602 dis

Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms Author(s): Alicia Broderick, Heeral Mehta-Parekh and D. Kim Reid Source: Theory Into Practice, Vol. 44, No. 3, Differentiated Instruction (Summer, 2005), pp. 194-202 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3496998 Accessed: 12-08-2019 15:15 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3496998?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory Into Practice

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 44(3), 194-202

Alicia Broderick

Heeral Mehbta-Parekh D. Kim Reid

Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms

Differentiating instruction, a comprehensive approach to teaching, enables the successful in- clusion of all students, including the disabled, in general-education classrooms. As inclusive edu- cators, we argue that disability is an enacted, interactional process and not an empirical, stable fact or condition. We recommend planning re-

sponsive lessons that diferentiate instruction for all students from the outset, instead of modifying one for disabled students. General-education

Alicia Broderick is an Assistant Professor of Education

in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at the Teachers College of Columbia University. Heeral Mehta-Parekh is an Instructor and Doctoral Student in

the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at the Teachers College of Columbia University. D. Kim Reid is a Professor of Education in the Department of Curric-

ulum and Teaching at the Teachers College of Columbia University.

Requests for reprints can be sent to Alicia Broderick,

Box 31, Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027. E-mail: Broderick@ exchange.tc.columbia.edu

teachers, who with appropriate supports learn to attend to every student's individual needs, can re- place the specially designed, and often uninterest-

ing one-to-one skills and drills, typically sug- gested for disabled students, with responsive class activities contingent on individual performance. This shift in instructionalfocus supports the provi- sion of access to the general education curriculum

required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act. We also address practical, disability-related

issues for effectively differentiating instructional in inclusive classrooms.

HISTORICALLY, THE UNITED STATES has met legal mandates for educational inclusion by

bringing first Black, then disabled, then non-Eng- lish-speaking students into the public schools, but keeping them separate-what Cope and Kalantzis (2000) refer to as "inclusion through exclusion" (p. 5). Most educators and the general public have come to expect disabled students1 to be taught in

194

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms

separate spaces by separate professionals, typi- cally identified as special educators. In contrast, we identify ourselves as inclusive educators. In the U.S. literature, the term inclusive education

has most commonly been used to refer somewhat narrowly to the integration of disabled students, previously segregated, into general education classrooms (Ware, 2001). Consequently, many ed- ucators, particularly in the United States, perceive inclusive education as having evolved from spe- cial education, and therefore as being fundamen- tally about issues related to disability. Although this article specifically focuses on differentiating instruction for disabled learners in inclusive class-

rooms, in identifying ourselves as inclusive educa- tors we do not focus our concern solely on the inte-

gration of disabled students in classrooms alongside nondisabled peers. We propose, rather, an understanding of inclusive education as educa- tion that seeks to resist the many ways students ex-

perience marginalization and exclusion in schools. To that end, we posit that inclusive educa- tion is fundamentally about all students, and argue that the full spectrum of challenges of public schooling-around issues of poverty, second lan- guage acquisition, racial and ethnic discrimina- tion, disability, etc.-must be attended to for edu- cation to be inclusive.

As inclusive educators, we both critique some of the assumptions underlying traditional special education practice, and align ourselves with the broader, international political project of enacting educational practices that identify and resist any exclusion in schools, whatever its basis (Ware, 2004). Indeed, the ongoing legacy of separate classrooms, teachers, and even curricula for dis-

abled (and other) learners makes it difficult to pro-

vide real opportunities at school. Furthermore, such separation contributes in important ways to creating, sustaining, and exacerbating disability, even in integrated settings. Because most nondisabled people learn what it means to be dis- abled through their understanding of various nega- tively charged disability labels (e.g., mentally re- tarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed), the fact that they experience little or no interaction

with disabled persons allows those negative asso- ciations to prevail.

The Enactment of Disability

Analyzing real classroom transcripts, Reid and Valle (2005) identify a cycle of behaviors in which "knowing" that a student has a label (any disabil- ity label) predisposes a teacher to look for particu- lar deficits associated with that label and respond to the student in day-to-day classroom interactions as though the student truly possessed the expected characteristics. The teacher's and also other stu-

dents' behaviors then set up a situation in which the student reacts as disabled. We provide an ex- ample from an ethnographic study by Collins (2003, paraphrased from pp. 80-81).

The scenario: Students are working in small groups to determine whether there is a relation- ship between an object's shape and whether or not it floats. Kim asks Cynthia to make a list of the objects the class has previously tested, but the magic marker doesn't work. Jay, a student la- beled with a learning disability (LD), offers to try writing. Carl, a classmate not in the group, says, "If she can't do it, you can't either." Jay re- plies to Carl, "Shut up!"-but follows it with a quick grin. The teacher, who overhears the con- versation but does not see him smile, reprimands Jay, telling him, "We don't talk like that in here." Carl returns to his seat. Cynthia gets a new marker and lists the objects tested earlier with their size, shape, and material. Jay tries to tell the girls that they are not doing the assignment: "Mrs. Bozek said for us to organize it by shape." "You're supposed to do shapes." "Do it by shape." No one responds to him. The teacher ap- proaches, watches to see what the students are doing, and then reminds them that they were to have tested the objects by shape, "So, do all cyl- inders float or sink? What does the data say?" Jay comments to Kim, "See, I toldja." The teacher again says "We don't talk like that in here," and points to the door.

Collins (2003) noted that, because the teacher and students are paying more attention to the inter-

personal aspects of the task than its requirements, Jay is "set up" by his classmates, who interfere with or ignore him. But he, too, contributes by re- sponding with "Shut up" and "I toldja." So, the question is, "Where is the LD?"

195

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Differentiated Instruction

It is all over the classroom as an interactional possi-

bility. Everyone stands in some relation to it. Every-

one is part of the choreography that produces mo- ments for its public appearance. LD is distributed across persons, across the moment, as part of the contextual work members do in the different scenes.

Neither [Jay], nor his disability, can be separated from the contexts in which they emerge. (McDermott, 1993, cited in Collins, 2003, p. 81)

As inclusive educators, we use this example to point out that disability results not from an individ-

ual's bodily, sensory, or cognitive difference per se,

but from social interpretations of that difference: difference read as impairment and responded to in

negative and hierarchical ways (Oliver, 1986). Dis- ability is contextualized. It is not a universal fact or condition; it is enacted. As an enactment, its nature

and meaning shift through time (Stiker, 2002), across cultures (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999), and, in terms of our interests here, even minute-to-minute

within classrooms as dialogue and activity contexts

change (Rueda, Gallego, & Moll, 2000). Furthermore, disability does not play out for all

students in the same way, even when they carry the

same label. Disabled students may be Black, White, or Asian; poor, middle-class, or affluent; male or female; straight or gay; English-speaking or not; young or old; and each of these factors in- fluence their life experiences, aptitudes, attitudes, interests, and so forth. The intersectionality of all personal and social characteristics determines how disability will be experienced.

Thinking about disabilities as absolute cate- gories of difference also causes trouble because it emphasizes students' common deficits (Tom- linson, Callahan, Tomchin, & Eiss, 1997), rather than their uniqueness and competence. If teachers are to provide access to the general education cur- riculum, as the 1997 reauthorization of the Indi- viduals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997

(IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandate, they must identify and build on all students' strengths, talents, and prior knowl- edge. Only through building on their strengths and

acknowledging their experiences can teachers en- gage students in appropriately challenging class- room activities.

The Value of Replacing Problematic Special Education Practices With DI

Differentiated instruction (DI; Tomlinson, 1999, 2001; Tomlinson et al., 2002) is essential in providing real opportunities for learning to the heterogeneous groups of students who populate inclusive classrooms-and, clearly, disabled stu- dents constitute only one facet of the heterogene- ity. Offering the same lesson to all makes no sense

when every indication is that U.S. classrooms are inherently diverse. Teachers who use DI expect students to bring a variety of experiences, abilities,

interests, and styles to their learning; they ac- knowledge that these affect students' performance in the classroom; and they address this natural di- versity when planning and delivering rigorous and relevant, yet flexible and responsive, instruction. Nevertheless, some experienced and novice teach- ers continue to resist both DI and inclusion

(Tomlinson et al., 1997), clinging instead to tradi- tional, homogenizing methods.

Because people usually frame differences as problems inherent in students rather than, as we now suggest, arising from classroom practices or interactions between the two (Adelman, Reyna, Collins, Onghai, & Taylor, 1999), people often consider modification of the typical content and pace-or other aspects of the instructional pro- cess-an unfair burden on the classroom teacher.

As a result, many argue that "experts" (e.g., the special education professional, the language spe- cialist, etc.), not the classroom teacher, must ac-

commodate differences-a process thought to be what is "special" about special education. Such accommodations typically occur (a) through mod- ification of curriculum and instruction, which may result in the watering down of curricular content, and (b) outside of the general education class- room, which may result in the isolation and stig- matization of disabled students (not to mention a

more homogenized and impoverished learning ex- perience for the nondisabled students remaining in the general education classroom).

In truth, homogeneity exists neither in main- stream settings, nor among students in segregated special-education classrooms. Not only is homo- geneity a myth, but, as Tomlinson (1999) noted,

196

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms

attempts to create homogenous classrooms and learning experiences often fail to result in educa- tional achievement for the students in them:

Too often in these settings, teachers' expectations for

the struggling learners decline, materials are simpli- fied, the level of discourse is less than sterling, and the pace slackens. Too few students escape these arrangements to join more "typical" or advanced classes. In other words, remedial classes keep reme- dial learners remedial. (p. 21)

The assumption that there is a "norm" or "stan- dard" of curricular content or instructional ap- proach that will be effective with most learners that girds the push for homogeneity is a large part

of the problem. As inclusive educators, we suggest

that all good teachers are responsive to all learn- ers' needs-not in the sense that they modify a standard curriculum, but in the sense that they pre-

pare from the outset for a wide variety of apti- tudes, needs, and interests.

There is, however, a role for experts or special- ists. Collaboration inside the general education classroom can become an important resource for differentiation. Part- or full-time paraprofessional

assistants or specialists who push in to the class- room can provide instruction to any student who

needs it in small, flexible groups, and collaborate with the classroom teacher in both the planning and implementation of instruction. These special- ists can assist students to work as part of a larger group and adapt, but not water down, the material

for a small group or an entire class. Many instruc- tional routines and strategies that a special educa- tion teacher may implement will benefit most stu-

dents, not just those who are labeled. Such strategies might include coaching students in ef- fective group work, teaching them study skills, or

developing the capacity to work independently. Teachers, along with those who support them in the classroom, need to collaborate with the spec- trum of stakeholders-students, parents, commu- nity members, administrators, and so forth-to ensure that all students are truly integrated, val- ued, and effective members of the classroom

community.

So how does one do that? DI is a big part of the answer. It is not a method, but rather a way of do-

ing business in classrooms, based on the belief that all students can learn and succeed. In the remain-

der of this article, we address general consider- ations for using DI with students who carry dis- ability labels, although for the most part, our concerns and recommendations could prove appli- cable and useful for most students. We address

general planning considerations relative to issues of disability, and specific considerations relative to effectively differentiating instructional content,

process, and products.

Planning for Differentiated Classrooms That Include Disabled Learners

The first step in planning is to examine current

practices (i.e., instructional interactions, peer in- teractions, and the physical environment of the classroom) for their disabling potential. Consider the following common scenario: An elementary classroom teacher expects students to take turns reading aloud. Many disabled students, regardless of the particular label, may not read at grade level. When the teacher calls on a disabled student to

read aloud, the student throws a temper tantrum, as students often prefer to arouse sanction rather than display their difficulty reading (Moll, Diaz, Estrada, & Lopes, 1992). The teacher counters the disruptive behavior by asking that the student withdraw from participation in the learning activ-

ity. The teacher who differentiates instruction will

recognize that the context is provoking the situa- tion and will problem-solve to modify the instruc-

tions. Some possible solutions include asking stu- dents to volunteer to read aloud, allowing them to have a reading buddy, assigning "parts" the hour before and asking students to prepare ahead, or al-

lowing them to decide how and when they will read. Dyck and Pemberton (2002) also suggested bypassing reading altogether (if the objective does not require decoding skills), using alternative text with similar content, placing aids within texts to promote comprehension, supporting reading with graphic organizers, or guiding the reading by pre- viewing important concepts and ideas.

197

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Differentiated Instruction

Teachers may also learn a lot by carefully prob-

ing the classroom's physical and social-emotional environments for their disabling potential. Flexi- ble grouping demands environments where all stu- dents are able to move freely (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). To accommodate disabled stu- dents, aisles should be clear and wide enough to be wheelchair accessible and students should be able

to choose the specific environment in which they prefer to work (e.g., near the board, in a quiet cor-

ner, on a rug). Materials should be accessible, charts and bulletin boards at eye-level, and books in cubbies rather than on high shelves.

Students tend to take cues from the teacher and

so the teacher's attitudes toward disability will greatly influence how students treat difference. Thus, teaching about diversity-race, class, eth- nicity, ability, etc.-should be an integral part of the curriculum in inclusive classrooms. Disability awareness is an important curricular goal in creat- ing a warm and supportive classroom community.

Flexible grouping, too, encourages students to build personal connections by working with dif- ferent members of the community. It also prohibits

the differentiated classroom from becoming noth- ing more than within-class homogeneous group- ing. Teachers must be certain, however, that these

groupings allow disabled students to act as helper as often as they act as helpee. To do otherwise cre-

ates a power dynamic in which disabled students are pitied, objectified, or marginalized (Shapiro, 2000; Van der Klift & Kunc, 1994). Social skills and self-advocacy can be taught and acquired in community meetings, through collaborative prob- lem solving in small groups and one-on-one ex- changes, or through role play (Salend, 2004). Stu- dents who experience failure will not be willing participants in the classroom community.

Differentiating Content

DI encourages teachers to tailor instructional content, process, and product to the students' needs.

Content refers to the concepts and skills to be learned. Presently, state and district standards pro- vide teachers with guidelines for teaching, but these

standards stipulate only the content-to-be-in-

cluded, and not a coherent overview of what or how

content might be taught (Tomlinson, 2001). Dis- abled students, often perceived as less competent, are frequently taught with teacher-controlled, tech-

nique-driven methods that induce the very inatten-

tiveness, memory difficulties, low motivation, and behavioral disruptions that we assign as character- istics of the students disabilities (Gallagher, 2004). Such methods also teach them to be passive learn- ers. Educators often express the mistaken belief that a student who has not mastered basic skills can-

not engage in higher-order thinking. However, all students should be supported and encouraged to en- gage in critical thinking and problem solving. In- struction simply needs to meet struggling learners

at the point of their current achievement and sys-

tematically escalate their learning (Tomlinson, 1999).

Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995) have written that "a cornerstone of psychological as- sessment methodology, statistics, and psycho- metry" is "that there is a strong presumptive rela-

tionship, in general, between overt production and actual ability" (p. 755). For example, if a person is unable to produce reliable speech or independ- ently motorically access an expressive communi- cation device, one may interpret these circum- stances as reflecting an overall inability to communicate and possibly even to comprehend, rather than as a specific inability to execute the complex motor acts of speech production or inde- pendent device access. Borthwick and Crossley (1999) pointed out, however, that the "putative re- lationship between overt production and actual ability" noted by Jacobson et al. has frequently been falsified in relation to specific populations- for example, in cases of deafness and physical dis- abilities such as cerebral palsy (pp. 3-5).

In the absence of reliable means of assessing understanding (and many students with significant

disabilities experience particular disabling condi- tions that render them "untestable" by conven- tional means), one is left in the position of having to make decisions about a student's curriculum

and instruction based on assumptions, rather than certainty. One is thus faced with a choice: (a) as- sume that the student is probably not able to com- prehend and elect to provide that student with

198

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms

more limited learning opportunities, focusing on intensive remedial coverage of very basic con- cepts; or (b) assume that the student is able to comprehend beyond his or her ability to demon- strate that comprehension, and elect to provide that student with more rich and varied learning op-

portunities, while continuing to seek a more reli- able means for that student to demonstrate com-

prehension through differentiated process and products. The former has been a common assump- tion within special education, and the result for students with significant disabilities has been that many have experienced severely impoverished curricula, some with little to no exposure to sci- ence and social studies content, and with only the most basic and rudimentary literacy and math instruction.

Acknowledging that educators have to make a choice between these two assumptions, Don- nellan (1984) offered the "least dangerous as- sumption" as the criterion (p. 141). That is, if whichever assumption one acts on is later dem- onstrated to have been incorrect, which assump- tion will have had the least dangerous impact on

a student's education? Biklen and others (Biklen, 1999, 2000; Biklen & Cardinal, 1997; Rubin et

al., 2001) have offered another choice as a guid- ing maxim: the presumption of competence. Ed- ucators must presume, first and foremost, that their students are competent individuals who are ready for and capable of benefitting from aca- demic curricular content, and then must create the necessary instructional package to ensure stu- dents' access to that content. Offering the oppor- tunity for learning allows disabled students to ex- perience an education that is rich, rigorous, challenging, relevant, interesting, and equitable to that of their nondisabled peers.

Differentiating Process and Products

Tomlinson and Edison (2003) explained that the line between content and process is blurred. Process begins when students make personal sense of information, ideas, and skills, when they are able to grapple with problems using learned in-

formation. Teachers can assist students by sup-

porting the development of relevant, personal con-

nections with problems and texts, and linking them with still other known problems and texts. Some effective strategies for disabled students in- clude collaborative discussion teams (Salend, 2004), classwide peer tutoring (Fulk & King, 2001), book discussions (Berry & Englert, 1998; Martin, 1998), and jigsaws-a type of cooperative learning (Aronson, 1978).

Disabled students often need to have modified

access to content materials that are consistent with

their learning preferences and needs, and it is im- perative that teachers routinely utilize and ensure consistent access to adaptive technology (AT) de- vices and services, and augmentative and alterna- tive communication systems (AACS), including, if necessary, the provision of a facilitator to sup- port a student's access to their AT and AACS (Biklen, 1993; Crossley, 1994). Other common examples of differentiated process or product sup- ports may include the use of audiotaped texts, uni-

versally designed texts available on CD-ROM, Braille, large print, or other adapted means of print

access; peer support; additional time; fewer items or questions to address; graphic organizers; mul- ti-modal presentation, and so forth.

It is important to provide students a range of options for demonstrating what they know and can do (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). Products should have clear, challenging, and specified criteria for success, based both on grade level expectation and individual student need (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). Products can be flexible and sensitive to learners' talents and may include making a poster, writing a report, making an oral presentation, en- acting a dramatic response, creating and singing a song or poem, drawing, or working collabor- atively. Teachers, however, should take care to en-

sure that a student with reading and writing prob-

lems does not by-pass opportunities for learning in favor of more accessible presentation formats. The decision as to what constitutes a proper re- sponse should be decided by the objectives of the instruction. Finally, it is not appropriate to have only one opportunity per unit to demonstrate one's knowledge. Students need many and varied smaller opportunities throughout the course of study, and having multiple opportunities for re-

199

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Differentiated Instruction

hearsal and practice of assessment activities typi- cally supports students' successful performance.

If a student with a labeled disability seems to be

unengaged, or otherwise appears to be having a difficult time with a particular learning task, it is just as likely that the student is bored, uninter- ested, or finds the modality of the learning task un-

engaging, as it is that the student is unable to do the task. We urge all teachers to consider and at- tend to various aspects of differentiation before limiting or otherwise modifying the curricular content for disabled students.

Conclusion

For disabled students, and many of their peers as well, traditional educational practices create a barrier for the kinds of meaningful learning expe- riences that promote intellectual growth and au- tonomy (Gallagher, 2004). As the example of Jay and some contemporary special-education prac- tices reveal, it takes a village to enact disability. Disability does not reside in the individual, but rather in the interactions between the individual

and the environment. We encourage all educators to consider potentially disabling and restrictive as- pects of their pedagogy, and to challenge common assumptions about educating disabled students. Good instruction is good instruction: the goals and procedures are clearly articulated; the instruction is relevant, accessible, and responsive; and the tasks are interesting and challenging, but reach- able with effort. Disabled students benefit from

good instruction, just as all students do. When teachers effectively differentiate instruc-

tion-constantly assessing students' understand- ings, teaching responsively, and enabling students to demonstrate competence in varied, meaningful ways-disabled (and other) students can partici- pate successfully as full members of heteroge- neous inclusive classrooms.

In a democracy, every student has the right to be educated, and the United States has made a

commitment to providing that education without cost and without the inequities of segregation. As a matter of law, the United States recognized in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that separate

is not equal. Nonetheless, people continue to be- lieve and behave as if students with disabilities

(and poor students, some students of color, and those whose primary language is not English) can- not participate productively in classrooms with students who represent the normative standard. When we examine this assertion and the educa-

tional practices that emerge from it, we discover that they are not consistent with the democratic ideals in which the United States. takes such great national pride.

Unless teachers have the will to sustain efforts

to improve instruction through promising new ap-

proaches such as DI, they have no possibility of making things better. Inclusive educators chal- lenge both the utility and the ethics of assumptions

that rely on the segregationist beliefs and prac- tices, especially because they have served, how- ever unintended, to segregate so many students. However long the journey and however bumpy the ride, society cannot hope to create the conditions of social justice for all unless it (re)invents a uni- fied, comprehensive, democratic, and truly inclu- sive system of education that can provide all learn-

ers, in part through DI, both quality instruction and a sense of belonging. Indeed, effectively dif- ferentiating instruction in heterogeneous class- rooms is a powerful tool that enables teachers to create inclusive schools and classrooms within

which all children can be "valued equally, treated with respect and provided with real opportunities at school" (Thomas & Loxley, 2001, p. 119).

Acknowledgments

Our names appear in alphabetical order. We contributed equally to the preparation of this article.

Notes

1. We use the term disabled students rather than the

typically preferred, person-first, student with a dis-

ability, because the disability resides in the con- text, not in the person. We explain our position in the text.

200

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, and Reid Differentiating Instruction for Disabled Students in Inclusive Classrooms

References

Adelman, H. S., Reyna, C., Collins, R., Onghai, J., & Taylor, S. (1999). Fundamental concerns about pol- icy for addressing barriers to student learning. Read-

ing & Writing Quarterly, 15, 327-349. Aronson, E. (1978). Interdependent interactions and

prosocial behavior. Journal ofResearch and Devel- opment in Education, 12(1), 16-27.

Berry, R. A., & Englert, C. S. (1998). Book discussion in the primary grades: Transforming the participation of students with disabilities in inclusion context. Un-

published manuscript. Biklen, D. (1993). Communication unbound: How fa-

cilitated communication is challenging traditional views of autism and ability/disability. New York: Teachers College Press.

Biklen, D. (1999). The metaphor of mental retarda- tion: Rethinking ability and disability. In H. Bersani, Jr., (Ed.), Responding to the challenge: Current trends and international issues in develop- mental disabilities: Essays in honor of Gunnar Dybwad (pp. 35-52). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Biklen, D. (2000). Lessons from the margins, narrating mental retardation: A review essay. Mental Retarda- tion, 38(5), 444-456.

Biklen, D., & Cardinal, D. (Eds.). (1997). Contested words, contested science: Unraveling the facilitated communication controversy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Borthwick, C., & Crossley, R. (1999). Language and re- tardation. Psycoloquy, 10(38). Retrieved October 25,

1999 from http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/ newpsy?10.38

Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 347 U. S. 483 Collins, K. M. (2003). Ability profiling and school fail-

ure: One child's struggle to be seen as competent. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Introduction: Multiliteracies: The beginnings of an idea. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Liter- acy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). South Yarra, Australia: Macmillan.

Crossley, R. (1994). Facilitated communication train- ing. New York: Teachers College Press.

Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 141-150.

Dyck, N., & Pemberton, J. B. (2002). A model for mak-

ing decisions about text adaptations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(1), 28-35.

Fulk, B. M., & King, K. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring at

work. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(2), 49-53. Gallagher, D. J. (2004). The importance of constructi-

vism and constructivist pedagogy for disability stud-

ies in education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 24(2), 1-15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amend-

ments of 1997, P.L. 105-117, 20 U.S.C. ? 1400 et seq.

Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A.

(1995). A history of facilitated communication: Sci- ence, pseudoscience, and antiscience. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.

Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Martin, J. (1998). Literature circles. Thresholds in Edu- cation, 24(3), 15-19.

Moll, L. C., Diaz, E., Estrada, E., & Lopes, L. M. (1992). Making context: The social construction of lessons in two languages. In M. Saravia-Shore & S. F. Arvizu (Eds.), Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnogra- phies of communication in multiethnic classrooms (pp. 339-363). New York: New Garland.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. ? 6301-6578.

Oliver, M. (1986). Social policy and disability studies: Some theoretical issues. Disability, Handicap, and Society, 1(1), 5-17.

Reid, D. K., & Valle, J. W. (2005). A constructivist per- spective from the emerging field of disability stud-

ies. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers Col-

lege Press. Rubin, S., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C., Kluth, P.,

Cardinal, D., & Broderick, A. (2001). Independ- ence, participation, and the meaning of intellectual ability. Disability and Society, 16, 415-429.

Rueda, R., Gallego, M. A., & Moll, L. C. (2000). The least restrictive environment: A place or a context?

Remedial and Special Education, 21, 70-78. Salend, S. J. (2004). Creating inclusive classrooms:

Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Shapiro, A. (2000). Everybody belongs: Changing neg- ative attitudes toward classmates with disabilities

(Vol. 14). New York: Routledge. Stiker, H. (2002). A history of disability. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press. Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing spe-

cial education and constructing inclusion. Buck- ingham, England: Open University Press.

201

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Differentiated Instruction

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom:. Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruc- tion in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexan- dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu- lum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E. M., & Eiss, N. (1997). Becoming architects of communi- ties of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differen- tiation in practice: A resource guide for differ- entiating curriculum, Grades 5-9. Alexandria, WV: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel cur- riculum: A design to develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Van der Klift, E., & Kunc, N. (1994). Beyond benevo- lence: Friendship and the politics of help. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativ-

ity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 391-401). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Ware, L. (2001). Writing, identity, and the other: Dare we do disability studies? Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 52, 107-123.

Ware, L. (Ed.). (2004). Ideology and the politics of (in)exclusion. New York: Peter Lang.

iip

202

This content downloaded from 142.105.23.34 on Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:15:28 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms