Students with disabilities have a mental or physical impairment that limits them from performing numerous classroom activities. These students have special needs such as autism, learning disabilities, ADHD, and behavioral and emotional disorders. They require special education services and individualized education plans. Teachers should strive to involve students with disabilities by providing quality assistance to students and ensuring they are included in classroom activities. Teachers should acknowledge the uniqueness of each child and treat them as individuals. They should understand the individual differences among students and change the curriculum and teaching strategies. Understanding individual differences will increase student’s participation, development, and learning and help them reach their potential.
Children with disabilities require specialized approaches to promote meaningful interactions in learning activities and daily lives. Specialized instruction aligns an individual student’s goals and objectives with suitable teaching materials and methods. It enables teachers to determine the level of assistance each child requires, provide tailored assistance, and assess whether the instruction was effective. Some specialized instruction practices for children with disabilities include assessments and implementing individualized practices (Bredekamp, 2011). Effective individualized instructions for children with special needs depend on assessing their needs and progress. The most appropriate assessments early childhood teachers can use are curriculum-based and routine-based assessments. Curriculum-based assessments track a student’s progress along the scale of functional skills. These skills help children with disabilities improve their everyday lives. It develops cognitive, social, communication, and fine and gross motor skills. Routine-based assessments determine which functional skills should be taught. The teacher assesses how the child participates in routines of daily life.
Another specialized instruction practice for children with special needs is individualized instructional strategies. Some individualized instructional approaches teachers can use include developing specific student goals, creating learning opportunities, and providing teacher support. Teachers can identify specific goals for children by conducting assessments. Efficient teachers create learning opportunities by providing students with tools for learning new skills. Teachers can provide support by giving students positive reinforcements when they perform new skills. It will motivate them to try the new skill again and make improvements. One practice for teaching children with disabilities that applies to all children is teaming and collaboration. Collaboration in a classroom is crucial for the success of all children, including those with special needs. Professionals and family members can collaborate to create inclusive classrooms. For example, the family can provide information about a child’s needs and strengths, help assess functional skills, implement intervention practices remotely, and provide crucial information about intervention. Teachers can use these approaches to promote the development of all children, including those with disabilities.
Apart from specialized instruction, the most beneficial information is understanding where individual differences among children come from. Most psychologists believe that development is a product of nature (biology) or nurture (environment) (Bredekamp, 2011). The influence of biology on development refers to the genetic or hereditary contributions. For example, physical growth and motor skills for humans develop in a predictable sequence. Most infants begin to babble, crawl, and walk at approximately the same age, proving that nature affects development. Genetics can affect individual differences. For example, some children begin walking as soon as seven months, while others take as long as 18 months. The environment also plays a crucial role in influencing individual differences. According to the nurture perspective, environmental factors determine who we become. For example, discipline measures will affect a child’s behavior more than genetic contributions. Other environmental factors that affect a child’s development include economic resources, the safety of the community, and the quality of the childcare setting. However, nature and nurture influence each other and determine how we interact in the environment. Verbal children will likely ask more questions and understand more concepts than dumb children. Experiences children have in early childhood and the environment they experience them affect brain development and determine if children will become healthy and productive members of the community. This information will help understand individual differences’ origin and effectively tailor educational plans.
Bredekamp, S. (2011). Effective Practices in Early Childhood Education: Building a Foundation. 4th ed. Pearson Education Inc.
The Justice System’s Transformative Impact: Examining Narratives And Advocating For Fairness
The justice system plays a crucial role in the functioning of society, with its primary objective being the preservation of order and the enforcement of legal principles. Nevertheless, the complexities associated with it frequently give rise to unanticipated outcomes (Fosten, 2016). Upon examining the narratives presented on page 22, which detail the distressing chronicle of an individual wrongfully incarcerated, one is confronted with the immense influence exerted by the criminal justice system. These anecdotes shed light on the process of transformation that occurs within the confines of prison and the possibility of significant mistakes. The juxtaposition of these narratives elicits introspection over their affective impact and emphasizes the pressing necessity for a fairer and more egalitarian framework.
The author’s recollections on page 22 encompass his contemplations, whereby he delineated his initial foray into the correctional system, characterized by a state of naivety and optimism. As the individual reflected upon his initial encounters, it became apparent that the jail setting exerted a significant influence on his psyche, progressively destroying his initial idealistic outlook and substituting it with the hard truths of navigating survival and encountering corruption. The process of transitioning from a naive and inexperienced individual to one shaped by the forces of the prison system served as a poignant critique of the dehumanizing effects inherent in the experience of being incarcerated.
After going through the article provided in the link, the account of the unjustly convicted individual’s nearly twenty-year confinement on death row, a range of emotions, including sorrow, indignation, and compassion, surged through me. The narrative provided a clear and comprehensive description of the harrowing experiences, injustices, and profound psychological and emotional consequences resulting from an extended period of imprisonment. It highlights the inherent risk of serious mistakes within the criminal justice system, serving as a poignant example of the profound repercussions that arise when the integrity of innocence is undermined.
Upon conducting a comparative analysis of the two experiences, it became evident that there were notable parallels in the emotional trajectory exhibited by both individuals. Just like the case discussed on page 22, the individual wrongfully convicted and sent on death row entered the correctional system with a sense of optimism, faith in the principles of fairness, and a resolve to navigate an undeserved predicament. Both narratives demonstrate a notable disparity between the initial sense of hopefulness and the subsequent sense of disappointment that arises as a result of the challenging realities experienced within the confines of a correctional facility.
The jail setting exerted a substantial influence on the experiences of the individuals depicted in both cases. The scenario, on page 22, discusses the prison system as a corrupting influence, with the story of the innocent guy serving as a distressing illustration of how this corruption can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The inherent deficiencies within the prison system, the complex power dynamics at play, and the dehumanizing conditions experienced together served as contributing factors to their trajectories.
Upon perusing these accounts, a myriad of emotions were evoked within my being. I experienced a strong sense of empathy towards the innocent individual, recognizing the considerable amount of time unjustly taken from him and the profound psychological distress he had to face. The narrative he presented emphasized the pressing necessity for reform within the criminal justice system, illuminating the susceptibilities that might result in devastating consequences. The contemplation on page 22, made me realize the transformative potential of the prison system on individuals, which may manifest in unforeseen manners. It underscores the significance of comprehending the intricate impacts of imprisonment on individuals, promoting compassionate treatment inside the correctional system, and tackling the broader societal factors that perpetuate patterns of criminality and retribution.
Fosten, G. K. (2016). Perspectives on social inequality, criminal justice, and race in the United States: A critical analysis. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 20.
Leadership And Organizational Development Principles And Applications
Leadership and Organizational Development (OD) are integral components driving organizational success. This essay scrutinizes three prominent models within the OD domain, meticulously examining their strengths and weaknesses and subsequently narrowing down to a comparison of two selected models. Moreover, it delves into a comprehensive exploration of the benefits and drawbacks intrinsic to these chosen models, investigating their potential influence on the trajectory of OD’s future, their applicability within online platforms, and the consequential effects on OD practitioners.
Model 1: Organization Development (OD) Model
The Organization Development (OD) model constitutes a strategic approach to heighten organizational effectiveness using deliberate interventions that induce behavioral modifications (Anderson, 2017). This model places a significant emphasis on fostering collaboration, facilitating a continuous feedback loop, and nurturing an environment of perpetual improvement. Noteworthy strengths inherent to this model encompass its holistic and systemic perspective, enabling the engagement of various organizational facets in tandem, and its inherent flexibility and adaptability to diverse contextual requirements. However, it encounters certain challenges, notably in result quantification, due to the inherent complexity of behavioral changes. Additionally, addressing resistance to change can impede its seamless implementation.
Model 2: Doctor-Patient Model
The Doctor-Patient model draws a metaphorical parallel between organizational challenges and medical diagnoses, where external consultants assume the role of doctors prescribing remedial solutions. Within this framework, the expertise of these consultants is leveraged to diagnose and propose interventions for organizational issues. This model’s strengths lie in the specialized knowledge and skills these consultants bring, which can lead to precise and informed solutions. However, a potential drawback of this approach is its tendency to sideline employee involvement and engagement in the solution-seeking process. By relying heavily on external experts, the Doctor-Patient model may inadvertently overlook employees’ valuable insights and ownership regarding the intricacies of their work environment. This could result in a lack of commitment to and sustained implementation of the prescribed solutions. As such, while the Doctor-Patient model offers the advantage of expert-driven problem-solving, it should be navigated cautiously to ensure a balanced approach that includes employee participation and buy-in (Shutzberg, 2021).
Model 3: Leadership as Practice Development model
The Leadership as Practice Development model redefines leadership as a dynamic and adaptable practice, moving away from fixed traits. Central to this paradigm is contextual awareness, which underscores the importance of understanding the specific organizational, cultural, and environmental contexts shaping leadership. This sensitivity enables leaders to make decisions tailored to unique challenges and opportunities, transcending generic approaches. Interactional expertise is another key facet, acknowledging that successful leadership hinges on adeptly navigating intricate interpersonal dynamics. Leaders are envisioned as collaboration facilitators, fostering dialogue, nurturing relationships, and harnessing collective insights. However, embracing this model necessitates departing from traditional hierarchical leadership. The shift toward participatory engagement requires relinquishing top-down control and embracing a more inclusive, bottom-up approach that fosters shared responsibility across all levels. In essence, the model offers a comprehensive understanding of leadership’s multifaceted dimensions, urging leaders to embark on a transformative journey redefining perspectives and practices to navigate the complexities of modern organizations (Salicru, 2020).
Comparison of Models:
In assessing the merits and limitations of these models, the Organization Development model stands out for its emphasis on fostering collaboration and leveraging collective insights to drive organizational change and adaptability. On the other hand, the Leadership as Practice Development model highlights the significance of contextual awareness and interactional expertise, recognizing the dynamic interplay between leadership and the intricate nuances of specific environments. While the Organization Development model capitalizes on synergy among team members, the Leadership as Practice Development model underscores leaders’ need to be finely attuned to their surroundings, allowing for nuanced decision-making that resonates with unique challenges. In contrast, while offering specialized knowledge, the Doctor-Patient model encounters a potential pitfall in failing to engage employees in solution crafting effectively. It might need to pay more attention to the importance of cultivating employee ownership and commitment, potentially limiting the sustainability of proposed solutions. Hence, these models represent distinctive approaches where collaboration, contextual acumen, and employee involvement are central to fostering effective organizational development.
Chosen Models: Organization Development and Leadership as Practice Development Model
Based on the analysis, the Organization Development and Mechanic models are chosen for further exploration.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Chosen Models
Organization Development Model
The Organization Development (OD) model’s distinct advantage lies in its holistic approach, wherein the entire organizational ecosystem is considered a dynamic and interconnected entity. By embracing this comprehensive perspective, the model facilitates a deeper understanding of the intricate interdependencies between various organizational components. This systemic view identifies often intricate cause-and-effect relationships that remain hidden in more segmented approaches. Consequently, the model’s holistic orientation empowers leaders and practitioners to envision and execute changes that resonate throughout the organization, fostering a more synchronized and harmonious organizational system (Burke, 2021).
At the heart of the Organization Development model is its emphasis on fostering active employee engagement throughout the change process. This emphasis on engagement recognizes employees’ invaluable role in driving organizational success. By involving employees in the formulation and execution of transformational strategies, the model taps into their diverse skill sets, insights, and experiences. This collaborative approach enriches the quality of proposed solutions and cultivates a profound sense of ownership and commitment among employees. Empowered by the opportunity to contribute to shaping their work environment, employees become champions of change rather than passive observers. As a result, the model’s focus on employee engagement creates a positive ripple effect, enhancing morale, cooperation, and overall organizational performance (Burke, 2021).
The adaptability inherent in the Organization Development model is a testament to its relevance across various organizational contexts. This versatility is a pivotal advantage, enabling the model to be tailored to suit the unique intricacies and challenges different organizations face. Whether applied to large corporations, startups, governmental bodies, or nonprofit organizations, the model’s fundamental principles remain steadfast while being skillfully molded to match each entity’s specific needs, cultures, and goals. This adaptability empowers OD practitioners to craft interventions that align with the organization’s distinct attributes, ensuring that proposed changes resonate with stakeholders and can be seamlessly integrated into existing workflows (Burke, 2021). As a result, the model’s capacity to flex and adjust represents a foundational strength, making it a powerful tool for effecting meaningful change across diverse organizational landscapes.
The Organization Development (OD) model’s strength lies in its emphasis on collaboration and engagement, which, while advantageous, also introduces a significant drawback related to time consumption. The inherent process of soliciting collective input, fostering deliberations, and seeking consensus can lead to prolonged decision-making and execution timelines. Engaging diverse stakeholders, each contributing unique perspectives necessitates extensive discussions, negotiations, and alignment efforts. However, this deliberate approach can clash with the demands of rapidly evolving business landscapes that require swift and agile decision-making to remain competitive. The potential for extended time frames in implementing the OD model could impede organizations from promptly addressing emergent challenges. Navigating this challenge requires a delicate balance between leveraging collaboration’s benefits and accommodating the necessity for prompt responses in dynamic environments (Burke, 2022).
Measuring the impact of behavioral changes instigated by the Organization Development (OD) model presents an inherent challenge. While the model’s emphasis on driving behavioral shifts is vital for sustainable organizational transformation, quantifying these intangible outcomes poses difficulties. Unlike more concrete metrics like financial performance or operational efficiency, behavioral changes are intricate, subtle, and open to diverse interpretations. This measurement challenge is accentuated within the OD model’s framework due to its focus on human dynamics. Pinpointing precise shifts in employee behavior, attitudes, or collaboration patterns can be elusive. Consequently, accurately assessing intervention success and efficacy becomes intricate. However, innovative methods such as qualitative assessments, longitudinal studies, and well-structured surveys offer avenues to mitigate this challenge and offer valuable insights into the impacts of OD model interventions (Wiggins & Smallwood, 2018).
Leadership as Practice Development Model:
The Leadership as Practice Development model’s foremost advantage lies in its steadfast emphasis on cultivating contextual awareness in leadership. By prioritizing a deep understanding of the contexts in which leadership unfolds, this model equips leaders with the capacity to navigate the intricacies of diverse organizational environments. This awareness allows leaders to recognize how culture, industry trends, and internal dynamics shape the leadership landscape. Armed with this insight, leaders can tailor their approaches and decisions to align with each context’s unique challenges and opportunities, fostering more effective and resonant leadership outcomes. Moreover, contextual awareness empowers leaders to anticipate changes, respond adeptly to shifting circumstances, and make informed choices that propel the organization forward in an ever-evolving landscape (Salicru, 2020).
The Leadership as Practice Development model’s advantage of interactional expertise highlights the pivotal role of interpersonal dynamics in effective leadership. By centering on the dynamic interactions between leaders and their environments, this model recognizes that leadership is not confined to solitary decision-making but is an intricate web of relationships, exchanges, and collaborations. Leaders with interactional expertise can navigate these complexities with finesse, promoting open communication, fostering trust, and facilitating effective teamwork. This advantage allows leaders to influence outcomes not only directly but also indirectly through the cultivation of positive relationships that underpin organizational harmony. Furthermore, interactional expertise equips leaders to identify opportunities for synergy, mediate conflicts, and build a culture of mutual respect, ultimately bolstering the organization’s overall effectiveness and resilience in an interconnected world (Salicru, 2020).
A key disadvantage inherent in the Leadership as Practice Development model is the substantial shift in leadership perspectives and practices it demands. Embracing this model necessitates departing from conventional notions of leadership as a static set of traits or top-down authority. Instead, leaders are challenged to reorient their outlook towards leadership as an evolving and contextually sensitive practice. This shift can be met with resistance, especially in organizations entrenched in traditional hierarchical structures. Leaders accustomed to wielding authority might find the shift towards shared leadership and participatory engagement needs to be more comfortable and comfortable. Moreover, altering ingrained leadership paradigms requires time, effort, and a willingness to unlearn established approaches. This transition might encounter skepticism or hesitation from both leaders and followers, posing potential obstacles to its effective implementation. However, while the perspective shift presents challenges, it also allows growth and adaptability, enabling leaders to navigate the complexities of contemporary organizational landscapes more effectively (Salicru, 2020).
Impact on the Future of OD and Online Platforms:
The future landscape of Organizational Development (OD) is intricately intertwined with the evolution of virtual workspaces, and within this context, the Organization Development model emerges as a natural fit. Its core emphasis on collaboration, continuous improvement, and engagement finds resonance in the dynamics of virtual environments. As online platforms become the bedrock of modern work, the Organization Development model gains relevance by facilitating global teamwork and seamless knowledge dissemination across geographical boundaries. This symbiotic relationship amplifies its efficacy, as the model’s collaborative ethos thrives in these digital arenas, nurturing effective communication and cohesive team dynamics. Simultaneously, the Leadership as Practice Development model’s focus on contextual awareness and interactional expertise resonates profoundly in the digital landscape. In an era of diverse online interactions, the model’s acknowledgment of the importance of understanding unique contexts and adeptly navigating interpersonal intricacies assumes paramount significance, enabling leaders to cultivate adaptable and impactful approaches that transcend the virtual realm.
Future Implications for OD Practitioners:
The implications of the future of Organizational Development (OD) for professionals are substantial. Those who subscribe to the Organization Development framework should prioritize developing their virtual teamwork capacity (Cheung-Judge, 2017). OD professionals must be fluent in using digital platforms to help employees communicate effectively, solve problems together, and operate cohesively over virtual distances. On the other hand, practitioners who subscribe to the Leadership as Practice Development approach must develop more competence in context and interaction. A crucial part of their success will be their ability to navigate the shifting settings of digital domains, both inside organizations and between individuals. Both models stress the importance of finding a middle ground between traditional OD principles and the digital age requirements, wherein practitioners can benefit from the former while nimbly adjusting to the latter.
In conclusion, the OD and the LPD models contribute unique perspectives to Leadership and Organizational Development. In the former, skills like working together and being flexible are valued, whereas awareness of one’s surroundings and proficiency in social interactions are emphasized in the latter. The digital revolution of workplaces has an impact on both approaches. Future OD professionals must be skilled in virtual teamwork and situational leadership to successfully navigate complex organizations. The selected models provide thorough frameworks for dealing with the complicated issues that arise throughout organizational growth.
Burke, W. W. (2021). Reflections: Change Management Is Not Organization Development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, pp. 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0897-301620210000029011
Burke, W. W. (2022). Organization development. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-734
Cheung-Judge, M. (2017). Future of organizations and implications for OD practitioners, Summary. OD Pract, 49, 7-13. https://www.academia.edu/download/62109204/Power_of_greater_purpose_COOPERRIDER_PAGE_42-_ON_BAWB20200215-15838-1v3uzz0.pdf#page=7
Pastore, P., Ricciardi, A., & Tommaso, S. (2020). Contractual networks: an organizational model to reduce the competitive disadvantage of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe’s less developed regions. A survey in southern Italy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1503-1535. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11365-019-00616-2
Salicru, S. (2020). A new model of leadership-as-practice development for consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 72(2), 79. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/cpb/72/2/79/
Shutzberg, M. (2021). The Doctor as Parent, Partner, Provider… or Comrade? Distribution of Power in Past and Present Doctor–Patient Relationship Models. Health Care Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-021-00432-2
Wiggins, L., & Smallwood, J. (2018). An OD approach to leadership development: Questions and consequences. Journal of Management Development, 37(8), 613–623. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMD-12-2016-0306/full/html