Part of a comprehensive study to identify the setting demands of mainstream secondary classrooms examined five characteristics of questions on tests administered in English, mathematics, science, and social studies classes at the 7th- and lOth-grade level. Findings showed that the typical test consisted of 34.6 questions and were written at the 8.9 grade level. The content of the response required varied depending on the subject matter. Based on Bloom's Taxonomy, the majority of questions required a response at the knowledge level. Almost 50% of the questions were of the recognition class, followed by the production class (40%). Finally, multiple-choice was the most frequent question type. To cope effectively with these characteristics requires the recall of specific items of information in a rote fashion. This requirement poses particular problems for students with mild handicaps, who typically experience memory problems. Lastly, mnemonics and test-taking instruction is discussed as a possible means of increasing the skills of adolescents with mild handicaps in acquiring content-area information and subsequent performance on tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlleyG. R., & DeshlerD. D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods.Denver: Love.
2.
AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D., & WarnerM. (1979). Identification of LD adolescents: A Bayesian approach. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 76–93.
3.
BellezzaF. S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: Classification, characteristics, and criteria. Review of Educational Research, 51, 247–275.
4.
BloomB. L. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.New York: David McKay Company.
5.
CooneyJ. B., & SwansonH. L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: An overview. In SwansonH. L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
6.
CuthbertsonE. B. (1980). An analysis of secondary testing and grading procedures. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Kansas.
7.
DaleE., & ChallJ. S. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin, 27-28, 11–20, 37-54.
8.
DeshlerD. D.PutnamM. L., & BulgrenJ. A. (1985). Academic accommodations for adolescents with behavior and learning problems. In BraatenS.RutherfordR. B. & EvansW. (Eds.), Programming for adolescents with behavioral disorders (Vol. 2, pp. 20–30). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
9.
FleschR. F. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.
10.
FlemingM., & ChambersB. (1983). Teacher-made test: Windows on the classroom. In HathawayW. E. (Ed.), Testing in the schools: New directions for testing and measurement. No. 10 (pp. 29–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
HermanJ., & Dorr-BremmeD. W. (1982, April). Assessing students: Teacher's routine practices and reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
12.
HeronT. E., & SkinnerM. E. (1981). Criteria for defining the regular classroom as the least restrictive environment for LD students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 5, 117–125.
13.
HughesC. A., & SchumakerJ. B. (1991). Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
HughesC. A.SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D., & MercerC. D. (1988). The Test-taking strategy.Lawrence, KS: Excellenterprises, Inc.
15.
HundretJ. (1982). Some considerations of planning the integration of handicapped children into the mainstream. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 496–499.
16.
KailR., & LeonardL. B. (1986). Sources of word-finding problems in language-impaired children. In CeciS. J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 185–202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
KlareG. R. (1963). The measurement of readability.Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
18.
LeeP., & AlleyG. R. (1981). Training junior high LD students to use a test-taking strategy. (Research Report No. 38).Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
19.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. Translated by Donald AdamsK. & Karl ZenerE. NY: McGraw- Hill.
20.
LorayneH., & LucasJ. (1974). The memory book. NY: Ballantine.
21.
MastropieriM. A., & ScuggsT. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special education. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.
MillmanJ.BishopC. H., & EbelR. (1965). An analysis of test- wiseness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25, 707726.
24.
PaukW. (1987). Study skills for community and junior colleges.Clearwater, FL: Reston-Stuart.
25.
PressleyM.ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1989). Memory strategy research in learning disabilities: Present and future directions. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 68–77.
26.
PrestonR. C., & BotelM. (1974). How to study. Chicago: SRA.
27.
PutnamM. L. (1988). An investigation of the curricular demands in secondary mainstream classrooms containing students with mild handicaps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Kansas.
28.
PutnamM. L. (1991a). Readability estimates of content-area textbooks used in mainstreamed secondary classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
PutnamM. L. (1991b). An extension of the special education assessment process: The identification of setting demands. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30.
PutnamM. L. (in press b). Written feedback on tests provided mainstream secondary classroom teachers on tests. Learning Disabilities.
31.
PutnamM. L. (in press a). Testing practices of mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education.
32.
PutnamM. L.DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. B. (in press). The investigation of setting demands: A missing link in learning strategy instruction. In MeltzerL. (Ed.), Learning strategy instruction for students with learning disabilities: From theory to practice.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
33.
ReynoldsM. C.WangM. C., & WalbergH. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398.
34.
RitterS., & Idol-MaestasL. (1983). Training EMH senior high school students to use a test-taking strategy. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Special Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
35.
RitterS., & Idol-MaestasL. (1986). Teaching middle school students to use a test-taking strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 350–357.
36.
RosenbergM. S., & Sindelar, P. T. (1982). Educational assessment using direct continuous data. In NeisworthJ. T. (Ed.) Assessment in special education.Rockville: Aspen.
37.
ScruggsT. E.DennionK., & LifsonS. (1985). Learning disabled students’ spontaneous use of test-taking skills on reading achievement tests. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8, 205–210.
38.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1986). Improving the testtaking skills of behaviorally disordered and learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, 53, 63- 68.
39.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (1989). Mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities: What is it and what it does. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 13, 271–280.
40.
ScruggsT. E., & TolfaD. (1985). Improving the test-taking skills of learning disabled students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60,847850.
41.
SwansonH. L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities.Greenwich, CT: JAI.
42.
TaylorC., & WhiteK. R. (1982). The effect of reinforcement and training on group standardized test behavior. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 199–209.
43.
WillM. (1986). Educating students with learning problems—A shared responsibility. U.S Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
44.
ZigmondN.LevinE., & LaurieT. (1985). Managing the mainstream: An analysis of teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstreaming high school programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 535–541.
