The increase in inclusion of students with moderate retardation and severe disabilities within general education classrooms has broadened the educational team to include educators who may lack specialized training in implementing best practices for these students. Participation in collaborative assessment focused on students with more intense needs may require modifications in assessment procedures and formats. This study examined perceptions of future general and special education teachers of assessment summaries presented in a traditional and a profile format. Results of paired t-tests comparing participants' perceptions of the formats on each item of the Assessment Summary Questionnaire yielded five significant differences. Results are discussed in terms of recommendations for strengths-based assessment summaries. Implications for undergraduate preservice education are discussed also.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association on Mental Retardation (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (9th ed). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
2.
BrookhartS. M., & FreemanD. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62, 37-60.
3.
BrowderD. M. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment (2nd ed). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
4.
BrowderD. M., & BelfioreP. J. (1991). Assessment in and for the community. In BrowderD. M. (Ed.), Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment (2nd ed., pp. 177-212). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
5.
CobbH., ElliottR., PowersA., & VoltzD. (1989). Generic versus categorical special education teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 19-26.
6.
DowningJ. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
7.
DowningJ., & PerinoD. M. (1992). Functional versus standardized assessment procedures: Implications for educational programming. Mental Retardation, 30, 289-295.
8.
FalveyM. A., ForestM., PearpointJ., & RosenbergR. L. (1994). Building connections. In ThousandJ. S., VillaR. A., & NevinA. I. (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 347-368). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
9.
FergusonD. L., MeyerG., JeanchildJ., JuniperL., & ZingoJ. (1992). Figuring out what to do with the grown-ups: How teachers make inclusion “work” for students with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 16, 218-228.
10.
FordA. (1995). A team planning packet for inclusive education. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin School Inclusion Project.
11.
GiangrecoM. F., BaumgartD., & DoyleM. B. (1995). How inclusion can facilitate teaching and learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 273-278.
12.
GiangrecoM. F., CloningerC. J., & IversonV. S. (1998). Choosing options and accommodations for children (C.O.A.C.H.) (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
13.
GoodmanJ. R., & BondL. (1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective critique. Journal of Special Education, 26, 408-422.
14.
HelmstetterE., PeckC. A., & GiangrecoM. F. (1994). Outcomes of interaction with peers with moderate and severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 19, 263-276.
15.
HuntP., & GoetzL. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
16.
LomaxR. G. (1996). On becoming assessment literate: An initial look at preservice teachers' beliefs and practices. Teacher Educator, 31, 292-303.
17.
McCormickL., LoebD. F., & SchiefelbuschR. L. (1997). Supporting children with communication difficulties in inclusive settings. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
MeyerL. H., & EichingerJ. (1994). Program quality indicators: A checklist on most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
19.
MeyerL. H., EichingerJ., & DowningJ. (1992). Program quality indicators: A checklist on most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. (Rev. ed.). Seattle, WA: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
20.
MeyerL. H., EichingerJ., & Park-LeeS. (1987). A validation of program quality indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 12, 251-263.
21.
MorsinkC. V., ThomasC., & Smith-DavisJ. (1987). Noncategorical special education programs: Process and outcomes. In WangM. C., ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education research and practice (pp. 287-311). New York: Pergamon.
22.
OvertonT. (1996). Assessment in special education: An applied approach. (2nd ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
23.
PugachM. C. (1992). Uncharted territory: Research on the socialization of special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 133-147.
24.
RainforthB., & York-BarrJ. (1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy with educational services. (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
25.
RainforthB., YorkJ., & MacdonaldC. (1992). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy with educational services. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
26.
RyndakD. L., & AlperS. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
27.
SailorW., AndersonJ. L., HalvorsenA., DoeringK., FillerJ., & GoetzL. (1989). The comprehensive local school. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
28.
SchwartzI. S., StaubD., CallucciD., & PeckC.A. (1995). Blending qualitative and behavior analytic research methods to evaluate outcomes in inclusive schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 93-106.
29.
SnellM., & BrownF. (1993). Instructional planning and implementation. In SnellM. (Ed.), Systematic instruction for students with severe disabilities (4th ed., pp. 9-151). New York, NY: Macmillan.
VandercookT., YorkJ., & ForestM. (1989). The McGill action planning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205-215.
32.
WoleryM. (1996). Using assessment information to plan intervention programs. In McLeanM., BaileyD. B., & WoleryM. (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed., pp. 491-518). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
33.
U.S. Department of Education (1993). Fifteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, D.C.: Author.
