etadd_48(1) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

produced the least amount of curricular articles per journal (2%), yet accounted for 7% of the articles searched for inclusion. While inclusion of this journal may have lowered the overall percentages of curricular articles within the literature, the general consistency in results from each journal combined as well as the results from the previous study (6%-34% range among journals containing curricular articles) and the pertinent focus of the journals led the researchers to justify their inclusion as contributing to the overall findings of this study. While the inter-rater reliability for inclusion, focus, and methodology were all reported at or above 85%, the inter-rater reliability for context was much lower at 69%. Upon closer review, it was found that in each of the disagreed upon articles, one reviewer used either unspecified or mixed contexts to describe the location. Hence, both reviewers were able to identify clear-cut contexts (e.g., special education, general education, community-based settings), but struggled with mixed and unspecified contexts, which reiterates the lack of clarity over context within the research. Future research should include more precise definitions for the curricular context of focus. The minimal research based on instructional content is particularly troubling as it leaves a gap for directing the educational opportunities and experiences for this population. While potentially limiting the pool of curricular research, articles focused on technological applications (e.g., Cihak, Fahrenkrog, Ayres, & Smith, 2010) and instructional methodology (e.g. Browder, Ahlgrim- Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009) were not included in this review. Although these studies may imply instructional content, the primary focus did not include the content of instruction. Clear curricular-specific research that helps to direct the field in content plays a vital role in the education of students with moderate and severe intellectual disability by informing practice and building the knowledge base of the field (Nietupski et al., 1997). Future research in moderate and severe intellectual disability should include an increased concentration on curricular content. Conclusion and Implications What is the current state of curricular research for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability? The results of this study indicate curricular research continues to be a minority of the literature within the field. As research inevitably guides practice and helps build field as a whole (Browder, 1997), an increased emphasis on the content of instruction is necessary. The current pool of curricular articles suggests scholarship in special education for this population continues to be rooted in functional life skills but is experiencing a rapid emergence of general curriculumrelated academics. In addition, the increased variety in research methodology observed can be said to have a strengthening effect on the research base as a whole. The reported lack of clarity in context among curricular articles can lead to reduced research replication as well as difficulty in accurately applying the research findings to practice. It is imperative that clarity in reporting context in scholarship becomes more common. Overall, our assessment of the literature on curricular content for this population is cautiously optimistic. There are many exciting studies from the previous fifteen year span that significantly add to the knowledge base of instructional content, however much work yet to be done, particularly in the area of increased quantity of articles and clarity in reporting context. References Agran, M., & Alper, S. (2000). Curriculum and instruction in general education: Implications for service delivery and teacher preparation. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 167–174. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133. Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana Public schools: a decade following: Edwards v Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 182– 188. Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skills curricular interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 282–293. Ault, M. J. (2010). Inclusion of religion and spiritu- Curricular Review / 85
ality in the special education literature. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 176. Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21. Beane, J. A. (1998). Reclaiming a democratic purpose for education. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 8–11. Bouck, E. C. (2008). Factors impacting the enactment of a functional curriculum in self-contained cross-categorical programs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 294–310. Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207. Browder, D. M. (1997). Educating students with severe disabilities: Enhancing the conversation between research and practice. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 137–144. Browder, D. M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309–321. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2–16. Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364. Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, B., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’ alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165–181. Brown, L., McLean, M. B., Nietupski, S. H., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age appropriate and functional curricular content for adolescents and young adults with significant disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90. Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. Hey, don’t forget about me! (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115. Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 6–13. Downing, J. (2006). On peer support, universal design, and access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities: A personnel preparation perspective. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 327–330. Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109–122. Fidler, D. J., Most, D. E., & Guiberson, M. M. (2005). Neuropschological correlates of word identification in Down syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, <strong>48</strong>7–501. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 1<strong>48</strong>–157. Giroux, H. A. (1994). Teachers, public life, and curriculum reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 35–47. Guess, D., Benson, H. A., & Siegel-Causey, E. (1995). Concepts and issues related to choicemaking and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. In K. M. Huebner, J. G. Prickett, T. R. Welch, & E. Joffee (Eds.), Hand in hand: Selected reprints and annotated bibliography on working with students who are deaf-blind (73–80). New York, NY: AFB Press. Halle, J. W., & Dymond, S. K. (2008). Inclusive education: A necessary prerequisite to accessing the general curriculum? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 196–198. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, P.L. 108-44. Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. (2008). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 175–195. Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard- Jones, K., Hall, M., & Jones, M. (2010). What Does “College and Career Ready” mean for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities? Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Kleinert, H. L., Browder, D. M., & Towles-Reeves, E. A. (2009). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications 86 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2013
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
daily lives (e.g., Kishi, Teelucksi
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE 1 Participation in General Ed
Page 11 and 12:
tive responses were invalidated. As
Page 13 and 14:
TABLE 3 Self-Determination Skill Us
Page 15 and 16:
ment, economic dependence, segregat
Page 17 and 18:
of setting may serve as a mediating
Page 19 and 20:
Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lo
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
y teachers than students with more
Page 25 and 26:
three to four students identified a
Page 27 and 28:
dents with severe disabilities. A t
Page 29 and 30:
feelings of self-efficacy (Bandura,
Page 31 and 32:
eyond the opportunity to socialize
Page 33 and 34:
access to the general education cur
Page 35 and 36:
al., 2008). Within the identificati
Page 37 and 38: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Students
Page 39 and 40: compared to Caucasians and African
Page 41 and 42: (Donovan & Cross, 2002). By impleme
Page 43 and 44: paring students with emotional dist
Page 45 and 46: DI instructional approaches with in
Page 47 and 48: TABLE 1 Participant Demographics La
Page 49 and 50: TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviatio
Page 51 and 52: Autism and Other Developmental Disa
Page 53 and 54: phonetic skills have been shown to
Page 55 and 56: middle), across two school district
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 1 Instructional Sequence for
Page 59 and 60: lending the sounds, the student was
Page 61 and 62: TABLE 2 Initial and Functional Phon
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3. A multiple baseline desig
Page 65 and 66: Figure 4. A multiple baseline desig
Page 67 and 68: Phonics Component. Due to limited w
Page 69 and 70: children basic reading skills. Rese
Page 71 and 72: egins to age. Unfortunately, post-s
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Articles and Participant Ch
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 2 Characteristics of Selected
Page 77 and 78: For reasons yet to be fully explain
Page 79 and 80: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 81 and 82: journals?, (b) what was the curricu
Page 83 and 84: Browder et al.’s content analysis
Page 85 and 86: Figure 2. Percentage of Research Me
Page 87: content for this population could e
Page 93 and 94: skills by observing their peers? an
Page 95 and 96: TABLE 2 Task Analysis of First Aid
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 4 Participants, Procedures, a
Page 99 and 100: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 6 Efficiency Data Participant
Page 103 and 104: ities were required to put on dispo
Page 105 and 106: Assessing the duration of first-aid
Page 107 and 108: instruction, for promoting the acqu
Page 109 and 110: tasks. Jonathan’s employment goal
Page 111 and 112: each participant, the number of cor
Page 113 and 114: VSM alone. In this intervention pha
Page 115 and 116: Figure 1. Percentage of Steps Compl
Page 117 and 118: achieve criterion, VSM3 was impleme
Page 119 and 120: tasks (Cihak & Schrader, 2008; Lasa
Page 121 and 122: Research in Developmental Disabilit
Page 125 and 126: were in the positive direction. Con
Page 127 and 128: the “Next” button at the end of
Page 129 and 130: Figure 1. Comparison of the average
Page 131 and 132: oration in the title or description
Page 133 and 134: survey asked respondents to rate th
Page 137 and 138: Staff participants. The three parti
Page 139 and 140:
peat of the post-test; and g) a sel
Page 141 and 142:
seemed to increase the use of mand
Page 143 and 144:
ing: An investigation of the impact
Page 147 and 148:
DADD Statement on the use of the te
Page 149:
Search the entire archives of Educa
show all

etadd_48(1) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

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

Delete template?

Save as template?