beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)sabilitiesHazel Lawson, University of Exeter and Phyllis Jones, University of South FloridaAccepted by JORSEN April 2017AbstractThis article focuses on teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this decision-making when teaching students with severe intellectual disabilities. The resea beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)rch reported and discussed forms part of an international collaborative research project in the south west of England and Florida, US. The study is sebeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
t within the broader socio-political context of inclusion, contributing a pedagogical dimension to other aspects of inclusion, such as placement, currTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)on-making, and influences on this, when teaching students with severe intellectual disabilities. The study shows a prominence and privileging of pedagogical decisions and influences around teacherstudent pedagogical interactions over curriculum-teacher or curriculum-student pedagogical interactions. beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013) The implications of this emphasis are considered in the historical context of teaching and learning models and approaches for this group of learners.beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
Key words: pedagogy, decision-making, intellectual disabilities, pedagogical interactionmodelTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING2Teachers’ pedagogicTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)cision-making and influences on this decision-making as part of a cross-cultural collaborative research project in England and the US which investigated teachers’ pedagogical learning and decision-making when teaching students with severe intellectual disabilities. We are specifically interested in beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)the how of teaching. However, we situate this within a broad conceptualisation of pedagogy - "the act of teaching together with its attendant discoursbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
e" (Alexander, 2004. p. 11). noting the complex policy and practice context that impacts on the decisions teachers make. Inclusion forms part of this TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)rds and accountability which influence pedagogical decision-making. In examining pedagogical decision-making in the area of severe intellectual disabilities, a rare focus, we use Houssaye’s (2000) conceptual model, a pedagogical interaction triangle of knowledge-teacher-leamer, as an analytic tool.L beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)iterature ContextStudents with Severe Intellectual Disabilities, Pedagogy and Context of Inclusion Students with severe intellectual disabilities havebeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
significant cognitive impairments and experience significant difficulties in learning. Frequently they have additional sensory or physical disabilitiTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013) state, terms include “multiple disabilities,” “severe and profound disabilities," and “severe intellectual disabilities.” The current globally recognised term, however, is severe intellectual disabilities (APA, 2013; Whitaker, 2013). The prevalence of children with severe intellectual disabilitiesT beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)EACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING3is currently less than 1% of school age children in England (DfE, 2016); it is 2% in the US (USDoE, 2012) where cbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
lassification systems spread learners with severe intellectual disabilities across categories that include multiple disabilities (i.e. traumatic brainTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013) years (DfE, 2016; NCES, 2012; USDoE. 2012).These students have only relatively recently been included in educational systems. In England they were considered “ineducable” until 1971 (DES, 1971) and. in the US, the final move away from institutions and for children with disabilities to receive a fre beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)e and appropriate education occurred with the passing of PL 94-142 in 1975 (USDoE, 1975).Although, in both countries, changing policies and practicesbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
around inclusion has involved a move towards students with disabilities being “educated to the maximum extent appropriate with peers without disabilitTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)in special schools or special classes. For example, in England, in January 2016, 79% of school children designated as having “severe learning difficulties” were placed in separate special schools (DfE, 2016). In the US, students with a wide range of disabilities spend vaiying amounts of their time i beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)n the general education classroom. Ryndak, Jackson and While (2013) demonstrate, however, that this is not the case for students with significant disabeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
bilities and Kurth, Morningstar and Kozleski (2014) note that a large percentage of students with significant or severe disabilities are still educateTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)equire separate specialised teacher education programmes and specialist licences in many states. Historically, teacher education programmes for students with severehttps://khothuvien.cori!TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING4intellectual disabilities focussed on the use of behavioural methods and a beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013) functional and basic skills curriculum (Snell & Brown, 2006). Blended teacher education programmes, which combine special and general pre-service probeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
grammes, have challenged standalone special education courses and incorporate an increased focus on academic subjects (Anderson, Smith, Olsen, & AlgozTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)rate specialist teacher education is not required for teaching in specialist settings and is generally not available.Historically, then, pedagogical approaches and understandings for this group of learners have involved separate “special” approaches with the emphasis on behaviourist principles (Stee beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)le, 2005) and influenced by psychological and deficit approaches (Brown & Radford, 2007).Nind and Wearmouth (2006) indicate that there is a “history obeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
f faith in special procedures and approaches conducted in special settings or by special teachers” (p. 116) and some commentators, for example, in theTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)al disabilities. There have also, however, been deliberations about whether there exists any specialised pedagogy for working with students with special educational needs (Lewis & Norwich, 2005a) including those with severe intellectual disabilities (Porter, 2005; Ware, 2005), with the argument that beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013) rather than any separate specialist pedagogy there is a continuum where "generic strategies ... are geared to difference by degrees of deliberatenessbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
and intensification” (Lewis & Norwich, 2005b, p. 215).Debates around what constitutes pedagogy for this group of students are taking place within theTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)eneral curriculum contentTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING5(Lawson. 2015; Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2010). This curriculum discourse has been influenced in the US by the concept of presumed competence (that professionals should presume competence rather than incompetence of the st beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)udents who present as learning differently (Biklen & Burke, 2006) and reflects a growing interest in curricula that focus on what students can do rathbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
er than what they cannot do. Florida State assessment results, for example, show that students with severe disabilities are acquiring specific academiTEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION-MAKING1Teachers’ pedagogical decision-making and influences on this when teaching students with severe intellectual dis beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)ience a tension between inclusion in academic- and standards-based curricula, on the one hand, and addressing individual needs and functional curricula on the other (Byers and Lawson, 2015; Ryndak et al., 2014).Alongside this movement to include students in mainstream curricula is the addition of st beyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)udents with severe intellectual disabilities into school, district and national accountability systems in both the US and England. Teacher and schoolbeyond_retrofitting-innovation_in_higher_ed_(kelly-hess,_june_2013)
accountability around standards-based curricula and accompanying high stakes assessment has led to powerful shifts about how students with severe inteGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook