Search results

This study examines gestures, themes, message copy points and imagery, and strategy motives reflected in corporate advertising appearing in the China Times and United Daily News, two leading newspapers, in the month following the devastating Chin‐Chin earthquake in Taiwan in September 1999. The study identified four possible corporate strategy motives in post‐crisis corporate communications: social responsibility, communal relationship building, enlightened self‐interest and impression management. A content analysis of adverts (n=100) suggested communal relationship building drove corporate advertising endeavours. Corporate philanthropy was the most common gesture described in the adverts, and the most frequent themes and message components focused on the restoration of society. No significant differences were found between companies headquartered in Taiwan versus elsewhere, or between companies headquartered in Asia versus the West. Implications for examining crisis communications and underlying motives behind public relations communications are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the work of Howard Chase within the history of public relations, his role in the birth and development of issue management, and his relevance for contemporary practice.

Research for this paper draws heavily on the speeches and writings of Chase himself, both before and after the formal establishment of issue management, as well as commentary from key writers.

While Chase is widely acknowledged as the founder of issue management in 1976, his writings reveal that he saw this “new science” as only one part of a much broader restructuring of management design in which he positioned public policy and profit as corporate objectives of equal importance. Analysis confirms his work was innovative and of historical significance, but it has been increasingly outdated by evolution of the discipline he created.

Despite Chase's pioneering role, modern writing in the field usually cites little more than his definitions and his process model. This paper revisits his original concepts in their contemporary context, providing a fresh framework against which to properly assess his contribution.

In other words, LD can affect the way in which a person takes in, remembers, understands, and expresses information. Typically, a person with LD is of average intelligence, based on his/her intelligence quotient (IQ); however his/her academic performance is different from how they should be able to perform. People with LD are intelligent and have abilities to learn despite difficulties in processing information; however, they require specialized interventions in home, school, community, and workplace settings, appropriate to their individual strengths and needs, including but not limited to (a) specific skill instruction, (b) the development of compensatory strategies, (c) the development of self-advocacy skills, and (d) appropriate accommodation. Typically, a student with mild LD, who is identified and provided learning-disabilities instruction, can enhance his/her academic achievement, however, a student with undetected LD can struggle with low grades, low self-esteem, a loss of interest in higher education, and later reduced employment opportunities as an adult (Burkhardt, Obiakor, & Rotatori, 2004).

Special education in the USA is, in most respects, a 20th century phenomenon and is now governed primarily by federal legislation first enacted in 1975. The federal law in its most recent reauthorization (2004) continues to require a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities, a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP) ranging from residential or hospital care to inclusion in general education, an individual education plan or program (IEP) for each student identified as needing special education, and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) that is thought best for implementing the IEP. Parents must be involved in the special education process. Approximately 14 percent of public school students were identified for special education in 2004–2005, but the number and percentage of students identified in most high-incidence categories as needing special education have declined in recent years (the total for all categories was about 8.5 percent of public school students in 2010). A variety of evidence-based interventions can be used to address the wide range of instructional and behavioral needs of students with disabilities and their families, including transition to further education or work, family services, and teacher education. Special education in the USA may find new sources of support and thrive or may become less common or be abandoned entirely due to criticism and withdrawal of support for social welfare programs of government.

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.

In the United States, students with disabilities have moved from learning in a segregated environment to being included in the general education classroom. Legislative mandates have encouraged this shift to occur in public schools in order to equal the playing field for students with disabilities. Both general and special education students with learning disabilities (LD) have been affected from inclusion. This chapter describes the legal, historical, psychological, and instructional concepts shaping the way students with LD are educated today.

This chapter presents the personal perspectives of the author on issues related to methodology in teaching children with learning disabilities and to the role of methodology in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additionally, problems schools have had in implementing IDEA are highlighted and proposals offered to alleviate those difficulties.

It seems that assessment has almost always been a controversial issue when discussing students with learning disabilities. This chapter will first define learning disabilities with a discussion on the current federal definition, what a severe discrepancy is, the dimensions of a psychological processing disorder, and response to intervention. Then the focus will move toward assessment and how it impacts programming and placement for students with learning disabilities. Finally, the chapter will discuss monitoring daily performance. After reading this chapter the reader should have a better understanding of assessment and students with learning disabilities.

This chapter reviews problems in the identification of learning disabilities, with particular reference to issues involving discrepancy between IQ and achievement as a criterion for definition. Alternatives to present procedures for identification of learning disabilities are described. It is concluded that no presently proposed alternative meets all necessary criteria for identification of learning disabilities, and that radically altering or eliminating present conceptualizations of learning disabilities may be problematic. The major problems of identification of learning disabilities – including over-identification, variability, and specificity – can be addressed, it is suggested, by increasing specificity and consistency of state criteria and strict adherence to identification criteria on the local implementation level. However, further research in alternative methods for identifying learning disabilities is warranted.

The field of learning disabilities has been greatly influenced by both legal and policy decisions throughout its relatively short history. This chapter presents an overview of the historical analysis of learning disabilities and inclusion to provide a context for the present. An analysis of the studies conducted examining effects of inclusive interventions with students with learning disabilities is provided. Finally, predictions for the future of learning disabilities and inclusion are made based on the historical analysis and literature reviewed. Implications for educators, policy, and practice are made.