Teacher-,Student-,and Peer-Directed Strategies to Access the General Education Curriculum for Students With Autism

Abstract

Access to the general education curriculum is a critical component of special education today, yet many teachers struggle to implement practices that provide such access. The authors describe how teachers can draw on three levels of support—teacher-, student-, and peer-delivered strategies—to optimize access to the general education curriculum for students with autism. Included are a variety of research-based strategies for facilitating access to the general education curriculum and information on where to find additional references and resources on specific strategies. The final section includes an example of how the three levels of support can be combined to maximize access to the general education curriculum for students with autism.

Keywords

learning strategies academic autism disabilities access to general education curriculum

The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandated that general and special educators work together to provide access to the general curriculum for all students, including those with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997). The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 defined access to the general curriculum as “the same curriculum as for nondisabled children” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004, § 300.347[a][1][i]). However, as indicated by Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson, and Slagor (2007), the specifics of where, how, and who should provide access were not defined in IDEA 2004. As a result, there is no one definition of access to the general education curriculum to which the field adheres but instead numerous definitions that are interpreted and implemented differently (Dymond et al., 2007). Some definitions of access are broad (e.g., access to state standards; Dymond et al., 2007), whereas others include very specific components (e.g., general education context, general education content, high expectations, and accountability measures; Ryndak, Moore, Orlando, & Delano, 2008). Such wide-scale interpretation can leave educators struggling with how to provide access to the general education curriculum for their students.

Students with autism are a population for whom access to the general education curriculum is particularly important. Students are identified with autism through a comprehensive developmental and educational evaluation (IDEA, 2004). Autism is a spectrum disorder, and therefore students who have been identified as having autism are a heterogeneous population (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2014). Although the frequency and severity of characteristics displayed in students with autism range from mild to severe, these students frequently have difficulty with social interactions, struggle with communication, and exhibit repetitive and stereotyped behavior (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2014). According to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2013), 37.4% of students with autism spend 80% or more of their school day in the general education classroom. There are numerous benefits from including students with disabilities in the general education classroom, including greater academic progress and achievement (Blackorby et al., 2007; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010), and increased social skills and opportunities for friendships (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995).

Unfortunately, research suggests that teachers struggle interpreting and accessing the general education curriculum within their classrooms (Dymond et al., 2007). To overcome difficulties associated with providing access to the general education curriculum, teachers often rely on paraprofessional support (Soukoup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). Although paraprofessionals are a valuable resource when educating students with disabilities, they often are not used in the most effective and efficient ways (Giangreco, 2003). Frequently in inclusive settings, paraprofessionals support students with disabilities by working one on one with them on separate content that is not related to the general education curriculum (Soukoup et al., 2007). Although such an arrangement may benefit students with disabilities in some specific ways, it does not contribute to students with disabilities’ meaningful access to the general education curriculum and classroom community.

Fortunately, there are several research-based strategies that teachers, paraprofessionals, peers, and individual students with autism can implement so that access the general education curriculum occurs in more meaningful ways. In this article, we provide a framework for teachers to use when planning for access to the general curriculum for their students with autism. The framework proposes that as teachers plan, they use strategies from three tiers: (a) teacher-, (b) student-, and (c) peer-directed. We present strategies within each of these tiers that have been demonstrated to improve academic and social outcomes for students with disabilities and can be used to facilitate access to the general curriculum for students with autism. Using the proposed three-tiered approach will increase the likelihood that students with disabilities included in general education classrooms have opportunities to access age-appropriate curriculum, develop authentic peer relationships, and self-direct their learning and experiences.

A Framework for Planning

Although there are various interpretations as to what access to the general curriculum means, many insist that access should take place within the inclusive classroom, where students with disabilities are full members and participants in the classroom community (Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008/2009). By using strategies from each tier, teachers will be able to maximize their instructional time and create a system of supports that promotes access to the general curriculum for students with autism in inclusive settings. The following sections present a key strategy from each tier of the framework, and Table 1 offers additional resources and information on the steps and strategies presented.

Table 1.

Additional Resources for Teacher-, Student-, and Peer-Directed Strategies.

Strategy	Resource Type	Link or Reference
Teacher-directed strategies
Academic content standards	Web site	Common Core State Standards Initiative (http://www.corestandards.org)
Adapted novels	Web site	University of North Carolina at Charlotte General Curriculum Projects (http://coedpages.uncc.edu/access/adaptedbooks.htm)
Embedded instruction	Web site	Embedded Instruction for Early Learning (http://embeddedinstruction.net)
Explicit instruction	Web site	Explicit Instruction (http://explicitinstruction.org)
	Book	Explicit Instruction: Effective and Efficient Teaching (Archer & Hughes, 2010)^a
Response prompting	Web site	East Carolina University Modules Addressing Special Education and Teacher Education (http://mast.ecu.edu/modules/ps/)
Task-analytic lesson planning	Article	“Training Teachers to Follow a Task Analysis to Engage Middle School Students With Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities in Grade-Appropriate Literature” (Browder, Trela, & Jimenez, 2007)^a
Universal design for learning	Web site	National Center on Universal Design for Learning (http://www.udlcenter.org)
Student-directed strategies
Assistive technology	Case study	“Improving Vocabulary Skills Through Assistive Technology: Rick’s Story” (Lindsey-Glenn & Gentry, 2008)^a
	Article	“Assistive Technology in the Inclusive Science Classroom” (Watson & Johnston, 2007)^a
	Article	“What Middle School Educators Should Know About Assistive Technology and Universal Design for Learning” (Zascavage & Winterman, 2009)^a
Augmentative and alternative communication	Web site	Augmentative and alternative communication (http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/AAC/)
Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction	Book	Promoting Self-Determination in Students With Developmental Disabilities (Wehmeyer, 2007)^a
Peer-directed strategies
Classwide peer tutoring	Article	“Classwide Peer Tutoring: An Effective Strategy for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders” (Bowman-Perrott, 2009)^a
	Article	“Classwide Peer Tutoring at Work” (Fulk & King, 2001)^a
Peer-assisted learning strategies	Web site	Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (https://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/)
Peer supports	Book	Peer Support Strategies for Improving All Students’ Social Lives and Learning (Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2008)^a

Included in the reference list.

Teacher-Directed Strategies

Teacher-directed strategies are managed, monitored, and implemented by teachers or other adults in the classroom. Although several teacher-directed strategies have been demonstrated as effective for providing students with autism with access to the general curriculum (see Table 1), in this section we focus on universal design for learning (UDL), which is the central component of teacher-directed strategies (Abell, Bauder, & Simmons, 2005). Using UDL facilitates access to the general education curriculum for students at a variety of ability levels by improving content representation, student expression, and engagement through the use of technology and differentiation (Abell et al., 2005; Spooner, Dymond, Smith, & Kennedy, 2006). When selecting and implementing teacher-directed strategies, a three-step process can be used that incorporates UDL. These three steps are (a) identifying the content and standards to target for instruction, (b) creating and/or adapting instructional materials, and (c) delivering instruction.

Step 1: Identifying the Content and Standards to Target for Instruction

The first step in implementing teacher-directed strategies is determining the specific content or academic standards on which to focus instruction. Teachers can select a grade-level text as the anchor of instruction (Browder et al., 2007; Mims, Hudson, & Browder, 2012), identify target general education academic standards (Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, & Jameson, 2004), or select essential vocabulary that is necessary for students to access and understand general education content (Knight, Smith, Spooner, & Browder, 2012). Figure 1 outlines examples of how to select content that aligns with individualized education program (IEP) goals, is linked to the general education curriculum, and contributes to postsecondary quality of life, independence, and self-determination (Knight, Browder, Agnello, & Lee, 2010; Polychronis et al., 2004).

Figure 1.

Example of content selection and alignment.

Step 2: Creating and/or Adapting Materials

Once teachers have selected the content on which to focus instruction, they can begin to create or adapt materials. During this phase, teachers should adhere to the principles of UDL to make the content accessible, engaging, and appropriately challenging for all learners (Spooner et al., 2006). For example, the principles of UDL can be used to adapt a text used in a lesson (e.g., Browder et al., 2007; Mims et al., 2012) by adhering to the following procedures: (a) rewriting the text at a more accessible reading or listening comprehension level, (b) adding picture symbols to facilitate comprehension, and (c) using technology to enhance the delivery of the content (e.g., audio text, tablet, augmentative and alternative communication device). Furthermore, UDL should be used when determining the appropriate way of assessing student learning. For example, when assessing a student with autism who is nonverbal, traditional paper-and-pencil tests would not be appropriate; instead, answer options may be displayed in an array presented on an augmentative and alternative communication device or picture communication board or strip.

Step 3: Delivering Instruction

The next step in the process is determining how the general education content will be delivered. Research suggests that instruction of general education content can be delivered via embedded instruction in the general education classroom (Polychronis et al., 2004). Using this format, teachers identify ways to embed instruction in the general education content and skills into activities or instruction within the inclusive classrooms. Several instructional strategies and procedures can be used to deliver such instruction to students with autism. These include (a) time delay procedures, (b) a system of least prompts, (c) simultaneous prompting, (d) task analyses, and (e) explicit instruction (Browder, 2001; Browder et al., 2007; Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Knight et al., 2012). Table 2 provides descriptions and examples of each of these strategies and procedures.

Table 2.

Strategies to Deliver Instruction.

Strategy	Description	Example
Time delay procedures	Fade chosen prompt using specific increments of time. The time always begins with a 0-second delay (errorless learning) and then can move to a constant delay (e.g., 3 seconds) or a progressive time delay (i.e., increasing the delay period each time).	The teacher says, “Point to the name of the main character in this chapter” while pointing to the correct answer (0-second time delay). After doing this multiple times, the teacher may add a constant time or progressive time delay between the response prompt. For example, after saying “Point to the name of the main character in this chapter,” the teacher waits 3 seconds for student to select answer and then points to the correct answer. Teacher immediately corrects incorrect answers and reinforces correct answers.
System of least prompts	Provide, as needed, prompts that move from the least intrusive to the most intrusive. Typically, this includes moving from a verbal prompt to a modeling prompt to physically guiding students to the correct answer. A predetermined constant time delay time is used between prompts.	The teacher says, “Point to the name of the main character” and waits 4 seconds for the student to point to the answer. If he student does not do so, he or she rereads the verbal prompt and points to the correct answer. If the student still does not select the correct answer after 4 seconds, the teacher repeats the prompt while physically guiding the student’s hand to the correct answer.
Simultaneous prompting	Use zero time delay to deliver the question and the chosen prompt simultaneously. This promotes errorless learning.	The teacher says, “Point to the name of the main character in this chapter” while pointing to the correct answer immediately (0-second time delay). Teacher does not provide reinforcement for correct answers or corrections for incorrect answers.
Task-analytic lesson plans	Task-analytic lesson plans break down lesson delivery into observable steps. Items are presented in a checklist form that teachers can use to self-monitor their own instruction and collect data on student performance.	A task-analytic lesson on comprehension might be broken down into the following steps: (a) tell students what the lesson is about; (b) open book to current chapter; (c) read title; (d) begin reading aloud, pausing after each paragraph to ask students predetermined comprehension questions using 3-second time delay; and (e) after reading review comprehension questions, ask each student one question using a 3-second time delay. The lesson plan would include areas to record individual student responses to comprehension questions for data collection.
Explicit instruction	Instruction that includes scaffolding and moves students through a prespecified set of skills and strategies with clearly identified outcomes. It includes clear directions, modeling, guided and independent practice, and consistent and immediate corrective feedback.	Explicit instruction to teach segmenting would include (a) a clearly communicated objective, (b) modeling by the teacher on how to segment specific words using multiple examples (e.g., “I’m going to say the sounds in cat, /c/ /a/ /t/”), (c) guided practice as a whole or small group (e.g., “Let’s say the sounds in cat together, /c/ /a/ /t/”), and (d) opportunities for independent practice by students (e.g., “Holly, what are the sounds in cat?”). The teacher provides immediate corrective feedback if students do not answer correctly.

Student-Directed Strategies

Student-directed strategies are used directly by the student. This section will focus on a system of student-directed strategies known as the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI; Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 2006). The SDLMI can facilitate the ability of students with autism to self-direct their learning and access the general education curriculum. Self-determination encompasses a student’s ability to set goals, solve problems, self-monitor, and self-direct learning (Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukoup, & Little, 2008; Spooner et al., 2006). Research indicates that individuals with disabilities possessing self-determination have increased access to the general education curriculum during their schooling experiences and more positive postsecondary outcomes (Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, & Mason, 2004; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003). In the SDLMI, students are taught specific strategies to use when learning new content, specifically, academic content from the general education curriculum. These strategies include goal setting, self-management, and goal evaluation (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000). Initially, as the SDLMI framework is being introduced to students, adults model the strategies. As students gradually gain confidence and fluency in implementing the strategies independently, the adult support is faded to promote generalization and independence.

Goal Setting

To use the SDLMI to help students with autism access the general education curriculum, teachers and students work together to identify a goal from the curriculum on which to focus. For example, this could be to comprehend the text used in a reading group, to pass a content area test, or to complete 100% of their mathematics homework for the week. To initiate conversations about the goal, students are taught to consider the following questions: (a) What do I want to learn? (b) What do I know about it now? (c) What must change for me to learn what I don’t know? and (d) What can I do to make this happen? (Wehmeyer et al., 2000, p. 442). Teachers and support staff members work with students to help identify a measureable goal and identify resources available to help achieve the goal.

Self-Management

After students have identified a learning goal linked to the general education curriculum, they need to identify supports that will help them achieve their goal. Teachers should assist students in identifying available supports related to staffing, scheduling, behavioral triggers or conditions, communication, and self-monitoring (Wehmeyer et al., 2000). In this phase, teachers provide direct instruction to students on how to follow a set of procedures, directions, or tasks to related to their goal (Agran et al., 2006). For example, if students identify self-monitoring as a support, they could be given cue cards and a data collection sheet to monitor their on-task behavior at prespecified time intervals.

Goal Evaluation

The final phase in the SDLMI provides students with opportunities to reflect on their goal and adjust as needed (Wehmeyer et al., 2000). In this phase, students identify the actions they have taken to work toward their goals and determine if they have met their goals. If they have not met their goals, or they determine that they are not making sufficient progress, they identify the barriers to their progress and adjust their goals accordingly. For example, if a student sets a goal to achieve 100% homework completion each week but has made insufficient progress meeting this goal, it would be important for the student to question why. Perhaps the student is not writing the homework assignments down in a planner, or maybe the student is forgetting to bring home the necessary books and supplies.

Peer-Directed Strategies

Peers can also help students with autism access the general education curriculum, and in fact, research has shown that the use of peer supports is beneficial for students with disabilities for several reasons. For example, peer supports can lead to gains in student engagement for both students with and without disabilities, increased social interactions, decreased off-task and challenging behavior, academic growth, and the promotion of functional skills (Spooner et al., 2006). Furthermore, individuals with disabilities can learn from their same-age peers, develop friendships with their peer tutors or partners, and develop friendships with other peers in the classroom (Carter & Kennedy, 2006).

One or two same-age peers can be trained to support a student with a disability in the general education classroom (Carter, Cushing, Clark, & Kennedy, 2005; Carter, Sisco, Melekoglu, & Kurkowski, 2007). Within this arrangement, peers can implement specific strategies on the basis of the individual needs of students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2007).

Carter and Kennedy (2006) described four components of the peer support process. First, peers are identified to work with individual students. Next, peers should receive training on the specific needs of the student with a disability, as well as training on how to implement support strategies correctly. Peers then observe how adults are implementing strategies to support students with disabilities. Then, the peers gradually assume more responsibility for implementing the strategies while the adult involvement fades from the instructional interaction. Finally, paraprofessionals and teachers provide ongoing feedback and support to the peers as they work with students with disabilities. There are a variety of supports peers can use when working with students with disabilities, including modifying, adapting, prompting, redirecting, explaining, providing feedback and reinforcement, and modeling (Carter et al., 2005, 2007; Carter & Kennedy, 2006). Selecting which of these strategies peers should implement is based on the individual needs of the student with a disability (Carter et al., 2007).

Putting It All Together

Peer support strategies are just one part of a three-tier framework for providing access to the general education curriculum for students with autism. Figure 2 illustrates how these three tiers of support can be coordinated in lesson planning and instruction to maximize access to the general education curriculum. In Figure 2, the lesson-planning guide has been completed for a fictitious ninth grade student with autism named Leslie (see Note 1). Leslie is being included in a general education science classroom. She is able to understand most of what she hears but is nonverbal and has a listening comprehension level of third grade.

Figure 2.

Lesson-planning guide example.

First, teachers select specific standards that will be addressed during instruction. In this example, the lab directions and write-up were adapted by taking the essence of the information from the original forms and adding pictures. Leslie’s teachers decided to use the system of least prompts along with a task-analytic lesson plan to deliver instruction. A form was designed for Leslie to self-monitor and reflect on her use of the Dynavox to ask for help while accessing the general education curriculum.

Devon, a same-age peer, was selected to support Leslie. Devon was picked to work with Leslie because he has known her since first grade, is an excellent science student, and has previously worked with Leslie on group projects. Both the special education teacher and paraprofessional met with Devon to prepare him to support Leslie. They informed him of specific IEP goals that she is working on in biology class and various ways he can support her in accessing the general education curriculum. Specifically, Devon received training on implementing the system of least prompts that Leslie’s teachers were using and how to support Leslie in using her Dynavox. Devon first observed Leslie’s special education teacher and paraprofessional working with Leslie during biology class, and then it was his turn to work with Leslie. As needed during class and during weekly meeting times, the special education teacher and paraprofessional checked in with the pair, provided Devon with feedback, and shared tips on supporting Leslie. During a recent class, Devon rephrased the biology teacher’s instructions for the lab, used the system of least prompts as Leslie worked to complete the various steps of the lab, and praised Leslie when she asked for help with her Dynavox.

Conclusion

The strategies presented in this article can help special education teachers and the professionals with whom they collaborate provide students with autism and other disabilities access to the general education curriculum. The examples provided in this article should help teachers as they plan for and implement access to the general education curriculum for their own students with autism. The strategies should help facilitate age-appropriate, authentic education in inclusive environments that are grounded in general education content standards. By using multiple strategies, teachers can increase the likelihood that students with autism, such as Leslie, become full participating learners in the inclusive classroom.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This work was completed while Amy J. Olson and Melinda M. Leko were at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abell

M. M.

Bauder

D. K.

Simmons

T. J.

(2005). Access to the general curriculum: A curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 82–86. doi:10.1177/10534512050410020801

Agran

Cavin

Wehmeyer

Palmer

(2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effect of the self-determined learning model of instruction. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 230–241.

Archer

A. L.

Hughes

C. A.

(2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.

Blackorby

Knokey

Wagner

Levine

Schiller

Sumi

(2007). What makes a difference? Influence on outcomes for students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Bowman-Perrott

(2009). Classwide peer tutoring: An effective strategy for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 259–267. doi:10.1177/1053451208330898

Browder

D. M.

(2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.

Browder

D. M.

Trela

Jimenez

(2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206–219. doi:10.1177/10883576070220040301

Carter

E. W.

Cushing

L. S.

Clark

N. M.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 15–25. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10/2511/rpsd.30.1.15

Carter

E. W.

Cushing

L. S.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2008). Peer support strategies for improving all students’ social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

10.

Carter

E. W.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 284–292.

11.

Carter

E. W.

Sisco

L. G.

Melekoglu

M. A.

Kurkowski

(2007). Peer supports as an alternative to individually assigned paraprofessionals in inclusive high school classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32(4), 213–227. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2511/rpsd.32.4.213

12.

Copeland

S. R.

Keefe

E. B.

(2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

13.

Dymond

S. K.

Renzaglia

Gilson

C. L.

Slagor

M. T.

(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1–15. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2511/rpsd.32.1.1

14.

Fryxell

Kennedy

C. H.

(1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students’ social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 20, 259–269.

15.

Fulk

B. M.

King

(2001). Classwide peer tutoring at work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 49–53.

16.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2003). Working with paraprofessionals. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 50–53.

17.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2657 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

19.

Jackson

L. B.

Ryndak

D. L.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2008/2009). The dynamic relationships between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 175–195. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10/2511/rpsd.33.4.175

20.

Knight

Browder

Agnello

Lee

(2010). Academic instruction for students with severe disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(7), 1–14.

21.

Knight

V. F.

Smith

B. R.

Spooner

Browder

(2012). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378–389. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1258-1

22.

Kurth

J. A.

Mastergeorge

A. M.

(2010). Academic and cognitive profiles of students with autism: Implications for classroom practices and placement. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 8–14.

23.

Lee

S. H.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Soukoup

J. H.

Little

T. D.

(2008). Self-determination and access to the general education curriculum. Journal of Special Education, 42, 91–107. doi:10.1177/0022466907312354

24.

Lindsey-Glenn

P. F.

Gentry

J. E.

(2008). Improving vocabulary skills through assistive technology: Rick’s story. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(2), 2–11.

25.

Mims

P. J.

Hudson

M. E.

Browder

D. M.

(2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27, 67–80. doi:10.1177/1088357612446859

26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Fast facts: Inclusion of students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59

27.

National Dissemination Center for Children With Disabilities. (2014). Categories of disability under IDEA. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://nichcy.org/disability/categories

28.

Polychronis

S. C.

McDonnell

Johnson

J. W.

Riesen

Jameson

(2004). A comparison of two trial distribution schedules in embedded instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 140–151. doi:10.1177/10883576040190030201

29.

Ryndak

D. L.

Moore

M. A.

Orlando

Delano

(2008). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 199–213. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.199

30.

Soukoup

J. H.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Bashinski

S. M.

Bovaird

(2007). Classroom variables and access to the general education curriculum of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120.

31.

Spooner

Dymond

S. K.

Smith

Kennedy

C. H.

(2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.

32.

Watson

Johnston

(2007). Assistive technology in the inclusive science classroom. Science Teacher, 74(3), 34–38.

33.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2007). Promoting self-determination in students with developmental disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.

34.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Field

Doren

Jones

Mason

(2004). Self-determination and student involvement in standards based reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 413–425.

35.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

(2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.

36.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Palmer

S. B.

Agran

Mithaug

D. E.

Martin

J. E.

(2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439–453.

37.

Zascavage

Winterman

K. G.

(2009). What middle school educators should know about assistive technology and universal design for learning. Middle School Journal, 40(4), 46–52.