Harrison, J.R., Bunford, N., Evans, S.W., & Owens, J. S. (2013). Educational accommodations for students with behavioral challenges: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 551-597.
The words we use do matter. That is true for education in general, but it is especially true for the terminology of special education, and for the words we use to talk about who gets help and what we do to help them. In this review, I learned more about those kinds of words, and the shades of meaning they can have for special educators, than I did about how to work with students who have behavioral challenges. If you are looking for classroom tips and strategies, this article will disappoint, though the references may lead you to some things to try. For reasons I’ll get into in a minute, literature reviews like the one I’m discussing here are not written to provide quick answers for the teacher who is at her wits’ end and looking for ways to reach those students with attention and behavior issues that can have effects on the learning of all students. There is no help with immediate classroom problem-solving here.
What I did find useful about this article was its careful delineation of the terms modification, accommodation,and intervention. Many educators use these three terms interchangeably, but the authors make the case that these three words denote three different kinds of actions. The authors’ particular focus here is on accommodation, and they have developed a set of criteria for what constitutes an accommodation that they have used meticulously throughout the review to decide if each of the pieces of research they reviewed was actually describing an accommodation, or something else. After reading through the review, and following the authors’ reasoning as they applied the criteria to each research report, I really felt that I had a good sense of what their conception of an accommodation was. Some might call it nitpicking, but I found this clear definition, and the way the authors shared their thought processes as they examined each research report, a useful approach that has already changed the way I think and talk about accommodations.
The authors used four criteria to decide whether actions described in research reports were, in fact, accommodations. Criterion 1 states that the action has to be a change in the usual practice; that is, not just some version of “business as usual”. Criterion 2 states that the learners receiving the accommodation still must be expected to meet the same standards expected of all students. The authors used the term “modification” when a lowered standard was allowed for students with challenges. Criterion 3 states that to be an accommodation, the change has to actually help learners with challenges have access to the curriculum, as evidenced by scores on outcome measures. In other words, we have to have evidence that it actually works. Criterion 4 states that the change must provide a “differential boost” (p. 563) to learners with challenges that surpasses the benefits it has for their peers without those challenges. In other words, just because something is a good educational practice does not make it an accommodation. It has to also provide help for those with specific challenges. I know that the mindset that if we just do good teaching for all students we will meet the needs of students with challenges is a popular view out there, and of course I believe that we have to meet the needs of all students, not just those with documented disabilities. However, that mindset can lead us to excuse ourselves for not looking harder for ways to meet the very special challenges we and some of our students face in classrooms. I know it’s hard, but sometimes we have to keep searching for the specific ways we can help some students, and it probably will not mean we can do exactly the same things with all students in the same ways that we have become comfortable with. I know very well how hard it is, but it’s better to face that head-on than to delude ourselves that the easy way out is going to work the best for learners.
Clarity and criteria for the terms we use can make a difference in how we think about assisting some of our most challenged learners. Unfortunately, the authors here did not find much clarity in the research studies they reviewed. In fact, by the end of the review it was clear that we really don’t have much research evidence that can point us to accommodations that help learners with behavioral challenges. The authors point out that much of what we are currently doing with these learners does not have a solid research base to support it. Many practices are being tried, and the authors provide a table that lists all of those practices (see Table 1 on pp. 561, which lists “potential accommodations”). In the reviewed studies, these practices fell into four categories: Presentation, Response, Setting, and Timing/Scheduling. There were more studies on Presentation than on the other categories, but there were really not many studies under any of the categories, and what evidence was there across studies does not give strong evidence for the effectiveness of any of these practices.
Harrison et al conclude that “the lack of research on the effective use of accommodations is surprising” (p.587). I might go further to say it is “appalling”. When we think about the costs of special education, both monetary and human, and more importantly, about the potential costs of not meeting students’ needs in the classroom, it is disturbing to think that we are employing practices that can affect lives but for which we have no real evidence of effectiveness. Would we allow that in the medical field? In architecture? In any profession where lives and future quality of living are at stake?
As with most literature reviews, a strong case for more and better research is made here. Will we get that research, so that we see articles that will point educators in clear directions toward proven ways to assist those students with behavioral challenges that they work with every day?
No comments:
Post a Comment