How do Educators of Students With Disabilities in Specialist Settings Understand and Apply the Australian Curriculum Framework?

IF 0.6 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education Pub Date : 2018-08-28 DOI:10.1017/jsi.2018.13
P. Walker, K. Carson, J. Jarvis, Julie M. McMillan, Anna G. Noble, D. Armstrong, K. Bissaker, C. Palmer
{"title":"How do Educators of Students With Disabilities in Specialist Settings Understand and Apply the Australian Curriculum Framework?","authors":"P. Walker, K. Carson, J. Jarvis, Julie M. McMillan, Anna G. Noble, D. Armstrong, K. Bissaker, C. Palmer","doi":"10.1017/jsi.2018.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite aspirations to be a world-class national curriculum, the Australian Curriculum (AC) has been criticised as ‘manifestly deficient’ (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2014 p. 5) as an inclusive curriculum, failing to meet the needs of all students with disabilities (SWD) and their teachers. There is a need for research into the daily attempts of educators to navigate the tension between a ‘top-down’ system-wide curriculum and a ‘bottom-up’ regard for individual student needs, with a view to informing both policy and practice. This article is the first of two research papers in which we report the findings from a national online Research in Special Education (RISE) Australian Curriculum Survey of special educators in special schools, classes, and units regarding their experience using the AC to plan for and teach SWD. Survey results indicated (a) inconsistent use of the AC as the primary basis for developing learning objectives and designing learning experiences, (b) infrequent use of the achievement standards to support assessment and reporting, and (c) considerable supplementation of the AC from other resources when educating SWD. Overall, participants expressed a lack of confidence in translating the AC framework into a meaningful curriculum for SWD. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":53789,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education","volume":"1 1","pages":"111 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Despite aspirations to be a world-class national curriculum, the Australian Curriculum (AC) has been criticised as ‘manifestly deficient’ (Australian Government Department of Education and Training, 2014 p. 5) as an inclusive curriculum, failing to meet the needs of all students with disabilities (SWD) and their teachers. There is a need for research into the daily attempts of educators to navigate the tension between a ‘top-down’ system-wide curriculum and a ‘bottom-up’ regard for individual student needs, with a view to informing both policy and practice. This article is the first of two research papers in which we report the findings from a national online Research in Special Education (RISE) Australian Curriculum Survey of special educators in special schools, classes, and units regarding their experience using the AC to plan for and teach SWD. Survey results indicated (a) inconsistent use of the AC as the primary basis for developing learning objectives and designing learning experiences, (b) infrequent use of the achievement standards to support assessment and reporting, and (c) considerable supplementation of the AC from other resources when educating SWD. Overall, participants expressed a lack of confidence in translating the AC framework into a meaningful curriculum for SWD. Implications for policy, practice, and future research are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾学生的教育工作者如何理解和应用澳大利亚课程框架?
尽管期望成为世界一流的国家课程,澳大利亚课程(AC)被批评为“明显不足”(澳大利亚政府教育和培训部,2014年第5页),作为一个包容性的课程,未能满足所有残疾学生(SWD)及其教师的需求。有必要研究教育工作者在“自上而下”的全系统课程和“自下而上”的学生个人需求之间的紧张关系,以期为政策和实践提供信息。本文是两篇研究论文中的第一篇,我们报告了一项全国在线特殊教育研究(RISE)澳大利亚课程调查的结果,调查对象是特殊学校、班级和单位的特殊教育工作者,他们使用AC计划和教授社会福利课程的经验。调查结果显示:(a)在制定学习目标和设计学习体验时,不一致地使用《学习成果评估标准》作为主要依据;(b)很少使用《学习成果评估标准》来支持评估和报告;以及(c)在教育社署人员时,大量从其他资源补充《学习成果评估标准》。总体而言,与会者表示缺乏信心将交流架构转化为有意义的社署课程。讨论了对政策、实践和未来研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
‘That’s Not Something That’s Necessarily on the Radar’: Educators’ Perspectives on Dysgraphia The Case for Special Education Teacher Wellbeing: A Multidimensional Review of the Evidence and Future Directions Transition From Primary to Secondary School From the Perspectives of Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Concomitant Intellectual Giftedness A Preliminary Study Connecting School Improvement and MTSS With Student Outcomes JSI volume 47 issue 2 Cover and Front matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1