首页> 外文OA文献 >A systematic review of pedagogical approaches that can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms with a particular focus on peer group interactive approaches
【2h】

A systematic review of pedagogical approaches that can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms with a particular focus on peer group interactive approaches

机译:对教学方法的系统回顾,可以有效地将主流教室中有特殊教育需求的儿童纳入其中,特别侧重于同伴群体互动方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundThe broad background to this review is a long history of concepts of special pupils and special education and a faith in special pedagogical approaches. The rise of inclusive schools and some important critiques of special pedagogy (e.g. Hart, 1996; Norwich and Lewis, 2001; Thomas and Loxley, 2001) have raised the profile of teaching approaches that ordinary teachers can and do use to include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms. Inclusive education itself is increasingly conceived as being about the quality of learning and participation that goes on in inclusive schools rather than simplistic matters of where children are placed. Policy and practice backgroundThe policy of including pupils with Special Education Needs (SEN) in mainstream schools and classrooms in England and Wales was importantly marked by the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) and has since gained momentum with Codes of Practice (DfE, 1994; 2003), government guidance (DfEE, 1998; 1998) and legislation (1981, 1993 and 1996 Education Acts; SENDA). There is a statutory requirement on mainstream schools to provide ‘effective learning opportunities for all pupils’ by setting suitable learning challenges, responding to pupils’ diverse learning needs and overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of learners.Research backgroundPrevious systematic literature reviews related to the area of special educational needs and inclusion have focused on behavioural concerns and behaviour management in schools (Harden, 2003); the impact of paid adult support on the participation and learning of pupils in mainstream schools, including pupils with SEN (Howes et al., 2003); and school-level approaches to facilitating the participation by all students in the cultures, curricula and communities of schools (Dyson et al., 2002). Non-systematic (in technical terms) literature reviews have addressed the question of whether there is a particular pedagogy for special educational needs or each type of SEN, particularly types of learning difficulty, but not related to mainstream contexts (Norwich and Lewis, 2001), or asked about approaches that can effectively include children in mainstream schools beyond classroom pedagogy (Sebba and Sachdev, 1997). While research has sought to establish the effectiveness of particular pedagogies or the impact of school actions on pupil participation there has been no prior systematic review that can answer the question of what pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with SEN in mainstream classrooms. AimsThe overall aim of the three-year project is to utilize the expertise of the research team in researching the evidence base in relation to inclusive pedagogy. In year one the focus is effective pedagogical approaches in use in mainstream classrooms with children with special educational needs, aged 7–14 years. The main aim of this systematic review was to investigate what pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms.Review questionsOur review question was:What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms?Our in-depth review focused on two related but more specific questions:Does a pedagogy involving a peer group interactive approach effectively includechildren with SEN in mainstream classrooms?How do mainstream classroom teachers enhance the academic attainment and social inclusion of children with special educational needs through peer group interactions?MethodsWhen the review question had been agreed a search was conducted. Search terms generated were aligned with the varying word usages in different countries and the British Education Thesaurus was used for selecting synonyms. All studies returned from searches were incorporated into Endnote bibliographic software enabling good compatibility with the EPPI-Centre systems.The studies were screened employing specific inclusion criteria to identify studies with a specific scope (a focus on students aged 7–14 who experience special educational needs, in mainstream classrooms, including pedagogical approaches and an indication of student outcomes); study type (empirical); and time and place (written in English and published after 1994) (see Appendix 2.1). A range of electronic databases and citation indexes were interrogated (see Appendix 2.2) and internet sites were searched (see Appendix 2.3). Screening was applied first to titles and abstracts (in two iterative stages) and then to full documents. Screening was conducted by two independent screeners on all titles and studies, and the EPPI link-person on a sample for quality assurance. For pragmatic reasons document retrieval ended on 31st March 2004; any studies received after that time will be need to be included in any update.The identified studies were taken through a series of graduated filters, culminating in the shortlist of studies. These were KEYWORDED using the EPPI-Centre (2003) Keywording Strategy (version 0.9.7) with review-specific keywords (see Appendix 2.4) in addition to EPPI keywords. This generated the ‘descriptive map’ of the studies in our review which provides a picture of the kinds of research that have been conducted together with details of their aims, methodologies, interventions, theoretical orientation, outcomes and so on. This process did NOT attempt to assess the quality of the studies. Discussion among the full review team and the advisory group of the most useful cluster of studies identified in the systematic map led to the re-focusing of the study onto two specific questions for the in-depth review. The in-depth review thus focused on a group of pedagogical approaches characterised by peer group interactions that were conducted by mainstream teachers without necessitating additional staff resource and asked about their effectiveness and how teachers used the approaches. New inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the studies in the map leading to a subset of studies for the in-depth review. Data extraction (using EPPI-Centre guidelines) was undertaken on these by two independent reviewers and any differences discussed and resolved. The quality of studies and weight of evidence (WoE) were assessed using the EPPI data extraction framework to assess the reliability and quality of each study and focus judgements about the trustworthiness of study results and the weight of evidence that the study could contribute to answering the in-depth review questions. Judgements about the relative weight of evidence of each study were made using the following explicit criteria: the soundness of studies (internal methodological coherence); the appropriateness of the research design and analysis in relation to the review questions, and the relevance of the study topic focus to the review questions. Taking into account quality of execution, appropriateness of design and relevance of focus, an overall weight of evidence judgement was made using a consistent formula (see Chapter 2). As quality assurance, each study was independently reviewed and data extracted by two different members of the review team or a member of the review team and the EPPI-centre link person. The findings of the individual in-depth studies were synthesised and conclusions and recommendations drawn. Synthesis took the form of eliciting a qualitative and quantitative overview for the effectiveness question and a structured narrative describing any overall, cross-study patterns/themes related to how teachers use peer group interactive approaches. ResultsA total of 2,095 potentially relevant reports were identified for the current review. Over half (1,156) were excluded in the first screening of titles and abstracts and a further 238 were excluded in a second iteration of the process (see Table 3.1). A total of 450 were sent for and 14% of these (64) were not received within the timeframe of the review or were unavailable. A total of 383 full reports were screened resulting in the exclusion of a further 315 reports, leaving 68 that met the criteria for inclusion in the mapping study.In the application of exclusion/inclusion criteria to the collection of titles and abstracts the measure of inter-rater reliability between the two members of the review team was good (Cohen’s Kappa 0.62). Nonetheless, for rigour, all rather than a sample of the titles and abstracts were double screened. There was 80% agreement for the two reviewers across the set of titles and abstracts. The kappa statistic for inter-rater reliability between each of the review members and our EPPI colleague was lower but fair (Cohen’s Kappa 0.35). This difference is most plausibly explained by the difference in expert knowledge of the subject matter between the review team members and our EPPI colleague. Most of the 68 studies in the map were identified through the electronic searches on PsychInfo and ERIC. Most of the studies were researcher-manipulated evaluations and most were undertaken in the USA. The majority did not focus on curricular issues, but of those that did literacy dominated. Primary school contexts were twice as prevalent as secondary school contexts. The target groups were mostly mixed sex pupils with learning difficulties. Regular mainstream teachers mostly carried out the teaching interventions, with special teachers and peers also often involved. The most common pedagogical approach was adaptation of instruction, often combined with other types of adaptation: materials, classroom environment and assessment. Just under a quarter of the studies involved peer group interactive approaches.In-depth reviewTen studies were included in the in-depth review and nine of these were conducted in the USA. With the exception of two exploration of relationships studies, the studies were evaluations, mostly researcher-manipulated (6). Six of the studies focused on literacy and six were conducted in primary school settings. Five studies were included in the synthesis for review question (a) and seven for review question (b). Question (a) studies researched cooperative learning, guided inquiry and Circle of Friends approaches. Outcomes measured included engagement in classroom activities, curriculum performance and social interactions with peers/social acceptance. Effect sizes were reported in four studies, ranging from small to fairly large. Synthesis of question (b) studies led to five substantive themes emerging: the model of student-as-learner; integration of academic and social considerations; organisational and organised support; holistic views of 'basic skills' and shared philosophy. ConclusionsSeveral studies were deemed to be medium or medium-high in terms of weight of evidence, but an issue remains about the scale of evidence available to address the research questions. Good quality studies, which incorporated empirical validations of effectiveness, were, unsurprisingly, based on small samples. There were no studies with high weight of evidence for question (a) and only one for question (b). The strength of confidence we can have in the evidence is therefore measured. Despite these limitations, the review did lead to some substantive findings and offered a basis on which to make some recommendations for practice. The likely effectiveness of peer group interactive approaches for inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms can be established and we have an (albeit small) evidence base on how teachers use these approaches, that is some qualitative understanding of the processes at work. There is a small accumulation of evidence about the effectiveness of cooperative learning particularly in relation to the curriculum area of literacy. Cooperative learning encompasses a range of teaching practices and the evidence base relates to the elements of social grouping/teamwork, revising and adapting the curriculum and working with a cooperative learning school ethos. Specific evidence is available for the effectiveness of two specific cooperative learning programmes. Evidence of effectiveness also relates to programmes associated with other related types of peer group interactive approach, Guided Inquiry and Circle of Friends.All of the studies showed evidence of some learning and, with the exception of the Circle of Friends approach, this has included learning in the academic domain. Three studies provide explicit evidence of impact on both the academic learning and community participation of pupils with special educational needs. A further study provides evidence of academic rather than social gains. The evidence also indicates improved attitudes toward curriculum areas and children's own views of their competence, acceptance and self-worth. The evidence indicates that peer group interactive approaches that are effective in academic terms are also often effective in terms of social participation and children's attitudes to their learning. Teasing out the elements of the approaches that are functionally related with each outcome is difficult and perhaps unnecessary in professional rather than research terms.The model of student as learner and having active agency in the construction of personal knowledge underpinned the studies and the interventions. Teachers fostered the co-construction of knowledge through scaffolding by, and dialogue with, peers. The studies recognised that a sense of belonging to and participation in the learning community has an important effect of young people’s learning in schools. Teachers made use of organisational support for community participation and organised support for peer group interactive approaches using peers and adults together with careful planning. An holistic approach to skill development underpinned many of the interventions in contrast to the isolated skill development associated with traditional remedial programmes for special needs. Making use of peers may bring with it a necessity to make skill development socially meaningful. Finally, the studies indicate a role for shared philosophy and common concern with participation in the learning community, cooperation and collaboration. Strengths and limitationsThis systematic literature review had both strengths and limitations. It was strong in asking relevant questions of use to teachers where limited resource is an issue. It encompasses studies of pupils representing a wide range of SEN. And there was high quality assurance for the review: screening, data extraction and quality assessment was conducted by two independent review team members (or a review team member and EPPI link-person) at each stage. Confidence in the review findings is strengthened by the quality of the studies and the rigorous check on quality that were applied. The literature review was limited in scope to material from 1994 and excluded pupils in the early years or post-14. The in-depth review was dominated by studies in primary contexts, meaning that as we move from the up through the school system to age 14, then our degree of confidence about the evidence for peer group interactive approaches drops considerably. Scope was also limited by the studies that did not arrive in time to be scrutinised in full. These tended to be unpublished theses (see Appendix 3.2) and therefore may be systematically different from the studies included in the map and in-depth review adding to the possibility of some distortion from publication bias. Negative or null outcomes are less likely to be published and which means the picture emerging from the systematic review may be over-optimistic. The review is also limited in the strength of the evidence base arising from this systematic review. The lack of randomised control trials means that evidence of effectiveness is not as strong as it could be. The number of studies in the synthesis is small and the numbers in the samples for these are also small. While we know enough about the pupils with special needs who participated in the studies to begin to judge generalisability, we know less about the teachers themselves and how representative they may be. We also know that the contexts for the studies are likely to differ from the cont
机译:背景知识这篇综述的广泛背景是特殊学生和特殊教育概念的悠久历史,以及对特殊教学方法的信念。包容性学校的兴起以及对特殊教育学的一些重要批评(例如,Hart,1996; Norwich和Lewis,2001; Thomas和Loxley,2001)提高了普通教师可以并且确实使用的包括特殊教育儿童在内的教学方法的形象。主流教室的需求。融合教育本身越来越被认为是关于融合学校中学习和参与质量的考虑,而不是关于儿童安置的简单化问题。政策和实践背景Warnock报告(DES,1978)十分重要地标志了将有特殊教育需求(SEN)的学生纳入英格兰和威尔士主流学校和教室的政策,此后随着《行为准则》(DfE,1994; 2003年),政府指导(DfEE,1998年; 1998年)和立法(1981年,1993年和1996年《教育法》; SENDA)。法定要求主流学校通过设置适当的学习挑战,应对学生的多样化学习需求以及克服针对个人和学习者的学习和评估的潜在障碍,为``所有学生提供有效的学习机会''。与特殊教育需求和包容性相关的评论集中在学校的行为关注和行为管理上(Harden,2003);有偿成人支持对主流学校,包括有特殊教育需要学生的学生参与和学习的影响(Howes等,2003);学校层面的方法,以促进所有学生参与学校的文化,课程和社区(Dyson等,2002)。非系统的(从技术角度而言)文献综述解决了以下问题:是否存在针对特殊教育需求的特殊教学法或特殊教育需要的每种类型,特别是学习难度的类型,但与主流背景无关(Norwich和Lewis,2001) ,或询问在课堂教学法之外可以有效地将主流学校的儿童包括在内的方法(Sebba和Sachdev,1997年)。尽管研究试图确定特定教学法的有效性或学校行为对学生参与的影响,但目前尚无系统的评论可以回答哪种教学方法可以有效地将有特殊教育需要的儿童纳入主流课堂的问题。目标三年项目的总体目标是利用研究团队的专业知识来研究与包容性教学法有关的证据基础。在第一年中,重点是在具有特殊教育需求的7-14岁儿童的主流教室中使用的有效教学方法。这项系统评价的主要目的是研究哪些教学方法可以有效地将主流课堂中有特殊教育需求的儿童包括进来。我们的复习问题是:哪些教学方法可以有效地将主流教室中有特殊教育需求的儿童包括进来?综述着重于两个相关但更具体的问题:涉及同龄人互动方法的教学法是否有效地将主流课堂中有特殊教育需要的儿童包括在内?主流课堂教师如何通过同龄人互动来提高具有特殊教育需求的儿童的学业和社会包容性?方法当同意复习问题时,进行搜索。生成的搜索词与不同国家/地区使用的不同单词用法保持一致,并且使用英国教育词库选择同义词。搜索后返回的所有研究都被整合到Endnote书目软件中,从而与EPPI-Centre系统具有良好的兼容性。这些研究采用特定的纳入标准进行筛选,以识别具有特定范围的研究(针对7-14岁且有特殊教育需求的学生) ,在主流教室中,包括教学方法和对学生成绩的指示);研究类型(经验);时间和地点(用英文撰写,并于1994年以后出版)(请参阅附录2.1)。询问了一系列电子数据库和引文索引(请参阅附录2.2),并搜索了互联网站点(请参阅附录2.3)。筛选首先应用于标题和摘要(在两个迭代阶段中),然后应用于完整文档。由两名独立的筛选人员对所有标题和研究进行筛选,并由EPPI链接人员对样品进行质量保证。出于务实的原因,文档检索于2004年3月31日结束;在此之后收到的任何研究都需要包含在任何更新中。通过一系列分级过滤器进行识别的研究,最终成为研究的候选清单。这些关键字使用EPPI中心(2003)关键字策略(0.9.7版)进行关键字处理,除EPPI关键字外,还带有审阅特定的关键字(请参阅附录2.4)。这在我们的评论中生成了研究的“描述性图”,提供了已进行的各种研究的图片以及其目的,方法,干预措施,理论取向,结果等的详细信息。此过程并未尝试评估研究质量。完整的审核小组和咨询小组对系统图中确定的最有用的一组研究进行了讨论,从而使研究重新聚焦于两个具体问题,以进行深入审核。因此,深入审查的重点是一组教学方法,这些方法的特点是由主流教师进行的同伴小组互动,而无需额外的人员资源,并询问其有效性以及教师如何使用这些方法。新的纳入和排除标准已应用于地图中的研究,从而导致需要进行深入审查的研究子集。两名独立的审阅者对此进行了数据提取(使用EPPI-Centre指南),并讨论并解决了所有分歧。使用EPPI数据提取框架评估研究的质量和证据权重(WoE),以评估每项研究的可靠性和质量,并集中判断研究结果的可信赖性和证据权重,以证明该研究可能有助于回答问题。深入审查问题。使用以下明确的标准对每个研究的相对证据权重进行判断:研究的合理性(内部方法上的一致性);研究设计和分析相对于复习题的适当性,以及研究主题与复习题的相关性。考虑到执行的质量,设计的适当性和重点的相关性,使用一致的公式对证据做出总体判断(请参阅第2章)。作为质量保证,每项研究均经过独立审核,并由审核小组的两个不同成员或审核小组的成员与EPPI中心联系人员提取数据。综合了各个深入研究的发现,并提出了结论和建议。综合采取对有效性问题进行定性和定量概述的形式,并采用结构化的叙述形式来描述与教师如何使用同伴小组互动方法有关的任何总体,跨学习模式/主题。结果共鉴定了2,095份潜在相关报告供当前审核。第一次筛选标题和摘要时,排除了一半以上(1,156),而在该过程的第二次迭代中,又剔除了一半(238)(参见表3.1)。总共发送了450封邮件,其中有14%(64个)在审查期限内未收到或不可用。总共筛选了383份完整报告,结果又排除了315份报告,剩下68份符合纳入制图研究标准的报告。 -审核小组两个成员之间的评分者可靠性很好(Cohen's Kappa 0.62)。尽管如此,为了严格起见,对所有标题进行了筛选,而不是对标题和摘要进行了抽样。标题和摘要集中的两位审稿人达成了80%的共识。每个评价成员与我们的EPPI同事之间的评分者间可靠性的卡伯统计值较低,但比较公道(科恩的Kappa为0.35)。审查小组成员与我们的EPPI同事之间在主题方面的专家知识上的差异最能解释这种差异。地图上的68项研究大多数是通过PsychInfo和ERIC上的电子搜索来识别的。大多数研究是由研究人员进行的评估,并且大多数是在美国进行的。大多数人不关注课程问题,但那些识字占主导地位的问题。小学背景是中学背景的两倍。目标人群主要是学习困难的混合性学生。正规的主流教师大多进行了教学干预,特殊教师和同伴也经常参与其中。最常见的教学方法是改编教学,通常将改编与其他类型的改编结合在一起:材料,教室环境和评估。不到四分之一的研究涉及同龄人群体的互动方法。深度审查十项研究包括在深度审查中,其中九项是在美国进行的。除了两次探索关系研究外,这些研究均为评价,多数是由研究人员操纵的(6)。其中六项研究侧重于读写能力,六项研究在小学阶段进行。综述问题(a)包括五项研究,评论问题(b)包括七项研究。问题(a)研究合作学习,指导性探究和“朋友圈”方法。衡量的结果包括参与课堂活动,课程表现以及与同龄人/社会接受度的社交互动。在四项研究中报告了效应大小,范围从小到大。问题(b)研究的综合导致出现了五个实质性主题:以学生为学习者的模式;综合学术和社会考虑;组织和有组织的支持;对“基本技能”和共同哲学的整体看法。结论就证据的权重而言,数项研究被认为是中等或中等高度,但可用于解决研究问题的证据规模仍然存在问题。毫无疑问,基于小样本的高质量研究结合了有效性的经验验证。没有研究对问题(a)有足够的证据,只有一项对问题(b)有证据。因此,可以衡量我们对证据的信心强度。尽管存在这些局限性,但审查确实导致了一些实质性发现,并为提出一些实践建议提供了基础。可以确定同龄人小组互动式方法在主流教室中接纳有特殊教育需求的儿童的可能有效性,并且我们有(尽管很小)基于教师如何使用这些方法的证据,这是对工作过程的定性理解。关于合作学习的有效性的证据很少,特别是在识字课程方面。合作学习涵盖了一系列教学实践,证据基础与社会团体/团队合作,修订和调整课程以及与合作学习学校的精神合作有关。有具体证据可证明两个特定的合作学习计划的有效性。有效性的证据还与与其他相关类型的同伴群体互动方法,指导性查询和朋友圈相关的计划有关。所有研究均显示了一些学习的证据,除``朋友圈''方法外,这包括学习在学术领域。三项研究为有特殊教育需求的学生的学业学习和社区参与产生了明确的证据。进一步的研究提供了学术而不是社会收益的证据。证据还表明,对课程领域的态度有所改善,以及儿童对自己的能力,接受能力和自我价值的看法。有证据表明,在学业上有效的同龄人群体互动方法在社交参与和儿童对学习的态度方面通常也很有效。弄清与每个结果在功能上相关的方法的要素,在专业而不是研究方面是困难的,甚至可能是不必要的。学生作为学习者的模型以及在构建个人知识方面具有积极作用的主体为研究和干预提供了基础。老师通过与同伴的支架和对话来促进知识的共建。研究认为,归属感和参与学习社区对年轻人在学校的学习有重要影响。教师利用组织支持社区参与,并利用同龄人和成年人以及精心计划为有组织的同龄人互动方法提供支持。与针对特殊需求的传统补救计划相关的孤立技能开发相比,采用整体方法进行技能开发是许多干预措施的基础。利用同龄人可能带来使技能发展具有社会意义的必要性。最后,研究表明了共享哲学和共同关注的作用,包括参与学习社区,合作与协作。优势和局限性这篇系统的文献综述既有优势也有局限性。在资源有限的情况下,向教师提出有关使用的相关问题的能力很强。它涵盖了代表广泛SEN的学生的研究。并为审查提供了高质量的保证:筛选,数据提取和质量评估在每个阶段均由两名独立的审核小组成员(或审核小组成员和EPPI链接人员)进行。研究质量和所应用质量的严格检查增强了对审查结果的信心。文献综述的范围仅限于1994年以来的资料,并且排除了早年或14岁后的学生。深入的审查以在主要情况下的研究为主导,这意味着随着我们从上学到整个学制的转变,到14岁,我们对同龄人小组互动式研究的证据的信心大大下降。范围还受到未能及时进行全面检查的研究的限制。这些倾向于未发表的论文(见附录3.2),因此可能与地图和深入综述中的研究有系统地不同,从而增加了发表偏见造成的扭曲的可能性。阴性或无效结果的发表可能性较小,这意味着从系统评价中得出的结果可能过于乐观。这项系统性审查产生的证据基础的力量也受到限制。缺乏随机对照试验意味着有效性的证据不如可能的强。合成中的研究数量很少,样本中的研究数量也很少。虽然我们对参加研究的特殊需求的学生了解得足够多,可以开始判断普遍性,但对老师们本身以及他们的代表性却知之甚少。我们也知道研究的背景可能与续集有所不同

著录项

  • 作者

    Nind Melanie; Wearmouth Janice;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2005
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号