Inclusion has increasingly become a focus in improving special education. We've finally come to realize the importance of it and now the main concerns are the methods to use and to what degree. Crucial for this is to constantly look at it with an individualized approach. Just as a single disability affects people in different ways with different severities, a single method will have various results for each person.
Before searching for effective methods it is imperative to identify who is involved. I became aware of this after seeing a few videos of special needs students involved with inclusion. At first I only considered the efforts of the student and the special ed teacher but after watched the videos I saw it has an impact and requires the involvement of many more. A boy with autism fully included with his 4th grade class was one of the cases. It quickly became clear that the teacher couldn't always attend to this student and the other classmates would many times have to handle situations on their own. Upon realizing this, the teacher discussed matters with her students to get everyone on the same page. Efforts by the other students was the last thing I thought necessary, to the contrary. What would be the point of inclusion if there was no interaction with the other students. So for this to be successful all the students need to be informed and on the same page. Same goes for the general ed teacher even if there is a special ed teacher aiding in the class. Everyone in the classroom plays a role in inclusion.
Another case was a high school girl only in partial inclusion. This was her choice. She said herself that she didn't want full inclusion. So working towards full inclusion shouldn't be the goal for everyone. Given that inclusion does have many benefits, it should be incorporated as much as possible within the tolerance of the individual. Asked in class what we thought was the best full or partial inclusion I stopped to figure out the answer...there is no answer. The issue with how much inclusion I believe isn't a real issue at all. It's just something that needs to be experimented with until finding the most beneficial scenario for all parties for each case.
Developing inclusion programs is undoubtedly essential to improving special education. Attempting to find the best solution on the other hand is futile. It would be more sensible to work towards expanding the knowledge, technologies, and resources regarding inclusion. This would allow a quicker, smoother, and more precise process in matching a program to each student.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The post Do You Believe in Algebra? brought up issues I've put some consideration into before. One being the relevance of material taught in school and another is the idea of shifting towards a more personalized educational system versus the current standards-based. Continually presented with new perspectives, my beliefs on these topics have juggled back and forth.
Reading these words by Karl Fisch sends me back in time to the feelings I had about most of the material covered in high school, "...do you believe that all students (scratch, that, all people) need to know "there is a complex number i such that i2 = -1," . Really though, why would you need to learn something you know you'll never use? With this notion I had absolutely no interest in learning what was being taught in school. No urge to apply myself resulted in bad grades and falling behind diminishing my academic motivation even more, a vicious cycle. Then College happened. I heard numerous times how great Okemos high school was and the advantage for College it provided over all other schools. "Toot your own horn to someone else" I thought, of course every school is going to brag about how amazing they are. Just in my first semester at MSU I realized they weren't lying! Bunched in with kids all over the nation I could now see this "advantage" they were talking about. It wasn't that the material being taught was something I had covered before, but rather the skills and habits I developed from attending Okemos. Here at MSU I knew just as much on the topic as the kid sitting next to me, but my organizational and writing skills made it easier for me to whip out the paper. The problem presented was new to every student, yet my problem solving strategies proved to be most efficient. It all made sense now. The topics, problems, and material learned weren't the advantage, it was my ability to successfully comprehend and internalize those topics, problems, and material. A skill that can be carried over to many different aspects. Going off to College also forced the realization that my these skills learned in school weren't only applicable in further education, but to the outside world as well. No longer living under the blanket of my parents support I inherited other problems requiring a smart solution. Though the solutions called for other options not dealing with numbers and equations like a math problem, the process of resolving the matter was in essence the same.
The road of life constantly presents challenges that must be conquered in order to move ahead. School, the preparation for life, is a controlled environment of constant challenges to conquer before moving on. Just as in real life we don't choose the challenges we encounter, school needs to challenge us with problems we may feel apprehensive or unnecessary to solve.
So if school is designed to help us constantly progress in life by developing our ability to overcome the difficulties handed to us, how should this ability be assessed? Is it by time, the first one done is the best? The well known story of tortoise vs. the hare has taught us the lesson that speed doesn't always prevail. Yet advancement through the current school system is defined by completion of the material within the standard time period an "average" student that age would. Unable to master the skills within that period and you're left behind; doesn't seem fair. Ideally, there would be a system where a student can move at his/her own pace ensuring a good understanding of the material before moving on to the next. When covering a subject the student excels in he/she wouldn't have to go at a slower rate consequently losing interest, and in the weaker areas he/she would be able to take the time to truly grasp the concepts without penalty. Sounds perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Implementing a school system like this would be near impossible to regulate. The effort required by a teacher to attend to all the different levels/material of each individual student is too much to ask....but wait, this is already an issue with the current system.
When a teacher sees his/her class as a whole instead of the individual students that make it up, it automatically sets up for a standards-based system regardless the design of the curriculum. Even with the current system, teaching by accommodating to each students abilities will naturally employ a more personalized approach. Having used the same structure as when schools were first developed it will be a long and difficult process to change. So maybe our focus first needs to be on expanding to a more effective staff in the existing system. This isn't necessarily a question in quality of existing staff members, but increasing the staff-student ratio allowing for more personalized attention to the students. Any suggestions I would have to accomplish this would be weak with a lack of knowledge in the area, but making a job in the school system more appealing is the goal.
Do I question the effectiveness in the current school system? Yes and no. Regarding the material being taught I feel it's the how and not the what. A more relative and applicable curriculum could definitely result in more participation amongst the students but it's the skill of learning itself and ability to solve problems that's important. As far as shifting towards a personalized system versus the standards-based there are obvious benefits. Due to the difficulty of tearing down and reconstructing what has always been, attempts toward expanding schools staff is a good first step in development of a personalized system.
Reading these words by Karl Fisch sends me back in time to the feelings I had about most of the material covered in high school, "...do you believe that all students (scratch, that, all people) need to know "there is a complex number i such that i2 = -1," . Really though, why would you need to learn something you know you'll never use? With this notion I had absolutely no interest in learning what was being taught in school. No urge to apply myself resulted in bad grades and falling behind diminishing my academic motivation even more, a vicious cycle. Then College happened. I heard numerous times how great Okemos high school was and the advantage for College it provided over all other schools. "Toot your own horn to someone else" I thought, of course every school is going to brag about how amazing they are. Just in my first semester at MSU I realized they weren't lying! Bunched in with kids all over the nation I could now see this "advantage" they were talking about. It wasn't that the material being taught was something I had covered before, but rather the skills and habits I developed from attending Okemos. Here at MSU I knew just as much on the topic as the kid sitting next to me, but my organizational and writing skills made it easier for me to whip out the paper. The problem presented was new to every student, yet my problem solving strategies proved to be most efficient. It all made sense now. The topics, problems, and material learned weren't the advantage, it was my ability to successfully comprehend and internalize those topics, problems, and material. A skill that can be carried over to many different aspects. Going off to College also forced the realization that my these skills learned in school weren't only applicable in further education, but to the outside world as well. No longer living under the blanket of my parents support I inherited other problems requiring a smart solution. Though the solutions called for other options not dealing with numbers and equations like a math problem, the process of resolving the matter was in essence the same.
The road of life constantly presents challenges that must be conquered in order to move ahead. School, the preparation for life, is a controlled environment of constant challenges to conquer before moving on. Just as in real life we don't choose the challenges we encounter, school needs to challenge us with problems we may feel apprehensive or unnecessary to solve.
So if school is designed to help us constantly progress in life by developing our ability to overcome the difficulties handed to us, how should this ability be assessed? Is it by time, the first one done is the best? The well known story of tortoise vs. the hare has taught us the lesson that speed doesn't always prevail. Yet advancement through the current school system is defined by completion of the material within the standard time period an "average" student that age would. Unable to master the skills within that period and you're left behind; doesn't seem fair. Ideally, there would be a system where a student can move at his/her own pace ensuring a good understanding of the material before moving on to the next. When covering a subject the student excels in he/she wouldn't have to go at a slower rate consequently losing interest, and in the weaker areas he/she would be able to take the time to truly grasp the concepts without penalty. Sounds perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Implementing a school system like this would be near impossible to regulate. The effort required by a teacher to attend to all the different levels/material of each individual student is too much to ask....but wait, this is already an issue with the current system.
When a teacher sees his/her class as a whole instead of the individual students that make it up, it automatically sets up for a standards-based system regardless the design of the curriculum. Even with the current system, teaching by accommodating to each students abilities will naturally employ a more personalized approach. Having used the same structure as when schools were first developed it will be a long and difficult process to change. So maybe our focus first needs to be on expanding to a more effective staff in the existing system. This isn't necessarily a question in quality of existing staff members, but increasing the staff-student ratio allowing for more personalized attention to the students. Any suggestions I would have to accomplish this would be weak with a lack of knowledge in the area, but making a job in the school system more appealing is the goal.
Do I question the effectiveness in the current school system? Yes and no. Regarding the material being taught I feel it's the how and not the what. A more relative and applicable curriculum could definitely result in more participation amongst the students but it's the skill of learning itself and ability to solve problems that's important. As far as shifting towards a personalized system versus the standards-based there are obvious benefits. Due to the difficulty of tearing down and reconstructing what has always been, attempts toward expanding schools staff is a good first step in development of a personalized system.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Power of Perception in This Technology Boom!
Not too long ago, I avoided jumping aboard the techno train as much as possible. I saw the recent boom in technology advancements as debilitating to the generations work ethics. Simplifying, expediting, and quantifying the process will make you lazy or decrease quality with multitasking... at least that's what I thought. Always unable to save up for the latest gadget model before the newer one came out, I quickly gave up and fell far behind in technologies advancements. Any attempt I had in experimenting with any new tool was slow and frustrating hence my debilitating view on technology. I went against the advancements and in return thought the advancements went against me; "you get out of something what you put into it." The past few months I've slowly become aware of a different perspective.
Three classes I've taken at MSU have demonstrated to me how technology can address issues with learning for students with special needs. For example the JAWS software enabling blind people to use a computer and the modified texts available to those with difficulty reading. Haven't used any of these technologies I never thought of these circumstances. Even in my personal life I was beginning to notice how my friends and family were benefiting from the use of new resources. Getting past the frustrations of overwhelmingly rapid development I now see the endless possibilities of how technology can be utilized. With a new perception I jumped to the complete opposite end of the viewpoint spectrum, especially in the circumstance of learning.
Assistive technology is typically with regards to special education but I agree with Ira Socol's perception of Universal Design for Learning Technology in that it regards all learners and not just those with disabilities. Why allocate tools to a certain "qualifying" group when the tools can facilitate learning for all sorts of people. A good argument for the use of assistive technology is presented by Karen Janowski in Question Everything. Using a handful of common learning techniques she provides scenarios in which the technique actually hinders progress for a student. I completely support the idea of questioning whether your methods are successful with everyone and although she was referring to people with disabilities, her arguments are applicable to anyone.
Utilizing the various technology resources in the class room is not accepted by everyone. Rejecting the idea is understandable considering I myself initially shared that viewpoint. What determined both my initial and current beliefs was my experience and consequently perception of the situation. Why is this important? Because "you get out of something what you put into it"... Forcing 'my way is better' arguments onto people is always retaliated with 'my way is better' arguments. I suggest changing belief is done by recognizing the opposing experience then demonstrating a different experience giving a new perspective. From my understanding of Rod Bell mentioned in Technology and Equity by Ira Socol I believe he displays this way of persuasion. "[T]he question is not whether information technologies (IT) disrupt the lecture model—of course they do, especially if IT is a means of further extending education to the population."
Three classes I've taken at MSU have demonstrated to me how technology can address issues with learning for students with special needs. For example the JAWS software enabling blind people to use a computer and the modified texts available to those with difficulty reading. Haven't used any of these technologies I never thought of these circumstances. Even in my personal life I was beginning to notice how my friends and family were benefiting from the use of new resources. Getting past the frustrations of overwhelmingly rapid development I now see the endless possibilities of how technology can be utilized. With a new perception I jumped to the complete opposite end of the viewpoint spectrum, especially in the circumstance of learning.
Assistive technology is typically with regards to special education but I agree with Ira Socol's perception of Universal Design for Learning Technology in that it regards all learners and not just those with disabilities. Why allocate tools to a certain "qualifying" group when the tools can facilitate learning for all sorts of people. A good argument for the use of assistive technology is presented by Karen Janowski in Question Everything. Using a handful of common learning techniques she provides scenarios in which the technique actually hinders progress for a student. I completely support the idea of questioning whether your methods are successful with everyone and although she was referring to people with disabilities, her arguments are applicable to anyone.
Utilizing the various technology resources in the class room is not accepted by everyone. Rejecting the idea is understandable considering I myself initially shared that viewpoint. What determined both my initial and current beliefs was my experience and consequently perception of the situation. Why is this important? Because "you get out of something what you put into it"... Forcing 'my way is better' arguments onto people is always retaliated with 'my way is better' arguments. I suggest changing belief is done by recognizing the opposing experience then demonstrating a different experience giving a new perspective. From my understanding of Rod Bell mentioned in Technology and Equity by Ira Socol I believe he displays this way of persuasion. "[T]he question is not whether information technologies (IT) disrupt the lecture model—of course they do, especially if IT is a means of further extending education to the population."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)