Revista ELectrónica de Investigación y EValuación Educativa // 1998 // Volumen 4 //
Número 1_1
ISSN 1134-4032 //
D.L. SE-1138-94
RESPECT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF
HUMAN LEARNING:
A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW MODEL OF TEACHER TRAINING
por
Lori R. Muskat, Ph.D.
muskat-ehdc@juno.com
Eagle Hill Diagnostic Clinic
Greenwich, CT., U.S.A
ABSTRACT
"Inclusion"
is hard to implement worldwide. In the U.S.A. and Canada, one obstacle is the
division between "general" and "special" education. To
facilitate inclusion of exceptional students, a new model of teacher training
is needed. This piece introduces the System for Understanding Individual
Learning Performance (S.U.I.L.P.). Derived from neuropsychology, cross-cultural
psychology, education, and sociology, the S.U.I.L.P. provides a holistic
framework and common vocabulary for understanding learning performance in all
learners--across development and different contexts. It also establishes
avenues for collaboration and eventual merging of general and special
education.
RESUMEN
La
inclusión es difícil de realizar a nivel mundial. En los Estados Unidos y
Canada, un obstáculo es la división entre educación "general" y
educación "especial". Para facilitar la inclusión de estudiantes
excepcionales se necesita un nuevo modelo de formación del profesorado. Este
elemento introduce el Sistema para el Entendimiento del Rendimiento Individual
en el Aprendizaje (S.U.I.L.P.). Derivado de la neuropsicología, la psicología
multicultural, la pedagogía y la sociología, el S.U.I.L.P. proporciona un marco
holístico y un vocabulario común para entender el rendimiento académico de
todos los alumnos-- a través del desarrollo y en diferentes contextos. Esto
también establece canales para la colaboración y la fusión final entre la
educación general y la educación especial.
1.
THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICES IN EDUCATION: A STORY OF DIVIDED
CAMPS
The worldwide trend toward inclusive practices in education places significant
stress on a system that many think is overburdened already. While admirable in
theory and intent, the prevalent philosophy of including and educating children
with special educational needs in mainstream or regular/general education
classrooms is, in practice, infinitely more problematic (Eldridge, 1997; Alper
& Ryndak, 1992; Madden & Slavin, 1983; Showers, Joyce & Bennett,
1987; Clune & White, 1988; Merton & Yarger, 1988; Sickler, 1988;
Simpson & Myles, 1990).
In order to get beyond a cursory appreciation of the current problems,
awareness of the broader context of inclusive practices is necessary. In the
United States of America, parents and advocates worked hard over several
decades in order to achieve broad public support for the education of children
with "disabilities" (Audette & Algozzine, 1997; Hudson &
Glomb, 1997). By exposing inadequate, sometimes abusive, treatment of
individuals with various disabilities, advocates were able to convince the
broader public that people with learning disabilities are educationally
"worthy" and significantly valuable to society. When individuals with
disabilities were initially allowed into schools, the common practice was to
place them in separate classrooms or separate facilities completely. Advocates
then began the second step of their struggle--which was to help students with
disabilities gain admittance into general education classes to the greatest
extent possible.
Ironically,
and unfortunately, Audette & Algozzine (1997, p. 38) point out that the
very systems set up to facilitate disabled students' admittance into schools
and general education classrooms created another set of problems: they produced
a less obvious form of exclusion and isolation (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989; Ysseldyke,
Audette & Algozzine, 1992). Students having "exceptional needs"
were assigned an "abnormal" status. In turn, this status was then
used by legislators to construct boundaries that would limit all students'
entitlement to special education services. After all, if too many students were
provided with special services, heads of state and federal legislators faced
the specter of empty coffers. Thus, special education admissions had to be
regulated (i.e., limited) and doled out only to "entitled" students.
In order to monitor the flow of students into special education, ornate
classification systems were devised. Woven into the fabric of these systems,
without regard to the eventual consequences, were policy boundaries between regular
and special< education students. More generally, these divisions
applied to general education and special education areas as well,
including educational administration, teacher training, educational programming
and practices (Audette & Algozzine, 1997; Sarason & Doris, 1979).
Audette
& Algozzine (1997, p. 380) assert that the boundaries between general and
special education are based on some of the same "annoying"
assumptions that were initially used to justify the exclusion of children with
disabilities. These assumptions are: (1) relative to their nondisabled peers,
children with disabilities have significantly different learning needs; (2) it
is beyond the capacity of general education personnel to meet the learning and
developmental needs of children with disabilities; (3) disability
classifications provide precise and useful descriptions of children's learning
needs; (4) services provided in special education are uniquely designed for
classifiably disabled children; (5) disability classifications are useful
because they provide a clear basis for excluding "unentitled"
students from services that would be inappropriate for them; and (6) the
processes mandated to determine disability classifications provide an effective
basis for formulating Individualized Education Plans (i.e., I.E.P.s) that, in
turn, meet the unique learning needs of children with disabilities.
An
impressive and quickly growing body of literature refutes the validity of many
of these assumptions. Numerous authors have addressed factors such as imprecise
definitions of disabilities, inadequate classification practices, incomplete
knowledge bases, and the overrepresentation of minority students and boys in
special education (e.g., Leonard, 1991; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Stanovich,
1991; Shaywitz, Fletcher & Shaywitz, 1995; Lyon, 1994; Moats & Lyon,
1993; Anderson, 1997; Lester & Kelman, 1997; Muskat, 1996). Yet, schools in
the U.S.A. continue to view the needs of students with disabilities through the
distorted lens these assumptions provide. Consequently, the rigid boundary that
separates general from special education stands firmly entrenched--as does the
rigid boundary between general educators and special educators. Through teacher
training and educational practices, these two groups of educators often have
different vocabularies, knowledge bases, and status.
It
is within this context of these divided educational lines that the current
practice of inclusion is being applied worldwide and aspires to flourish. While
few would argue against the intent to include students with disabilities to the
greatest extent possible in "mainstream" classes, the deep divisions
that characterize today's educational context hardly seem conducive to
accomplishing this ambitious task.
Further, while the jargon, paperwork, and bureaucracy mandated by current
policies often distance us from some harsh realities and obscure the very real
costs in tangible human terms, thousands of students with exceptional needs are
caught in a crevasse, precariously dangling in the abyss between the two camps
of general and special education. These camps, while not adversaries in any
strict sense, often lack a productive way in which to collaborate with one
another (Idol, 1997; O'Shea & O'Shea, 1997; Cohen, Chase, Sattler &
Morsink, 1997; Brady & Moats, 1997; Hudson & Glomb, 1997). Victims
themselves of a system that may have already outlived its usefulness, teachers
in either camp face a set of circumstances that does not provide them with the
support nor the resources needed to accomplish the education of the children
placed in their charge. Educational administrators struggle to please different
factions in order to work out the kinks; meanwhile, well-meaning educators tire
themselves enacting ineffective practices. In spite of their efforts, a vast
number of students continue to face the pain of attending school daily where
their needs are not met and they continue to achieve at a level below their
true academic potential.
In a recent forum on international special education reform, Artiles, Fletcher
& Pastore (1997) addressed some of these issues. Their descriptions of
problems they have encountered in special education practices in countries such
as Mexico and Spain bear similarities to those observed in the U.S.A. and
Canada. These international and cross-cultural commonalities would appear to
underscore the universality of the obstacles we face in implementing inclusive
practices. Among other recommendations, these educators called for a breaking
down of the boundaries between regular and special education and advocated
increased interaction between, if not the complete merging of, the two
branches.
In
reality, the wheels of progress in education move excruciatingly slowly.
Assimilation of new theory to replace the widely refuted ideologies now in
use--and the subsequent accommodation of educational practices that would
follow--are slow to occur. Thus, our current circumstances present us with the
following dilemma: With the thrust toward "inclusion", students with
special educational needs are currently being placed in classrooms of
mainstream teachers, many of whom are not provided with appropriate training
and/or support to enable them to meet their students' needs. Further, special
education personnel are hampered in their consultative efforts to support
mainstream teachers by a lack of awareness of mainstream teachers' needs in
addition to a lack of common vocabulary with which to discuss students and the
learning process.
While inclusion may be viewed by some as the first step in a process toward
combining regular and special education, this step seems strangely out of
sequence. It places mainstream teachers in the unenviable, stressful position
of having to provide effective educational practices--that their training did
not teach them--to students about whom they know relatively little. It is much
more logical to lay the groundwork for inclusion by first bridging the gap and
forging productive collaboration between general and special education.
2.
THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF TEACHER TRAINING AND PRACTICE: A NO-WIN SITUATION?
Before
accepting the solution that combining general and special education would solve
many of our problems with inclusive practices, it is important to examine more
closely the current context and reality of teachers' experiences and training.
Eldridge (1997) recently and eloquently addressed this issue in a paper
prepared for the International Association of Special Education in Cape Town, South
Africa. Using the vehicle of personal narrative research, Eldridge related her
experiences in Canada in three different teaching roles: as a mainstream
teacher in an inclusive classroom; as a resource room teacher in a
self-contained classroom while simultaneously serving as a consultant to a
mainstream classroom teacher in an inclusive classroom; and as a special
education teacher with doctoral level training within a mainstream, inclusive
classroom.
Of
her experiences as a mainstream teacher in an inclusive classroom, Eldridge
(1997) stated that she had never received any kind of training that addressed
ways to integrate special needs children into her class. Her curiosity led her
to begin taking courses in special education, and she eventually became a
special education teacher in a self-contained classroom.
In this setting, her students had been identified as learning disabled or slow
learners; students spent at least fifty percent of their school day within her
classroom. Eldridge (1997, p. 5) describes the pain and frustration these
students expressed about being singled out and excluded from regular
classrooms. Eldridge also had the opportunity to listen to classroom teachers
whose beliefs and expectations about exceptional students were significantly
different from those they held for the other non-exceptional students. As has
been well-documented, many mainstream teachers do not know how to handle these
children or how to treat them; as a result, the teachers either exclude them,
ignore them, or disregard their abilities and needs (Schunk, 1989, p. 14;
Dudley-Marling, 1990; Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Gibson & Dembo, 1984;
Larrivee & Cook, 1979; Wilson & Silverman, 1991, et al). Acknowledging
the similarity to her own experience as a mainstream classroom teacher,
Eldridge came away with the impression that these teachers had not been
appropriately prepared to understand the needs of exceptional students, nor
were they given any additional resources or supports to help them cope.
Eldridge (1997) made valiant attempts to facilitate the integration of her
students. She counseled them about ways to fit in and achieve success in an
environment that could be threatening to them. She also tried to educate and to
help classroom teachers understand the needs of these students in order to
eradicate the "myth of differentness" surrounding them (Pugach &
Lilly, 1984). She encountered frustration and found she often failed because
teachers had a predetermined set of expectations for these children which had
been based on "objective" assessment reports that typically described
students' weaknesses in greater detail than their strengths.
Wondering
what other forms of education might be more suited to the needs of identified
children, Eldridge then transferred to a school board that practiced inclusion
for "all exceptionalities" (Eldridge, 1997, p. 6). In this setting,
teachers had been eased into inclusive education through extensive in-service
training, administrative support, and the guidance of a highly skilled group of
resource teachers. Here, Eldridge observed the full inclusion of students with
such conditions as Down's Syndrome and autism. She witnessed how slow learning
students and students with learning disabilities could achieve much greater
success when given a modified version of the same curriculum as their
classmates. She also saw the regular education students learn to treat these
students with tolerance, care and respect.
Nonetheless,
Eldridge (1997, p. 6) states that she gradually became aware of a "darker
side of inclusion, one that is not readily shared in the stories of special
education." Eldridge found that there were some teachers whose training,
or lack thereof, precluded their acceptance of certain students into their
classrooms. These teachers did not seem to understand the individual learning
needs of some exceptional students; thus, these students were held to the same
expectations as all other students despite the fact that such expectations often
proved to be a source of frustration for both teacher and student. The results
of these experiences quite possibly had a lasting impact on the students, who
suffered pain and humiliation at the hands of the unsuitably trained teachers.
In
a further effort to understand inclusion, Eldridge (1997), by this time a
doctoral level educator, decided to take a position as a regular classroom
teacher in a third grade class with twenty-eight children, eight of whom were
identified as exceptional and were fully included.
The
identified children in my class included one child with autism, two children
with attention deficit disorder (one not on any form of medication; the other
on medication at the whim of his parents), one child with a learning disability
and four children who were considered slow learning. I had two educational
assistants who came and went at various times during the day. One of the
positions of educational assistant had been changed three times in the course
of five months. I also had a resource person who came in once a day for 40
minutes. Then there were three other people who visited my class from time to
time. They included a psychologist, a behavioural resource person and a speech
pathologist. These latter people always came without warning or appointments.
My life and the lives of students in this classroom were chaotic. The A.D.D.
child needed structure and routine which I rarely felt able to provide because
of the coming and going of adults. If my resource teacher was busy, he would
simply not show up. The educational assistant assigned to work with this child
had a scattered schedule and would work with him for twenty minutes two days a
week and seventy-five the other days. Often, I would just get him settled into
working quietly when someone else would just stroll in to observe or work with
him...
By this point in my career, I had been teaching for seventeen years, I had
extensive training in special education and I had just received my doctorate in
curriculum and teaching. I had all the preparation there was to offer. What I
did not have was the consistent support or the freedom to halt the change
process which continued to assault us that year. I could not stop the train. I
was on it and it was moving full steam ahead (pp. 8-9).
Eldridge's
experience reminded her of Dewey's (1938, p. 47) warning that "failure to
adapt to the needs and capacities of individuals may cause an experience to be
non-educative." Eldridge stated that there were many times when she felt
that her class was, indeed, "non-educative."
In an effort to pull all of her experiences together, Eldridge (1997) has
constructed a vision of a developmental perspective for the future of
inclusion. Key recommendations she has offered include: (1) the reduction of
regular class sizes when there is a high number of exceptional students
included; (2) improved training for all teachers to facilitate the
understanding of exceptional students' needs as well as the formulating of
appropriate expectations for them; and (3) the inclusion of teachers in
decision-making since they are the ones ultimately responsible for educating
students in inclusive classrooms. With reduced class size and effectively
trained teachers, Eldridge maintains that the need for support specialists
(i.e., speech and language pathologists, resource room teachers, etc.) could be
eliminated except in the case of students with profound disabilities. As a
result, she believes her vision would also be a cost-saving venture.
3.
MERGING GENERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION: "REINVENTING SPECIAL
EDUCATION"
Rooted firmly in the day-to-day lives of teachers and students, Eldridge's
compelling account of her teaching experiences paints a poignant picture of the
harsh realities of current inclusive practices. Inherent in her account is the
strong message of the caution needed in designing, proposing and implementing
solutions for some of the problems we face, worldwide, in our efforts to
include children with disabilities in the mainstream more effectively. The
boundaries between general education and special education stand fast and firm,
supported by erroneous assumptions, outdated educational practices and a lack
of well-established avenues for constructive collaboration. Conscientious
individuals may try to merge the two areas and to become agents of change
through advanced education, but they can be thwarted by the inadequacies of a
system where this arbitrary dichotomy is woven into the fabric. When forced to
straddle two camps that are often moving in different directions, one is likely
to have energy for little else.
Eldridge is not alone in pointing out shortcomings in current teacher training
practices. Recent research literature in this area reflects that, among other
things, current teacher training does not provide an adequate knowledge base in
terms of: (1) understanding processes involved in learning for all learners;
(2) understanding the needs of exceptional learners; (3) understanding motivational
and affective aspects of learning; (4) understanding learning within a
developmental context; (5) understanding the interaction of learning
environments, teaching styles, and individual learning styles; and (6)
possessing skills needed for successful collaboration among educators (Levine,
1987; Lerner, 1997; Brady & Moats, 1997; Lyon & Moats, 1997; Speece,
1993; O'Shea & O'Shea, 1997; Hudson & Glomb, 1997; Cohen et al., 1997;
Idol, 1997). This set of circumstances is particularly unfortunate in view of
the virtual explosion in technology, neuroscience and educational research that
has occurred over the past quarter of a century (e.g., Chase, Rosen &
Sherman, 1996). While far from understanding all there is to know about the
human brain and how it processes information, we certainly know significantly
more now than we ever have before. However, the integration of this knowledge
into teacher training and the application of it into teaching practices is
proceeding at a dangerously slow rate.
Audette
& Algozzine (1997; 1992) assert that our new technologies and expanding
knowledge of human learning and development provide a basis for improved
methods of assessing and addressing students' learning needs. Consequently,
these authors advocate that it is time for us to "re-invent special
education" (p. 378). Similar to the recommendation of Artiles, Fletcher
& Pastore (1997), they propose that federal and state agencies join forces
to support partnerships between general and special education. Along these
lines, a key recommendation involves the support of new visions in
understanding the learning needs of all students, disabled and nondisabled,
alike.
4.
RESPECT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN LEARNING: A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW MODEL OF
TEACHER TRAINING
Ironically,
just as the information explosion provides illumination of some issues and
leads some authors to believe that we could formulate improved methods, it also
serves to obscure some issues as well. In a keynote address to a meeting of
special educators in Brighton, England, Pino (1995) attempted to quantify the
growth of knowledge since the beginning of recorded history. After illustrating
how much more factual knowledge there is to know at present--and how that
quantity is growing exponentially by the decade--Pino made a strong plea for
new curriculum designs that enable individuals to be better gatekeepers of
information. In essence, none of us has the capacity to store the amount of
factual knowledge that now exists in the world, so we all need to become better
at discriminating essential from nonessential information, condensing
information, and knowing how to locate information when we need it.
Although Pino (1995) was talking about curriculum issues for grade school students,
his remarks are applicable to the field of education and the training of
teachers as well. As it has with many fields of study, the overwhelming
complexity and volume of information available today has led to fragmentation
and over-simplification in the field of education. Consequently, many
individuals know a lot about a few areas, but relatively few know enough about
the big picture (i.e., the overriding context). At a glance, we see the deep
division between the branches of general and special education. With a closer
look, however, more far-reaching fragmentation becomes apparent within each
branch. Among general educators, there is fragmentation between elementary,
middle school and upper school educators and administrators, in curriculum content,
and in teaching methods. Among special educators, the same fragmentation exists
between elementary, middle and upper school level personnel as well as in
training and areas of expertise. Further, in special education, various
personnel from many different disciplines (i.e., speech and language,
psychology, occupational therapy, etc.)--each having its own vocabulary--may
deal with students who have disabilities. This far-reaching fragmentation is
reminiscent of the proverbial blind man with the elephant: varying points of
view, training and experience lead many educators to look at the same student
and to see something different.
The situation does not end there, however; it becomes infinitely more complex
when we remind ourselves of the vast diversity of students in inclusive
classrooms. In the third- grade class that Eldridge taught, in addition to
twenty "nonexceptional students" whose learning styles probably
differed from one another to some degree, she also had eight "exceptional"
children whose classifications included autism, attention deficit disorder, and
slow learning. In my own experiences as a clinician and educational consultant
in the U.S.A., I have seen students with additional conditions such as dyslexia
(i.e., specific learning difficulty), fetal alcohol syndrome, Asperger
Syndrome, Noonan's Syndrome and other genetic syndromes, mild to severe head
trauma, cerebral palsy, longstanding Lyme Disease, and visual and hearing
impairments--all placed within inclusive classrooms. The learning profiles,
underlying information processing capacities, and learning needs of each of
these students may be completely different, yet, current educational practices
lack a model and a language by which to identify, understand, and address these
differences (Muskat, 1997; Brady & Moats, 1997). Given the current
scenario, is it any wonder that general and special education personnel have
trouble working collaboratively? The truth of the matter is that they have
trouble working individually as well.
After conducting a recent literature survey of a relatively small slice of the
education field, Lyon & Moats (1997) suggest that research regarding
effective interventions with reading- disabled students may be focusing too
narrowly. They advise that the scope of research be broadened to include
affective and motivational variables as well as interactions among teaching
styles, student learning styles, and learning environments. I agree with these
authors, but I carry their observations even further: the entire field of
education focuses too narrowly--and we train our teachers too narrowly as well.
For example, many educators are not trained adequately in developmental issues.
Consequently, such issues often provide a source of confusion, obscuring
underlying similarities between a student's symptoms that may appear to be
different on the surface at different points over the course of development.
Lerner (1997, p. 355) points out that it is somewhat predictable that when a
child exhibits a language difficulty in one form, the underlying language
deficit often reappears in other forms. Thus, a child who presents with a
language delay at the age of five years may have a reading disorder at the age
of eight years, and a writing disorder at the age of fourteen years (Lyon,
1995, 1996; Mann, 1991; Sawyer & Butler, 1991). In actuality, these are all
manifestations of the same underlying problem. However, current educational
practices lack a model and a language by which teachers can understand, identify,
and address these underlying similarities. If such a model existed, proactive
intervention could be enacted more often and offered to students in order to
prevent unnecessary hardship. In addition, a continuous vision of a student's
development would facilitate meaningful dialogue and collaboration between
elementary, middle, and upper school teachers because the problems encountered
at different grades would no longer appear to be discrete occurrences; the
relationship between them would be apparent and understood.
In order to be more effective than the current models in use, a new model of
teacher training must include five key elements: (1) a more holistic,
comprehensive, multidimensional and integrated view of students and their capacities;
(2) the placement of learning capacities within a broad continuum that
encompasses "normal" and "exceptional" performance--so that
all learners can be understood in relation to one another; (3) relevance and
applicability to general and special educators; (4) the opportunity to account
for the contributory effects of different contexts and teaching styles (Levine,
1987; Speece, 1993); and (5) continuity when applied to students at different
stages of development. Without these elements, I do not believe it is possible
to merge general and special education, nor is it possible to hold a coherent
view of the development and progression of students through their school years.
5.
A CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO TEACHER TRAINING
In formulating any conceptual model, two truths are instructive. First, Thayer
(1973) reminds us that "any way of seeing is a way of not seeing."
Second, Gordon (1984) observes that the instrument through which one looks has
a profound impact on that which one sees. To the extent that a conceptual model
acts as an instrument which shapes our perceptions, it is effective only in so
far as it enables us to see more with it than we would without it.
In reviewing existing models in related fields, the field of neuropsychology
provides fertile ground for exploration and application to teacher training.
The fundamental assumption of neuropsychology is that the brain mediates
behavior, including the behaviors that underlie learning performance (Fennell,
1995). Neuropsychology tends to view human information processing as involving
such components as attention, auditory and visual memory under varied
conditions, fine motor skills, expressive and receptive language processing,
alpha-numeric symbols, executive functions (i.e., mental control processes that
involve planning, monitoring, organization, regulation, or metacognition),
psychosocial skills (e.g., affect, social cognition, interactional skills,
motivation), cognition (e.g., level of abstraction; reasoning and problem solving),
reading (e.g., accuracy of decoding, sight word recognition, rate,
comprehension), and writing (Berninger & Abbott, 1994).
Within the last fifteen to twenty years, the field of neuropsychology has
intersected with the field of education and learning disabilities in a variety
of ways. Neuropsychologists have become actively involved in research in the
field, neuropsychological concepts have been applied to the teaching and
understanding of learning and learning dysfunctions, and neuropsychological
evaluations have been used to diagnose learning problems.
The neuropsychological evaluation of individuals has proven to provide valuable
information regarding remedial/instructive approaches. A major shortcoming of
this mode of assessment, however, is that it is time consuming and not cost
effective. Although there will always be a small percentage of students whose
needs are exceptional enough to warrant comprehensive, individualized
assessment, many students could be better understood in a more cost effective
manner through training teachers to apply a neuropsychological model to
students' learning performance more generally.
If applied correctly, a neuropsychological model could provide more specific
information than that which is currently gleaned from most school-based
assessment procedures. More comprehensive education of teachers with regard to
the underlying processes involved and manifest in normal and exceptional
learning behavior would serve to enhance their ability to formulate more
effective interventions. It would also lead to a better understanding of
students developmentally by illuminating the different manifestations of the
same underlying processes over time and with maturity. Further, I also believe
that a neuropsychological model could facilitate administrators' better
grouping of students by providing them with more relevant information about the
degree of structure that a student requires.
Such
a model must go well beyond the context of the individual, however, in order to
capture the complexity of human learning performance. It must also include the
"ecological system" (Lerner, 1997, p. 113). Lerner describes the
ecological system as being comprised of the multiple environments within which
a person lives and grows (i.e., home, school, social group, culture). By
applying an approach that provides an in-depth understanding of individual
learning processes across development and within different contexts, our
educational systems would show more appropriate respect for the complexity of
human learning and for all students as well.
6.
SYSTEM FOR UNDERSTANDING INDIVIDUAL LEARNING PERFORMANCE
In
this vein, I introduce the System for Understanding Individual Learning
Performance (S.U.I.L.P.) (see Footnote 1). The S.U.I.L.P. essentially involves
112 key variables associated with human learning performance. These variables
are organized into two major domain categories: the Environmental Domain
and the Individual Domain. The Environmental Domain consists of six
major domains, each of which is further subdivided into eight sub-domains. The
Individual Domain consists of eight major domains, each of which is further
subdivided into eight sub-domains (see Table 1).
Table 1
The Environmental Domain takes into account the ecological system within
which learning occurs (Lerner, 1997). Learning competence and performance
depends upon positive interactions of multiple environments such as culture,
social group, home/family, and school. Lerner (p. 113) asserts that
"teachers should recognize the effects of the ecological system, realizing
that learning, attitudes, and progress depend on positive interactions with the
various environments."
Environmental Domain variables have been derived from the fields of
cross-cultural psychology and sociology (Dana, 1993; Calhoun, Light &
Keller, 1997; Ferrante, 1998). Environmental Domains include: I - Society; II -
Culture; III - Community; IV - Family; V - School; and VI - Workplace. Each
Environmental Domain area is further divided into eight sub-domain areas each
(see Table 2).
Table 2
Individual Domain variables have been derived based on a neuropsychological
model of information processing. They also extend beyond such a model to
include an emphasis on psychosocial issues, academic functioning, and life
skills (Levine, 1987; Gardner, 1983; Lezak, 1983; Luria, 1973; 1970; 1966;
Cronin, 1996). The eight major Individual Domain areas include: I - Executive
Function/Attention; II - Intellectual Attributes/Problem Solving; III -
Language/Auditory Processing; IV - Memory; V - Perceptual Motor/Motor; VI -
Psychosocial; VII - Academic Skills; and VIII - Life Skills. Each Individual
Domain area is further divided into 8 sub-domain areas each (see Table 3).
Table 3
My goal in the implementation of the S.U.I.L.P. is to facilitate inclusive
education by: (1) providing school administrators and teachers with a common
language and vocabulary with which to talk about learning and education; (2)
creating a common knowledge base for all teachers in order to forge avenues for
more constructive collaboration; (3) bridging the gap between general and
special education with the ultimate goal of combining the two; (4) empowering
teachers by providing them with a viable framework through which to understand
the major factors associated with human learning performance; (5) empowering
students by enabling their teachers and school administrators to view them in a
more integrated, holistic, multidimensional and coherent manner than routinely
occurs at present; and (6) to the extent that the first five goals are
realized, facilitating consistent and continuous curriculum planning over the
course of a student's school years--including a smooth transition from the role
of student to adult as well as entry into the labor force in the post-secondary
school years.
7.
CONCLUSION
A contextual and experiential overview of the current practice of inclusion
reflects some serious problems in its implementation worldwide. Exploration of
these problems in the United States and Canada illustrates a deep division
between "general" and "special" education
"camps." Changes in the current system are necessary in order to
facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities into the mainstream more
effectively. Foremost among these changes is the formulation of a new model of
teacher training. In this piece, a proposal for such a model has been offered:
the System for Understanding Individual Learning Performance (S.U.I.L.P.).
Drawing upon fields of neuropsychology, education, cross-cultural psychology,
and sociology, the S.U.I.L.P. provides a holistic, integrated framework and a
common vocabulary for understanding human learning performance in
"exceptional" as well as "normal" learners--in different
contexts and across development. In so doing, it establishes an avenue for more
effective collaboration between general and special education and a route to
the eventual merging of the two camps. United in our efforts, we can invest
more energy in our students; after all, it is for them that the system exists.
8.
REFERENCES
Alper,
S. & Ryndak, D.L. (1992). Educating students with severe handicaps in
regular classes. The Elementary School Journal, 92(3), pp. 373-387.
Anderson,
K. (1997). Gender bias and special education referrals. Annals of Dyslexia,
47, 151-162.
Artiles,
A.J. & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students with
severe handicaps in regular classes. Journal of Special Education,
27(4), pp. 410-437.
Artiles,
A.J., Fletcher, T., & Pastore, C. (1997, August). Panel on International
Special Education Reform, International Association of Special Education,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Audette,
B. & Algozzine, B. (1997). Re-inventing government? Let's re-invent special
education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), pp. 378-383.
Audette,
B. & Algozzine, B. (1992). Free and appropriate education for all students:
Total quality and the transformation of American public education. Remedial
and Special Education, 13(6), 8-18.
Berninger,
V.W. & Abbott, R.D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: moving beyond
aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment
protocols. In G.R. Lyon (Ed.) Frames of reference for the assessment of
learning disabilities: new visions on measurement issues (pp. 163-184).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Brady,
S. & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success:
foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore: International Dyslexia
Association.
Calhoun,
C., Light, D., & Keller, S. (1997). Sociology. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chase,
C.H., Rosen, G.D., & Sherman, G.F. (Eds.). (1996). Developmental
dyslexia, neural, cognitive and genetic mechanisms. Baltimore: York.
Clune,
W.H. & White, P.A. (1988). School-Based Management: Institutional
Variation, Implementation, and Issues for Further Research. New Brunswick,
New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Policy Research in Education.
Cohen,
S.S., Thomas, C.C., Sattler, R.O. & Morsink, C.V. (1997). Meeting the
challenge of consultation and collaboration: developing interactive teams. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 427-441.
Cronin,
M. (1996). Life skills curricula for students with learning disabilities: a
review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(1),
53-68.
Dana,
R.H. (1993). Multi-cultural assessment perspectives for professional
psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dewey,
J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dudley-Marling,
C. (1990). When school is a struggle. Richmond Hill: Scholastic Canada.
Eldridge,
J.S. (1997). Inclusion in Canada: reality, problems and solutions. International
Association of Special Education, Cape Town, South Africa, August 7, 1997.
Fennell,
E.B. (1995). The role of neuropsychological evaluation in learning
disabilities. Journal of Child Neurology, 10(1), S36-41.
Ferrante,
J. (1998). Sociology, a global perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gardner,
H. (1983). Frames of mind. NY: Basic.
Gartner,
A. & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: toward a quality system
for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 367-394.
Gibson,
S. & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Gordon,
J. (1984, November). Neuropsychology: the study of brain/behavior
relationships. In-service training at Pennsylvania Hospital.
Hudson,
P. & Glomb, N. (1997). If it takes two to tango, then why not teach both
partners to dance? Collaboration instruction for all educators. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 30(4), pp. 442-448.
Idol,
L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive
schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 384-394.
Larrivee,
B. & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: a study of the variables affecting
teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education, 13, 315-324.
Leonard,
J.F. (1991). Applying Deming's principles to our schools. South Carolina
Business, 82-87.
Lerner,
J. (1997). Learning disabilities. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Lester,
G. & Kelman, M. (1997). State disparities in the diagnosis and placement of
pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30(6), 599-607.
Levine,
M.D. (1987). Developmental variations and learning disorders. MA:
Educator's Publishing Service, Inc.
Lezak,
M.D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. NY: Oxford.
Lipsky,
D.K. & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond special education: quality education
for all. Baltimore: Brookes.
Luria,
A.R. (1973). The working brain: an introduction to neuropsychology. (B.
Haigh, trans.). NY: Basic.
Luria,
A.R. (1970). The functional organization of the brain. Scientific
American, 222, 2-9.
Luria,
A.R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. (B. Haigh, trans.). NY:
Basic.
Lyon,
G.R. (1994). Critical issues in the measurement of learning disabilities. In
G.R. Lyon (Ed.) Frames of reference for the assessment of learning
disabilities: new views on measurement issues (pp. 3-13). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Lyon,
G.R. & Moats, L.C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological
considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 30(6), 578- 588.
Lyon,
G.R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: contributions from
scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10 (Suppl. 1), S120-126).
Lyon,
G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6(1), 54-76.
Madden,
N.A. & Slavin, R.E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:
Academic and social outcome. Review of Educational Research, 53, pp.
519-569.
Mann,
V. (1991). Language problems: a key to reading problems. In B. Wong (Ed.). Learning
about learning disabilities (pp. 130-163). San Diego: Academic Press.
Merton,
S. & Yarger, S.J. (1981). Teacher centers in action. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse Area Teacher Center.
Moats,
L.C. & Lyon, G.R. (1993). Learning disabilities in the United States:
advocacy, science and the future of the field. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 26(5), 282-294.
Muskat,
L.R. (1996). Empowering students with special needs: assessment and
classification re-visited. In G. Reid, G. (Ed.), Dimensions of dyslexia,
Vol. 2 (pp. 405-432). Glasgow: Bell & Bain, Ltd.
Muskat,
L.R. (1997, August). Dealing with diversity in the classroom: introducing a
System for Understanding Individual Learning Performance,International
Association of Special Education, Cape Town, South Africa.
O'Shea,
D.J. & O'Shea, L.J. (Eds.). (1997). What have we learned and where are we
headed? Issues in collaboration and school reform (Special series). Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 376-377.
Pino,
E. (1995, August). Of Mud Huts and Glass Houses. International Association
of Special Education, Brighton, England.
Sarason,
S.B. & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social
history. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sawyer,
D. & Butler, K. (1991). Early language intervention: a deterrent to reading
disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 55-79.
Schunk,
D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: implications for students
with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 14-22.
Shaywitz,
B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Shaywitz, S.E. (1995). Defining and classifying
learning disabilities and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal
of Child Neurology, 10(1), S50-S57.
Showers,
B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff
development: A framework for future study and state-of-the-art analysis. Educational
Leadership, pp. 77-87.
Sickler,
J.L. (1988). Teachers in charge: Empowering the professionals. Phi Delta
Kappa, 375, pp. 354-356.
Simpson,
R.L. & Myles, B.S. (1990). The general education collaboration model: a
model for successful mainstreaming. Focus on Exceptional Children,
23(4), pp. 1-10.
Speece,
D.L. (1993). Broadening the scope of classification research: conceptual and
ecological approaches. In G.R. Lyon, D.B. Gray, J.F. Kavanaugh & N.A.
Krasnegor (Eds), Understanding learning disabilities: new views from
research and their implications for education and public policies (pp.
57-72). Baltimore: Brookes.
Stanovich,
K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: has intelligence
led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 1-29.
Thayer,
L. (1973). Communication and communication systems. Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc.
Wilson,
A. & Silverman, H. (1991). Teachers' assumptions and beliefs about the
delivery of services to exceptional children. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 14(3), 198-206.
Ysseldyke,
J.E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. (1992). Critical issues in special
education (2nd. ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Footnotes
Footnote
1. Due to length limitations, the S.U.I.L.P. is provided here in outline form
only. A lengthier manuscript is available in which all domain and sub-domain
areas are defined and framing questions provided. Requests for additional
information should be directed to:
Lori
R. Muskat, Ph.D.
Eagle Hill Diagnostic Clinic
45 Glenville Road
Greenwich, CT 06831
U.S.A
Fax
#: 203-861-9745
E-mail: Muskat-EHDC@juno.com
Acknowledgements
Abigail
C. Leibell, M.A.T., C.A.S. for her invaluable insights on education, teacher
training, and international special education as well as her support,
enthusiasm, and editorial assistance.
Dawnita
J. Bryson for her ideas, expertise, support, enthusiasm, patience and editorial
assistance.
Laurel
A. Redefer, Ph.D. for her ideas, expertise and endless dialogues which
contributed to the development of these ideas over the last decade.
Elisa
Brier Cruz, Ph.D., for her insights, research acumen, ideas, expertise,
support, enthusiasm, and editorial assistance.
Mark
Griffin, Ph.D., Headmaster, Eagle Hill School, Greenwich, CT, U.S.A. and Orit
Borkowski Batey, Ph.D., Director, Eagle Hill Diagnostic Clinic, for their
intellectual contributions over the years as well as resources and kind
generosity in supporting this work.