This study investigated whether curriculum modifications predicted student and teacher behaviors related to the general education curriculum and if there were differences in ecological, student, and teacher variables depending on the presence of such curriculum modifications. The study observed 45 high school students with disabilities during instruction in core content areas. Findings indicated that there were significant differences in student and teacher variables depending on the presence of curriculum modifications. When curriculum modifications were provided, students were engaged in more academic-related responses and fewer competing behaviors and teachers were engaged in fewer classroom management activities. Implications and recommendations from these findings are provided pertaining to the importance and implementation of curriculum modifications for students with disabilities in general education settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BashinskiS. M.WehmeyerM. L. (2002). Access CISSAR (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
2.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 340–370). New York: Macmillan.
3.
BrownW. H.OdomS. L.LiS.ZercherC. (1999). Ecobehavioral assessment in early childhood programs: A portrait of preschool inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 138–153.
4.
BrowneW. J.RasbashJ. (2004). Multilevel modelling. In HardyM. A.BrymanA. (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 459–480). London: Sage.
5.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodR.SchulteD.Arreaga-MayerTerryB. (1988). Code for Instructional Structure and Student Academic Response: Mainstream version (MS-CIS-SAR). Kansas City: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
6.
CarvajalS. C.BaumlerE.HarristR. B.ParcelG. S. (2001). Multilevel models and unbiased test statistics for group based interventions: Examples from the safer choices study. Journal of Multivariate Research, 36 (2), 185–205.
7.
DuvallS. F.DelquadriJ. C.WardD. L. (2004). A preliminary investigation of the effectiveness of homeschool instructional environments for students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 33, 140–158.
8.
DymondS. K.RussellD. L. (2004). Impact of grade and disability on the instructional context of inclusive classrooms. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 127–140.
9.
FisherD.NancyF. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148–157.
10.
FriedmanD. L.CancelliA. A.YoshidaR. K. (1988). Academic engagement of elementary school children with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychology, 26, 327–340.
11.
GreenwoodC.SchulteD.KohlerF.DinwiddieG.CartaJ. (1986). Assessment and analysis of ecobehavioral interaction in school settings. In PrinzR. J. (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children and families (pp. 69–98). Lincoln, NB: JAI Press.
12.
GreenwoodC. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus nonrisk students. Exceptional Children, 57, 521–535.
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, 165–191.
15.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD.DelquadriJ.TerryB.FinneyR. (1997). Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems Software (EBASS): Version 3.0 [Practitioner's Manual]. Kansas City: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
16.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD.TerryB.DelquadriJ. (1994). Development and validation of standard classroom observation systems for school practitioners: Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems Software (EBASS). Exceptional Children, 61, 197–210.
17.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ. C.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
18.
GreenwoodC. R.HouL. (1995). Ecobehavioral Assessment Systems Software [Technical manual]. Lawrence: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
19.
GuoG.ZhaoH. (2000). Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 26, 441–462. Retrieved on August 29, 2005, from arjournals.annualreviews.org.
20.
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.
21.
HuntP.StaubD.AlwellM.GoetzL. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290–301.
22.
JanneyR.SnellM. (2000). Teachers' guides to inclusive practices: Modifying schoolwork. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23.
Kame'enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C. (1999). Toward successful inclusion of students with disabilities: The architecture of instruction. Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
24.
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.
25.
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.
26.
KatzJ.MirendaP.AuerbachS. (2002). Instructional strategies and educational outcomes for students with developmental disabilities in inclusive “multiple intelligences” and typical inclusive classrooms. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 227–238.
27.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (1986). Consequences of violating the independence assumption in the analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 422, 431.
28.
KreftIta G.G. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies. Los Angeles: California State University.
29.
LeeS.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.
30.
LeeS.SoukupJ. H.LittleT. D.WehmeyerM. L. (2009). Student and teacher variables contributing to access to the general education curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 43, 29–44.
31.
LeeS.WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.SoukupJ. H.LittleT. D. (2008). Self-determination and access to the general education curriculum. Journal of Special Education, 42, 79–107.
32.
LoganK.BakemanR.KeefeE. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of students with disabilities in general education classroom. Exceptional Children, 64, 481–497.
33.
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.
34.
MaasC. J.HoxJ. J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58 (2), 127–137.
35.
McDonnellJ.ThorsonN.McQuiveyC. (1998). The instructional characteristics of inclusive classes for elementary students with severe disabilities: An exploratory study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 415–437.
36.
McDonnellJ.ThorsonN.McQuiveyC. (2000). Comparison of the instructional contexts of students with severe disabilities and their peers in general education classes. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 54–58.
37.
MoineddinR.MathesonF. I.GlazierR. H. (2007). A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/34.
38.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
39.
Rabe-HeskethS.ToulopoulouT.MurrayR. M. (2001). Multilevel modeling of cognitive function in schizophrenic patients and their first degree relatives. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 179–198.
40.
RankinD. H.LoganK. R.AdcockJ.AngelucciJ.PittmanC.SexstoneA. (1999). Small group learning: Effects of including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 159–177.
RobersonL.WoolseyM. L.SeabrooksJ.WilliamsG. (2004a). An ecobehavioral assessment of the teaching behaviors of teacher candidates during their special education internship experiences. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 264–275.
43.
RobersonL.WoolseyM. L.SeabrooksJ.WilliamsG. (2004b). Data-driven assessment of teacher candidates during their internships in deaf education. American Annals of the Deaf, 148, 403–412.
44.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45.
RossD. E.Singer-DudekJ.GreerR. D. (2005). The Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy scale (TPRA): Training as Evaluation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 40, 411–423.
46.
SalendS. J. (2000). Strategies and resources to evaluate the impact of inclusion programs on students. Intervention, 35 (May), 264–270, 289.
47.
SaxG. (1997). Principles of educational measurement and psychological measurement and evaluation (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
48.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel modes, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–355.
49.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
SoukupJ. H.WehmeyerM. L.BashinskiS. M.BovairdJ. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120.
51.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.KouzekananiK.BryantD. P.DicksonH.BlozisS. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301–315.
52.
VyseS. A.MulickJ. A. (1988). Ecobehavioral assessment of a special education classroom: Teacher–student behavioral covariation. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 1, 201–206.
53.
WallaceT.AndersonA. R.BartholomayT.HuppS. (2002). An ecobehavioral examination of high school classrooms that include students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 345–359.
54.
WehmeyerM. L.LanceD.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.
55.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.AgranM. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327–342.
56.
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, 262–272.
57.
WoolseyM. L.HarrisonT. J.GardnerR. (2004). A preliminary examination of instructional arrangements, teaching behaviors, levels of academic responding of deaf middle school students in three different educational settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 263–279.
