The relative effects of university success courses and individualized interventions for students with learning disabilities

Little is known about the relative effects of post‐secondary learning services for students with learning disabilities. We compared outcomes for students with learning disabilities who selected to: (1) take an academic learning success course (course‐intervention), (2) have regular individual interventions (high‐intervention) or (3) use services only as needed (low‐intervention). Pre‐ and post‐test comparisons revealed improvements in academic self‐efficacy and academic resourcefulness for students in the course‐ and high‐intervention groups. The course‐intervention group also showed decreases in their failure attributions to bad luck and increases in their general repertoire of learned resourcefulness skills in comparison to the high‐intervention group and had significantly higher year‐end GPAs in comparison to the low‐intervention group. Here we find positive outcomes for students with learning disabilities taking a course that teaches post‐secondary learning and academic skills.     

TYPES OF ACADEMIC EXCHANGES AND TARGET GROUPS: BALANCES AND IMBALANCES

The article considers, on one hand, the need to increase East‐West and West‐East academic exchanges in Europe, and on the other, to reduce or to rationalize imbalances. The three major segments of university populations, students, faculty members, and administrators, are each examined with regard to participation in exchanges, and pertinent suggestions are made. The author particularly insists on the importance of involving university administrators in exchange programmes even to the extent of moving them physically to other universities for stays of varying length. In closing, he evokes the setting up of the European Association of International Exchange Administrators.     

Needs or rights? A challenge to the discourse of special education

It is nearly 30 years since Mary Warnock's Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People introduced the phrase ‘special educational needs’ into the UK education system. In this article, Katherine Runswick‐Cole, Research Associate at Manchester Metropolitan University, and Nick Hodge, Principal Lecturer in Research Development at Sheffield Hallam University, argue for the abandonment of the ‘special needs’ discourse, claiming that it has, in fact, led to exclusionary practices within education. Building on the work of early years educators in Reggio Emilia schools in Northern Italy, the authors advocate for the adoption of the phrase ‘educational rights’ and suggest that the positive impact of such a linguistic turn would be significant for the lives of young people currently described as having ‘special educational needs’ and for children's rights.