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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

general curriculum: Includ<strong>in</strong>g students with disabilities <strong>in</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards-based reform. Thous<strong>and</strong> Oaks, CA: Corw<strong>in</strong> Press. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenk<strong>in</strong>s, J. R. (1996). Cooperative learn<strong>in</strong>g as an <strong>in</strong>clusion strategy: A closer look. Exceptionality, 6, 29–51. P<strong>in</strong>diprolu, S. S., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Rule, S., Peterson, S., & Slocun, T. (2005). Scor<strong>in</strong>g rubric for assess<strong>in</strong>g students’ performance on functional behavior assessment cases. Teacher <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> Special <strong>Education</strong>, 28, 79–91. Prater, M. A. (2003). She will succeed!: Strategies for success <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36, 58–64. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2006). A practical reader <strong>in</strong> Universal Design for Learn<strong>in</strong>g (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard <strong>Education</strong> Press. Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004). The writ<strong>in</strong>g rubric: Instructional rubrics can help students become self-regulated writers. <strong>Education</strong>al Leadership, 62(2), 48–52. Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writ<strong>in</strong>g assessment rubric. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33, 52–58. Schirmer, B. R., Bailey, J., & Fitzgerald, S. W. (1999). Us<strong>in</strong>g a writ<strong>in</strong>g assessment rubric for writ<strong>in</strong>g development of children who are deaf. Exceptional Children, 65, 383–397. Schirmer, B. R., & Lockman, A. S. (2001). How do I f<strong>in</strong>d a book to read? Middle <strong>and</strong> high school students use a rubric for self-select<strong>in</strong>g material for <strong>in</strong>dependent read<strong>in</strong>g. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(1), 36–42. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment <strong>in</strong> a learn<strong>in</strong>g culture. <strong>Education</strong>al Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. Sh<strong>in</strong>, S. (2005). Current situation of assessment of academic achievement by students with disabilities <strong>in</strong> self-conta<strong>in</strong>ed classrooms by special educators. Unpublished mater dissertation, Ewha Womans University, Seoul. 408 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-September 2009 Skill<strong>in</strong>gs, M. J., & Ferrell, R. (2000). Teach<strong>in</strong>g read<strong>in</strong>g. Student-generated rubrics: Br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g students <strong>in</strong>to the assessment process. The Read<strong>in</strong>g Teacher, 53, 452–455. Smith, J., Brewer, D. W., Heffner, T., & Algozz<strong>in</strong>e, B. (2003). Us<strong>in</strong>g portfolio assessments with young children who are at risk for school failure. Prevent<strong>in</strong>g School Failure, 48, 38–40. St<strong>and</strong>ford, P., & Siders, J. A. (2001). Authentic assesment for <strong>in</strong>tervention. Intervention <strong>in</strong> School <strong>and</strong> Cl<strong>in</strong>ic, 36, 163–167. Stigg<strong>in</strong>s, R. J. (2005). Student-<strong>in</strong>volved assessment for learn<strong>in</strong>g (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). S<strong>in</strong>gle subject research <strong>in</strong> special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill. U.S. Department of <strong>Education</strong> (2007). Twenty-seventh annual report to congress on the implementation of Individuals with <strong>Disabilities</strong> <strong>Education</strong> Act, 2005. Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC: Author. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bash<strong>in</strong>ski, S. (2002). Promot<strong>in</strong>g access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multilevel model. <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 37, 223–234. Wehmeyer, M. L., Latt<strong>in</strong>, D. L., Lapp-R<strong>in</strong>cker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial <strong>and</strong> Special <strong>Education</strong>, 24, 262–272. Whittaker, C. R., Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, D. (2001). Creat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional rubrics for <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(2), 8–13. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Biel<strong>in</strong>ski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between <strong>in</strong>structional <strong>and</strong> assessment accommodations <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>clusive state accountability system. Journal of Learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 34, 212–220.
Increas<strong>in</strong>g Comprehension of Students with Significant Intellectual <strong>Disabilities</strong> <strong>and</strong> Visual Impairments dur<strong>in</strong>g Shared Stories Pamela J. Mims, Diane M. Browder, Joshua N. Baker, Angel Lee, <strong>and</strong> Fred Spooner University of North Carol<strong>in</strong>a at Charlotte Abstract: Shared stories have been shown to help <strong>in</strong>crease emerg<strong>in</strong>g literacy skills <strong>in</strong> students with significant <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities. One important literacy skill is the development of listen<strong>in</strong>g comprehension. In this study, least-to-most prompt system was used to promote listen<strong>in</strong>g comprehension dur<strong>in</strong>g shared stories for two students with significant <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities <strong>and</strong> visual impairments. The procedure was evaluated via a multiple probe design across materials (i.e., books). Outcomes <strong>in</strong>dicate that both students improved on the correct number of comprehension questions answered dur<strong>in</strong>g all three books. In addition, Student 1 was able to generalize responses across people <strong>and</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>gs as well as ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> results. Future research <strong>and</strong> implications for practical team implementation of the least-to-most prompt system to teach listen<strong>in</strong>g comprehension are discussed. Literacy is one of the most important educational goals for all students because of the opportunities it provides to ga<strong>in</strong> strategies for further learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> access to <strong>in</strong>formation about the world. For students with significant <strong>and</strong> complex disabilities, strategies for promot<strong>in</strong>g literacy are difficult to identify. For example, <strong>in</strong> a comprehensive review of read<strong>in</strong>g for students with significant disabilities, Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, <strong>and</strong> Algozz<strong>in</strong>e (2006) found most studies focused on students with moderate <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities <strong>and</strong> sight word read<strong>in</strong>g. When students have visual impairments, as well as severe <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a model for literacy can be especially challeng<strong>in</strong>g. Support for this research was provided <strong>in</strong> part by Grant No. H324K040004 of the U.S. Department of <strong>Education</strong>, Institute of <strong>Education</strong> Sciences, awarded to the University of North Carol<strong>in</strong>a at Charlotte. The op<strong>in</strong>ions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of <strong>Education</strong>, <strong>and</strong> no official endorsement should be <strong>in</strong>ferred. Correspondence concern<strong>in</strong>g this article should be addressed to Pamela Mims, Department of Special <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> Child Development, University of North Carol<strong>in</strong>a at Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223-0001. Email: pjbednar@uncc.edu <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>, 2009, 44(3), 409–420 © <strong>Division</strong> on <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong> This challenge may be the reason that 92% of teachers of students with visual impairments <strong>and</strong> multiple disabilities surveyed by Dur<strong>and</strong>o (2008) were <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> receiv<strong>in</strong>g additional tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g on literacy for this population. Fewer than half viewed read<strong>in</strong>g as appropriate for all students <strong>and</strong> most relied on variables such as cognitive ability, communication skills, <strong>and</strong> functional vision to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether or not to teach literacy. While these variables have sometimes been used to determ<strong>in</strong>e eligibility for literacy <strong>in</strong>struction, an alternative perspective would be to give all students the opportunity for literacy learn<strong>in</strong>g even if all do not become fully literate. What is needed is a strategy for <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g this literacy <strong>in</strong>struction. Unfortunately, the research on how to teach literacy tends to focus on students who only have <strong>in</strong>tellectual disabilities or visual impairments, not both (Browder et al., 2006; Corn & Koenig, 2002; Park 2004; van Kleeck, 2006). Erickson <strong>and</strong> Hatton (2007) propose a conceptual framework specifically for students with visual impairments who are work<strong>in</strong>g on emerg<strong>in</strong>g literacy skills. Their framework focuses on three areas for learn<strong>in</strong>g: (a) oral language (i.e., narrative knowledge, vocabulary, <strong>and</strong> knowledge of the world), (b) metal<strong>in</strong>guistic skills (i.e., phonological awareness Increas<strong>in</strong>g Comprehension / 409
Page 1 and 2:
Education
Page 3 and 4:
Education
Page 5 and 6:
Education
Page 7 and 8:
Best Practices in
Page 9 and 10:
plication facts to middle school st
Page 11 and 12:
Multiculturalism, Religion, <strong
Page 13 and 14:
disability that are conveyed throug
Page 15 and 16:
the rest of society until acted upo
Page 17 and 18:
abilities as an opportunity for spi
Page 19 and 20:
ability and qualit
Page 21 and 22:
TABLE 1 Dolly Gray Children’s Lit
Page 23 and 24:
who did not clearly have a developm
Page 25 and 26:
TABLE 3 Juvenile Literature with Ma
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 5 Characterizations i
Page 29 and 30:
drome in The Duche
Page 31 and 32:
Special Olympics). Most of the recr
Page 33 and 34:
“add depth and m
Page 35 and 36:
Gresham, Kern, Barreras, Thornton,
Page 37 and 38:
number of cases of sin</str
Page 39 and 40:
TABLE 1 Continued
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Continued
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1 Continued
Page 45 and 46:
TABLE 2 Continued
Page 47 and 48:
TABLE 2 Continued
Page 49 and 50:
TABLE 2 Continued
Page 51 and 52:
TABLE 2 Continued
Page 53 and 54:
Target Behaviors A number of social
Page 55 and 56:
to promote social skills in
Page 57 and 58:
*Hine, J. F., & Wo
Page 59 and 60:
Learn by Doing: A
Page 61 and 62:
implemented is consistent across pe
Page 63 and 64:
concludes the program with an empha
Page 65 and 66:
TABLE 2 Scholar Pretest Directions:
Page 67 and 68:
dren with autism. If, through these
Page 69 and 70:
classroom. This program not only ga
Page 71 and 72:
tism and Other <st
Page 73 and 74: Typically students with low IQs, <s
Page 75 and 76: applied the vocabulary word to a gi
Page 77 and 78: Jacob, Carl, and R
Page 79 and 80: ting them apart. J
Page 81 and 82: cannot provide this type of <strong
Page 83 and 84: Pentop Computers as Tools for Teach
Page 85 and 86: Okolo, & Courtad, 2007). Smart toys
Page 87 and 88: computer for all multiplication pro
Page 89 and 90: software immediately repeated the n
Page 91 and 92: tool. Prior to the in</stro
Page 93 and 94: was first introduc
Page 95 and 96: ecause all of the students would be
Page 97 and 98: Effectiveness of Parent and
Page 99 and 100: is well known that when parents lea
Page 101 and 102: tion Program (PTCP) for teach<stron
Page 103 and 104: (reinforcers, prom
Page 105 and 106: Figure 2. Percentage of correct res
Page 107 and 108: Figure 4. Percentage of correct res
Page 109 and 110: is not progressing
Page 111 and 112: care and domestic
Page 113 and 114: enced based on IEP goals, whereas r
Page 115 and 116: TABLE 1 Definition
Page 117 and 118: to the criteria in
Page 119 and 120: Figure 2. Percentage of occurrence
Page 121 and 122: intervention was s
Page 123: goal setting on ta
Page 127 and 128: plied systematic promptin</
Page 129 and 130: TABLE 2 Book Adaptations Book Dirty
Page 131 and 132: Intervention. Like baselin<
Page 133 and 134: Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 135 and 136: mined is that this
Page 137 and 138: Evaluating the Acc
Page 139 and 140: TABLE 1 Characteristics of children
Page 141 and 142: educators. These educators were enr
Page 143 and 144: TABLE 3 Mean ratin
Page 145 and 146: could help a teacher better underst
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?