Although much research has been done on the effectiveness of teaching for nonhandicapped students, relatively little analysis has been made of teacher effectiveness in special education. Most of the recommendations about what special education teachers should do to be effective are based on the following: inferences from basic research showing exceptional students learn more slowly, with greater difficulty, or in different ways from normal learners; conclusions from applied research showing that specific groups of exceptional students respond more favorably to particular “packages” of instructional methods and materials; and analysis of opinions about what teachers should do to be effective. In this article, the results of teacher effectiveness research in general education are summarized, the best practices in special education are hypothesized, and the discrepancies between prevailing and actual practices are discussed. Areas for further research are suggested based on discrepancies that exist between levels of current practice.
The roles of special educators as consultants and collaborators have long been established and supported. The rationale for these roles is also well documented. Many models--consultative, collaborative, and teaming--have been suggested in the literature; sometimes, these models exhibit similar goals, competencies, and processes. Because of intensified pressures to collaborate, successful implementation of collaborative and team efforts requires that special educators expand their roles as interactive professionals. The purpose of this article is to define and describe the consultation, collaboration, and teaming models that have been implemented, discuss their strengths and limitations, delineate how these models contribute to interactive teaming, outline key features of the interactive team, and provide some guiding principles for successful implementation.
The purpose of this research was to illustrate and compare the nature of instruction provided in 40 self-contained special classes for students with different categorical classifications. Few differences were indicated in the extent to which teacher communication patterns, learner involvement, and instructional methods were different in classes containing students classified as learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, or educable mentally retarded. The outcomes of this research raise questions about the appropriateness of categorical grouping of students for instruction and relate to issues of personnel training in categorical programs.
Morsink identifies the functions that higher education administrators have in common with educational adminis trators in school districts and educa tional agencies; then she identifies those contextual variables from which differ ences in the critical functions of school, college, and departments of education (SCDE) chairpersons and deans might be inferred. Data were obtained in inter views with 70 educational adminis trators, 36 of whom were SCDE Deans or Chairpersons. Responses to the inter view questions were transcribed, syn thesized, and compared with previous findings on administrative "best prac tices" reported in the literature. The re sults suggest that educational adminis trators view two of four common "tasks" identified in earlier research as among their most important functions. These include (a) providing leadership in achievement of the organization's goals, and (b) supporting personnel to enable them to achieve these goals.
Teaching is systematic presentation of content assumed necessary for successful progress in school. Each year, large numbers of students fail to profit from the educational menu taught in America's schools. Many of these failing students are classified as handicapped and receive special education designed to compensate for or correct the problems believed to be the sources of their failure. Although very many students receive special education in self-contained classrooms, the effectiveness of this alternative educational placement remains an issue largely because so little is known about what special teachers do differently in their classrooms. Forty teachers of categorical special education classrooms were observed during various academic instructional periods. No differences were indicated in the extent to which these teachers demonstrated several general teaching behaviors (e.g., by using a variety of instructional strategies, maintaining active student involvement). The outcomes of this research raise questions about the appropriateness of categorical grouping of students for instruction and relate to issues of personnel training in categorical programs.Public school administrators are more frequently being asked by federal and state legislators, parents, advocacy groups, and policy makers to provide data on the effectiveness of classroom instruction. These requests for data demonstrating that schooling works have recently culminated in a &dquo;search for excellence&dquo; that has turned American education into an arena of renewed interest among researchers and practitioners alike. Popular as well as professional organs have presented a variety of perspectives on the issues related to effectiveness. Central to special education once again is the concern for whether pull-out programs are effective in improving student academic and social performance and in reducing societal burdens by educating handicapped youngsters in alternative environments.Questions of effectiveness of special programs are based on an assumption that there is something going on in special education that will produce alternative, desired outcomes, yet little is known about what effective special education teachers do. In fact, most of what is known about what goes on in classrooms of effective teachers comes from a line of research conducted in regular classrooms (Bemis &
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.