The equivocal nature of special education interventions

Kavale, Kenneth A.; Dobbins, D. Alan

doi:10.1080/0300443930860103

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other special education mega-analyses appeared in Forness et al (1997), Gresham (1998), Kavale and Dobbins (1993), and Swanson et al (1993). In addition, Lipsey and Wilson (1993) provided a comprehensive mega-analysis of efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment that included several meta-analyses in special education.…”

Section: Analyzing the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Characteristics of Meta-Analyses Reported in Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Mostert¹

2001

Exceptionality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Analyzing the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Characteristics of Meta-Analyses Reported in Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Mostert¹

2001

Exceptionality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One response to the continuing equivocation about these approaches has been the use of quantitative meta-analyses (Kavale, 1981). In a summary of meta-analyses, Kavale & Dobbins (1993) show that although psycholinguistic training has a small impact overall, there is a more signi cant impact for the verbal expression area. By contrast, the meta-analyses show that perceptual-motor interventions are not bene cial.…”

Section: Speci C Learning Dif Culties (Dyslexia)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs

Norwich

Lewis

2001

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent curriculum initiatives, such as the National Literacy and NumeracyHours, assume the validity of a broadly common curriculum for all pupils. This article synthesises a review which set out to subject that assumption to critical scrutiny, addressing the ensuing question: can differences between learners (by particular special educational needs [SEN] group) be identi ed and systematically linked with learners' needs for differential teaching? Generic teaching effectiveness studies have assumed that what works with most pupils would also work for all pupils. However, little direct evidence for this position has been presented in the areas of learning dif culties which are covered in this review. Similarly, some papers by SEN specialists make calls, which were also mostly unsubstantiated by empirical evidence, for what the authors call, the 'unique differences' position. This rejects distinctive SEN teaching strategies and accepts that there are common pedagogic principles which are relevant to the unique differences between all pupils, including those considered to be designated as having SEN. This position is quali ed by some recognition of the need for more intense and focused teaching for those with SEN. Support for a common pedagogy also comes from the authors' analyses of pedagogy by SEN group. They conclude that the notion of continua of teaching approaches is useful as it makes it possible to distinguish between the 'normal' adaptations in class teaching for most pupils and the greater degree of adaptations required for those with more severe dif culties in learning, those designated as having SEN. These are adaptations to common teaching approaches, what have been called specialised adaptations, or 'high density' teaching.

show abstract

“…Literature Review. There are several more-or less-detailed reviews of meta-analytic results in special education (i.e., mega-analyses) whose chief function is to summarize metaanalytic results across different research areas and knowledge domains (e.g., Forness, Kavale, Blum, & Lloyd, 1997;Gresham, 1998;Kavale & Dobbins, 1993;Swanson et al, 1993). Pertinent to this review, mega-analytic overviews of meta-analyses in other special education areas exist in LD (Mostert, 1996), MR (Mostert, 2003), and a comparison of meta-analyses in LD, MR, and E/BD (Mostert, 2001).…”

Section: Domain 1: Locating Studies/contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Face Validity of Meta-Analyses in Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

Mostert

2004

Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliance on the power of meta-analysis for unimpeachable evidence related to complex research questions in emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) can be potentially misleading if consumers automatically assume that metaanalytic results are always definitive. Specifically, published meta-analytic results rely heavily on several pivotal interpretive aspects, including (a) the definition and relationships between the primary study independent variables, (b) the manner in which the independent variables are coded, and (c) how these key variables are interrelated and reported (Cooper & Lindsay, 1998). Issues of face validity are especially germane when there are research examples of meta-analyses conducted on the same body of primary studies yielding dissimilar findings (e.g., debates over Dunn's research on learning styles [see Kavale & For

show abstract

The equivocal nature of special education interventions

Cited by 11 publications

References 65 publications

Characteristics of Meta-Analyses Reported in Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Characteristics of Meta-Analyses Reported in Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs

Face Validity of Meta-Analyses in Emotional or Behavioral Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About