Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs

Abstract

Recent curriculum initiatives, such as the National Literacy and NumeracyHours, assume the validity of a broadly common curriculum for all pupils. This article synthesises a review which set out to subject that assumption to critical scrutiny, addressing the ensuing question: can differences between learners (by particular special educational needs [SEN] group) be identi ed and systematically linked with learners' needs for differential teaching? Generic teaching effectiveness studies have assumed that what works with most pupils would also work for all pupils. However, little direct evidence for this position has been presented in the areas of learning dif culties which are covered in this review. Similarly, some papers by SEN specialists make calls, which were also mostly unsubstantiated by empirical evidence, for what the authors call, the 'unique differences' position. This rejects distinctive SEN teaching strategies and accepts that there are common pedagogic principles which are relevant to the unique differences between all pupils, including those considered to be designated as having SEN. This position is quali ed by some recognition of the need for more intense and focused teaching for those with SEN. Support for a common pedagogy also comes from the authors' analyses of pedagogy by SEN group. They conclude that the notion of continua of teaching approaches is useful as it makes it possible to distinguish between the 'normal' adaptations in class teaching for most pupils and the greater degree of adaptations required for those with more severe dif culties in learning, those designated as having SEN. These are adaptations to common teaching approaches, what have been called specialised adaptations, or 'high density' teaching.

Double standards and first principles: framing teaching assistant support for pupils with special educational needs

“…Neither are adequately trained or prepared to support the needs of pupils with SEN (Anderson and Finney 2008;Lamb 2009;Norwich and Lewis 2001), and where TAs have received training -no matter how scant -there is a tendency for teachers to relinquish instruction of these pupils to TAs. Giangreco (2003) calls this the 'training trap'.…”

Including children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms: implications for pedagogy from a systematic review

“…Much of the weightier research and studies of less readily packaged approaches are not reported in the professional media and so are not readily available to teachers. Previous overviews of the research have established some of the wider policy, support and organisational elements that are effective in inclusive education (Sebba & Sachdev, 1997) and indicated that there is little evidence to support the use of a particular pedagogy for each type of special educational need (Norwich & Lewis, 2001). …”

“…Also emerging from this context have been recent attempts to map the territory and evaluate the range of available teaching approaches for pupils with SEN (Davis & Florian, 2004;Lewis & Norwich, 2005). Important critiques of special pedagogy (e.g., Hart, 1996;Norwich & Lewis, 2001;Thomas & Loxley, 2001) have raised the profile of teaching approaches that ordinary teachers can and do use to include children with SEN in mainstream classrooms. Previous systematic literature reviews related to the area of SEN and inclusion had focused on behavioural concerns and behaviour management in schools (Harden, Thomas, Evans, Scanlon & Sinclair, 2003); the impact of paid adult support on the participation and learning of pupils in mainstream schools, including pupils with SEN (Dyson, Howes & Roberts, 2003); and school-level approaches to facilitating the participation by all students in the cultures, curricula and communities of schools (Dyson, Howes & Roberts, 2002).…”

Elementary School Teachers' Attitude towards Including Students with Special Educational Needs into Regular Public Schools in Saudi Arabia

“…Such a view is significant as it highlights the concern of training quality. Although no SEN-specific pedagogy was identified in the work of Norwich & Lewis (2001) when considering the various ranges of children with SEN, it was found that 'more intensive and explicit teaching' is fundamental to students showcasing varying degrees and patterns of learning disabilities.…”