Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs - Literature review Example

n sесоndаry sсhооls/асаdеmiеs асhiеvе а соmрlеtе inclusive рrасtiсе, in regards to рuрils with Sресiаl Еduсаtiоnаl Nееds (SЕN)? Literature Review A contextual inclusivity in schools allows integration of students with and without special educational needs. Such a system requires learner identification and characterization so as to devise and planning of relevant instructional platform that would fit all learners. Individuals with Disability Act (IDEA) has outlined the definition of students with special educational needs to include those with autism, emotional disabilities, communication disorder, deaf/blindness, cognitive impairment, specific learning disabilities, visual impairment and those who have experienced traumatic brain injuries (Allen & Schwartz 2000). It has been identified that learners with special educational need at the secondary level have high-incidence disabilities. Most of them fall under the category of learners with learning disabilities, emotional disturbances, high functioning intellectual disability and those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries (www.gov.uk 2014). As Booth & Aincow (2002) explain students who suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder have not been recognized as a special educational need but more often than not are included in inclusive classrooms. In other instances, inclusivity classes also accommodate learners from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Learners with sociocultural disadvantages, English language learners, talented and gifted learners and those who have predisposed special skills and abilities are accommodated in inclusive classrooms. Adolescent Learner as a SEN Learner Jorgensen et al. (2005) identify adolescents as individuals who are at a stage of life characterized by attempts to identify personal interests, social acceptance and self esteem. This marks a stage in a person’s life which is critical and challenging and which calls special attention by educators. This stage matches a need for independence and autonomy, social acceptance and need for socialization and quest for adventure. This induced vulnerability calls for a special attention and places the learners as requiring accommodation in inclusivity classrooms. Julie (1999) explains that the specific learning characteristics affect classroom learning and instructional planning. According to MacKinnon & Margaret (1994), learners who fall under this age bracket have vivid response to explicit modeling, organization, practice and structure. In the same regard, it has been identified that adolescents require an engaging learning environment due to their short lived instances of concentration and are easily bored (Bowe 2005). Espin (1998) has classified adolescent learners into different categories based on their characteristics and need for inclusive classrooms. They explain that some adolescents have characteristic academic deficits. This group of learners generally has poor literacy, reading and writing skills. Mel et al. (2006) explains that problem is the hallmark of learners with learning difficulties especially at the secondary level. Cognitive deficits explain the passiveness of adolescent learners. This category of learners lack cognitive strategies necessary to carry out their own learning. A difficulty in accepting or being accepted into social and peer groups is also an issue that hinders learning in adolescents. Such issues heighten depressions and have been identified as a leading cause of death among adolescents. On another perspective, adolescent learners may endure challenges in test taking. Continued poor performance in tests may induce other challenges among these learners. Other learners show general organization deficits and motivation problems which have been closely associated with passive learning. Inclusion Challenge Unresponsive support of inclusive education in many school management systems is a blow to teachers actualizing this concept. Such teachers remain ill equipped and unsupported (Baglieri & Shapiro 2012). Co-teaching has been regarded as a most effect approach in inclusive classrooms as it creates high-involvement instruction strategies which allows student engagement to extents that would be unattainable when only one teacher would be involved (Thomas 2012). Active learning has been regarded as a viable option as it allows accommodation of diverse needs of students in an inclusive classroom (Rosemary 2007). Active learning motivates students as they get involved in the learning process and allows more time where the students actively participate in the learning process as opposed to passive learning where learners do less than just listen to instructions issued by the educator. Positive learning outcomes from inclusive classroom do not only motivate learners but as well become instrumental in the quest to enhance the learning experience. Collaborative approach in inclusive classroom is becomingly on the rise in recent years. Education systems have established this strategy as effective and although many aspects of this teaching approach have not been identified; existing empirical evidence has strongly supported the system (Porter & Smith 2011). Collaborative teaching allows educator to share the burden of the responsibility to prepare and plan instructions. Additionally, this system enhances mutual respect, trust and empathy among the educators. Among the predispositions of the rationale of inclusive classroom, learners are able to learn from each other. It has also been describes as an approach that alienates stigma from the learners and instills more confidence in them. This has placed the learners at a better learning environment without discrimination which may have adverse in slowing the learning process. In these classrooms, typical learners are able to accept personal differences easily and therefore improved self esteem. In the same regard, the learners are able to acquire and develop leadership skills. The strategy has also been termed as cost-effective in contrast to having such learners placed in isolated classrooms away from other learners. This approach has been identified as beneficial to the learner in a number of ways. First, the learner has more time with the teacher given that the teachers are working together either outside or inside the classroom and therefore at all times, the learners can access help of either teacher. Depending on the differences, the teacher can target students to be grouped. Such groups are based on the interest of the student, their abilities cultural and socioeconomic predispositions. In these groups, the teachers categorize the leaner in a manner that they gain maximum support and help from their peers. As mentioned earlier, the system also enhances inclusion by ensuring that they learners access normal class curriculum without stigma. This has been show to allow disadvantage learners access equal opportunities in the job market after school. Learners in inclusive classroom are also able to access differentiated experiences during their learning which enhances understanding of concepts in contrast to when a monotonous system is used especially in normal classrooms. Collaborative teaching allows diffusion of behavioral problems of the teacher which could be more likely to affect delivery of content and general output of the teacher. These reasons have created a general outlook that greatly favours collaborative teaching in inclusive classrooms at the secondary level. Research has indicated that active learning strategies combined with lectures are effective in enhancing mastery of content by the learners (MacKinnon & Margaret 1994). The two have identified active learning as one that is described by student involvement to a level that is more than just listening. According to them, active learning emphasizes skills in the learner that are more than information transmission. It also enhances development of higher-order skills in thinking among the learners. The system is characterized by engagement of students in activities such as discussion, reading and writing. Through this system, students have ample room to find themselves in relation to values and attitudes. Conrad & Whitaker (1997) have defined active learning as active learning as a pedagogy that encompasses interactive teaching strategies whose end result is sustainable learning. Bowe (2005) explains that active learning forms an important instructional tool in inclusion classrooms. More often, students with special educational need learn better when they are actively involved in classrooms. It has been documented that hands-on interactive learning is more appealing to the senses and is therefore, effective in capturing the attention of the learner (Julie, 1999). It is important to emphasize that learners with special educational needs generally require more time with the educator. Teachers cannot always offer the required time for these learners for inclusive classrooms. This calls the need to use teaching assistants who can offer extra tuition to learners with special educational needs. Their importance in the learning process of such learners cannot be over emphasized. Arguably, classroom teachers are usually professionally trained to offer classroom instructions (Giangreco et al. 2001). Learners with special educational need may require more than classroom instructions for effective learning. Teaching assistants are phenomenal in coming in to bridge the gaps in terms of educational fulfillment between normal learners and those with special educational needs (Giangreco et al. 2001). Differentiated instruction In an inclusive classroom, need for differentiated instruction in inevitable. The educator needs to understand the needs, strengths and weakness of the learners so that understanding on how to support students with and without disabilities can be enhanced. According to Allen & Schwartz (2000), fighting the challenge of devising teaching strategies, an educator needs to take into account learners needs, interests, readiness and learning profiles. Different learning modalities are essential in an educator is to capture interest of all learners in an inclusive classroom. Such strategies must accommodate visual, kinesthetic, tactile or auditory methods. They must also be appealing as they remain focused on content delivery to effect the learning process (Ainscow & Booth 2003) According to Ainscow & Booth (2003), the differences among the learners should give the teacher a foundation to devise teaching and instructional profiles. Before choosing on an instructional profile, it is necessary that the teacher considers abilities and content to be delivered. Understanding that each student is different, the teacher should develop a repertoire of strategies which will enable him/her to meet each student’s specific needs (Gov.UK 2014). Modifying these strategies with time would be something that the educator would consider to ensure maximum focus on each learner and meeting specific objectives. Diverse Student Population Recent legislation has continuously identified the diversity of student population and has called for diverse and critical laws that call for inclusivity. This phenomenon has seen impeccable growth in numbers in inclusive classroom. The interests of diverse groups of learners who have shown need for special educational needs have been well represented in recent years. Previously, such learners faced a curriculum that secluded them from general education system (Baglieri & Shapiro 2012). In the same regard, their fate was left in the hands of educators in their special schools. This has however changed over time and has advantaged such learners to levels that cannot go unnoticed. Schools nowadays are held responsible for academic performance of learners with special educational needs. UK curriculum development has extensively addressed the need to integrate learners with Special Educational Needs in mainstream schools. The need to alienate stigma that is associated with learners with disabilities has overwhelmingly heightened the need to include such learners in inclusive classrooms. This has majorly addressed the negative emotional, psychological and educational attributes of excluding learners with special educational needs from mainstream schools. In this regard, curriculum planning has allowed inclusivity to greater extent and therefore acceptance of inclusive classrooms in many schools in the UK References Allen, K. E. & Schwartz, I. (2000). The Exceptional Child: Inclusion in Early Childhood Education (4 ed.). Delmar Cengage Learning Ainscow, M & Booth T. (2003). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning & Participation in Schools. Bristol: Center for Studies in Inclusive Education Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2012). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Booth, T. & Aincow, M (2002). Index for Inclusion developing learning and participation in schools. London: Routledge Bowe, F. (2005). Making Inclusion Work. London: Merrill Education/Prentice Hall Conrad, M. & Whitaker T. (1997). Inclusion and the law: A principal’s proactive approach. The Clearing House Department for Education. (2014). Code of Practice. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319639/Code_of_Practice-Final-10June2014.pdf  Espin, C.A. (1998). Individualized Education Programs in Resource and Inclusive Settings. The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, 164-174 Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001).Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 75-86. Jorgensen, C., Schuh, M., & Nisbet, J. (2005). The inclusion facilitator's guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Julie, A. (1999). Actively Seeking Inclusion: Pupils with Special Needs in Mainstream Schools. London: Psychology Press MacKinnon, J & Margaret, E. (1994). Brown Inclusion in Secondary Schools: An Analysis of School Structure Based on Teachers' Images of Change. Educational Administration Quarterly, May 1994; vol. 30, 2: pp. 126-152. Mel, A., Tony, B & Alan D. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London: Taylor & Francis Publishers Porter, L., & Smith, D. (Eds.) (2011). Exploring inclusive educational practices through professional inquiry. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Rosemary, S. (2007). Inclusion in School: Making a Difference. London: A & C Black. Thomas, G. (2012). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 473-490. Read More