Search results

The study aims to qualitatively analyze how faculty can mobilize the intellectual capital of higher education institutions (HEIs), comprising human, structural and relational capital to enable the education and learning of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Drawing upon the extant literature, the researcher conducted a qualitative study through written, in-depth interviews with a sample of 40 academic staff/faculty members having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The data was collected through a set of questions formulated as key questions, to be asked to all participants for their responses.

Results of the analysis demonstrated that intellectual capital’s contribution to higher education of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can be best understood in terms of its three components/dimensions. Accordingly, three main themes, with each comprising two sub-themes were uncovered. The first theme, leveraging human capital comprised: faculty acumen and faculty training as sub-themes; the second theme, resourcing structural capital comprised: tangible and intangible structural capital as sub-themes; and the third theme, nurturing relational capital comprised: in-class engagement and the second is ex-class connection as sub-themes.

The paper collects data from 40 faculty having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to explore and reveal a completely new perspective of looking at intellectual capital as a means of providing accessible and inclusive higher education to differently-abled students, making them a part of the mainstream.

This chapter provides an overview on the traditions and values of teaching students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). First, we discuss the prevalence, identification, and characteristics associated with TBI and how those characteristics affect learning, behavior, and daily life functioning. Next, we focus on instructional and behavioral interventions used in maintaining the traditions in classrooms for working with students with TBI. Findings from a review of the literature conclude that there are no specific academic curriculums designed specifically for teaching students with TBI; however, direct instruction and strategy instruction have been shown to be effective educational interventions. Current research on students with TBI is predominately being conducted in medical centers and clinics focusing on area of impairments (e.g., memory, attention, processing speed) rather than academic achievement and classroom interventions. Finally, we conclude with a list of accommodations and a discussion of recommendations for future work in teaching students with TBI.

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.

This study aims to examine Braille usage among consumers with visual impairments, investigating motivations and addressing inherent challenges.

Drawing insights from 16 semistructured interviews with individuals experiencing blindness, this study reveals nuanced aspects of Braille utilization.

Three key motivations for Braille usage are identified: as a coping mechanism for functional needs and to combat stigma; as an embodied experience contributing to pleasure; and as a heritage embodying a culture of visual impairment. Obstacles include cultural and financial barriers to learning, incomplete retail transcriptions limiting practicality and spatial congestion issues.

This study underscores Braille’s dual function as both coping mechanism and cultural heritage. By highlighting obstacles, it sheds light on challenges faced by consumers with visual impairments, facilitating advocacy and promoting inclusive retail practices. Originality lies in recognizing diverse motivations and experiences among Braille users, offering insights for enhancing tactile engagement in the marketplace.

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.

Family–school partnerships are an essential component of the special education process for children with disabilities. Notably, recent legislative reauthorizations of IDEA (2004) have focused on increasing parent involvement. For many parents, participation occurs primarily through the individualized education program (IEP) meetings. Parent involvement often includes parent advocating for their children. However, many parents face barriers when advocating to obtain appropriate special education services for their children with disabilities. Culturally and linguistically diverse families face greater systemic barriers (e.g., language and cultural differences) to access services for their own children with disabilities. School professionals can foster opportunities to help families be active members of the IEP process. For example, school professionals should connect families with resources to learn about their special education rights. Specifically, school personnel can encourage families to reach out to their local Parent Training and Information (PTI) Center to be educated and empowered to advocate for services. In addition, parents can be encouraged to attend parent advocacy programs to help increase knowledge, advocacy, and empowerment to access and advocate for services for their own children. Advancing the values of working with parents of students with special education needs is discussed.

The number of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds continue to increase in classrooms across the United States. These students have complex needs as they experience more barriers to success when compared to their peers. These barriers are further compounded when CLD students are also identified as having disabilities. To address the barriers and meet the needs of CLD students with disabilities, teaching professionals should move away from the traditional American educational values of individual freedom and self-reliance, equal opportunity and competition, and material wealth and hard work. Conversely, schools and teaching professionals should incorporate the modern values of social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging when working with students from CLD backgrounds who have disabilities. This chapter presents these values and provides recommendations for teaching professionals and schools.