Search results

This chapter sought to answer the following questions: (a) what does special education means for students with intellectual disability?, (b) what is being done, and (c) how do we maintain tradition? The answers, while complicated, suggest special education for students with intellectual disability historically and currently involves attention to what, how, and where, with the how being the key elements of special education for students with intellectual disability. This chapter discussed the what, how, and where for students with intellectual disability in a historical and current framework while also providing evidence-based practices for students with intellectual disability to implement to maintain the tradition of high-quality services.

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.

What does special education mean for general education teachers of students with disabilities? In this chapter, we share our approach to advancing values in the classroom placement of special education students in the general education setting. We will take the reader on a journey through time with “Jessie,” a special education student, as we examine the historical exclusion of students with disabilities to their inclusion in general education schools, environments and finally, general education classrooms. In doing so, we will examine the evolution of the general education teacher's role and how the historical perspective impacts current practices. Then, we will elucidate the benefits of inclusion, not only for the special education student but for the nondisabled peers as well. We will recommend values that should be maintained and practices that should be examined. This chapter will conclude with a connection between the values and recommendations of best practices for inclusive instruction.

Four reputed leaders for the coming years in the field of special education for individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) each with a slightly different perspective on the field were asked to respond independently to a prompt asking what does special education mean for students with EBD and what is being done and how do we maintain tradition? The contributors' responses to the prompt are presented and then summarized across the essays. A remarkable consistency emerges across the independent essays. In addition to the tradition of providing a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, the contributors identify needs to support teachers serving this population. Needs in teacher training and the expertise required to meet the needs of individuals with EBD are outlined as well as potential contributions of technology to carry out specific tasks. We conclude with a call for increased advocacy for use of the knowledge that we currently possess and that which will soon be discovered to support students with EBD as well as their teachers. We also note that the contributors' names are listed alphabetically to acknowledge the equality of each person to the final product.

Values have long guided special education services and supports for students with extensive support needs; over the past four decades, those values have been backed by research evidence demonstrating the critical nature of values related to inclusive education, self-determination, and seeking strengths and assets. In this chapter, we investigate these values and their supporting research, documenting strengths and needs in extant research. We emphasize the need to continue to embrace and maintain these values while pursuing research that addresses research gaps while centering the priorities, perspectives, and preferences of people with extensive support needs.

Intrinsic values to the field of special education include advocacy, inclusivity, individuality, and empiricism. From early days of providing custodial care in segregated settings, special education has evolved into a program that seeks to educate students with a wide range of learning needs in inclusive settings and identify a robust research base that informs its policies and practices. Important concepts such as inclusion and continuum of services have not only been valuable in conceptualizing and in providing intervention for students with disabilities but have also been valuable in advancing the field. Research in special education and students with disabilities has been instrumental in moving the field forward. In the future, special education will continue to be valuable in supporting students whose learning and survival needs deviate from the norm in meaningful ways by delivering responsive evidence-based instruction.

It has become increasingly apparent that one's perception of issues depends largely on his or her personal history. Human beings, professionals, and stakeholders vary in their perspectives, strategies, and solutions. Rather than arbitrarily selecting issues or seeking consensus among interdisciplinary but disparate groups, it is critical to examine the broader array of values and issues that impact learners with exceptionalities and the future of special education. In addition, it is important to conceptualize effective techniques to reverse traditional problems or difficulties while considering the “cycles” of change in general and special education. These cycles are based on the view that educational perspectives have their time since they come and go. When they are innovative, they become the status quo and become finally obsolete as the next group of methods, beliefs, and educational initiatives takes hold. In special education, we have fundamental values that must be respected and followed to deliver services to learners with exceptionalities. These values are sometimes not valued by ill prepared and unprepared professionals, especially since good professionals believe in change. This chapter focuses on how these values can be respected to protect and advance special education and education as a whole.

For education systems to meet the demands of the knowledge economy and prepare their students to be adequately skilled for a more diversified economy in the Arabian Gulf, bold and innovative initiatives must be taken in order to ensure that these skills contribute towards a sustainable knowledge economy. Gulf states have been preparing for a transition towards, what the World Bank calls ‘a knowledge economy’ (World Bank, 2013) where economies will be run by the skills and knowledge capital of their workforce with technology and its advancement playing a central role. Many governments have identified the education sector as a site in which such ambitions can be met and have therefore introduced models of education where English is the medium of instruction. The rationale behind such a decision is based on multiple reasons, mainly because English is considered by some as the language of science and discovery (see Crystal, 2003).

In all discussions surrounding the overhaul of education systems and the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) namely, goal number four (quality education), the notion of the language through which students learn is a neglected area of inquiry. English is increasingly becoming the language of instruction at the university and progressively at the school level too. This means that young students lose out on adequately learning their mother tongue. The chapter argues that only through forward, bold, and novel decisions to teach students in both Arabic and English can there be a guarantee of a more sustainable knowledge economy across the Gulf.

This study examines education for sustainability (EfS) within the Chinese context, to specifically enrich the understanding on how EfS is structured and implemented to nurture citizenship in the policy practices of universities in Mainland China and Hong Kong.

A cross-case analysis is recruited to examine the commonalities and differences between two universities and identify patterns in cultivating sustainability citizenship within higher education institutions (HEIs) in China. Data were collected through reviewing documents, including two universities’ strategic plans, action plans, department meeting memos, program introductions, course outlines and publicity coverage. Observation was also adopted to enrich the data for analysis, covering meetings, speeches by senior management, university events and informal conversations about university operations.

Citizenship and sustainability in university strategic planning, curriculum and instruction, carriers of EfS institutionalization, and resources and impacts of EfS beyond the institutes were analyzed in a comparative manner, offering valuable insights into how EfS can be institutionalized in different universities based on their unique appeals, existing curriculum and management systems.

By exploring these intra-national distinctions in EfS, the study sheds light on the variation within China's citizenship education, which is traditionally seen as highly unified with limited room for differences. The detailed exploration of university strategies and program/course content enriches the literature of sustainability as an educational phenomenon on an international scale and modernized citizenship education in China.

This case study sought to investigate the relationship between pre-service teachers’ participation in designing and delivering one-on-one literacy intervention lessons to beginning readers and their own evolving self-efficacy in literacy instruction.

The study was embedded within a 4000-level course in the elementary education major where pre-service teachers learn to administer, analyze and interpret a variety of literacy assessments. Based on the results of these assessments, pre-service teachers designed and implemented literacy lessons (twice a week, 30-min sessions) that addressed the beginning readers' specific instructional needs. Through collecting pre/post data with their first-grade intervention students, and participating in reflective “check-ins” (surveys, a focus group and end-of-course written reflection), a portrait of increased pre-service teacher self-efficacy in literacy instruction comes into focus.

The data showed, primarily through the thematic analysis of qualitative data, that the experience of conducting a one-on-one intervention with a striving reader impacted pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy positively.

The methodology of this study was limited by the small sample size and the low participant response rate on the quantitative survey measure.

This paper highlights one aspect in which clinically-rich field experiences can make a difference in the literacy instruction self-efficacy of pre-service teachers.

This study adds to the support for authentic instructional applications of course content in educator preparation programs, specifically in Professional Development School (partner school system) contexts. The aspect of observing and measuring intervention student progress was one lens through which pre-service teachers viewed their efficacy. Further investigations focusing on other assessment-instruction cycles could provide additional insights.