Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Ms Elaine Harcombe
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, Gauteng
South Africa
harcombee@umthombo.wits.ac.za
IMPLEMENTING INCLUSIVE EDUCATION THROUGH CURRICULA TRANSFORMATION
One of the challenges of implementing inclusive education is the accommodation of developmental and learning diversity via ‘universal’ curricula. And ultimately, the test of effective inclusion enaction is the extent to which all learners develop and learn optimally (i.e. fulfill their potential). However, accommodating both the strengths and differences of all learners in one classroom can prove very daunting to teachers/educators even when support and / or pre-and in-service training is provided (and often it is not). The nature of multi-level teaching and learning strategies and the expertise and time required for optimal accommodation of diversity is often seen as impossible to achieve by many practitioners, whether they are classroom educators or special education specialists.
Many of these points have become clearer to me during the course of my work as an educational psychologist, learning support specialist (or reading/remedial/special education specialist) and university lecturer. These experiences, which included opportunities to survey the literature, to offer support to schools and education departments engaged in inclusion implementation, as well as lecturing, developing supervising courses at Honours’ and Masters’ levels, inspired me to devise a practical, structured curriculum implementation approach, whose principles and practices could be applied to all disciplines and domains of ‘universal’ curricula. I decided to apply it specifically to literacy instruction, since, firstly, the Honour’s programme required it, and secondly, since literacy learning is of great concern in South Africa.
It is very interesting to note that the majority of education personnel, school administrators and educators and students I have supported and taught have found the approach eminently practical and effective, and at the same time learners have greatly improved their literacy learning, their literacy practice and their motivation to engage in literacy activities.
Transforming Curricula for Inclusive Practice
The traditional, teacher-centred, knowledge transmission models of curriculum implementation that are used in exclusionary forms of education are not suitable for inclusionary practice for many reasons, most of which are beyond the scope of this paper. However, one of the main reasons why they will not do is because they are rooted firmly in the psycho-medical model, which implies that learners need to be categorisised if they are not learning well at school, and then segregated into special schools or classes or pull-out services (if available) so their deficits can be remediated, which is not a suitable framework to function from in an inclusive setting.
This notion needs to be replaced with an ecosystemic model that examines all the influences that affect development, thereby enabling accurate and effective accommodation to be designed.
In addition, inclusionary curricula cannot be based on the disproved notion that knowledge is transmitted mostly from adult to child. This theory needs to be replaced with social constructivism, which allows that learners can build their own knowledge bases highly efficiently, if enabled. A more in-depth discussion of these two theories and their relationship to inclusionary curricula follows.
Inclusionary curricula and ecosystemic frameworks
Designers of curricula used in inclusive education settings need move away from theoretical underpinnings such as the psycho-medical model (which categorises learners in terms of deficits within themselves) towards a complex, politico-socio-economic developmental framework or what has often been called a Marxian critical analyses framework (Edmondson, 2002; Harcombe, 1993 and 2001) so that all learners can be understood and accommodated by their educators. In other words, if effective inclusionary curricula implementation is expected, educators need to know about the interactive effects that political and socio-economic structures can have on the development of individuals in all societies, but especially in repressed and / or underdeveloped countries. This understanding is needed so that gaps in knowledge and skills can be understood in terms of the environmental interactions that caused them, thereby enabling practitioners to design and accommodate effectively by firstly, trying to right environmental influences and secondly, by designing accurate support interventions
Some of the interactive factors referred to when thinking ecosystemically include the effects certain legislation has on socio-economic structures which will often cause delays in the general emotional, cognitive and educational development of many learners especially those who are culturally different from the dominant culture. For example, the effects governmental policy has on the delivery of services such as libraries, health care and education often interferes with effective development and learning of non-favoured cultures (Harcombe, 1993; Neuman and Celano, 2001). One specific interaction, especially in some societies in Africa, is the devaluing of the languages of certain sectors of the population, due to legislation largely, which meant / means that there was/ is little published literature available in many of these devalued languages, which is detrimental to the motivation towards the usage of literacy skills ( Akoha in Olson and Torrance, 2001).
The interaction effects between youth and adults in the community, school and home have also been shown to affect the optimal development (Adelman and Taylor, 1993; Donald in Engelbrecht, Green, Naicker and Engelbrecht, 1999; Harcombe, 1993). These effects have been explained by frameworks that have been variously called ecosystemic / interactive / developmental-interaction models, though the Marxian, critical analyses approach is rarely included in these conceptualizations.
In spite of ample research supporting the interactive effects that factors in the environment may have on human development, it is interesting to note that policy makers and practitioners take time and / or have difficulty moving away from the psycho-medical perspective (van Rooyen, Le Grange, and Newmark, 2002, Harcombe, 2001), so much thinking about the implementation of curricula in the context of inclusive education is not Marxian/ecosystemic, which means that curriculum conceptualization and practice is often flawed and decidedly exclusionary.
Inclusionary curricula and constructivism
Designers of inclusionary curricula also need to move away from disproved transmission models of knowledge learning to constructivist models, which have been proven repeatedly to describe how knowledge is constructed by children with the help of more able peers and adults. This view is called the social constructivist framework which is defined by Hruby (2001) as “the way knowledge is constructed by, for and between members of a discursively mediated community”. In other words, educators help their learners to construct knowledge by enabling the learners to actively engage in ‘doing’ things, at their correct level of cognitive functioning. In addition, certain metacognitive skills and methods of study in disciplines are facilitated by educators or more able peers as posited by Feuerstein (cited in Schur, Skuy, Zietsman and Fridjhon, 2002) so that learners can learn how to build their own knowledge efficiently, as opposed to just learning by rote what the teacher tells them to. . An interesting study recently proved the efficacy of a constructivist, metacognitive approach to curriculum design in Israel, which showed significant increases in scientific thinking and knowledge by the experimental group over the control group (Schur et al, 2002).
Both constructivism and mediated learning (metacognitive strategies), apart from being shown as exemplary teaching methods, are viewed by the writer as being an essential part of all curriculum development in South Africa for many reasons. For example, South Africa’s political history has caused many families to be separated and many cultures to be devalued by society, which has caused many learners to have experienced insufficient mediation from able adults and peers, which has generally resulted in inadequate cognitive development. In addition, poverty, oppression and discrimination meant that the majority were denied the experience that helps to build knowledge and problem-solving skills. Finally, our education system has not been equitable and has largely been built on the transmission method of teaching and learning, which has also delayed the cognitive development of many. All of these very cogent reasons show the necessity of integrating constructivism and metacognition into any inclusionary curricula in the South African context.
Inclusionary Curricula: Outcomes-Based Education
Outcomes-based education (OBE) is often referred to as the type of curricula that should be used to implement inclusive education, and as such is supposed to be constructivist in approach, as well as Marxian/ecosystemic in philosophy. However, when many OBE curricula designed by policy-makers are analysed by academics and practitioners, it is noted that the deficit, medical model and transmission teaching frameworks still affect the thinking of those involved (van Rooyen et al, 2002), which means that many OBE curricula tend to be exclusionary in approach rather than inclusionary. Evidence for this critique can be found in examples of the terminology often used in relation to OBE in many publications. For example, though terms like diversity are used, the more frequently used terms are categorical, ie based on deficit, medical model ways of thinking, such as different categories of disability, learning difficulties, behavioural and adjustment difficulties, special educational needs, barriers to learning, emotional disabilities and so forth (Forlin and Forlin, 2002; White Paper 6: Department of Education, 2001) In addition, reference to constructivist modes of teaching and learning are rarely present, as process-oriented terms like gathering data, problem-solving, demonstrate metacognitive ability, comprehend what they read, write a report etc, are rarely posited as outcomes (Forlin and Forlin, 2002; White Paper 6: Department of Education, 2001)
Inclusionary Curricula and Training
Changing the way one thinks about inclusive education and inclusionary curricula takes time and experience, especially when very firmly entrenched frameworks such as the psycho-medical approach and knowledge transmission models need to be abandoned in favour of the very different ecosystemic and constructivist models. It has been my experience that unless students/teachers/specialists practically experience thinking, planning and doing a transformed curricula in inclusive settings with support over a fairly considerable period of time, their thinking and practice do not change. On addition, their motivation towards implementing inclusive education remains very low. In other words, training of any kind needs to be both theoretical and practical (the more structured the practical work is the better) with as much work as possible done in inclusive contexts where support is offered to teachers not learners. Other researchers and practitioners have noted this need for practical experiences in both curriculum design and implementation in inclusive settings (Carroll, Forlin and Joblin, 2003).
One aspect of curriculum training that does not receive much attention in the literature is the issue of helping participants move away from viewing differences in development and learning as deficit and/or disability towards viewing differences as a diversity that is to be celebrated. It has been my experience that only when participants have internalized a Marxian/ecosystemic philosophy can they accept that diversity is to be celebrated, and that it can be accepted, valued and accommodated. Then their motivation to implement inclusive education improves considerably, which along with a practical training in constructivist curricula implementation enables them to feel able to help support inclusive practices very well.
Inclusionary curricula and the CATLI
The CATLI is firmly grounded in a Marxian, politico-socio-economic philosophy combined with an interpersonal, interactive framework which is called the ecosystemic framework hereafter (Harcombe, 2001), which enables students to implement an inclusionary curriculum with diversity in mind, not disability. For example, using an ecosystemic approach provides a framework which enables students to explore systematically the interacting factors that could have caused lack of learning and / or development. Using an ecosystemic approach also enables students to view learners holistically, thereby enabling them to think about how the interaction of all influences impinge on learning and development. This is a great advantage as the often damaging categorizations generated by the psycho-medical model on why a learner is not learning is superceded by the examination of all the political, socio-economic, social support, and individual difference factors that interact to impair learning and development. This helps students, teachers, specialists and learners and their parents to successfully deflect most if not all of the blame away from the learner towards the adults who should be celebrating and accommodating their diversity as opposed to categorizing their deficits.
The CATLI is also highly constructivist at every stage, so as such fulfils the criteria for inclusionary curricula. In addition, it is a highly practical, structured and applied curriculum, and students experience how to do it practically with support, both with children and with helping teachers to implement it over a reasonable time period.
Since it was decided to design the CATLI as a literacy programme, it is necessary to review the various literacy instruction methodologies that have been documented in sound research in the next sub-section of this paper.
Literacy Curricula
Literacy learning and usage statistics
As mentioned previously, literacy learning and usage in many parts of the world is of concern, which can be attributed to many factors. For example, some commentators suggest that literacy learning is not on the increase, as was predicted in the 1970’s, as world-wide statistics indicate that literacy learning is either stagnating or declining (Triebel, 2001; Wagner, 1995; Shiel, 2002). For example, world-wide estimates of illiterates still hovered around one billion in 1993, as they did in the 1980’s (Triebel in Olson and Torrance, 2001, Wagner , 1995). This does not mean that literacy learning has not improved in some areas of the world. Certain sub-Saharan districts and southern Asian countries have shown excellent growth in literacy learning, and many developed countries have retained their literacy rates (Triebel in Olson and Torrance, 2001). However, certain of the poorer, marginilised populations in developed countries are still not acquiring literacy skills as they should. Some statistics show, for example, that about 25% of the population of the United States of America are not literate (Neuman and Celano, 2001). In addition, literacy learning in many undeveloped countries is not advancing (Triebel in Olson and Torrance, 2001; Wagner, 1995; Shiel, 2002). This trend also applies to South Africa as some figures suggest that at least 51% of the poorer populations are illiterate (STATS SA, 1996 as cited in the Education Atlas of South Africa,2000).
Another area of inadequate literacy learning appears to have arisen amongst certain young adult sub-groups in well-developed and well-resourced countries. Some recent figures show that between 20 – 25 % of young adult sub-groups have low literacy or low numeracy skills, and some commentators predict that the percentage is likely to rise to 45% in the near future (Neuman, 2001; Snow, Burns and Griffin, 1998; Wagner, 1995; Triebel in Olson andTorrance, 2001).
This world-wide crisis in literacy learning is obviously of concern to many learners, parents, educators, academics, and economists, and clearly demands research attention. When South Africa’s developmental needs are also considered, research attention seems even more critical, as some theorists and researchers consider that there is an indispensable interaction between literacy learning, cognitive development and the development of democracy (Schlaffer, 1968 cited in Triebel, 2001). From this standpoint, it seems hard to imagine that the democracy and equity that has been desired after so many generations of injustice and discrimination may take far too long to achieve because a high percentage of South Africa’s people are unable to read or write.
So why is literacy learning not on the increase as would be expected with movements towards inclusive education and extra funding often being provided by many developed countries? Many reasons are beyond the scope of this paper. However, analysis using Marxian/ecosystemic and social constructivist frameworks will help provide some of the answers.
Political structures clearly have profound effects on literacy learning, whether they stem from a country’s governing structures or from powerful supra-political entities like UNESCO. It is interesting to note that, on the whole, politically generated literacy campaigns have been judged, on fairly stringent criteria, as being failures, that is, people do not use resultant reading and writing skills as an integral part of their lives (Elwert in Olson and Torrance, 2001). The failure of some literacy campaigns is often attributed to the lack of writing cultures in certain societies or in certain sub-cultures (Elwert in Olson and Torrance, 2001). In other words, a deterrent to literacy learning is present if a political and / or societal base does not provide an impetus to help transform literacy into a self-sustaining activity.
Politics and the development of a society’s writing culture are also closely allied to some of the following deterrents to literacy learning. For example, many studies cited in Neuman and Celano (2001) show that children and youth who do not exist in a middle class socio-economic group, often have serious patterns of underachievement in literacy learning. Neuman and Celano (2001) attribute this underachievement to some extent to the lack of access to print these poorer children have, due to the inadequacy of the provision of public resource centers.
Politicians also promulgate policies relating to curricula and teaching methodology, which do not always achieve the desired effect. For example, in Ireland it was found that achievement levels in English reading had not changed since 1980, despite the awarding of increased resources for literacy instruction and curriculum reform in the late 1980’s (Sheil, 2001). Cunningham (2001) points out that such policies have not usually contributed to the growth of literacy learning in most countries. I would argue that this is because many literacy curricula are not grounded in ecosystemic and social constructivist frameworks, and as such are doomed to failure, whether they are devised for exclusive or inclusive education.
Another political deterrent to literacy learning is found in formerly colonized countries. For example, colonial politicians in these countries often endowed the colonial language with more power than the indigenous languages. This policy encouraged literacy learning via the powerful languages as well as causing the devaluing of mother tongues. In Africa, this focus on largely European languages means that many indigenous languages do not have any standardized written forms and little literature is available, which along with the power inherent in the ex-colonial languages implies that the significance of written language varies considerably from community to community. This phenomenon has interfered considerably, according to some theorists, with literacy practice taking hold of the majority of Africa’s people (Akoha in Olson and Torrance, 2001).
In similar vein, many literacy programmes use the dominant language as a medium of instruction, as opposed to the learners’ mother tongues. A considerable number of studies have revealed high failure rates in such programmes (Goody in Olson and Torrance, 2001; Lopez in Olson and Torrance, 2001; Prah in Olson and Torrance, 2001; Akoha in Olson and Torrance, 2001), though one constructivist programme that used a second language as a medium of instruction have shown excellent results (Walker, Rattanavich and Oller, 1992).
These few examples indicate that literacy learning is clearly dependant on the interaction between political, socio-economic and cultural structures. It may be obvious to state that many of the factors mentioned affect the development of learners’ motivation towards learning and / or using reading and writing skills. In addition, considerable research has shown that the extent to which family members, teachers and other adults in the community read to the young and model literacy-like activities also affect the development of and motivation towards literacy learning and usage.
Ways of teaching reading and writing have fluctuated over the last century or so. Graves and Dykstra (1967 and reprinted in 1997) reported that in the United States at least, during the 1930’s to the early 1950’s, some agreement regarding reading instruction was achieved in favour of basal readers. This approach emphasized the recognition of whole words and under-emphasized phonics instruction. However, in 1950’s this approach came under considerable attack and thereafter the phonics method of ‘breaking the code’ was strongly advocated. Accordingly, in 1959 a special committee was convened to examine the issue of reading methodology, and a large scale, cooperative research experiment was set in place, which got off the ground in the 1960’s (Graves and Dykstra, 1997). This landmark research was entitled the First Grade Studies (FGS; Bond and Dykstra, 1967 and reprinted in 1997), and focused largely on analyzing the effects of teaching reading using various phonics methodologies.
This study’s findings suggested that the ability to recognize the letters of the alphabet was the single best predictor of first grade reading achievement. They also found that various non-basal programmes were superior to basal programmes after one year of instruction, when using word recognition as a criterion for reading achievement. However, when reading comprehension, reading accuracy etc were used as criteria of achievement, the findings were less consistent. Finally, no method was found to be especially effective for learners with high or low levels of reading readiness and so on. It is interesting to note that though the study was originally underpinned by the psycho-medical model (reading was largely seen as a purely perceptual process), by the time the study was over and documented, it would seem apparent that there had been some shift in thinking, as many of the suggestions made by the authors are clearly more process (constructivist) and systems-based (ecosystemic) than perceptually based (psycho-medical model).
Some of the new directions reading research took after the FGS included psycho-linguistic theory, cognitive science as well as theories and models of literacy learning. In the next section the trends and findings in some recent literacy instruction studies over the past few years will be explored.
A limited survey of literacy instruction research from1997 – 2002 shows that three categories of literacy instruction were largely researched, the first being the skill-based approach ( mostly phonics programmes), the second being whole language approaches and the third balanced approaches. It is interesting to note that the majority of the studies (58%) were grounded in the psycholinguistic or whole language approach, which is both ecosystemic and constructivist to some extent(Walker, Rattanovich, and Oller, 1993; Wolff,1998; Dahl, Scharer and Lawson, 1999; Neuman,1999; Sipe, 2000; Jordan, Snow and Porche, 2000; Morrow, Pressley, Smith and Smith,1997; Rosenhouse, Fertelson, Kita and Goldstein, 1997; Hanson, 2002; Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson and Soler, 2002; Rex, 2001; Wollman-Bonilla, 2001; Ford and Opitz, 2002; Mackenzie, 2001; Sipe, 2001;Hoewisch, 2001; Chaleff and Ritter, 2001; Frank, Dixon and Brandts, 2001; Hicks and Villaume, 2001; Headley and Dunston, 2000; Short, Kane and Peeling, 2000)..
On the other hand, skills-based (grounded in the medical model) methods are still being done (31%; Bloodgood, 1999; Baumann, Edwards, Font, Tereshinski, Kame’enui and Oleinik,2002; Sheehan-Holt and Smith, 2000; Juel and Minden-Cupp, 2000; Nation and Hulme, 1997; Otaiba, 2001; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub and Shanahan,2001;Aiken and Bayer,2002; Johnston,2001, Johnston,2001; Valtin and Naegele,2001). . Finally, only 11% of the studies were based on balanced approaches, which shows that this field is still fairly new ( Mathes, Howard, Allen and Fuchs, 1998; Oyetunde, 2002; Pieronek, 2001; Ivey and Broaddus, 2001; Santa and Hoien, 1999).
A brief analysis of each methodology follows in terms of how ecosystemic and constructivist they are.
Skill-based instruction research. Phonics-based instructional methods are based on a psycho-medical model as the assumption is that reading is largely a perceptual process. However, ecosystemic and constructivist research and theory has shown that literacy learning is a very complex process, so phonics is clearly not enough on its own to be used as an instructional method. In addition, a recent review of skills-based studies by Troia (1999) indicates that many findings regarding phonic and other skills-based instructional methods are not necessarily valid, which casts doubt on all the findings so far about the strong links between literacy learning and phonic skills.
Whole language, literature-based instructional research
This approach is based on psycho-linguistic theory, which maintains that reading and writing is an extension of language skills, and therefore literacy instruction should be firmly linked to language in all its forms. This approach is largely underpinned by ecosystemic and constructivist theory, though these theories are not always applied completely. On the whole, studies in this area have shown good results with mainstream learner populations. For example, Reading Recovery is a typical whole language programme, one that is based on language and literature immersion. Considerable research cited in Santa and Hoien (1999) shows that Reading Recovery has demonstrated good effects with first grade reading achievement for the majority of learners, though some studies have shown that learners’ motivation towards reading is not always improved (Quirk and Schwanenflugel, 2004) nor do they always learn metacognitive strategies to help them improve their literacy skills (Santa and Hoien, 1999). Both findings suggest that insufficient emphasis on ecosystemic influences and constructivist methods have contributed to lowered motivation, and to lowered metacognitive strategies respectively. In addition, some whole language studies are not to structured, so it is difficult to prove which effects were achieved by which methods, so study results are often confounded.
Balanced approach literacy instruction research This approach is usually based on the combination of whole language, literature-based styles of literacy instruction together with structured, explicit methods of teaching phonetic analysis and synthesis. These methods are often grounded in different frameworks and the practices vary, especially in terms how and where in the process the skills are taught. A review of 6 books written on how to teach literacy using balanced approaches (Freppon and Dahl, 1998) found that all the methods were language and literature rich, though some programmes used very basal and / or easily decodable texts. In addition, the emphasis on phonics and the way it was taught varied considerably. Finally, apart from phonics-based and whole language theories, the ecosystemic theory did not seem explicit, and only one method referred to a social-constructivist framework in this review.
The findings in these studies surveyed were largely descriptive and, in any case, the methodologies were very different, so not much can be inferred from this research.
What is clear from this review of recent literacy research is that the teaching and learning of literacy is a highly complex process, and that much more documentation of exemplary approaches to literacy instruction is necessary before one can intimate what kind of literacy instructional approach could be adapted to suit the learning styles and needs of most learners, especially in inclusive education contexts.
So what method of literacy teaching and learning will help promote the acquisition of literacy skills? It is proposed that the CATLI, grounded in ecosystemic and constructivist frameworks, and in recent findings in literacy learning and teaching, cognition, motivation, and emotion is a step in the right direction. A brief motivation for this method follows in the next section.
TOWARDS A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO LITERACY INSTRUCTION (CATLI)
Developmental theory and the CATLI
Using the Marxian/ecosystemic framework in the CATLI makes the examination of all factors that may affect the teaching, learning and usage of literacy skills easier and more accurate, thereby enabling teachers to understand learners better, as well guiding them as they choose what aspects of literacy learning needs to be included in their teaching. For example, when some researchers/practitioners find that children and youth who do not exist in a middle-class socio-economic group have serious patterns of underachievement in literacy learning, using an ecosystemic approach would provide a framework which would enable them to explore systematically the interacting factors that could have caused this lack of learning In the same way, practitioners are enabled to design teaching and learning strategies to suit the needs of their learners. For example, if children come from largely illiterate families, considerable literacy experience (suited to their culture and interests) is provided in class, with the educator (mostly) reading to the pupils. In addition, if learners have been denied much experience due to poverty and discrimination, experience will be provided at school, so that relevant knowledge can be constructed.
Constructivism and the CATLI
Another important gap in some but not all models of literacy instruction is the focus on transmission methods of teaching literacy, instead of constructivist methods. The link to skills-based methods are obvious, as the teacher using this method largely focuses on the direct teaching of splinter skills, most of which do not enable children to improve their own meta-cognitive skills to aid themselves when reading. Constructivism is integrated into the CATLI and permeates all levels of the method, which means that much literacy learning is constructed as learners do practical activities such as building a space ship and then writing about what they did, as opposed to the learner learning by rote, a la transmission teaching. In addition, the CATLI incorporates relevant meta-themes based on learners’ interests into the planning, which integrates many aspects of knowledge into one coherent whole for the learners, thereby helping them to develop their concepts (and consequently their knowledge) rapidly and efficiently as well as improving motivation for learning and literacy.
In addition, Feuerstein’s concept of mediated learning is also incorporated into the CATLI, which enables learners to develop metacognitive strategies, so that learners can fully develop aspects of cognitive development that may be interfering with literacy learning,.
Cognition and the CATLI
A fairly recent theoretical conceptualization in cognitive theory based on Luria’s work (1973), has also been incorporated into the CATLI. This conceptualization has been called the PASS model by Das, Naglieri and Kirby (1994), which has been used to describe the part planning, attention, simultaneous and successive processing play in cognition. This conceptualization has been found to be particularly helpful in aiding the design of strategies to suit individual learning styles and has been applied particularly to aspects of multilevel teaching in the CATLI.
Of particular interest is the notion of examining learners’ successive processing abilities which experience and studies (Das, Naglieri and Kirby, 1994;) have shown is often linked to experiencing difficulties with learning to read and write when conventional methods of teaching literacy are used. The PASS model helps practitioners realize that designing teaching styles to suit learning styles is most efficacious for literacy learning as opposed to drilling learners repeatedly in methods that are clearly not working. Accordingly, some multilevel teaching and learning strategies designed to suit individuals’ cognitive processing styles are provided in the CATLI, which are delivered within the process of literacy instruction, not as separate instruction. Experience has shown that this fairly small amount of individualization has helped learners learn to read and write well and quickly when using the CATLI even though they have had repeated failure elsewhere.
Motivation and the IATLI
Motivation to read and write is lacking in many children, whether they struggle to read or not. In fact some studies imply that both undeveloped and developed countries have individuals who appear to be alienated from the literacy process (Triebel in Olsen and Torrance, 2001; Wagner, 1995; Neuman and Celano, 2001). Clearly, many of the politico-economic interactions referred to above contribute to this reluctance, as has teacher transmission modes of teaching reading and writing. However, for some children the inability of teachers to match teaching methods to suit learning styles has also contributed, as has the lack of authentic reasons for reading and writing being made plain to learners. Whole language approaches went far towards improving learners’ motivation to read and write, by including authentic reasons for reading and writing as well as establishing a literature-rich environment for learners’ enticement. A recent survey on middle school classrooms in the U S (Ivey and Broaddus, 2001) adds weight to this notion as these students clearly found the teacher reading aloud, as well as the quality and diversity of reading materials provided as the most important aspects of reading instruction.
Accordingly, the CATLI places an emphasis on providing authentic reasons for reading and writing, which when combined with the meta-themes (mentioned in the previous sub-section) which incorporate their interests as well as curriculum constraints, has contributed considerably to student motivation to read and write. In addition, in South Africa, where many schools do not have access to books at all, let alone books whose content is relevant and in relevant languages, the authentic task of writing books based on their classroom experiences has provided considerable motivation for learning to read and write.
Learner Support and the IATLI
Learner support is often not catered for in classroom-based literacy instruction, even though there is always a section of the population that does not learn well (Santa and Hoien, 1999; Schmidt, Gillen, Zollo and Stone, 2002 and many others). Learner support should clearly be incorporated in any curriculum design if it is intended for inclusive classrooms. Such support programmes would need to be based on a critical, ecosystemic framework, especially in South Africa, as the various interacting factors stemming largely from the environment, such as insufficient experience or insufficient mediation by adults or high stress levels, need to be factored in with the learner’s individual differences, so that multi-level teaching and learning experiences can be designed, amongst other things. Using the ecosystemic conceptualization enables theoreticians to include in literacy instructional approaches the teaching and learning of some of the tools that learners were not given before entering school such as literacy experience, strategies to develop a broad knowledge base, emotional and motivational support and so on as is necessary.
The CATLI structure enables teachers to slot these aspects into literacy instruction and learning where necessary, much of which can be done in the general teaching and learning process in inclusive classrooms. Experience has also shown that the format of the CATLI, which includes highly structured graphic organizers which helps teachers plan their CATLI interventions, is very teacher-friendly, and helps them considerably in planning for the needs of individual learners. This aspect also helps to ensure a high quality of instruction, which is always of concern (Troia, 1999). However, this quality cannot be assured without support for teachers being built into the process, which will be dealt with in the next section.
Expecting teachers to enable all learners to achieve their developmental, cognitive and learning potential in inclusive classrooms without support has been proven to be unrealistic, and has affected considerably the motivation of many teachers to work in inclusive settings (Milton and Forlin, 2003; Christianson, Elkins, Ashman and Van Krayenoord, 1996). The same researchers and my own experience have shown that teacher support is necessary to make the implementation of inclusive education effective and responsible. Accordingly, the support of teachers by learning support specialists both in and out of the classroom has been made a very important part of the CATLI process.
CONCLUSIONS
Though my own experience has shown that the CATLI works very well as an inclusionary curriculum in South Africa, it has not yet been proved in a study, though this study is underway in South Africa. In addition, it is a very labour-intensive approach, as it demands considerable ongoing supervision and collaborative support at in-service, pre-service, school and education department levels. This has considerable implications for the implementation of inclusion, firstly regarding the high cost of such support, which may prove exorbitant for some countries. Secondly, it is necessary to ensure that hose who are teaching and supporting others are fully trained and fully inclusive in their thinking, which also may prove difficult to achieve. However, these are not insurmountable problems, especially in light of the high cost of the spoiled lives of many of our children.
REFERENCES
Adelman, H S and Taylor, L (1993). Learning problems and learning disabilities: Moving forward. California, USA: Brooks Cole.
Aiken, A G and Bayer, L (2002). They love words. The Reading Teacher, 56 (1)
Akoha, J (2001) in D R Olson and N Torrance (eds), The making of literate societies. Oxford : Blackwell.
Baumann, J F, Hoffman, J V, Duffy-Hester, and Ro,J M (2000). What will be the demands of literacy in the workplace in the next millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (3) 338 – 377.
Bauman, J F, Edwards, E C, Font, G, Tereshinski, C A, Kame’enui, E J and Olejnik, S F (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth grade students. Reasing Research Quarterly, 37 (2) 130 - .
Bloodgood, J (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and name acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (3) 286 - .
Bond, G L and Dykstra, R (1967; reprinted in 1997). The cooperative research program in first grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (4) : pp 348 – 427.
Carroll, A, Forlin,C and Jobling, A (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30 (3) 65-79.
Chaleff, C D and Ritter, M H (2001). The use of miscue analysis with deaf readers. The Reading Teacher, 55(2)190-200.
Christianson, C A, Elkins, J, Ashman, A F and Van Kraayenoord, C (1996). Classroom support for Australian children who experience learning difficulties. Journal of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, 15(2)23-37.
Cunningham, J W (2001). The National Reading Report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (3) 326 – 335.
Dahl, K L, Scharer, P L and Lawson, L L (1999). Phonics insruction and student achievement in whole language first grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,34(3)312 -.
Das J P, Naglieri, J A and Kirby, J R (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes:The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Department of Education (2001). Education White Paper 6: Special needs education: Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Donald, D in Perspectives on learning difficulties: International concerns and South African realities by Engelbrecht, P, Kriegler, S M and Booysen, M I (eds) (1996). Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Edmondson, J (2002). Asking different questions: Critical analyses and reading research. Reading Research Quearterly, 37 (1) 113 – 119.
Educational Foundation Trust (2000). The education atlas of South Africa. Durban, South Africa: The Education Foundation Trust.
Elwert, G (2001) in D R Olson and N Torrance (eds), The making of literate societies. Oxford : Blackwell.
Erhi, L C, Nunes, S R, Willows, D M, Schuster, B V, Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z and Shanahan, T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children to learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (3) 250 – 287.
Ford, M P and Opitz, M F (2002). Using centers to engage children during guided reading time: Intensifiying learning experiences away from the teacher. The Reading Teacher,55(8) 710-717.
Forlin, C and Forlin, P (2002). Outcome focused education for inclusion. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18 (1) 62-81.
Frank, C R, Dixon, C N and Brandts, L R (2001). Bears, trolls and pagemasters: Learning about learners in book clubs. The Reading Teacher, 54(5) 448-462.
Freppon, P A and Dahl, K L (1998). Theory and research into practice: Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (2) 240 –251.
Goody, E (2001) in D R Olson and N Torrance (eds), The making of literate societies. Oxford : Blackwell.
Graves, M F and Dykstra, R D (1997). Contextualising the First-Grade Studies: What is the best way to teach children to read? Reading Research Quartely, 32, (4): 342 – 344.
Hansen, J (2002). A teachers’ development project: A cross-cultural experience in Brazil. The Reading Teacher,55(5)456-462.
Harcombe, E J (1993). The interaction effects of intrapersonal,interpersonal and socioe-conomic variables on stress adjustment of disadvantaged children. Unpublished Master’s of Education Research Report, University of the Witwatersrand.
Harcombe, E J (2001). Development and learning support in the inclusive context. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Harcombe, E J (2001). Instructional principles and practices for inclusive classrooms.. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Headley, K N and Dunston, P J (2000). Teachers’ Choices books and comprehension strategies as transaction tools. The Reading Teacher, 54(3) 260-268.
Hicks, C P and Villaume, S K (2001). Finding our own way: Critical reflections on the literacy development of two Reading Recovery children. The Reading Teacher, 54(4) 398-412.
Hoewisch, H (20010. creating well-rounded curricula with Flat Stanley: A school-university project. The r\Reading Teacher, 55(2) 154-168.
Hruby, G G (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social constructivism: Implications for literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (1) 48 – 62.
Ivey, G and Broaddus, K (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (4) 350-377.
Ivy, G and Broaddus, K (2001). Tailoring the fit: Reading instruction and middle school readers. The Reading Teacher, 54(1) 68-78.
Johnston, F P (2001). The utility of phonic generalizations: Let’s take another look at Clymer’s conclusions. The Reading Teacher,55(2)132-143.
Jordan, G E ,Snow, C E, and Porche, M V (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (4) 524 -.
Juel, C and Minden-Cupp, C (2000). Learning to read wordsL Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35 (4) 458 - .
Lopez, L E (2001) in D R Olson and N Torrance (eds), The making of literate societies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Luria, A R (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
Mackenzie, K K (2001). Using Literacy Booster Groups to maintain and extend Reading Recovery success in primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 55 (3) 222-234.
Mathes, P G, Howard, J K, Allen S and Fuchs, D (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first grade readers: Making early reading instruction more responsive to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33 (1) 62.
Milton, M and Forlin, C (2003). Supporting students with learning difficulties in a secondary school. Special Education Perspectives, 12 (1) 31 - 46
Morrow, L M, Pressley, M, Smith, J K and Smith M (1997). The effects of a literature –based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (1)
Nation, K and Hulme, C (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (2).
Neuman, S B (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3)286-.
Neuman, S B (2001). The role of knowledge in early literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (4) pp 468-475.
Neuman, S B and Celano, D (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, (1) ; 8 – 26.
Otaiba, S A (2001). Children who do not respond to early literacy instruction: A longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (4) 344 – 346.
Oyetunde, T O (2002). Second language reading: Insights from Nigerian primary schools. The Reading Teacher, 55(8) 748-755.
Pieronek, F T (2001). In-service project: Upper primary Brunei Darusssalam teachers’ responses to using four specific reading strategies. The Reading Teacher , 54 (%) 522-532.
Prah, K K (2001) in D R Olsen and N Torrance (eds), The making of literate societies. Oxford : Blackwell.
Purcell-Gates, V Degener, S C, Jacobson, E and Soler, M (2002). The impact of authentic adult literacy instruction on adult literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1)70-92.
Quirk, M P and Schwanenflugel, P (2004). Do supplemental remedial programs address the motivational issues of struggling readers? An analysis of five popular programs. Reading Research and Instruction, 43 (3) 1 - 19
Rex, L A (2001). The remaking of a high school reader. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3)288-314.
Rosenhouse, J, Fertelson, D, Kita,B and Goldstein, Z (1997). Interactive reading aloud to Israeli first graders: It’s contribution to literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2) 168-183.
Santa, C M and Hoien, T (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A reading program for early intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (1) 54 – 79.
Schmidt, P R, Gillen, S, Zollo, T C and Stone, R (2002). Literacy learning and scientific inquiry: Children respond. The Reading Teacher, 55 (6) 534 – 548.
Schur, Y, Skuy, M, Zietsman, A and Fridjhon (2002). A Thinking Journey based on constructivism and Mediated Learning Experience as a vehicle for teaching schence to low functioning students and enhancing their cognitive skills. School Psychology International, 23(1):36-67.
Searfoss, L W (1997). Connecting the past with the present: The legacy and spirit of the First Grade Studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (4) : 439 – 445.
Schlaffer, R (1969) in Triebel, A in Olson, D R and Torrance, N (eds). The making of literate societies. Oxford : Blackwell.
Sheehan-Holt, J K and Smith, M C (2000). Does basic skills education affect adults’literacy proficiencies and reading practices? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2) 226-.
Sheil, G (2002). Reforming reading instruction in Ireland and England. The Reading Teacher, 55(4) 372-374.
Short, R A, Kane, M and Peeling, T (2000). Retooling the reading lesson: Matching the right tools to the job. The Reading Teacher, 54 (3) 284-295.
Sipe, L R (2000). The construction of literacy understanding by first and second graders in oral response to picture storybook read-alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2)252-.
Sipe, L R (2001). Invention, convention and intervention: Invented spelling and the teacher’s role. The Reading Teacher, 55(3)252-273.
Snow, C; Burns, M S; and Griffin, P (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D C : National Academy Press.
Triebel, A in Olsen, D R and Torrance N (eds) (2001). The making of literate societies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Troia, G A (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the experimental methodology. Readin Research Quarterly, 34 (1) 28 – 52.
Valtin, R and Naegele, I M (2001). Correcting reading and spelling difficulties: A balanced model for remedial education. The Reading Teacher.55(1) 36-45.
Van Rooyen, B, Le Grange, L and Newmark, R (2002). (De)constructons of functionalist discourses in South Africa’s Education White Paper 6: Special Needs Education. International Journal of Special Education, Vol 17, 2.
Wagner, D A (1995). Literacy and development: Rationales, innovations and future directions. International Journal of Educational Development, 15 (4) : 341-362.
Walker, R, Rattanavich, S and Oller, J W, Jr (1992). Teaching all the children to read: Concentrated language encounter techniques. Buckingham, U K: Open University Press.
Wolff, S A (1998). The flight of reading: shifts in instruction, orchestration and attitudes through classroom theatre. Reading Research Quarterly, 33920184-201.
Wollman-Bonilla, J E (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2)184-201.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |