The provision of an appropriate, individualized education for handicapped students has traditionally involved the use of assessment procedures to determine appropriate learning objectives and teaching strategies. In this article, current approaches to assessment of what to teach and how to teach, and their limitations, are discussed. Suggestions are made for modifications in current approaches to a priori assessment of what to teach in favor of a post hoc procedure that uses frequent student evaluation to provide the database from which decisions regarding modifications of teaching strategies may be made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality considerations in special education. Journal of Special Education, 11, 281–298.
2.
ArterJ. A., & JenkinsJ. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 517–555.
3.
BaldwinV. (1976). Curriculum concerns. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
4.
BanduraA. (1982). Self efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
5.
BennettR. E. (1982). Cautions for the use of informal measures in the educational assessment of exceptional children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 337–339.
6.
BijouS. W. (1970). What psychology has to offer education—now. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 65–71.
7.
BowerT. G. R. (1979). Human development.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
8.
CartwrightG. P.CartwrightC. A., & WardM. F. (1981). Educational special learners.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
9.
ChronbachL. J., & SnowR. B. (1976). Aptitude and instructional methods.New York: Irvington.
10.
FeuersteinR. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device theory instruments and techniques.Baltimore: University Park Press.
11.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1982). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on student achievement and knowledge of performance: An experimental study (Research Report No. 96). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD., & WarrenL. M. (1982). Special education practice in evaluating student progress toward goals (Research Report No. 81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
13.
GagneR. (1965). The conditions of learning.New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
14.
HallahanD. P., & KauffmanJ. M. (1981). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
HammillD. D. (1971). Evaluating children for instructional purposes. Academic Therapy, 6, 341–353.
16.
HaringN. G.LibertyK. A., & WhiteO. R. (1980). Rules for data-based strategy decisions in instructional programs: Current research and instructional implications. In SailorW.WilcoxB., & BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students.Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes.
17.
JoyceB. (1980). Toward a theory of information processing in teaching (Research Series No. 76). East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.
18.
LloydJ. W. (1984). How shall we individualize instruction—Or should we?Remedial and Special Education, 5(1), 7–15.
19.
LyonS. R., & SainatoD. M. (1985). Group instruction for handicapped students: A review of empirical efforts. Manuscript submitted for publication.
20.
McNairP. K., & JoyceB. (1979). Teacher's thoughts while teaching: The South Bay study, Part II (Research Series No. 58). East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.
21.
MeyersM. J. (1980). The significance of learning modalities, modes of instruction, and verbal feedback for learning to recognize written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 62–69.
22.
MirkinP. K., & DenoS. L. (1979). Formative evaluation in the classroom: An approach to improving instruction (Research Report No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
23.
MirkinP. K.FuchsL. S., & DenoS. L. (1982). Considerations for designing a continuous evaluation system: An integrative review (Monograph No. 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
24.
PotterM., & MirkinP. (1982). Instructional planning and implementation practices of elementary and secondary resource room teachers: Is there a difference? (Research Report No. 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
25.
ResnickL. B.WangM. C., & KaplinJ. (1973). Task analysis in curriculum design: A hierarchically sequenced introductory mathematics curriculum. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 6, 679–710.
26.
ReynoldsM. C. & BirchJ. W. (1982). Teaching exceptional children in all America's schools (2nd Ed.). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
27.
RobinA. L. (1976). Behavioral instruction in the college classroom. Review of Educational Research, 46, 313–354.
28.
RosenshineB. V. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 335–352.
29.
SalomonG. (1972). Heuristic models for the generation of aptitude-treatment interaction hypotheses. Review of Educational Research, 42, 327–343.
30.
SalviaJ., & SindelarP. T. (1982). Aptitude testing and alternative approaches to maximizing the effects of instruction. In MillerT. L. & DavisE. E. (Eds.), The mildly handicapped student.New York: Grune & Stratton.
31.
SmithC. R. (1980). Learning disabilities: No easy answer.Boston: Winthrop.
32.
TarverS. G., & DawsonM. M.1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review. Journal of Learning Disabiliies, 11, 5–7.
33.
TindalG.FuchsL.ChristensonS.MirkinP., & DenoS. (1981). The relationship between student achievement and teacher assessment of short or long-term goals (Research Report No. 61). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
34.
UtleyB.ZigmondN., and StrainP. (in press). The effects of various forms of data on teachers' ability to analyze trends in student performance. Exceptional Children.
35.
VincentL. J.SalisburyC.WalterG.BrownP.GruenewaldL. J., & PowersM. (1981). Program evaluation and curriculum development in early childhood/special education. In SailorW.WilcoxB., & BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students.Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
36.
WhiteO. R. (1977). Behaviorism in special education: An area for debate. In KneedlerR.D. & TarverS. G. (Eds.), Changing perspectives in special education.Columbus, OH: Charles F. Merrill.
37.
YsseldykeJ. E., & AlgozzineB. (1984). Introduction to special education.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
ZigmondN.KerrM. M.BrownG., & HarrisA. L. (1984). School survival skills in secondary school age education students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Baton Rouge, LA.
39.
ZigmondN.VallecorsaA., & SilvermanR. (1983). Assessment for instructional planning in special education.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
