Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:59:38.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resource Teachers Learning and Behaviour: An Ecological Approach to Special Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Don Brown ,
Charlotte Thomson ,
Angelika Anderson ,
Dennis W. Moore ,
Joanne Walker ,
Ted Glynn ,
Angus Macfarlane ,
John Medcalf  and
James Ysseldyke
Don Brown*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Charlotte Thomson
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Angelika Anderson
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Dennis W. Moore*
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Joanne Walker
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland
Ted Glynn*
Affiliation:
The University of Waikato
Angus Macfarlane
Affiliation:
The University of Waikato
John Medcalf
Affiliation:
The University of Waikato
James Ysseldyke
Affiliation:
The University of Minnesota
*
Don Brown, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington New Zealand. Email: [email protected].
Addresses for: Dennis Moore. University ol Auckland, Auckland New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Ted Glynn, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Resource Teachers Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) program is a unique special education development in New Zealand. The aim of this program is the creation of a nation-wide network of more than 700 RTLB operating as itinerant consulting teachers providing support in inclusive classrooms. The principles underlying the program are described and an outline provided of the curriculum and methods of delivery. The program also acknowledges the need to address the important bi-cultural elements of New Zealand society. The paper reports on RTLB demographic profiles and the initial responses of teachers to their training. Preliminary indices of program effectiveness are also presented. The paper indicates ways in which the RTLB initiative is likely to develop and notes issues within the New Zealand education system that will both strengthen and constrain the overall development of the program.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 5 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2000

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

Berliner, D. (1988). Effective classroom management and instruction: A knowledge base for consultation. In Graden, J. , Zins, J., & Curtis, M. (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 309–325). Washington D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
Baer, D., Wolf, M., & Risley, T. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behaviour analysis. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 1, 91–97.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (1992). The development of strategic classrooms in two secondary schools: Waikanae: Wordsmiths.Google Scholar
Brown, D., & Thomson, C. (2000). Cooperative learning in New Zealand schools. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, B. (1992). Referring at-risk students to activity centres. Unpublished M.Ed thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North.Google Scholar
Clark, E., Smith, L., & Pomare, M. (1996). Alternative education centres. Discussion paper. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. (1997). Include/excluded: Redefining the boundaries. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity for school transformation. Phi DeltaKappan, 74, 752–762.Google Scholar
Durie, M. (1995). Tino Rangatiratanga: Self Determination. He Pukenga Korero, 1, 44–53.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools’ movement and the radicalisation of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, T., Moore, D., Gold, M., & Sheldon, L. (1992). Support teams for regular education. Wellington: Research and Statistics Division, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
Glynn, T., & Bishop, R. (1995). Cultural issues in educational research: A New Zealand perspective. He Pukenga Korero, 1, 37–43.Google Scholar
Glynn, T., Berryman, M., Atvars, K., Harawira, W., Kaiwai, H., Walker, R., & Tari, R. (1997). Research, training and indigenous rights to self determination: Challenges arising from a New Zealand bicultural journey. Paper presented at the International School Psychology XXth Annual Colloquium, School Psychology-Making Links: Making the Difference, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Glynn, T., Macfarlane, A., Moore, D., Timperley, H., Brown, D., & Thomson, L. (1999). Bicultural commitment in a New Zealand training programme for resource teachers (learning and behaviour). Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Teacher Education, Beit Beri College, Israel, June 1999.Google Scholar
Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative consultation. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Idol, L., & West, J. (1987). Consultation in special education: Training and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Co.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K.A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Co.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J. (1995). Beyond behaviour modification: A cognitive behavioural approach to behaviour management in the school. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
Kauffman, J. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children, 60, 6–16.Google Scholar
Kelly, K. (1990). Let someone else deal with them. A study of students referred to an activity centre. SET, i(item 4).Google Scholar
Macfarlane, A. (1998). Piki Ake te Tikanga: Culture counts in special education. Paper presented at 28th Annual conference, Australian Teacher Education Association, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Meyen, E. (1995). A commentary on special education. In Meyen, E. & Skrtic, T. (Eds.), Special education and student disability (4th ed.). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education. (1994). Assessment: Policy to practice. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education. (1997a). Special Education 2000. Wellington: Author.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education. (1997b). Governing and managing New Zealand schools: A guide for board of trustees. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
Ministry of Education. (1998). Meeting your child’s special education needs: Special education 2000-getting it right, together. Wellington: Author.Google Scholar
Moore, D., Anderson, A., Timperley, H., Glynn, T., Macfarlane, A., Brown, D., & Thomson, C. (1999). Caught between stories: Special education in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Reschly, D. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459-75.Google Scholar
Sindelar, P. & Kilgore, K. (1995). Teacher education. In Wang, M., Reynolds, M., & Walberg, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Special and Remedial Education : Research and Practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 393–432). Oxford : Elsevler Science Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Skrtic, T. (1995). The special education knowledge tradition: crisis and opportunity. In Meyen, E. & Skrtic, T. (Eds.), Special education and student disability (4th ed.). Denver, C): Love Publishing.Google Scholar
Stake, R. (1968). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teacher College Record, 68, 523–540.Google Scholar
Stufflebeam, D., Foley, W., Gephart, W., Guba, E., Hammond, R., Merriman, H. & Provus, M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Phi Delta Kappa National Study: Committee on Evaluation. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock.Google Scholar
Stufflebeam, D. & Shinkfield, A. (1985). Systematic evaluation. A self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
Thomson, C. (1988). Inclusion and professional development for resource teachers. Paper presented at 28th Annual conference, Australian Teacher Education Association, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Thomson, C., Brown, D., Jones, E., & Manins, E. The development of resource teachers in New Zealand: A quarter century of paradigm change. In Livingstone, Ian (ed.), The New Zealand Annual Review of Education ( pp. 23–42). Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Timperley, H. (1998). Data-based reflective practice for the professional development of resource teachers (behaviour and learning). Paper presented at 28th Annual conference, Australian Teacher Education Association, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Udvari-Solnar, A. (1994). A decision making model for curricular adaptation in cooperative groups. In Thousand, J. S., Villa, R.A. & Nevin, A.I. (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
Udvari-Solnar, A. (1995). Designing effective adaptations for inclusive classrooms. Network, 4, 31–35.Google Scholar
Westera, J., & Moore, D. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 81, 283–293.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective classroom learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ysseldyke, J., & Christenson, S. (1987). Evaluating students’ instructional environments. Special Issue: Special education program evaluation. Remedial & Special Education, 8, 17–24.Google Scholar
Ysseldyke, J., & Christenson, S. (1993). TIES II: The instructional environment system II. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1994). What results should be measured to decide whether instruction is working for students with disabilities? In Ysseldyke, J. & Thurlow, M. (Eds.), Educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Minnesota: Haworth.Google Scholar