Doctoral Dissertations

Date of Award

8-1982

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education

Major

Curriculum and Instruction

Major Professor

Jerry J. Bellon

Committee Members

Janet R. handler, Charles H. Hargis, John Ray, W. W. Wyatt

Abstract

Problem

While the area of learning disabilities in general has received increased attention in recent years, the education of learning disabled adolescents has been neglected. Special educators have been content to follow the general curriculum and concentrate their efforts on instruc tional modifications. There is now a growing awareness that the curriculum for learning disabled adolescents should be tailored to their individual needs and based on sound curriculum development procedures.

Five curricular approaches are in common use today with learning disabled adolescents, including academic (basic skills) remediation, process (neuropsychological deficits) remediation, compensatory (content oriented) education, vocational (job related) education, and career (preparation for life) education. Based on a thorough review of the related literature, an eclectic model was proposed combining academic remediation, compensatory education, and career education.

Purpose

This study was concerned with secondary learning disabilities programs in Tennessee. In addition to data regarding demographic characteristics of the respondents, information related to the curricular approaches as well as curriculum development procedures and program effectiveness was gathered.

Procedures

A multiple-choice questionnaire was sent to 213 randomly selected secondary schools in Tennessee. A total response rate of 96.2% was achieved through the use of two follow—up mailings. Responses to each question were analyzed separately as well as in combination.

Results

Demographic variables included special education enrollment and options of service. Over 70% of the programs served at least 40 pupils while 35% of the schools had only resource services available. Nearly 40% offered at least two of the three options of service (resource, self-contained, and consultative services).

A number of curricular variables were addressed, including the actual and ideal approaches, actual and ideal importance of the approaches, actual and ideal basis for curriculum development, and program effectiveness. More than 50% of the programs used only one approach while 6% used all the approaches. Academic remediation was the most prevalent single approach, followed by career education. Almost the teachers felt they should be using only one approach with career education far surpassing academic remediation in frequency. Nearly 15% felt they should be using all the approaches. About 60% of the teachers said academic remediation was the primary approach used in their programs; 30% said it should be given primary emphasis. The percentages were reversed for career education with 35% giving it primary emphasis while 60% said it should be the main emphasis. Almost 20% of the programs indicated they were using process remediation while 15% felt they should be using it.

About half the programs have a curriculum based on a development process. Over 80% of the teachers felt they should be using curriculum development procedures. About 90% of the teachers gave their programs the highest or second highest effectiveness rating. About 75% of the teachers took more than one factor into account when making their judgments.

Conclusions

1. Although lack of services for secondary learning disabled students has been documented in the past, the present study did not confirm those prior findings. More than 90% of the secondary schools in Tennessee that were sampled provided services.

2. Although most authorities feel that process remediation is ineffective at the secondary level, a number of the teachers surveyed favored its use.

3. While a majority of respondents used a variety of approaches as espoused by the eclectic model, only 2% used the recommended combination and less than 5% felt they should be using it.

4. Nearly half the secondary learning disabilities programs did not use an accepted process for curriculum development as was recommended based on the review of related literature. More than 20% did not realize they should be using such procedures.

5. Evaluation of programs should take into account a variety of information; it was encouraging that almost 80% of the respondents based their judgments of program effectiveness on more than one factor.

Recommendations

1. All secondary learning disabilities programs in Tennessee should be required to have a written curriculum based on accepted curriculum development procedures.

2. Teacher preparation programs in the area of special education should develop courses of study dealing with the secondary education of handicapped students, including learning disabled adolescents.

3. The characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses of the five curricular approaches need to be clarified through further research. The eclectic model proposed in this study should be investigated and its efficiency compared to that of other models.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS