Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I observed three very different classrooms during my practicum. First, I was in Mrs.
Shank’s classroom. This was a self-contained class with ten students in second and third grade.
It was labeled as a class for children with learning disabilities, but in reality there was a wide
range of diagnoses. In this class I was able to assist with academics by providing one-on-one
time with some of the students, or answering questions and providing reinforcement during
group work. Most of the instruction was on academics, especially reading and math. Second, I
was in Mrs. Woodley’s pre-school class. This was designated for students with autism, and she
had six children, all of them boys. The student-to-teacher ratio was even smaller, with a teacher
and two aides. In this situation I was not so much an instructor as an entertainment for some of
the students, who would come up to show me what they were doing or try to convince me to get
them extra snacks. These classes dealt with pre-academic tasks, but also involved a lot of
instruction on language and different aspects of behavior. Finally, I was in Mrs. Blitch’s middle
school class for students with emotional disorders. This functioned more as a pull-out program,
with students coming in for instruction at different times. Being with middle schoolers was a bit
of a shock after the two younger classes, as they seemed to independent and grown-up by
comparison. These students were also working mostly on academics and behavioral support,
and could perform well in some academic subjects. I was able to assist with their academics to
some extent, but spent most of my time observing and talking to professionals at Irmo Middle.
For the standard of foundations, I noticed that the instructors are constantly assessing
their students. Assessing often and consistently is a basis of special education because it is an
evidence-based principle, as well as following present laws and school policies. It also provides
feedback to the teacher, allowing her to asses the learning program and her own performance
as well as the student’s abilities. In Mrs. Shank’s class, where academic goals predominated,
every test was an assessment and she also periodically assessed students individually. Some
of the students also took standardized tests. All of these assessments would be considered in
the students’ individualized education plans at the end of the year. In Mrs. Woodley’s class,
much of the assessment dealt with behavior and functional skills, especially language. Many of
the students required data to be taken on things like how much they ate, or whether they slept
at nap time, to inform families about their behavior and possible side effects of medicine. Their
speech was also a major part of assessment, and the students varied widely in their speaking
abilities, with some speaking fluently and others non-verbal. Mrs. Woodley would immediately
take into account an increase or decrease in skill, and adjust her expectations for how each
education. Collaborating with other educators and taking parents’ opinions into account
introduces new ideas into the classroom. Mrs. Shank taught most of her students with small-
group, differentiated instruction. But she also used techniques common in applied behavior
analysis, such as token reinforcement systems and functional behavior assessment. She
communicated daily with the parents, and would reinforce skills being worked on at home in
school, as well as ask parents to help with specific assignments that might be challenging. Mrs.
Woodley incorporated a variety of influences into her class. Her students participated in sensory
stimulation, and some students were on a sensory schedule. Some students had special diets
related to their autism diagnosis or the type of medications they were taking.
In Mrs. Blitch’s class, I saw different attitudes toward inclusion. All of the students were
in inclusive classes for part of the day, and many participated in academic classes with peers.
The students found participation in inclusive classes highly motivating, and had many social
interactions with people outside ED class. However, I also saw some negative attitudes towards
the inclusion. The students were expected to earn access to inclusive classes through good
behavior, and an infraction meant suspension of their participation until they completed a certain
number of days without behavioral problems. I found this policy a little confusing because on the
one hand, inclusion being contingent on behavior was motivating to some students and might
influence their behavior more than other reinforcers. On the other hand, this policy meant that
access to classes was not based on ability or whether the student would benefit from the class.
Because I am not as familiar with emotional disorders as with other types of disability, I am also
unclear on what types of problem behavior are related to the disability and should be considered
out of the student’s control. This makes it difficult for me to understand whether administrators
should consider problem behavior when making decisions about academic inclusion.
One of the developmental features I noticed in all three classes was the influence of
outside factors, especially family relationships and medication. For the younger students, Mrs.
Shank and Mrs. Woodley communicated with their students’ families daily. They both used
communication sheets informing the parents how their child’s day had gone, including both
behavioral and academic factors. They both included an area for parent comments and
suggestions. Mrs. Shank also sent home a weekly newsletter for academic content only,
outlining all the homework assignments and grades for the upcoming week.
Because Mrs. Blitch’s students were older, they were responsible for more of the
communication and were encouraged to advocate for themselves and discuss their schoolwork
with both parents and instructors. Mrs. Blitch wanted them to consider parental expectations
and desires, but also to develop independence, especially in terms of being self-motivated. The
students filled out self-monitoring sheets that were sent home.The students also developed their
own academic and behavioral goals, and had an official meeting with administrators to develop
plans to meet their goals. The instructors also supported the student’s involvement in parent
meetings and developing their IEP’s, as well as getting ideas for their transition to high school.
All the instructors were aware of their students’ medication needs, and attended to ways
that the medications could influence their behavior. For the youngest students, Mrs. Woodley
and the paraprofessionals recorded all relevant information about medications for the families.
This included their appetites, sleep schedule, and toileting as well as behavior. In this class,
instructors were partially responsible for administering medicine. Some of the students took
liquid forms diluted in drinks, which required a lot of attention in making sure that the student got
the correct amount and did not spill or throw away the medicine, as well as making sure none of
the other students shared a sip. In Mrs. Shank’s class, the medication was administered by a
nurse before lunch, and some of the students had a rise and fall in energy levels over the day.
Mrs. Blitch’s students were responsible for getting their medication from the school nurse, but
they could also experience mood changes throughout the day. Instructors have to be aware of
how and when drugs impact the student, and balance keeping demands on the student with
Individual differences was the easiest standard for me to observe. In every class that I
went to, the students were as different from each other as from typically developing peers. In
Mrs. Shank’s class, the students had widely varying abilities and developmental levels. Each
student had strengths and weaknesses, and there was often a dramatic difference between
skills. This makes instruction more difficult, as each lesson has to be tailored to each student.
There would often be three or more different learning levels for a particular subject, with some
students at or near grade level and others a grade or more behind their peers. The positive
aspect of this variability is that the students can both give and receive peer support and tutoring,
as they may be better at one subject or skill than peers and need help with another.
In the autism class, there is also a wide variety of skill levels. Especially in terms of
language abilities, the students were spread across the spectrum. Some of the children spoke
fluently with vocabularies similar to peers; some had verbal ability, but had difficulty with speech
and were difficult to understand. Other students were non-verbal and were working on sign
language and alternative communication. In this case also, instruction needed to be fitted to
each student’s goals and abilities while simultaneously including them in the same activities for
most of the day. In Mrs. Blitch’s class, the students were also very different academically. Some
of the students were in honors academic courses while others were far behind their grade level
standards. Some of the students seemed to have consistent behavioral problems, especially in
talking or being aggressive towards others, while others could work independently and function
well with their same-age peers most of the time. Although in all of these cases the students
shared a common diagnosis, their exceptional conditions manifested in different ways and were
influenced by the student’s personal characteristics and experiences. The students could share
a general trait in one area, but were always unique individuals with particular learning goals and
strengths. This means both that the students can work together and balance each other out,
and that instructors have the task of finding a way to personalize each content area for each
student.
centered planning and knowing the students and their families. In all the classes, the students
had different strengths and weaknesses and distinct personalities. Each student needed support
in certain areas, and to be pushed for independence and accomplishment in other subjects and
activities. The students would also have different future environments; for some their goal was
to transition to general education, others to work on career planning, and some to continue
attending a self-contained class. The size and involvement of their families was different, and
each family had differing points of view on their child’s disability and how their education should
function. Their cultural backgrounds also influenced how the students responded to different
types of instruction, and what interested them. A majority of the students I observed were on
medication. The instructors have to be cognizant of the types of medication, and how and when
they will influence the student’s behavior. Some students focused much better in the afternoon
after taking medicine, while others might react by feeling hungry or tired.
All these factors interact in complicated ways, meaning that an instructor must tailor both
the curriculum objectives and the teaching method to each student. It would be impossible to
develop a single class that would fit all of them. The teacher has to develop plans centered
around the student, taking into account their family, culture, abilities, preferences, and physical
and medical issues. The students will benefit from working in groups and attending general
education classes, but their education must be truly individualized in order for them to get the