Improving Special Education: Best Practices and Research

Introduction: The State of Special Education

People find it easy to criticize special education. No matter what special education departments or their staff do, there will always be someone ready to say that what they are doing is wrong. While not all students who have received special education services have fared well, many others have benefited significantly. Given the importance of teaching children who have significant educational problems, it is crucial that special educators examine what they do, why they do it, and where those practices could be improved.

The question of how best to teach students with special needs is an important one. In the United States, although the overall student population has increased by only 2% over the last 25 years, the number of students receiving some form of special education services has increased by 47%. Examining the research on special education effectiveness can be enormously helpful, because a large number of studies exist examining what constitutes effective teaching across the entire spectrum of special education services, from preschool through young adulthood (Cook & Schirmer, 2003). Unfortunately, the research does not tell us how consistently the findings demonstrating "best practices" — things known to improve learning — are actually applied in special education settings.

When school districts first began providing special education, psychologists and other specialists had only theoretical approaches to guide instruction for students with learning disabilities. When the term "learning disabilities" was first coined, the emphasis was on "the concept of intraindividual differences" (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003) — that is, the strengths and weaknesses within the individual child. While that framework has gained validity over the years, the process of providing individualized education has changed considerably over time.

Historical Evolution of Instructional Approaches

In the 1960s and much of the 1970s, the emphasis was on attempts to retrain the child's brain — teaching improved visual perception, for instance (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Over time, research could not demonstrate measurable improvements in student learning using this approach, and it gradually fell out of favor (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003).

Another approach to individualized instruction has been to use psychometric information to guide instructional methods. In this model, a child's evaluation identifies which sensory modality appears to be the strongest learning channel. Some children might therefore receive a visually oriented curriculum, while others might receive instruction emphasizing auditory or kinesthetic input. In some programs, however, a multisensory approach is used, applying teaching techniques that address multiple modalities simultaneously (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). This approach reflects the pedagogical understanding that while a child may show certain strengths during testing, psychometric assessment is not precise enough to define how a child learns most effectively, and that engaging several cognitive processes at once may be superior to isolating a single channel such as vision or hearing for instructional purposes. Research combining specialized techniques for specific academic tasks has produced positive results when the tasks are clearly defined, planned for effective learning, and directly related to the child's academic needs (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003).

In a review of the literature, Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003) identified specific characteristics of instruction associated with academic gains for students with learning disabilities. These characteristics included:

Instruction that controlled the difficulty of assigned work; tasks matched to the student's true instructional level; ensuring that core skills — such as phonemic awareness in reading — were solidly mastered before advancing; teaching in small groups using approaches that encouraged student interaction; use of modeling and explicit thinking strategies, including guidance on when to apply them; an emphasis on direct instruction; teaching students how to integrate information for use in more advanced work; consistent monitoring of student progress; and providing students with regular, constructive feedback on their performance.

Effective Instructional Practices for Students with Learning Disabilities

An important intervention in special education is placement — the question of where students will receive services carries social, ethical, and pedagogical implications. However, as Zigmond (2003) points out, the setting may be less important than the quality of the program itself. Researchers examining how well students learned in large-group, small-group, and one-on-one instruction found that teachers individualized instruction more frequently in smaller groups, but that large-group instruction dominated the special education programs included in the study (Bongers, 2001).

In many cases, the amount of time students attended to assigned tasks and appeared engaged in lessons decreased as group size increased (Bongers, 2001), though some research identifies exceptions to this pattern. Among students diagnosed with mild intellectual disability, pupils tended to pay more attention in larger classrooms; however, they responded less frequently, and their behavior was generally better in smaller settings (Bongers, 2001). Special educators widely recognize that smaller groups produce better educational outcomes, and also acknowledge the value of one-on-one work. Nevertheless, 87% of the teachers interviewed for Bongers' research reported that they did not have enough time to work individually with their students.

When a school adopts an inclusion model, the issue of individualization becomes even more pressing, since the general education classroom is not designed to provide intensive educational, social, or behavioral remediation. The success of inclusion depends on the program being well-designed and supported with adequate resources and training for staff (Bongers, 2001).

Although research exists to guide special educators in designing and implementing programs, little is known about how consistently this knowledge is applied in practice (Heward, 2003). Instead, teachers — including special education teachers — tend to rely on longstanding beliefs that may or may not be supported by research on best practices (Heward, 2003). The broader community often holds these opinions as well, lending support to the status quo even when it is at odds with effective instruction.

Placement, Group Size, and Inclusion

Heward (2003) outlines what he regards as the educational rights of students receiving special education: the right to an effective education; teaching that is individualized, intensive, and goal-directed; and instruction based on best practices. This framework requires special education to provide instruction that helps students "acquire, generalize, and maintain knowledge and skills to improve the quality of their lives in school, home, community, and workplace settings" (Heward, 2003). If a student's education does not result in new knowledge and skills, it does not constitute a genuine education.

Both Atkinson (2002) and Heward (2003) note the strong influence of prevailing legal and sociopolitical views on special education. They argue, however, that special education must remain focused on its primary objectives: to prevent educational problems through early intervention; to address those problems through remediation; or to teach students compensatory strategies — all with the ultimate goal of ensuring that a person's disabilities do not prevent them from fully participating in school and in broader life (Heward, 2003).

Heward further notes that a substantial body of knowledge exists demonstrating effective approaches for special education. These include mediated scaffolding — ensuring the student has the prerequisite knowledge base to access new material — functional behavior analyses, which provide insight into what genuinely triggers disruptive behavior; "think alouds," in which students verbalize strategies they can use; and a range of other methods that can be systematically taught by teachers and independently applied by students.

Nevertheless, teacher "folk beliefs" can strongly influence classroom practice. Some teachers have come to believe that teaching discrete skills diminishes the child as a whole. Heward offers a useful test for evaluating whether teaching a discrete skill is appropriate: whether the skill is a "splinter skill" unconnected to the student's broader education, or whether it will facilitate further learning. One example is the teaching of "pivotal behaviors" for students with autism. Although these behaviors — such as learning to respond to multiple cues and initiating communication — are taught as individual skills, they have been shown to produce "widespread positive effects" for students (Heward, 2003).

Conclusion

Vaughn, Sharon, and Linan-Thompson, Sylvia. 2003. "What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities?" Journal of Special Education, October.

Zigmond, Naomi. 2003. "Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another?" Journal of Special Education, October.