This study investigated the degree to which students with intellectual and developmental disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and the degree to which such access is related to and predicted by classroom setting and ecological variables. We observed 19 students during science or social studies instruction and collected data with Access CISSAR, a computer-based observation system that uses time sampling observation. The results of the study indicated that accommodations and modifications were provided depending on the amount of time students were educated with their nondisabled peers. Further, one-on-one or independent instructional groupings were better predictors of access than whole-group instruction, as were entire or divided group physical arrangements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (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.
2.
BakerS.GerstenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 17, 65–77.
3.
BashinskiS. M.WehmeyerM. L. (2002). Access CISSAR (version 1.0) [Computer software]. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
4.
BulgrenJ. A.CartaJ. J. (1993). Examining the instructional contexts of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 182–191.
5.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodC. R.SchulteD.Arreaga-MayerC.TerryB. (1988). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR). Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.
6.
Cobb-MoroccoC. (2001). Teaching for understanding with students with disabilities: New directions for research on access to the general education curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 5–11.
7.
De La PazS.MacArthurC. (2003). Knowing the how and why of history: Expectations for secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 142–154.
8.
DeshlerD.ShumakerJ.BulgrenJ.LenzK.JantzenJ.AdamsG. (2001). Making learning easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33 (4), 82–85.
9.
DymondS. K.OreloveF. P. (2001). What constitutes an effective curriculum for students with severe disabilities?. Exceptionality, 9, 109–122.
10.
FordA.DavernL.SchnorrR. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–222.
11.
GiangrecoM. F., (2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership, 1 (2), 50–53.
12.
GrahamS.HarrisK. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
13.
GreenwoodC. R.Arreaga-MayerC.CartaJ. J. (1994). Identification and translation of effective, teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 140–151.
14.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.Arreaga-MayerC.RagerA. (1991). The behavior analyst consulting model: Identifying and validating naturally effective instructional procedures. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1 (4), 165–191.
15.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD.Arreaga-MayerC. (1990). Ecobehavioral analysis of classroom instruction. In SchroederS. (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities (pp. 33–63). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD.DelquadriJ.TerryB.FinneyR. (1997). Ecobehavioral assessment systems software: (EBASS). Practitioner's Manual (Version 3.0). Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, University of Kansas.
17.
HartmannD. P.WoodsD. D. (1982). Observational methods. In BellackA. S.HersenM.KazdinA. E. (Eds.), International handbook of behavior therapy (pp. 109–138). New York: Plenum.
18.
HuntP.Farron-DavisF.BecksteadS.CurtisD.GoetzL. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200–214.
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
20.
JanneyR.SnellM. (2004). Teachers' guides to inclusive practices: Modifying schoolwork (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL.ChoutkaC. M.TreadwayP. S. (2002). A collaborative approach to planning in the content areas for students with learning disabilities: Accessing the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 252–267.
22.
KampsD.GreenwoodC. R.LeonardB. (1991). Ecobehavioral assessment in classrooms serving children with autism and developmental disabilities. In PrinzR. (Ed.), Advances in behavior assessment of children and families (pp. 203–239). New York: Kingsley.
23.
KampsD. M.LeonardB. R.DuganE. P.BolandB.GreenwoodC. R. (1991). The use of ecobehavioral assessment to identify naturally occurring effective procedures in classrooms serving children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1, 367–397.
24.
LeeS. H.AmosB. A.GragoudasS.LeeY.ShogrenK. A.TheoharisR. (2006). Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 199–212.
25.
LoganK.BakemanR.KeefeE. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classroom. Exceptional Children, 64, 481–497.
26.
LoganK.KeefeE. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 22, 16–27.
27.
MoerbeekM.Van BreukelenG. J. P.BergerM. P. F.AusemsM. (2003). Optimal sample sizes in experimental designs with individuals nested within clusters. Understanding Statistics, 2, 151–175.
28.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. (2000) Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
29.
PressleyM. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
30.
PugachM. C.WargerC. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194–196.
31.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
RaudenbushS. W.SpybrookJ.LiuX.CongdonR. (2005). Optimal design for longitudinal and multilevel research: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. Unpublished manuscript.
33.
SatterthwaiteF. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometric Bulletin, 2, 110–114.
34.
SaxG. (1997). Principles of educational measurement and psychological measurement and evaluation (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
35.
SnijdersT.BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
36.
SwansonH.DeshlerD. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 (2), 124–135.
37.
SwansonH.HoskynM. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 109–119.
38.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.GradenJ.AlgozzineB. (1983). What's “special” about the special education resource room for learning disabled students?. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 283–288.
39.
TurnbullR.TurnbullA.WehmeyerM. L. (2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today's schools (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
40.
WehmeyerM. L. (2003). Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 270–281.
41.
WehmeyerM. L.LanceG. D.BashinskiS. (2002). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 223–234.
42.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.Lapp-RinckerG.AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24 (5), 262–272.
