<p>Forming positive teacher-student relationships with students has been identified as a protective factor for students. However, many teachers struggle to form and maintain a positive relationship with students diagnosed with an emotional disturbance. It is essential that teachers have tools to help build and maintain positive teacher-student relationships.</p><p>This study focused on investigating licensed special education teachers that have taught seventh through twelve grade students with emotional disturbances. Out of the nine individuals who were sent the survey, all nine participants completed it. The survey was conducted to identify common negative behaviors and to identify what strategies teachers would like more information about to help them form positive teacher-student relationships. The survey consisting of short answer questions, multiple choice questions, yes or no questions, and questions that ask them to explain their answers.</p><p>The findings from the literature review and the survey data supported a need for a handbook to be created in order to inform special education teachers of ways to develop and maintain positive teacher-student relationships with students diagnosed with an emotional disturbance. Strategies are included in the handbook for teachers to reduce negative behaviors with students diagnosed with an emotional disturbance.</p>

<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p> <p>The majority of native English-speaking students who have difficulties in reading do not have a strong foundation in phonemic awareness skills which causes their overall reading ability to be hindered. Phonemic awareness is the knowledge that words are made up of different sounds and being able to manipulate those sounds in a variety of ways. About 70 to 80% of these students have difficulty recognizing the words on the page (Moats & Tolman, 2019). A master’s degree final project was created to address this reading issue.</p> <p>The master’s project had two major parts. The first part was a survey study on the evaluation of the newly developed reading lesson and assessment materials and the second was the training handbook for teachers working with students with disabilities in reading. The specific purpose of the survey was to obtain teachers’ evaluation of newly developed phonemic awareness lesson materials. The lesson materials that were evaluated by the participants included the Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST), reading passages, one and two-syllable word lists, and four example lesson plans.</p> <p>The following questions that guided this survey study were (1) How do the teachers evaluate the phonemic awareness lesson materials in regard to oral reading fluency, accuracy, and decoding of third-grade special education students with disabilities? (2) What lessons and activities are elementary teachers currently implementing for phonemic awareness instruction? (3) How do phonemic awareness lesson materials align with the goal of supporting third-grade special education students’ fluency, accuracy, and decoding skills? The measurement tool used in this study was a Qualtrics survey. The survey consisted of eleven rating scale questions with open-ended questions. The rating scale was a Likert scale (one being strongly disagreed to four being strongly agreed). Each rating scale question had the option for participants to explain the reason for their rating in an open-ended question. The last five questions were open-ended questions seeking teachers’ current practices and recommendations.</p> <p>A total of 22 teachers were recruited from one elementary school in a mid-western state. The results of the survey (N=1) indicated a need for the development of systematically designed phonemic awareness teaching materials for special education teachers and their third-grade students with disabilities. Based on the extensive review of the previously published phonemic awareness materials, this author found there is no comprehensive teacher training guide that includes key information on phonemic awareness, assessments, and intervention materials. A handbook on phonemic awareness instruction was developed to provide a guide for teachers providing reading intervention to students on what phonemic awareness and related literacy components (i.e., fluency, accuracy, and decoding) are, how to assess phonemic awareness needs in students with disabilities, and how to implement direct instruction of phonemic awareness skills to improve student learning. The handbook this author created also included a section on how to prepare an IRB application for teacher candidates/teachers who are interested in conducting IRB-approved studies in their own classrooms in order to fulfill their master’s or doctoral degree requirements. </p>

<p dir="ltr">Motivation is a driving force to get a task done. It is no different for students. In order to graduate with a high school diploma, students need to be motivated to complete the required assignments. Students with Emotional Disabilities (ED), who often have behaviors that make it harder for them to be engaged in class need something more than their same age peers to be motivated to work through their daily schoolwork. The investigator conducted a needs-assessment survey that gave further insight of what teachers currently know about motivating students with ED, their attitudes towards students with ED and motivational strategies they are aware of. The major findings from this research stressed that teachers do not have all the tools they need to successfully motivate students with ED. These results led to a handbook that provided strategies to use and materials to go along with the research.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Special education students are entitled to access the rigor of the general education classroom, which has created environments where special education teachers are co-teaching with general education teachers. Co-teaching has become the most common method for supporting students with disabilities while providing the same rigorous education that their non-disabled peers receive. This study aimed to understand what general education and special education teachers perceived as strengths and challenges in co-teaching.</p><p dir="ltr">Co-teaching is a common model used in public schools today to address the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education classroom. Although research suggests that Co-teaching has positive effects, the outcomes are often not as successful as hoped.</p><p dir="ltr">Research has shown that there are many challenges with implementing coteaching, such as lack of common planning time, special education teachers' lack of content knowledge, control or “turf” issues, differences in teachers’ personalities, differences in teaching Philosophy, and disagreements about discipline and behavior management (Chitiyo, 2017, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2017, Shin et al., 2016). Successful co-teaching requires general education teachers, special education teachers, and administrators working together for the greater good.</p><p dir="ltr">This research was conducted by a survey to identify what the teachers perceived as the biggest challenges with co-teaching. This study was based on a peer-reviewed literature review of scholarly journals about co-teaching perceptions in other middle schools. Data was collected from special education and general education teachers using a needs assessment survey. This research provided strategies for special education and general education teachers to collaborate successfully, share responsibilities, and choose the most effective co-teaching method in their classrooms.</p><p dir="ltr">This research provided a greater understanding of the strengths and challenges of co-teaching in two middle schools compared to previous research. The survey questions explored the perspectives of the general education and the special education teacher on the roles of co-teaching and preservice/in-service preparation. The survey data was organized looking for the themes or patterns to emerge, making note of each one. This process was completed using Qualtrics online survey software.</p><p dir="ltr">The results of the survey show that although co-teaching is the most common method used to support the inclusion of students with disabilities, the teachers need additional training. The number of years of teaching did not change the responses of the teachers. The survey results also showed that most of the teachers felt they needed adequate time together to plan effective co-teaching strategies in the classroom but were not given that planning time currently.</p><p dir="ltr">The findings of this study provided educators strategies for effective co-teaching collaborative learning teams. One strategy that is important to effective co-teaching is having the teachers gain knowledge of each other on a personal level. This will allow the teachers to understand the personalities within the co-teaching team. This helps build the mutual trust that is required for co-teaching to be successful.</p><p dir="ltr">One strategy for the administrators is to investigate the areas in which teachers may require additional training to increase the effectiveness of co-teaching collaboration.</p><p><br></p>

<p dir="ltr">Researchers have developed Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) to enhance student math outcomes within the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework. However, these EBPs often fail in real school settings due to poor implementation practices. Concerns about whether educators implement EBPs with sufficient fidelity persist. Implementation Fidelity (IF) measures how closely program delivery aligns with its intended design. This study investigated the effects and implications of an IF intervention package designed to equip general education majors with the necessary skills to implement a mathematics word problem-solving (WPS) intervention—the Conceptual Model-Based Problem-Solving (COMPS) intervention—with appropriate fidelity. Additionally, the study explored the real-world experiences encountered by education major college students when implementing the intervention in schools and examined practical factors influencing the implementation of mathematics EBPs in rural educational settings. The findings provide insights into effective strategies for improving IF in educational interventions and highlight the challenges and successes of implementation in real-world contexts.</p>

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Human enhancement continues to be hotly debated by both 'professionals' and academics, and increasingly also by the general public. This is no surprise, given that the idea of making human beings better - individually and collectively - has existed for centuries. Parents appear to be especially receptive to new ways of improving the qualities of their offspring - first and foremost their cognitive abilities - in the hope of giving them the best life possible. At the same time, children as not-yet autonomous persons are vulnerable to the decisions made on their behalf. This dynamic has led to a long-running philosophical debate about the moral permissibility of paediatric enhancement. Unfortunately, this debate has somewhat stalled at the point of disagreement on general permissibility, with both sides strongly relying on the notion of well-being to support their respective positions. Rapid progress in the sciences, including the development of the new CRISPR-Cas9 technique, holds much promise for effective cognitive enhancement in children, and this makes proper ethical assessment an urgent matter. Arguing that enhancement is here to stay and that prohibition is not a feasible option in a globalised world, I suggest that the debate should instead focus on what cognitive enhancement in children is likely to mean for the welfare of children. Addressing the question of whether enhancement of intellectual abilities in children is likely to lead to the creation of 'superhuman' disabled children - that is, children with superior or even yet-unseen cognitive capacities but a disability in some other sense (medical, social or both) - I draw on evidence from various fields, including education, law, disability studies and sociology, to demonstrate that the positive effect of cognitive ability on individual well-being is frequently overestimated and can thus not serve as a moral justification for cognitive enhancement. Furthermore, the current legal environment with regard to children with higher intellectual abilities gives cause for concern about the well-being of future cognitively enhanced children and urges us to address prevailing shortcomings in educational provision before deliberately engaging in the creation of more cognitive potential. Suggesting that any moral judgment about cognitive enhancement should focus strongly on the ends pursued, I argue that the welfare of children is endangered not so much by the new possibilities and methods of enhancement as by the failure to fully appreciate children's need for the provision of appropriate opportunities to match their individual abilities.

<p>Co-teaching is a practice in which “two professionals co-plan, co-instruct and co-assess a diverse group of students. Both teachers provide substantive instruction to all students on a daily, consistent basis. Neither is considered the main teacher of the class; they are equals” (Murawski, 2008, p. 29). Unfortunately, co-teaching in practice is often characterized by one teacher handling most of the instruction and the other operating in an assistant role (Murawski & Lochner, 2009, 2010; Volonio & Zigmund, 2007). Co-teaching should also be characterized by the use of multiple models that facilitate small group instruction, which should increase student to teacher interaction and student engagement (Friend, 2014). </p><p>A way to address these gaps is to provide co-teachers with ongoing coaching support (CEC, 2012). The goal of this study was to increase the quality of co-teaching through different levels of coaching to facilitate small group instruction through parallel teaching and increase student engagement. This study used a MTSS model with a multi-probe design to respond to the level of support co-teachers need, starting with peer coaching, then traditional coaching, and finally bug in ear (BIE) coaching. </p><p>There were three sets of co-teaching pairs who participated. There was an intervention effect for all three pairs of teachers with peer coaching, the first tier of the intervention. Therefore, the other two levels of support were not needed as all participants met criteria in peer coaching. Additionally, there was an effect in increasing student engagement with peer coaching. These procedures can be used and adapted for future research in coaching co-teachers to improve their practices. </p>