Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Adelle Renzaglia, Ph.D. and Stacy
Dymond, Ph.D.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
288 Education Bldg.
1310 S. Sixth
Champaign, IL, 61820
USA
renzag@uiuc.edu -
sdymond@uiuc.edu
Legislation in the United States (IDEA 1997) requires that all students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate. Therefore, IEP teams must consider the state’s standards from the beginning, and work to determine the relationship between a students’ individualized needs, state standards, and standards-based assessments (Grisham-Brown & Kearns, 2001; Wehmeyer et al., 2002). Several theoretical models have been proposed recently for helping students with disabilities access the general curriculum (see Grisham-Brown & Kearns, 2001; OSEP, 2001; Wehmeyer et al., 2002). These models have built on our existing knowledge of creating access through such methods as partial participation (Baumgart et al., 1982), curriculum adaptations and modifications (Ryndak, 1996; Snell & Brown, 2001; Udvari-Solner, 1997), cooperative learning (Johnson et al., 1993; Putnam, 1998), thematic teaching units (Jacobs, 1991; Forte & Schurr, 1994), differentiated instruction (Kronberg & York-Barr, n.d.), and multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983: Kagan, 1998). The standards-based reform movement has helped focus the field’s emphasis on student outcomes in the general curriculum and authentic means for assessing progress (Kearns, 2001; Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002).
Access to the general curriculum and state standards at the high school level must be conceptualized within an overall plan for transition (Johnson, Clapper, & Wehmeyer, 2001; Johnson et al., 2002). The general curriculum must be broad enough for students with disabilities to pursue skills that lead to desired post school outcomes (Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999; Thurlow & Johnson, 2000). Strategies need to be developed for enabling all high school students to pursue an array of applied activities through the general curriculum that prepare the student to transition from school (Johnson et al., 2002).
Inclusive Education
Students with severe disabilities are increasingly being served in inclusive settings. Data on student outcomes provides compelling evidence of the benefits of educating students with severe disabilities with their non-disabled peers. In inclusive settings, students with severe disabilities have demonstrated greater progress on measures of social competence, social interaction, and social acceptance (Hunt et al., 1997; Janzen, Wilgosh, & MacDonald, 1995; Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; York et al., 1992); and increased social contacts or initiation of social contacts with non-disabled peers (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Hunt et al., 1996; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995; Salisbury & Palombaro, 1998).
A growing amount of evidence suggests that students with severe disabilities who receive an inclusive education acquire academic and other skills, master IEP objectives, and increase their level of independence, generalization of skills, and degree of participation in the classroom (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997; MacDonnell, Thorson, McQuivey, & Kiefer-O’Donnell, 1997; Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999). These students developed a greater awareness of their environment, elevated self-esteem and positive behaviors, and increased motivation to come to school (Giangreco et al., 1993; Janzen et al., 1995; Ryndak et al., 1995; Ryndak et al., 1999). Engagement levels are equal to or better in inclusive classrooms than self-contained classrooms (Hollowood et al., 1994; Logan, et al., 1997).
In addition, inclusive education has had a positive impact on students without disabilities by increasing their social emotional growth, acceptance of diversity, comfort with interacting with peers with severe disabilities, and awareness of the needs of others (Giangreco et al., 1993; Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994; Hunt, Staub, et al., 1994; McDonnell, et al., 1997; Ryndak et al., 1995).
Characteristics of Effective Educational Programs
The curriculum literature has documented several components of effective educational programs for students with severe disabilities. Curriculum must be defined using a person-centered approach (Everson, 1996; Minor & Bates, 1997; Vandercook et al., 1989; Whitney-Thomas et al., 1998) that focuses on the individual needs of the student, desired outcomes, and quality of life (Browder, 2001; Snell & Brown, 2000). Parents play a critical role in articulating their child’s strengths and needs (Stineman et al., 1993; Orelove & Sobsey, 1996). Self-determination is key to ensuring that the views of the student are considered (Brown, Gothelf, Guess, & Lehr, 1998; Wehmeyer, 1998). Both the design and delivery of the curriculum should reflect a transdisciplinary team approach (Orelove & Sobsey, 1996; Rainforth, York, & MacDonald, 1997) where members of the team work collaboratively across disciplines to share roles. The curriculum for the student must address both functional skills (Billingsley & Albertson, 1999; Dymond & Orelove, 2001) and the general curriculum. Key to student progress is that students be actively engaged in meaningful activities (Halle, Chadsey, Lee, & Renzaglia, 2003; Renzaglia et al, 2003). Activities in which skills are taught should be age-appropriate (Dymond, in press; Halle et al., 2003), regardless of the functioning level of the student. Skills targeted for instruction should be taught across multiple environments and activities to ensure generalization and maintenance across settings (Halle et al., 2003; Horner et al., 1986). As students increase in age, instruction in the community becomes increasingly important for acquiring priority skills that cannot be taught in the school setting (Dymond, in press; Renzaglia et al., 2003). To the greatest extent possible, students should be educated with their peers without disabilities. In addition, a student’s curriculum at the high school level must also address transition goals that articulate a plan for achieving desired post school outcomes (Hutchins & Renzaglia, 2002; Storey et al., 2002) such as independent living, community participation, and employment.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
In the past, methods for gaining access to the general curriculum in inclusive settings have focused on adapting the curriculum to meet the needs of the student (Ryndak, 1996; Snell & Brown, 2000; Udvari-Solner, 1997). A relatively new trend is the concept of UDL, which posits that the general curriculum should be designed with greater flexibility to better meet the diverse needs of all students (CEC, 1998; Hitchcock et al., 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2000; Renzaglia et al., 2003). According to CEC (1998), simply too many students are not “getting” the curriculum.
With UDL, the needs of all learners are considered from the start. CEC’s framework (1998) for UDL suggests that curriculum should provide flexible means of representation, expression, and engagement. Access to the curriculum should consider the goals, methods, media, and assessment techniques employed to teach the curriculum (CEC, 1998; Dolan & Hall, 2001; Hitchcock et al., 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2002). For example, instead of falsely assuming one textbook will meet the needs of all students, teachers can transform the curriculum through digital technologies to create materials that incorporate image, text, and video; transform text to speech; and change the visual characteristics of the media such as font size, color background, and amount of material presented (CEC, 1998; Rose & Meyer, 2002, Hitchcock, 2001). UDL should increase student access to instructional content, enhance student participation, and create appropriately challenging curriculum regardless of one’s abilities (CEC, 1998).
Given the current legislation in the United States and the characteristics of effective programs for students with significant disabilities, educators are challenged with identifying effective ways to provide meaningful inclusive education. The purpose of this research was to investigate the use of UDL to redesign high school content area classes to provide access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities in inclusive educational settings. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed:
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the impact of using universal design for learning strategies to redesign high school science and health classes on providing access to the curriculum to students with and without disabilities. Two sections of a science class and four sections of a health class participated in the research. Each section of the class was taught by the same general education and special education co-teacher. Specifically, data were collected on student engagement, peer interaction, student grouping for instruction, instructor, and type of activity.
All participants were employed in or attended one urban high school. Participants in the redesign process included the teachers of the general education science and health classes, special education teachers who were case managers for the students with significant cognitive disabilities, special education teachers who were responsible for co-teaching or modifying the curriculum for students with mild disabilities, special education teacher aides who were responsible for supporting students with significant disabilities in the general education setting.
High School Students. Students were randomly selected from two sections of a high school science class and 4 sections of a health class. Class sizes ranged from 20-27 students. The students represented three groups: students with significant cognitive disabilities, students with mild disabilities, and students without disabilities. Since only 1-2 students with significant cognitive disabilities were in each section of the classes, all were included in the study.
Science Class . Two sections of a Unified Science class were selected to participate. Both sections were taught by the same teacher and a special education co-teacher. One section was taught during hour 1 of the school day and the second section was taught during hour 3. The majority of students who enrolled in the science course were 9 th graders, but students in other grades were also permitted to enroll. The Unified Science course was approved as a high school science credit for graduation. Four students with mild disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavior disorders or mild cognitive disabilities) and four students without disabilities were randomly selected to participate from each of the two groups in the two sections of the science class.
Two students with significant cognitive disabilities participated in each of the two sections of the science class. One student in each section had significant multiple disabilities. Both students with multiple disabilities had cerebral palsy, which involved both their arms and legs. They used wheel chairs but were dependent on others to push them. The student in section 1 had some oral language but was not fluent and had a limited vocabulary. The student in the second section of science had no oral language and limited communication using a preprogrammed switch to respond to simple questions. Neither of these students had reading or writing skills or was included in any other general education courses.
The second student with significant cognitive disabilities in each section of the Unified Science course, was able to move about independently, had no physical disabilities, and had oral speech. Both students were able to copy text that was given to them but had limited to no reading skills. Both students responded to simple questions and were able to engage in social conversations with peers.
Health Class. Four sections of a one-semester Health class were selected to participate. All sections were taught by the same teacher. The four sections were taught during 4 th, 5 th, 6 th, and 7 th hour of the school day. The health course was a 10 th grade requirement for all students for graduation. Three students with mild disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavior disorders or mild cognitive disabilities) and four students without disabilities were randomly selected to participate from each of the two groups in the four sections of the health class.
One to two students with significant cognitive disabilities participated in each of the four sections of the health class, totaling 6 students. All 6 students had significant cognitive disabilities and 2 students had physical disabilities as well. All students had some oral language and were able to engage in simple social conversations with peers. Academic skills were limited; all students had limited to no reading skills. Students were assigned to sections based on their schedules. Initially, all sections had two students with significant cognitive disabilities enrolled. However, in the early weeks of the semester, two of the students quit attending school.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to address the research questions. The following data sources were accessed by research question.
Question 1: What are the characteristics of universally designed inclusive classrooms?
Question 2: What impact does redesigning the curriculum have on actual and perceived student outcomes?
Two multiple baseline designs were utilized to evaluate the impact of class redesign. One multiple baseline across the two sections of Unified Science was implemented. Baseline data were collected in both sections of the course for five weeks. Course redesign was implemented for one section of the class while the other section remained in baseline. When the data indicated an impact of redesign on dependent variables in section one of the class, redesign was implemented in the second section.
A second multiple baseline design was utilized to evaluate the impact of class redesign in the Health class sections. Baseline data were collected in all four sections of Health and when stability was obtained, redesign was implemented in two sections of the class (6 th and 7 th hour). When an impact of redesign was assessed, the other two sections of the Health class (3 rd and 4 th hour) were included in redesign. The multiple baseline design rules out the potentially confounding variables of time, curriculum, student specific variables through replication of effect.
Intervention: Course Redesign Process
Course redesign procedures involved utilizing the principles of UDL. Five areas of redesign were considered: curriculum, instructional delivery/organization of learning environments, student participation, materials, and assessment. Our approach for redesigning the science class involved obtaining a lesson plan from the general education teacher that identified how she usually taught a particular unit on a day-by-day basis. After the teacher explained the lesson plan, the general education and special education teachers met to generate redesign ideas (based on previous training they had received in UDL) and the project staff met to generate ideas. One of the teachers and one of the project staff then met to evaluate the ideas of both groups and draft a revised lesson plan. The lesson plan was finalized by the whole group (teachers and project staff) the following week during regularly scheduled planning time. After implementation of the redesigned lessons, project staff gave feedback to the class teachers regarding fidelity of implementation of the redesigned activities.
A preliminary analysis of the data from the redesign process of the two courses has been conducted and indicates the following findings.
Engagement
Students with severe intellectual disabilities were found to have an escalation of problem behavior during baseline. This behavior quickly was eliminated during the intervention phase and replaced with high levels of active engagement during instruction while responding to peers or teachers. Students without severe disabilities (i.e., mild intellectual disabilities and no disabilities) demonstrated increased levels of engagement during intervention as compared to baseline phases.
Peer Interaction
During baseline, students with severe intellectual disabilities had almost no interactions with their peers. The number of observation intervals where students were physically located near peers and interacting with them rose substantially during intervention. Increases in peer interaction were also evident among students with mild intellectual disabilities and no disabilities during intervention.
Teacher Roles/Interactions
The roles of the general educator and paraprofessional changed between baseline and intervention. Interactions between the general educator and students with severe intellectual disabilities gradually increased across the intervention period while interactions with paraprofessionals decreased.
Grouping
Use of small groups increased during intervention along with less reliance on whole group instruction and seatwork activities.
The findings from this study suggest that the use of UDL strategies can positively impact the instructional context of general education science classes in a way that promotes increased access and participation in the general curriculum for all students, including students with severe intellectual disabilities.
Teacher perceptions changed from pre to post assessment of their definitions of access to the general curriculum. Overall, changes occurred in how they perceived effective methods of providing access. The strategies they identified increased; their acceptance of differentiated curriculum based on student skills and needs increased and an increased value of inclusive educational settings was expressed.
Educational and Scientific Importance of the Research
There remains debate within the field regarding what constitutes “access to the general curriculum” for students with severe intellectual disabilities. Questions remain about where access occurs (i.e., special education classroom, general education classroom, community), who provides access (i.e., special education teacher, general education teacher, paraprofessional), and how that access is achieved. Our research applies the principles of UDL to an inclusive science classroom in order to evaluate its impact on a variety of variables we believe help to ensure student “access”. Although our data are limited to two science and four health classes, our preliminary results provide promising information. We intend to replicate these efforts, which will increase our confidence in the strength of our findings and the appropriateness of our intervention process. These findings will help general educators understanding how UDL can be applied in their specific content areas. Researchers will be able to replicate the methods to determine their effectiveness in other schools serving high school students with severe cognitive disabilities.
Our understanding of how students with and without disabilities can access the general curriculum in inclusive school and community settings will continue to be more clearly defined through replication of this research. By comparing outcomes for students who access the general curriculum in non-universally designed classrooms with those who receive access in universally designed classrooms, we will be able to determine the impact of 1) who teaches the curriculum, 2) where it is taught, and 3) how it is taught on student progress. This will have implications for future policies regarding the location where students access the general curriculum and how universities prepare teachers to structure learning environments.
Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., Messina, R., & Schroeder, J. (1982). Principle of partial participation and individualized adaptations in educational programs for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7, 17-27.
Billingsley, F.F., & Albertson, L.R. (1999). Finding a future for functional skills. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 298-302.
Browder, D.M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press.
Brown, F., Gothelf, C.R., Guess, D., & Lehr, D.H. (1998). Self-determination for individuals with the most severe disabilities: Moving beyond chimera. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 17-26.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.cec.sped.org/osep/udesign.html
Dolan, R.P., & Hall, T.E. (2001). Universal design for learning: Implications for large scale assessment. IDA Perspectives, 27(4), 22-25.
Dymond, S.K. (in press). Community participation. In P. Wehman, & J. Kregel (Eds.), Functional curriculum for elementary, middle, and secondary age students with special needs. Austin: Pro-ed.
Dymond, S.K., & Orelove, F.P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109-122.
Everson, J. (1996).Using person-centered planning concepts to enhance school-to-adult life transition planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 6(1), 7-13.
Forte, I., & Schurr, S. (1994). Interdisciplinary units and projects for thematic instruction for middle grade success. Nashville: Incentive Publications.
Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C.H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R. (1993). “I’ve counted Jon”: Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-373
Grisham-Brown, J., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Creating standards-based individualized education programs. In H.L. Kleinert, & J.F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 17-28). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Halle, J., Chadsey, J., Lee, S., & Renzaglia, A. (2003). Systematic instruction. In C.H. Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), Academic and social inclusion for students with severe disabilities: Putting research into practice (pp.54-77). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hasazi, S.B., Furney, K.S., & DeStefano, L. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555-566.
Helmstetter, E., Peck, C.A., & Giangreco, M.F. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.
Hitchcock, C.G. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in universally designed learning environments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 23-30.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum. Peabody, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
Hollowood, T.M., Salisbury, C.L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M.M. (1994). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242-253.
Horner, R., McDonnell, J.J., & Bellamy, G. (1986). Teaching generalized skills: General case instruction in simulation and community settings. In R.H. Horner, L.H. Meyer, & H.D. Fredericks (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 289-294). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Wrenn, M., Hirose-Hatae, A., & Goetz, L. (1997). Promoting interactive partnerships in inclusive educational settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 127-137.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron_Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53-71.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290-301.
Hutchins, M., & Renzaglia, A. (2002). Career development. In K. Storey, P. Bates, & D. Hunter (Eds.), The road ahead: Transition to adult life for persons with disabilities. Training Resource Network.
Jacobs, H.H. (1991). The integrated curriculum. Instructor, 101(2)m 22-23.
Janzen, Wilgosh, & MacDonald (1995). Experiences of classroom teachers integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 23(1), 1-13.
Johnson, D.R., Clapper, A., & Wehmeyer, M. (2001, October). Transition, secondary education reform, and access to the general education curriculum. Denver, CO: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition and Division on Career Development and Transition.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom (4 th ed.). Edina, MI: Interactive Book Company.
Johnson, D.R., Stodden, R.A., Emanuel, E.J., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68, 519-531.
Kagan, S. (1998). New cooperative learning, multiple intelligences, and inclusion. In J.W. Putnam (Ed.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion (2 nd ed.) (pp. 105-136). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kearns, J.F. (2001). Helping students with significant disabilities gain access to general curriculum standards. In (pp. 29-48).
Kennedy, C.H., Shukla, S., & Fryxall, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 64, 31-48.
Kronberg, R., & York-Barr, J. (n.d.). Differentiated teaching and learning in heterogeneous classrooms. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Logan, K.R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E.B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior or students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 481-497.
MacDonald, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C., & Kiefer-O’Donnell, R. (1997). Academic engaged time of students with low-incidence disabilities in general education classes. Mental Retardation, 35, 18-26.
Minor, C.A., & Bates, P.E. (1997). The effect of person-centered planning activities on the IEP/transition planning process. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 105-112.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Orelove, F.P., & Sobsey, D. (1996). Educating children with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary approach (3 rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Putnam, J.W. (Ed.) (1998). Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion (2 nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Rainforth, B., York, J., & Macdonald, C. (1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services (2 nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 140-149.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). Universal design for individual differences. Educational Leadership, 58(3), 39-43.
Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ryndak, D.L. (1996). Adapting environments, materials, and instruction to facilitate inclusion. In D.L. Ryndak, & S. Alper (Eds.), Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 97-124). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ryndak, D.L., Downing, J.E., Jacqueline, L.R., & Morrison, A.P. (1995). Parents’ perceptions after inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157.
Ryndak, D.L., Morrison, A.P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.
Salisbury, C.L., & Palombaro, M.M. (1998). Friends and acquaintances: Evolving relationships in an inclusive elementary school. In L.H. Meyer, H. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I.S. Schwartz, & B. Harry (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 81-104). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Snell, M.E., & Brown, F. (Eds.) (2001). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Stineman, R.M., Morningstar, M.E., Bishop, B., & Turnbull, H.R. (1993). Role of families in transition planning for young adults with disabilities: Toward a method of person-centered planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3(2), 52-61.
Storey, K., Bates, P., & Hunter, D. (Eds.). (2002). The road ahead: Transition to adult life for persons with disabilities. Training Resource Network.
Tahie, C., Jorgensen, C., Shapiro-Barnard, S., Martin, J., & Schuh, M. (1996). High school inclusion strategies and barriers. TASH Newsletter, 22(9), 19-22.
Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High stakes testing for students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 289-298.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1997). Adapting curriculum and instruction in inclusive classrooms. In L.A. Power-deFur, & F.P. Orelove (Eds.), Inclusive education: Practical implementation of the least restrictive environment (pp. 75-90). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A strategy for building the future. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205-215.
Wehmeyer, M.L. (1998). Self-determination and individual with significant disabilities: Examining meanings and interpretations. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 5-17.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Sands, D.J., Knowlton, H.E., & Kozleski, E.B. (2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Whitney-Thomas, J. Shaw, D., Honey, K., & Butterworth, J. (1998). Building a future: A study of student participation in person-centered planning. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 119-133.
York, J., Vandercook, T., MacDonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58, 244-258.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |