Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:45:06.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementing a Communication Curriculum for Special Education1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

D. J. Power
D. J. Power*
Affiliation:
Brisbane College of Advanced Education: Mt. Gravatt Campus Centre for Human Development Studies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traditionally, like most members of the teaching profession, special educators have tended to see a “curriculum” as being a document: a document which specifies the kinds of content that needs to be taught to pupils, and is usually quite free of statements about methods and materials to be used in teaching those contents. Most special schools have produced such documents, and a large number of them have been enshrined in collections such as the Fearon Reference Systems’ Curriculum development library (1978, ff). In earlier days such documents in the language area listed by school year the parts of speech which pupils should learn during that year; in later days they tended to talk about patterns of sentences and the order in which they could be acquired (that of Alice Streng, 1972, is a good example of this latter type). More recently, books such as those of Blackwell, Engen, Fischgrund and Zarcadoolas (1978), Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1978) and McLean and Snyder-McLean (1978) have begun to reflect changes in general language teaching theory, and hence emphasise the teaching of functional communications with less emphasis on the structures of English syntax, although this has not disappeared entirely. Increasingly also, the influence of general language theory and method is being reflected in such documents, and one finds frequent reference to such general theorists as Crystal, Fletcher and Garman (1976), Breen and Candlin (1978), Schiefelbusch (1978a, 1978b) and Tough (1976).

Type
Research and Review
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , November 1983 , pp. 7 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. Curriculum as implicative descriptions of classrooms: A case of conspicuous formal irrelevance. Occasional Paper No. 1, University of Nottingham, Leverhulme Health Education Project, 1978.Google Scholar
Blackwell, P., Engen, E., Fischgrund, J.E., & Zarcadoolis, C. Sentences and other systems: A language and learning curriculum for hearing-impaired children. Washington, D.C.: A.G. Bell Association for the Deaf, 1978.Google Scholar
Breen, M.P. & Candlin, C.N. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1978, 1, 89–112.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. The grammatical analysis of language disability: A procedure for assessment and remediation. London : Arnold, 1976.Google Scholar
Erber, N.P. Auditory Training, Washington, D.C.: A.G. Bell Association for the Deaf, 1982.Google Scholar
Fearon Reference Systems. Curriculum development library. Belmont, Calif.: Pitman, 1978 ff.Google Scholar
George, H.V. Common errors in language learning: Insights from English. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1972.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. & Wideen, M. (Eds.) Alternate perspectives on school improvement. Vancouver : Simonn Fraser University, College of Education, n.d.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. Second language acquistion and second language learning. London: Pergamon, 1981.Google Scholar
Kretschmer, R.R. Jr., & Kretschmer, L.W. Language development and intervention with the hearing impaired. Baltimore : University Park Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Lees, J.M. Conversational strategies with deaf children Unpublished M. Phil. Thesis, University of Nottingham, 1981.Google Scholar
Ling, D. Speech and the hearing-impaired child. Theory and practice. Washington, D.C.: A.G. Bell Association for the deaf, 1976.Google Scholar
McDonald, J.D. Language through conversation. Columbus: Ohio State University, Nisonger Center, 1978.Google Scholar
McLean, J.E. & Snyder-McLean, L.K. A transactional approach to early language training. Columbus: Merrill, 1978.Google Scholar
Miller, J.F. Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. London : Arnold, 1981.Google Scholar
Moog, A & Geers, A. Grammatical assessment of elicited language: Simple sentences. St. Louis : Central Institute for the Deaf, 1979.Google Scholar
Moog, A. & Geers, A. Grammatical analysis of elicited language: Complex sentences. St. Louis : Central Institute for the Deaf, 1980.Google Scholar
Munby, J. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
POWER, D.J. (Ed). Towards a communication curriculum for hearing-impaired pupils: Report of the National Workshop on Language Curriculum Development for Hearing-Impaired Pupils. Occasional Paper No. 1, Mount Gravatt College of Advanced Education, Centre for Human Development Studies, 1981.Google Scholar
Power, D.J. Principles of curriculum and methods development in special education. In Swann, W. (Ed) Special Education in practice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981.Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Elias, G.C. Comments on the “Tate Oral English Program”, in Power, D.J. and Hollingshead, M.A. (Eds). Aspects of a communication curriculum for hearing-impaired pupils: Report of the Second National Workshop on Language Curriculum Development for Hearing-Impaired Pupils. Occasional Paper No. 7, Brisbane College of Advanced Education, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Centre for Human Development Studies, 1982.Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Hollingshead, A. Methods for language development in deaf students: No. 1. The passive voice. Burwood State College, Papers in Special Education, No. 4, June, 1977 (a).Google Scholar
Rudduck, J. Introducing innovation to pupils. In Hopkins, D. & Wideen, M. (Eds.) Alternate perspectives on school improvement. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, College of Education, n.d.Google Scholar
Schiefelbusch, R.L. (Ed.) Bases of Language intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978 (a).Google Scholar
Schiefelbusch, R.L. (Ed.) Language intervention strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978 (b).Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Hollingshead, A. Systematic Language Instruction Package: Slip 1-Passive. Burwood State College, Institute of Special Education, July, 1977(b).Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Hollingshead, A. Systematic Language Instruction Package: SLIP 2 — Verb Phrase Negation. Burwood : Burwood State College, Institute of Special Education, April, 1978.Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Hollingshead, A. Methods for language development in deaf students: 3. Conjunction. Research Report No. 1, Mount Gravatt College of Advanced Education, Centre for Human Development Studies, October, 1979.Google Scholar
Power, D.J. & Hollingshead, A. (Eds.) Aspects of a communication curriculum for hearing-impaired pupils: Report of the Second National Workshop on Language Curriculum Development for Hearing-Impaired Pupils. Occasional Paper No. 7, Brisbane College of Advanced Education, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Centre for Human Development Studies, 1982.Google Scholar
Quigley, S.P., Steinkamp, M.W., Power, D.J. & Jones, B.W. Test of syntactic abilities. Beaverton, Ore.: Dormac, 1978.Google Scholar
Quigley, S.P. & Power, D.J. (Eds.) TSA syntax program. Beaverton, Ore.: Dormac, 1979–81.Google Scholar
Streng, A. Syntax, speech and hearing. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1972.Google Scholar
Tate, G.M. Oral English. Sydney: South Pacific Commission, 1971.Google Scholar
Tough, J. Listening to children talking. London: Ward Lock, 1976.Google Scholar
Van Ek, J. & Alexander, L.G. Threshold level English. London: Pergamon, 1975.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H.G. Teaching language as communication. London: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Wood, H.A. & Wood, D.J. An experimental evaluation of the effects of five styles of teacher conversation on the language of hearing-impaired children. University of Nottingham Department of Psychology, May, 1982.Google Scholar
Wood, D.J., Wood, H.A., Griffiths, A.J., Howarth, S.P., & Howarth, C.I. The structure of conversations with 6–10 year old deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (in press, 1982).Google Scholar