Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:17:04.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Educational Programming for Students with High Support Needs: A Report of Work in Progress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Michael Arthur ,
Phil Foreman ,
Sue Pascoe ,
Nancy Butterfield  and
Deone Bennett
Michael Arthur*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Phil Foreman
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Sue Pascoe
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Nancy Butterfield
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Education and Training
Deone Bennett
Affiliation:
NSW Department of Education and Training
*
Correspondence to: Michael Arthur. Special Education Centre, The University of Newcastle. 2308. Phone: 02 49 216 284, Fax 02 49 216 939. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports research in progress investigating parental and professional perspectives on issues relating to the education of students with high support needs, examined in the context of the perceived behaviour states of students. Students with high support needs typically have a combination of physical impairments, complicated medical conditions and severe to profound intellectual disability. The paper includes case studies on four students from a range of settings, based on the observation phase of the study. The case studies illustrate the nature of the output from behaviour states observation. It is suggested that the analysis of student behaviour states has potential for evaluating the outcomes of educational programs for students with high support needs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , 1999 , pp. 64 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1999

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.)

References

Arthur, M. (1998). Socio-communicative variables and behaviour states in students with the most severe and multiple disabilities: An observational study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.Google Scholar
Arthur, M., Hook, J., & Butterfield, N. (1995). Behaviour state: Exploring issues in best practice for students with the most severe and multiple disabilities. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 19, 37–44.Google Scholar
Arthur, M., & King, D. (1995). Curriculum variables and state behaviour in students with high support needs: A research design. Proceedings of the 19th National Conference of The Australian Association of Special Education, Darwin.Google Scholar
Brown, F., Gothelf, C.R., Guess, D., & Lehr, D. (1998). Self-determination for individuals with the most severe disabilities: Moving beyond chimera. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 17–26.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. & Arthur, M. (1995). Shifting the focus: Emerging priorities in communication programming for students with a severe intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 41–50.Google Scholar
Byers, R. (1999). Experience and achievement: Initiatives in curriculum development for pupils with severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 26, 184–188.Google Scholar
Carter, M., Chalmers, S.E., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs for students with high support needs: Comparisons across qualification status and teacher location. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22, 50–70.Google Scholar
Chalmers, S.E., Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Education of students with high support needs: Teachers’ perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22, 76–94.Google Scholar
Giangreco, M., Edelman, S., Dennis, R., & Cloninger, C. (1995). Use and impact of COACH with students who are deaf-blind. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 121–135.Google Scholar
Grove, N. & Peacey, N. (1999). Teaching subjects to pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties: Considerations for the new framework. British Journal of Special Education, 26, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guess, D., Roberts, S., Siegel-Causey, E., Ault, M., Guy, B., Thompson, B., & Rues, J. (1993). Analysis of behavior state conditions and associated environmental variables among students with profound handicaps. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 634–653.Google Scholar
Guess, D., Roberts, S., Siegel-Causey, E., & Rues, J. (1995). Replication and extended analysis of behavior state, environmental events, and related variables among individuals with profound disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 36–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Izen, C., & Brown, F. (1991). Education and treatment needs of students with profound, multiply handicapping, and medically fragile conditions: A survey of teachers’ perceptions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 94–103.Google Scholar
King, D. (1995). Behaviour states in students with the most severe and multiple disabilities: Four case studies. Unpublished Master of Special Education Minor Thesis, The University of Newcastle, NSW.Google Scholar
Lehr, D. (1989). Educational programming for young children with the most severe disabilities. In Brown, F., & Lehr, D., (Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices, (pp. 213–237). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
NSW Department of Education (1988). Curriculum statement for the education of students with severe intellectual disability. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
Richards, S., & Sternberg, L. (1992). A preliminary analysis of environmental variables affecting the observed biobehavioural states of individuals with profound handicaps. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 36, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel-Causey, E., & Wetherby, A. (1993). Nonsymbolic communication. In Snell, M.. Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed), (pp. 290–318). New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
Thompson, B., & Guess, D. (1989). Students who experience the most profound disabilities: Teacher perspectives. In Brown, F. & Lehr, D., (Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices (pp. 3–41). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar