Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences - Essay Example

Task A: Analyze Figure to determine which quadrangle you find your own educational setting (or one you know about) in terms of resource approachesto inclusive education. Justify this position in terms of inclusive education principles. The concept on inclusion has evolved throughout the years. It is often discussed mainly to refer to children with children with special education needs. Such children are described as pupils who need additional help at school because they have learning difficulties or disabilities which significantly affect their access to the curriculum. Recently, inclusion is seen as a social concept of equality. According to Early Childhood Forum (2003), National Childrens Bureau in UK, "ECF believes inclusion is a process of identifying, understanding and breaking down the barriers to participation and belonging." It is a as a process of including ALL children regardless of the condition or experience of a child. Inclusion is a term which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. All services must be given to the child in the school setting and he or she does not need to go out. The children’s centre I know about seems to adhere to the lower right quadrant of Jenkins (2002) continuum-based model of inclusive education. True enough, the school attempts an inclusive program however, resource allocation hinders true implementation of their goals. The school was originally planned as a preschool for regular children. However, as its reputation as a provider of quality early childhood education, it has likewise attracted parents of special needs children to seek their services to include their children in their program. For some children, they were enrolled initially as toddlers, and as time passed, manifested their special needs, prompting the school administrator to recommend them for professional testing and diagnosis. Like the teachers in Jenkins’ article, the ones in this school were not trained for special education. They were all regular education teachers but had very open hearts for all children, especially those with special needs. As they admitted their lack of training, they agreed to include special needs children in their roster of students on the condition that the parents will coordinate the communication between them and the special education therapists their children go to. At least once a month, there was a multidisciplinary meeting between the teachers and the therapists. This way, the regular education teachers would be ably guided as to addressing the needs of the special needs students. In this case, resource allocation was not a problem for the school since they are transparent in not offering special education services and it is up to the parents to contract the services of the necessary special education teachers and therapists for their children. For some children, they also attend special education schools in the afternoon after their morning session in the regular school. In terms of resources for the included child’s curriculum needs, the same amount of resources is allocated as the rest of the children because he or she is given the same program. Physical environment is not changed to suit the included child’s specific needs because it is designed for very young children and therefore safety is of utmost priority. There are no unnecessary steps and long stairways, edges are not pointed, and there is enough cushioning for probable falls. The unexpected resource allocation that may be called upon would be the training of teachers on handling children with special needs in their inclusive classes. This would involve either enrollment in special education courses, attending seminars on special education, or hiring a special education expert to provide in-house training for the teachers. In any case, it would involve adequate use of school resources. Recent research indicated that the success of inclusion programs is dependent on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999; Salend, 2001; Van Reusen, Shosho, and Barker 2001). The positive attitudes that teachers hold toward inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom are critical for the success of inclusion. A study by Heller (1988) supported a wider positive view of integration by those in the front line-mainstream teachers. A UK study by Clough and Lindsay (1991) investigated the attitudes of teachers towards integration and to different kinds of support. Their research provided some evidence that attitudes had shifted in favor of integrating children with special educational needs over the past ten years or so. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their meta-analysis of American attitude studies, revealed that only one third or less of teachers believed they had sufficient time, skills, training and resources necessary for integration. These studies indicated that teachers are often not prepared to meet the needs of students with significant disabilities and that the severity of the disabling condition presented to them determines their attitudes towards integration. Hence it is obvious that teachers in inclusive settings need to undergo training on special education, on top of their work as regular education teachers. Task B: Identify the support needs of Joshua (in the case study) across relevant domains and focus areas, and also the support levels within each focus area. Does this form of support allow for movement along the curriculum from totally individualized to fully inclusive? In the case study, having an intellectual disability, Joshua was expected to perform below his peers. In pleading for a slot in class, his mother needed to convince his teacher that he will be able to cope with preschool with enough support from both of them and the school staff. With hesitation, his teacher gave him a chance on the condition that he will be pulled out if she deems him unable to perform at par with his peers. Over time, Joshua was able to adjust well, however, his teacher’s report did not show much progress. It had to take his mother to show the teacher the positive things he can do. I believe the school needs to give Joshua a preliminary assessment to check his baseline skills. It has been shown that his fine motor, attention, communication, pre-reading and pre-writing skills needed improvement. Along with this, his behaviour within a group setting likewise needed modification. This initial assessment will help the teacher “individualize” her goals for Joshua even if gets “included” with the normal children in class. Working on those strengths entailed understanding and accepting Joshua for what he can do. It takes a patient teacher to give him the necessary tasks to help improve his fine-motor and pre-writing skills. There is a multitude of manipulative materials and activities that help strengthen fine motor muscles and develop a good hand and finger grip such as playdough, bead stringing, snipping with scissors, lacing punched out cards, spooning beans from one cup to another, painting, coloring and tracing broken lines together and many more. These are usually fun for young children to do, as they view it as game-like, not aware that it is developing their fine motor, eye-hand coordination and concentration skills in the process. Joshua can do these tasks parallel to his classmates, and the teacher has the opportunity to observe how they are doing individually while keeping them together as a group. Being able to communicate well is one major goal for very young children like Joshua. Due to their limited language skills, adults need to assist them in expressing themselves verbally, equipping them with a vocabulary they can work with. Speaking correctly and not using “baby talk” is the modeling behavior they need to emulate from adults. Lindfors (1987) notes that the child’s language environment includes a set of specific sentences, however, it is not this set of sentences that he acquires, but deduces from these an underlying set of organizational principles and sound-meaning relationships. Over time, his language system will be revised in many different situations, and his sentences will become more adult-like. For his own purpose, he builds his own rule-governed constructions as he has deduced from his environment. (Lindfors, 1987). Teachers need to be aware of this. Young children’s attention span is known to be short. Joshua’s may need more improvement compared to his peers, due to his intellectual disabilities. It may be exhausting for the teacher to keep running after him to keep him still and focus his attention on the lessons. However, his teacher may need to have someone physically restrain him like have him sit on the teacher assistant’s lap while the teacher reads a story. The teacher assistant could point out some details to Joshua as the story progresses and help him participate. In this way, Joshua is again being singled out within a group, but he is still in an included setting. Little by little, this kind of support may be removed until such time that Joshua can sit still on his own. The support Joshua gets would be like the rest of his peers’ support needs, except that there will be times when he would need more. The fact that he is in a preschool, teachers and staff know that they are in for a greater amount of supervision and support since very young children need it more that school-aged children. Having Joshua with an intellectual disability will not be too much of a bother. In McKinnon and Gordon’s study (1999), it was pointed out that teachers had a tendency to rate students with intellectual disability as needing more support than students with behavioural or emotional problems. His teachers expected that he will need more attention, but because he did not post any emotional and behavioural problems, he was able to progress smoothly. It would not have been possible without the able support of his teachers who, hesitant as they were in accepting a child with special needs, did everything they could to make Joshua fit in and so developed his confidence and made him shine as he was supposed to. Task C: 1. Summary of the student’s strengths and challenges Joshua’s mother knew in her heart that he would fit in a regular preschool despite the fact that he had special education needs. She knew that her son was a sociable child, enjoyed being with others and easily fit in with a group. He liked doing what everyone else is, and have been popular for being able to communicate with his peers. A series of psychometric tests revealed that Joshua had intellectual disabilities. Perhaps that was the root of other complicating issues such as his behavioral problems, inability to keep still and running away. He also manifested difficulty with his fine motor coordination. Likewise, his academic skills in pre-reading and pre-writing were affected. 2. Summary of differentiation approaches Kapusnick and Hauslein (2001) identified various differentiation approaches that would benefit children with special education needs who are included in regular classes. These are as follows: Acceleration: Students who learn faster than others should not be held back. They are given free rein to progress to the next levels of the curriculum. Curriculum Compacting: Advanced students are allowed to finish one unit of a curriculum and delve in depth on some topics not readily available within the classroom. It is one form of specializing in a particular topic in application to real world situations. Independent Study: This is an individual project initiated by a self-motivated student collaborated with a teacher who mentors him or her throughout the process. Flexible Grouping: Students have the opportunity to interact with others in groups. Several groupings may be formed based on “task, outcome, interest level, background knowledge or social readiness” Kaputnick & Hauslein, 2001, p. 158). Teachers are on hand to remind group members of intragroup dynamics, outcome products and time frames. Independent Learning Centers: Inspired by Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory, various learning centers are set up offering different activities on a particular unit lesson. Students may choose the learning center they want to work in and accomplish the necessary tasks provided there. Complex Questions: In differentiated classrooms, open-ended discussions of topics triggered by complex questions are common. Teacher asks questions that stimulate higher order thinking and brainstorming sessions that call upon students’ communication skills. Tiered Activities: Teachers present options of activity levels that students can choose from and work on their individual goals. One student may choose the goal of completing 4 tasks another may choose the goal of completing just 3. these goals have corresponding rewards that the students work towards for. Contracts: Teachers and Students agree on the pursuit of individual student goals in certain tasks and teachers make sure their students meet their end of the deal. Teachers guide them accordingly based on their differentiated levels and competencies in the selection of their goals. 3. Recommended Strategies Based on Joshua’s profile, the differentiation approaches that are recommended for him are Flexible Grouping and Independent Learning Centers. Since Joshua likes being with other children, being with a group will motivate him to work well towards a goal. It has been reported that he enjoys doing what the rest of the children are doing, so putting him in a group with a common task and goal will surely work for him. He would likewise benefit from peer learning, wherein the more skilled group mates help the less skilled ones. Of course, each child’s strengths and weaknesses will come to fore, and the teacher is on hand to help them manage their differences. Constructivist preschools today usually have learning centers set up offering various activities categorized into specific themes or developmental areas. Gardner (1983) claims that intelligence is not limited to the cognitive domain, as traditionally conceptualized. He views it in a much broader sense to include the individual’s affective, social and creative domains. He advocates that people possess not one but many intelligences, with one or more dominant in each person. No two people have exactly the same intelligence profile. Some may be proficient in one thing and deficient in another. These intelligences are only as good as how individuals use them to their advantage. Learning centers meet the differentiated needs of students in an inclusive classroom. They may gravitate towards a particular learning center because of their proficiency in the tasks there, but the teacher needs to encourage them to explore other centers to nurture their other “intelligences”. If Joshua may do poorly in writing or reading, he may excel in music or arts, and he needs to likewise be able to develop his gifts in those areas. 4. Summary If schools are really serious in helping students with special needs benefit from their inclusive programs, then they would do everything possible to provide the services these children need. Weiner (2003) suggests inclusive schools try out various strategies. Relying on teamwork and collaboration, Weiner states that the “major changes in the culture of a school would result from a common focus and shared responsibility for student learning outcomes” (p. 18). Individual needs need to be addressed even if these students belong to inclusive classrooms if the goal is to optimize the potentials of each student. Joshua’s strengths and weaknesses are to be considered in the selection of differentiation approaches that would best suit his needs. It is fortunate that he had a dedicated team of educators supporting him, as the goals they set for him were met as challenges to them. Although they did not feel confident enough to help him with his special needs, the teacher and her team had Joshua’s best interests in mind and did what they could to prepare him for elementary school. The recommended differentiation approaches will not be difficult to implement since most preschools have been doing them even in the absence of students with special needs. It will just be different now with Joshua because he will have a more specialized goal of being mainstreamed with regular children. References Cook, B. G., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-256. Gardner, H.,(1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences London: Heinemann Jenkins, H.J. (2002). A continuum-based approach to inclusive policy and practice in regular schools. Special Education Perspectives Vol 11, # 2 Kapusnick, R.A. & Hauslein, C.M. (2001) The “silver cup” of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delti Pi Record, Summer 2001 Lindfors, J.W.(1987) Children’s Language and Learning, 2nd Ed. Prentice Hall, Inc.,1987 McKinnon D. & Gordon, C. (1999) An investigation of teacher’s support needs for the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Special Education Perspectives, Vol 8, #2. Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (4th ed.).Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Van Reusen, A.K., Shosho, A.R. & Bonker, K.S. (2000). High school teacher’s attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal 84 (2) 7-20 Weiner, H.M. (2003) Effective inclusion: Professional development in the context of the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 35, # 6 Read More