Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

<strong>in</strong>tervention was shown to be statistically significant
<strong>in</strong> all three classes.
Impact on Class Engagement Behaviors of
Students with Mild Mental Retardation
The improvement on class engagement behaviors
of the participants with mild mental
retardation can be considered as a mean<strong>in</strong>gful
progress because ‘engagement’ <strong>in</strong> a regular
class has been emphasized as a prerequisite
for students to achieve <strong>in</strong>dividual academic
goals through access to the general curriculum
(Cush<strong>in</strong>g, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy,
2005; Wehmeyer et al., 2003). The result <strong>in</strong>dicates
that the rubrics functioned as an <strong>in</strong>structional
guide on learn<strong>in</strong>g for the students as
suggested by previous studies (e.g. Andrade &
Boulay, 2003; Lee & Lee, 2006; Loeffler,
2005). Specifically, by utiliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional
rubrics, the participants could be better aware
of lesson objectives they were target<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>
could systematically manage self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g
of their own performance dur<strong>in</strong>g class. Although
it dem<strong>and</strong>s, as the first step for students
with disabilities, to successfully learn <strong>in</strong>
<strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs (Prater, 2003), the participants
were either explicitly <strong>in</strong>formed about
<strong>in</strong>dividual lesson objectives they were expected
to target or provided accommodated
tasks or materials <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with the objectives.
The positive result of implement<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional
rubrics, especially on ‘<strong>in</strong>dependent
work’ category, is not only supported by the
related research that suggest the effectiveness
of <strong>in</strong>structional rubrics as a strategy for selfdirected
learn<strong>in</strong>g (Andrade & Boulay; Hall &
Salmon, 2003; James et al., 2001), but also
underscores the significance of exact awareness
of lesson objectives <strong>and</strong> self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g/
evaluation of performance for students with
disabilities to learn successfully <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>clusive
class (Copel<strong>and</strong> & Huges, 2002; Grossi &
Heward, 1998).
Furthermore, more specific <strong>and</strong> goal-oriented
support provided by typical peers to the
participants with mild mental retardation under
the awareness of the participants’ <strong>in</strong>dividual
lesson objectives might contribute to the
positive result. All three participants improved
<strong>in</strong> ‘work with peers’ category at least more
than 10% dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervention, <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>creased
behavior was ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed with a
higher occurrence rate than the one dur<strong>in</strong>g
the <strong>in</strong>tervention for Student 1 <strong>and</strong> Student 2.
As related studies reported that cooperation
among students was enhanced through specific
colleague evaluation <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formed feedback
on performance us<strong>in</strong>g rubrics (Schirmer
et al., 1999; Smith et al., 2003), hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dividual
objectives <strong>and</strong> performance monitor<strong>in</strong>g
questions for the participants with mild
mental retardation specified <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>clusive
assessment tool might lead to efficient <strong>and</strong>
consistent peer support for the participants
dur<strong>in</strong>g class rather than spontaneous or unsystematic
ones. For <strong>in</strong>stance, as the <strong>in</strong>tervention
progressed, it was observed that the peers
of Student 2 <strong>and</strong> Student 3 actively recognized
the two students’ participation <strong>in</strong> class activities
<strong>and</strong> voluntarily <strong>in</strong>volved them <strong>in</strong> a cooperative
task. It can be analyzed that the peers’
overall expectation for the participants with
mild mental retardation went higher as they
noticed the improvement on class engagement
behaviors of the participants work<strong>in</strong>g on
tasks for <strong>in</strong>dividual but st<strong>and</strong>ards-based lesson
objectives (Cha, 2002; McDonnell, McLaughl<strong>in</strong>,
& Morrison, 1997). Exposure to specific
ways to support the participants with mild
mental retardation, such as <strong>in</strong>structional adaptations
<strong>and</strong> self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g questions,
might also contribute to the natural empowerment
of peers <strong>in</strong> terms of cooperative work
with students with disabilities.
Impact on the Achievement of Lesson Objectives by
All Participants
The positive result on the achievement of lesson
objectives by all participants, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g
students with mild mental retardation, by implement<strong>in</strong>g
<strong>in</strong>structional rubrics extends the
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of previous studies that reported the
effects of <strong>in</strong>structional rubrics on performance
<strong>in</strong> various subjects (Andrade & Boulay,
2003; Barry & Moore IV, 2004; Goodrich,
1996; James et al., 2001; Loeffler, 2005;
Shirmer et al., 1999). Moreover, it highlights
its implication as an ultimate outcome for students
with disabilities <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive sett<strong>in</strong>gs beyond
just ‘engag<strong>in</strong>g’ <strong>in</strong> the general curriculum
(Clayton, Burdge, Denham, Kle<strong>in</strong>ert, &
Kearns, 2006; Cush<strong>in</strong>g et al., 2005). The positive
<strong>in</strong>fluence on achievement for all participants,
not only for the participants with mild
Effects of Instructional Rubrics / 405