus must shift from the individual’s impairments to the social context, a key feature of which should be a unitary education system dedicated to providing quality education for all students (cf., Meijer et al.’s (2003) one-track approach mentioned above). A similar point is advanced by English writer, Skidmore (2002), who found that teachers have two contrasting ‘pedagogical discourses’ – the discourse of deviance and the discourse of inclusion. These differ along a number of dimensions, such as teachers’ views on the educability of students, their explanations of student failure, and their curriculum models. He argued that the discourse of inclusion provides an alternative vision of the relationship between education and society that runs counter to the processes of segregation and differentiation that have dominated the development of mass schooling. The latter point was also expressed by Slee (2001), who claimed that the more schools have been called upon to include the masses, the more they have developed the technologies of stratification and exclusion. Slee saw a danger, too, in inclusive education deteriorating into assimilation or absorption.
A third argument asserts that since there is no clear demarcation between the characteristics of students with and without disabilities, and there is no support for the contention that specific categories of students learn differently, separate provisions for such students cannot be justified (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, 1999).
Share with your friends: |