Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:51:30.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Instructional Technology and Special Education*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Keri Wilton
Keri Wilton*
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term instructional technology’ refers to two relatively distinct classes of phenomena which have been described by Saettler (1968) as “the physical science concept” — the application of physical science and engineering technology (movie projectors, television, teaching machines, computers, etc.) to the presentation of instructional materials, and “the behavioural science concept” — the application of behavioural science (especially psychology and sociology) to problems of learning and instruction. While both of these classes of phenomena clearly have considerable potential for improving the content and conduct of education — including special education, it is the writer’s belief that the extent to which “the physical science concept” can be effectively utilised in education/special education will be limited — indeed constrained by the current spate of knowledge which has been derived from “the behavioural science concept”. The present paper reflects this belief and is thus primarily concerned with “the behavioural science concept” — in particular with the application of psychology and sociology to problems of learning and instruction in special education.

An initial clarification of the term “special education” also seems necessary. Following Kirk and Gallagher (1979), the term “special education” in the present paper will refer to those aspects of education required for handicapped or gifted children which are “unique and/or in addition to the instructional programme for all children [p. 13]” ‘Handicapped or gifted children’ being those who “deviate from the average or normal child (1) in mental characteristics, (2) in sensory abilities, (3) in neuro-motor or physical characteristics, (4) in social behaviour, (5) in communication abilities, or (6) in multiple handicap … to such an extent that modifications of school practices, or special educational services are required for the children to develop to maximum capacity” (Kirk & Gallagher, 1979 [p. 3].)

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , May 1983 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1983

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

*

keynote address to the Frist National Conference on Exceptional Children, Hamilton, New Zealand.

References

Blatt, B. & Garfunkel, F. Teaching the mentally retarded. In Travers, R.M.W. (Ed.) Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973, pp. 632 – 656.Google Scholar
Bricker, W. A. Identifying and modifying behavioural deficits. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1970, 75, 16 – 21.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. M. & Clarke, A. D. B. Early Experience: Myth and evidence. London: Open Books, 1976.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, W. M. The false hope of integration. The Slow Learning Child, 1974, 21, 67 – 83.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. Learning theory and mental development New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H., Moss, J., & Jordan, L. The efficacy of special class training on the development of mentally retarded children. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education — Cooperative Research Project No. 619, 1965.Google Scholar
Havill, S. J. & Mitchell, D. R. Issues in New Zealand special education. Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1972.Google Scholar
Kirk, S. A. & Gallagher, J.J. Educating exceptional children (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1979.Google Scholar
Milofsky, C. D. Why special education isn’t special. Harvard Educational Review, 1974, 44, 437 – 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saettler, P. A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. Cognition: A survey. In U.S. Dept. Health, Education & Welfare. Psychology and the handicapped child. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1974, pp. 109 – 126.Google Scholar
Tizard, J. Services and the evaluation of services. In Clarke, A. M. & Clarke, A. D. B. (Eds.) Mental deficiency: The changing outlook. (3rd ed.) London: Methuen, 1974, pp.Google Scholar
Wilton, K. M. Early intervention: Social and emotional adjustment: In McIntyre, G. & Parmenter, T. R. (Eds.) Preparation for life: Programs for mentally handicapped people in Australia in the 1980’s. Sydney: Prentice-Hall of Australia, 1981. pp. 112–127(a)Google Scholar
Wilton, K. M. Research on special education in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Special Education, 1981, 5, 5 19(b)Google Scholar
Zigler, E. & Muenchow, S. Mainstreaming: The proof is in the implementation. American Psychologist, 1979, 34, 993 – 996.Google Scholar
Zigler, E. & Trickett, P. K. IQ, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs. American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 789 – 798.Google Scholar