Journal Critique

Journal critique

Background information.

Through a brief background information of the journal the author puts a cross the main subject of discussion. Background information in an essay usually acts as an indicator of the subject in question. We get to learn that the author wants to talk about the controversies surrounding inclusion system in the academic sector since it also touches on social values.

Problem statement

The problem statement talks of the varying point of view of inclusion. James Kauffman of Virginia University believes that inclusion policy is unrealistical because it forces all students to fit into residential institution or a form of special education regardless of whether the child is disabled or not. The lack of special attention to the disabled according to him is a way of saving money and is inconsiderate. While another group of people view inclusion as a good mode since all students would have equal treatment as they belong to one regular classroom. Teachers are supposed to satisfy the need of each student depending on their capability differences.

Another challenge that arises is the in-betweens who are confused and not aware of the concept and not sure of the stand that should be taken to address students with disabilities. These extremes are what develop the problem statement of the journal.

Journal critique

Hypothesis and objectives.

The writer begins by justifying that any discussion that deals with inclusion should address questions to deal with if all children are valued equally, what is meant by inclusion and whether inclusion is inappropriate for other children. The questions apart from helping the writer to speculate on the research outcome, they provide testable hypothesis of the research as well as what the objectives of the script. The main goal of the journal is to provide an overview of inclusion as concept and to suggest recommendations that be of help in ensuring all students’ needs are fulfilled.

Problem documentation

The author first defines the technical terms like inclusion, mainstream and full inclusion. He then explores the problem through subtopics concerning the Federal Law point o ff view on inclusion and on courts decisions of different cases concerning inclusion. These subtopics form the main body of the journal. However, the author ought to have written a brief statement about of the court cases and what significance they contribute to his argument. The reader gets to learn more about the concept of inclusion within the subtopic on Federal Law on inclusion.

I therefore feel this topic could have formed part of background information. Since it is here that we learn more concerning the writer’s argument on inclusion. In stating the cases, instead of using name titles, the author ought to put a clear distinction of each through titles that define each case. For instance the case of School District of Wisconsin Dells v. Z.S(7th circuit court, 2002) could have the title, home schooling against Public schooling following the child’s predicaments in a social set up.

Literature review

Journal critique

Extensive use of literature has been used to acknowledge earlier materials touching on the topic such as research findings of Affleck Madge and others on classroom verses resource model to test academic viability and its effectiveness.

Methodology

With no availability of comparative information for the two learning programs; the inclusive and the separate program, the researcher has opted to use available reviews studied on handicapped students under special education. A sample of fifty studies was chosen in which the target population were students with physical limitations were chosen. Their performance was determined depending on the learning environment they were in; that is integration versus segregation. Findings indicated that the score of integrated handicapped children was at eighty percent while the segregated children scored fifty percent.

Another study at John Hopkins University was used in this research, called success for all that measured kindergarten children achievements. Other subjects involved were teachers and family members who helped children during an eight week period of reading and assessment. Another control group was used against success for all programs to determine the latter’s success. This research demonstrated on the need of early intervention of children’s success in reading. The findings also indicated well funded schools contributed to best results.

Limitations in these researches were that the focuses on reading ability only and did not take into consideration other subjects like mathematics and sciences. That is why handicapped students in both integrated and segregated mode of education had similar scores. Court cases are ruled depending on a child’s unique case therefore there is no standard stand based on inclusion especially in determining the cost of a handicapped child in a district school since

Journal critique

expensiveness is relative. It is also obvious that the students from highly funded schools could perform better than those not because of the availability of better learning materials and facilities. This affected the results and is therefore not right to make such a conclusion.

In determining the truth of a research finding all important factors should be taken into consideration. Variables should have very little if no principle that could alter the results. A more general approach could be used in this case that would consider all academic subjects are taken into consideration for tentative results. Another question that arose with the finding that students from highly funded school perform better than those from lowly funded schools was questionable. Variables of the same level should be analyzed against each other.

Reference

Wisconsin Education Association Council. Retrieved from http://

On 18th January 2010