Peter Westwood

Inclusion of students with special needs: Benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in new South Wales and South Australia

Abstract This study compares the views of primary teachers from South Australia and New South Wales on selected aspects of inclusive education. The questionnaire administered in the study probed the following issues: (i) the numbers and types of students with special needs in inclusive classes; (ii) any benefits that had occurred as a result of including children with disabilities in mainstream classes; (iii) the types of disability or , ‘special educational need’ most difficult to cater for in the regular classroom; (iv) the teachers’ level of satisfaction with the personal and material support available within their schools; and (v) the amount of special education training each teacher received during their pre‐service and in‐service experience. The questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of schools listed in the Disadvantaged Schools and Country Areas Programs in both states. Seventy‐seven (77) responses were received and analysed, comprising forty‐one (41) from teachers in South Australia and thirty‐six (36) from teachers in New South Wales. The overall patterns of responses from teachers in NSW and South Australia were similar. Major findings indicate that approximately one third of teachers in both South Australia and New South Wales report definite benefits associated with having students with disabilities enrolled in their classrooms. However, teachers in both states also report that the major difficulties they encounter are ‘lack of time’, combined with difficulty balancing the demands of all students. Specific obstacles to implementing inclusive practice included class size, lack of appropriate teaching resources, behaviour problems exhibited by some students (resulting in a need for constant behaviour management), and lack of appropriate professional training in inclusive methods. The article discusses these and other factors reported by the teachers. This investigation adds usefully to Australian research into problems and practices associated with inclusion. Peter Westwood is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education, University of Hong Kong, where he teaches and researches in the field of special education. For twenty‐five years he was a teacher, lecturer and researcher in Australia. He is author of the recent books Commonsense methods for children with special needs (published by Routledge), Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment, and Numeracy and learning difficulties (both published by Australian Council for Educational Research). Lorraine Graham is senior lecturer in Special Education at the University of New England. After some years as a primary teacher in Queensland, she completed her Masters and Ph.D. at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia. Lorraine is particularly interested in ways to foster the literacy skills of students with learning difficulties. Her current projects focus on cognitive strategy instruction, inclusive education and automatkity in basic academic skills.

Differentiation’ as a strategy for inclusive classroom practice: Some difficulties identified

Abstract Effective inclusion of students with special needs in the mainstream curriculum is said to depend on adequate differentiation of the teaching approach to match individual learning characteristics of the students. This article examines some of the ways in which teachers might differentiate curriculum content, teaching approaches, and assessment methods. The writer is critical of some of the strategies commonly recommended for differentiation, and reports on the difficulties many teachers experience in attempting to implement differentiated instruction. He questions whether complex systems of differentiation in the classroom are a help or a hindrance to the progress of students with learning difficulties or disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

How many children with special needs in regular classes? Official predictions VS teachers’ perceptions in South Australia and New South Wales.

Abstract This report provides some recent data on the numbers of students with different types and degrees of disability and special educational need placed in mainstream primary classrooms in South Australia and New South Wales. Information was collected from teachers in seventy‐seven classrooms, representing a total enrolment of 1919 students. The authors have computed the overall prevalence rate for students with special educational needs, together with the prevalence rates for different types of disability or difficulty. These rates have been compared with those reported in the national and international literature. The results suggest that the commonly accepted notion of 20% of the school population as the upper limit for students with special educational needs is almost certainly too low. The indications are that up to 32% of students may need some degree of additional short‐term or longer‐term support. Comparisons are made between the two states, and some implications for the planning and funding of support services and resources are briefly discussed.

The problem with problems: Potential difficulties in implementing problem-based learning as the core method in primary school mathematics

This viewpoint paper presents the writers opinion that while the use of problem solving as the core method for learning mathematics is valid and reasonable in secondary schools (where students generally possess the necessary prior skills and strategies) there are many obstacles to applying the same method in primary schools, particularly in the early years. In addition to acquiring a conceptual understanding of number, young learners – and older students with learning difficulties – need to develop automaticity in recalling basic number facts and in applying computational procedures. To do this they require both active experience with number relationships and direct teaching with guided and independent practice. There is no hard evidence that most students achieve adequate mastery of basic numeracy skills simply by engaging in exploratory problem solving. Drawing on the relevant literature the writer identifies and analyses the potential difficulties associated with using such an approach as a main method for teaching primary mathematics.

Diagnostic uses of the South Australian Spelling Test

Abstract This paper suggests some simple procedures for extracting information about childrens spelling sub‐skills from an examination of the errors they make when attempting items in the South Australian Spelling Test (SAST). A pattern of errors (miscues) can indicate childrens grasp of regular grapho‐phonic relationships and their awareness of less predictable letter sequences. In addition, the nature of their errors provides some evidence of the stage of development they have reached and the strategies they use when attempting to spell words that are beyond their current level of competence. This information can guide teachers when planning individual support for weak spellers.

Spelling: do the eyes have it?

This paper explores the question of whether the ability to spell depends mainly on visual perception and visual imagery, or on other equally important auditory, cognitive, and motor processes. The writer examines the evidence suggesting that accurate spelling draws on a combination of visual processing, visual memory, phonological awareness, phonic knowledge, handwriting, knowledge of morphemic principles, and strategic thinking. Implications for teaching and intervention are presented.

Adapting Curriculum and Instruction: An achievable goal?

It is argued by some educators that, to be truly effective, teaching has to accommodate educationally relevant differences among learners (O’Brien & Guiney, 2001; Tomlinson, 1996). It is further argued that if classrooms are to be inclusive of all students regardless of ability or disability, then teaching methods, curricula, and resources need to be modified to match more closely the students’ learning characteristics (Bender, 2002; Gregory & Chapman, 2002). In the past few years many new texts have appeared that offer teachers advice on how to “differentiate” instruction and thus meet individual needs. Indeed, “differentiation” has become a new orthodoxy in published pedagogy and, rightly or wrongly, it is perceived to be “best practice”. However, despite the rhetoric that exhorts teachers to be adaptable in their planning and teaching approach, studies have indicated that the majority of teachers find this form of teaching extremely difficult to implement, and even more difficult to sustain over time (Chan, Chang, Westwood, & Yuen, 2002; Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998). As Rose (2001, p. 147) has remarked, “The teaching methods and practices required for the provision of effective inclusion are easier to identify than they are to implement.” With this problem in mind I was interested to find out whether one of the latest books on adapting instruction gives realistic advice to an international audience of

Expected Competencies of Teachers of Gifted Learners: Perspectives from Chinese Teachers and Students

Abstract This study reports the perceptions of Chinese students and teachers concerning the essential competencies needed by teachers of gifted learners. The samples comprised 256 senior secondary school students and 95 regular mainstream secondary teachers in Hong Kong who completed a Chinese language version of the Gifted Teacher Competencies Questionnaire (Hultgren, 1981; Nelson & Prindle, 1992). Results indicated that both teachers and students held very similar beliefs about the competencies necessary for working with gifted learners with skills in promoting higher-order thinking, creative problem solving, and understanding the needs of gifted students rated highly by both groups. Statistically significant differences between teacher and student ratings were found only in four items with teachers rating more highly (i) skills in individual counseling of gifted students: (ii) ability to construct effective identification procedures; (iii) awareness of parent and community resources; and (iv) skills in fostering creative problem solving. The implications of the findings for teacher preparation and support are discussed, with particular reference to the implementation of gifted education programs in mainstream schools.

Learning to spell: enduring theories, recent research and current issues

ABSTRACT This review highlights some areas of current interest in teaching students to spell and how spelling skills develop. The topics covered in the paper include: theories of spelling acquisition, theories guiding effective teaching, the importance of word study approaches across the age range, the influence of technology on learning to spell, spelling for students with English as a second language, current debates concerning spelling standards, and a strong argument for better training for pre- and in-service teachers. There needs to be greater coverage of methods for teaching spelling in schools; and teachers need to have more in-depth metalinguistic knowledge.

Inclusion is Still Very Much a Work in Progress

Fifteen years after the advent of inclusive education, very many teachers are still looking for clear guidance on how to adopt truly inclusive teaching practices. For this reason, any book that carries the subtitle “A Guide for Inclusive Practice” is likely to be welcome. In the introductory chapter, Reid and Peer indicate that: “It is the intention of this book to discuss the many different strands of SEN [special educational needs] from different perspectives—research, policy, practice, parents and the students themselves” (p. 1). They also state that, “The thrust of this book [is to] promote both inclusive provision and to highlight individual needs” (p. 1). These two statements, together with the subtitle, provide this reviewer with appropriate yardsticks with which to assess whether the editors and the individual contributors have achieved their aims. The 21 chapters in the book have been grouped into four sections: Policy, practice and provision; Perspectives from practice; Syndromes and barriers; and Working together. This arrangement has not proved particularly effective in imposing coherence and order on the wide variety of topics and issues covered by the writers. The book as a whole remains very much an olio of interesting but disparate themes. However, each chapter is well structured, beginning with a statement of objectives, then a clear exposition on the chosen theme, and embodying case studies and discussion points. A glossary is provided, and (thankfully) an explanation of the 84 acronyms and abbreviations used within the text. In the usual style of edited works, Reid and Peer use Chapter 1 to provide a brief synopsis for each of the remaining 20 chapters. As the writers observe, the material does indeed represent a broad range of perspectives. In Chapter 2, Riddle, Weedon, and Harris discuss important issues associated with two main approaches to students’ special needs: one that attempts to deliver a universal form of education (treating every student the same), and the other that sets out deliberately to cater for differences among students by strategies of differentiation and adaptive teaching. The writers draw exclusively upon policies, practices and statistics from England and Scotland—which may not entirely satisfy the interests of international readers—but their central arguments remain valid. They also discuss mechanisms for resolving disputes over placements and services that can arise between parents of students with special needs, schools, and the education authorities.