Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:34:25.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementing the Australian Curriculum for Students With Disabilities in Specialist Settings: Teachers’ Professional Learning Experiences and Preferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2018

Julie M. McMillan ,
Karyn L. Carson ,
Peter M. Walker ,
Anna G. Noble ,
Jane M. Jarvis  and
Kerry A. Bissaker
Julie M. McMillan*
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
Karyn L. Carson
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
Peter M. Walker
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
Anna G. Noble
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
Jane M. Jarvis
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
Kerry A. Bissaker
Affiliation:
Flinders University, Australia
*
Correspondence: Julie McMillan, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commentary on the introduction of the Australian Curriculum (AC) has reflected a tension for educators of students with disabilities (SWD) between in-principle support for a curriculum that is inclusive of all students and the challenge of translating a general framework into relevant, individualised learning experiences appropriate for all SWD. In this paper, we report on findings from the second part of a national online survey in which we explored the perceptions and practices of 151 educators of SWD in specialist settings (special schools, disability units co-located at mainstream schools, special classes within mainstream schools) in relation to the AC. Specifically, these findings relate to the professional learning (PL) experiences and perceived needs of educators of SWD related to the AC and their advice to policymakers about the AC for SWD. Consistent with previous research, participants expressed a preference for PL experiences delivered on site, facilitated by content experts over extended periods, with opportunities for demonstration and targeted feedback, and in the context of collegial learning communities. In addition, participants raised concerns about the extent to which the AC is fully inclusive of all SWD. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

curriculumdisabilityspecial educationteacher educationprofessional learning
Type
Original Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 127 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*This manuscript was accepted under the Editorship of Umesh Sharma.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). Draft Australian Curriculum materials for students with disability: Consultation report. Retrieved from http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Students-with-disability-Consultation-Report-December-2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/belonging-being-becoming-early-years-learning-framework-australiaGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/australian-professional-standards-for-teachersGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2015). Australian professional standards for principals and the leadership profiles. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/australian-professional-standard-for-principals-and-the-leadership-profiles652c8891b1e86477b58fff00006709da.pdf?sfvrsn=11c4ec3c_0Google Scholar
Bissaker, K., McMillan, J. M., Ellison, C., Davies, L., Cray, J., Clark, T., & Papatraianou, L. (2013). Autism Professional Learning Project. Retrieved from https://www.decd.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/autism-professional-learning-project.pdf?v=1480482571Google Scholar
Brock, M. E., Huber, H. B., Carter, E. W., Juarez, A. P., & Warren, Z. E. (2014). Statewide assessment of professional development needs related to educating students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29, 67–79. doi:10.1177/1088357614522290Google Scholar
Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B. A., Mims, P. J., Knight, V. F., Spooner, F., Lee, A., & Flowers, C. (2012). The effects of a “tell-show-try-apply” professional development package on teachers of students with severe developmental disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35, 212–227. doi:10.1177/0888406411432650Google Scholar
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Meier, I. (2011). Introduction. In Browder, D. M. & Spooner, F. (Eds.), Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Brown, L. E. (2008). Powerful designs for professional learning (2nd ed.). Fairfield, OH: National Staff Development Council.Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Act No. 135 of 1992 as amended. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/4b4716162.htmlGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia. (2006). Disability Standards for Education 2005 plus guidance notes. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/disability_standards_for_education_2005_plus_guidance_notes.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, I. (2012). The use of individual education programs for children in Australian schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 36, 21–31. doi:10.1017/jse.2012.5Google Scholar
Dempsey, I., & Dally, K. (2014). Professional standards for Australian special education teachers. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 38, 1–13. doi:10.1017/jse.2014.1Google Scholar
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140Google Scholar
Dymond, S. K., Rosenstein, A., Renzaglia, A., Zanton, J. J., Slagor, M. T., & Kim, R. (2015). The high school curriculum: Perceptions of special education and secondary education preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 37, 284–298. doi:10.1080/01626620.2015.1048006Google Scholar
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 426–438. doi:10.1177/0022487113494413Google Scholar
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.Google Scholar
Garner, P., & Forbes, F. (2015). An ‘at-risk’ curriculum for ‘at-risk’ students? Special educational needs and disability in the new Australian Curriculum. Journal of Research in Special Education, 15, 225–234. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12022Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Karvonen, M., Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Rogers, M. A. S., & Flowers, C. (2011). Academic curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Special education teacher perspectives a decade after IDEA 1997. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521407.pdfGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Measuring the enacted curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities: A preliminary investigation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 29–38. doi:10.1177/15345084070330010401Google Scholar
Koellner, K., & Jacobs, J. (2015). Distinguishing models of professional development: The case of an adaptive model's impact on teachers’ knowledge, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 51–67. doi:10.1177/0022487114549599Google Scholar
Leko, M. M., & Brownell, M. T. (2009). Crafting quality professional development for special educators: What school leaders should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42 (1), 64–70. doi:10.1177/004005990904200106Google Scholar
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London, UK: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2004). Three conceptions of teacher learning: Exploring the relationship between knowledge and the practice of teaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 3–14. doi:10.1177/088840640402700102Google Scholar
McMillan, J. M. (2008). Teachers make it happen: From professional development to integration of augmentative and alternative communication technologies in the classroom. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 199–211. doi:10.1017/S1030011200025859Google Scholar
Petersen, A. (2016). Perspectives of special education teachers on general education curriculum access: Preliminary results. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41, 19–35. doi:10.1177/1540796915604835Google Scholar
QSR International. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 10) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-productsGoogle Scholar
Qualtrics. (2016). Qualtrics survey software [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.qualtrics.comGoogle Scholar
Ryndak, D., Jackson, L. B., & White, J. M. (2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K–12 inclusive-education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1, 28–49. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028Google Scholar
Ryndak, D. L., Moore, M. A., Orlando, A.-M., & Delano, M. (2008). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 199–213. doi:10.2511/rpsd.33.4.199Google Scholar
Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., Farrell, L., & Gerrard, J. (2013). Processes and priorities in planning mathematics teaching. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 457–480. doi:10.1007/s13394-012-0066-zGoogle Scholar
US Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.docGoogle Scholar
Walker, P. M., Carson, K. L., Jarvis, J. M., McMillan, J. M., Noble, A. G., Armstrong, D. J., . . . Palmer, C. D. (2018). How do educators of students with disabilities in specialist settings understand and apply the Australian Curriculum framework? Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42, 111–126.Google Scholar
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.Google Scholar