Search results

Speech pathology services have not been traditionally provided within school classroom settings. This chapter will describe the service-delivery options for provision of speech pathology services in classroom settings. A review of select research related to the efficacy of these services is included as applied examples for educators.

The purpose of this paper is to systematically map research on the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on high school students’ listening, learning and well-being, as well as identify knowledge gaps to inform future research.

This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol. A comprehensive search of four online databases (ERIC, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) was conducted. Peer-reviewed papers were included if they conducted a study on the effect of classroom acoustics or noise on students’ listening, learning or well-being; had a clear definition of the noise level measurement; were conducted with high school students; and had the full text in English available.

In total, 14 papers met the criteria to be included in the review. The majority of studies assessed the impact of noise on students’ listening, learning or well-being. Overall, the results showed that higher noise levels have a negative effect on students’ listening, learning and well-being. Effects were even more pronounced for students who were non-native speakers or those with special educational needs such as hearing loss. Therefore, it would be beneficial to limit unnecessary noise in the classroom as much as possible through acoustic insulation, acoustic treatment and classroom management strategies.

This paper is the first review paper to synthesize previous research on the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on high school students’ listening, learning and well-being. It provides an analysis of the limitations of existing literature and proposes future research to help fill in these gaps.

Despite their pivotal role in classroom social dynamics, teachers are not always aware of, and/or do not know how to respond to, bottlenecks in these dynamics. This study investigated the effectiveness of the Social Classroom Dynamics Intervention with Lesson Study (SKILS, acronym of the Dutch program name) in supporting teachers with regards to improving their classrooms' social dynamics.

A sample of Dutch secondary school classrooms was divided into five SKILS classrooms (n = 86; 53.5% boys; M_age-T0 = 13.62 years and SD = 1.02 years) and nine control classrooms (n = 156; 50.6% boys; M_age-T0 = 13.55 years and SD = 0.89 years). Involvement in bullying and social cohesion was assessed pre- and post-intervention using student peer reports. Teachers of SKILS classrooms formed SKILS teams of five teachers (N = 25; 60% male; M_age-T0 = 42.45 years and SD = 12.81 years; teacher's experience: M_T0 = 11.35 years and SD = 8.36 years). Teachers were interviewed post-intervention.

While SKILS had little effect on classroom bullying dynamics, it had a positive effect on student social cohesion. Teachers indicated a learning effect with regard to identifying bottlenecks within classroom dynamics and felt more competent to intervene in response to bottlenecks due to SKILS.

The findings suggest that teachers can successfully impact classroom social cohesion by increasing their knowledge of classroom dynamics and working in Lesson Study (LS) teams with colleagues to develop tailored interventions for these dynamics.

This chapter provides a synthesis of the research project which investigated whether or not the most recent mathematics curriculum reform has reached the classroom and influenced classroom practice and student learning in the mainland China. Three types of evidence for change as a result of the curriculum reform were examined. These included the beliefs and perceptions of teachers about learning and teaching mathematics, the cognitive features of learning tasks and of classroom interaction that were implemented in classroom, and student learning outcomes. Two groups of elementary math teachers and their students participated in the study. One group had participated in the reform implementation in classroom for several years, and the other group had used the conventional curriculum when the project was conducted in 2005. About 150 videotaped class sessions were analyzed from 58 classrooms of the two groups. Survey methods were used to probe the changes in the beliefs and perceptions of teachers about teaching and learning mathematics. The student learning outcomes were assessed for three times with multiple measures of mathematics achievement. Findings of the project provide the converging evidence that the curriculum reform has resulted in some of the expected changes. Reform teachers were more likely to hold a dynamic view of mathematics and to indicate the importance to provide students the learning opportunity to hypothesize, to proof, and to communicate in learning mathematics. The reform classrooms used more learning tasks with higher cognitive demands. The teachers in the reform classrooms asked more questions that required students to describe procedures leading to their answers and the students in the reform classrooms raised more questions in learning mathematics. Students of the reform classrooms showed to have achieved a relatively more balanced development in different cognitive areas of mathematics achievement.

This qualitative research study focused upon collaboration between regular and special education teachers in middle school inclusive social studies classrooms. Data sources included interviews, observations and a review of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Two pairs of regular and special education teachers (high and low collaborators) were selected from three schools in different counties. Major findings included a description of the ways teachers formed and maintained their relationships, the role of administrators, and obstacles that needed to be overcome. Lack of time was identified as the greatest obstacle. IEPs were not found to be useful. Teacher use of accommodations and strategies tended to be global, rather than individualized. Perceptions of role were examined by teacher type.

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

Florida Partners in Education and Research for Kindergarten Success (PERKS) was an effective, large-scale professional development initiative to move Florida's early childhood workforce toward increased education and improved practices. This 7-month professional development intervention succeeded in increasing teacher knowledge, enhancing quality of the classroom literacy environment, and notably improving language development of children in high-need communities. These changes were generally sustained as seen in positive ratings of the classroom literacy environment a year later and children's maintenance of learning across the summer months prior to kindergarten entry. In addition, Florida PERKS provided preliminary answers regarding intensity of technical assistance needed to create positive change. Technical assistance delivered onsite was best, with no notable advantage found for weekly over monthly visits. To fully sustain change, however, may require continued support of teachers beyond a single school year when working with teachers who lack college degrees.

Public education in the United States is White, middle class, and urban/suburban normed. However, in the past decade, national population trends show an increase in minority populations, particularly in the southeastern United States. This trend has resulted in a cultural mismatch between teachers who are not trained in strategies that are responsive to the needs of a diverse student population. Novice teachers in a rural school district in eastern North Carolina participated in a study to examine the degree to which they were prepared to successfully interact with their culturally diverse student populations through the lens of culturally relevant classroom management (CRCM), based on their training at either historically White (HWIs) or Black (HBCUs) postsecondary institutions. As part of this larger study, we found that teachers trained at HWIs, although well-intentioned, enter the classroom far less prepared than their HBCU-trained counterparts. However, for both groups of novice teachers, intercultural interactions earlier in their lives seem to have a greater influence than institutional effects on effective, culturally relevant classroom management practices.

Translating motivational research to classroom instruction may be so difficult because the two enterprises of psychological research and teaching are inherently different in goals and assumptions. Whereas psychological theory is meant to be broad and generalizable, educational practice must attend to individual and situational differences. For instance, a great deal of research suggests that mastery goal structures are related to desirable beliefs and behaviors. However, knowing that this is so does not help teachers know how to foster mastery goals in their classrooms and whether or how practices might vary given differences among students, developmental levels, and content areas. As Patrick (2004) noted, the theoretical notion of mastery goal structure as it is currently conceptualized was not developed in classrooms and does not address how a mastery goal structure is either manifested or communicated to students. Although it makes theoretical sense to provide “appropriate challenge” to students, how a teacher adapts that principle to students with a range of abilities and attitudes, from challenge seekers to avoiders, is not obvious. Research can provide only a general theoretical heuristic for understanding tendencies and does not necessarily explain individuals' behavior over time (Turner & Patrick, 2004). For motivational research to be meaningful and useful to educators, it needs to help them interpret student behavior as specific responses to specific sets of circumstances. Pajares (2007) expressed this well when he noted:Research findings … drawn from educational psychology broadly, and motivation theory and research in particular are bounded by a host of situated, cultural factors that must be attended to if the constructs themselves are to have any, as William James (1907/1975) termed it, practical, or cash, value. (p. 30)Therefore, in its present form, theory may not appear useful to teachers because of its seeming lack of specificity. These issues apply to all current theories of motivation.

The literature on non-traditional classroom environments claims that the changed emphasis in higher education teaching from the lecturer to students has intensified the global focus on student-centred learning, prompting colleges and universities globally to introspect, re-examine, and re-structure their pedagogical approaches in an attempt to align with national educational policies, and to position themselves favourably with potential students in an increasingly competitive higher education environment. This is an environment that now relies heavily on digital learning technologies, which has provoked scholars such as Heick (2012) to perceive the change to the virtual as one that makes higher education institutions accessible from anywhere – in the cloud, at home, in the workplace, or restaurant. The COVID-19 crisis has reinforced the need for this flexibility. These forces have put universities and colleges under pressure to implement new teaching approaches in non-traditional classroom settings that are appropriate for, and responsive to, the COVID-19 crisis and students in terms of learning and social support. This chapter identified and appraised key teaching approaches. It is evident that there are three key teaching approaches that higher education institutions have adopted for delivering learning in an emergency and in a student-centred fashion. The three approaches, which include the time and place dispersion, transactional distance, and collaborative learning approaches, embrace social support because they are grounded in social constructivism. Academics need to be fully committed to the role of social support giving – that is, emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support – in order to foster student wellbeing and cognitive development as students learn together but apart in non-traditional classrooms. The hurried manner in which teaching and learning practices in many higher education institutions have been moved to the online format has led academics to violate many key principles of the approaches they have adopted. And this situation is borne out in the case study discussed in Chapter 8 of this volume. A review of current remote teaching and learning practices is required if academics are to embrace the full principles of the approaches that are appropriate for teaching and learning in non-traditional classroom contexts.