Файл: Учебник по английскому языку.doc

Open education found its way to the United States in the form of the open class­room, in which elementary classrooms were designed with numerous activity centers, sometimes called "learning stations," where students could choose to work. Despite the desirability of focusing on the emotional aspects of learning, the open classroom has not achieved a secure place in our schools. One problem has been the lack of a precise definition. The term open classroom has been applied to educational settings that may be nontraditional, but that nevertheless differ markedly.

Research has shown that open education does not improve student learning, but it does seem to have a beneficial effect on affective outcomes (e.g., self-esteem, attitude toward school, and social adjustment) and on creativity.

SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE

TECHNOLOGY FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Technology plays an important role in the lives of individuals who have disabilities. As used in this article, tech­nology is defined as any item, device, or piece of equipment that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional abilities of persons with dis­abilities. These items, devices, or pieces of equipment may be commercially available or customized. They are available for a variety of age and grade levels ranging from infants and toddlers to adults.

The devices that are available are as diverse as the needs and characteristics of the people who benefit from them. Augmentative communication aids are available for persons who are unable to speak that allow them to communicate their needs to others. Motorized wheel­chairs are available for those who are unable to walk that allow them to move about in the environment. For infants and young children with disabilities, microswitches are used with adaptive toys to help them manipulate objects in their environment and learn about cause and effect. Talking alarm clocks and calculators are used by individuals with visual problems, allowing them to access important information that sighted people often take for granted. These and many other technological advancements are greatly improving the quality of life for individuals with disabilities. More specifically, these tech­nologies enhance their independence and productivity and increase their abil­ity to participate in the mainstream of society.

Most schools have had some experi­ence in providing devices and equip­ment to students with disabilities. Both EL. 94-142, the Education for All Hand­icapped Children Act of 1975, and EL. 99-457, the Education of the Handi­capped Amendments of 1986, provided school systems with the flexibility to fund assistive devices and other related services as indicated in the child's indi­vidualized education program (IEP). However, since technology was not specifically defined in either legislation, considerable variation existed across the country regarding the provision of devices and equipment to students in educational settings.

With the recent reauthorization of EL. 94-142, now known as the Individu­als with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA (EL. 101-476), assistive technology devices were finally defined using the earlier language of EL. 100-407. This places schools in the position of having even greater responsibility for provid­ing devices and equipment to students in special education settings. Addition­ally, school districts must provide "assis­tive technology services" to eligible students with disabilities. These services are defined by the IDEA as "any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device". Thus, schools are now responsible for helping stu­dents select and acquire devices and equipment as well as instructing them in their use.

The increasingly expanding possibil­ities of technologies to help children in academic settings will require educa­tional and related services personnel to rethink the scope of instructional opportunities for students with disabil­ities. In the past, many instructional activities may have been viewed from an administrative perspective to be impractical due to cost constraints or the degree of the student's disability. Unfortunately, while it is clearly a violation of IDEA, it has been suggested that in the past the limited resources of school systems have, on occasion, played a role in the decisions made about technology provided for children with disabilities.

A Challenge to the Schools

In the future, devices and equipment will become easier to obtain as the costs of producing them decline. With decreases in the costs associated with technologies that can help children to benefit from special education, a wider variety of devices and equipment is likely to be provided with greater frequency. Already, many schools have acknowl­edged a willingness to invest in more sophisticated technologies such as com­puters for children with special needs. Since infor­mation about and instruction in the use of the many different types of technolo­gies used in school settings is an often-cited need of teachers, teachers will increasingly be encouraged to acquire more informa­tion about devices and assume more skills in technology service provision. As they acquire these skills, teachers must, in turn, use them to assist in the selec­tion and use of equipment in the schools.

A Team Approach

Within the public schools, the design and application of adaptations and tech­nological devices are usually accom­plished through a multidisciplinary IEP team of professionals and other inter­ested parties including occupational, physical, and speech/language thera­pists; special and regular education teachers; and parents. Part of the assignment of the team is to ensure that all dimensions of a child's present level of performance are considered. This team approach is most effective when persons who have expertise in instruc­tional programming—including tech­nology and its applications—work cooperatively with parents and professionals who are involved in day-to-day instruction of students.

Special education teachers who par­ticipate in such team processes may be called upon to assume important responsibilities as team members. Unfortunately, many teachers have had inadequate training and/or experience with technology and its applications. When teachers are not prepared for the responsibility of selecting devices for students and using them in classroom settings, they may rely too heavily on the judgment of other professionals (e.g., the occupational, physical, or speech/language therapist). These pro­fessionals may see the child and his or her needs from a very different (and more limited) perspective than does the teacher.

Selection of Appropriate Technology

It is important for the teacher, as well as all other team members, to develop a philosophical base around which decisions will be made when selecting appropriate technology for children with disabilities. It is also important to remember that the concept of "appropriateness" takes on several dimensions. P. L. 94-142 was drafted to encompass any need the child has related to learning and/or development, including the need to learn basic self-help skills, have appropriate adaptive equipment, develop appropriate social integration skills, acquire basic prevocational skills, and receive therapy ser­vices. In each of these areas, devices and equipment can play critical roles in ensuring the provision of appropriate learning experiences for children with disabilities in public school settings.

From a more traditional perspective, a technology is appropriate when its application meets one of three criteria. First, it should be in response to (or in anticipation of) specific and clearly defined goals that result in enhanced skills for the student. Second, it should be compatible with practical constraints such as the available resources or amount of instruction required for the student and the teacher to use the tech­nology. Third, it should result in desirable and sufficient outcomes.

Determining the Fit

To match technology most effectively with any given stu­dent, the teacher and other team mem­bers must keep in mind two parallel considerations: characteristics of the student and characteristics of the technology.

Student Characteristics

The characteristics of the child are of the utmost importance and must be consid­ered first. The comprehensive assess­ment procedures that determine the child's present levels of functioning and precede the actual program develop­ment process provide the initial basis for selection of any devices or equipment. In addition to the obvious selection implications of such characteristics as the child's academic skills, intellectual level, behavioral and social skills, and physical abilities, the teacher and other team members must consider the child's preferences for certain types of technol­ogy. An assistive device that appears excellent on paper but remains unused because the child is uncomfortable with it is the equivalent of no assistance at all. Since the development of the IEP is a joint effort of a team that includes the child (when appropriate), the child can express his or her preferences dur­ing the decision-making process. Inter­views with the parent and child can yield significant information that is not otherwise obtainable. For example, a girl may be uncomfortable using an augmentative communication system that employs a male adult voice. Alter­natively, the IEP team may wish to determine which devices and equip­ment the child has had successful pre­vious experiences with at school or at home. Once this information is ac­quired, the team may wish to purchase a similar technology for use in the school setting with appropriate mod­ifications being made to meet the needs of the child. For example, a par­ticular type of adaptive spoon may have made it possible for the child to feed himself or herself at home. The same type of spoon should be given consideration by the IEP team to assist the child with self-help skill develop­ment at school if this is deemed to be an important area of concern.

Additional considerations include anticipating the child's needs in the future. This is especially important with older students who are entering transi­tion programs. For example, an older student with physical disabilities who has significant academic strengths may be a potential candidate to receive a modified computer system with adapted input and/or output modes.

The IEP team may feel that develop­ment of computer skills may make it possible for the student to enter a ca­reer with a telecommunications firm such as AT&T or a business corpora­tion such as IBM, both of which em­ploy persons with disabilities. Many government agencies such as the IRS also employ significant numbers of persons with disabilities.

Given the concern that all school systems have for the equitable distri­bution of resources, cooperative ar­rangements for funding may sometimes become an alternative for IEP team consideration if a child is to receive a needed technology. Alterna­tive financial avenues include the use of the Medicaid program and private insurance. Teachers must bear in mind the argument that any device identi­fied and recommended by the IEP committee should be paid for with public funds. In practicality, it must be recognized that not all equipment that can benefit children can be subsidized by the schools. Space-age technology is available through the National Aero­nautics and Space Administration that has limitless possi­bilities for technology applications for persons with disabilities. These tech­nologies, such as robotics and artificial intelligence devices, are not yet com­mercially available on a wide-scale basis, and their expense would be im­possible for most school systems to consider for all children with disabil­ities. In a case where a costly, commer­cially unavailable technology is deemed to be a desirable alternative for a child with a disability, the IEP team may choose to find partial exter­nal funding for the device. This may enable the school to provide a specific technology that would not otherwise be possible.

Technology Characteristics

Once relevant characteristics of the child have been identified and consid­ered, the focus is placed on the charac­teristics of the various technologies that will be considered for the child. Goals for the use of devices should emerge as a result of the assessment of the needs, desires, and capabilities of the child. In examining the range of technologies that might be useful for a child with a disability, a variety of factors should be considered carefully.

The availability of the equipment is crucial. Sometimes technologies are not in vendors' stock, and they require lengthy periods of time to manufacture. This is particularly true of small firms that market products that are in large demand and are modestly priced. Deliv­ery of such equipment sometimes can take 2 to 3 months once an order has been placed. It must also be remem­bered that most commercially available equipment cannot be modified by the manufacturer to meet the unique needs of a child with disabilities. Generally, devices must be customized or modified by others once the technology has been purchased for the child. This may require significant amounts of both time and money.

The simplicity of operation of the equipment is an important area of con­sideration. Too often schools purchase technologies that are overly complex and require tremendous investments in instruction of teachers and the children who are recipients of the equipment. When devices require large amounts of teacher time to learn to operate and maintain, most teachers will under­standably be reluctant to use them. Such devices often are relegated to a storage closet in the school.

The initial and ongoing costs of the technology are one of the most fre­quently expressed concerns of school personnel at the administrative level. Installation costs (if any) must be considered, and this addi­tional significant expense may not be reflected in the price quote provided to the IEP team by the vendor. The cost of daily, monthly, or annual operation must also be given consideration. Some devices, particularly those that require power packs or batteries, may incur fre­quent and unanticipated replacement expenses. Augmentative communica­tion devices and power wheelchairs are two examples. Other equipment may require periodic maintenance, with its associated costs.

Since many technologies will be used for a long period of time, adaptability to meet the changing needs of children over time must be carefully considered. For example, a communication device that can be modified over time to con­tinue to meet the evolving needs of a child with a disability would be more desirable than a device that could be used only for 1 year.

Another important consideration in the selection of technologies is the relia­bility and repair record of the devices. 5ome technologies, or certain brands or models of those technologies, require lengthy or frequent repairs. In fact, most augmentative communication boards and power wheelchairs require ongoing repair. Since communication boards are used frequently throughout the course of a day s activities, they become worn, soiled, and damaged. Children who sit in wheelchairs daily will cause wear and damage to the seats, armrests, and other padded surfaces of the equipment. In either case, once the technology is removed to be repaired, the child is denied access to a device that enhances the quality of life.

Teachers and other members of the IEP team may ask representatives of companies that sell certain types of equipment about the reliability and repair records of their devices. Some­times there may be product testing information regarding specific tech­nologies that is available to the IEP team on request. However, the best informa­tion about device reliability can proba­bly be obtained from children who use the devices. In Arkansas, for example, a user-to-user network will be developed in the state technology system that has been funded under P.L. 100-407. This system will be pat­terned after the parent-to-parent net­work established by the Association for Retarded Citizens in many states. Basi­cally, such a network is made up of vol­unteers who agree to act as contact persons within the system for anyone wishing to get information about a par­ticular type of technology. Thus, a teacher or anyone else who is consider­ing buying a specific device for a child with a disability can learn of the per­sonal experiences of a person who has used the technology. In states where such a network is not being developed, teachers may contact local advocacy groups and attempt to identify people who are using certain technologies. These individuals may then be con­tacted and questioned about the relia­bility of the equipment.

Finally, the teacher must examine the ability of the technology to provide per­formance or evaluation data necessary for the documentation of student progress. Certain technologies, espe­cially computer-based devices, readily lend themselves to objective behavioral recordkeeping strategies. A computer spelling program that maintains an ongoing count of the number of lessons a child has completed and the accuracy of those performances lends itself more readily to recordkeeping for IEP and other purposes than would an instruc­tional program that requires the direct observation of the teacher.

Conclusion

As technological advances continue, assistive devices for students with disabili­ties will continue to grow in power, usefulness, affordability, and wide­spread utilization. As core members of the IEP committees, special educators increasingly will be called upon to develop new technological competen­cies, not only in the use and mainte­nance of the evolving technologies, but in their prescription as well. By basing such decisions on ethical concerns and completing careful and systematic analyses of the characteristics of both students and technologies, teachers can help to ensure that all children achieve maximum levels of learning and inde­pendence.

CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS AND AUTISM

Professionals do not always agree on the elements that define behavioral disorders. What is "good" behavior? One teacher may enjoy the "all boy" behavior of a child who disrupts the class with funny stories of his gang's shenanigans and who is feisty, sassy, and proud of his delinquency. Another teacher may wish all the students in the class could be as quiet as the "shy girl" who day­dreams, has no friends, puts herself down, is unhappy, and talks about death. Both children are probably behav-iorally disordered.

To be considered behaviorally disordered, behavior should meet three criteria: severity, chronicity, and ad­verse effect on learning. However, each of these terms is relative. Another way to define behavioral disorders is to look at the polarities described above: aggressive/acting out/externalizing behaviors versus withdrawn/internaliz­ing behaviors. However, these simple polarities leave out many other disordered behaviors. Four clusters that are typically used to classify atypical behaviors are socialized aggression (e.g., gang membership); conduct disorders (e.g., fighting, temper); immaturity (e.g., short attention, clumsiness); and personality disorders (e.g., avoidant, dependent). Another way to classify atypical behaviors that are relevant to the education of children with behavior disorders is to look at learning—attention, response, or­der, exploration, social interaction, and mastery. This clas­sification links behaviors to curriculum goals.

Autism and other pervasive developmental disorders of childhood are classified as psychotic disorders by psychi­atry. They are considered behavior disorders for educa­tional purposes. Autism is a progressive loss of contact with and interest in the outside world. Children with autism prefer aloneness, insist on sameness, like elaborate rou­tines, and may have some "savant" ability that seems remarkable in light of the apparent retardation of learning in other areas.

A majority of children have occasional episodes of disordered behavior. Assessment of behavior disorders to qualify for special educational services requires marked differences from the behavior of other children and contin­uation of the severe and typical behavior for a long period of time.

Controversy surrounds the issue of enrolling children with severe behavior disorders in regular education classes. Public Law 94-142 guarantees them the least restrictive environment appropriate for their education. No mention is made of the appropriateness of their enroll­ment in a class to other children's education or to the teacher's ability to teach. The school system must "show cause" if a child with disordered behavior is moved to a more restrictive setting from a regular classroom.

When a student with a behavior disorder or autism is enrolled in an inclusive education program, the school administration, special education staff, regular teacher, parent(s), and other significant personnel must meet to develop an appropriate IEP (individualized education pro­gram) for the student's school progress. Usually some provision is made for pull-out time for supportive psycho­logical counseling services.

Teachers who have children with behavioral disorders or autism in their classrooms need to observe two rules of behavior: (1) empathize, (2) do not condone or reinforce disturbed behaviors. Both types of conduct are very diffi­cult to effect on a consistent basis. They require extreme patience.

Empathy is the ability to project one's own conscious­ness into another person's being. It is understanding the other's needs, frustrations, stresses, joys, and other so­cial, emotional, and cognitive reasons for behavior. Since nobody can really experience the totality of another per­son's being, perfect empathy is impossible. A good teacher, however, continually tries to understand the whys and wherefores of the actions of a child with disturbed behaviors.

Understanding why a child misbehaves often leads teachers and other adults to condone, excuse, or pardon disturbed behavior. This is unacceptable. Sympathetic understanding should not lead to tolerance of wrongful acts. All disruptive behavior should be stopped. The child should be helped to learn a different, more acceptable behavior without being ridiculed or condemned. Condem­nation leads to resentment. Suggestions of better ways can lead to change. All efforts to alter behavior toward an acceptable standard should be reinforced. If other chil­dren observe disturbed behaviors being corrected, they are apt to model the correct behavior. On the other hand, if other children observe disruptive behavior being ac­cepted, they are apt to imitate the misbehavior.

Teachers can often avoid extreme acts of aggression or withdrawal by watching children with behavior disorders or autism very carefully. When and if they see signs of anger, frustration, fear, guilt, or anxiety, teachers can alter their lesson plans. They can provide some form of relief for the child or children who are disturbed. Distractions, rest periods, and other forms of "time-out" can alleviate emotional upheavals.