Search results

In this chapter, we focus on specially designed instruction (SDI) as a core value for the field of specific learning disabilities (SLD). SDI is at the heart of special education, and the field of LD has been built on the core value that effective instruction improves student outcomes. We describe a two-step test and an extended example of what is and is not SDI for Matt, a student with an SLD. Finally, we discuss some of the confusion surrounding SDI and the need for the field to return to its core value of individualized, intentional, targeted, evidence- or high leverage practice–based, and systematic instruction for students with SLD.

Children of recent refugees and immigrants are the fastest growing student population in the US public education system. Thus, it is imperative to create research-based pedagogies that value linguistic diversity, provide academic and social–emotional support and embrace life experiences that are often vastly different from those of the teachers and typical students. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of an instructional model designed to address specific academic and social–emotional competencies of linguistically and culturally diverse students on the writing of eight and nine-year-old students (n = 10) enrolled in an afterschool programme serving students from refugee families. The model of explicit writing instruction implemented in the study included culturally responsive literature, mindfulness practices, and differentiation in teaching genre-specific text structure and academic vocabulary. Pre- and post-test personal essays were scored for holistic quality of writing and use of academic vocabulary. The findings indicate that explicit and differentiated instruction in both writing organisation and vocabulary use was effective in increasing the holistic quality of students' personal writing and their ability to integrate academic vocabulary appropriately and meaningfully in independent writing. Implications for culturally responsive instruction for refugee students are discussed.

This chapter analyses the degree to which the UK Higher Education (UKHE) Sector can offer spaces for students to critically reflect on topics relevant to activist criminology such as zemiology or abolitionism as opposed to constructing the criminal justice system (CJS) as a natural solution for crimes and social harms. This chapter argues for the importance of this topic due to deepening institutional links between universities and criminal justice agencies in the name of professionalisation for the latter (Hallenberg & Cockroft, 2017). This chapter proposes that to avoid criminology curricula merely reproducing the priorities and solutions of the CJS, it should turn to the liberatory pedagogy of Paolo Freire (1996). This includes teaching practices to encourage recognition of social movements and resistance against harms of states, corporations, or the CJS as legitimate foci in the criminology curriculum.

Despite the fact that almost two million learners in state-funded schools in England learn English as an additional language (DfE, 2020), there is no official policy for developing home languages (HLs), even though the use of HL in classrooms for academic purposes is linked to academic attainment (Smyth, 2012). Cummins' (1976) language interdependence hypotheses were employed as the analytical framework for the original study underpinning this chapter, as it showed the benefits of HL in the classroom. The study included 13 Somali-origin pupils in a Key Stage 2 class (8 boys and 5 girls – 10–11 years) and their 7 parents. Parents and pupils were separately taught HL literacy once per week for 24 weeks as extracurricular activities. HL literacy pre- and post-assessments, semi-structured interviews with pupils and parents and a researcher reflective diary were used for data collection (Abikar, 2020). The data from HL assessments when comparing the pre- and post-assessments showed improvement in areas assessed, except for writing. The semi-structured interview data demonstrated that learning HL literacy was beneficial for: social and spiritual identity, cognitive skills needed in the classroom and fostering communication between the family, relatives and the wider community. Additionally, positive attitudes to learning HL were evident within the study findings. The study strongly highlighted that it would be beneficial for pupils if there were strategies which would help them to maintain their HL; thus, this chapter will argue the case for the introduction of a HL policy for primary education in England. Overall, the study made recommendations for policymakers to introduce HL literacy sessions for the benefit of pupils.

This letter to David R. Maines celebrates our friendship over the last 35 years. I read his voice in emails, handwritten letters, and recollected phone conversations to display the meaningful exchanges of our scholarly friendship. I thank Dave for teaching me how to retire from the academy and grow older with purpose and grace. Highlighting his expert mentoring of my book Friendship Matters (1992), I recall how his suggested revisions for the chapters on aging anticipated a poignant array of our own experiences as friends in our later years. Finally, I appreciate his cultivated interests in drawing, writing poetry, and playing guitar, and thank him for encouraging my music. I am grateful for his dedication to esthetic endeavors, which warmly shaped our friendship during our later years.

This chapter addresses a sensitive topic in the field of education: the relationship between and among narrative inquiry, critical analysis, and critical theory. It argues that narrative inquirers are critical – but not in the same way that critical theorists are critical, although they may draw on the same literature and terms. To make our point, we unpack three of our peer-reviewed articles and highlight our theoretical frames and research moves to demonstrate criticality in narrative inquiry. We specifically discuss (1) titles and topics, (2) research frameworks, (3) historical and contemporary data, (4) use of participants' voices (words and feelings), (5) themes, and (6) new knowledge. We mostly argue that narrative inquiry exists because of experience. From experience, everything else unfolds – including criticality – depending on where the researcher in relationship with research participants, takes the inquiry. This chapter explicitly addresses a lived issue known both inside the narrative inquiry community and outside of it.

No matter how dominant a worldview is, there are always other ways of interpreting the world. (Littlebear, 2000, p. 79)

No matter how dominant a worldview is, there are always other ways of interpreting the world. (Littlebear, 2000, p. 79)

These words resonated with me when I first started my career in higher education in Canada 15 years after being a school teacher for much of my young adult life in México. Back then, in Mexico, I took for granted the way in which I lived my values. While there were instances and contexts where those values were challenged, it was not until I moved to Canada that I started redefining and reshaping my worldview, negotiating what was negotiable within me, and fighting to maintain my position in what was not negotiable. I am still learning to navigate the world of postsecondary education where I have learned that, as Siksika Elder Leroy Littlebear (2000) observes, “No one has a pure worldview that is 100 percent Indigenous or Eurocentric; rather, everyone has an integrated mind, a fluxing and ambidextrous consciousness” (p. 85). How then, do I show all of who I am when my position toward Indigenous history, culture, language, and values is informed by my own upbringing and experience and consequently might be perceived as “biased”?

This auto-ethnographic chapter addresses this question by presenting a case study where I reflect on Littlebear's (2000) observations on the fluidity of worldviews and the development of an “ambidextrous consciousness,” and how those principles have allowed me the space to be my authentic self despite the different ontological and axiological orientations I have encountered my work in higher education.