Research References
Algahtani, F. (2017). Teaching students with intellectual disabilities:
Constructivism or behaviorism?
Educational Research and Reviews, 12(21), 1031–1035.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160452
From the ERIC abstract: “Many teaching strategies have been postulated over
the past years by various scholars in an effort to enhance the education system
among students with intellectual disabilities. There is much debate on the
application of constructivist and behaviorist perspectives for teaching students
with intellectual disabilities as addressed in this paper. Many scholars have
advocated for exclusivity with regards to the use of the two approaches. However,
this work recommends a combination of principles from the two approaches to best
structure instructions and teaching. This paper includes a brief explanation of
intellectual disabilities, a summative brief of major constructivist and
behaviorist perspectives, and their implication in students with intellectual
disabilities. Finally, the paper offers summary of the approaches and provides a
number of recommendations for teaching intellectually challenged children in a
school setting.”
Almalki, N., & Abaoud, A. (2015). Response to intervention for young children with
mild, moderate/severe cognitive disabilities: Literature review.
Journal of International Education Research, 11(1), 63–70.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1051135
From the ERIC abstract: “This study has discussed in-depth information about
understanding the Response to Intervention (RTI) linking with children from
pre-school to kindergarten (three to eight years old) who have Cognitive
Disabilities (CD), including different levels from mild to moderate and/or severe.
The study consists of five main sections—RTI, CD, RTI Linking with CD, teaching
methods for children with CD, and how RTI helps disability in school. Each section
is presented in comprehensive detail.”
Bradley-Johnson, S., Johnson, C. M., & Drevon, D. D. (2015). On CALL: One approach
to improving services for students with low-incidence disabilities.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 30(3), 236–245. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.835.7444&rep=rep1&type=pdf
From the abstract: “Students with low-incidence disabilities frequently
receive less than optimal psychoeducational services because the specialized tests
and instructional materials required to meet their idiosyncratic needs often are
unavailable due to budget constraints, inadequate training of school personnel, and
the difficulty school personnel have keeping current on low-incidence disabilities.
To enhance the services provided for these students, a centralized statewide
lending library for school personnel serving students with low-incidence
disabilities was implemented. The development of this project, its impact, and the
needs of school personnel in the area of low-incidence disabilities are described.”
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez, B. A., Knight, V., & Flowers,
C. (2012). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and
severe developmental disabilities.
Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 26–35. Retrieved from
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/B_Jimenez_Teaching_2012.pdf
From the abstract: “This study evaluated strategies to teach secondary math
and science content to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities
in a quasi-experimental group design with special education teachers randomly
assigned to either the math or the science treatment group. Teachers in the math
group implemented four math units representing four of the five national math
standards. The science teachers implemented four science units representing three
of eight national science content standards. A fourth standard, science as inquiry,
was embedded within each of the units. Results showed students made gains in
respective content areas. Students who received instruction in math scored higher
than students who received instruction in science on the posttest of math skills.
Likewise, students who received instruction in science scored higher than students
who received instruction in math on the posttest of science vocabulary skills.
Limitations and suggestions for future research and practice are discussed.”
Driver, L., Omichinski, D. R., Miller, N., Sandella, D. & Warschausky, S. (2010).
Educational solutions for children with cerebral palsy.
Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 100–118.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1137131
From the ERIC abstract: “This paper characterizes educational strengths and
needs of children with cerebral palsy (CP) and connects research findings from the
University of Michigan's Adapted Cognitive Assessment Lab (ACAL) to current special
educational requirements. It acknowledges the uniqueness of educating a child with
significant motor and communication disabilities and suggests a reasonable starting
point to develop an education plan for children with CP. The authors propose two
key components critical to the educational success of children with CP: Accessible
Assessment and Accessible Curriculum. Emphasis is placed on the importance of
working within the mandated educational guidelines to best meet the individual
educational needs of students with CP. Also included in the manuscript is a
comprehensive appendix of resources related to the educational needs of children
who receive special education services, a resource appendix specific to reading,
examples of accommodations vs. modifications, and a diagram that highlights the key
concepts of this article.”
Finnegan, E. G. (2012). Two approaches to phonics instruction: Comparison of
effects with children with significant cognitive disability.
Developmental Disabilities, 47(3), 269–279. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267841431_Two_Approaches_to_Phonics_Instruction_Comparison_of_Effects_with_Children_with_Significant_Cognitive_Disability
From the abstract: “The effects of two systematic methods of phonics
instruction for children with significant cognitive disability were compared.
Fifty-two participants, aged 5–12 years were randomly assigned to one of three
treatment groups: (i) a synthetic phonics instruction, (ii) an analogy phonics
instruction group, and (iii) a control group. Participants in the synthetic and
analogy phonics groups received twelve sessions of individual instruction. Findings
suggest that for many students with significant cognitive disability systematic
phonics instruction is beneficial. Further research should focus on the maintenance
and generalization of phonics skills acquired by children with significant
cognitive disability.”
Fleury, V. P., Hedges, S., Hume, K., Browder, D. M., Thompson, J. L., Fallin, K.,
et al. (2014). Addressing the academic needs of adolescents with autism spectrum
disorder in secondary education.
Remedial and Special Education, 35(2), 68–79.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577938
From the ERIC abstract: “The number of individuals with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) who enter secondary school settings and access the general education
curriculum continues to grow. Many educators may find they are not prepared to
adapt their instruction to meet both state standards and the diverse needs of the
full spectrum individuals with ASD, which has implications for postsecondary
success. In this article, we present an overview of current knowledge around
academic instruction for this population, specifically (a) how characteristics
associated with ASD can impact academic performance, (b) academic profiles of
individuals with ASD across content areas, and (c) interventions that have been
successful in improving academic outcomes for this population, including special
considerations for those individuals who take alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards. We conclude by offering suggestions for future
research and considerations for professional development.”
Giesen, J. M., Cavenaugh, B. S., & McDonnall, M. C. (2012). Academic supports,
cognitive disability and mathematics achievement for visually impaired youth: A
multilevel modeling approach.
International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 17–26.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ979710
From the ERIC abstract: "Elementary and middle school students who are blind
or visually impaired (VI) lag up to three years behind non-disabled peers in
mathematics achievement. We investigated the impact of academic supports in the
school on mathematics achievement, controlling grade, gender, cognitive disability,
and family SES. Data were from SEELS (Special Education Elementary Longitudinal
Study) that followed a national sample of students over six years. Analyses
employed multilevel modeling. We found the extent of academic supports in the
school was positively related to mathematics achievement for visually impaired (VI
) students without cognitive disability but not for those with cognitive
disability. Gender and socio-economic status (SES) had no effects. Achievement
growth was not hampered by cognitive disability. Schools with more academic
supports may enhance mathematics learning for VI students without a cognitive
disability, and VI students with a cognitive disability may need both a high level
of supports and specialized supports to facilitate mathematics achievement."
Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M., & Wood, L. A. (2013). Review of experimental
research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability in general education.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 17–29.
Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/5573859/Review_of_experimental_research_on_academic_learning_by_students_with_moderate_and_severe_intellectual_disability_in_general_education
From the abstract: "A review of the literature on academic learning in
general education settings for students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability was conducted. A total of 17 experimental studies was identified and
evaluated using quality indicators for single-case design research. Studies that
met or met with reservation the criteria established for quality research were used
to determine the evidence base of the instructional strategies described in the
literature. The review found embedded instruction trials using constant time delay
to be an evidence-based practice for teaching academic content to students with
moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. In addition,
strategies that were not yet evidence-based but showed promise in the literature
for teaching academic content to students with moderate and severe intellectual
disability in general education were described. Last, implications for practice and
directions for future research were discussed."
Jackson, R. (2005).
Curriculum access for students with low-incidence disabilities: The promise of
universal design for learning.
Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (Links updated
2011). Retrieved from
http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2005/ncac-curriculum-access-low-incidence-udl.html
From National Center on Accessible Educational Materials description: “The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 and 2004 set forth
requirements to improve access to the general curriculum for students with
low-incidence disabilities. Universal design for learning (UDL) is discussed as a
theoretical framework to guide the design and development of learning environments
that represent materials in flexible ways and offers a variety of options for
learners to comprehend information, demonstrate their knowledge and skills, and be
motivated to learn. Low-incidence disabilities such as blindness, low vision, and
deafness rarely exceed 1% of the school-aged population at any given time. The
rarity of students with these disabilities in public schools often poses
significant challenges for local schools to meet their needs. Additionally, public
schools often struggle to find a least restrictive environment for these students
within their own local school system. Addressing the intense and complex needs of
students with low-incidence disabilities is described according to IDEA ’97.
Low-incidence disabilities are defined and described under the categories of
blind/low vision, deaf/hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, significant developmental
delay, significant physical and multiple disability, and autism spectrum.
Curriculum and instructional practices that are currently used with students with
low-incidence disabilities are discussed. Physical facilities, technology, media
and materials, and human resources all contribute to the quality of what transpires
in schools and there remains great disparity across communities. The general
curriculum is defined as the overall plan for instruction adopted by the school or
school system. A quality education for students with low-incidence disabilities
will be a blending of curriculum, designed to address disability-specific or unique
needs and curriculum designed for optimal functioning. Planning models used for
students with low-incidence disabilities are discussed including the Individualized
Educational Plan (IEP), Person-centered Planning, Group Action Planning (GAP),
Making Action Plans (MAPs), Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH), and
Circle of Friends. Approaches for enabling students with low-incidence disabilities
to participate in state- and district-level assessment systems are included.
Lastly, the UDL framework is discussed in terms of increasing access to the general
curriculum for students with low-incidence disabilities.”
Kurth, J., Gross, M., Lovinger, S., & Catalano, T. (2012). Grading students with
significant disabilities in inclusive settings: Teacher perspectives.
Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 13(1), 41–57.
Retrieved from
https://www.iase.org/Publications/JIASE%202012.pdf
From the abstract: “The present study describes teacher (K–12) opinions and
practices related to grading and providing modified instruction, assignments, and
assessments for students with low-incidence disabilities in inclusive settings. One
hundred and thirty-nine teachers working in K–12 inclusive schools in Arizona and
California completed an on-line survey regarding modifications to the general
education curriculum and grading practices. Findings of this study include: (a)
general and special education teachers use different practices and have different
preferences for grading students with disabilities; (b) General and special
educators also reported differences in their level of comfort and training for
grading, with special educators feeling more prepared to grade students with
disabilities; (c) Elementary teachers were more likely to accept modified work than
secondary teachers; (d) Secondary teachers report using modifications to
instruction less frequently than elementary school teachers. Implications and
recommendations based on these findings are reported.”
Leppo, R. H. T., Cawthon, S. W., & Bond, M. P. (2014). Including deaf and
hard-of-hearing students with co-occurring disabilities in the accommodations
discussion.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,19(2), 189–202.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562352
From the abstract: “(Purpose) Students who are deaf or hard of hearing
(SDHH) are a low-incidence group of students; however, SDHH also have a high
incidence of additional disabilities (SDHH+). Many SDHH and SDHH+ require
accommodations for equal access to classroom instruction and assessment,
particularly in mainstreamed educational settings where spoken English is the
primary language. Accommodations for SDHH, overall, have increased under federal
legislation including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
and the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, specific practice recommendations
for SDHH+ and their unique needs are often lacking in the research literature.
(Methodology) This article presents findings regarding accommodations use by SDHH
and SDHH+ from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2. (Conclusions) Initial
logistic regression analysis found no differences in accommodations use of SDHH and
SDHH+. However, logistic regression analysis that compared specific additional
disability groups with the larger overall SDHH group did find differences in
accommodations use for two SDHH+ groups: students who had a learning disability and
students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (Recommendations) This
article includes a discussion of the implications of these findings for both
research and practice.”
Mockler, K. (2014). Establishing and maintaining high expectations for deaf/blind
students using a team approach.
Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, 15, 50–53.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030917
From the ERIC abstract: “As a teacher of the deaf as well as the classroom
teacher, Kimberly Mockler works very closely with the teacher of the visually
impaired. This involves sharing ideas, resources, and lesson plans for the
deaf/blind students. Their lessons and goals are very similar and overlap in
several areas. A major challenge for both of them is maintaining high expectations
for their students while still presenting lessons at the appropriate cognitive
level. The teacher of the visually impaired and Mockler are presented daily with
the task of helping the students learn to be independent and not depend on prompts
to perform basic tasks. For example, students should not have to be prompted to
open and close doors, pull out and push in chairs, feed themselves, get dressed and
undressed, or use the toilet. This article provides a look at a program for Deaf/
Blind students at St. Francis de Sales School for the Deaf in Brooklyn, New York.
The program was established in 2009, and involved the creation and maintenance of a
collaborative team to establish and pursue high expectations for Deaf/Blind
students.”
Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating
evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe
developmental disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1/2), 62–75.
https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/B_Jimenez_Evaluating_2011.pdf
From the abstract: “A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted
for articles published between 1985 and May 2009 to (a) examine the degree to which
science content was taught to students with severe developmental disabilities and
(b) and evaluate instructional procedures in science as evidence-based practices.
The review was organized by a conceptual model developed for science content.
Seventeen experiments were analyzed for research quality where science content was
taught to this population; 14 of these studies were viewed to be of high or
adequate quality. In general, we found systematic instruction as an overarching
instructional package to be an evidence-based practice for teaching science
content. Furthermore, components of systematic instruction (i.e., task analytic
instruction and time delay) were analyzed. We discuss the outcomes to reflect how
to teach science, what science content to teach, why to teach science, and
recommendations for future research and practice.”
Additional Organizations to Consult
Institute on Community Integration (ICI) —
https://ici.umn.edu/
From the website: “The Institute on Community Integration (ICI) was
established in 1985 on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. We
are a federally designated University Center for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities (UCEDD—pronounced U Said), part of a
national
network of similar
programs in major universities and teaching hospitals across the country. The
Institute is home to over 70 projects and 6 Affiliated Centers addressing
disability issues across the lifespan (see
Projects
+ Centers for a complete
listing). In addition, it works in close collaboration with the University’s
Center
for Early Education and Development
, a Partner Center of the Institute.”
National Center on Educational Outcomes —
https://nceo.info/
From the website: “NCEO helps students with disabilities, English learners
(ELs), and ELs with disabilities by:
-
Collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, disseminating, and providing
leadership on
evidence-based information on inclusive assessments and comprehensive
assessment systems.
-
Promoting the use of assessments for instructional decision-making
purposes.
-
Assisting states in their efforts to support districts to improve results.
-
Reviewing the participation and performance of students in national and
state
assessments, including the use of accessibility features and accommodations
and
alternate assessments.
-
Examining national and state practices in reporting assessment information.
-
Supporting implementation of U.S. Department of Education accountability
systems, including ESEA accountability and IDEA State Systemic Improvement
Plans (SSIPs) and State-Identified Measurable Results (SIMRs).
-
Bridging general education, special education, English as a Second Language
or
bilingual education, and other systems as they work to improve results of
education for all students."
National Center on Intensive Intervention —
https://intensiveintervention.org/
From the website: “NCII builds the capacity of state and local education
agencies, universities, practitioners, and other stakeholders to support
implementation of intensive intervention in literacy, mathematics, and behavior for
students with severe and persistent learning and/or behavioral needs, often in the
context of their multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) or special education
services. NCII’s approach to intensive intervention is data-based individualization
(DBI), a research-based process that integrates the systematic use of assessment
data, validated interventions, and intensification strategies.”
Relevant links at the site:
- Academic Intervention — https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
“This tools chart presents information about academic intervention
programs. The following four tabs include information and ratings on
the technical rigor of the studies:
-
Study Quality
-
Study Results
-
Intensity
-
Additional Research
The chart reviews studies about the intervention programs. As a
result,
you may see the intervention appear more than one time and receive
different ratings.”
-
Behavioral Intervention — https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/behavioral-intervention-chart
“This tools chart presents information about behavioral intervention
programs. The following four tabs include information and ratings on
the technical rigor of the studies
-
Study Quality
-
Study Results
-
Intensity
-
Additional Research
The chart reviews studies about the intervention programs. As a result,
you may see the intervention appear more than one time and receive
different ratings.”
National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) —
https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/
From the website: “The National Center for Special Education Research
(NCSER), one of the four Centers within the Institute of Education Sciences,
supports rigorous research on infants, toddlers, children, and youth with and at
risk for disabilities through advancing the understanding of and practices for
teaching, learning, and organizing education systems. NCSER supports such research
through its research grants program to identify existing practices, programs, or
policies that may be associated with student outcomes; develop new, or modify
existing, interventions; evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of fully developed
interventions; and develop and validate measures and assessments. NCSER-supported
Research and Development Centers aim to address important issues in special
education by implementing large-scale but focused programs of research and
leadership activities. Through its research training programs, NCSER supports
institutions to train postdoctoral fellows, individual early career scientists, and
methodology training institutes to develop the research skills in our next
generation of special education researchers.”
TIES Center —
https://tiescenter.org
From the website: “TIES Center is working with states, districts, and
schools to support the movement of students from less inclusive to more inclusive
environments. Project goals to accomplish this are:
- Develop professional learning communities in partner state and local
education agencies.
-
Develop coaching models for implementation of resources, inclusive
practices, and communicative competence.
- Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing resources.
- Support parents to become partners in the practice of inclusion for
students with significant cognitive disabilities.
- Support systems change within the leadership of state and local education
agencies for implementation of inclusive practices.”
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, Office of Special Education Programs —
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html
From the website: “The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is
dedicated to improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with
disabilities ages birth through 21 by providing leadership and financial support to
assist states and local districts.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) authorizes formula
grants to states and discretionary grants to institutions of higher education and
other non-profit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical
assistance and dissemination, technology and personnel development and
parent-training and information centers.”
What Works Clearinghouse —
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
From the website: “The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established in
2002 as an initiative of the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S.
Department of Education. The WWC is administered by the National Center for
Education Evaluation within the IES. The goal of the WWC is to be a resource for
informed educational decision-making. To reach this goal, the WWC identifies
studies that provide credible and reliable evidence of the effectiveness of a given
practice, program, or policy (referred to as “interventions”) and disseminates
summary information and reports on the WWC website.”
