Search

As genetic testing becomes increasingly utilized in health care, consumer awareness and understanding is critical. Both are reported to be low in Australia, though there are limited studies to date. A consumer survey assessed perceived knowledge, awareness and attitudes toward genetic medicine, prior to consumers’ genomics forums in Queensland in 2018 and 2019. Data was analyzed using t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests analysis to detect any associations between sociodemographic factors and familiarity or attitudes. This highly educated and experienced health consumer cohort reported they were significantly more familiar with the healthcare system generally than genetic medicine specifically (p < 0.0001). Consumers perceived that genetic testing would be significantly more important in the future than it is currently (p < 0.00001). Consumers agreed that genetic testing should be promoted (91.4%), made available (100%), better funded (94.2%), and offered to all pregnant women (81.6%). The preferred learning modality about genetics was internet sites (62.7%) followed by talks/presentations (30.8%). Benefits of genetic testing, reported in qualitative responses, included the potential for additional information to promote personal control and improve healthcare. Perceived concerns included ethical implications (including privacy and discrimination), and current limitations of science, knowledge and/or practice. This study demonstrates that even knowledgeable consumers have little familiarity with genetic medicine but are optimistic about its potential benefits. Ethical concerns, particularly concerns regarding genetic discrimination should inform legislation and policy. Consumers are supportive of online resources in increasing genomic literacy.

Using design research methodology, we explored changes in experienced educators’ beliefs, knowledge, and practices related to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) following a professional development course for in-service teachers and teacher leaders on UDL and design thinking. Data included analysis of focus groups 9 months after the summer professional development course. Findings indicated shifts in educators’ beliefs about UDL, moving from conceptions of UDL as a static, inflexible framework to a “way of thinking” – moment-to-moment responsiveness to students’ access needs. Another finding was the importance of empathy interviews as a practice to learn about students and build relationships. Participants stressed the importance of questioning one’s own deficit thinking about students with disabilities. We call for more investigations into teacher knowledge, beliefs, and practices on UDL.

Conversations of educational equity in mathematics necessitate a more deliberate, nuanced look at the mathematical processes of learning for students of color from historically marginalized communities. This paper describes the theoretical work of a research collaborative that seeks to develop understanding of the experiences around mathematical identity of Latinas labeled with Learning Disabilities in mathematics classrooms. Expanding the theory of Complex Embodiment from Disability Studies, we explore new interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological tools to analyze the emotional, embodied experience of learning mathematics in the social worlds of mathematics classrooms, using emotional discourse. We take up theoretical and methodological practices around intersectionality through analysis of how power and positioning operate in mathematics identity development. We find that the young woman whose narratives we explore in this paper is positioned through deficit discourses around disability and multilingual learners, yet she understands herself through a positive mathematical affinity she shares with her mother. Over time, we see her narratives shift emotionally away from mathematics, as well as away from this connection with her mother. Her narratives help us develop a theoretical perspective that understands emotion in mathematics learning as both embodied and socially constructed.

Faced with issues, such as drought and climate change, educators around the world acknowledge the need for developing students' ability to solve problems within and across contexts. A systems thinking pedagogy, which recognizes interdependence and interconnected relationships among concrete elements and abstract concepts (Meadows, 2008; Senge et al., 2012), has potential to transform the classroom into a space of observing, theorizing, discovering, and analyzing, thus linking academic learning to the real world. In a qualitative case study in one school located in a major metropolitan area in California, USA teachers and their 7- and 8-year-old students used systems thinking in an interdisciplinary project-based curriculum. Through reflection and investigations, students devised solutions and used innovative approaches to publicly engage peers and family members in taking action to address an environmental crisis.

While the COVID-19 pandemic radically changed all aspects of everyone’s life, the closure of schools was one of the most impactful, significantly altering daily life for school personnel, students, and families. The shift to Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) presented particular challenges to special educators of students with significant support needs who often benefit from strong interpersonal connections, modeling, and the use of physical manipulatives. This paper details the experiences of two elementary special education teachers as they navigated the transition to ERT. The teachers reported three distinct stages of ERT: making contact, establishing routines, and transitioning to academics. They also discussed the challenges they faced during this period, such as the inequity in resources amongst their students, needing to rely on at-home support in order to meaningfully teach students, and changes in what it meant to be a teacher while having to teach online. While clearly not in favor of online learning, the teachers do present glimmers of hope, for example, with regards to increased communication between teachers and parents. The challenges and strategies used to overcome these challenges will be of use to educators in the coming months, with implications for distance learning in this population.

This paper describes two myths that circulate widely about the potential of students with Learning Disabilities to learn mathematics: (1) that students with Learning Disabilities cannot benefit from inquiry-based instruction in mathematics, and only from explicit instruction; and (2) that students with Learning Disabilities cannot construct their own mathematical strategies and do not benefit from engaging with multiple strategies. In this paper, I will describe how these myths have developed, and identify research that counters these myths. I argue that these myths are the unintended consequences of deficit constructions of students with Learning Disabilities in educational research. Using neurodiversity to frame disability as diversity rather than deficit, I assert that students with Learning Disabilities can learn mathematics to the highest levels, and that these limiting mythologies hold them back.

Students with disabilities are often framed as “the problem” and have limited opportunities to engage in standards based mathematics, leading to persistent underachievement. In this paper, we investigate a research divide between mathematics educational research for students with and without disabilities, a divide with significant differences in the theoretical orientations and research methodologies used to understand learners. Based on an analysis of 149 mathematics educational research articles published between 2013 and 2015, we found significant differences between articles focused on learners with and without disabilities. For those with disabilities, mathematical problem solving was understood primarily from behavioral and information processing theoretical perspectives, while for those without disabilities, problem solving was understood primarily through constructivist and sociocultural perspectives. While 86% of research on problem-solving including students with disabilities was quantitative, only 35% of research on students without disabilities was quantitative. Fifty percent of problem-solving research on students without disabilities was qualitative, compared to only 6% of research on students with disabilities. Problem solving, then, is studied in very different ways for learners with and without disabilities. Students without disabilities are studied through close analysis of learning, often individual. Students with disabilities are most often studied quantitatively, in groups, with little analysis of individual thinking. By offering only a limited range of methods and theoretical orientations, this research divide reifies deficit constructions of students with disabilities.