Case study methodology was used in combination with a participatory action research (PAR) approach to examine the process of redesigning one high school science course to incorporate the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and to promote access to the general curriculum. The participants included one general education teacher and two special education teachers. Two sections of the course were targeted for redesign. Each section included students with disabilities (mild, severe) and without disabilities. The redesign process involved changes to the course in the areas of curriculum, instructional delivery/organization of learning environments, student participation, materials, and assessment. Data were collected across one school year through documents, interviews, and focus groups and were analyzed qualitatively using a constant comparative method.
BruyereS. M. (1993). Participatory action research: Overview and implications for family members of persons with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 62–68.
2.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
DymondS. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school programs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 54–63.
4.
DymondS. K.OreloveF. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities?Exceptionality, 9, 109–122.
5.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaA.GilsonC. L.SlagorM. T. (in press). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities.
6.
FriendM.BursuckW. D. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
8.
GreenwoodD. J.LevinM. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. London: Sage.
9.
HitchcockC. G. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in universally designed learning environments. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 23–30.
10.
HitchcockC.MeyerA.RoseD.JacksonR. (2002). Access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum. Peabody, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-17, 37 Stat. 111 (1997).
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.
13.
(IDEA) Amendments of 2004. P.L. 108-446, 118 Stat 2647 (2004).
14.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
MeyerL. H.ParkH.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (1998). Participatory research: New approaches to the research to practice dilemma. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 165–177.
16.
RenzagliaA.KarvonenM.DrasgowE.StoxenC. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 140–149.
17.
RoseD. H.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
18.
RyndakD. L. (1996). Adapting environments, materials, and instruction to facilitate inclusion. In RyndakD. L.AlperS. (Eds.), Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 97–124). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
19.
SalisburyC. L.WilsonL. L.PalombaroM. M. (1998). Promoting inclusive schooling practices through practitioner directed inquiry. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 223–237.
20.
SalisburyC. L.WilsonL. L.SwartzT. J.PalombaroM. M.WasselJ. (1997). Using action research to solve instructional challenges in inclusive elementary school settings. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 21–39.
21.
SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (1996). A focus on curricula design: When children fail. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28, 1–16.
22.
SnellM. E.BrownF. (Eds.) (2001). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
23.
VandercookT.YorkJ.ForestM. (1989). The McGill action planning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205–215.
24.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
25.
WolfeB.EdelmanL. (1994, October). In-service best practices: Learning activities that make a difference. Preconference workshop at the Tenth Annual Early Childhood Conference on Children with Special Needs, St. Louis, MO.
