Additional Reading 1

BERA
Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs

Author(s): Brahm Norwich and Ann Lewis
Source: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jun., 2001), pp. 313-329
Published by: Wiley on behalf of BERA
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501898
Accessed: 05-09-2019 13:31 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501898?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
BERA, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British
Educational Research Journal
This content downloaded from 190.213.222.91 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:31:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2001
Mapping a Pedagogy for Special

Educational Needs
BRAHM NORWICH, University of Exeter

ANN LEWIS, University of Birmingham
ABSTRACT Recent curriculum initiatives, such as the National Literacy and Num
Hours, assume the validity of a broadly common curriculum for all pupils. This a
synthesises a review which set out to subject that assumption to critical scru
addressing the ensuing question: can differences between learners (by particular
educational needs [SEN] group) be identified and systematically linked with learn
needs for differential teaching? Generic teaching effectiveness studies have assum
what works with most pupils would also work for all pupils. However, little
evidence for this position has been presented in the areas of learning difficulties w
are covered in this review. Similarly, some papers by SEN specialists make calls, w
were also mostly unsubstantiated by empirical evidence, for what the authors ca
'unique differences' position. This rejects distinctive SEN teaching strategie
accepts that there are common pedagogic principles which are relevant to the un
differences between all pupils, including those considered to be designated as hav
SEN. This position is qualified by some recognition of the need for more intense
focused teaching for those with SEN. Support for a common pedagogy also comes
the authors' analyses of pedagogy by SEN group. They conclude that the not
continua of teaching approaches is useful as it makes it possible to distinguish be
the 'normal' adaptations in class teaching for most pupils and the greater deg
adaptations required for those with more severe difficulties in learning, those desi
as having SEN. These are adaptations to common teaching approaches, what have
called specialised adaptations, or 'high density' teaching.
Introduction
An assumption underlying recent government documents is that the effective curricul

is, broadly, a common curriculum for all pupils. This is well illustrated in broad ter
in the Green Paper on special educational needs (SEN) (Department for Education and
Employment [DfEE], 1997) and more specifically in the guidelines concerning t
Received 4 March 2000; resubmitted 21 June 2000; accepted 21 June 2000.
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/01/030313-17 02001 British Educational Research Association
DOI: 10.1080/01411920120048322
314 B. Norwich & A. Lewis
Literacy Strategy and pupils with SEN (DfEE, 1998). Similarly, th

SEN specialist standards reflect, in the eliding of some SEN groups, t
stressing commonalities between them (Teacher Training Agency [TT
These developments intensify the need for an in-depth review of evide
nature of curricular provision which will facilitate progress for pupils
learning.
There is considerable evidence that teachers attempt to differentiate their teaching
according to perceptions of broad pupil ability. Brown & McIntyre (1993) reported that
general and specific ability were among the enduring characteristics which teachers
perceived as important when planning teaching. Similarly, Cooper & McIntyre (1996),
exploring teachers' 'craft knowledge' in relation to the teaching of 11-12 year-olds,
found that response to pupils perceived as being of low ability included emphasising oral
explanations, providing multiple examples, using pictorial stimuli and, for pupils with
writing difficulties, providing highly structured written tasks. These strategies cannot be
taken as necessarily representing either a common or an SEN-specific pedagogy. The
starting point for this review is to take the pedagogic justification for such differentiation
as problematic and uncertain.
Setting Parameters for the Review
The range of this review concerning effective pedagogy for pupils perceived as having
SEN is potentially very wide indeed. Consequently, we have focused our review on the
teaching of children with various degrees of learning difficulty and have taken pedagogy
to mean the cluster of decisions and actions which aim to promote school learning. In
asking whether pupils with SEN need a distinct kind of pedagogy, we are asking whether
they need distinct kinds of teaching to learn the same content as others without SEN. We
are interested in evidence about effective pedagogy across curricular subjects (not just
literacy) and in so doing whether effective pedagogy for particular groups of pupils is
the same across subjects or whether this is, at least in part, subject-specific. One
problematic issue concerns terminology, as the labels Moderate Learning Difficulties
[MLD], Severe Learning Difficulties [SLD], SpLD, Profound Learning Difficulties
[PMLD] etc. are not used consistently by researchers or practitioners over time, place or
context. Consequently, a lack of correlation between SEN grouping and pedagogic
practice may be reflecting the involvement of different pupil groups. Thus, systemati-
cally different pedagogic needs may exist but be confounded by lack of consistency in
how particular pupil subgroups are defined by the researchers.
We are also constrained by the foci of published research reports, which have tended
to focus on literacy, numeracy and/or, occasionally, aspects of motivation/self-esteem.
We have been open to evidence based on quantitative and/or qualitative research
paradigms. The former has tended to be associated with quasi-experimental designs and
the latter with idiographic studies. We regard both types of study as potentially
illuminating our focus.
Research Questions
Two questions are central to our review.
1. Can differences between learners (by particular SEN group) be identified and
A Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs 315
systematically linked with learners' needs for differential teaching? Many studies
have addressed only the first part of this question.
2. What are the key criteria for identifying pedagogically useful learner groups? The
conventional SEN groupings may (a) not be valid and/or (b) not useful when planning
pedagogy. But even if this is so, there may still be valid groupings of learners to
identify as the base for differential pedagogy.
At the start of the review we formulated a conceptual framework, based on Norwich

(1996), which focused on the commonality-differentiation of pedagogy. Three broad
kinds of pedagogic need can be identified in this framework: pedagogic needs common
to all learners; pedagogic needs specific, or distinct, to groups of learners; and pedagogic
needs unique to individual learners. These are discussed further in Lewis & Norwich
(1999).
Discussion of Issues
Effective Pedagogy in General
There is an extensive literature relating to pedagogy and 'effectiveness'. This enc

passes work on 'effective teaching', 'effective learning' and 'effective/improving s
ing'. These have a bearing on this review, but fall outside the parameters outlined
introduction so we will deal with them briefly. The majority of these generic 'eff
ness' works do not address the crucial question of effective for whom (Slee et al., 1
The assumption is that effective teaching is the same for all pupils, i.e. in effect
works is taken as leading to effective learning for all pupils. Thus, in an idealised m
any differences between pupils in terms of learning outcomes would reflect ran
individual differences but not systematic, group-based pedagogic needs.
The correlates of effective teaching for all learners, and without reference to par
curricular areas, although usually referenced implicitly or explicitly to numeracy
literacy, have been widely reviewed (e.g. Scheerens, 1989; Yates & Yates 1990; Coo
& McIntyre, 1996; Creemers, 1997; Gipps & MacGilchrist, 1999). Such reviews
to broad features of effective pedagogy, such as clarity about the purposes of a seq
of instruction, clear lesson presentations, teaching in small, explicit steps (some di
ment about when this is appropriate), teacher modelling of 'thinking aloud', care
monitoring of pupils' attention and maximising learning time. These features ha
validity but are both broad and vague. Askew et al. (1997), in a UK-based rev
effective teaching of numeracy, note that some features commonly cited as indica
effective pedagogy (e.g. whole-class question and answer teaching styles, and a m
individualised and small group forms of classroom organisation) were found
effective and less effective teachers, suggesting that some finer grained ana
needed.
The failure of generic studies to support the concept of valid SEN-specific pedagogies
may reflect various weaknesses in design, including problems in the designation of SEN
(noted earlier) and the multiple needs of individual pupils. Pupils may be given a single
administrative designation (such as MLD or SLD) for school placement or provision
purposes, but the single label may not reflect the multiple nature of the pupil's
difficulties (e.g. SpLD as well as SLD). Consequently, at least in theory, evidence for
SEN-specific pedagogies would need to examine both, e.g. MLD X pedagogy inter-
actions, as well as MLD + SpLD X pedagogy interactions. This issue reflects the broad
and overlapping nature of currently used categories in this field. A further design
problem in generic SEN studies is that they may demonstrate corre

necessarily causal connections between broad aspects of schools or teachi
learning and the identification, in a crude way, of key features of pedago
giving of feedback).
Some more focused studies of classroom practice (for example, concer
setting) have suggested differential effects for learners of differing attain
for example, evidence that lower attaining children, in particular, benefit
linguistically from mixed attainment workgroups in some literacy and
tasks (Bennett & Cass, 1988). (See Lou et al. [1996], Slavin [1987], Hall
[1997] for general reviews on ability grouping at school and class levels.
A minority of writers has noted that commonality of pedagogy
directions (Corbett & Norwich, 1999). That is, a corollary to ideas about
effectiveness from the mainstream to SEN is that effective pedagogy f
stream' may be derived from the SEN context. Examples of this transitio
pedagogy' from special to mainstream contexts is reflected in, for exam
developed by Montessori and by Feuerstein.
Effective Instruction
Pedagogy encompasses a wide range of variables about teaching (includin

sequencing of lessons, grouping arrangements, promotion of particular
tion of content etc.) Instruction is narrower and relates to teaching of a
skill or set of knowledge. This narrower focus may be illuminative in term
whether particular subgroups of pupils require different instructional pr
other learners. In summary, critical features (varying by theoretical pe
researchers) tend to be seen as applicable to all learners receiving instru
therefore reflective of a 'common pedagogy' position. (See Engelm
[1982], A. Brown [1988], Anderson [1990], G. Brown [1998] for par
grained' perspectives.)
One might expect that studies stemming from a presumption of differ
a specific SEN focus would provide a clearer base for extrapolating a val
pedagogy. Baker & Zigmond (1995), reviewing five contrasting sites
schooling, noted the tendency for group teaching decisions to dominate b
and special educators. The former focused on the class group when plan
and the latter on the (stereotypical) SEN group.
Many studies examine the identification of different pupil subgroups
increasing evidence that various groups (e.g. pupils with dyslexia, pupils
syndrome) have distinctive group characteristics. However, it does n
because a subgroup of pupils is identified as different from other learn
Gray 1997, Jordan & Oettinger Montani, 1997, both concerning mathem
et al., 1996, more generally), even if in a generalisable group-specific way
with far transfer), that effective teaching for those pupils is different from
pupils. Therefore, these studies will not be examined further becau
illuminate our fundamental questions about SEN-specific pedagogy.
Some studies and reviews (e.g. Bulgren & Carta, 1992) focus on the
pupils with learning difficulties. These explicate what is happening in c
have shown, for example, that pupils with learning difficulties (boys in pa
to be more off-task, received more teacher attention, particularly for off
and were given fewer academic questions, shorter response times an
feedback than were other pupils. Nor are these directly linked with issues about
differential pedagogy.
Similarly, many 'integration' studies (reviewed by Hegarty, 1993; Wang & Baker,
1985-86) have analysed classroom behaviours in different class settings (place-
ment x classroom behaviours) or learner outcomes in different placements (place-
ment x learner outcomes [Carlberg & Kavale, 1980]), but do not make explicit
learner X pedagogy relationships. Such work does not clarify questions about effective
pedagogy beyond the level of inference.
Other studies do not provide evidence about SEN-specific strategies contrasted with
non-SEN strategies. For example, the meta-analyses discussed by Lloyd et al. (1998)
examine effect sizes for various aspects of SEN-based teaching approaches (e.g.
perceptual training, peer tutoring, direct instruction, mnemonic training) and discuss the
relative efficacy of the various features. They start from an assumption that an
SEN-specific approach is needed and are, in effect, asking, 'which of these SEN-oriented
approaches is most effective?' The basis for the assumption that some sort of SEN-
specific approach is needed is invariably unclear, if stated at all. Such analyses provide
inferences about, but not systematic evidence for, SEN-specific pedagogy.
The following sections examine evidence about SEN group-specific learner X
teaching interactions.
Low Attainment
The literature search confirmed our focus on teaching studies which relate t
attainment in literacy or mathematics irrespective of IQ levels (Gresham et al., 1
We deal in the next section, on specific learning difficulties, with whether there
distinction between low attainment and specific learning difficulties. Researc
Reading Recovery represents one of few larger-scale studies of pedagogy focused o
attainment in literacy (Clay, 1987). Reading Recovery as an early teaching interv
for literacy difficulties does not depend on discriminating between different grou
poor readers, such as specific learning difficulties (learning disability) and low re
attainers. It is a sophisticated intervention which has been used in several countr
the lowest 20% of early readers. Its aim is the correction of inadequate strategies s
the children become independent readers through individual tutoring by highly tr
teachers. (See review of research on Reading Recovery by Demtre [1993] in S
Hurry [1995].) One of the assumptions made by reading recovery proponents is tha
programme will help those with environmentally induced difficulties and some of
with milder, organically produced difficulties (Clay, 1987). Clay's position is that
not reaching independent reading after an intervention like this need additional spe
examination and help, and that this is a more useful way to identify childre
specific learning difficulties (leaming disabilities). She quotes a figure of between
9 in 1000 children being referred on from Reading Recovery.
There have been a large number of interventions designed to prevent or count
attainment and learning difficulties in specific programmes, e.g. Milwaukee Proj
Head Start, Direct Instruction, or within wider approaches, e.g. adaptive instructio
reviews by Wang et al., 1995; Lloyd et al., 1998.) Most evaluation studies d
explore the assiduity with which such programmes have been implemente
consequently, the key pedagogic elements, as claimed by their constructors, may
diminished or lost in translation to the classroom context. Thus, the validity of
intervention variable may be questionable. Brooks et al. (1998), in a review of UK
schemes to raise literacy levels, concluded that 'normal schooling [i.e

does not enable slow readers to catch up'. However the features of ef
were those one might characterise as good 'normal' pedagogy, such as
on phonological skills within a broad approach, involving reading par
precisely targeted information technology programs. One reading of
is that 'normal' teaching needs to be improved, rather than radically di
developed for 'slow learners'.
In general, research studies involving SEN groups have reached s
conclusions to the work summarised here concerning effective pedag
core features of adaptive instruction (Wang, 1990) are described as in
* instruction based on assessed capabilities of each learner;

* each learner able to progress at own pace;
* periodic evaluation of learner's progress by the teacher;
* learner acquires increasing responsibility for own learning;
* alternative learning activities available;
* learners have opportunities for choice/decision-making;
* learners assist one another.
So, it is unsurprising that special educators have concluded that the efficacy
differential programmes for pupils with SEN remains without evidence. Thus, the mo
is towards advocacy of an amalgam of common teaching strategies informed
'effective practice' across SEN and non-SEN contexts.
In the area of teaching literacy, there has been growing evidence that approac
which emphasise phonics have generally better outcomes for word reading and spell
than meaning and context-based approaches (Snowling, 1996). Snowling includes poor
readers in this general conclusion based on studies which compare different interve
tions, such as Hatcher et al. (1994). Though Reading Recovery does not include explic
reference to phonology in its original design, it has been used with the inclusion of
explicit phonology in its teaching approach. For example, Iverson & Tunmer (19
compared Reading Recovery with and without phonology in a US trial and found th
though both reading recovery groups made more progress than controls, those receivi
phonology training learned more quickly. More recently, Sylva & Hurry (1995) cond
ted an English study of Reading Recovery compared to phonology training. They fo
that children receiving both interventions made better progress than control children
reading and writing. These outcomes were evident 1 year after the end of the interve
tions. However, Reading Recovery was the more powerful intervention over a wider
range of skills and with greater gains than the phonology intervention. It was also mo
effective with more socially disadvantaged pupils.
It has been commented that the effects of Reading Recovery after 1 year were le
striking, with the advantage over within-school controls no longer being significant.
phonology intervention also did not run for as long as the Reading Recovery o
(Snowling, 1996). However, in a subsequent 2-year follow-up, it was found that neith
Reading Recovery nor phonological training were significantly better than controls. B
interventions were ahead of controls on average, but the effects were of the order of
months (reading age) (Hurry & Sylva, 1998). It was also found that while only
phonological training had a significant effect on spelling, Reading Recovery w
especially effective with pupils who were non-readers at the start. The implications
this longer follow-up were taken to be that early intervention could be effective but t
it needed continued relevant support in the longer term.
Recent UK research into the class teaching of early reading (ER) has examined a
framework and approach which integrates children's learning of phonological skills with
other aspects of teaching reading to establish transfer to everyday class contexts (Solity
et al., 1999). What is distinctive about this approach is that teaching is distributed across
the day and emphasis is on skill fluency and generalisation. It teaches phonological
skills, phonic skills and sight vocabulary skills based on the same instructional principles
for all learners and not on individual differences. Compared to conventional teaching
over a 2-year intervention period, the ER reception year groups were on average well
above chronological age (CA) while the conventional groups were below. The lowest
25% of pupils receiving ER were 5 months below CA compared to 15 months for the
conventional teaching group. Comparisons with pupils receiving the National Literacy
Project (NLP) also showed advantages to the ER groups. In a further research phase, an
additional intervention was introduced for lower achieving pupils (5 months below CA)
in two ER classes. In addition to their three sessions per day as part of the ER
framework, they received further distributed group teaching which made goals and
principles of teaching explicit, used a wide range of books to promote generalisation, and
teaching was done in-class by the class teacher. After 6 months of this, they had made
enough progress on average to bring them within 4 months of their CA level.
What distinguishes the ER framework from the NLP, and now the National Literacy
Strategy (NLS), is the use of distributed training rather than the literacy hour. In
addition, ER focuses on phonemes at the word level and does not mix its strategies by
including larger units, such as onsets-rimes. It also teaches synthesis and segmentation
in a way that enables generalisation to unfamiliar words. The ER approach does
recognise lower attainers in literacy, even if they achieve at higher levels than low
attainers in conventional teaching. These low attainers seem to benefit from additional
ER-type teaching, though there is no evidence whether some of these reach CA level.
These pupils may be amongst those who are conventionally thought to have persistent
specific difficulties in literacy.
Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia)
There are continuing differences of position about the nature of specific learning
difficulties and their distinction from lower attainment and general difficulties in
learning, such as moderate learning difficulties. Much more research work has also been
done on defining and explaining specific difficulties than on the effectiveness of different
teaching approaches (Connor, 1994). It has also been noted that studies of differences
between groups experiencing difficulties and typical learners do not necessarily identify
factors which are causal of the difficulties and therefore relevant to teaching objectives
(Reason et al., 1988). Clay (1987) expresses a commonly held position that given the
difficulties in discriminating specific learning difficulties as a discrete kind of learning
difficulty, it would be useful to focus on intervention studies. (See Reason et al. [1999]
for current review of issues and assessment options.)
The relevance of phonological interventions for pupils with specific learning
difficulties has been demonstrated in various recent US studies (Torgeson et al., 1994;
Herrara et al., 1997), though there have been few in the UK (Brooks, 1995). Boyle &
Walker-Seibert (1997) have noted that there have been until recently few systematic
studies with specific identified kinds of difficulties that examine the impact on wider
word reading and not just the specific skills under training. These authors showed in a
small scale US study that pupils designated as having learning disabilities (LD) can
make progress in their phonological and word reading skills throug

programme (12 weeks). These researchers advise that such intervent
continued over these pupils' school career. Brooks (1995), through using
study, has shown that structure in teaching in itself was not enough for
as having 'phonological dyslexia'. A visual and semantic teaching approac
to be effective, illustrating the importance of gearing interventions to th
not just relying on approaches from group-based studies.
Most of the aforementioned interventions involve individual teaching
stream classes. By contrast, there has been one large-scale US experiment
has included pupils with LD in mainstream class study of a cooperat
reading and writing (Stevens & Slavin, 1995). This was the 2-year study
of the cooperative integrated reading and comprehension programme (C
year-olds. CIRC pupils work in mixed ability cooperative groups, using g
individual accountability, on reading and writing related to stories
reading. Teachers give the pupils explicit instruction on comprehension
use a writing process approach to teach writing. Results for all pupils sho
pupils had a higher vocabulary, comprehension and language expression,
meta-cognitive awareness and a positive impact on attitudes to readin
About 10% of pupils were considered to have LD in both CIRC and c
overall. In the control schools, they had withdrawal specialist teaching f
day, spending the rest of their time in mainstream lessons. In the CIRC c
education teachers team taught with the mainstream class teachers and
included in the cooperative groups. The CIRC pupils with LD showed
vocabulary, comprehension and language expression scores than compari
LD. A further US study using the CIRC approach (Jenkins et al., 1994) p
positive outcomes. The impact was greater on pupils identified as n
education, most designated as having LD.
There has been continuing interest by special educators in interventio
on presumed underlying processing difficulties, what have been called pr
tions. Considerable time and effort has been expended over the decades in
resolve questions about the effectiveness of these approaches The proces
areas, especially in the USA, cover the fields of psycho-linguistic and pe
training and modality testing and teaching. One response to the continuin
about these approaches has been the use of quantitative meta-analyses (K
In a summary of meta-analyses, Kavale & Dobbins (1993) show that altho
linguistic training has a small impact overall, there is a more significant
verbal expression area. By contrast, the meta-analyses show that pe
interventions are not beneficial. Nor is there meta-analytic evidence
standing interest in modality testing and teaching (aptitude X treatment i
be supported as beneficial. These analyses show considerable variation in
between different studies, with many mean effect sizes being less than
between the highest and lowest effect sizes.
In a recent review of interventions in the specific learning difficultie
(1994) expresses a commonly held perspective that step-by-step approach
involving skills in a bottom-up approach can be reconciled with meaning
ship (top-down approaches). This emphasis on a range of approaches
particularly important for pupils with literacy difficulties as too much a
focused on skills and not meaningful reading and writing. Connor also s
of self-esteem, confidence and parental support, though there are f
well-designed studies relating interventions and affective outcomes. Connor agrees with
Veluntino (1987) that specialist approaches have much in common with teaching literacy
to any pupil, though there is a tendency towards the bottom-up approaches (phonics,
phonological awareness). Other differences, according to Veluntino, involve the degree
of structure, detail, continuous assessment, record-keeping and overlearning. Snowling
(1996), in her review, also argues for the compatibility between literacy teaching which
combines phonic and whole-language approaches. She concludes that pupils with
reading difficulties, including those with specific learning difficulties (dyslexia), benefit
most from teaching which combines a focus on reading and phonological skills and the
links between them. Reason et al. (1988), in another review, concluded that there was
nothing specific about the teaching of pupils with specific learning difficulties. All pupils
required suitable 'cocktails' that reflected individual strengths, weaknesses and needs. In
a more recent review, Reason et al. (1998) note that there is less of a gap between what
is 'done for all and what is done for children with specific learning difficulties':
In principle, those learning more slowly need more time to learn and more
deliberate planning to ensure progress. (1998, p. 79)
This convergence is evident in the recent national development in the teaching of literacy
(NLS) to all pupils to include elements of phonological skills. The growing consensus
is that there are common approaches to teaching literacy for the diversity, including
those with specific learning difficulties. However, the focus on more explicit and intense
interventions (Torgeson et al., 1994) for those at risk or with literacy difficulties can
mean differences in actual programmes and something additional that is not needed by
most pupils.
There is little systematic research into teaching pupils with low mathematics attain-
ment and specific mathematics learning difficulties by comparison with the teaching of
literacy. General issues in relation to mathematics teaching and SEN have been
addressed in this country through projects and in texts (Denvir et al., 1982; Anghileri &
Daniels, 1995). Jones et al. (1997), in a recent US review of mathematics teaching to
secondary aged pupils with LD, argue that current research can, nevertheless, indicate
what the issues are and indicate procedures associated with effective teaching. Studies
show that pupils with LD have difficulties with basic operations and the language of
mathematics. As pupils experience increasing failures they also develop negative
expectations about learning mathematics and develop motivational orientations which
undermine their future mathematics learning. Jones et al. draw on the work of Carnine
and colleagues on instructional design (Carnine, 1997) as relevant here. Examples used
in teaching concepts are considered critical as pupils with learning difficulties frequently
receive insufficient examples to attain mastery. The range of examples selected is also
often inadequate. Explicitness is another crucial feature in Carnine's scheme for the
effective teaching for pupils with learning difficulties. Without explicit instructional
priorities, as Jones contends, pupils with low attainment and specific learning difficulties
are less likely to master fractions, decimals, percentages, ratios or proportions.
Though open to different interpretations, direct instruction can be understood to
involve an approach which is teacher-led, has explicit outcome expectations, systematic
prompting, structured practice, monitoring of attainments and corrective feedback and
reinforcement (Jones et al., 1997). Pupils with specific learning difficulties (related to LD
in US terms) also generally require more practice, and practice that is well designed, than
other pupils. Like other pupils, they need to be actively engaged in managing their
learning, though they tend to have difficulties in applying learning and performance
strategies. However, evidence from various US studies has shown tha

be taught to use and apply such strategies (Pressley et al., 1989)
Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD)
Many pupils labelled as MLD have no known organic cause for t

difficulties. There have been relatively few systematic studies of the
these pupils and problems in defining this pupil group have been wid
It was not possible to come to MLD-specific conclusions in relation to
foci of literacy, numeracy and self-esteem. Our findings concurred w
that 'There is little evidence of a systematic attempt to develop a 'ML
lots of evidence of multiple local initiatives'. There is no 'MLD cu
except as a nebulous and/or narrow variant of the 'mainstream curricu
and broader version of the 'developmental curriculum'.
Very few experimental studies were found in which pupils with MLD
and given selective teaching approaches. However, there was a suggesti
study (Mastropieri et al., 1997) that in science, pupils with Mild M
(MMR) may need to be told the general rule initially and then coached
of the rule (whereas other pupils could learn the rule inductively fro
One group of pupils within the MLD/SLD groups are children with
Children with Down's syndrome are characterised by bio-behaviou
although reflecting a wide spectrum of capability. A range of carefull
by Wishart and her co-workers (e.g. Wishart, 1990, 1993) is point
differences between the learning of children with Down's syndrome a
In summary, a number of researchers in this field have argued that
differences in children with Down's syndrome indicate the need for
strategies. These include: error-free (not trial and error) learning and
to counter a tendency to perseverate. Such work is suggestive but
directly the validity of a group-specific pedagogy for these pupils.
Fuchs & Fuchs (1995, 1998) make a case for a special educational
argue, having reviewed a wide range of interventions, that there are
features of an SEN-specific pedagogy. These are 'the use of emp
procedures' and 'an intensive, data-based focus on individual students
under the term 'curriculum based measurement' (CBM). They d
between learning difficulties subgroups. Fuchs & Fuchs conclude that
teaching skills could be enhanced through training in CBM technique
(with learning disabilities, possibly overlapping the 'MLD'/SpLD group
sponsive to such an adapted classroom, need 'specifically individualise
small size instructional groups, and the more highly trained teachers
special education' (1998, p. 31). One might characterise Fuchs & F
position as one of a common pedagogy underpinned by this ind
approach.
Pupils with Severe or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (SLD/PMLD)

Ware (1997) discusses the problematic notion of progress concerning these pupils and
in what terms it is to be defined. Her review of evidence concerning an SEN-specific
pedagogy for pupils with SLD or PMLD (Ware, 1999) highlights the multiplicity of
impairments which these children may experience, the commonality of children's
underlying needs and the considerable impact of personality factors (e.g. perseverance
and motivation) on the learning of pupils with PMLD. These pupils may also, unlike the
other groups reviewed here, be likely to be receiving one or more forms of regular
medication which may interfere with their learning.
The importance of establishing these pupils' readiness for learning is a strong theme
in work by practitioners in this field (e.g. Longhorn, 1993; Ouvry & Saunders, 1996).
Sensory approaches have been presented by a number of writers as valuable mechanisms
at this and initial stages of learning. Physical or sensory 'readiness' for learning is an
aspect of the teaching/learning process which is rarely considered for other pupils. (In
the EBD field, a similar issue of readiness to learn tends to be approached from a
motivational angle.)
Behavioural approaches to the teaching of pupils with SLD/PMLD have been popular
and while they remain so with some writers (e.g. Ouvry & Saunders, 1996; Farrell,
1997), others (e.g. Hewett & Nind, 1992) have argued for more interactive approaches
to be developed. These latter approaches may be seen as different from effective
pedagogy with other pupils in terms of, for example, provision of a continuous running
commentary (Hewett & Nind, 1992). However, many interactive approaches are strongly
reminiscent of work with non-disabled pupils (e.g. Grove, 1998).
Intervention studies for pupils with SLD/PMLD constitute a highly specialised and
fragmented collection. Particular conditions (e.g. pupils with autistic spectrum disorders,
spina bifida) have been associated with various programmes, often contrasting in their
underlying rationale. Evaluations of interventions with these pupils tend to be small scale
(n < 15), but intensive. They often involve children with highly individualised patterns
of functioning, compounding behavioural and cognitive difficulties. We found no studies
in which explicit and systematic comparisons were made between different types of
pedagogic intervention for these pupils or in which some other form of systematic
experimental control enabled reliable judgements to be made about SEN-specific
compared with other pedagogy.
Bray et al. (1988), in reviewing the education of children with profound and multiple
learning difficulties, concluded that work in this field was increasingly approximating to
what was recognised as good mainstream teaching. A contrasting view was taken by
Hodapp (1998) in a review of work on organic causes of learning difficulties. Hodapp
noted that children with severe abnormalities, as shown by EEG traces, appeared not to
show similar developmental sequences in cognitive development to those of other
children. However, the considerable problems in conducting valid and reliable assess-
ments of these children necessitates caution about this conclusion.
A middle position is reflected in a comprehensive review (Jordan et al., 1998) into
educational interventions for children with autism. Their summaries of others' meta-
analyses of features of successful intervention programmes point to a combination of
'common pedagogy' and SEN-specific features. The former, common features, includes
reference to the involvement of parents and the importance of social interaction. More
specialised features include the need for routine, the use of visual cueing and explicit
teaching of specific generalisation strategies. The inference from this review is that
pupils with autism do need some pedagogical strategies which differ from those used
routinely with other children. It is not clear how specific to the autistic group such
strategies may be.
Similarly Ware's (1999) article, connected with this review, noted areas of common-
ality between PMLD and other learners but also cited various studies showing differ-
ences between the groups in terms of learning strategy. For example, she cited work by
Barber & Goldbart showing that learners with PMLD did not, except
situations, learn to modify attention-getting strategies which were in
made the broader point that, in general, pupils with PMLD, compared
tally or chronologically matched peers, spend a larger proportion of th
which are not conducive to learning. Thus, checking and ensuring
learning is particularly important for teachers of these pupils.
Overall, the literature on teaching interventions for pupils with se
multiple learning difficulties provides some support for differen
pedagogical practice; for example, towards a greater need to check th
a 'ready' state for learning. Arguably, this is different in degree, but
checking, with a mainstream class, that all the pupils are paying
instructions are being given to the whole class. Linked with this, Bra
work suggesting that instructional strategies are less important determ
learning than are some qualitative aspects of teacher-child interaction
These may be particularly important for pupils who are very de
interaction (for example, for basic care). Further, if pupil-pupil
significant in fostering cognitive gains as much recent constructivist w
pupils with profound or multiple learning difficulties may be consider
through their limited communication with other children. Teaching of
need to address this directly as otherwise they may be missing
serendipitous and beneficial interactions with other pupils.
Discussion and Conclusions
In our review, we have found a trend away from SEN-specific pedagog

emerged in various ways. This took the form of generic teaching effectivene
which assumed that what works with most pupils would also work for all pup
outcomes of these studies are general teaching principles which might apply to
However, little direct evidence for this has been presented in the areas of
difficulties which we have covered in this review. Even if these principles, su
teacher provides the learner with feedback, are general enough to be applicab
learners, a general principle like this is too imprecise. Even when a more
principle is applicable to all learners, it may need to be applied in practice in
ways for those with learning difficulties. This distinction between common t
principles and strategies and different practical ways of applying and implemen
for pupils with difficulties in learning is a crucial one.
The trend away from SEN-specific pedagogies was also evident in some
papers and chapters by SEN specialists. Though mostly unsubstantiated by em
evidence, these expressed what we have called the unique differences posi
rejects distinctive SEN teaching strategies and accepts that there are common
principles which are relevant to the unique differences between all pupils, inc
those considered to be designated as having SEN. However, this position is qua
some recognition of the need for more intense and focused teaching for those
This qualification relates to the aforementioned distinction between pedagogic p
and practical ways of applying them in particular cases and situations.
The trend away from SEN-specific pedagogies is also evident in studies whic
retrospectively for learner differences in generic studies as well as studies whic
specific SEN group focus. However, many studies examine the learning charac
of various subgroups, (such as Down's syndrome) and show general difference
the SEN and non-SEN groups. Though these differences may suggest differences in
teaching, they do not show that distinctive teaching is optimal for these subgroups. Other
studies either focus on classroom learning behaviours or learning outcomes in terms of
different placements (special versus mainstream schools and classes). They also do not
show SEN-specific learner x teaching interactions.
The lack of evidence in our review to support SEN-specific pedagogies might be
surprising as there is a persistent sense that special education means special pedagogy
to many teachers and researchers. In not finding these distinctive pedagogies, we can
either hold onto the hunch that such special pedagogies do exist and that the research is
failing to identify them but will do so in time. One option is to consider that teaching
decisions may, in theory, still come to be based on distinctive pedagogies, but that the
bases of the general groups to which they apply have not yet been identified. More
pedagogically relevant groups may be identified in terms of learning process, such as
learning styles (Read, 1998), than in terms of general patterns of attainment and current
cognitive abilities (e.g. MLD, SpLD). If what we have called the general differences
position to teaching pupils with SEN is to be maintained, then it is likely to be along
these lines.
Alternatively, we may reject a distinctive SEN pedagogy perspective and accept the
commonality of pedagogy because SEN subgroups (MLD, SpLD and so on) are not
associated with specific pedagogies. As Skrtic (1999) argues, all pupils have unique
learning needs which call for decisions about teaching to be informed through individual
assessment. This is an expression of what we have called the unique differences position.
However, the unique difference position, expressed in this way, is not the end of the
matter. Our review indicates that although common teaching principles and strategies are
relevant to the subgroups we have considered, more intensive and explicit teaching is
also relevant to pupils with different patterns and degrees of difficulties in learning. At
this point in the conclusion, we need to recall that the subgroups we have considered do
not represent categorically distinct groupings, but a range of pupils along continua of
attainment and current cognitive abilities. There are many pupils whose difficulties in
learning make it hard to place them clearly in one or other subgroup as this depends on
where cut-offs between the subgroups are drawn. This is what has been called the
continuum of SEN, which has usually been matched with a continuum of special
provision. The continuum of special provision refers to the different kinds of settings,
organisational and staffing arrangements, from the most integrated (mainstream classes
without any additional support) to the most segregated (residential special schooling).
What has been missing in talk about continua of special needs and special provision has
been the notion of continua of teaching or pedagogic approaches. The concept of a
continuum implies that there are differences of degree, so by teaching continua we mean
that the various strategies and procedures which make up teaching can be considered in
terms of whether they are used more or less in practice. It is also important at this stage
in the discussion to remember that some pupils with SEN might need more of common
teaching approaches at some times, but some distinct kinds of teaching at other times.
This could be relevant to other areas of SEN which we have not considered in this
review.
The position we have developed is also consistent with other research which s
how pupils with different kinds of learning difficulties are not provided for ade
in general class teaching. For example, teachers have been shown to move on be
attainers have reached mastery (Silbert et al., 1990). Such research indicates the n
more practice time. This would be one of the strands of teaching which
considered to lie along a continuum. From this review, we suggest that

facets of teaching where additional emphasis on common teachin
required, depending on the individual learning needs of those with lear
covered here. For example, more practice to achieve mastery, more exa
concepts, more experience of transfer, and more careful checking for
next stage of learning. In proposing the notion of continua of teaching
not suggesting that practical instances of teaching at distant points on th
look distinct or different. However, teaching which emphasises high lev
mastery, more examples of a concept, more error-free learning, m
phonological approaches to literacy, for instance, is not qualitatively di
teaching which involves less emphasis on these approaches.
Acknowledgement
The work on which this article was supported by the British Educ
Association as part of the National Events Programme 1999. A fuller ve
article is provided in A. Lewis & B. Norwich (2000) Mapping a Peda
Educational Needs (School of Education, University of Exeter).
Correspondence: Brahm Norwich, University of Exeter, School of Educ

Road, Exeter EXi 2LU, UK.
REFERENCES
ANDERSON, J. R. (1990) The Adaptive Character of Thought (Hove, Lawrence Earlbaum

ANGHILERI, J. & DANIELS, H. (1995) Secondary School Mathematics and Special Edu
(London, Cassell).
ASKEW, M., BROWN, M., JOHNSON, D., RHODES, V. & WILLIAM, D. (1997) Effective Teacher
(London, Teacher Training Agency).
BAKER, J. & ZIGMOND, N. (1995) The meaning and practice of inclusion for students
disabilities: themes and implications from the five cases, Journal of Special E
pp. 163-180.
BENNETT, N. & CASS, A. (1988) The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and
pupil understanding, British Educational Research Journal, 15, pp. 19-32.
BOYLE, J. R. & WALKER-SEIBERT, T. (1997) The effects of phonological awareness strategy on the reading
skills of children with mild difficulties, Learning Disability, 8, pp. 143-153.
BRAY, A., McARTHUR, J. & BALLARD, K. D. (1988) Education for pupils with profound disabilities: issues
of policy, curriculum, teaching methods and evaluation, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 3, pp. 207-223.
BROOKS, G., FLANAGAN, N., HENKHUZENS, Z. & HUTCHISON, D. (1998) What Works for Slow Readers?
The Effectiveness of Early Intervention Schemes (Slough, National Foundation for Educational
Research).
BROOKS, P. (1995) A comparison of the effectiveness of different teaching strategies in teaching spelling
to a student with severe specific learning difficulties/dyslexia, Educational and Child Psychology, 12,
pp. 80-88.
BROWN, S. & MCINTYRE, D. (1993) Making Sense of Teaching (Buckingham, Open University Press).
BROWN, A. L. (1988) Motivation to learn and understand: on taking charge of one's own learning,
Cognition and Instruction, 5, pp. 311-321.
BROWN, G. (1998) The endpoint of reading instruction: the ROAR model, in: J. L. METSALA & L. C. EHRI
(Eds) Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy (Mahwah, NJ, LEA).
BULGREN, J. A. & CARTA, J. L. (1992) Examining the instructional contexts of students with learning
disabilities, Exceptional Children, 59, pp. 182-191.
CARLBERG, C. & KAVALE, K. (1980) The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for
exceptional children: a meta-analysis, Journal of Special Education, 14, pp. 295-309.
CARNINE, D. (1997) Instructional design in mathematics for students with disabilities, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 2, pp. 130-141.
CLAY, M. (1987) Learning to be learning disabled, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22,
pp. 155-165.
CONNOR, M. (1994) Specific learning difficulty (dyslexia) and interventions, Support for Learning,
pp. 114-119.
COOPER, P. & MCINTYRE, D. (1996) Effective Teaching and Learning (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
CORBETT, J. & NORWICH, B. (1999) Learners with special educational needs, in: P. MORTIMORE (Ed.)
Pedagogy and Its Impact on Learning (Lewes, Sage).
CREEMERS, B. (1997) Effective schools and effective teachers: an international perspective (Coventry,
University of Warwick, CREPE Occasional Paper).
DENVIR, B., STOLZ, C. & BROWN, M. (1982) Low attainers in Mathematics 5-16: problems and practices
in school (London, Methuen).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFEE) (1997) Excellence for All Children (London, The Stationery
Office).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFEE) (1998) National Literacy Strategy: additional guidance. Children
with Special Educational Needs (London, DfEE).
DYSON, A. (1999) Children with moderate learning difficulties, presentation to Mapping a SEN Peda-
gogy, invited seminar, British Educational Research Association, National Events Programme,
University of London, April.
ENGELMANN, S. & CARNINE, D. (1982) Theory of Instruction: principles and applications (New York,
Irvington).
EARRELL, P. (1997) Teaching Pupils with Learning Difficulties: strategies and solutions (London,
Cassell).
FUCHS, D. & FUCHS, L. (1995) What's 'special' about special education? Phi Delta Kappan, March,
pp. 522-530.
FUCHS, L. S. & FUCHS, D. (1998) General educators' instructional adaptations for students with learning
disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, pp. 23-33.
GIPPS, C. & MACGILCHRIST, B. (1999) Primary school learners in understanding, in: P. MORTIMORE (Ed.)
Pedagogy and Its Impact on Learning (London, Sage).
GRESHAM, F. M., MACMILLAN, D. L. & BOCIAN, K. M. (1996) Learning disabilities, low achievement, and
mild mental retardation: more alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, pp. 570-581.
GROVE, N. (1998) Literature for All (London, David Fulton).
HALLAM, S. & TOUTOUNJI, L. (1997) What Do We Know about the Grouping of Pupils by Ability?
(London, University of London, Institute of Education).
HATCHER, P. J., HULME, C. & ELLIS, A. W. (1994) Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the
teaching of reading and phonological skills: the phonological linkage hypothesis, Child Development,
65, pp. 41-57.
HEGARTY, S. (1993) Reviewing the literature on integration, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 8, pp. 194-200.
HERRARA, J. A., LOGAN, C. H., COOKER, P. G., MORRIS, D. P. & LYMAN, D. E. (1997) Phonological
awareness and phonetic-graphic conversion: a study of the effects on two interventions paradigms
with learning disability children. Learning disability or learning difference? Reading Improvement, 32,
pp. 71-89.
HEWETT, D. & NIND, M. (1992) Returning to the basics: a curriculum at Harpenbury Hospital School, in:
T. BOOTH, W. SWANN, M. MASTERTON & P. POTrrTS (Eds) Learning for All I: curricula for diversity in
education, pp. 200-210 (Buckingham, Open University Press).
HODAPP, R. (1998) Development and disabilities-intellectual, sensory and motor impairments (Cam-
bridge, Cambridge University Press).
HURRY, J. & SYLVA, K. (1998) Long Term Effects of Early Intervention for Children with Reading
Difficulties, (London, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).
IVERSEN, S. & TUNMER, W. E. (1993) Phonological skills and the reading recovery programme, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 85, pp. 112-126.
JENKINS, J., LEWELL, M., LEICESTER, N., O'CONNOR, R., JENKINS, L. & TROUTNER, N. (1994) Accom-
modations for individual differences without classroom ability groups: an experiment in school
restructuring, Exceptional Children, 60, pp. 344-358.
JONES, E. D., WILSON, R. & BHOJWANI, S. (1997) Mathematics instruction for secondary students with
learning disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, pp. 151-163.
JORDAN, R., JONES, G. & MURRAY, D. (1998) Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: a
literature review of recent and current research, DfEE Research Report RR 77 (L

for Education and Employment).
JORDAN, N. C. & OETTINGER MONTANI, T. (1997) Cognitive arithmetic and problem s
of children with specific and general mathematics difficulties, Journal of Learn
pp. 624-634.
KAVALE, K. A. (1981) The potential advantages of meta-analyses techniques for research in special
education, Journal of Special Education, 18, pp. 61-72.
KAVALE, K. A. & DOBBINS, D. A. (1993) The equivocal nature of special education interventions, Early
Child Development and Care, 86, pp. 23-37.
LEWIS, A. & NORWICH, B. (1999) Mapping a pedagogy for special educational needs, Research
Intelligence, 69, pp. 6-8.
LLOYD, J. W., FORNESS, S. R. & KAVALE, K. A. (1998) Some methods are more effective than others,
Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, pp. 195-200.
LONGHORN, F. (1993) Prerequisites for Learning for Very Special People (Woking, Catalyst).
Lou, Y., ABRAMI, P. C., SPENCE, J. C., POULSEN, C., CHAMBERS, B. & D'APOLLONIA, S. (1996) within class
grouping: a meta analysis, Review of Educational Research, 66, pp. 423-458.
MASTROPIERI, M. A., SCRUGGS, T. E. & BUTCHER, K. (1997) How effective is inquiry learning for students
with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 31, pp. 199-211.
NORWICH, B. (1996) Special needs education, inclusive education or just education for all. Inaugural
Talk, London University, Institute of Education.
OUVRY, C. & SAUNDERS, S. (1996) Pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties, in: B.
CARPENTER, R. ASHDOWN & K. BOVAIR (Eds) Enabling Access: effective teaching and learning for
pupils with learning difficulties, pp. 201-217 (London, David Fulton).
PITTA, D. & GRAY, E. (1997) In the mind ... what can imagery tell us about success and failure in
arithmetic? pp. 29-41 in: G. A. MAKRIDES (Ed.) Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference
on Mathematics, Nicosia, Cyprus, pp. 29-41 (Cyprus, University of Nicosia Press).
PRESSLEY, M., SYMONS, S., SNYDER, B. L. & CARIGLIA-BULL, T. (1989) Strategy instruction has come of
age, Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, pp. 16-30.
READ, G. (1998) Promoting inclusion through learning styles, in: C. TILSTONE, L. FLORIAN & R. ROSE
(Eds) Promoting Inclusive Practice, pp. 128-137 (London, Routledge).
REASON, R., BROWN, B., COLE, M. & GREGORY, M. (1988) Does the specific in specific learning
difficulties make a difference in the way we teach? Support for Learning, 3, pp. 230-236.
REASON, R., FREDERICKSON, N., HEFFERNAN, M., MARTIN, C. & WOODS, K. (1999) Dyslexia, Literacy and
Psychological Assessment, Draft Report by a Working Party of the Division of Educational and Child
Psychology, (Leicester, British Psychological Society).
SCHEERENS, J. (1989) Effective Schooling: research, theory and practice (London, Cassell).
SILBERT, J., CARNINE, D. & STEIN, M. (1990) Direct Instruction Mathematics, 2nd edn (Columbus, OH,
Merrill).
SKRTIC, T. M. (1999) Learning disabilities as organisational pathologies, in: R. J. STERNBERG & L.
SPEAR-SWIRLING (Eds) Perspectives on Learning Disabilities, pp. 193-226 (New York, Westview
Press).
SLAVIN, R. L. (1987) Ability grouping in elementary schools: do we really know nothing until we know
everything? Review of Educational Research, 57, pp. 347-350.
SLEE, R., WEINER, G. & TOMLINSON, S. (Eds) (1998) School effectiveness for Whom? (London, Falmer
Press).
SNOWLING, M. J. (1996) Contemporary approaches to the teaching of reading, Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, pp. 139-148.
SOLITY, J., DEAVERS, R. & KERFOOT, S. (1999) The early reading research: implications for word level
work within the National Literacy Strategy, paper for Office for Standards in Education seminar, The
importance of phonics in learning to read and write, 29 April.
STEVENS, R. J. & SLAVIN, R. E. (1995) Effects of co-operative learning approaches in reading and
writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students, Elementary School Journal, 95,
pp. 241-262.
SYLVA, K. & HURRY, J. (1995) Early Intervention in Children with Reading Difficulties: an evaluation
of reading recovery and a phonological training, Thomas Coram Research Unit Report. London,
School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
TTA (1998) National Standards for Special Educational Needs Coordination (London, TTA).
TTA (1999) National Special Educational Needs Specialist Standards (London, TTA).
TORGESON, J. K., WAGNER, R. K. & RASHOTTE, C. A. (1994) Longitudinal studies of phonological

processing and reading, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, pp. 276-286.
VELUNTINO, F. (1987) Dyslexia, Scientific American, 256, pp. 34-41.
WANG, M. C. (1990) Learning characteristics of students with special needs and the provision of effective
schooling, in: M. C. WANG, M. C. REYNOLDS & H. J. WALBERG (Eds) Special Education Research and
Practice: synthesis of findings, pp. 1-34 (Oxford, Pergamon).
WANG, M. & BAKER, E. (1985-86) Mainstreaming programs: design features and effects, Journal of
Special Education, 19, pp. 503-521.
WANG, M. C., REYNOLDS, M. C. & WALBERG, H. J. (1995) Handbook of Special and Remedial Education:
research and practice (Oxford, Elsevier).
WATE, J. (1997) Education, progress and pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties,
Curriculum, 18, pp. 28-36.
WARE, J. (1999) Children with severe and profound learning difficulties, presentation to Mapping a SEN
pedagogy, invited seminar, British Educational Research Association National Events Programme,
University of London, Institute of Education, April.
WISHART, J. G. (1990) Learning to learn: the difficulties faced by children and young people with Down's
syndrome, in: W. I. FRASER (Ed.) Key Issues in Research in Mental Retardation, pp. 249-261 (London,
Routledge).
WISHART, J. G. (1993) The development of learning difficulties in children with Down's syndrome,
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37, pp. 389-403.
YATES, G. C. R. & YATES, S. M. (1990) Teacher effectiveness research: towards describing user-friendly
classroom instruction, Educational Psychology, 10, pp. 225-238.

Additional Reading 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additional Reading 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Additional Reading 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BERA

Mapping a Pedagogy for Special Educational Needs

Mapping a Pedagogy for Special

BRAHM NORWICH, University of Exeter

An assumption underlying recent government documents is that the effective curricul

Received 4 March 2000; resubmitted 21 June 2000; accepted 21 June 2000.

Literacy Strategy and pupils with SEN (DfEE, 1998). Similarly, th

Setting Parameters for the Review

Two questions are central to our review.

At the start of the review we formulated a conceptual framework, based on Norwich

Effective Pedagogy in General

There is an extensive literature relating to pedagogy and 'effectiveness'. This enc

problem in generic SEN studies is that they may demonstrate corre

Pedagogy encompasses a wide range of variables about teaching (includin

schemes to raise literacy levels, concluded that 'normal schooling [i.e

* instruction based on assessed capabilities of each learner;

Specific Learning Difficulties (Dyslexia)

make progress in their phonological and word reading skills throug

strategies. However, evidence from various US studies has shown tha

Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties (MLD)

Many pupils labelled as MLD have no known organic cause for t

Pupils with Severe or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (SLD/PMLD)

Discussion and Conclusions

In our review, we have found a trend away from SEN-specific pedagog

considered to lie along a continuum. From this review, we suggest that

Correspondence: Brahm Norwich, University of Exeter, School of Educ

ANDERSON, J. R. (1990) The Adaptive Character of Thought (Hove, Lawrence Earlbaum

literature review of recent and current research, DfEE Research Report RR 77 (L

TORGESON, J. K., WAGNER, R. K. & RASHOTTE, C. A. (1994) Longitudinal studies of phonological

You might also like