Research on Classroom Ecologies

Implications for Inclusion of Children With Learning Disabilities

Deborah L. Speece, Barbara K. Keogh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136490026
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildung Allgemein

Written during a period of reexamination and change in the field of special education, this book was developed in order to provide a better understanding of the contexts in which children receive their formal education. The movement toward the "least restrictive environment" for the education of children with disabilities is weathering a wave of reinterpretations including mainstreaming, the regular education initiative, and inclusion. While each interpretation has its proponents and critics, limited theory and few data are available to guide these important policy decisions. Focusing specifically on classrooms -- the settings where educators can have the most immediate impact and where research is most needed -- this volume's goals are:
* to establish what is known about classroom ecologies from both general and special education perspectives,
* to integrate the perspectives of researchers and practitioners, and
* to chart directions for further research specifically related to children with learning disabilities. The construct of classroom ecology is defined as three interrelated domains: instruction, teacher and peer interaction, and organization and management. This scheme provides the structure for the book. Taken as a whole, the content of the volume underscores the limits of current knowledge and at the same time provides directions for needed changes in both research and practice.

1

Learning Disabilities Within the Context of Schooling

Barbara K. Keogh
University of California, Los Angeles

Deborah L. Speece

University of Maryland at College Park

This book was written during a period of reexamination and change in the field of special education. The federal legal requirement of “least restrictive environment” for the education of children with disabilities is weathering a wave of reinterpretations including mainstreaming, the Regular Education Initiative, and inclusion. Although each interpretation has its proponents and critics, limited theory and few data are available to guide these important policy decisions. Yet, these decisions will have long-lasting impact on children with learning disabilities, and it is from this perspective that we seek better understanding of the contexts in which children receive their formal education. Although there are many important contexts for children (e.g., families, social settings, religious organizations), this volume is focused specifically on classrooms. It is our view that classrooms are the settings where educators can have the most immediate impact and where research is most needed. Our purposes in this volume are to identify major influences within classrooms and to consider the implications for children with learning disabilities. In this chapter we present some of the arguments and research that support the importance of a broader view of learning disabilities, one that includes the child in the context of the classroom. We end with an overview of the organization and scope of the volume.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Examination of the literature on both research and practice reveals surprisingly little concern for the influence of classroom contexts on the educational competencies and problems of children with learning disabilities. Indeed, the traditional focus has been on the individual child, with a central inference that learning disabilities have a neurobiological basis. Review of the history of this field demonstrates clearly the strong neurological orientation (For comprehensive reviews, see Doris, 1986; Torgesen, 1991). The early work on “congenital work blindness” by Hinshelwood (1917), the extensive studies by Strauss and his colleagues of children with brain damage (Strauss & Kephart, 1955; Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947), and the educational applications of Cruickshank, Bentzen, Ratzeburg, and Tannhauser (1961) had in common the assumption of a neurologically based disorder. Consistent with this perspective, the definition of learning disabilities proposed by the U.S. Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (Kavanagh & Truss, 1986) stated that learning disabilities “are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction…” (p. 550).

The concern for the neurology of learning disabilities is clearly evidenced in current research conducted through the National Institutes of Health. Important examples include work on neuro-imaging, on the evolution of language, on the search for biological markers of learning disabilities, and on major cognitive mechanisms underlying dyslexia, all supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Lyon, 1995). Similarly, research sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NICDS) on learning disabilities in children addresses questions of subtypes of reading disorders based on electrophysiological findings, of difficulties in auditory discrimination, in developmental agraphia, and in the etiologies and effects of specific neurodevelopmental syndromes (Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities, 1987). These are important efforts that hold promise for a deeper understanding of learning disabilities, their expression, and their treatment.

We suggest, however, that understanding the neurobiological basis of the problem is only one part of the puzzle. In a seminal article, Sameroff and Chandler (1975) argued persuasively for the need to consider development within a transactional model. In their view, and we agree, development and/or problems in development are not well explained by main-effect models, even when the main effects are neurologically or biologically based. Thus, except in extreme conditions, predicting outcomes from single conditions early on is often uncertain. We argue that understanding learning disabilities requires consideration of both neurobiological and contextual contributions to the problem. In our view, schools and classrooms represent important aspects of context, and thus deserve careful consideration in understanding the development and achievement of children with learning disabilities.

RISK AND PROTECTIVE INFLUENCES

Borrowing a page from the extensive literature on risk (Rutter, 1983; Werner, 1986), we suggest that some conditions serve to intensify vulnerability and problems and thus may be considered risk factors, whereas other influences have buffering or protective effects (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Keogh & Weisner, 1993; Rutter, 1979, 1987; Werner, 1986). Werner and Smith (1992) defined risk factors as “biological or psychosocial hazards that increase the likelihood of a negative developmental outcome…” (p. 3), and protective factors as those that “modify (ameliorate, buffer) a person’s reaction to a situation that in ordinary circumstances leads to maladaptive outcomes” (p. 5). A number of investigators have identified child, family, and community factors that serve risk or protective functions. These include biological status, maternal mental health, family size and stability, adequacy of and access to services (Garmezy et al., 1984; Masten et al., 1988; Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1992). However, relatively little systematic research has been directed at delineating risk and protective influences within schools (Keogh, 1992). This is surprising, given the obvious importance of schooling as an influence in children’s lives, and the persistent findings that children’s problem behavior and performance early on in school are associated with a range of negative, and often long-term, outcomes (see Kolvin, Miller, Fleeting, & Kolvin, 1988; Robins, 1978). We suggest that it is important to identify and understand the contributions of schools and classrooms if we are to work effectively with children with learning disabilities.

LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH ON SCHOOLING EFFECTS

Our understanding of the contribution of schooling has been limited in several ways. First, for the most part, children’s performance and adjustment in school have been treated as outcome variables or as status indices. Thus, although academic scores are used to identify individuals as learning disabled (the well-known if infamous aptitude-achievement discrepancy), we have only limited insight into the mechanisms or processes that account for such discrepancies, including the possible positive or negative contributions of schools or of classroom environments. This is due, in part, to the reliance on global descriptions of schools and to the limited number of child characteristics assessed. A relationship between scores on standardized achievement tests and the economic status of schools is well documented (Nichols & Chen, 1981), yet the reasons for the relationships are not entirely clear.

In this regard Felner, Aber, Primavera, and Cauce (1985) proposed that “a clear strategy of choice would be one that focuses on the relationships between specific aspects of the school environment and specific spheres of adjustment, rather than merely on more global linkages” (p. 367). Such an approach is promising as a way of specifying the functional transactions that affect the learning and development of young pupils with problems, and, thus, may provide direction for interventions. Important working questions have to do with which aspects of schools and which indices of adjustment? Recognition of the multivariate nature of the school experience adds both conceptual and operational complexity to research efforts.

A second limitation, as noted earlier, is that the bulk of research on at-risk conditions, including children with learning disabilities, has focused on the children and, to a lesser extent, on their families. A proliferating number of tests and assessment systems presumed to have relevance for schooling are available for describing characteristics of young children. Despite giving lip service to a range of influences on readiness for learning, however, the assessment approaches are directed almost exclusively at the child, typically tapping developmental levels in domains of physical motor, language, social/emotional, and cognitive knowledge. Although data about families, home conditions, and even examiner characteristics are sometimes gathered (see McLean & McCormick, 1993, for discussion and review of guidelines for assessment), information about schools is conspicuously missing.

Exclusive focus on the child provides important but only partial information, given powerful developmental and social/cultural theories that argue for the importance of context on development and achievement (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Weisner, 1984). Over 10 years ago Messick (1984) argued for a two-phase assessment system: The first, involving an analysis of the context of learning, was designed to address the overrepresentation of males and ethnic minorities in special education; the second phase was focused on the individual child and his or her specific attributes and problems. Despite the seemingly sensible nature of this approach to assessment, it has yet to be adopted widely in research and practice. We emphasize that schools, as well as families, are part of the context of children’s lives, yet, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Goodlad, 1984; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979), schools have rarely been studied in risk research, and, where included, too often they have been described in nonspecific, demographic terms.

Third, when schooling is taken into account, it is usually with fixed effects models that assume homogeneity of conditions within schools and similarity of relationships between intake and outcome measures across schools (Maughan, 1988). These assumptions are, of course, highly suspect, because there is clearly great variation among schools within and across school districts. Closely related, there has been almost exclusive reliance on traditional statistical techniques that are based on limited variables and aggregated data, and that yield only main effect findings addressing between-group differences (Keogh & MacMillan, 1996; Maughan, 1988). The emphasis on modal or normative findings, as well as a lack of concern for within-group variance and for interactions, have restricted our understanding of the contributions of schools to developmental and educational status.

Finally, because there have been relatively few longitudinal studies, possible long-term effects of schooling of children with learning disabilities and the impact of school at particular times are not well understood. Dunn (1988) considered children’s entry into school as a normative but potentially stressful event. In their follow-up study of the Kauai sample, Werner and Smith (1992) found that certain conditions and experiences, including those related to school, were especially important at certain times or in particular developmental periods. In this regard, Jason et al. (1993) reported that transfers or transitions between schools (e.g., from elementary to middle school) can be stressful experiences that are often associated with declines in academic performance and increases in personal/social problems. The impact of changes in school context may be especially strong on vulnerable children such as those with learning disabilities. For example, longitudinal analyses of elementary school children with learning disabilities indicate a decline in performance despite special education intervention. McKinney and his colleagues documented that children identified as learning disabled in first grade became more maladaptive with respect to profiles of classroom behavior over a 3-year period (McKinney & Speece, 1986), experienced high rates of grade retention over a 5-year period, and performed significantly lower on verbal intelligence and achievement measures than did mainstreamed peers (Osborne, Schulte, & McKinney, 1991). These findings suggest there is more than individual differences at work in the performance of children with learning disabilities, and support the need to examine more closely the features of general and special education classrooms associated with academic and behavioral outcomes.

In summary, we consider schooling to be an active influence on, and contributor to, children’s risk or nonrisk status and to long-term outcomes for children with learning disabilities. We argue that educational status is, in part at least, a function of “goodness of fit” between child attributes and schooling demands, noting that for some children “educational risk” changes relative to setting and to time (Keogh, 1983, 1986). We suggest that children with learning disabilities are especially vulnerable to schooling effects, including changes in instructional and curricular demands and to teachers’ expectations for performance. We argue that understanding the contributions of schooling requires going beyond summarizing demographics and linear input–output “production models” to consideration of the how and why of differential outcomes.

RISK AND PROTECTIVE ASPECTS OF SCHOOLS

Although not focused on pupils with learning disabilities, important domains of schools (e.g., instructional programs, administrative practices, and school environments and climates) have been specified in a number of major studies (Goodlad, 1984; the National Education Longitudinal Study, 1988; see also Good & Brophy, 1986). These domains are consistent with the findings from the somewhat limited research base specifically addressing schooling and risk. Rutter and Madge (1976), as an example, included high teacher turnover, poor teacher attitudes, lack of incentives, low student expectations, and poor social climate in their list of school risk variables. Lerner, Lerner, and Zabski (1985) distinguished between demands related to the physical setting and organization of classrooms and to demands related to interpersonal relations, especially teachers’ expectations and requirements. Krasner’s (1992) review of risk and protective factors in schools identified number of students, rate of teacher turnover, number and kind of remedial and special programs, level of funding, atmosphere or climate, and physical safety. It is reasonable to hypothesize that long-term personal and educational outcomes for children, especially children with learning disabilities, are affected by curricular content and instructional techniques, by peer characteristics, and by teachers’ skills, attitudes, and expectations. These influences may serve either risk or protective functions.

As a backdrop to more detailed discussion in subsequent chapters, we stress that some of the risk and protective aspects of schools are so obvious that little discussion is needed and more research is irrelevant. It is a truism that safety is important, and that quality programs require adequate materials. Yet physical safety is a major problem in many areas, and a substantial number of children, especially children from low-income communities, attend schools that lack basic instructional materials (e.g., pencils, paper, textbooks), where buildings are deteriorated and dirty, and where play space is inadequate. These conditions must be considered factors that compound the developmental and educational status of at-risk children, particularly children who are at risk for learning problems. We suggest that improving the quality of schools in this domain is not a scientific question, but rather is a matter of social/political commitment.

In contrast, the possible contributions of other aspects of schools and classrooms are not as clear, especially as they relate to children with problems. In their review of the research base on classroom contexts and achievement for young children at risk for school failure, Speece and Molloy (1995) found few studies that linked these factors. That is, although there are many studies of classrooms, there is little work that systematically examines the influence of contextual elements on children who experience learning problems. This is a critical need if we are to provide quality education for children wit...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• About the Contributors
• 1 Learning Disabilities Within the Context of Schooling
• I Classroom Instruction
• II Classroom Interaction
• III Classroom Management
• IV Research Perspectives
• Epilogue
• Author Index
• Subject Index