Siachongco Deztiny MamLuna

QUEZONIAN EDUCATIONAL COLLEGE INC.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
RELATED RESEARCH
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OR THE REQUIREMENTS IN

FOUNDATION OF SPECIAL AND INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
PRESENTED TO:
Mrs. Minerva Luna
PRESENTED BY:
Siachongco, Deztiny C.
BACHELOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
JUNE 14- 28, 2020

ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
CHAPTER 1
Vision, Policy, Goal and Objectives of Special Education.
Learning analytics refers to the analysis and interpretation of data related to learners’ behaviors and interactions
during the learning process, as well as learners’ profiles and the learning contexts they are situated in
(Ferguson, 2012; Hwang, Hsu, Lai, & Hsueh, 2017; Siemens & Long, 2011).
Learning analytics plays an important role in providing helpful suggestions to policy-makers, instructors or learners
by analyzing learning logs or educational data (Baker & Inventado, 2014; Hwang, Hung, Chen, & Liu, 2014). The
objective of learning analytics is to provide helpful information to optimize or improve learning designs, learning
outcomes and learning environments based on the analysis results (Greller & Drachsler, 2012).
In recent years, learning analytics has become an important issue in education, in particular, in the field of
technology-enhanced learning. Many researchers have emphasized the need to record and analyze what happens
during the learning process so that the factors affecting students’ learning performance can be identified (Chatti,
Dyckhoff, Schroeder, & Thüs, 2012; Hwang & Chen, 2016). Accordingly, plans for improving learning designs and
learning environments can be proposed.
The popularity of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) aimed at providing unlimited opportunities of online
course participation via open access on the web has further encouraged researchers to reconsider the role of
learning analytics. In the meantime, several scholars have started to emphasize the issues related to privacy and
security management for those open educational data (Pardo & Siemens, 2014; Slade & Prinsloo, 2013).
Publications in this special issue
In this special issue, nine quality papers have been accepted for publication. Several studies have attempted to
improve students’ learning performance based on the results of the analysis of learning behaviors. For example,
one of the studies reports the experience of analyzing low-achieving children’s mathematics learning behaviors in a
synchronous peer-tutoring system with a help-seeking mechanism; another study aimed to investigate the impacts
of a speech-to-text recognition application on students’ learning performance, perceptions and behaviors by
analyzing their learning processes. In addition, two studies analyzed students’ higher order thinking behaviors; one
focused on the learning analysis of K-12 students’ online problem solving, while the other reports the analysis of
students’ learning behaviors in a flipped programing classroom with problem-solving strategies.
Several of the researchers are interested in analyzing students’ sequential learning patterns or online interactive
patterns to identify the factors affecting their learning performance, and to provide supports accordingly. For
example, one study investigated the significance of sequential patterns among students’ contribution types in their
knowledge-building discourse; another study analyzed students’ behavioral patterns in an online formative peer-
tutoring environment; while one study investigated students’ learning behavioral patterns to explain how students’
learning achievement could be significantly affected in a digital game-based learning approach with different
feedback models.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
From these papers, it can also be seen that the popularity of online courses has encouraged the use of learning
analytics approaches. For example, one study aimed to analyze the online learning behavioral patterns and
temporal changes of college students in online open courses, while another tried to improve students’ engagement
and learning outcomes in a MOOC-enabled collaborative programing course by analyzing their learning behaviors
CHAPTER II
Special Education Programs and Services
Special Education: A Review of Relevant Literature
Special Education, as a descriptive term, covers an array of possible conditions, ranging from learning disabilities
and Attention Deficit Disorder to autism and deafness, and on to severe intellectual and physical handicaps, many
of which are, in turn, on continuums of their own. How can districts best serve this particular population of learners?
Identification of children for special education services has long been associated with socio-economic levels and
ethnicity, a problem that districts must be aware of and attempt to ameliorate since research shows placement in
Special Education can have long-term implications for children well into adulthood. Probably the most critical – and
debated – question is that of inclusion. Some argue that inclusion isn’t the best option for some categories, while
others envision a system of total inclusion in which all children are served in the regular classroom. Special
education students have special needs and how best to meet those needs in the general education setting is a
challenge, one that research demonstrates not all teachers are rising to. Problems with the gap between
documented best practices and what actually occurs in the classroom are evident, as are issues with ability
grouping which can undermine some of the benefits such grouping provides.
Identification: Getting it Right
No discussion of Special Education can avoid addressing the problems inherent in identifying children who need
services. Over-representation of ethnic minorities, English-language learners, and children of poverty in Special
Education is a national issue and one that districts must keep at the forefront as they seek to develop protocols for
identification because that identification, however well-intentioned, can have a negative long-term impact on the
child. On the continuum of disabilities, identification becomes more problematic the less obvious the disability is. A
child who is deaf and blind obviously qualifies for services, while one who might have a learning disability requires
more examination. A recent study compared students identified between grades 1 and 8 for Special Education with
their matched peers who were not so identified and tracked their outcomes as adults in a number of areas including
educational attainment, emotional health, and incarceration rates. While this was only one urban district, the results
were striking and offer at least an invitation to caution. Students who were identified for placement in Special
Education were: • More likely overall to work entry-level, low-paying jobs with little chance of promotion; • Thirty-nine
percent less likely to graduate from high school and had fewer years of education overall; • Fifty-five percent more
likely to be incarcerated; • Sixty-nine percent more likely to misuse substances; • One hundred thirty-three percent
(133%) more likely to suffer depression if their special education placement occurred between grades four and
eight. Placement in lower grades was not associated with an increase in depression rates (Chesmore, Ou &
Reynolds, 2016).
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Further research would be necessary to determine the degree to which these findings apply in other districts, and it
should be noted that these students were all minorities from a high poverty area, so it is possible the placement in
special education compounded other issues. However, given the fact that poverty and minority status has led to
over-representation in special education programming, this study
should give educators and school psychologists pause for consideration. Getting it wrong may have a very real, life-
long, negative impact.
So how to counter over-identification? Three studies provide insight into methods which appear to reduce
identification overall for special education; two rest on early intervention and the third utilized an intensive RTI
process. The first study examined participants in the Chicago Child-Parent Center program, a preschool program
which emphasized child-centered education and family support services for children in high poverty neighborhoods.
Participation in the program was associated with lower rates of identification for special education services as
compared to children in other Chicago early education programs (Conyers, Reynolds & Ou, 2003). The study found
that 12.5% of children in the CPC program were subsequently identified for special education, as compared to
18.4% in the non-CPC group. Interestingly, the CPC program, with its focus on reading readiness activities,
reinforcement and feedback, and parental involvement, had the most impact on rates of identified learning
disabilities (LD).
The second study examined the effect on special education identification of Head Start when coupled with transition
experiences through grade 3 as compared to traditional Head Start which terminates with the beginning of
Kindergarten. Families in this program received transition experiences from kindergarten through grade three,
including curricular modification, health screening, parental involvement activities, and social services. The study
found that Head Start with extended transition services had a measurable impact on rates of identification for some
special education services – 29% fewer identified as intellectually disabled and 27% fewer identified as emotionally
disturbed (Redden, et al., 2001).
The implications of these two studies is in two areas: early intervention focusing on academic readiness, particularly
reading and writing activities, and family involvement and support seem to offer viable approaches to mitigating the
effects of poverty long-term and decreasing the incidence of identification of children for special education. One
interesting thing to note is that both studies showed a reduction in the incidence of identification, but the studies
showed that reduction in different categories. This may simply be because of differences in populations studied, or it
may be because of the relatively subjective nature of identification for these particular categories (Speech and
language disability, Learning Disabled, Emotionally Disturbed, and Intellectual Disability), but the over-arching
principal is the same: early, targeted, and sustained intervention beginning in preschool or Head Start, reduces the
likelihood of identification for special education.
The third study employed an intensive RTI process called STEEP, which uses a commercially available set of
probes in reading and math to obtain data surrounding performance on objectives. RTI processes and protocols
can differ from state to state and district to district, so the methods and definitions of any particular program under
study are important to understanding what worked. The teachers and school psychologists were trained in the use
of the probes, the use of the data from the probes to inform instructional decisions and plan remediation, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of those interventions. The program examined data from four schools for several years
before and after implementation of the STEEP protocols. The study found that after STEEP was implemented,
fewer children overall were evaluated for special education, but more of those evaluated were found to qualify for
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
services. At one school, the number of evaluations went from 30 in a non-STEEP year to 9 in the year STEEP was
implemented. The study also found that psychologists trained in using STEEP evaluated fewer children for services
than did psychologists not trained in STEEP (VanDerHeyden, Witt & Gilbertson, 2007). This suggests that the
possession of adequate tools for data collection and intensive training on interpreting data and using it to effectively
plan instruction to remediate deficits leads to more accuracy in referring children to special education.
Inclusion: Best for Most
Inclusion, like everything else in special education, is on a continuum ranging from full inclusion to segregated
special schools. Student placement in these settings depends largely on the type of disability. High-incidence (HI)
disabilities – those disabilities which are less severe – are the ones most likely to be serviced with more inclusion.
These include Learning Disability (LD) Speech Language Disability (SL) Intellectual Disability (ID) and
Emotionally/Behaviorally Disturbed (ED) as well as ADD and ADHD and milder forms of autism. The questions
many educators have are, does inclusion benefit special education students and if so, how does it benefit them?
And closely aligned to that is, which students should be serviced in an inclusion model? Research demonstrates
that inclusion is beneficial, with varying benefits depending on the disability.
Because of the potential negative effects of being identified as “special education,” it would seem that the more
inclusive a child’s setting, the better. Keeping a child with his or her grade level peers may help them avoid the
stigma of special education. Additionally, there is good evidence that a significant percentage of children receiving
tier 1 or tier 2 interventions can return to general education without ever being formally identified as special
education (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson 2003). The Response to Intervention model (RTI) also allows classroom
teachers to begin addressing curricular areas of need in a focused, intense, extended manner without needing to
wait for a special education designation. This allows the classroom teacher to more effectively monitor student
progress toward grade level benchmarks without needing to coordinate with other teachers or departments because
all of the instruction is taking place in one setting. Likewise, a push-in program of special education services keeps
all the instruction in one setting and the teacher can monitor exactly what the student is doing and what his or her
progress toward mastery is. These are important considerations, especially since some children were often
required to demonstrate failure before qualifying for special education services and anytime services have to be
coordinated between multiple settings and teachers the potential for fragmentation of the learning increases.
Move a little farther along the continuum to students with moderate disabilities and there are important benefits to
inclusion. Research demonstrates that when students with moderate intellectual disabilities such as Down
syndrome are included in a general education setting they experience measurable benefits in literacy skills,
vocabulary, and grammar comprehension (Dessemontet, Bless & Morin 2012) and that this improvement was
sometimes not evident until four years or more in an inclusive setting. Additionally, students in an inclusive setting
saw more improvement in their adaptive skills than did those who were in segregated programs. A little farther still
along the continuum, and autistic students in inclusive classrooms were found to spend more time on academic
tasks and use grade level and adapted curriculum than their peers in special education classrooms, who spent less
time on academic tasks and used special education curriculum or no curriculum. They were also more likely to
receive instruction from a teacher as opposed to a paraprofessional (Kurth & Mastergeorge 2012) In fact, separated
students spent one third less time on math and language arts than did autistic students in an inclusive setting (this
was not an undiluted benefit, however; separated students were more likely to receive small group and individual
instruction than those in inclusive settings).
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
The students farthest along on the continuum are those with low-incidence disabilities. LI conditions such as deaf-
blindness, severe autism, and multiple disabilities are the least likely to be served in an inclusive setting. The
rationale for this has rested on three precepts: 1) Students should not be exposed to the potential assault on their
self-esteem; 2). Students with severe disabilities require a more functional, rather
than academic, curriculum; and 3). Segregated special education has been effective for them in the past and will
continue to be so. However, a series of studies has demonstrated that even for these children, the inclusive
classroom leads to the development of academic skills such as math and literacy, and overall improved academic
performance. Inclusion also leads to improved communication, social, and employment skills when children are fully
involved in general education settings and this inclusion now serves as a critical predictor in school and post-school
outcomes (Kurth, Morningstar & Kozelski 2014). The authors of the LI study went so far as to say that research
does not confirm any benefit for segregation of LI students. Inclusion offers improved outcomes socially,
academically and from an employment standpoint at every level one might care to examine.
That being said, there are some children for whom inclusion is not the best setting. These children include those for
whom large groups create too much stress or too much distraction for learning to take place; children with severe
sensory processing issues; and children whose self-esteem or self-regulation is too fragile to cope with the
vicissitudes of the general education classroom. For these children, a segregated setting may be the best choice.
While the over-arching goal of any district should be to include as many children as possible in a general education
setting, reality dictates that provision must exist for those who can’t tolerate an inclusive setting (Hornby 2015).
Therefore, inclusion should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the needs of the individual child serving as
the final, determining factor for placement.
The final question to be answered is whether inclusion is best for non-disabled students. There is actually ample
research in this area, but it was brought home to this reviewer during a recent discussion with a sitting board
member that the public (and sometimes board and administrative) perception is that regular and high ability learners
suffer when “forced” to share classroom space and instructional attention with special education students. Actually,
the reverse is true. A study from 1995 demonstrated that general education students do not experience academic
decline in inclusive classrooms, nor do they receive less instructional attention (Staub & Peck, 1995). Other studies
have demonstrated that the presence of special education students in the classroom actually increased the
academic achievement of the general education students because the differentiation techniques employed by the
teacher were beneficial to all learners in the class. Exploring the effects of inclusion on gifted children is beyond the
scope of this review, but it may be possible that gifted populations do receive less instructional attention than the
nongifted and that this would be ameliorated by thorough training in differentiation for all ability levels; in fact, it is
possible that without proper staff development in RTI, monitoring, differentiation, etc. that these allegations of a lack
of benefit for general education students might be true simply because teachers are not equipped to deal with
multiple ability levels in a single classroom. Academics aside, there were a number of social benefits to non-
disabled students in inclusive classrooms, such as greater empathy and tolerance for differences. These traits were
stronger the more time special education students spent in the general education classroom and weaker or non-
existent in classrooms where special education students were only present for a portion of the day (Senecal, 2001).
Best Practice: Quality Instruction Which May Not be Happening
One of the ironies emerging from research surrounding Special Education is that some of the methods which made
it “special” appear not to be as effective as was once believed. At the same time, greater focus is being paid to
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
those methods which do show improved outcomes for students: targeting interventions to the student’s area of need
rather than on the processes which may interrupt his or her learning. In other words, focus on reading, math, or
writing, etc. (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003).
The authors of that study went on to point out a number of instructional characteristics which were of benefit to
special education students. Although their focus is primarily Learning Disabled students, the precepts would seem to
hold true for many groups of students, including those without special needs. They include: • Controlling task
difficulty to maintain high levels of success; • Teaching in small, interactive groups; • Modeling questioning,
reasoning, and metacognitive strategies; • Utilizing direct and explicit instructional practices; • Encouraging higher-
order thinking skills and problem solving; • Helping students know what strategies to apply and when to apply them;
• Monitoring specific skill progress on an ongoing basis to inform instructional decisions (Vaughn & Linan-
Thompson, 2003).
Even a brief review of this list reveals the caliber of instruction required; and this is, don’t forget, what is expected of
the general education teacher. However, Vaughn and Linan-Thompson cite a number of studies that indicate that
while research has confirmed the need for a differentiated and appropriate education for students with disabilities,
undifferentiated instruction not specifically designed to meet the needs of special students is what typically prevails.
So while much of their method relies on the teacher monitoring student progress and intervening in a targeted way
when progress is not being made, it is not an enormous leap of logic to understand that the success of the entire
program requires a series of supports to ensure that delivery conforms to the needs of the special education
students. Those supports, such as adequate, focused staff development and training, quality curriculum guides with
differentiation approaches, a battery of diagnostic assessment instruments, a further battery of intervention tools that
are proven effective, and someone monitoring the instructional delivery to ensure compliance with best practice,
would ameliorate the gap between research and actual practice.
Grouping and Clustering: Good if Small, Fluid, and Rigorous
There is ample evidence that grouping by ability level produces gains for high-, medium-, and low-ability students,
and in fact produces more gains for low-ability learners than for medium-ability. However, one study highlighted a
number of negative aspects to this type of small-group instruction which must serve as a warning to educators.
The first cautionary finding was that grouping by ability was ineffective unless the small-group instruction was
accompanied by materials and teaching that accommodated the needs of the learners in the group. Without
differentiation, grouping doesn’t work. The authors posited that this differentiation was even more critical for low-
ability students. The second cautionary finding was that ability groups tended to be rigid and restrict student mobility
between groups. This is contrary to special education recommendations that such groups be fluid so that as children
gain skills they can expand opportunities for academic growth. The third cautionary finding – and it’s a big one –
was that teachers tended to provide less instruction, and less effective instruction, for students in low-ability groups
(Wilkinson & Fung 2002).
While this study is an older one, it bears further examination because of the current climate of high-stakes testing
when so much effort is devoted to parsing skills into ever more discrete fragments. The study, which was of reading
groups, found that in low ability groups:
• Less time overall was allocated for instruction than high ability groups and the pacing tended to be slower so that
low-ability students read less overall. • Teachers spent more time on decoding tasks focusing on individual words
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
and parts of words rather than on tasks related to making meaning of text. High-ability students spent more time
discussing aspects of text directly related to meaning. • Teachers focused more on oral reading with low ability
children than on silent reading. This oral reading also reduced students’ total time reading because they waited for
each other while they took turns reading. High ability students, by contrast, spent more time reading silently and
therefore read considerably more in their allotted time. • Teachers allowed more interruptions of the low-ability group
from students outside the group. • Teachers were more likely to interrupt low-ability learners who made reading
errors, and to interrupt with the correct answer rather than providing a prompt to self-correct. When teachers did
prompt low readers, it was to offer phonemic or graphemic clues rather than help them construct meaning from the
text. • Teachers tended to ask more factual, recall questions of low ability readers rather than questions that
required reasoning or problem solving. In other words, questioning was low in rigor for low-ability learners; high-
ability learners, however, were asked more critical thinking questions (Wilkinson & Fung 2002).
All of these points are troubling, because studies indicate that cognitive challenge is important for special education
students (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003), yet grouping by ability seems to remove the challenge from low-ability
groups and focus on reading in a fragmented way that detracts from making meaning – the very thing that makes
reading an engaging, motivating activity. Reducing the rigor of the small group instruction makes it less engaging
and less effective. The conclusion here would be that districts need to insure that teachers are trained in effective
differentiation that provides content in ways that are appropriate to the students’ needs but still cognitively
challenging and engaging, and that teachers not lose sight of the critical need for students to make meaning of what
they read so that comprehension doesn’t get “lost in the weeds” of decoding and phonemic awareness, which are
considerably less meaningful to students because they in no way resemble a real-life context. The central purpose
of reading is communication; making meaning of text is vital to, and embedded in, that purpose.
It is worth noting here that it is entirely possible for a student to have a disability and also be gifted – to have ADHD
or be autistic, for example, and also have advanced math ability. The general tendency, however, is for teachers to
identify the disability and fail to see the giftedness. Students referred for special education are mostly not referred
for gifted education (Mayes & Moore, 2016). In light of this tendency, and in light of the potential long-term
deleterious effects of special education identification and in light of Vaughn and Lenin-Thompson’s research
demonstrating that focused intensive intervention can raise some learners out of special education entirely, fluidity
in ability grouping becomes that much more critical. Groups must remain fluid so that as students achieve goals
they are regrouped to reflect that progress. One’s ability group should not be one’s destiny.
Clustering data for special education is somewhat difficult to find, but one dissertation did offer some insight into its
effectiveness. The researcher found that students in cluster groups scored slightly higher than their non-cluster
counterparts – but not significantly higher. The suggestion is that clustering may have some benefit, and is at least
not harmful, to the academic achievement of special education students. However, it is important to note that the
study examined elementary classes in which clusters of special education students were small – no more than six
children. Additionally, the cluster classrooms were provided with an additional adult, either a Speech/Language
therapist, a special education teacher, or a
special education aid. These adults rotated into classrooms so that the extra adult was not always a
paraprofessional, and the second adult provided direct, small-group or individual instruction and the instruction for
those students was modified for their ability needs (Daigneault, 2003). Since Vaughn and Linan-Thompson
specified that groups for RTI tiers should be small, the conclusion here is that clusters may be beneficial, but should
probably also be kept small. Overloading a class with special education students will likely not show good results.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Special Education presents districts with a number of challenges, chief among which is how to ensure that those
who are identified for services are actually in need of them because of the long-term negative impact such
designation can have on students. Focusing efforts on early interventions such as preschool and extended Head
Start and investing heavily in teacher and psychologist training to measure progress and use data to modify
instruction as part of a clearly defined Response to Intervention program are viable options to help reduce overall
identification and improve the accuracy of those who are referred to special education. Inclusion for as many
students as possible should be the goal in light of the many benefits accruing to both special education students and
general education students in both academic progress and social skills. Districts need to monitor instructional
delivery with great care to insure that quality teaching is taking place and again, training in differentiation, use of
data to inform instructional choices, RTI program protocols and evaluating intervention effectiveness are of critical
import. The more capacity teachers have in these areas the more successful such programs will be. Finally,
clustering and grouping need to be carefully monitored to keeps sizes small; clusters in individual classrooms should
be no larger than six students and staffed with additional adults to provide targeted support and instruction to all
students. Groups must remain fluid to prevent de facto tracking from occurring and delivery of instruction needs to
be monitored to ensure that the overall quality of instruction remains high and that special education students are
provided with problem solving opportunities and not denied instruction
CHAPTER III
Meaning of Special Education and Categories of children with Special Needs
Review of the Literature Meaning of special education and categories of Children with Special Needs
The author extends his appreciation to the College of Education Research Centre, Deanship of Scientific Research,
King Saud University for funding this research work. Abstract This study outlines the literature relevant to the Cross-
cultural issues and the politics of SEN and the different perspectives arising from the literature on this widely
debated issue are addressed. In addition, the origin of the term 'special educational needs' (SEN), its definitions and
the types of special education needs are presented. Appropriate pedagogy for children with SEN is also discussed.
The results from the literature review indicated a number of gaps in the present frameworks. As a result, this has led
the scholar to work additional on these frameworks for the aim of this study. Keywords: Cross-cultural issues, the
term and the types of SEN, Politics of SEN and Models of disability, and pedagogy for children with SEN. In this
paper, I will review the literature related to the present research. This review is divided into four sections: section
one will explain Cross-cultural issues. Section two will touch on the politics of SEN and the different perspectives
arising from the literature on such widely debated issues. Section three will review the origin of the term 'Special
Educational Needs' (SEN), its definitions, and the types of special education needs as well as discussing the
definitions and models. Section four will review the pedagogy of children who are SEN.
1. Cross-Cultural Issues In order to properly understand the needs, actions, behaviour and development of
the individuals, groups and organisations in a given society, it is essential to first understand the culture of
that society. However, it can potentially be challenging to find a universally agreed upon definition of culture,
with several definitions existing in the literature, generally reflecting the particular bias, specialties and
backgrounds of the authors. One popular definition was provided by Haralambos, who states that “The
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
learned, shared behaviour of members of a society is known as culture” (1996:8). In contrast, Hofstede
argues that national culture can be best understood as “…collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001:9). This former
definition holds that individual values are the core of a national culture and it is this definition that will be
utilised for further analysis and discussion in this study. In acknowledging the difficulty in changing culture,
Hofstede argues that actions and behaviours rarely changing, making individual and societal values an
important aspect of culture. These values can be argued as being “the basis of concepts of right and wrong,
of high quality and low quality, of what's preferred and what is rejected'' (Petrie, 1994:60) There is broad
agreement in the literature that social values are found within individuals, although they are influenced by
many internal and external factors, such as family patterns, religion, political or social systems, and training.
Therefore, in order to properly understand the effect that society has on the attitudes and behaviours of
people, it is necessary to understand society itself and the individuals that make up that society (Petrie,
1994). Petrie also investigates that the ways in which personal values are affected by the mass media,
which is an important factor in modern cross-cultural interactions and is therefore likely to be important in the
development of values. However, it should also be recognised that the process of changing values and
norms in society is normally quite slow, perhaps because the values are passed between generations and
are therefore programmed into individuals. State power can also be an important part of this, with state
philosophy being able to manipulate the values of people within a society over a long period of time through
the introduction of new rules and regulations. An illustration of this is in the changes in power in Eastern
Europe in the last few decades. The move from strict to increasingly liberal political systems has resulted in
changes to the common norms and values of the people living in these countries. This may have been
partially due to the influence of Western European states, in which individuals have traditionally been given
more freedom to express their beliefs, culture and traditions. For example, in many Western countries,
people are free to open both churches and mosques. The issue of religion is another important factor in the
culture of a society, with religion shaping the accepted rules and behaviour of society since the earliest
periods of history. Despite these broadly applied factors, individuals are still different, with different
perceptions and values regarding important topics, such as the rights of children with special needs.
Armstrong and Barton have claimed that “ Within and across societies, individuals and groups have different
understanding, values, interpretations and discourses with regard to issues of human rights and disability''
(Armstrong and Barton, 1999:20). Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper)
ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 71 In essence, it can therefore be said that national culture
affects individual values, which then inform the way that people behave. A number of models exist in order
to explain national culture, one of which is Hofstede’s (1993) five-dimensional model of national culture. The
dimensions that Hofstede uses are: (i) Power distance; (ii) Individualism/collectivism; (iii)
Masculinity/femininity; (iv) Uncertainty avoidance; and (v) Long-term/short-term orientation. These
dimensions are summarised in more detail below: Power Distance (PD) This dimension describes culture in
terms of unequal levels of social status in a society, which means that power is not allocated evenly or fairly
between members of the population. Individualism versus Collectivism (IC) This describes “the relationship
between the individual and the collectively that prevails in a given society” (Hofstede, 2001: 209). This
dimension therefore describes the degree with which an individual is integrated into a particular society.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MF) This dimension refers to how clearly gender roles are defined in a
society. For example, the gender roles are classically very clear in masculine societies, where men are
expected to be tough and women are expected to be gentle. Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) This refers to how
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
stressed individuals feel when they are not sure about their future. Long-term versus Short-term Orientation
(LSO) This is the last of Hofstede’s dimensions is that the values are characteristically associated with short-
term orientation, such as protection of reputation, fulfilment of social responsibilities and a respect for
tradition, are balanced by those values that are deemed to be long-term: perseverance and the ability to
make sacrifices for long term gains (Hofstede, 2001). These make it possible to understand what people are
focusing on and especially whether they are more concerned with a short-term or long-term approach to life.
The ways in which these attitudes manifest in different countries and different cultures can be explained by
means of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Routamaa, Hautala and Mohsin, 2007). For example, the
countries of Northern Europe could be seen as individual and feminine, in contrast to Arabic countries which
are collective and masculine. In addition, there are often systemic differences in values and attitudes of
these cultures (ibid). By using these five dimensions above, it is possible to more fully understand a culture,
which can enable deeper understanding of the individual actions and beliefs within that particular society .
Hofstede (1980, 1997, and 2003) claims that Western societies tend to be orientated towards individualism,
with people being motivated by personal or family needs, and which suggests that historical or cultural
issues are less important in these societies than in Eastern countries. According to Dimmock and Walker
(1999:98) stated that "eastern and less- developed societies are more collectivist". However, the caveat to
this is that immigration is making these Western countries more multi-cultural. In this theory, Eastern
societies are more collectively orientated, placing greater emphasis on culture and history, which affects
individual behaviour within the societies. For example, this perspective is likely to influence the attitude of
people towards those with special needs. The individualistic approach of Western people manifests in a
strong sense of human rights, with the development of human rights, guidance and laws to protect children
with special needs. This position holds that the state has a responsibility to implement policies and run
institutions that meet the special needs of children and guarantee the protection of their rights. It is therefore
evident that improved understanding of national cultural values and norms is an essential step in understand
the perception and attitudes about children with special needs, as “In terms of child-rearing practices or
childcare, we derive our meaning and understanding of childhood from our culture” (Owusu-Bempah, 1999:
20). Cross- cultural issues have been extended to include at least in the Arab world. In cooperation with UN
Convention, many of the Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia; the United Arab Emirates; Jordan; Syria;
Morocco; Bahrain and Egypt signed an agreement in 1991 to deal with the Principles underpinning of
special education policy ( ElZein,2009). The Arab countries began for providing the needs and rights for
children with SEN in 1991(ibid). 2. Children with Special Education and Politics Politics plays an important
influence over individuals and societies. It can have an enormous effect on markets and commerce, as well
as on the manner in which state services are administered. For instance, welfare care is influenced by
formal policies which determine how the requirements of individuals and the community should be met. To
discuss the terms of children with special needs and politics, one should approach the definition of disability
from a pressure group's point of view. Oliver's (1990) argues that: "If disability is defined as social
oppression, then disabled people will be seen as the collective victims of an uncaring or unknowing society
rather than as individual victims of circumstance" (Oliver, 1990: 2). If such a point of view is acknowledged, it
will lead to social approaches that will be directed toward the reduction of repression instead of towards
compensating for the disability. The significance of a formal (political) Journal of Education and Practice
www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 72 definition of
disability lies in the rising number of the urban poor in contemporary industrialised nations. With regard to
the process of identification and categorisation, disability has often become an essential classification which
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
offers an appropriate social status to those who might be described as unable to acquire a job, in
comparison to those who might be categorised as disinclined to do so, as argued by Oliver (1990). One can
also provide another key factor for the significance of a political description when considering the financial
consequences on a disabled child. In terms of the most important challenges facing parents of a child with
special needs or disability, they include offering a useful plan for their child's mental and emotional growth
with suitable care and learning. The major impacts on the growth of such children, this is the part played by
the government and its national policies. There are several rules for children with special needs, including
policies for separation or inclusion in the educational process. These regulations and rules can affect
families and how their special needs children develop. This in fact brings forward the ‘for or against’ family
rights debate. As notes by Pugh (1968:39) the impact of state intervention on the family can be seen in the
fact that: "How far parents are able to share in making realistic plans for their child will bear some relation to
their intelligence and emotional maturity. It will depend on their capacity for looking ahead; on their ability to
see the child as an individual with needs differentiated from their own; on the extent to which they have been
able to come to terms with the separation and with the role of the local authority”. The next Section presents
the origin of the term 'special educational needs' (SEN), its definitions, and the types of special education
needs as well as discussing the definitions and models of disability. 3. The Origin of the Term ‘Special
Educational Needs’ Special education is one of the more recently developed areas in the field of education
and psychology. The scientific study of this aspect of education can be traced to the beginning of the last
century. Whilst children with exceptional needs have always existed, special education programs are a
relatively recent development. Considerable controversy exists about the history of this field, and its legal
and moral implications (Armstrong, 2003). Therefore, in this section the historical and cultural perspectives
of special education needs are discussed. In the eighteenth century, French and American academics
conducted investigations into the educational needs of individuals with certain types of disability, such as
deafness. In the nineteenth century, this interest widened to include a focus on those children with mental
disabilities. Classically, the services provided to these children tended to focus on the provision of
protection, sheltering them from the outside community ''Institutionalization'' because of the difficulties they
faced in adapting to everyday life. The democratic ideals championed by the French and American
revolutions led to a call for the education of these exceptional children in special schools or institutions of
their own (Weijers, 2000). The modern notion of special education began in the nineteenth century with the
emergence of associations specialising in the legislation surrounding special education, and in the creation
of programs for each category of special education. Specific legislation has subsequently been drawn up
and implemented in many countries to ensure that children receive a minimum level of appropriate
education (Fred, 1986). In the last few years, developed countries such as the United Kingdom and United
States of America have taken the initiative to pass various legislations to support the education of individuals
with SEN (Frederickson, Osborne and Reed, 2004). The current research outlines some of the legislation for
people with special educational needs in the United States and Britain. An example in the USA is the
‘Education for all: Handicapped Children Act (1994)’ which sought to ensure that the following objectives
were met: “...to follow and assess the case in proportion to the circumstances of disability; to provide Special
Education and Related Services... [to ensure that] disabled children with special educational needs receive
Support Services to face their educational needs” (Turnbull, 1986). Provisions intended to serve those
individuals with special needs have evolved through a number of stages, however. In the USA changes
began with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), first issued in 1975. IDEA aimed to ensure
appropriate education for all students with disabilities throughout the various states. Section 504 of the
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Rehabilitation Act was subsequently adopted in 1977 and guaranteed individuals with disabilities
involvement in any federal program or activity regardless of their disability. Finally, the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 attempted to protect the rights of disabled children and parents and
supported funding for their education (Brookshire and Klotz, 2002). These were positive Acts towards proper
special education provision. However, these Acts still focused on the principle of ensuring provision of the
Least Restrictive Environment (REI). Under This REI, the environment would be more similar to the
educational environment provided for their non-disabled peers where parents can be involved in their
children's educational programs and related decisions. In general, the concept of the REI has been
developed to ensure a 'free appropriate public education' (Rodger, 1995). What is more, the REI seeks to
achieve two main goals; first, determine eligibility of students for special education services regardless of the
circumstances of their disability; second, to determine the nature of special education services that a
disabled student will receive. The debate around the concept of 'least restrictive environment' has centred
about the nature of the educational programs rather than the Journal of Education and Practice
www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 73 educational
placement. The educational placement is normally an open option which is not determined by the needs and
characteristics in the same way as it controls the nature of the educational programs, which should reflect
their needs and characteristics in an individual manner. In other words, the placement of children in special
education programs should be constantly justified, not only in determining the validity of the educational
placement, but in the value of the program and its impact on their abilities (Smith and Hilton, 1994). The UK
is one of the countries to focus on the introduction of legislation for people with SEN; this interest started to
materialise after the introduction of Law No. 142/94 in the United States of America (Tod, 1999). Over the
past two decades, the field of special education has undergone some significant changes. In the early
1970s, educators viewed learning difficulties as an issue resulting from the child's interaction with their
environment, as opposed to difficulties emanating from the child itself (Riddell and Brown, 1994). This was
acknowledged in the Warnock report (DES, 1978) where policy developments in the 1980s and 90s were
rooted in this perception. According to Riddell and Brown (1994:9) "the legislation abolished statutory
categories of handicap, established the concept of special educational needs and provided for assessment
procedures and the drawing up of an official document stating the nature of the child's special needs and the
measures proposed by the education authority to meet these needs." A new system of social values and
education was introduced by the 1988 Education Reform Act for England and Wales (Riddell and Brown,
1994), and major results of implementing this Act were the National Curriculum and national assessment.
Riddell and Brown (1994) also believed that several educationalists considered a change in education to be
beneficial for children with special educational needs; in particular, this National Curriculum and
assessment. One of the most significant requirements of the 1993 Education Act for England and Wales
provided by the Code of Practice was to give practical assistance to Local Education Authorities (LEA) that
guarantee that children's rights are protected. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of
Special Educational Needs (DfE, 1994) specifies criteria on educational development. This Code of Practice
contains the implementation of an Individualized Educational Programme (IEP) for each child with special
needs. In other words, the IEP has been designed to help children with special needs to receive special
education services in mainstream schools. Furthermore, in 1997, the Code of Practice concentrated on
inclusive education. In addition, the revised Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) and
Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN) have served as useful documents for each
disabled child (Prunty, 2011). EPSEN involved rights for children, which included the provision of free
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
education for persons with special educational needs and the implementation of an IEP for each child.
During 1997, inclusion played a very important role in the Labour government’s policies by increasing
opportunities for vulnerable individuals. Furthermore, in part 4:27 of the SEN Code of Practice, for example,
the IEP indicates whether students have been making significant progress toward the short-term goals
incorporated in the program. IEPs are only implemented with pupils who are diagnosed as having needs
which are 'additional to' or 'different from' other pupils on a general curriculum plan. The IEP is a written
document comprising various components. Under this code, parents and the child should participate in the
preparation and implementation of the IEPs (DfES, 2001). Some academics have taken a stronger view,
arguing that the scientific research into special education over the past two decades is the most significant
development in the history of education, due to the degree of support it has received from legislation
(Gersten and Woodward, 1990). This view holds that ‘special education’ was a construction that enabled the
education system to provide appropriate facilities for students with disabilities. The opposing view is that the
development of this distinct area of education has introduced problems, due in large part to the complex
issues it raises and the difficulty of properly defining the field (Lipsky and Gartner, 1996). Marshall (2008)
claims that the term of ‘children with additional needs’ could be considered more appropriate term rather
than the term of SEN. It has been suggested that ‘special educational needs’ considers classification as 'a
necessary evil' (Hunt and Marshall, 2002: 32). Critics argue that a lack of clarity in the definition of ‘special
education’, and the segregation of those needs from mainstream education, do not ultimately benefit those
children it aims to protect. Slee (1998) claimed that research in relation to special needs has not introduced
a new idea but rather it has reformulated old ideas that fail to protect children with SEN and their rights. It is
clear that the position of these two countries (USA and UK) demonstrates the belief of governments that the
rights of children with special education needs will be lost without appropriate legislation or the introduction
of a separate, distinct and visible system. It has been argued that this growing awareness regarding the
rights of persons with special needs should be consistent with a rise in the awareness of the rights of people
from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities and women in general, and the rise of the civil rights of
persons with disabilities (Macmillan, 1988).This clearly implies that the legislation reflects new movements in
the field of special education, which aim to protect the rights of all children. On the other hand, According to
Sackel (2006) Special education policies in the UK and the US seem to conflict on different levels. While the
British system appears to be flexible in the assessment of student needs and successful in its accountability
policies without being too punitive, the American counterpart is said to be strict by Journal of Education and
Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 74 placing too
much accountability on educators and policymakers. Unlike the US model, the British model gives children
with disabilities the option to withdraw from high stakes exams, but no consequences for the school
administration. In addition, inspectors in the UK have to ensure students with disabilities have access to the
whole curriculum and are provided with a balanced curriculum of their own. Such job description seems to
be absent in the American system, with students losing out on some type of enforcement measures (ibid).
Another difference between the two countries refers to the movement of students between schools. Parents
in the UK can move their children freely, as opposed to the US where parents have to pay for the education
of their children if they move them out of their local schools. He claims that, ''The United States should also
learn from the English system that maintaining accountability in schools does not necessitate the use of
punitive sanctions'' (P: 612).Therefore, Children with SEN need the special Safeguards of regulation created
to safeguard them. 3.1 Defining the Term 'Special Educational Needs' The definition of ‘special education’
has raised considerable debate among professionals, parents and the individuals directly involved. Certain
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
terminologies have emerged to describe those people needing particular types of education, including:
‘exceptional children’, ‘handicapped children’ and ‘children with special education needs’. These children are
recognised as having mental, emotional, physical or social needs which, following a diagnosis may require
therapeutic intervention or special care by qualified specialists (Foreman, 2009). The term ‘Special
Educational Needs’ (SEN) was proposed by the Warnock Report (Department of Education and Science,
DES, 1978) in an attempt to raise social acceptance of individuals with disabilities, as well as to re-
conceptualise special education in Britain (Adams, Swain and Clark, 2000). Prior to this term, statutory
categories had been used, which also included terminology such as ‘disabled’. However, the use of the term
‘special educational needs’ has been controversial and has generated extensive debate in the academic
literature. For example, Gross (2002) regards the term as nebulous and inappropriate, while others claim
that it encourages discriminatory practices, arguing that any child might, at times, experience learning
difficulties (Solity, 1991). A further argument suggests that ‘special’ emphasizes the powerlessness of these
children rather than giving them dignity (Corbett, 1996). Meanwhile, Tomlinson (1985, cited in Skidmore,
2004) questions whether this new terminology created an administrative label that effectively determined the
educational careers of children. Regarding the most appropriate terminology, I argue that the term 'special
needs', used to describe individuals, could reduce stigma and marginalization. Previously, terms such as
‘handicapped’ or ‘mentally retarded’ were used and are examples of the deficit model of disability (Adelman,
1996). The concept of ‘special education’ encompasses a wide range of disabilities and special
characteristics. As Farrell (2004) stated: “every child is unique and there is a wide spectrum of SENs that
are frequently inter-related” (p: 13). Over the last three decades many of the above terms have been used
synonymously with ‘special education’, despite having different meanings. For example, the term
‘handicapped’ refers to difficulties in performing a task the way it is normally performed(Farrell, 2001).While
‘disabled’ refers to lasting physical or mental impairment that causes an individual difficulty in performing
particular functions, therefore reflecting deficit in the functional performance and effectiveness of an
individual (Kittay and Carlson, 2010). ‘Developmental disability’ describes factors that affect the
development of a child, mentally, physically or as a functional limitation in major life activities which requires
the provision of special services or treatment for a long period (James and Harris, 2010). In contrast, ‘special
education’ can be described as the science that deals with the categories of exceptional children in terms of
measurement, diagnosis and the preparation of educational programs and teaching methods appropriate to
them (Rousan, 1998). Therefore, ‘special education’ refers to the provision of suitable education for those
children who do not have typical needs; it does not necessarily describe education for those children who
are disabled or handicapped, as per the definitions above. For this reason, there is considerable controversy
and confusion over the use of these terms (Ronald, 1992). Formal definitions have also been provided in
this area. The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) defines the term ‘special
educational need’ as: “a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made” (p: 6).
This Code of Practice issued by the DfES reveals that children have a learning difficulty if they: “a) have a
significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age; or b) have a disability
which prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for
children of the same age in schools within the area of the local education authority ;c) are under compulsory
school age and fall within the definition at (a) or (b) above or would do so if special educational provision
was not made for them” (p:6). According to the International Standard Classification of Education (1997,
cited in Gymah, 2006: 24) the concept of children with special educational needs included those failing in
school for various reasons, adding that Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
(Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 75 SEN includes the need for additional support. In
other words, it relates to the extent to which schools adapt their curriculum, teaching and organisation in
order to encourage efficient and effective learning for these pupils. Following this definition, specific
disabilities could be understood to mean conditions such as difficulties with listening, reading, arithmetic,
writing, written expression, handwriting and spelling. The UK government's Green Paper on Excellence in
Education suggested that SEN children form a readily defined group with common characteristics and that
this group includes children from disadvantaged families as well as those pupils with a Statement of SEN
(DfEE, 1997). Therefore, children are identified as having SEN on the basis of the difficulties they
experience in school, rather than impairments or medical conditions (DfES, 2001). Dyson (2005) point out
that since this system of identification lacks 'objective' measures of impairment, around 18% of children in
primary schools can be identified as having SEN. This can make it difficult for teachers to understand the
various categories of children with SEN (Pearson, 2005).The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice
(DfES, 2001) did not classify various types of SEN. Similarly, many feel that categorisation should not be
used (Hunt and Marshall, 2002) since it does not fit the concept of inclusion, which seeks to remove barriers
and ensure equal opportunity for all (Ainscow, 2005). This lack of coherence can have long-term
consequences. Florian, (2003) says that those children: “rarely fit categorical descriptions of difficulty and
not all disabilities give rise to special educational needs, nor are all special educational needs a result of a
disability” (p:102). This definition emphasised that categorisation may have no educational relevance.
Furthermore, notions of special educational needs have not eliminated categorisation from the education
system, (Adams et al, 2000:234), and this has resulted in difficulties with resource allocation in relation to
children with SEN (Florian, 2002). In contrast, Armstrong, (2003) claims that effective categorisation can be
helpful to describe a condition, indicate a cause and predict the long-term future. Categorising children as
having intellectual disabilities or emotional and behavioural difficulties, or any other category, is therefore
likely to continue. This debate highlights the fact that the changes in the field of special education have not
been universally accepted, although these debates have endeavoured to solve problems faced by, and
attitudes towards, persons with disabilities (Slee, 1993). It can be concluded that the aim of the provision
offered by education authorities is to ensure that student with special educational needs achieve a degree of
social acceptance and vocational education which meet the needs arising from their disability. It can be seen
from the above definitions that special education takes the form of a series of specialized educational
programs, which are used with individuals with SEN, most of whom show a marked deviation from the level
of their peers. The aim of these programs is to help them to achieve their best, develop their abilities to the
fullest extent, and adapt and actively participate in the construction and development of their society. 3.2
Types of 'special educational needs'(SEN) As the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (DfES, 2001)
notes that, there are many types of special need, and this has resulted in controversy over the categories
used for identifying special educational needs (Farrell, 2004). However, this present research will explain the
most common terms used both nationally and internationally to describe student with intellectual disabilities,
including ‘learning disabilities’ (UK), ‘developmental disability’ (Canada and Australia) and ‘Intellectually
Disabled’ (I/D) (USA). In this literature review, I will discuss some thoughts on the specific or synonymous
term I/D and the rationale behind it. 3.2.1 Learning Disability (L/D) ‘Learning Disability’ (L/D) is also refers to
as a ‘learning disorder’ or a ‘learning difficulty’, and can refer to several disorders. The common feature of
these disorders is that the person experiences difficulties in learning through conventional methods of
education. The UK uses the term, ‘learning disability’ to describe student with an intellectual disability, which
denotes a series of developmental disabilities or conditions accompanied by a more or less severe cognitive
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
impairment, such as dyslexia (Emerson and Heslop, 2010). As Kwok and Katz (2009) found, there are
several terms used globally, and the most common term is ‘intellectual disability’ (I/D). In contrast, in the
United States, The American Association on Mental Retardation (1992) uses the term ‘learning disability’
which is defined as: “… a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to
listen, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations” (Yvonne and Batshaw, 1992: 366). It
should be noted that this definition contains the idea of psychological process. Birnbaum (2010) notes that
the term ‘learning disability’ refers to children who either have a learning disability in acquiring new skills or
who learn at a different rate to their peers (p:11). Student with learning disabilities are not a dissimilar group,
regardless of the defined terminology, or the wording of different terms (World Health Organization, 1996).
Conventionally, the UK has provided services for people with learning disabilities through four categories:
mild, moderate, severe and profound (Department of Health, 2010). Luckasson et al (2002) highlighted the
controversy about the diagnosis and classification of I/D through institutional care. In the UK, researchers
concerned with special education are concerned with the process of diagnosis and measurement for student
with intellectual disabilities. Additionally, diagnosis has begun to be conducted through collaboration
between paediatricians, Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN
2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 76 educators, social service providers and mental health
professionals. There are many barriers to the identification of appropriate services for a diversity of reasons,
including shortage of in-service training courses for professionals and inadequate quality criteria for the
measurement and diagnosis of people with mental retardation, especially in developing countries (Bhaumik,
2009).There is considerable controversy around the world about the criteria of diagnosis and assessment for
people with ‘learning disability’ due to the fact that these are not appropriate for the diagnosis and evaluation
of people with I/D. It is apparent that there have been several terms for ‘learning disability’ over time, which
may have increased the social stigma. According to Emerson and Heslop (2010), some countries, and
particularly the US and Canada, use the definition of ‘learning disability’ to indicate a person with a problem
such as dyslexia. 3.2.2 Developmental disability In the USA and Canada, the term ‘developmental disability’
refers to a permanent disability that occurs due to mental and/or physical defects evident prior to the age of
18. ‘Developmental disability’ includes disorders such as mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy
and other neuropathy (Odom et al., 2009). The term ‘developmental disability’ was used in the US in 1970
within the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act (PL 91–517) as a term
interchangeable with the term ‘mental retardation'’ (Foreman, 2009: 18). However, Australian health services
use the same term to describe people with mental retardation. According to Roberts (1994:1) developmental
disability’ can be defined as: "...... a severe chronic disability that results from mental and/or physical
impairments that are manifest before the age of 22 and are likely to continue indefinitely, resulting in
substantial functional limitation in two of more of the following areas of life: self-care, receptive and
expressive language, mobility, capacity for independent living, learning, and economic self-sufficiency". It
can be seen that the age of 22 is the cut-off point for a person being deemed to be intellectually disabled,
while the previous definition in the AAMR Act (2002) set the age at 18. Regardless of the precise age
(whether 18 or 22), a defining feature of this type of disability is that it occurs during a person’s formative
years. 3.2.3 Intellectual Disabilities (I/D) There has been much discussion and controversy regarding the
history and evolution of ‘Intellectual Disabilities’ (I/D). This interest began through the making of provision for
individuals but there was no general academic interest in the area (Armstrong, 2003). It was seen that
children with special needs were not able to benefit from the educational programs provided for the general
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
population without additional support. They could not be provided for unless account was taken of special
legislation made for the handicapped (Adams, 1989). Tuffrey (2003:1) shows that: “People with intellectual
disabilities are among the most disadvantaged groups in society”. In recent years, the field of Intellectual
Disabilities (I/D) has been subject to significant amendment which has clearly affected what is contained in
the legislation, as well as educational programs captioned for each category of I/D. This I/D field has
received a great deal of interest from many countries, where legislation has been enacted to ensure that the
children with I/D receive the optimum education. In the US context, the concept of I/D first appears in
legislation such as the general law 1994 / 142 (the Education for All: Handicapped Children Act) which was
designed to improve and develop services for children with I/D. In addition, throughout history, negative
attitudes have been displayed towards children's with special needs (Weijers, 2000). A disabled individual
was seen to be a financial burden on society (Rousan, 1998). The field of I/D has witnessed many changes,
both negative and positive, towards members of this category throughout time (Azza, 2001: 149). The term
I/D developed through the efforts of individual organizations which were concerned with certain disabilities
(Slater, 1979). For example, in the early nineteenth century, efforts were made by educational pioneers
around the world, such as Itard, Seguin and Montessori. According to Karyoti, et al, (1995), there have been
four basic stages in the history of attitudes to I/D. The first stage was genocide. Human societies in ancient
times got rid of weak and disabled children, the most prominent example being "Plato's Republic" which
recommended the removal of persons with disabilities outside the boundaries of the state until they were
destroyed. The second stage was neglect, in which people with intellectual disabilities were left alive in the
community, but abandoned without any help. The third stage related to fundamental care, as with the weak,
sick, disabled and other disadvantaged groups in society, where people with intellectual disabilities were
provided with homes, food and drink. Finally, the fourth and current stage is to provide special education and
rehabilitation services. 3.2.3.1 Definitions of I/D At present, a variety of terms, definitions and classifications
of ‘intellectual disability’ are accepted. Practitioners in the UK tend to use the term ‘learning disability’.
According to the Emerson and Heslop (2010), the term ‘intellectual disability’ should be considered
interchangeable with the term ‘learning disability’. There are several interchangeable terms in common use,
including ‘intellectual disability’, ‘developmental disability’, ‘learning disability’ and ‘mental retardation’. In this
present research, the definition of these terms will be discussed. The last century witnessed the emergence
of many of the terms which reflect the concept of mental Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 77 retardation, such as ‘mental
impairment’, ‘mentally handicapped’, ‘mental deficiency’ as well as the term ‘mentally feeble minded’ (Wen,
1997). According to Gulliford and Upton (1992), the concept of I/D is hidden and encompasses a wide range
of difficulties. There is considerable controversy about classification and terms in specific use for people with
I/D. In the 1970s, there were a lot of issues presenting obstacles to children with I/D in terms of their inability
to achieve their educational needs. These were the subject of controversy and confrontation on the pages of
scientific and professional journals (Macmillan, 1988). The definition of ‘intellectual disability’, in terms of its
classification and measurement, was at the heart of the controversies, and was considered one of the main
obstacles to improving the structure of programs that serve the needs of people with intellectual disability
(Reid and Knight, 2006). The definition of I/D is very ‘uncertain’ particularly as there is no single unique
approach for the identification of these ‘disabilities‘. As a result, a child might be deemed to fall into this
category in one school setting but not in another. Hallahan and Kauffman (1994) confirmed that the
widespread interest in mental disability by the various categories of scientists and professionals led to an
evolution in the understanding of this phenomenon and the determining of its causes. The difficulty has
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
arisen in arriving at a definition of ‘mental retardation’ which is comprehensive, accurate and acceptable to
various scientific and professional groups. Some of the definitions reflect the theories of causation, while
others attempt to describe I/D. Forness and Polloways (1987) stated that those who are working and
interested in the field of mental retardation were still unsure of the appropriate way to define and classify the
people who suffer from mental retardation, specifically the category of ‘mild retardation’, around which there
was still a great deal of controversy (p:221). MacMillan (1988) also indicates that the pluralism in the label of
‘mental retardation’ had increased vagueness concerning the definition and diagnostic potential in this
category, which has weakened the credibility of its scientific description. Kavale and Forness (2000)
emphasised that: "Although L/D has experienced unprecedented growth and has had a significant impact on
special education, it remains among the most problematic classifications because of vagaries and
antagonisms surrounding definition" (p: 239). According to Kidder-Ashley, Deni and Anderton (1990)
"...since its introduction roughly 40 years ago, the special education category of ‘specific intellectual
disabilities’ has been the subject of ongoing debate and controversy." (P: 65). Thus, the modern trend in
special education is to use the term ‘intellectual disability’ (Meservy, 2008). He also explained the reasons
for the change in name: “The name ‘mental retardation’ has been associated with negative connotation and
does not always communicate dignity or respect. A quick dictionary search of the term 'mental retardation'
includes several definitions with the connotation ‘derogatory term’ linked to them. ‘Retardation’ further
implies a static course instead of a dynamic and variable one. This is often causing for the practitioner,
health insurers and providers to classify problems in the individual’s functioning as a ‘long-standing’ function
of the individual’s mental retardation” (p:7). Also, he indicated that there were four reasons for changing the
use of ‘intellectual disability’: the abolition of stigma; improvement in the level of understanding; using
measurement and evaluation for the diagnosis of the situation; and the ability to describe people with mental
retardation depending on the category (ibid). In contrast, Klitze (2008) asserts that the notion of mental
retardation often related a negative significance and denoted a lack of human respect. The rationale for
using this term appears to be linked to a combination of social, scientific and philosophical factors. Clearly, it
can be seen that the most important of these reasons is that the use of the terms ‘mental retardation’ and
‘mental deficiency’ can produce a negative reaction in the families of those who suffer from low mental
capacity, whereas the use of the term ‘intellectual disability’ offers the general impression that the process of
growth in all mental processes is ongoing, but not at the same rate as the general population. With regard to
the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) definitions, the AAMR emerged as a result of
criticisms targeting the psychometric definitions, which depend solely on criteria for mental capacity
standards in the definition of mental retardation. Its origin was also a result of criticisms of the social
definitions of social validity being used in the definition of mental disability. As a result, AAMR (1992)
adopted the Heber (1961) definition, which indicates that: "Mental Retardation refers to sub-average general
intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period and is associated with impairment
in adaptive behaviour." (Smith, 1999: 381) The above quote emphasises that the most important
characteristic of this definition is its comprehensiveness, which made it a basis for other definitions (AAMR,
1992), although it also faced criticism with regards to the level of decline of the overall average in measures
of intelligence. Under these standards, with a population mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, any
score of 85 or less might be diagnostic of mental retardation (Smith, 2007). Moreover, the Heber (1961)
definition was reviewed and revised by Grossman (1983) Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 78 who defined ‘mental retardation’
as: "Significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
behaviour and manifested during the developmental period" (p:5) This definition indicated that there are
clear differences between the definitions of Heber (1961) and Grossman (1983). This specification meant
that an IQ test which represents the boundary between individuals with and without a disability is defined by
Heber as being between 84-85 points on the Wechsler and Stanford Binet Scales, while the Grossman
definition suggests a score of 85 to 70 on the same standards. The second difference is that, on Heber‘s
definition, the proportion of mentally retarded individuals in the community was 16%, in contrast to the
proportion of mentally retarded individuals in the community as defined by the Grossman scale being from
16% to approximately 2.25%. As a result, Grossman’s definition remained acceptable in the field of special
education and has been adopted by AAMR (1992). According to this definition, I.Q. and adaptive behaviour
standards are considered as major points in the definition of mental retardation. 3.2.3.2 The American
Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) Definitions The AAMR published the most recent revision of its
manual on the definition and classification of mental retardation in 1992. This definition involves crucial
changes. It stated as follows: “Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is
characterized by significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related
limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home
living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work.
Mental retardation manifests before age 18” (Lukasson et al., 1992:1). As illustrated above, there was
almost unanimous agreement on the formula by which to determine mental disability: mental performance
should be below average, and deviate from the average by two standard deviations or more. Mental
performance should be accompanied by deficiencies in adaptive behaviour in two or more areas and mental
retardation should occur before the age of 18 years. This definition has also sought to bring about the
abolition of the traditional classifications of mental retardation i.e. mild, moderate, severe or profound. It
provides the concept of support to include the capabilities, resources and necessary strategies for an
individual who has a mental retardation in order to be able to learn and progress, while also establishing
relationships within the work and home environments. This provides an opportunity for enhancing self-
reliance, productivity and the ability of these individuals to integrate into the community. In addition, there
are different levels of support available, related to the strengths and weaknesses of individuals with mental
disabilities, varying from ‘intermittent’ to ‘pervasive’. ‘Intermittent support’, either high or low intensity, occurs
during transition periods in a person's life, such as job loss or health crisis. ‘Limited support’ occurs on a
regular basis for a short period of time, but the nature of support tends to be more intensive than in
intermittent support. ‘Extensive support’ occurs on a daily basis in home, school or work, often over a long
time. ‘Pervasive support’ is the most intense and is provided in home, school and/or work over the course of
the individual’s life (Wehmeyer, 2003). However, on the definition of mental retardation used by the AAMR
(2002):"Mental retardation a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning
and in adaptive behaviour as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills. This disability
originates before age 18" (Lukasson et al., 2002: 8). This definition includes three core elements of (a)
significant limitations in intellectual functioning, which refers to the individual's ability to think, plan, solve
problems faced in everyday life, understand complex ideas and learn quickly, all of which involve a degree
of intelligence that can be inferred from the results of intelligence tests; (b) significant limitations in adaptive
behaviour, which includes conceptual skills in receptive and expressive language, the ability to read and
write, social skills and scientific skills that are embodied in the personal activities of daily life such as eating
and drinking habits, and the ability to move safely in all environments where the individual lives, and (c)
onset through the developmental period. These were the most prominent elements in the definition of the
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
American Association on Mental Retardation in 1992 and 2002 (AAMR, 2002). With regard to the use of
classifications with the intellectually disabled, as Zigler and Phillips (cited in Keogh, 2005) has emphasised
that:” systems of classification must be treated as tools for further discovery, not as bases for polemic
disputation"(p: 100). Reindal (2008) adds that the classification process in the field of special educational
needs has actually served to increase the stigma within the discipline. It can be suggested that here are
different kinds of I/D such as mild I/D; moderate I/D and severe I/D. The levels must be diagnosed and then
appropriate educational programs must be provided through Individual Educational Plans. It should be noted
that the concept of ‘mental retardation’ went through several stages, aiming to formulate a comprehensive
and clear concept which can determine the eligibility of individuals for special education services in the field
of mental retardation. As a consequence, this category requires appropriate training and developmental
programs. The old definitions of ‘mental retardation’ were primarily focused on the level of Journal of
Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016
79 disability of the individual, in contrast to the more modern definitions of the AAMR (1992; 2002). These
have focused on the amount of support and assistance needed by an individual, and the importance of their
role through knowledge of the necessary sources and strategies for the individual. This in turn works on
supporting the progress and the learning issues of the individual with mental retardation (Wehmeyer, 2003).
Schroeder and Stephen (1981) believes that the history of intellectual retardation in the US indicates
enormous growth in setting the legislation required to bring about free education, treatment and work.
Having examined the development of terminology and provided a brief overview of the various recognised
forms of disability, the next section will conduct an examination of the models of disability and the different
perspectives arising from the literature on such a widely debated issue. 3.3 Disability Models It has been
argued that the shift in emphasis from the individual level to the social level has enabled the promotion of a
fundamental re-examination of the way in which people with perceived impairment are viewed by society
(Priestly, 2003). This change provides the potential for the implementation of more enabling alternatives.
Some academics have argued that the oppression of individuals who are physically or mentally impaired can
be seen as being a product of industrial capitalism (Finkelstein, 1980; Ryan and Thomas, 1980). Priestly
(2003) argues that models should incorporate different approaches to explaining disability. For example,
structural changes in the mode of production should be examined to better understand how they affect
cultural understanding of a particular society regarding the actual meaning of being disabled. Effectively, the
cultural values and norms of a society shape the identity of special need individuals and groups in that
society. There are two important models underpinning the definition of special educational needs; based on
medical as well as social models, each one has several key beliefs. The next section will explain these two
models in the context of my own research. 3.3.1 Medical Model Disability is explained by supporters of the
medical model as a problem directly caused by psychological and medical factors (Oliver, 1990). This model
holds that the performance of an individual with special needs is associated with his or her individual
medical situation. Hahn (1986) states: “disabilities impose a presumption of biological or physiological
inferiority upon disabled persons" (p: 89). A main criticism with the medical model of disability is that it
focuses on the situation, the symptoms and the causes. The central argument from supporters of the
medical viewpoint is that medicine is a health problem. Hence, it seeks to intervene and treat the individual
and return them to a 'normal' state, that is to say, able-bodied. The view of medical scholars is crucial
because Barton (1986) revealed the medical model as the predominant view held by non-disabled
individuals. However, Adams et al (2000) discuss two models: the ‘individual medical model’ and the
‘individual educational model’. Their definition of the ‘individual medical model’ is important as, although they
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
see it as more humanistic, it still views disabled people as having impairments, and adheres to the deficit
model. 3.3.1 Social Model Oliver (1990) and Abberley (1987) proposed an alternative discourse that
explains the emergence of a ‘social model’ of disability. This proposed model emerged as a direct result of
criticism directed at the medical model. The social model considers social interaction and challenges as a
basic variable in relation to disability. Thomas and Corker (2002) stated that many people focus on the
response to social requirements as a basic variable as regards disability. They also explained disability as a
form of social oppression due to barriers in the way of disabled individuals accessing activities, and that this
impacts on their confidence and self-esteem, and ultimately their mental and physical well-being. This model
occurred as a result of criticism of negative views held about children with SEN. It can be seen that these
views have as their basis the notion that individuals with SEN are unable to contribute to or participate
meaningfully in society. In the latter part of the last century, scholars such as Oliver (1990, 1996) Beresford
(1994) and Middleton (1999) proposed an improved social model which directly criticises the pathological
model. Middleton (1999) favours a social model "Disabled children are construed by the majority of society
as non-contributing. This model implies they will also be perceived as non-participating" (p: 121). The
previous attitudes underpinning the medical model have taken a stronger view. They encourage the
segregation of people with special needs as well as the exclusion of disabled people from society. This view
is discriminatory, and critics argue that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notion of the ‘social
model’. In contrast, Middleton did not support the notion of exclusion: "There is no rational basis for
exclusion. Disabled children share the same right to be included as a child without impairment, and any
segregated treatment should be justified with their short- and long-term well-being in mind." (Middleton,
1999: 139) In a similar vein, Oliver (1990) claims that an unwillingness to accept children with special needs
can be seen as a problem within society. In fact, a negative attitude towards people with special needs
frequently prevents Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-
288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 80 them from using their right to be involved in society. Therefore, this
model proposes a change from the ‘individual medical model’ to the ‘social model’ of disability. The purpose
of the individual medical model is to explain disability by diagnosing individual impairment as the basis for
intervention and cure as opposed to changing attitudes in society. Given that such an opinion is
acknowledged, it can be seen that the social model puts forward its aim to accept disabled students in
society (Oliver, 1996). The social model of disability seeks to place responsibility for additional problems
faced by disabled children on society. In addition, this model of disability criticises social obstacles and
constructs. An example of these is a lack of access for wheelchair users, architectural inadequacies which
prevent or limit physical access to buildings, and lack of sign language interpreters (Longmore, 1987). In
addition to the beliefs underpinning the medical model, the term 'disability' is associated with the medical
diagnosis relating to disabled individuals and is an attempt to cure their disability as opposed to helping the
disabled individual to adapt, not the person. According to Hahn (1986): "Disability stems from the failure of a
structured social environment to adjust to the needs and aspirations of citizens with disabilities rather than
from the inability of a disabled individual to adapt to the demands of Society" (p: 128). Priestly (2003) reports
that the social model of disability highlights on the social processes and motives that lead people with
perceived impairments to be disabled and marginalised within society. Therefore, the social model is more
focused on explaining the social motives and processes which result in the segregation and reclassifying of
individuals with so-called impairments as „disabled" people in society. 4. Pedagogy for children with SEN
There are a number of essential factors involved in properly fulfilling the needs of individual students and
helping them to obtain the benefits of education. The knowledge and skills of teachers, the appropriate use
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
of behavioural interventions, and an appropriately designed curriculum are all fundamental in the success of
students with these difficulties. Generalising a universally applicable strategy is difficult given the previously
stated variations among children with SEN in general and I/D in particular, other than to underline the
importance of creating and implementing an Individual Education Plan (IEP) to ensure that instruction and
curriculum design meet the needs of particular students. Thus, one of the most effective learning strategies
is one based on individual learning which a teacher can employ in the planning of educational procedures to
meet the difficulties faced by students with intellectual disabilities (Hawsawi, 2002). Gibb and Dyches (2000)
mentioned that, in terms of preparation and application, an individualised educational plan is based on a set
of steps as follows. With regards to the first step, it concerns identifying the practical performance level of
the student, by starting to teach the special education skill, which should be done individually through
standardised reference tests, as well as those based on curricula and scientific observations. The data from
these evaluative tools should give a true picture of the child's unique and special needs in the designated
skills to be taught. The second step takes account of the formulation of the behavioural objective in light of
the child’s unique and special needs. This behavioural objective is formulated in terms of special sequential
behavioural skills to be learned by students in order to achievement a wider skill. As for the third step, it
involves the division of the behavioural goal, by using task analysis, into the elements of which it is
composed starting from that part of the knowledge already possessed by the student. In this sense, the task
of analysing the behavioural objective is the process by which the teacher recognises the elements of the
behavioural objective on the one hand, and the student’s mental characteristics, cognitive abilities and past
experience, as well as how they learn, on the other; in so doing, these students should be provided with the
most appropriate learning environment. In other words, this process of segmenting the skills represented in
the behaviour target includes small gradual steps which together permit the more complex steps to be
constructed leading to the achievement of the annual goals (McCormack, 1976).
References Abberley, P. (1987) “The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability”.
Disability, Handicap and Society, 2(1), pp. 5-19. Adams, J., Swain, J. and Clark, J. (2000) “ What's so special?
Teachers' models and their realization in practice in segregated schools”, Disability and Society 15(2): 233-245
Adams, R. G. (1989) “Conceptual and methodological issues in studying friendships of older adults”. In R-G. Adams
& R. Blieszner,Older, adult friendsUp, USA: Sage. Aziza, S. (2001) “Special education for people with mental
disabilities and visual and auditory and motor”, Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735
(Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35, 2016 81 Amman: Dar International Scientific and Cultural Centre for
Publication and Distribution. Adelman, H. S. (1996) “Appreciating the classification dilemma”. In W. Stainback and
S. Stainback (Eds.) Controversial issues confronting special education: divergent perspectives” (2st ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon. Ainscow, M. (2005) “Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for change?”
Journal of Educational Change 6(2):109-124. American Association on Mental Retardation. (1992) “Mental
Retardation”. ( 9th ed.) Washington D.C.: AAMR. Armstrong, F., Barton, L. (1999) “ Is there anyone there concerned
with human rights? ‟ Cross-cultural connections, disability and the struggle for change in England. In Armstrong, F.,
Barton, L., Ed. Disability human rights and education: Cross-cultural perspectives, Buckingham: Open University
press. Armstrong, D. (2003). “Experiences of Special Education: Re-evaluating Policy and Practice through Life
Stories”, (1st ed). London Barton, L. (1986) “ The Politics of Special Educational Needs, Disability, Handicap and
Society”, 1(3): 273-290. Beresford, B. (1994) Coping with the care of a severely disabled child”. Health and Social
Care in the Community 4(1): 155-163. Birnbaum, R (2010) “ Choosing a School for a child with Special Needs”.( 6th
ed). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Bhaumik,S.(2009) “Faculty of Learning Disability”, Royal College of
Psychiatrists, Leicester Frith Hospital, Groby Rd, Leicester Corbett, J. (1996) “Bad-Mouthing: The Language of
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Special Needs”. London: Falmer Press. DfES. (2001b) “the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice”.
London: DfES DfE. (1994) “Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs”.
London, HMSO DES. (1978) “Special Educational Needs (The Warnock Report) ”, London: HMSO. Department of
Health. (2010) “ Raising our sights: Services for adults with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities”. London.
Dimmock, C and Walker, A. (1999) “ Globalization and Culture .Tension in educational policy reform”. Changes:
Transformations in education, 2(2): 93-105. Dyson, D. (2005) “Philosophy, politics and economics? The story of
inclusive education in England," In Contextualising Inclusive Education: Evaluating old and new international
perspectives, ed. Mitchell, D., 63-88.Routledge. Echolar ID: 3b1750. ElZein, H.L (2009) “Attitudes toward inclusion
of children with special needs in regular schools (A case study from parents' perspective) ”. Educational Research
and Review, 4 (4): 164-172. Emerson, E and Heslop, P. (2010) “ A Working Definition of Learning Disabilities”
(Report No.1), London: Department of Health Farrell, M. (2004) “ Special educational needs: a resource for
practitioners”. (1st ed.) London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Farrell, M. (2001) “ Community progress resources
funding inclusive target access: standards &special educational needs”. British Library Cataloguing in publication
data. Finkelstein, V.(1980) “Attitudes and disabled people: issues for discussion”. New York: World Rehabilitation
Fund. Foreman, P. (2009) “Education of Students with an Intellectual Disability: Research and Practice”. (4th ed).
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 237 Forness, S. R. and Polloway, E.A. (1987) “Physical and Psychiatric
Diagnoses of Pupils with Mental Retardation Currently Being Referred for Related Services”. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation 22(4):221-229. Fredrickson, N., Osborne, L. A., & Reed P. (2004). “Judgments of Successful
Inclusion by Education Service Personnel”. Educational Psychology 24: 263- 290. Florian, L. (2003) “Editorial”,
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3(2) 102-103. Fred, A. (1986) “Special education”, London:
Group Limited. Gersten, R., and Woodward, J. (1990) “Rethinking the regular education initiative: Focus on the
classroom teacher”, Remedial and Special Education, 11(3): 7-16. Gibb, G. and Dyches, T. (2000) “Guide to Writing
Quality Individualized Education Programs”, Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Grossman, H. J. (Ed.) (1983) “ Classification in
mental retardation ” (Rev. ed). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Gross, J. (2002)
“Special educational needs in the primary school a practical guide” (4th ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press
Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.35,
2016 82 Gulliford, R. and Upton, G. (1992) “Educational Needs Special Curricula”, London: Routledge. Gymah, E.
(2006) “Teacher's Attitudes to Inclusion in Ghana”, (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from:
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/search.cgi?q=&field=&pagesize=100 Hahn, H. (1986) “Public support for rehabilitation
programs: the analysis of US disability policy”. Disability, Handicap and Society, 1(2):121-138. Hallahan, D and
Kaufman, J. (1994) “Exceptional children: Introduction to special education”. (6th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Haralambos (1996) “ Sociology: a new approach. Causeway Press Hawsawi, A. (2002) “Teachers' perceptions of
computer technology competencies: Working with students with mild cognitive delay” (Doctoral dissertation). Idaho,
USA: University of Idaho. Heber, R.F. (1961) “A Manual on Terminology and Classification in Mental Retardation,
American”. Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64 (Monograph). Hofstede, G. (2001) “ Culture's Consequences:
Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations Across Nations”. London: Sage Hofstede, G. (1997)
“Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind”. New York: McGraw-Hill Hofstede, G. 1993, 'Cultural Constraints
in Management Theories', Academy of Management Executive, vol. (7), 1, pp. 81-94. Hofstede, G. (1980). “
Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work- Related Values”. London: Sage Publications. Hunt N.
and Marshall, K. (2002) “ Exceptional children and youth ” (3rd Ed), Boston: Houston Mifflin Company. James, C.
and Harris, M. D. (2010) “ Intellectual disability: A Guide for Families and Professionals”, Oxford University Press.
Karyoti, Y; Carcinoid, A and Samadi, J. (1995) “ Introduction to Special Education”. (1th): United Arab Emirates: Dar
Pen Publishing. Kavale, K.A and Forness, S.R. (2000) “ What Definitions of Learning Disability Say and Don't Say”:
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
a critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33 (3):239-256. Keogh, B.K (2005) “ Revisiting Classification and
Identification”, Learning Disability quarterly, 28(2):100-102. Kidder, A. D. Deni, D.R and Anderton, J.B. (1990) “
Learning disabilities Eligibility in the 1990: An analysis of state practices”. Education, 121(1):65-72. Kittay, E and
Carlson, L. (2010) “ Cognitive disability and its challenge to moral philosophy”, London: Blackwell Klitze, M. (2008)
“Working with families of children with developmental disabilities”. (Report No. 1556-7575). Child and Adolescent
Behaviour Letter. Kwok, H. and Katz, G. (2009) “International and Cross-Cultural Issues: The Classification of
Intellectual and Learning Disabilities”, Meeting Report. October 26-27, 2009. Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996).
“Inclusion: What it is, what it's not, and why it matters”. Exceptional Parent, 24(9), 36-38 Longmore, P. (1987) “
Uncovering the Hidden History of People with Disabilities”. Reviews in American History, 15, (3): 355-364. The
Johns Hopkins University. Luckasson, R., Coulter, D. L., Polloway, E. A., Reese, S., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E.,
Spitalnik, D. M. & Stark, J. A. (1992). “ Mental Retardation: Definition, classification, and Systems of Supports”. (9th
ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Macmillan, L (1988) “ Issues in Mental
Retardation”, Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23(4):.273- 284. McCormack, J. (1976) “ Using a Task
Analysis Format to Develop Instructional Sequence”, Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 11, 318-323.
Meservy, M.D. (2008) “ The new classification of mental retardation as ‘‘Intellectual Disability". (Report No. 1058-
1073), The Brown University, Child and Adolescent Behaviour Letter. Middleton, L. (1999) “Disabled Children:
Social Exclusion”. Oxford: Blackwell Science Odom, S. L., Horner, R. H., Snell, M. E., and Blacher, J. B. (2009)
“Handbook of Developmental Disabilities”. The Guilford Press: United State of America. Oliver, M. (1996)
“Understanding Disability, from Theory to Practice”, London: Macmillan, 1996, Press Ltd. Oliver, M., (1990) “The
Politics of disablement”, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Owusu-Bempah, K.(1999) “ Race, culture and the child”. In
Tunstall, J., Ed., Children and the state. Whose problem? London: Cassell Petrie, P.(1994). “Play and Care, Out of
Schools”, Thomas Coram Research Unit, HMSO. Priestly, M (2003) “ Disability: A life course approach”, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing. Prunty, A. (2011) “Implementation of children’s rights: What is in ‘the best interests of the child’
in relation to Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)
Vol.7, No.35, 2016 83 the individual reduction plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) ”?
Irish Educational Studies, 30(1): 23-44. Pugh, E.(1968) “ Social work in child care”. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul. Reindal, S. (2008) “ A social relational model of disability: a theoretical framework for special needs
education”, European Journal of Special Needs Education. 23(2):135–146. Reid, K., and Knight, M.G. (2006) “
Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History grounded in Disability”, Education Researcher,
35(6):18-23 Riddle, S. and Brown, S. (1994) “ Special education needs provision in the United Kingdom - the policy
context'. In Riddell, S. and Brown, S. (Eds.) Special Educational Needs Policy in the 1990s: Warnock in the market
place”. London: Routledge. Roberts, R. (1994) “Definitions of Developmental Disability”. Aging ; Issue 366, p36,
1/5p, Academic Search Elite. Rodger, S. (1995) “ Individual Education Plans Revisited: A Review of the Literature”.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42(3): 221 – 239. Rousan, F. (1998) “Issues and
problems in special education”. Amman: Dar – Fikr for printing. Ronald, G. (1992). “ Special education needs”.
(1stEd). London: Routledge. Routamaa, V., T. M. Hautala and M. Mohsin. (2007) “Managing Cultural Differences:
Values and Work Goals in Culture and Personality Contexts”. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
Creativity & Innovation: Imperatives for Global Business and Development, August 8-11, Kyoto Japan. Ryan, J. and
Thomas, F. (1980) “The Politics of Mental Handicap” .Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sackel, J. F. (2006) “Conflicting
policies: special education and high stakes testing in the United States and England”. Washington University Global
Studies Law Review, 5(3), 611 637. Schroeder, C. S and Stephen, S.R. (1981) “Mental retardation in the United
States: Assessment, program development, and applied research”, Applied research in mental retardation 2 (2),
181-194. Skidmore, D. (2004) “ Inclusion: the dynamic of school development”. Buckingham: Open University Press.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Slater, R, (1979) “Schooling for the Mentally Retarded, In: Brian, P. A Historical Perspective by Brian Preen. The
School Review”, The University of Chicago, 87(2): 221-222 Slee, R. (1998) “ Inclusive Education? This Must Signify
'New Times' in Educational Research”: British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(4):440-454 Slee, R. (1993) “ The
politics of integration - new sites for old practices? ” Disability Handicap & Society. 8 (4): 351-360. Smith, J. D.(1999)
“Twentieth -Century Definitions of Mental Retardation”. Social Constructions of Mental Retardation: 380-393. Smith,
D. (2007) “Introduction to Special Education”, Pearson Education, Inc. Smith, T.E.C and Hilton, A. (1994) “ Program
Design for Students with Mental Retardation”. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 29(1):3-8. Solity, J. E. (1991) “Special needs: A discriminatory concept? ” Educational Psychology in
Practice, 7:112-119. Thomas, C and Corker, M. (2002) “A Journey around the social model”, In. Shakespeare, T.
and Corker, M., (2002) (Eds.). Disability/Postmodernist: Embodying Disability Theory. London: Continuum. Tod, J.
(1999) “ IEPs: inclusive educational practices? ” Support for learning. NASEN 14:184-188. Tuffrey, I. (2003) “ The
Palliative Care Needs of People with Intellectual Disabilities: a Literature Review”, Department of Psychiatry of
Disability, St George's Hospital Medical School, London Turnbull, H.R. (1986) “ Appropriate Education and Rowley”,
Exceptional children, 52 (4):347-352. Weijers, I. (2000) “ Educational Initiatives in Mental Retardation in Nineteenth
Century Holland”. History of Education Quarterly, 40(4): 460 Wen, X. (1997) “ The Definition and Prevalence of
Intellectual Disability in Australia”, AIHW Catalogue no. DIS 2. Canberra: AIHW. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003) “Defining
Mental Retardation and Ensuring Access to the General Curriculum”. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 38(3): 271–282. World Health Organization. (1996) “ ICD-10 Guide for Mental Retardation”. Geneva:
World Health Organization. Yvonne, M.D. and Batshaw, M. L. (1992) “ Children with disabilities: a medical primer”.
( 3rd ed.), P.H. Brookes Pub. Co
CHAPTER IV
The Biological and Environmental Causes of Developmental Disabilities
Among the most compelling stories emerging in the early 21st century from the science of child development have
been the extraordinary developmental processes by which a microscopic assembly of embryonic neural cells gives
rise to the human brain—the most complex physical object in the known universe (Fox et al., 2010; IOM and NRC,
2009; National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004). These remarkable developmental events
contribute to the entire, elaborate array of individual life attributes and trajectories, from personality, intelligence, and
individual achievement to lifelong risks for disease, disorder, and criminality. The course of brain development also
shapes a child's growing capacities (or incapacities) for learning; complex thought; and supportive, empathic
involvement with others—capacities that powerfully influence life chances for success, productivity, and satisfaction.
The profusion of possible futures and life paths grounded in the character, course, and timing of early brain
development is guided and sustained by continuous, bidirectional interactions between human biology and social
and educational environments. Such interactions, strongly influenced by the quality of the care and teaching and the
learning environments that families and societies provide, co-determine over time the developmental, educational,
biological, and health outcomes that progressively characterize individual lives. Although much complexity—at the
behavioral, neurobiological, cellular, and molecular levels—awaits further elucidation, much has already been
learned about the nature, timing, and consequences of neurodevelopmental events and how they interact with the
environments in which children develop, learn, and engage with adults and peers. New knowledge of these
developmental processes has yielded a rich and useful harvest of insights for those who care for, teach, protect,
and support young children.
THE DEVELOPING BRAIN, THE DEVELOPING SCIENCE

ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
The publication of From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development (NRC and IOM,
2000) proved a pivotal moment in the integration and dissemination of the insights gained from new knowledge of
developmental processes. That report assembles and compellingly presents the evidence that early child
development is critically dependent upon relationships with caring and teaching adults, that individual biology and
social experiences are equally influential in determining developmental outcomes, and that infants are born able and
ready to learn. The report also made clear that growing children's social experiences of adversity and stress—
experiences disproportionately prevalent in impoverished communities of low socioeconomic status—have direct
effects on the structure and function of the developing brain. Emotion and the social experiences of early life are
deeply and enduringly represented within behavioral development and are “biologically embedded” in the anatomic
structure and function of the growing brain (Hertzman, 2012).
In the decade and a half since From Neurons to Neighborhoods was published, enormous strides have been taken
toward a neurobiological accounting of how young brains develop and how both perturbations of experience and
support can fundamentally alter the trajectories of normative and maladaptive development. Four broad categories
of insight have emerged in developmental neuroscience with specific implications for learning, care, and behavior in
early childhood.
First, the past decade of research has converged on an understanding that in many or perhaps even most
instances, causality with respect to disease, disorders, and maladaptive development—as well as the preservation
of health and maintenance of normative, adaptive development—is best viewed as an interplay between genome-
based biology and environmental exposures. This understanding represents a clear departure from the historical
views that human morbidities are attributable to either pathogenic environments or faulty genes. Thus whereas it
was once viewed as sufficient to ascertain, through genetically informed (e.g., twin) studies, the proportion of
variation in an individual's observable characteristics, or “phenotype,” attributable to genes and to environments, it is
now generally accepted that the key to a deeper, richer understanding of pathogenesis and adaptive development is
elucidation of how genes and environments work together.
Second, the role of developmental time in the dramatic unfolding of brain structure and function and the acquisition
of concomitant human capacities has become increasingly important in explaining early development. Critical and
sensitive periods—time windows in which experience-related developmental transitions must or can most readily
occur—create a temporal mapping of anticipated early childhood exposures that guide the timing and sequencing of
developmental change. As the molecular substrates for such critical periods and events have become known and
tractable, altering their timing and manipulating the opening and closing of specific developmental windows have
become increasingly plausible (Greenough and Black, 1992; Greenough et al., 1987; NRC and IOM, 2000).
Third, there is now strong evidence that early psychosocial adversities—beginning even during fetal development
—can have important short- and long-term effects on the brain's development, the regulation of stress-responsive
hormone systems, and the calibration of stress reactivity at a variety of levels from behavioral to gene expression
responses. Stress triggers activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical (HPA) axis, which results in
cortisol secretion from the adrenal gland, as well as activation of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), which
ignites the so-called fight or flight sequence of physiologic changes, including increases in blood pressure and heart
rate, sweating, and pupil dilation. Together, these two systems exert important effects on the cardiovascular and
immune systems that anticipate and prepare the individual for stress or challenge, including affecting the regulation
of glucose levels and altering the activation levels for a variety of genes.
Fourth, inquiry into the sources of special vulnerability and resilience with respect to early adversity has led to the
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
discovery of substantial individual differences in children's susceptibilities to both negative and positive

environmental exposures. This discovery has reinforced the unique character of each child's responses to the
physical and social worlds, has offered perspectives on why some children thrive within environments of great
adversity, and has illuminated seemingly contradictory findings about how social conditions affect health and
development. It also has informed a better understanding of children's differential responsiveness to interventions
(Belsky and van Ijzendoorn, 2015). These individual differences in context sensitivity, like health and developmental
outcomes, are likely due to the joint, interactive effects of nature and nurture.
Taken together, these four broad categories of insights have reshaped understanding of the formative experiences
of early life—in families, communities, health care settings, childcare centers, and schools—and are changing
societal approaches to crafting, managing, and monitoring those experiences. Following a synopsis of the emerging
neuroscience of childhood learning and development, each of these new groups of insights is considered in turn,
along with its implications for those who raise, teach, and care for young children. Given the foundational and rapid
processes of brain development during foundational periods of early development, this is a window of both great risk
of vulnerability to developmental disruption and great potential for receptivity to positive developmental influences
and interventions.
Go to:
THE NEUROSCIENCE OF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The fundamental insights derived from developmental and educational psychology about child development from
birth through age 8 are enhanced by an increasingly elegant neuroscience defining the cerebral, neural circuit,
cellular, and molecular processes that attend early learning, cognition, and socioemotional development. Even
greater insight into these processes will inevitably result from innovative approaches to imaging the growing brain
and from federal investments in collaborative scientific projects such as the National Institutes of Health's BRAIN
Initiative.1 This section summarizes some of the major recent advances in brain science of relevance to this report.
For a more comprehensive review, the interested reader is referred to previous National Research Council reports
(see IOM and NRC, 2009; NRC and IOM, 2000), as well as overviews appearing in the developmental neuroscience
literature (e.g., Bloom et al., 2001; Boyce and Kobor, 2015; Fox et al., 2010).
Early Brain Development
The early central nervous system appears in embryologic development at 2 to 3 weeks postconception. Over the
remaining weeks of gestation, primitive cells differentiate into specialized cells and brain regions with distinctive
forms and functions. Precursor neural cells differentiate into neurons and glia cells; the former appear at 5 to 25
weeks of gestation and play key roles in the execution of brain functions, while the latter appear later in prenatal
development and have key structural and functional supportive functions in the brain and nervous system.
New neurons must migrate to new locations within the developing brain to serve specific roles within particular
functional regions, such as the motor cortex, which coordinates bodily movement, or the auditory cortex, which
serves hearing. In moving from their site of origin to their precise correct position in the brain, neurons are guided
along structural “maps” created by molecular signals from neighboring cells. Failures of neuronal migration have
now been implicated in the genesis of neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as some seizure disorders and
intellectual deficits.
As neurons move toward their final brain positions, they grow long, tubular extensions called axons along which an
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
electrical signal can be propagated to another neuron. They also develop branched projections from the neuronal
cell body called dendrites, which are capable of receiving such signals from other neurons (see Figure 3-1). The
point of physical communication between neurons is the synapse, a microscopic cleft across which a chemical
signal—a neurotransmitter—is released, resulting in the activation of the downstream neuron. Many of the
psychotropic medications currently used for disorders such as depression and anxiety act upon the molecular
mechanisms involved in synaptic communication.
FIGURE 3-1
The structure of neurons and neuronal connections. SOURCE: Kellett, 2015.
The rate of formation of both new neurons and new synapses during prenatal brain development is staggering. As
shown in Figure 3-2, during a period of neuronal proliferation between 5 and 25 weeks of gestation, new neurons
are generated from neural stem cells at a rate as high as 250,000 per minute. In a slightly later but overlapping
period, synapses are produced at a rate of 40,000 per second. Both periods are followed by a systematic pruning of
both neurons and synapses, the former through a phase of programmed cell death called apoptosis, and the latter
through attrition of the least utilized synaptic connections. Both the striking overproduction of neurons and synapses
and the subsequent, rapid elimination of those that are underutilized must occur in sequence and to the proper
degree for normal intellectual and socioemotional development to occur. Schizophrenia has been linked, for
example, to abnormal synaptic pruning during the adolescent years of development.
FIGURE 3-2
Developmental phases of neural development. SOURCE: IOM and NRC, 2009, p. 122.
Myelination—the progressive “insulation” of the neuronal axons with a myelin sheath produced by specialized neural
cells—increases the speed and efficiency of neuronal activation. Myelination occurs at different developmental rates
in different areas of the brain; the prefrontal cortex, responsible for the slowly acquired “executive” functions of
reasoning, decision making, and attentional skills, becomes fully myelinated as late as early adulthood. It is the
white myelin sheath, with its cholesterol and lipoprotein components, that is responsible for the increasing,
maturational presence of “white matter” in the developing brain.
The early development of the brain also progresses at the level of cortical and subcortical organization and signaling
circuits that are integrated into networks with similar functions. The cortical structures and signaling circuitry of the
brain underlie neural systems for complex cognitive and socioemotional functions such as learning and memory,
self-regulatory control, and social relatedness (IOM and NRC, 2009). During this development, specialization occurs
with different anatomical regions of the brain involved in different functions, including both those that are explicit and
conscious, which have been the focus of much developmental science research to understand cognitive
development, as well as those that are implicit and automatic or unconscious, which are increasingly being studied
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
for their foundational importance for socioemotional development (Schore, 2010).
A related feature of brain development is lateralization, in which specialized functions are predominant in one
hemisphere, or side, of the brain. For example, growing evidence points to the specialized dominance of the right
side of the brain in processing social and emotional information, including nonverbal information, which are the
foundation of important functions such as interpreting social stimuli, understanding the emotions and intentions of
others, and engaging in social interactions, including the important development of attachment in very young
children (De Pisapia et al., 2014; Decety and Lamm, 2007; Hecht, 2014; Schore, 2014; Semrud-Clikeman et al.,
2011).
Although structural specialization does develop in the brain, it is also becoming increasingly well understood that
brain functioning is more complex than discretely assigned anatomical areas. Language, for example, has been tied
to the left hemisphere, in what are known as Broca's and Wernicke's areas. However, there is emerging recognition
that aspects of communicating through language, which requires nonverbal information and interpretation of
meaning and inference, are also linked to right hemisphere functions (Ross and Monnot, 2008). Similarly, cortical
functions are also interconnected with subcortical systems that underlie arousal systems and autonomic function.
Developmental neuroscience has also been increasingly focused on the importance of the maturation of these brain
systems prenatally and early in life, which like the cortical regions, undergo a rapid growth in the first year of life
(Knickmeyer et al., 2008).
The brain has capacity for change in anatomy and function as a result of experience and stimulation, a function
known as neural plasticity. Such plasticity takes place at multiple levels of organization and scale, ranging from
synaptic changes in neurotransmitter production and release to regional increases in the size of a specific cortical
region following the acquisition of new skills. For example, the cortical area controlling the fingers of the left hand
expands in students of the violin at a level commensurate with their years of study and increasing virtuosity.
Learning and mastery thus are physically represented, at both the micro and macro levels, in the changes in brain
structure and function resulting from neural plasticity.
As a consequence of the exquisite precision of the timing, spatial resolution, and sequencing of brain development,
enriching experiences in the early years will support healthy brain development, while conversely, a variety of
disturbances or deficiencies prenatally or in early childhood can interrupt or perturb the growing brain, resulting in
functional changes that range from subtle incapacities to generalized developmental disabilities. Prenatally, such
disturbances can include, for example, deficiencies in folate in the maternal diet, which can result in severely
disordered formation of the brain and spine, and infection with such organisms as toxoplasmosis or
cytomegalovirus, which can produce severe forms of psychopathology such as schizophrenia or autism. In early
childhood, one perturbation that occurs with great prevalence in human populations is the developing brain's
exposure, directly or indirectly through the parents' experiences, to substantial psychosocial adversity and stress,
such as abuse or neglect, the death of a parent, or exposure to violence in the home or neighborhood. Because of
its early sensitivity to such adversity, the developing brain can sustain profound effects on structure; function; and
capacities for learning, cognition, and adaptive behavior. Although children across populations and socioeconomic
levels can experience these kinds of stressors, exposure to many of them is unevenly distributed within populations,
which can result in disproportionate risk for the marginalized and the poor.
Go to:
GENE–ENVIRONMENT INTERPLAY AND DEVELOPMENT

ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
As noted earlier, poor health and maladaptive development have historically been attributed to either experiential or
heritable causes, depending on the prevailing scientific and cultural view. Proponents of environmental determinism,
the predominant view in the 1960s and 1970s, claimed that, with few heritable exceptions, aspects of context and
environmental exposure were the principal forces shaping developmental outcomes. In other periods, such as that
following the Human Genome Project in the 1980s and 1990s, proponents of genetic determinism alleged that all
the major determinants of disease and developmental disorder were single-gene or polygenic variations. Based on
more recent research, however, it is now understood that the interaction of genes and experiences guides
development and that the key to a richer understanding of pathogenesis is an elucidation of how genes and
environments work together to produce—or to protect from—illness and disorder, i.e., gene–environment
interplay (Boyce et al., 2012; Rutter, 2010).
The Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Variation
Gene–environment interplay is a category of interactive processes comprising gene–environment correlation (rGE),

gene–environment interaction (GxE), and epigenetic modification of the DNA packaging that regulates gene
expression. The first of these, rGE, denotes the influence of genetic variation on environmental exposures, referring
to how individuals may select, alter, and generate experiences that are in keeping with their own genetic proclivities.
For example, a child who has a more inhibited temperament will be inclined toward less intensive social
environments. The second, GxE, describes genetic or environmental effects that are conditional upon each other—
for example, the effects of genetic variation that become apparent only in the presence of specific environmental
conditions, or the effects of social contexts that are more or less potent depending on the underlying genotype of the
individual who experiences them. Third, epigenetic processes that stem from environmental exposures modify
chromatin—the structural packaging of the genome—through the chemical “tagging” of DNA or the histone proteins
around which it is wound. These chromatin modifications or “marks” alter gene activity, control the production of the
protein for which the gene codes, and thereby modify the observable, phenotypic characteristics of the child—all
without affecting the DNA sequence itself (Boyce and Kobor, 2015).
The exploration of these domains of gene–environment interplay has become one of the most prolific, engaging,
and controversial areas of biomedical and social science research. On the one hand, such research holds promise
for illuminating how differences in individual susceptibility and environmental conditions operate together to initiate
disorders of development, behavior, and health or to sustain health, resilience, and adaptive well-being. On the
other hand, this arena of biomedical research also is marked by ongoing, sometimes divisive, controversies over
methods and the interpretation of findings.
Initial reports of GxE interaction in developmental psychopathology (Caspi et al., 2002, 2003), now a decade past,
revealed for the first time the potential and long-theorized capacity for DNA sequence variants to amplify or
constrain the health and developmental risks of disadvantaged or abusive early environments. In the decade that
followed, a large number of scientific papers reported GxE interaction in which DNA sequence variations (called
single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs) statistically moderated the influence of risky social contexts on the
incidence of disordered development and psychopathology. Studies of both human children (see, e.g., Dunn et al.,
2011; Molenaar et al., 2013) and animal species (see, e.g., Barr et al., 2004; Burns et al., 2012) continue to identify
statistical interactions between variation in genotype and aspects of the rearing environment, although ongoing,
legitimate concerns remain about the reliability of findings on GxE interaction (Manuck and McCaffery, 2014).
How GxE interaction exerts effects on developmental and behavioral outcomes has been explained in part by
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
studies showing how variations in DNA sequence are linked to connectivity in specific brain regions (Thompson et
al., 2010). Recent functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, for example, have demonstrated the heritability
of task-related brain region activation and shown how a functional mutation in an important gene is associated with
differences in the function of the prefrontal cortex, where executive skills reside (Egan et al., 2001). Such studies of
GxE interaction have employed “candidate” SNPs in genes relevant to brain development and psychopathology or
in genes sharing candidate biological pathways (e.g., pathways involved in inflammation). Other researchers have
developed experimental animal models for testing the effects of GxE interaction on cognitive and behavioral
outcomes (Koch and Britton, 2008; Turner and Burne, 2013) or focused on families of environment-responsive
intracellular molecules, called “transcription factors,” that control the activation or expression of multiple genes
(Slavich and Cole, 2013).
Epigenetics
Among the most compelling, emergent stories in developmental biology is the discovery of the
molecular, epigenetic processes by which environmental conditions can regulate the activation or deactivation of
genes. It is increasingly understood that development is driven not only by the joint, additive, or interactive effects of
genetic and contextual variation but also by the direct regulation of gene expression by environmental events and
experiences (see, e.g., Lam et al., 2012; Pezawas et al., 2005; Rutter, 2012). Research in epigenetics has shown
that experiences can alter gene expression through their effects on molecular regulators that interact with the DNA
molecule.
As described earlier, an epigenetic mark is a chemical change in DNA packaging, or chromatin, that affects gene
transcription (i.e., the decoding of the gene) without changing the DNA sequence itself. Chromatin modifications that
occur as a result of experiences and exposures in an individual's social and physical environments constitute a
molecular pathway by which context can influence gene expression and phenotype. This physical conformation of
chromatin, which resembles “beads on a string” (see Figure 3-3), allows or disallows access to gene coding regions
by RNA polymerase, the enzyme that decodes DNA sequences. Which chromatin conformation exists at a given
time depends on epigenetic processes of chemical modification or “marking” that modifies either the DNA itself or
the histone proteins around which the DNA is wrapped.
FIGURE 3-3
Chromatin structure. SOURCE: Leja and NHGRI, 2010.
Early in development, the maturation of the embryo itself depends upon epigenetic programming that shapes cell
differentiation and development (Strachan and Read, 2011). The early embryonic genome undergoes several
phases of genome-wide epigenetic change that establish and maintain the distinctive, somatic cell lines that make
up specific tissues. These early modifications create a kind of genetic tabula rasa for the epigenetic reprogramming
of cellular diversity (Boyce and Kobor, 2015). Because the body's approximately 200 different cell types contain the
same genomic DNA sequence, epigenetic processes must control the tracking of primitive, undifferentiated cells into
distinctive cell types through differential expression of each cell's approximately 20,000 genes. Only by such
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
divergent activation of genes could so many tissue types emerge from a single, common genome and ensure the
stability of each cell type over generations of cell division. Differential gene expression also guides the differentiation
of cellular functions, for example, the development of neurons into unique subsets, the guidance of axon growth,
and the spatial organization of brain development (Fox et al., 2010).
At the same time, epigenetic processes also are called upon for adaptive, dynamic responses later in development,
such as those a child makes to changing environmental conditions like exposures to severe adversity and stress. In
research entailing the calibration of rat pups' stress reactivity, for example, high levels of maternal care resulted in
increased production of the glucocorticoid receptor in pups' brains through an epigenetic change in chromatin
structure (Weaver et al., 2004). This epigenetic modification of a regulatory region in the glucocorticoid receptor
gene increases its expression, thereby blunting cortisol reactivity. Thus, a single set of molecular processes serve
both stability and change—an “epigenetic paradox” of the same molecular mechanisms providing for contrasting
cellular needs.
Paradoxical though they may be, the uses and functions of epigenetic processes play critically important roles in the
successful emergence of social, educational, and biological capacities. A new body of research addressing the
genomic and neurobiological bases for complex social cognitions, for example, has shown how inferences about
others' thoughts and emotions, the processing of facial information, and control of socially evoked emotion all
require functional connectivity between a variety of brain structures, including the amygdala, hippocampus, and
prefrontal cortex (Adolphs, 2009; Blakemore, 2010, 2012; Lesch, 2007; Norman et al., 2012; Robinson et al.,
2005, 2008). There is evidence that perturbations in such brain circuits are related to genetic and epigenetic
processes (Lesch, 2007; Norman et al., 2012). Environmental conditions produce patterns of cellular signals in the
brain, and these neural signals remodel epigenetic marks, which modify the expression of genes controlling brain
development. Because some of these epigenetic marks are chemically stable, environmental influences during
childhood can become “biologically embedded” within the genome of the growing child (Hertzman, 2012).
Further, the processes that influence postnatal development, learning, and health also can be mediated by
epigenetic events controlling neuroregulatory genes. Social dominance and rearing conditions in nonhuman
primates, for example, are associated with epigenetic variation in the immune system (Cole et al., 2012; Provencal
et al., 2012; Tung et al., 2012). In human research, epigenetic changes in the glucocorticoid receptor gene in brain
cells have been identified in suicide victims with a history of child abuse (McGowan et al., 2009; Sasaki et al., 2013),
and longitudinal associations have been found between socioeconomic disadvantage and stress in early life and
both genome-wide and gene-specific epigenetic changes in later life (Borghol et al., 2012; Essex et al., 2013; Lam
et al., 2012).
Most recently, new research has revealed that epigenetic, molecular processes may sometimes underlie GxE
interactions (Klengel et al., 2013; Mehta et al., 2013). Specifically, an epidemiologically observed interaction
between childhood trauma and an SNP in a cortisol response-regulating gene predicts symptoms of posttraumatic
stress disorder in adulthood. Laboratory investigation of this GxE interaction revealed that the effect is mediated
through epigenetic changes in a cortisol response element in the gene. This observation shows how chromatin
modification and epigenetic marks may be a molecular mechanism for GxE interactions.
Interplay of Genes and Environment: Implications for Adults
For adults who work with children, it is important to recognize that “nature” and “nurture” are not parallel tracks.
Instead, the tracks are woven together and influence each other's pathways in ways that may vary greatly
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
depending on the individual child. The adaptations that occur as a result of these mutual interactions mean that the
early experiences and early learning environments that adults provide can affect all domains of human
development.
In sum, a new and promising body of research is producing evidence, in both animal and human studies, that many
variations in human developmental and educational trajectories have early origins in early childhood (Shonkoff and
Garner, 2012); are the products of gene–environment interplay (Rutter, 2006); and influence developing neural
circuits and processes that are directly linked to long-term trajectories of health, disease, and life achievement (Fox
et al., 2010). This research may signal a period of remarkable progress in understanding the extensive interplay
among social environments, genes, and epigenetic processes and how genetic and environmental variations
converge in typical and atypical development (Boyce and Kobor, 2015).
Go to:
DEVELOPMENTAL TIME
The central role of time is a recurrent theme in developmental science. The effects of experience change
dynamically across the life span, as critical and sensitive periods open and close, especially in the early years.
During critical periods of development, important experiences or exposures result in irreversible changes in brain
circuitry. During sensitive periods, the brain is especially responsive to such experiences (Fox et al., 2010). These
are defined windows of early life when there is plasticity highly dependent on experience (Takesian and Hensch,
2013). In a classic example of this, when children lack patterned visual stimulation because of cataracts, strabismus,
or other occlusions of vision during the early development of the brain's visual circuitry (i.e., birth to 7-8 years of
age), the result is deprivation amblyopia (dimness of sight). The developing brain is also especially vulnerable to the
effects of physical and social environmental exposures during early developmental periods. For example, during
critical periods of neurodevelopment children are more prone than adults to toxic chemical injury ( Nelson et al.,
2014; Zeanah et al., 2011). In a random-assignment trial of children in orphanages, neurobiological and
developmental outcomes were dramatically improved for children whose foster care placements occurred prior to 2
years of age (Nelson et al., 2014; Zeanah et al., 2011).
The molecular mechanisms for such critical and sensitive periods are being studied in animal models involving
experimental manipulations at the neuronal and molecular levels. Recent research has shown how plasticity in the
brain over time is initiated and constrained by molecular “triggers” and “brakes” (Takesian and Hensch, 2013). Such
findings have led to a fundamental shift from assuming that brain plasticity arises during sharply defined critical
periods to a new understanding that the brain is instead intrinsically plastic and normal development requires a
timed, molecular suppression of that plasticity. The onset and offset of critical periods are due to epigenetic
molecular mechanisms (Fagiolini et al., 2009). These discoveries together reveal a complex time sensitivity within
development that is initiated, guided, and curtailed by epigenetic, molecular events affecting the neuroregulatory
genes that govern brain development (Boyce and Kobor, 2015).
Go to:
BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL ADVERSITIES IN EARLY LIFE
As discussed earlier, there is now strong evidence that psychosocial and other stressors in early life—beginning
even in the prenatal period—can have important effects on development. This section focuses in depth on the
biological consequences of these stressors. Chapter 4 places those biological consequences in the context of
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
broader considerations and consequences having to do with chronic stress and adversity, focusing in particular on
the stressors associated with economic adversity; social buffering of stress; and the relationships among stress,
learning, and mental health. Importantly, children experience stress—and the biological dysregulation that can occur
—not only as a result of the active stressors of chronic threat or danger but also because of the unavailability of
nurturing, supportive care on which children rely, especially early in life. Both conditions appear to constitute
significant stressors for young children.
Multiple biological systems are affected by chronic adversity because these systems are activated by stressful
events and their persistence. As noted earlier, adverse early experiences can have significant consequences for a
child's brain development through the “biological embedding” of such experiences in the stress response systems of
the child's brain (Hertzman, 1999). In studies of children who have a depressed parent, live in poverty, witness
persistent conflict, are abused or neglected, are in foster care, or experience other kinds of significant chronic
stress, developmental researchers have documented important consequences for neurocognitive development (for
reviews, see Blair and Raver, 2012; Hertzman and Boyce, 2010; Lupien et al., 2009; Thompson, 2014). The
biological effects of chronic stress, especially when it occurs early in life, influence not only brain development but
also immunologic functioning; autonomic reactivity; the development of stress reactivity and coping; and memory,
learning, and thinking (McEwen, 2012; Ulrich-Lai and Herman, 2009).
The specific effects of early stressors depend critically upon the timing, intensity, and duration of the exposure.
Chronic stressors are characterized by prolonged activation of the physiologic stress response systems and are
particularly harmful when experienced in the absence of the protection afforded by stable, responsive relationships
(Garner and Shonkoff, 2012). Evidence that early adverse experiences can have lasting effects on multiple
biological systems helps explain the well-documented association between early adversity and later problems in
physical and mental health in adulthood (Boyce et al., 2012; Danese and McEwen, 2012; Edwards et al., 2005).
Chronic adversity has these effects because of the cumulative biological “wear and tear” that results from the
prolonged activation and overburdening of biological systems that are designed primarily for short-term activation
(Geronimus et al., 2006; McEwen, 2012).
Effects on the Neuroendocrine Stress Response System
The HPA axis both contributes to coping with stress and is affected by chronic stress. The HPA axis is activated
when the brain detects threatening events, leading to the production of cortisol, which mobilizes energy, enhances
cardiovascular tone, alters immune functioning, and orients an individual to danger attentionally and cognitively.
These biological responses have important psychological consequences that together provide immediate resources
for coping with adversity, including heightened motivation for self-defense, threat vigilance, and motivational and
emotional arousal. Over time, however, chronic stress and repeated exposures to adversity can alter the brain
centers and neuroendocrine circuitry that underlie the regulation of stress responses and change the functioning of
the HPA axis (Ulrich-Lai and Herman, 2009).
Considerable variability in stress reactivity is observed in children facing adversity (see, e.g., Essex et al., 2011).
The HPA system is altered in two ways through experiences of adversity (Bruce et al., 2013; Hertzman and Boyce,
2010), and both reflect poor regulation of HPA responses as the result. One is when the HPA axis
becomes hyperresponsive to perceived threats, so that cortisol levels rise quickly and are slow to decline, as the
result of repeated shocks to the stress system. Children who are hyperresponsive may show heightened vigilance to
threat, greater reactivity and poorer self-regulation when challenges ensue, and difficulties maintaining cognitive and
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
attentional focus (Blair and Raver, 2012; Evans and Kim, 2013). This heightened reactivity has been observed in
children who have been maltreated (Cicchetti and Rogosch, 2001), in infants and toddlers growing up in poverty
(Blair et al., 2008, 2011), and in the young children of chronically depressed mothers (Essex et al., 2002).
Another way in which the HPA system can be dysregulated is when stress reactivity becomes blunted
or underresponsive. In this case, cortisol levels are low, and the typical daily rhythm of cortisol secretion that
regulates physiologic functioning is diminished or absent, as if the system is beginning to shut down. This pattern
has been observed in young children living within deprived, institutional care (Carlson and Earls, 1997); neglected
children placed in foster care (Dozier et al., 2006); and young children living in homes characterized by domestic
violence and maternal emotional unavailability (Sturge-Apple et al., 2012). Thus, the effects of chronic, severe
deprivation produce a dampening of the HPA axis, possibly due to changes in the hormonal feedback system by
which cortisol production is controlled (Bruce et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2014).
Chronic dysregulation of the HPA axis also alters the immune system, increasing vulnerability to infections, boosting
levels of the cytokines by which immune cells communicate with each other, and embedding a biological “bias”
toward inflammatory responses (Miller et al., 2011). The effects of HPA dysregulation contribute to the well-known
association between stressors and both acute and chronic illness.
Chronic cortisol output also alters the functioning of other brain systems that help regulate HPA activity, including
the prefrontal cortex (the seat of executive functions such as planning and emotion regulation), hippocampus
(memory and learning), amygdala (emotion activation and regulation), and hypothalamus (multiple neuroendocrine
functions) (Lupien et al., 2009; Ulrich-Lai and Herman, 2009). These linkages of stress exposure with brain areas
that influence self-regulation, memory, emotion, and behavioral motivation help explain the associations between
chronic stress and impairments in focused attention, learning, memory, and self-regulation in children and adults.
Stress also is associated with acute increases in ANS reactivity. The stress effects of ANS activation can result in
elevated blood pressure (El-Sheikh and Erath, 2011); poor control of blood sugar levels; and immune system and
inflammation dysregulation, through the effects of ANS molecular signals on white blood cell functions.
Prenatal Stressors
Although this report focuses on children beginning at birth rather than on the prenatal period, it is important to note
in some depth that child development and early learning also are affected by prenatal exposures. There is growing
evidence that the biological embedding of chronic stress begins prenatally because fetal development is affected by
the hormonal, autonomic, and other physiologic correlates of maternal stress. Prenatal exposure to cortisol, for
example, can have profound influences on the developing brain, as some portion of maternally secreted cortisol
moves through the placenta and affects the fetus's neurodevelopment. In animal models, treating the pregnant
mother with corticosterone (the rodent equivalent of cortisol) delays the maturation of neurons, myelination, glia cell
formation, and blood supply to brain structures (Lupien et al., 2009). In humans, observed effects of prenatal
stressors, including maternal depression and anxiety, include smaller birth weights, perturbations in postnatal
development and behavior, and increased reactivity of the HPA axis. Heightened prenatal exposure to stress is
associated with greater stress reactivity in infancy, as well as longer-term difficulties in emotional and cognitive
functioning (Oberlander et al., 2008; Sandman et al., 2012).
The biological embedding of maternal stress in fetal development is consistent with a variety of other biological
influences on prenatal growth arising from the mother's diet and nutrition, exposure to environmental pollutants, use
of controlled substances, and other aspects of maternal care (Almond and Currie, 2011). The importance of prenatal
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
experience to long-term development is sometimes described as “fetal programming” because prenatal conditions
appear to calibrate or program a variety of fetal brain systems involved in responses to stress and adversity.
Socioeconomic Status and Early Brain Development
For children, poverty often entails the confluence of multiple sources of chronic stress. For this reason, considerable
research on the effects of chronic stress on children's development has focused on children in families living in
poverty or with low income. Studies of children in these conditions indicate that the stressors associated with
poverty can contribute to problems with coping, self-regulation, health, emotional well-being, and early learning
(Blair and Raver, 2012; Evans and Kim, 2013).
Neuroimaging studies show that socioeconomic status is especially associated with brain functioning in areas
related to language and self-regulation (Hackman and Farah, 2009; Kishiyama et al., 2009). Luby and colleagues
(2013) found that early childhood poverty was associated with smaller volume in a brain structure involved in the
formation of new memories from current experience (the hippocampus) and that this association derived from the
impact of stressful childhood events and hostile parenting. Hanson and colleagues (2013) found that preschool
children growing up in poverty had lower volumes of gray matter—tissue that is important to information processing,
especially in areas of the brain relevant to self-regulation and higher-order thinking.
Children growing up in conditions of economic adversity often sustain stress-related perturbations in the
development of brain areas associated with important cognitive and self-regulatory functions. Further, these
changes may contribute to academic and social-behavioral problems associated with neurocognitive functions, and
may also affect the acquisition of learning skills associated with self-regulation and persistence. In other words, in
addition to other disadvantages they experience, one reason children in stressful circumstances fall behind
academically is that the biological effects of stress impair their capacities for concentrated attention, memory,
cognitive self-regulation, language, and focused thinking. One of the reasons these children experience social
difficulties, such as peer conflict or poor compliance with teachers, is that the biological effects of stress enhance
their emotional reactivity, heighten their threat vigilance, and undermine their emotion regulation and impulse
control.
Interaction Between Exposure to Stress and Gene Expression
There is increasing evidence that chronic stress has the biological effects described above because of its
consequences for gene expression, and studies of the developmental biology of social adversity contribute to
understanding the mechanisms of the combined, interactive influences of genes and experiences (Gilbert,
2002; Gottlieb, 1991; Karmiloff-Smith, 2007; Meaney, 2010; Waddington, 1959, 2012). Stress constitutes one of the
most powerful experiential catalysts of epigenetic influences on gene expression in studies of animals and humans,
and epigenetic modifications may be the basis for some of the biological and behavioral effects of stress described
here. For example, Oberlander and colleagues (2008) described an association between maternal depression
during pregnancy and heightened cortisol reactivity when infants were 3 months old. They also found that
heightened cortisol was associated with decreases in the expression of the glucocorticoid receptor gene in the
infants. Changes in gene expression in the child helped account, in other words, for the enduring influence of
prenatal maternal stress.
Go to:
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Variability in the effects of context can be seen at the levels of both behavior and biology, and there is an emerging
understanding that this is due to differences among individuals in their susceptibility to environmental influence, in
which a subset of individuals appears to be more sensitive to the influences of both negative and positive
environmental factors. The most intensive study in this area has focused on the sometimes dramatic differences in
individual variation in the consequences of exposure to early adversity and stress. Among children who face these
challenges, many children show immediate and long-term negative effects on health and development, while others
thrive and survive with little detrimental effect. Understanding such differences is important as a means to explain
stress-related disorders, account for uneven distributions of disorders within populations, shed light on the sources
of individual resilience and vulnerability, and provide insights to lead to effective intervention strategies (Boyce and
Kobor, 2015).
Early perspectives on such differences in stress response concluded that individuals experienced variable effects of
adversity because of either heritable or acquired vulnerabilities to stress and challenge, referred to as the “stress
diathesis” model. More recently, a now substantial body of literature suggests that it is not just that some children
are more vulnerable to the effects of adversity, but rather that some children are more susceptible, or responsive, to
the social environment; these children show either more maladaptive or more positive outcomes, depending on the
exposure (e.g., Belsky, 2005; Boyce and Ellis, 2005; Ellis et al., 2011a). Studies have demonstrated this greater
susceptibility of neurobiologically responsive children to both positive and negative aspects of their environments in
the context of a range of stressors and adversities, including overall family distress (Obradovic et al., 2010), marital
conflict (El-Sheikh, 2005; El-Sheikh et al., 2007), paternal depression (Cummings et al., 2007), and parental
psychopathology (Shannon et al., 2007). They also have done so in the context of a wide variety of positive
environmental features, including parental warmth (Ellis et al., 1999), beneficial experiences and exposures (Pluess
and Belsky, 2011), and supportive interventions (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2008a). These studies have
examined this variable susceptibility in light of a range of defining biological parameters, including genetic variations
(Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2008b; Knafo et al., 2011; Manuck et al., 2011), differences in brain circuitry (Whittle
et al., 2011), and physiological reactivity (e.g., Alkon et al., 2006; Boyce et al., 1995).
One of the most important findings has been that outcomes for highly susceptible children are affected in both
directions in low- and high-stress settings—not just an attenuation of negative effects in low-stress circumstances.
Examples of such bidirectional effects have included differential rates of violent injuries among high- and low-
reactivity rhesus macaques before and during a prolonged period of confinement stress (Boyce et al., 1998);
children's sensitivity to a socioemotional intervention (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2008a); adolescents'
susceptibility to parenting influence (Belsky and Beaver, 2011); and trajectories of pubertal development among
girls with high- versus low-quality parent relationships (Ellis et al., 2011b). In each case, the “risky phenotype”
showed high levels of maladaptive outcomes under stressful conditions but also lower levels of such outcomes than
their low-risk counterparts in positive, low-stress conditions.
Together, these findings indicate that while all children exhibit responsiveness to environmental influences, a subset
of children show an exaggerated susceptibility to the character of their social environments—heightened risk for
morbidity and developmental deviation when reared in harsh, unsupportive conditions but higher levels of health
and positive development if reared in environments characterized by nurturance and support. Such children almost
certainly contribute substantially to the uneven distribution of ill health, learning difficulties, and troubled
development found within childhood populations. However, they may also benefit disproportionately from positive
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
early interventions (Belsky and van Ijzendoorn, 2015).
The mechanisms, consequences, and intervention opportunities related to these kinds of individual differences,
including the interplay among environmental exposures and biological and genetic factors, emerge as essential for
fully understanding the biology of social adversity.
Conclusion About the Interaction of Biology and the Environment
The capacity for learning is grounded in the development of the brain and brain circuitry. Rather than a structure
built from a static “blueprint,” the brain architecture that underlies learning is developed through a continuous,
dynamic, adaptive interaction between biology and environment that begins at conception and continues throughout
life. This accounts for how early experiences (including supports and stressors) affect gene expression and how the
brain develops, and it also accounts for how the effects of environmental factors on a child's development may vary
depending on underlying individual genetic characteristics. The adaptations that occur as a result of the mutual
interactions between “nature” and “nurture” mean that early experiences and early learning environments affect all
domains of human development.
CHAPTER V
Students with Mental Retardation
Any teachers of elementary-aged students with mental retardation are attempting to provide learning experiences in
the community to prepare them for a better quality of life as adults. At the same time, they are attempting to support
growing relationships between these students and their nondisable'da peers rough general education integration.
Yeti thése two important areas can conflict with each other (Ford & Black, 1989). Increasing•integrated time with
peers while also teaching functional skills in the community can present conflicts of time and instructional priorities,
or it can present a golden opportunity for collaborative planning betwéen general, and special education teachers as
well as for inclusive education. Experience in the cot tntunity are e'sehtl Ifor students. with mental retarfederal '
policies with because they a ow studéjlhs tolea 1 skills they will need as adults.
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
411though we are aware eof a variety of perspectives in defining functional curriculum, we tried to'keeB it simple;
we developed an operational question in reference to the student for each skill we contemplated teaching: Will I
need it when I'm 21 (Burns & Shipstead, 1989)? All of•our curricular decisions hinge on , the answer to this
question. Young children with mental retardation cannot answer: this qUestion for thems•elves yet, so families and
teachers must answer it for them, continuously looking ahead to the future for each child.
Ensuring that functional outcomes remain part of a student's individualized education program (IEP) is of utmost
irhportance. In the past, curriculum in' self-contained classrooms for students with mental retardation primarily
involvgd adapting and modifying grade level- skills. Based on Brolin's(1992) framework, Burns a.nd Shipstead
(1989) developed and implemented a life skillS program oriented to adult outcomes for Chi}dren in inclusive settings
starting at 5 years Of age. For example, in the general education setting there are some naturally occurring life skills
that relate to skills needed by adults. For example, coming to the circle on tinfe in kinder, garten might relate to
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
getting to work on time as an adult. With a commitment for all children to become successful adults, professionals
can collaborate and plan functional lessons that integrate curricular content in areas such as math and social
studies as well.
Functional Curricula in General Education
The coopeiativé teaching planner (Figure 1) reflects 1 of 6 weeks of lessons combining first-grade social studies and
mat) skills that are taught in a functional format for children in böth general and special education, The te@chers, a
first-grade tea'cher and a teacher of students with mental retardation, use a predesigned resource area a e main
setting for the lessons, althou some lessons eccur in the first gra class3: room. Throughone series ons, the children
operated a store at school. During.different time periods, the expertise and cooperation of the learning disabilities
tea her and the speech therapist were d to reinforce skills needed tb run the store. First grade social
studies concentrated on economics
WINTER 1994
nvolved concepts of needs, wants, suply, and demand. The Brolin (1992) Odel provided a concise reminder of he
life skills outcomes on which the essons were focused.
One of the seyeral thingg we learned s that team teaching is fun: It 'is enjoyable to collaborate with another adult in
lesson plaßai.ng and to share responsibilities and resources. Staff relations are enhar%ced by IA.'orking together
and •sharing information and talents. In •addition, the repetition and functional pspects of the lessen design that are
so inuch a part of the Special education ur•riculum also are instructionally and ocially sound for general education
eers of the appropriate age; Recently, Algozzine and Audette (1992) advocated a more funct%nal perspective on
urriculum and instruction for general ducation st nts based on this idea. hpusand d illA (1991) also Suggested that
cur icula and methods graditionally g red to the needs of youngsters ith disabilities "have the potential greatly
enhancing the reparedne of other students for the mplex adult life of the future" (p. 557 . het peer coaching
employed in the lessons is also beneficial for all students. The • students learn a lot about each other? discovering
that they are more alike than different.
Experiences in community settings generate opportunities for all students to draw on their'skills and use
problemsolving strategies with guidance as needed frpm the teacher. The general education curriculum divides
informationßnto iYbject areas, but in the real worl$students must combine skills and Knowledge and use them in
functional ways. Occasionsfrqr spontaneous problem-soiving arise in real-life situations; as opposed to simulated
situations in a classroom. Community-based lessons allow teachers to work on a väriety of
objectives at arying levels and make learning int resting for ali students (Ford & Dave n, 1989).
Communi -based instru tion is an important pa of the curricu um. Experiences in' th comåurnity mperative for
studenés w • mental retardation th provide the opportunity to learn' the kills these students will need as a
The principle of normalizat{on (Wolfensberger, 1972) provides the philosophical basis for instruction,
stressing environments and fircumst9nces that are as culturally noimal as possible to enhance behaviors that are as
Culturally normal as pdssible (Schutz, Williams, Salce-lverson, & Duncan, 1984). Teachi g the skills needed for daily
living in e communi€y bpsrationalizes the con-
<épt of normalization (Martin, 1988). If students with mental rétardation are n@given opportunities to practice skills
in the environments in which thé skills are to be used, the chances that those skills will generalize from simulated
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
learning in the classroom the realworld environment are minimal (Falvey, 1989).
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRÉN
lar goals and objectives f poth and encourages general educa •ori teachers to view the community as a éans of'
instruction, rather than simply a field trip site. Objectives can be created for small groups of students at their
individual ability levels. A limit of two to five students per trip optimizes instruction.
The following is ari example of the successful use of CBII. A trip to the grocery store focused on the following
objectives: (a) read street Frossing signs/signals and information signs; (b) demonstrate safe street-crossihg behav:
ior; (c) read a list; (d) select' items needed;' (e) compare prices of similår items; (f) count money to make a pu chase;
and (g) demonstrate appropriate purchasing behaviois such as Waiting in line, hangiing money, waiting for change,
and carrying purchases. These objectives were task analyzed ånd serially or fupctio ally chained according to. the
neeqs of th individual students.
Figure 1. Cooperative Teaching Planner
Date: November 3 Planning
Date: November 10 Instruction
Time: Tuesday
I Time: Tuesday
Implementation
Theme: Holiday Store—Lesson: Inventory Production
Grade Level Skills:
Curricular Area: Social Studies
The collaboration for CBII was initiated through a letter describing CBÜ. that was distributed to the second, third,
and foürth grade general equcation teacherS by the special edUcation teaa'ler serving students with mental
retardation at those grade levels. The letter explained the CBII program, offering the téachersan opportunity to par,
ticipate. All seven of the teachers at these grade levels cesponded with interest. A lettei also was sent to parents,
and it included a permission slip for students to participate in C IL. Parents were encouraged to call fhe
peciäteducation teacher if they ha questions about theprogram. Approximately 75 'se&onå, tKirg,• and fourth
•graders volunteered to pprti#ate.
Trips were arranged by the special education teacher in collaborahon with the general education teachers. Yost
community-based instruction involved small groups of two ive students from the same grade I vel. The Students with
mental retardationfrom that grade level always participated, and the other studenKs were rotated so that all would
have a turn. Prior to each trip, all students met briefly with the social education teacher to thebjectives for the
students with men I retardation were develQped on the bas1S of Brolin's (1992) Life Centered CareerAiducation
(LCCE) model. An: examination of the functional skills outlined by Brolin re!eals a number of
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
areas that also are taught in the elementary general education curriculum for nondisabled stude ts; examples are
titne, ooney,. seas ns (appropriate clothing), and healt (body care). When general education•and special education
teachers collaborate to plan age-appropriate lessons, these functione\l skills,can be incorporated into lessons and
units. This functional curriculum model focuses on skills needed to be independent adults. Objectives for stüdents'
IEPs were base&on these functional skills. These same skillS were the focus of objectives carried out in community
settings. Another concept was al" embraced in planning for most effective programs for, students with disabilities
are characterized by integration of general and special education classroom and communited instruction, and use
Of functional curriculum (Boyer-Stephens & Kearns, 1988 .
Objectives for general education students Were developed prior to each trip by the general and special education
teachers. A grocery store and a fast-food restaurant within distance of the school were the most frequently used
sites. Instruction all the grocery store W followed by lunch or 'snack preparation by all students involved using tile
ems that were purchased. The special education teacher supervised these activities in her classroom
Most community based instruction takes approximately 30 to 40 minutes and follow-up activities can extend another
half hour. If general education students miss assignments while participating in CBII, the special education teacher-
arranges assistance for them in competing their work either before or after trips. Paraprofessionals remain with
students who are not participating in CBII that day, working on preplanned activities. Another special education
teacher in the building is designated as the teaching in charge.
CHAPTER VI
Students Learning Disabilities
Educating Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms
Jeremy Ford jwford@boisestate.edu
Inclusive Strategies for Educating Students with LD
In this section I will discuss three methods for including students with LD in inclusive classrooms. This
discussion will include: co-teaching, differentiated instruction, and permediated instruction and interventions. First,
various forms of co-teaching will be reviewed with several selected benefits provided.
Co-Teaching
Though inclusion can occur with or without involvement from a special education teacher, a co-teaching
arrangement is typical (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). By working together the general and special
education teacher are better able to provide support for students with LD than the former could independently. As
such, the need to remove students with LD for specialized instruction is eliminated. Although the definition of co-
teaching is commonly simple, as suggested here, it is often operationalized broadly.
For instance, Vaughn, Schumm, and Arguelles (1997) described five evidence-based models for co-
teaching. One such model is described as, One Teach, One Assist. In this model one teacher is responsible for
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
instructing all students while the second provides additional support for those who need it. A benefit to using this
model is that not only students with LD benefit but all students who need additional support are provided with extra
instruction in the general education environment. Station Teaching is another model for co-teaching. Students are
divided into three separate groups in this model. During a block period, each group works with one of the two
teachers in addition to having an independent work time. All students are able to benefit from this model by being
able to receive small group instruction. In another model, Parallel Teaching, teachers are required to plan lessons
together before splitting students in two groups. The teachers then teach the same lesson to these two small
groups. In this model not only do students get the benefits of working in small groups, teachers also benefit by
learning from each other’s expertise. Alternative Teaching is a co-teaching model where one teacher is responsible
for teaching and the other is responsible for pre-teaching and re-teaching concepts to students who need additional
support. Finally, in a Team Teaching model teachers provide instruction together in the same classroom. Teachers
may take turns leading instruction or may model student behavior while the other teacher is instructing (e.g. how to
take notes or ask questions appropriately).
Research regarding the effectiveness of co-teaching is limiting. For instance, Scruggs,
Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) suggested that the model was being used less effectively than Table 2
Comparison of Co-Teaching Methods
Assist
One teacher instructs all students while a second provides additional support for those who need it
Students with and without disabilities can receive assistance on challenging material
Station Teaching
Students are divided into three separate groups with two groups working with one of the two teachers and
the third working independently
Students with and without disabilities benefit from receiving small group instruction
Parallel Teaching
Teachers plan lessons together before splitting students in two groups, and then teach the same lesson to these
small groups Students with and without disabilities benefit from working in small groups, teachers also benefit by
learning from each other’s expertise
Alternative Teaching
One teacher is responsible for teaching and the other is responsible for pre-teaching and re-teaching concepts to
students who need additional support
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Students with disabilities, and other students struggling with challenging material, can receive additional direct
instruction
Team Teaching
Teachers provide instruction together in the same classroom and may take turns leading instruction or modeling
student behavior. Students with disabilities especially learn well from having behavior modeled, and students
without disabilities likely benefit as well it could be, in particular in regards to the (lack of) a role being played by
special education teachers. Earlier, Murawski and Swanson (2001) concluded a lack of an empirical basis for the
use of co-teaching, though more recent research (e.g., Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010) has used
technology to provide immediate feedback to co-teachers with success. However, as stated above co-teaching is
not the only means by which to educate students with LD in inclusive classrooms. It is possible for an individual
teacher to differentiate their instruction for this purpose as well. In the next section I will discuss the use of
differentiated instruction.
Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction involves students with LD, and others with diverse learning needs, being supplied
with instructional methods and materials that are matched to their individual needs (Scruggs, Mastropieri, &
Marshak, 2012). The use of differentiated instruction requires general and special educators to possess flexible
teaching approaches as well as to be flexible in adjusting the curriculum based upon student need (Obiakor, Harris,
Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). Tomlinson (2001) provides five guidelines for successfully differentiating
instruction in inclusive classrooms: (a) clarify all key concepts and generalizations, (b) use assessment as a
teaching tool to extend, not only measure, instruction, (c) make critical and creative thinking a goal of lesson design,
(d) engage every student in learning, and (e) provide a balance of tasks between what is assigned by the teacher
and selected by the student.
Table 3
Guidelines for Successfully Differentiating Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms
1. Clarify all key concepts and generalizations
2. Use assessment as a teaching tool to extend instruction
3. Make critical and creative thinking a goal of lesson design
4. Engage every student in learning
5. Provide balance of tasks between what is assigned by the teacher and selected by the student Source:
Tomlinson (2001)
Being able to provide learning opportunities to all students within an inclusive classroom is certainly an
advantage of differentiated instruction. Despite this advantage the practice is not without limitations. One limitation is
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
that some students may feel stigmatized as a result of receiving a perceived less challenging curriculum (Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & Marshal, 2012). However, this limitation can be addressed when teachers provide effective
differentiated instruction without appearing to single out any one student. Such a practice is consistent with the
system of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). A complete description of UDL is also beyond the scope of this
discussion, but it has been defined as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Thompson, Johnstone, & Thurlow,
2002, p.1). Thus, by addressing this limitation, differentiated instruction can certainly be an effective method to
include students with LD in inclusive classrooms. One example of a specific way to effectively meet the needs of
diverse learners in heterogeneous learning groups, i.e. inclusive classrooms, is the use of peermediated instruction
and interventions (PMII; Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 1991; Utley, Mortweet, & Greenwood, 1997).
Peer-Mediated Instruction and Interventions
PMII are a set of alternative teaching strategies that employ the use of students as instructors for students in
their class. Consequently, when PMII are used the role of the teacher goes from being the primary provider of
instruction to that of a facilitator of peer provided instruction. Peer provided instruction can be direct (e.g., tutoring)
or indirect (e.g., modeling) and can focus on either academic or social-emotional development (Kalfus, 1984).
Several instructional systems have been developed based on the principles of PMII. These include Classwide
Student Tutoring Teams (CSTT; Maheady, Harper, Sacca, & Mallette, 1991),
Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Carta, 1999), and Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
(PALS; L.S. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, Phillips, & Karns, 1994; Fuchs, Mathes, & Fuchs, 1996).
The positive effects of PMII, in particular with students with mild disabilities such as LD, are well documented in the
literature (Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2001). However it stands to Table 4
Essential Characteristics of Peer-Mediated Instruction and Interventions
Teacher becomes a facilitator of peer provided instruction
Peer provided instruction can be direct (e.g., tutoring) or indirect (e.g., modeling)
Peer provided instruction can focus on either academic or social-emotional development Source: Kalfus (1984)
reason that effects of such, and any, instruction will depend on the individual(s) responsible for its implementation.
That is, whether or not a teacher is using PMII strategies or involved with coteaching or using differentiated
instruction results are unlikely to be successful if few or no adjustments are made to meet the needs of students with
LD (Obiakor, 2008; Williams & Obiakor, 2009). Thus it is reasonable for one to ask how likely students with LD are
to have their instructional needs met in full inclusion classrooms.
Effectiveness of Inclusive Strategies for Students with LD An examination of the literature on the inclusion
debate reveals the need for distinguishing between inclusion and full inclusion (Murphy, 1996). Kaufman and
Hallahan (2005) state that full inclusion is a mandate where the the needs of SWD is ignored in order for all students
to be educated together in the general education environment. As a result, Kaufman and Hallahan (2005) argue that
full inclusion does not always allow Individualized Education Plan (IEP) teams to make the best educational
decisions regarding placement in the LRE. Unlike in full inclusion, an inclusive classroom is one in which the
general education teacher had the student for the majority of the school day with support provided by the special
education teacher as needed (Jobe, Rust, & Brissie, 1996; Salend, 2001; Shade & Stewart, 2001). Thus, IEP teams
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
are given flexibility to meet the needs of students in whatever ways that may be while considering a continuum of
service options consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). A great deal of
research exists that sheds light into the effectiveness of full inclusion and resource or pullout services. This research
is has been recently well summarized by McLeskey and Waldron (2011).
Comparing Full Inclusion to Pullout in Elementary Schools
McLeskey and Waldron (2011) summarized the research on whether or not inclusive education programs
can be effective for elementary students with LD. They found that studies have consistently found that some
students obtain better achievement results in full inclusion classrooms, but other have fared better when part-time
resource support is provided. McLeskey and Waldron (2011) also found that most studies concluded that variability
between student outcomes in the two settings is due to the unevenness in the quality of instruction. McLeskey and
Waldron (2011) conclude the research suggests that both inclusive classrooms and pullout programs can improve
academic outcomes of elementary students with LD. The key, they argue, it the presence of high-quality instruction
which can be – or cannot be – provided in either setting.
However, McLeskey and Waldron (2011) highlight further research showing that many students with LD make
significant gains when provided with high-quality pullout instruction, and that often gains are significantly greater
compared to their peers educated in inclusive classrooms as well. They argue that the intensive instruction provided
in a small group pullout setting allows students with LD to receive the intensified instruction they need on specific
concepts and skills. In addition they state that this type of instruction rarely occurs in general education classrooms.
Unfortunately, the research on high-quality instruction in resource and pullout programs does not find a great deal of
support for utilizing high-quality instruction as well (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). Further, research suggests
differences for how effective inclusive practices are in elementary schools compared to high schools.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Inclusion in High School
The practice of inclusion has had greater success at the elementary level compared to the secondary level. For
instance, when Casale-Giannola (2012) compared vocational and academic inclusion high school classrooms,
several strengths and weaknesses for both were found. Using observations, consultation, and surveys, Casale-
Giannola (2012) found academic classrooms to have strengths such as: positive teacher-student report, real-life
connections to and interesting discussions of lessons, good use of strategies and modifications, use of active
learning to motivate students, and good teacher collaboration. Vocational classrooms were found to have strengths
such as: the presence of differentiated instruction, real-life connections, opportunities for active-learning, repetition,
meaningful teacher-student relationships, and teacher expertise and passion.
In regards to the academic classrooms, Casale-Giannola (2012) found that teachers lacked strategies to support
SWD and were unaware of law pertaining to special education as well as student classifications and needs. A lack
of co-teaching collaboration with most schools using the One Teach, One Assist model was also found as was a
limited use of student assessment to help determine instructional planning. Casale-Giannola (2012) also found that
uneven scheduling for SWD put them at a disadvantage in the inclusion classrooms as at times they were too many
or too few to serve them well.
Weaknesses for vocational classrooms included a lack of understanding regarding special education laws, issues,
and individual supports as well as difficulty with classroom management. The number one weakness, what Casale-
Giannola (2012) identifies as needs, was the “weak” basic skills of the SWD. This need was also noted in the
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
academic classrooms as well as it was pointed found these students lacked “the basic skills, reading, writing, and
mathematics to function in content area instruction” (p. 32).
Thus, a need exists for students with LD in inclusive high schools to learn basic skills, yet it appears many general
education teachers may not be prepared to meet that need at the current time. It seems reasonable to conclude
that, just as with elementary schools, meeting student needs and helping to obtain desired academic outcomes may
be able to be accomplished in inclusive classrooms but it is not a sure thing. Therefore, schools must ensure that
they are helping students with LD by using the resources they have at present, while developing their capacity to do
more in the long run. Figure 1 provides guidelines for how educators can consider their resources as they make
placement decisions for students with LD. Conclusion
It is possible to educate students with LD in inclusive classrooms as the LRE mandate prefers. However, full
inclusion does not always produce the academic results that IEP teams desire. Though social justice has been
linked to inclusion, it is important that the educators that work with students with LD be allowed to make placement
decisions they believe best allow for the student’s needs to be met. Such decision-making should heavily consider
the need for the student with LD to obtain proficiency regarding academic skills. Failure to provide students with
such skills can hardly be deemed just.
There is no doubt that the needs of students with LD, including academic needs, can be met with inclusive
practices by talented teachers and other educators. However, the skills required to implement such practices (e.g.,
co-teaching, differentiated instruction, peer-mediated learning) likely take time to develop. In addition, students with
LD often benefit from direct skill instruction in individualized or small group settings. Thus it seems prudent that the
skills of the teachers and others who work with students with LD (e.g., resources of the school) are considered as
well as the student’s skills. In some situations it may be best for students with LD to be taught in separate pull out
classrooms with a teacher who can provide targeted skill instruction in areas where a student is struggling. In such
situations, developing the capacity of school staff to meet the needs of students with LD, and other diverse learners,
through inclusive practices could be made a priority. Until such a capacity exists, however, the LRE for a student
with LD should be the one in which they are acquiring academic skills that are needed for success in school and
beyond.
The reverse of this situation is, of course, also true. An IEP team may conclude that placing a student with LD in a
general education environment with an exceptional teacher is a better decision than in a pullout resource setting.
Again, the priority would be ensuring the student is acquiring the academic skills necessary to be successful.
Therefore, framing placement decisions around the LRE a student is able to gain academic skills in, rather than
predetermining placement due to ideological belief, is in the best interest of students with LD given the mixed results
found comparing inclusion and pull out resource settings.
CHAPTER VII
Students who are Gifted and Talented
STUDENTS WHO ARE GIFTED AND TALENTED
The idea of multiple intelligences leads to new ways of thinking about students who have special gifts and talents.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Traditionally, the term gifted referred only to students with unusually high verbal skills. Their skills were
demonstrated especially well, for example, on standardized tests of general ability or of school achievement. More
recently, however, the meaning of gifted has broadened to include unusual talents in a range of activities, such as
music, creative writing, or the arts (G. Davis & Rimm, 2004). To indicate the change, educators often use the dual
term gifted and talented.
Generally they show some combination of the following qualities like They learn more quickly and independently
than most students their own age, They often have well-developed vocabulary, as well as advanced reading and
writing skills, They are very motivated, especially on tasks that are challenging or difficult and lastly They hold
themselves to higher than usual standards of achievement.
Contrary to a common impression, students who are gifted or talented are not necessarily awkward socially, less
healthy, or narrow in their interests—in fact, quite the contrary (Steiner & Carr, 2003). They also come from all
economic and cultural groups
CHAPTER VIII
Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Emotional and Behavioral Disorder" is an umbrella term under which several distinct diagnoses (such as Anxiety
Disorder, Manic-Depressive Disorder, Oppositional-Defiant Disorder, and more) fall. These disorders are also
termed "emotional disturbance" and "emotionally challenged." According to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), children with emotional and behavioral disorders exhibit one or more of these five
characteristics. An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors, An inability to
build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers, Inappropriate types of behavior or
feelings under normal circumstances, A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression and the last one is A
tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
From a teacher's perspective, psychiatric disorders present a profound challenge for a number of reasons. For one,
schools are not hospitals, and teachers can not be expected to "treat" these disorders. Students who struggle with
these sorts of challenges are often undergoing treatment and may be receiving medication. Medication can affect
people in unexpected ways and, because medical information is confidential, teachers may be unaware why
students are acting the way they are. This makes it difficult to respond appropriately to certain behaviors.
Additionally, students suffering from these conditions may be simply unable to meet academic and behavioral
expectations. In such cases, students need to receive special education interventions of some sort, and may need
to be moved into a special education classroom.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
CHAPTER IX
Students who are blind and have Low Vision
Visual impairment and blindness is a global problem with important socio-economic consequences that have proven
effects on the quality of life of individuals, and usually impose great family-related and socio-economic losses.1, 2
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, visual impairment is responsible for 3.9% of the
overall disease burden and disability-adjusted-life-year.3 Also, the report by the WHO in 2010 indicated that about
39 million people were blind and 285 million of the world's population suffers from vision impairment.4 In light of the
importance of evaluating the trend and causes of visual impairment, the WHO established the Vision 2020 program
in 1999 in order to eliminate preventable blindness throughout the world by 2020.5, 6 Studies show that despite
reduced age-standardized prevalence rates of vision impairment and blindness in the past 20 years,3 cataracts are
still the leading cause of visual impairment and blindness based on corrected vision, such that by the end of 2010,
cataracts were responsible for 1 out of every 3 cases of blindness and one out of 6 cases of visual impairment.7
According to the WHO report in 2014, however, uncorrected refractive errors (myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism),
with a prevalence of 43%, are the leading cause of presenting visual impairment around the world.
The WHO reports also show that highest prevalence rates of visual impairment and blindness are found in
developing countries, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean region, such that approximately 90% of the visually
impaired live in low income countries,4 while European and American countries have the lowest rates. In several
studies, individual socio-economic indicators, such as low income, low education levels, and low social class have
been introduced as factors contributing to increased prevalence of visual impairment and blindness.8, 9 Iran is a
country in the Eastern Mediterranean region which considers the Vision 2020 program for eliminating preventable
blindness a health priority.
Given that more than 80% of the cases of visual impairment are preventable and easily treatable, knowledge of
prevalence rates of visual impairment and blindness and their main contributing factors in the country is a
prerequisite of success in the field of prevention and planning for the implementation of appropriate health policies.
Therefore, to date, different studies in different parts of the country, in urban or rural areas, and in different age
groups or population-based studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of visual impairment and
blindness. These include studies in Khuzestan,10 Tehran,11 Khorasan,12 Shahroud,13 Varamin,14 and Yazd.15
To facilitate achieving the goals of the Vision 2020 program in Iran, the present study was conducted to determine
the prevalence of blindness and visual impairment as well as their leading causes in Mashhad, a city in the
northeast of Iran and the nation's second most populated city.
CHAPTER X
Students with Hearing Impairment
The global increase toward inclusive education has been one of the most important paradigm shifts to occur in
education over the past two decades (Forlin, 2010). An inclusive model of education embraces a social model of
disability that encompasses the rights of all children to be educated together and is supported both ethically and
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
morally (Forlin, 2006; 2010). Many countries at the World Conference on Special Needs Education, Salamanca,
Spain (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994), signed the statement, which outlined
that inclusive education was for all children, including learners with special educational needs and/or disabilities in
regular schools (Peters & Forlin, 2010; 2013). With the advance in universal screening and the improved technology
of sensory aids (e.g., cochlear implants), growing numbers of children who are deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH)
attend regular schools (Kelman & Branco, 2009).
The literature concerned with inclusive education and learners who are D/HH has emphasized three principal
benefits of inclusive education, social interaction and contact with children with normal hearing, naturalistic access
to typical linguistic and behavioral models of hearing peers, and children’s social acceptance by hearing peers
(Eriks-Brophy et al., 2012). Nevertheless, others state that simply placing children who are D/HH in regular
classrooms does not automatically facilitate meaningful social interaction, peer acceptance, positive inclusion,
and/or improvement in the children’s social communication skills (Antia, Stinson, & Gaustad, 2002; Bobzien et al.,
2013; Hyde & Power, 2004; Weisel, Most, & Efron, 2005).
Peer acceptance and the popularity of children who are D/HH in regular schools, when compared to children who
are D/HH attending special schools, is of concern (Wolters, Knoors, Cillessen, & Verhoeven, 2011). Research
indicates that children who are D/HH are more likely to be neglected by their hearing peers in regular schools and
less likely to have a friend in the class than their classmates with normal hearing (Nunes, Pretzlik, & Olson, 2001).
Children who are D/HH who have poorer speech intelligibility are also reported to experience more loneliness and
less coherence than those with better speech intelligibility in the classrooms where they are included individually
(Most, 2007; Most, Ingber, & Heled-Ariam, 2011). Even when children who are D/HH have good spoken language
and have the assistance of cochlear implants or hearing aids, they still have many difficulties in social interaction
especially when in group situations and in noisy environments (Punch & Hyde, 2011).
CHAPTER XI
Students with Speech and Language Disorders
Many researchers have conducted studies in speech and language disorder education all over the world. It is worth
perusing some of the studies conducted the world over on the issue of Inclusive Education.
Speech and language are central to the human experience; they are the vital means by which people convey and
receive knowledge, thoughts, feelings, and other internal experiences. Acquisition of communication skills begins
early in childhood and is foundational to the ability to gain access to culturally transmitted knowledge, to organize
and share thoughts and feelings, and to participate in social interactions and relationships. Speech and language
skills allow a child to engage in exchanges that lead to the acquisition of knowledge in his or her community and the
educational arena. Communication skills are crucial to the development of thinking ability, a sense of self, and full
participation in society.
The power of speech has advanced our species in incalculable ways since our earliest homosapien ancestors
began communicating close to 3.5 million years ago. It has given us a tool by which we can relay our needs,
provides potential to share our wants and desires with the people around us. Speech gives us a means by which we
can connect and build intimate relationships with others. Speech is an incredible part of our daily living. However, it
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
does not come readily and smoothly for all. Speech disorders are frequently frustrating for the speaker as they know
what to say but are impaired in doing so. Structural defects that disrupt a child’s ability to speak clearly occur in
approximately 1 out of every 700 births (Sataloff, 2011). Neurological malfunction and anxiety levels also result in
cluttered speech for individuals. Speech impediments are far reaching disorders that can be derived from various
abnormalities in a child’s development.
Having a speech impediment can increase stress and anxiety levels in social situations for the speaker. Hugh-Jones
& Smith (2017) found that a majority of stuttering students self reported encountering bullying at school, as well as
difficulty in making friendships. Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gabel (2003) report that the stigmatization associated with
speech disorders may influence self-esteem, as individuals with speech disorders often experience depression,
social isolation, and poorer performance on academics and standardized tests. To best support those with speech
disorders, it is imperative that speech pathologists be informed about the origins and types of such disorders, typical
interventions enacted by speech pathologists, impacts speech disorders across developmental domains, and
opportunities for supporting the socioemotional development of individuals with speech disorders. Said information
will assist speech pathologists in providing a well-rounded and balanced intervention program for their clients.
Origins and Types of Speech Disorders
There are dozens of specific speech disruptions that an individual can suffer from. A main distinction of speech
impediments is whether it is a dysfluent event or an artiflulation disorder. Howell (2011) defines dysfluent events as
occurrences that interrupt otherwise normal and fluid speech. Within the umbrella term of dysfluent events, speech
disruptions are broken up into smaller categorizes. These branches are interjections, word repetitions, part word
repetitions, prolongations, broken words, incomplete phrases (abandonments), and revisions (Howell 2011). Each of
the dysfluent events listed assume that the speaker is unable achieve fluid speech because of a temporary
neurological disruption. Articulation disorders, however, occur because of a physical abnormality that prevents clear
speech. Cleft palate, underdevelopment in the lingual frenulum, and verbal dyspraxia are all forms of articulation
disorders.
Possible Causes of Speech Disorders
Speech impediments can be caused by genetic influences, physical deformities, or neurological malfunctions.
Genetic influences and physical deformities are both typically
caused by an abnormal occurrence during development. The abnormal physical occurrences can
affect an otherwise normally developing child, and can be passed on genetically from parent to
offspring. Neurological malfunctions are often a multifaceted interaction of the individual, them
environment, and perceptions about self. The disruption takes place in the neuro-pathways of the individual,
temporarily causing them to jumble their words. While each occurrence varies
greatly, they each result in unclear speech for the individual.
Many researchers have conducted studies in speech and language disorder education all over the world. It is worth
perusing some of the studies conducted the world over on the issue of Inclusive Education.
Speech and language are central to the human experience; they are the vital means by which people convey and
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
receive knowledge, thoughts, feelings, and other internal experiences. Acquisition of communication skills begins
early in childhood and is foundational to the ability to gain access to culturally transmitted knowledge, to organize
and share thoughts and feelings, and to participate in social interactions and relationships. Speech and language
skills allow a child to engage in exchanges that lead to the acquisition of knowledge in his or her community and the
educational arena. Communication skills are crucial to the development of thinking ability, a sense of self, and full
participation in society.
The power of speech has advanced our species in incalculable ways since our earliest homosapien ancestors
began communicating close to 3.5 million years ago. It has given us a tool by which we can relay our needs,
provides potential to share our wants and desires with the people around us. Speech gives us a means by which we
can connect and build intimate relationships with others. Speech is an incredible part of our daily living. However, it
does not come readily and smoothly for all. Speech disorders are frequently frustrating for the speaker as they know
what to say but are impaired in doing so. Structural defects that disrupt a child’s ability to speak clearly occur in
approximately 1 out of every 700 births (Sataloff, 2011). Neurological malfunction and anxiety levels also result in
cluttered speech for individuals. Speech impediments are far reaching disorders that can be derived from various
abnormalities in a child’s development.
Having a speech impediment can increase stress and anxiety levels in social situations for the speaker. Hugh-Jones
& Smith (2017) found that a majority of stuttering students self reported encountering bullying at school, as well as
difficulty in making friendships. Blood, Blood, Tellis, & Gabel (2003) report that the stigmatization associated with
speech disorders may influence self-esteem, as individuals with speech disorders often experience depression,
social isolation, and poorer performance on academics and standardized tests. To best support those with speech
disorders, it is imperative that speech pathologists be informed about the origins and types of such disorders, typical
interventions enacted by speech pathologists, impacts speech disorders across developmental domains, and
opportunities for supporting the socioemotional development of individuals with speech disorders. Said information
will assist speech pathologists in providing a well-rounded and balanced intervention program for their clients.
CHAPTER XII
Students with Physical Disabilities, Health Impairments and Severe Disabilities
Physical disability may have an impact on some or all activities to a greater or lesser extent. Students with physical
disabilities may have problems related to movement, posture (e.g., sitting, standing), grasping or manipulating
objects, communication, eating, perception, reflex movements, and/or automatic motricity (e.g., sphincter, intestinal
muscles). The initial barrier experienced by many students with physical disabilities is physically accessing the
learning environment itself. For many students with physical disabilities the inaccessibility of buildings and
surrounding areas is a problem.4
Students with physical disabilities and neurological conditions may also have perceptual difficulties that can take
various forms. Some students have difficulty actually receiving information by hearing or sight, while others can see
or hear, but cannot process the information they receive. This can cause difficulties with reading and writing, such
as locating the correct place on the page, or moving from left to right when reading and writing.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
According to the Starbright Foundation (2002; cited in Turnball et al., 2004), there are numerous complex
challenges facing children with health impairments. Common issues are: loss of sense of control, lack of
understanding about the condition, fear, worry, anxiety, stress, anger, and guilt, changes in family dynamics,
isolation, isolation, medical noncompliance, boredom, depression, pain, decreased self-esteem, negative body
image, and impact on identity and social interactions, including those at school (p. 313).
Students with a neurological condition, and who may also have a physical disability, may have speech and
language difficulties, along with students who are deaf, or who have partial hearing, may have difficulty
communicating through speech. People with communication difficulties are often thought to be far less able than
they really are. It is important to avoid making quick judgments about these students to ensure that automatic
assumptions are not being made concerning a students intelligence and ability if their speech is very slow, slurred,
or if they are non-verbal. The potential of these students often goes unrecognized. Berry and Domene (2015)
observed that students with physical disabilities report that support from postsecondary faculty and staff along with
environmental and material supports to be important for achieving success in their postsecondary studies.
CHAPTER XIII
Advocacy on the Education of Children with Special needs
How Special Education Teachers Can Advocate for Students
November 27, 2017 by Amanda Ronan
Special education teachers have always needed to be advocates for their students. Here are some ways a special
education teacher can work within the school community to help educate others and support students with special
needs.
Get in With Your Principal

Though you, as the special education teacher, must know how to write IEPs and keep up with the paperwork
required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act External link , your principal and other administrators still
have important decision-making roles External link in the special education process. In order to get the time you
need to write IEPs, manage assessments, have required meetings, and also write and deliver instruction for your
students, you'll need to work with your principal. Sit down with the administrative team and explain all of the
nuances of your job and of the special education program that you are running. Make sure they understand the
services you provide to students so that when you ask for more time, a special meeting, or more buy-in from general
education teachers, your administrator will understand why you're making the requests.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Encourage Full Inclusion

The law requires that your students receive education alongside their peers in general education classrooms when it
is appropriate External link . Working with general education teachers in their classrooms with the “push-in” model
can sometimes be problematic and this is why many schools have moved to a full inclusion model of co-
teaching External link . In this case, a special education teacher is the full partner to a classroom teacher. In either
case, whether you're pushing in or working in a fully inclusive classroom, you bring a variety of strategies for
children to use. This helps educate the general education teachers about how to work with children who have a
range of abilities. In addition, the general education teacher is generally the teacher of record and, so, advocating
for an inclusive classroom experience is important to all of the adults who care about children with special needs.
Present New Ideas

Be willing to share strategies at professional development meetings. Getting general education teachers up to
speed about students with special needs will help everyone on campus become an advocate. Like you, your
colleagues are busy, and they don’t always know much about the experiences your students have with learning
struggles. Make the professional development personal by telling stories about your students, especially how they
felt about school when they first entered into special education and where they are now that the learning is modified
to meet their needs. Share lessons that work for your students and accommodations that general education
teachers can make External link to meet the needs of any learner who needs some extra scaffolding.
Visit Students at Home

Home visits help you understand your students in their natural environments. This means you’ll see what they’re
interested in and what their abilities are outside of the academic setting. You’d be surprised by what you can learn in
a home visit that will help you in the classroom External link . For example, you’ll see what kinds of books the
students have on their shelves, what kinds of video games they like to play, what photos they have on the wall. All of
these things help you build a curriculum that your students feels connected to. In addition, during a home visit, you
get to know your students’ families. You can talk with them one-on-one about progress and make suggestions about
how they can help at home.
Start a Book Club

Identify a special education-related issue that is important to your campus and host a professional book club. For
example, schools are supporting many students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and few teachers have a strong
understanding of how wide-ranging this disorder is. Not all students with ASD need the same accommodations or
modifications. You could suggest that the group reads any of the books about teaching students with ASD on this
list for educators External link . From there, the group could make a plan about how to educate others on campus. If
there’s not much interest in your campus, offer the book club to schools around the district or to people in the
community who are interested in learning more about supporting students with special needs.
Special education teachers often feel alone or misunderstood because your jobs differ from their general education
colleagues. In addition, administrators and parents usually only have a basic understanding of special education
laws and processes. So you’re in a unique position to educate others about your students as learners and increase
understanding about disabilities and special education to the community at large. Your advocacy can go a long way
to helping people see the importance of educating and treating all students with respect.
Amanda Ronan External link is an Austin-based writer. After many years as a teacher, Amanda transitioned out of
the classroom and into educational publishing. She wrote and edited English, language arts, reading, and social
studies content for grades K-12. Since becoming a full-time writer, Amanda has worked with a diverse set of clients,
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
ranging from functional medicine doctors to design schools to moving companies. She blogs, writes long-form
articles, and pens YA and children's fiction. Her first YA series, My Brother is a Robot, is slated for release by
Scobre Educational Press in September 2015.
REFERENCES
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2017.1287338
https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK356279
https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/19/4/423/2937171
https://www2.unb.ca/alc/modules/physical-disabilities/implications-for-learning.html
https://www.naset.org/index.php?id=2278
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452232516302013
https://teach.com/blog/how-special-education-teachers-can-advocate-for-students/
Chesmore, A., Ou, S. & Reynolds, A. (2016). Childhood Placement in Special Education and Adult Wellbeing.
Journal of Special Education, Vol. 50 (2) 109-120.
Conyers, L., Reynolds, A. & Ou, S. (2003). The Effect of Early Childhood Intervention and Subsequent Special
Education Services: Findings from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Vol. 25, No.1, 75-95.
Daigneault, S. (2003). Clustering Children with Special Needs: Effects on the Academic Achievement of Students
With and Without Special Needs. Boston College, Lynch Graduate School of Education, May 2003.
Dessemontet, R., Bless, G. & Morin, D. (2011). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive
behavior of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Vol. 56 Part 6, 579-587.
Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive Special Education: Development of a New Theory for the Education of Children with
Special Education Needs and Disabilities. British Journal of Special Education 2015.
Kurth, J. & Mastergeorge, A. (2012). The Journal of Special Education 46(1), 36-48.
Kurth, J., Morningstar, M. & Kozelski, E. (2014). The Persistence of Highly Restrictive Special Education
Placements for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities. Research and Practice for Person with Severe Disabilities,
Vol. 39 (3), 227-239.
Mayes, R. & Moore III, J. (2016). Adversity and Pitfalls of Twice-Exceptional Urban Learners. Journal of Advanced
Academics, Vol. 27 (3) 167-189.
Redden, S., Forness, S., Ramey, S., Ramey, C., Brezausek, C., & Kavale, K. (2001). Children at Risk: Effects of a
Four-Year Head Start Transition Program on Special Education Identification. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2001, 255-270.
Senecal, B. (2001) Academic and Social Outcomes of General Education Students in Inclusion versus Non-
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Inclusion Classrooms: A Case Study. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Staub, D. & Peck, C. (1995) The Inclusive School: What are the outcomes for non-disabled students? Educational
Leadership, Vol. 52 No. 4, 36-40
VanDerHeyden, A., Witt, J. & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to
Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology 45, 225-
256.
Vaughn, S. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is Special About Special Education for Students with Learning
Disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 37, No. 3, 140-147.
Wilkinson, I. & Fung, I. (2002). Small-group composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational
Research, 37 (2002) 425-447.
 Adolphs R. The social brain: Neural basis of social knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009;60:693–
716. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Alkon A, Lippert S, Vujan N, Rodriquez ME, Boyce WT, Eskenazi B. The ontogeny of autonomic measures
in 6- and 12-month-old infants. Developmental Psychobiology. 2006;48(3):197–208. [PubMed]
 Almond D, Currie J. Killing me softly: The fetal origins hypothesis. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives. 2011;25(3):153–172. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van Ijzendoorn MH, Mesman J, Alink LR, Juffer F. Effects of an attachment-
based intervention on daily cortisol moderated by dopamine receptor D4: A randomized control trial on 1- to
3-year-olds screened for externalizing behavior. Development and Psychopathology. 2008a;20(3):805–
820. [PubMed]
 Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van IMH, Pijlman FT, Mesman J, Juffer F. Experimental evidence for
differential susceptibility: Dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism (DRD4 VNTR) moderates intervention
effects on toddlers' externalizing behavior in a randomized controlled trial. Developmental
Psychology. 2008b;44(1):293–300. [PubMed]
 Barr CS, Newman TK, Lindell S, Shannon C, Champoux M, Lesch KP, Suomi SJ, Goldman D, Higley JD.
Interaction between serotonin transporter gene variation and rearing condition in alcohol preference and
consumption in female primates. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004;61(11):1146–1152. [PubMed]
 Belsky J. Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In:
Ellis BJ, Bjorklund DF, editors. Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child
development. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 139–163.
 Belsky J, Beaver KM. Cumulative-genetic plasticity, parenting and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2011;52(5):619–626. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Belsky J, van Ijzendoorn MH. What works for whom? Genetic moderation of intervention
efficacy. Development and Psychopathology. 2015;27(Special Issue 01):1–6. [PubMed]
 Blair C, Raver CC. Child development in the context of adversity: Experiential canalization of brain and
behavior. American Psychologist. 2012;67(4):309–318. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Blair C, Granger DA, Kivlighan KT, Mills-Koonce R, Willoughby M, Greenberg MT, Hibel LC, Fortunato CK.
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Maternal and child contributions to cortisol response to emotional arousal in young children from low-
income, rural communities. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44(4):1095–1109. [PubMed]
 Blair C, Raver CC, Granger D, Mills-Koonce R, Hibel L. Allostasis and allostatic load in the context of
poverty in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology. 2011;23(3):845–857. [PMC free article]
[PubMed]
 Blakemore SJ. The developing social brain: Implications for education. Neuron. 2010;65(6):744–747. [PMC

free article] [PubMed]
 Blakemore SJ. Development of the social brain in adolescence. Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine. 2012;105(3):111–116. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Bloom FE, Nelson CA, Lazerson A. Brain, mind, and behavior. 3rd. New York: Worth Publishers; 2001.
 Borghol N, Suderman M, McArdle W, Racine A, Hallett M, Pembrey M, Hertzman C, Power C, Szyf M.

Associations with early-life socio-economic position in adult DNA methylation. International Journal of
Epidemiology. 2012;41(1):62–74. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Boyce WT, Ellis BJ. Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins
and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology. 2005;17(2):271–301. [PubMed]
 Boyce WT, Kobor MS. Development and the epigenome: The “synapse” of gene-environment
interplay. Developmental Science. 2015;18(1):1–23. [PubMed]
 Boyce WT, Chesney M, Alkon A, Tschann JM, Adams S, Chesterman B, Cohen F, Kaiser P, Folkman S,
Wara D. Psychobiologic reactivity to stress and childhood respiratory illnesses: Results of two prospective
studies. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1995;57(5):411–422. [PubMed]
 Boyce WT, O'Neill-Wagner P, Price CS, Haines M, Suomi SJ. Crowding stress and violent injuries among
behaviorally inhibited rhesus macaques. Health Psychology. 1998;17(3):285–289. [PubMed]
 Boyce WT, Sokolowski MB, Robinson GE. Toward a new biology of social adversity. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl. 2):17143–17148. [PMC
 Bruce J, Gunnar MR, Pears KC, Fisher PA. Early adverse care, stress neurobiology, and prevention
science: Lessons learned. Prevention Science. 2013;14(3):247–256. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Burns JG, Svetec N, Rowe L, Mery F, Dolan MJ, Boyce WT, Sokolowski MB. Gene-environment interplay in
drosophila melanogaster: Chronic food deprivation in early life affects adult exploratory and fitness
traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl.
2):17239–17244. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Carlson M, Earls F. Psychological and neuroendocrinological sequelae of early social deprivation in

institutionalized children in Romania. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1997;807:419–
428. [PubMed]
 Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, Taylor A, Poulton R. Role of genotype in the cycle
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
of violence in maltreated children. Science. 2002;297(5582):851–854. [PubMed]
 Caspi A, Sugden K, Moffitt TE, Taylor A, Craig IW, Harrington H, McClay J, Mill J, Martin J, Braithwaite A,
Poulton R. Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT
gene. Science. 2003;301(5631):386–389. [PubMed]
 Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA. Diverse patterns of neuroendocrine activity in maltreated children. Development
and Psychopathology. 2001;13(3):677–693. [PubMed]
 Cole SW, Conti G, Arevalo JM, Ruggiero AM, Heckman JJ, Suomi SJ. Transcriptional modulation of the
developing immune system by early life social adversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America. 2012;109(50):20578–20583. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Cummings EM, El-Sheikh M, Kouros CD, Keller PS. Children's skin conductance reactivity as a mechanism
of risk in the context of parental depressive symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines. 2007;48(5):436–445. [PubMed]
 Danese A, McEwen BS. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related
disease. Physiology & Behavior. 2012;106(1):29–39. [PubMed]
 De Pisapia N, Serra M, Rigo P, Jager J, Papinutto N, Esposito G, Venuti P, Bornstein MH. Interpersonal
competence in young adulthood and right laterality in white matter. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience. 2014;26(6):1257–1265. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Decety J, Lamm C. The role of the right temporoparietal junction in social interaction: How low-level
computational processes contribute to meta-cognition. Neuroscientist. 2007;13(6):580–593. [PubMed]
 Dozier M, Manni M, Gordon MK, Peloso E, Gunnar MR, Stovall-McClough KC, Eldreth D, Levine S. Foster
children's diurnal production of cortisol: An exploratory study. Child Maltreatment. 2006;11(2):189–
197. [PubMed]
 Dunn EC, Uddin M, Subramanian SV, Smoller JW, Galea S, Koenen KC. Research review: Gene-
environment interaction research in youth depression—a systematic review with recommendations for future
research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2011;52(12):1223–1238. [PMC
 Edwards V, Anda R, Dube S, Dong M, Chapman DF, Felitt IV. The wide-ranging health consequences of
adverse childhood experiences. In: Kendall-Tackett K, Giacomoni S, editors. Victimization of children and
youth: Patterns of abuse, response strategies. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute; 2005.
 Egan MF, Goldberg TE, Kolachana BS, Callicott JH, Mazzanti CM, Straub RE, Goldman D, Weinberger DR.
Effect of COMT Val108/158 Met genotype on frontal lobe function and risk for schizophrenia. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2001;98(12):6917–6922. [PMC free
article] [PubMed]
 El-Sheikh M. The role of emotional responses and physiological reactivity in the marital conflict-child
functioning link. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2005;46(11):1191–
1199. [PubMed]
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
 El-Sheikh M, Erath SA. Family conflict, autonomic nervous system functioning, and child adaptation: State of
the science and future directions. Development and Psychopathology. 2011;23(2):703–721. [PMC free
article] [PubMed]
 El-Sheikh M, Keller PS, Erath SA. Marital conflict and risk for child maladjustment over time: Skin
conductance level reactivity as a vulnerability factor. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology. 2007;35(5):715–727. [PubMed]
 Ellis BJ, McFadyen-Ketchum S, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Quality of early family relationships and
individual differences in the timing of pubertal maturation in girls: A longitudinal test of an evolutionary
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;77(2):387–401. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Ellis BJ, Boyce WT, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van Ijzendoorn MH. Differential susceptibility to
the environment: An evolutionary—neurodevelopmental theory. Development and
Psychopathology. 2011a;23(1):7–28. [PubMed]
 Ellis BJ, Shirtcliff EA, Boyce WT, Deardorff J, Essex MJ. Quality of early family relationships and the timing
and tempo of puberty: Effects depend on biological sensitivity to context. Development and
Psychopathology. 2011b;23(1):85–99. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Essex MJ, Klein MH, Cho E, Kalin NH. Maternal stress beginning in infancy may sensitize children to later
stress exposure: Effects on cortisol and behavior. Biological Psychiatry. 2002;52(8):776–784. [PubMed]
 Essex MJ, Shirtcliff EA, Burk LR, Ruttle PL, Klein MH, Slattery MJ, Kalin NH, Armstrong JM. Influence of
early life stress on later hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis functioning and its covariation with mental health
symptoms: A study of the allostatic process from childhood into adolescence. Development and
Psychopathology. 2011;23(4):1039–1058. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Essex MJ, Boyce WT, Hertzman C, Lam LL, Armstrong JM, Neumann SM, Kobor MS. Epigenetic vestiges
of early developmental adversity: Childhood stress exposure and DNA methylation in adolescence. Child
Development. 2013;84(1):58–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Evans GW, Kim P. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping. Child Development
Perspectives. 2013;7(1):43–48.
 Fagiolini M, Jensen CL, Champagne FA. Epigenetic influences on brain development and plasticity. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology. 2009;19(2):207–212. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Fox SE, Levitt P, Nelson CA 3rd. How the timing and quality of early experiences influence the development
of brain architecture. Child Development. 2010;81(1):28–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Garner AS, Shonkoff JP. Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: Translating
developmental science into lifelong health. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e224–e231. [PubMed]
 Geronimus AT, Hicken M, Keene D, Bound J. “Weathering” and age patterns of allostatic load scores among
blacks and whites in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2006;96(5):826–833. [PMC free
article] [PubMed]
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
 Gilbert SF. The genome in its ecological context: Philosophical perspectives on inter-species
epigenesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2002;981:202–218. [PubMed]
 Gottlieb G. Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Theory. Developmental

Psychology. 1991;27(1):4–13.
 Greenough WT, Black JE. Induction of brain structure by experience: Substrates for cognitive development.
In: Gunnar MR, Nelson CA, editors. Developmental behavioral neuroscience, Minnesota Symposium on
Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992.
 Greenough WT, Black JE, Wallace CS. Experience and brain development. Child
Development. 1987;58(3):539–559. [PubMed]
 Hackman DA, Farah MJ. Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 2009;13(2):65–73. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Hanson JL, Hair N, Shen DG, Shi F, Gilmore JH, Wolfe BL, Pollak SD. Family poverty affects the rate of
human infant brain growth. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e80954. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Hecht D. Cerebral lateralization of pro- and anti-social tendencies. Experimental

Neurobiology. 2014;23(1):1–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Hertzman C. The biological embedding of early experience and its effects on health in adulthood. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences. 1999;896:85–95. [PubMed]
 Hertzman C. Putting the concept of biological embedding in historical perspective. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl. 2):17160–17167. [PMC
 Hertzman C, Boyce WT. How experience gets under the skin to create gradients in developmental
health. Annual Review of Public Health. 2010;31:329–347. [PubMed]
 IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). Preventing mental, emotional, and
behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press; 2009.
 Karmiloff-Smith A. Atypical epigenesis. Developmental Science. 2007;10(1):84–88. [PubMed]
 Kellett C. Neurons, neural networks and neural pathways. 2015. [March 23,

2015]. http://www.achoice2live.com/know-your-addiction/neurons-neural-networks-and-neural-pathways .
 Kishiyama MM, Boyce WT, Jimenez AM, Perry LM, Knight RT. Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal
function in children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2009;21(6):1106–1115. [PubMed]
 Klengel T, Mehta D, Anacker C, Rex-Haffner M, Pruessner JC, Pariante CM, Pace TW, Mercer KB, Mayberg
HS, Bradley B, Nemeroff CB, Holsboer F, Heim CM, Ressler KJ, Rein T, Binder EB. Allele-specific FKBP5
DNA demethylation mediates gene-childhood trauma interactions. Nature Neuroscience. 2013;16(1):33–
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
 Knafo A, Israel S, Ebstein RP. Heritability of children's prosocial behavior and differential susceptibility to
parenting by variation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene. Development and
Psychopathology. 2011;23(1):53–67. [PubMed]
 Knickmeyer RC, Gouttard S, Kang C, Evans D, Wilber K, Smith JK, Hamer RM, Lin W, Gerig G, Gilmore JH.
A structural MRI study of human brain development from birth to 2 years. Journal of
 Koch LG, Britton SL. Development of animal models to test the fundamental basis of gene-environment
interactions. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008;16(Suppl. 3):S28–S32. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Lam LL, Emberly E, Fraser HB, Neumann SM, Chen E, Miller GE, Kobor MS. Factors underlying variable
DNA methylation in a human community cohort. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl. 2):17253–17260. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Leja D.NHGRI (National Human Genome Research Institute). Chromatin. 2010. [March 25,

2015]. https://www.genome.gov/dmd/img.cfm?node=Photos/Graphics&id=85280.
 Lesch KP. EMBO Reports. 2007. Linking emotion to the social brain. The role of the serotonin transporter in
human social behaviour; p. 8. (Spec No:S24-S29). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Luby J, Belden A, Botteron K, Marrus N, Harms MP, Babb C, Nishino T, Barch D. The effects of poverty on
childhood brain development: The mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events. JAMA
Pediatrics. 2013;167(12):1135–1142. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Lupien SJ, McEwen BS, Gunnar MR, Heim C. Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain,
behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2009;10(6):434–445. [PubMed]
 Manuck SB, McCaffery JM. Gene-environment interaction. Annual Review of Psychology. 2014;65:41–

70. [PubMed]
 Manuck SB, Craig AE, Flory JD, Halder I, Ferrell RE. Reported early family environment covaries with
menarcheal age as a function of polymorphic variation in estrogen receptor-alpha. Development and
 McEwen BS. Brain on stress: How the social environment gets under the skin. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl. 2):17180–17185. [PMC free article]
[PubMed]
 McGowan PO, Sasaki A, D'Alessio AC, Dymov S, Labonte B, Szyf M, Turecki G, Meaney MJ. Epigenetic
regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor in human brain associates with childhood abuse. Nature
 Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene x environment interactions. Child
Development. 2010;81(1):41–79. [PubMed]
 Mehta D, Klengel T, Conneely KN, Smith AK, Altmann A, Pace TW, Rex-Haffner M, Loeschner A, Gonik M,
Mercer KB, Bradley B, Muller-Myhsok B, Ressler KJ, Binder EB. Childhood maltreatment is associated with
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
distinct genomic and epigenetic profiles in posttraumatic stress disorder. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(20):8302–8307. [PMC free article]
[PubMed]
 Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of
aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological
Bulletin. 2011;137(6):959–997. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Molenaar D, van der Sluis S, Boomsma DI, Haworth CM, Hewitt JK, Martin NG, Plomin R, Wright MJ, Dolan
CV. Genotype by environment interactions in cognitive ability: A survey of 14 studies from four countries
covering four age groups. Behavior Genetics. 2013;43(3):208–219. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Children's emotional development is built into the
architecture of their brains: Working paper #2. 2004. [April 22, 2014]. http://www.developingchild.net.
 Nelson CA, Fox NA, Zeanah CH. Romania's abandoned children: Deprivation, brain development, and the
struggle for recovery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2014.
 Norman GJ, Hawkley LC, Cole SW, Berntson GG, Cacioppo JT. Social neuroscience: The social brain,
oxytocin, and health. Social Neuroscience. 2012;7(1):18–29. [PubMed]
 NRC (National Research Council) and IOM (Institute of Medicine). From neurons to neighborhoods: The
science of early childhood development. Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press; 2000.
 Oberlander TF, Weinberg J, Papsdorf M, Grunau R, Misri S, Devlin AM. Prenatal exposure to maternal
depression, neonatal methylation of human glucocorticoid receptor gene (NR3C1) and infant cortisol stress
responses. Epigenetics. 2008;3(2):97–106. [PubMed]
 Obradovic J, Bush NR, Stamperdahl J, Adler NE, Boyce WT. Biological sensitivity to context: The interactive
effects of stress reactivity and family adversity on socioemotional behavior and school readiness. Child
Development. 2010;81(1):270–289. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Pezawas L, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Drabant EM, Verchinski BA, Munoz KE, Kolachana BS, Egan MF, Mattay
VS, Hariri AR, Weinberger DR. 5-HTTLPR polymorphism impacts human cingulate-amygdala interactions: A
genetic susceptibility mechanism for depression. Nature Neuroscience. 2005;8(6):828–834. [PubMed]
 Pluess M, Belsky J. Prenatal programming of postnatal plasticity? Development and

Psychopathology. 2011;23(1):29–38. [PubMed]
 Provencal N, Suderman MJ, Guillemin C, Massart R, Ruggiero A, Wang D, Bennett AJ, Pierre PJ, Friedman
DP, Cote SM, Hallett M, Tremblay RE, Suomi SJ, Szyf M. The signature of maternal rearing in the
methylome in rhesus macaque prefrontal cortex and T cells. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012;32(44):15626–
 Robinson GE, Grozinger CM, Whitfield CW. Sociogenomics: Social life in molecular terms. Nature Reviews:
Genetics. 2005;6(4):257–270. [PubMed]
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
 Robinson GE, Fernald RD, Clayton DF. Genes and social behavior. Science. 2008;322(5903):896–
 Ross ED, Monnot M. Neurology of affective prosody and its functional-anatomic organization in right
hemisphere. Brain and Language. 2008;104(1):51–74. [PubMed]
 Rutter M. Genes and behaviour: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006.
 Rutter M. Gene-environment interplay. Depression and Anxiety. 2010;27(1):1–4. [PubMed]
 Rutter M. Achievements and challenges in the biology of environmental effects. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012;109(Suppl. 2):17149–17153. [PMC free article]
[PubMed]
 Sandman CA, Davis EP, Buss C, Glynn LM. Exposure to prenatal psychobiological stress exerts
programming influences on the mother and her fetus. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95(1):7–21. [PMC free
article] [PubMed]
 Sasaki A, de Vega WC, McGowan PO. Biological embedding in mental health: An epigenomic
perspective. Biochemistry and Cell Biology. 2013;91(1):14–21. [PubMed]
 Schore AN. Synopsis, the impact of childhood trauma: Psychobiological sequelae in adults. In: Lanius RA,
Vermetten E, Pain C, editors. The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden
epidemic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010. pp. 142–148.
 Schore AN. The right brain is dominant in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy (Chicago,

Illinois). 2014;51(3):388–397. [PubMed]
 Semrud-Clikeman M, Goldenring Fine J, Zhu DC. The role of the right hemisphere for processing of social
interactions in normal adults using functional magnetic resonance
imaging. Neuropsychobiology. 2011;64(1):47–51. [PubMed]
 Shannon KE, Beauchaine TP, Brenner SL, Neuhaus E, Gatzke-Kopp L. Familial and temperamental
predictors of resilience in children at risk for conduct disorder and depression. Development and
 Shonkoff JP, Garner AS. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Official Journal of
the American Academy of Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e232–e246. [PubMed]
 Slavich GM, Cole SW. The emerging field of human social genomics. Clinical Psychological
Science. 2013;1(3):331–348. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Strachan T, Read AP. Human molecular genetics. New York: Garland Science; 2011.
 Sturge-Apple ML, Davies PT, Cicchetti D, Manning LG. Interparental violence, maternal emotional
unavailability and children's cortisol functioning in family contexts. Developmental
Psychology. 2012;48(1):237–249. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Takesian AE, Hensch TK. Balancing plasticity/stability across brain development. Progress in Brain
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020
Research. 2013;207:3–34. [PubMed]
 Thompson PM, Martin NG, Wright MJ. Imaging genomics. Current Opinion in Neurology. 2010;23(4):368–
 Thompson RA. Stress and child development. The Future of Children. 2014;24(1):41–59. [PubMed]
 Tung J, Barreiro LB, Johnson ZP, Hansen KD, Michopoulos V, Toufexis D, Michelini K, Wilson ME, Gilad Y.
Social environment is associated with gene regulatory variation in the rhesus macaque immune
system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 2012;109(17):6490–6495. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Turner KM, Burne TH. Interaction of genotype and environment: Effect of strain and housing conditions on
cognitive behavior in rodent models of schizophrenia. Frontiers in Behavioral
Neuroscience. 2013;7:97. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
 Ulrich-Lai YM, Herman JP. Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress responses. Nature Reviews
 Waddington CH. Canalization of development and genetic assimilation of acquired

characters. Nature. 1959;183(4676):1654–1655. [PubMed]
 Waddington CH. The epigenotype. 1942. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2012;41(1):10–

13. [PubMed]
 Weaver IC, Diorio J, Seckl JR, Szyf M, Meaney MJ. Early environmental regulation of hippocampal
glucocorticoid receptor gene expression: Characterization of intracellular mediators and potential genomic
target sites. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2004;1024:182–212. [PubMed]
 Whittle S, Yap MB, Sheeber L, Dudgeon P, Yucel M, Pantelis C, Simmons JG, Allen NB. Hippocampal
volume and sensitivity to maternal aggressive behavior: A prospective study of adolescent depressive
symptoms. Development and Psychopathology. 2011;23(1):115–129. [PubMed]
 Zeanah CH, Gunnar MR, McCall RB, Kreppner JM, Fox NA. VI. Sensitive periods. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development. 2011;76(4):147–162. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
ATIMONAN, QUEZON
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
A.Y. 2019-2020

Siachongco Deztiny MamLuna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siachongco Deztiny MamLuna

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Siachongco Deztiny MamLuna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUEZONIAN EDUCATIONAL COLLEGE INC.

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OR THE REQUIREMENTS IN

JUNE 14- 28, 2020

Vision, Policy, Goal and Objectives of Special Education.

Publications in this special issue

Special Education Programs and Services

Special Education: A Review of Relevant Literature

Identification: Getting it Right

Inclusion: Best for Most

Best Practice: Quality Instruction Which May Not be Happening

Grouping and Clustering: Good if Small, Fluid, and Rigorous

THE DEVELOPING BRAIN, THE DEVELOPING SCIENCE

discovery of substantial individual differences in children's susceptibilities to both negative and positive

THE NEUROSCIENCE OF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Early Brain Development

The structure of neurons and neuronal connections. SOURCE: Kellett, 2015.

for their foundational importance for socioemotional development (Schore, 2010).

GENE–ENVIRONMENT INTERPLAY AND DEVELOPMENT

The Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Variation

Gene–environment interplay is a category of interactive processes comprising gene–environment correlation (rGE),

Chromatin structure. SOURCE: Leja and NHGRI, 2010.

Interplay of Genes and Environment: Implications for Adults

BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF PSYCHOSOCIAL ADVERSITIES IN EARLY LIFE

Effects on the Neuroendocrine Stress Response System

Socioeconomic Status and Early Brain Development

Interaction Between Exposure to Stress and Gene Expression

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

early interventions (Belsky and van Ijzendoorn, 2015).

Conclusion About the Interaction of Biology and the Environment

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Functional Curricula in General Education

studies concentrated on economics

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDRÉN

Figure 1. Cooperative Teaching Planner

Date: November 3 Planning

Date: November 10 Instruction

Theme: Holiday Store—Lesson: Inventory Production

Grade Level Skills:

Curricular Area: Social Studies

Educating Students with Learning Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms

Jeremy Ford jwford@boisestate.edu

Inclusive Strategies for Educating Students with LD

Research regarding the effectiveness of co-teaching is limiting. For instance, Scruggs,

Comparison of Co-Teaching Methods

Guidelines for Successfully Differentiating Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms

1. Clarify all key concepts and generalizations

2. Use assessment as a teaching tool to extend instruction

3. Make critical and creative thinking a goal of lesson design

4. Engage every student in learning

Peer-Mediated Instruction and Interventions

Essential Characteristics of Peer-Mediated Instruction and Interventions

Teacher becomes a facilitator of peer provided instruction

Comparing Full Inclusion to Pullout in Elementary Schools

Strengths and Weaknesses of Inclusion in High School

STUDENTS WHO ARE GIFTED AND TALENTED

Students with Hearing Impairment

Origins and Types of Speech Disorders

Possible Causes of Speech Disorders