Identifying and Removing Blockages to Successful Collaborations Between Counsellors, Teachers and Parents

Collaboration is becoming an increasingly familiar term in the counselling and special education literatures. Notwithstanding this, collaboration still appears to be an infrequently used process despite the numerous articles that extol the virtues of consultation, team building and a team approach to educational problems. This paper identifies a number of blockages which inhibit the development of collaborative endeavours between counsellors, teachers and parents. These include the establishment of hierarchies and professional attitudes to other stakeholders in the education community which may not promote equality and reciprocity in collaborative problem solving activities. The training of counsellors and teachers at both preservice and inservice levels are needed to ensure that participants have the communication and problem-solving skills that are essential for effective collaboration. In addition, parents must be encouraged to participate in school activities and be provided with the opportunity to learn how to work with school personnel

School and inclusive practices

Over the past 20 years, there has been an imperative in most Western countries to accommodate students with special learning needs in regular education settings. Inclusion has become the catchword that epitomizes the notion of equality and opportunity in social and scholarly domains. It would seem logical that the adoption of inclusion as a systemic policy would lead to significant changes in classroom teaching and learning practices but this does not appear to be the case. The implementation of new teaching-learning technologies to support inclusive education practices, including peer-mediation, has not kept pace with the acceptance of the rhetoric. In this chapter, I draw a parallel between the evidence supporting the benefits of inclusive education and the data that confirm the value of peer-mediation with students with diverse learning needs

Technology-enhanced learning: The introduction and use of information and communication technology in special education

Small, modestly funded and resourced schools can be disadvantaged by limited access to information and communication technology (ICT). This chapter outlines a two-year project conducted in six small special schools located in metropolitan and rural communities. The project was designed to increase the participating schools' ICT capabilities and promote the use of technology to deliver the curriculum in efficient and appealing ways to their students with a diversity of intellectual and behavioral difficulties. An ICT specialist supported the schools over the course of the project and promoted the introduction of Universal Design for Learning. At the conclusion of the project all schools had made notable gains in acquiring state-of-the-art technology. Teachers and students had become capable and enthusiastic users of hardware and a range of operating and educational software

Problems Undertaking Surveys of Older People With a Disability in Australia

An overview is presented of the problems encountered when undertaking a national study of older people with an intellectual disability in Australia. Considerable difficulties were encountered in locating members of the target group and it is estimated that in the vicinity of 15% of the population had been located. While all data have yet to be collected, there are a number of general trends that are apparent in those so far available, which are similar to the trends reported in an earlier, regional study conducted by Suttie & Ashman. For example, it is clear that older people with an intellectual disability experience isolation, concern for their future, depression, a range of medical conditions and diminishing mobility. Many of the services provided for them appear not to ameliorate these quality-of-life needs

Examining the Nature of Helping Interactions in Primary School Children in Years 2, 4, and 6

To study the effects of structured cooperative learning environments on helping interactions and behaviors in the early, middle, and later primary school years, a study was conducted in 11 classrooms across 4 schools in suburban Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Subjects were 172 children (56 in year 2, 68 in year 4, and 52 in year 6). Through stratified random assignment, 1 high-ability student, 2 medium-ability students, and 1 low-ability student were placed in workgroups. Workgroups were then assigned to a structured or unstructured cooperative learning environment. While they undertook activities assigned by their teachers, groups were observed and children's cooperative behaviors assessed. The language children used was noted, and a questionnaire captured children's perceptions of the group experience. Results showed that children in the two conditions showed marked differences in behaviors, types of language used, and styles of interaction. Compared to the unstructured group children, children in structured groups were more cooperative, helpful, and willing and able to involve every member in the task at hand; children in structured groups also used more inclusive language ("we" or "us," for example) and assisted each other in the learning process. Such behaviors were noted in the structured groups at all three age levels. (Contains 7 tables and 24 references.

Collaborative learning for diverse learners

The Learning Context For over 40 years educators have advocated the inclusion of students with diverse learning needs in mainstream classes. e arguments in support of inclusion have various bases, from philosophical and social justice imperatives to claims about the academic and social bene ts of including students with modest to very high special learning needs. While legislation, education policy, and rhetoric in support of inclusive education has become a global phenomenon, the claims of successful inclusion and positive outcomes for all those involved have fallen considerably short of the ideal (e.g., Curcic, 2009; Drudy & Kinsella, 2009; Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren, 2009)