4.2 Review

Systematic Review of Research on Special Education Needs in Greater China

期刊

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 899-912

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10497315221137112

关键词

special education needs; systematic review; China; ASD; ADHD; dyslexia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reviews research on special education needs in Greater China over the past 5 decades. A total of 828 publications were identified, with the majority published in Mainland China and Taiwan. The most common target group was children, accounting for 51.3% of the studies. The studies mainly focused on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), with 467 articles (56.4%), and 600 articles (72.5%) were descriptive, empirical, or correlational. The findings indicate a shift in research focus from the individual to caregivers, the importance of collective shame in Chinese culture, and an increase in research in the Greater China context. More support for research related to special education needs in Greater China and recognition of cultural relevance are recommended.
Purpose: This article reviews research work on special education needs in Greater China during the past 5 decades. Methods: All searches are done on online search engines to determine the (a) volume of the related research work, (b) targets of the research studies, (c) types of SENs addressed, and (d) type of research work. Results: 828 publications are identified, among which the majority are published in the Mainland China and Taiwanese contexts. The most common target groups are children (51.3%). The studies mostly focus on ASD with 467 articles (56.4%), and 600 articles (72.5%) are descriptive, empirical, or correlational. Conclusion: There is a shift of research target group from person of interest to caregivers; importance of collective shame in the Chinese culture; and increase in research in the Greater China context. More support for research related to SEN in Greater China and acknowledging cultural relevance are recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据