More conversation is needed between practitioners and researchers given the rapidly evolving field of severe disabilities. This article contributes to this conversation by describing the practical implications of current research in determining what, where, and how to teach students with severe disabilities. From this translation of research to practice, several questions are raised for future research, including how to gather information needed for educational planning, how to incorporate preferences of students with limited communication skills, how to balance various curricular options and empower families to participate in these decisions, how to select needed supports, and how to expand current research methods to address these and other questions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baer, D. M. (1993). To disagree with Meyer and Evans is to debate a cost-benefit ratio. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 235–236.
2.
Bambara, L. M., Ager, C., & Koger, F. (1994). The effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 555–556.
3.
Bricker, W. A., & Campbell, P. H. (1980). Interdisciplinary assessment and programming for multihandicapped students. In W. Sailor, B. Wilcox, & L. Brown (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 3–46). Baltimore: Brookes.
4.
Browder, D. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities.Baltimore: Brookes.
5.
Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age-appropriate and functional curriculum content to severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
6.
Downing, J. E., & Perino, D. M. (1992). Functional versus standardized assessment procedures: Implications for educational programming. Mental Retardation, 30, 289–295.
7.
Dudley, J. R. (1996). Seeking a closer partnership with the self-advocacy movement. Mental Retardation, 34, 255–256.
8.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E., & Edelman, S. W. (1993). Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 109–120.
9.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (Eds.). (1993). Choosing options and accommodations for children.Baltimore: Brookes.
10.
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Dennis, R. E., & Cloninger, C. J. (1995). Use and impact of COACH with students who are deaf-blind. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 121–135.
11.
Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halforn, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43.
12.
Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Strathe, M. (1992). Functional life skills, academic skills and friendship/social relationship development: What do parents of students with moderate/severe/profound value?Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 53–58.
13.
Hargreaves, A. (1996). Transforming knowledge: Blurring the boundaries between research, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 105–122.
14.
Haring, T. (1996). The role of research in the continuing development of the field of severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 6–8.
15.
Lalli, J. S., & Browder, D. M. (1993). Comparison of sight word training procedures with validation of the most practical procedure in teaching reading for daily living. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 107–127.
16.
Lim, H. F. L., & Browder, D. M. (1994). Multicultural life skills assessment of individuals with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 130–138.
17.
Linehan, S. C., & Brady, M. P. (1995). Functional versus developmental assessment: Influences on instructional planning decisions. The Journal of Special Education, 29, 295–309.
18.
Linehan, S. C., Brady, M. P., & Hwang, C. (1991). Ecological versus developmental assessment: Influences on instructional expectations. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 146–153.
19.
Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 447–474.
20.
Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (1993). Science and practice in behavioral intervention: Meaningful outcomes, research valid and usable knowledge. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 224–234.
21.
Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and rein-forcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.
22.
Patton, M. Q. (1986). Utilization-focused evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (Eds.). (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
Sontag, J. C., & Schacht, R. (1994). An ethnic comparison of parent participation and information needs in early intervention. Exceptional Children, 60, 422–433.
25.
Snell, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (1986). Community-referenced instruction: Research and issues. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 1–11.
26.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (Eds.). (1990). Families, professionals, and exceptionality.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
