2023, Vol.24, No.4

Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.96

pISSN : 1598-060X / eISSN : 2734-0090
https://journal.kci.go.kr/jsped

[Purpose] The purpose of this study is to analyze elements and types of preliminary special education teachers’ linguistic interactions in elementary subject simulated teaching in which students with visual impairments are included. [Methods] To achieve the goals, the 40-minute classes was recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed through the interaction analysis framework prepared in this study. [Results] The results of the study are as follows; First, among the interaction elements, the number of teacher feedbacks was the highest, i.e., 995 (38.49%), followed by teacher questioning 852 (32.96%), student questioning 729 (28.20%), and student feedback 9 (0.35%). Several types of feedback that promote interactions in both teacher and student feedback were observed. Similarly, several types of administrative and reactive questionings were observed in teacher and student questionings, respectively. Second, teacher-initiated interactions among the interaction types were more than student-initiated interactions. Among the teacher-initiated interactions, the interaction that led to teacher questioning, student response, and teacher feedback was higher than that of only teacher questioning and student response. [Conclusion] Since verbal interaction is important in class, efforts to improve teaching ability are needed in consideration of the frequency and application characteristics of interaction elements and types of prospective special teachers in the teacher training process. The results of this study, which confirmed the level of interaction of prospective special teachers, can be used as basic data to develop their teaching skills that can facilitate learning of students with/without visual impairments and increase the effectiveness of teaching in elementary school classes, including visually impaired students.

[Purpose] This article critically examines prominent studies in the field of Disability Studies in Education (DSE) in the United States, analyzing their primary arguments and limitations. [Methods] A comprehensive literature review was conducted, focusing on significant studies within the Disability Studies in Education Special Interest Group (DSE-SIG) of the American Educational Research Association(AERA). [Results] DSE challenges the positivist paradigm prevalent in special and inclusive education, offering a social constructionist perspective on disability. DSE scholars critique the oppressive mechanisms of fictional norms that establish hierarchical binary categories, leading to marginalization of indivisuals labeled with disabilities. They perceive difference as a natural facet of human variation and advocate for its recognition and celebration. However, these alternative perspectives offered by DSE exhibit certain limitations. While critiquing the adverse impacts of norms and categories used by scholars of special and inclusive education, they simultaneously demonstrate crypto-normative tendencies themselves and employ categories they aim to deconstruct, resulting in self-contradiction. To circumvent this contradiction, they can only assume the role of observers without proposing viable alternatives. [Conclusion] Normative judgments and categorizations play a crucial role in discussing and addressing disability-related issues, such as discrimination and exclusion. A neutral stance on differences or the mere normalization of differences proves to be inadequate in resolving disability-related challenges. When existing policies and institutions fall short, the solution does not entail dismantling norms, but rather involves making more informed judgments and presenting improved alternatives.

[Purpose] This study aims to evaluate solution ability according to the type of learning presentation (e.g., power point, booklet, and video) in non-face-to-face usage class for adults with developmental disabilities and then to identify effective types of learning presentation in such classes. [Methods] The subjects of this study were adults with developmental disabilities; their living age was 18–25 years. A total of 36 people were included, with 12 people each in the following age groups: 6–8, 9–11, and 12 years or older. By developing a test tool that included the correct SNS utilization method, we evaluated the subjects’ ability to solve according to the type of learning material presentation. [Results] When there was a difference in the type of presentation of learning materials, videos showed a lower resolution than PPTs and booklets. In addition, the participants’ ability to solve problems increased with their language ability. –8, 9–11, and 12 or older increased compared with the three groups in terms of language level. [Conclusion] This study produced meaningful results in terms of identifying alternative solutions to the types of learning materials presented to adults with developmental disabilities in non-face-to-face classes, and it is expected to be used as the basis for future development of learning data presentation types.