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.

This study was done to compare the modes of teaching mathematics in higher education in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The three teaching methods were used as follow: before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The three teaching methods are: (1). Normal on-campus face-to-face teaching and learning activity before the COVID-19 pandemic. (2). Full online teaching and learning activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. (3). Blended teaching and learning activity after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the last few years, there has been a considerable amount of literature investigating the efficacy of the various delivery modes: on-campus delivery (face-to-face), online delivery and blended learning (hybrid), in helping college students improve their mathematical skills. However, the extent to which one learner learns best has been hotly debated among the researchers. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy of implementing three teaching and learning delivery modes before, while, and after the COVID-19 pandemic: on-campus delivery (face-to-face), online delivery and blended learning (hybrid) on academic achievement in mathematics at a higher education institution in the UAE. The main research question explores whether there is a statistically significant difference (p = 0.05) in students’ academic based on the delivery methods: on-campus face-to-face, online and blended learning. The participants in the study were students from one of the largest higher education institutions in the UAE, and all of them studied the same mathematics course before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Student scores in the three academic semesters were thoroughly compared and analyzed using the ANOVA test to check if there is a significant difference between the three groups followed by a Tukey test to identify the significant difference in favor of which group. The results showed that there were significant differences in the mean scores in the students’ achievement in the mathematics courses favoring the blended learning delivery mode. The findings also show that the students’ achievement in mathematics using the on-campus face-to-face teaching and learning was better than the students’ achievement in mathematics using online teaching and learning delivery modes.

The main study question was: is there a statistical significant difference at the significance level (a = 0.05) in students’ achievements in mathematics courses at higher education in the UAE, which can be attributed to the method of teaching? The descriptive statistics reveal that the average student’s score in the final exam after the COVID-19 pandemic is 65.7 with a standard deviation of 16.65, which are higher than the average student’s score in the final exam before the COVID-19 pandemic of 58.7 with a standard deviation 20.53, and both are higher than the average students’ score in the final exam during the COVID-19 pandemic 51.8 with standard deviation 21.48. Then, the ANOVA test reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the three groups in the final exam marks. The researchers used the multiple comparison tests (Tukey test) to determine the difference. The Tukey test reveals that there is a statically significant difference between the average students’ score in the final exam after the COVID-19 pandemic and the average students’ score in the final exam during the COVID-19 pandemic, where p = 0.015 < 0.05 as well as there is a statically significant difference between the average students’ score in the final exam after the COVID-19 pandemic and the average students’ score in the final exam before the COVID-19 pandemic, where p = 0.000 < 0.05 in favor of the average students’ score in the final exam after the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, there is a statically significant difference between the average students’ score in the final exam before the COVID-19 pandemic and the average students’ score in the final exam during the COVID-19 pandemic, where p = 0.016 < 0.05 in favor of the average students’ score in the final exam before the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are several limitations that may reduce the possibility of generalizing the expected results of the current study to students outside the study population: (1) The study is limited to students of a federally funded postsecondary education institution in the UAE, in which most students are studying in their non-native language. (2) The study is limited to the mathematics courses. (3) The achievement test used in the study is a standardized test developed by the college as a cross-campus summative assessment.

The hybrid education model, also known as blended learning, combines traditional face-to-face instruction with online learning components. When applied to teaching mathematics in higher education, this approach can have several implications and benefits. Here are some key points supported by references: (1) Enhanced Accessibility and Flexibility: hybrid models offer flexibility in learning, allowing students to access course materials, lectures and resources online. This flexibility can accommodate diverse learning styles and preferences. A study by Means et al. (2013) in “Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning” highlights how blended learning can improve accessibility and engagement for students in higher education. (2) Personalized Learning Experience: by incorporating online resources, instructors can create a more personalized learning experience. Adaptive learning platforms and online quizzes can provide tailored feedback and adaptive content based on individual student needs (Freeman et al., 2017). This individualization can improve student performance and understanding of mathematical concepts. (3) Increased Student Engagement: the integration of online components, such as interactive simulations, videos and discussion forums, can enhance student engagement and participation (Bonk and Graham, 2012). Engaged students tend to have better learning outcomes in mathematics. (4) Improved Assessment and Feedback Mechanisms: hybrid models allow for the implementation of various assessment tools, including online quizzes, instant feedback mechanisms and data analytics, which can aid instructors in monitoring students’ progress more effectively (Means et al., 2013). This timely feedback loop can help students identify areas needing improvement and reinforce their understanding of mathematical concepts. (5) Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Optimization: integrating online materials can potentially reduce overall instructional costs by optimizing resources and enabling efficient use of classroom time (Graham, 2013). (6) Challenges and Considerations: despite the benefits, challenges such as technological barriers, designing effective online materials and ensuring equitable access for all students need to be addressed (Garrison and Vaughan, 2014). It requires thoughtful course design and continuous support for both students and instructors. When implementing a hybrid education model in teaching mathematics, instructors should consider pedagogical strategies, technological infrastructure and ongoing support mechanisms for students and faculty.

The research is the first research in the UAE to discuss the difference in teaching mathematics in higher education before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper explores a five-year case example of two educators engaged in practice-based professional development (PBPD) for the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model in a middle school. It examines the transformative effects and challenges of improving writing instruction, the activities involved and alternative PBPD delivery methods. Highlighting a collaborative effort between an institute of higher education (IHE), a middle school and ThinkSRSD, a PBPD for SRSD developer, the example underscores the long-term benefits and innovative insights into engaging with PBPD for SRSD over multiple years.

The case involves analyzing survey data collected over five years. These surveys, which included specific SRSD-related queries and open-ended questions, were instrumental in assessing the evolution of the educators’ perceptions regarding SRSD and their engagement with PBPD. Additionally, the paper details PBPD activities as documented in a research journal, providing a comprehensive account of the developmental process.

Through a cross-institutional partnership, two middle school general educators participated in PBPD for SRSD for 30 h across five years. Their engagement with PBPD progressed from initial introduction and implementation to facilitating PBPD for SRSD among peers and at the national level. Over time, the most consistently enacted SRSD action was “memorize it,” while actions such as “discuss it,” “support it” and “independent performance” showed greater variability. Both educators consistently praised SRSD and sought continued PBPD engagement over the five years.

Our case example is the first five-year analysis of PBPD for SRSD among general middle school educators, highlighting the benefits and challenges of adopting evidence-based writing instruction. Our example emphasizes the need for continuous and focused professional development in areas crucial for student success, including self-regulation, prewriting strategies and techniques for fostering independent performance. Moreover, the two middle school educators’ critical feedback is invaluable for refining PBPD for SRSD. This work also enriches professional development schools (PDS) literature by offering effective strategies to support middle school teachers in developing a vibrant writing community, a cornerstone for student advancement in writing.

District-university partners increasingly rely on “grow-your-own” licensure programs to address teacher shortages. Because vacancies in special education represent a chronic issue, our district-university partnership developed LEAP – the Licensed Educators’ Accelerated Pathway, successfully preparing 26 paraprofessionals as special education teachers (SEs). We describe a model university-district partnership in which we collaborated to design and implement paraprofessionals’ SE licensure program.

In this general review, we describe a district-university partnership collaboration that resolved barriers experienced by paraprofessionals working toward licensure in special education (Essential #4, Reflection and Innovation). The specialized design and partnership solutions were grounded in SE preparation research literature.

25 (28 entered the program and 25 completed) paraprofessionals from one large urban and several regional districts completed special education licensure through LEAP. Slightly more than half of LEAP participants were Black or Hispanic (see Table 1), contributing to the diversification of SE workforce. University-district partnership was successful in designing and delivering a program that allowed participants: a) to remain employed, b) attend evening classes in their geographic region or online, c) complete all field experiences in sponsoring districts (Essential #2) and d) receive concierge advising from a “completion coach.” We describe solutions to barriers experienced by paraprofessionals and advocate for district-university collaboration to address chronic teacher shortages.

Limitations include lack of data on success of program completers during their first year of teaching as they began this work in Fall 2023. Further, because the participating district was large and urban, generalization of program details for small and rural districts is difficult.

Practical tips for developing grow-your-own special education licensure programs are providing. Detailed descriptions of barriers candidates experienced and ways the district-university partners resolved these issues are included. Programs like the one described has the potential to positively impact teacher pipeline issues.

The program described provided highly-trained teachers to fill chronic vacancies in special education in three participating districts/agencies. Because students receiving special education services are at risk for school failure and are disproportionately impacted by teacher turnover, addressing this area through grow-your-own licensure programs represents a diversity, equity and inclusion initiative. Further, upskilling diverse paraprofessionals to licensed teacher roles represent an economic boost, which they might not otherwise have achieved.

Available research literature signals alarm over persistent teacher shortages in hard-to-staff districts and lack of diversity in the teacher workforce, but few published accounts describe successful programs. Partner collaboration fostered a re-imagining of course formatting and delivery to accommodate adult learners, avoiding problems often reported with alternative programs.