602 dis
Kyeugelowitz1
RogersJohnson2018Studentswithseveredisabilitiesgeneralclassroom.pdf
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 2018, 37(2), 1-12.
doi: 10.14434/pders.v37i2.24881
© Division for Physical, Health and Multiple Disabilities
PDERS
ISSN: 2372-451X http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/pders/index
Article
STRATEGIES TO INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH SEVERE/MULTIPLE
DISABILITIES WITHIN THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM
Wendy Rogers
Kutztown University
Nicole Johnson
Kutztown University
______________________________________________________________________________
Abstact: Federal legislation such as IDEA (1997) and NCLB (2001) have led to
an increase in the number of students with significant disabilities receiving
instruction in the general education classroom. This inclusionary movement has
established a more diverse student population in which general and special
education teachers are responsible for providing instruction that meets the needs
of all their students. Although most research focuses on effective inclusionary
practices for students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities),
literature has revealed a dramatic increase in the number of students with
severe/multiple disabilities receiving support in general education settings.
Therefore, it is imperative that educators acquire the effective inclusive practices
necessary to meet the unique needs of students with severe/multiple disabilities. A
review of literature was conducted to determine effective ways to include and
support students with severe/multiple disabilities within the general education
classroom.
Keywords: inclusion; severe disabilities; multiple disabilities
Rogers and Johnson 2
Introduction
The National Center for Educational Statistics (2016) found that there were 132,000 children
with multiple disabilities between the ages 3 and 21 being served in federally supported
educational programs in the 2013-2014 school year. Individuals with multiple disabilities, which
refers to persons with concomitant impairments (e.g., intellectual disability and blindness,
intellectual disability and orthopedic impairment), usually need support in major life activities
that include domestic, leisure, community access, and vocational programming. Often these
students receive educational services in separate special education classrooms and do not have
the opportunity to be fully and effectively included with their nondisabled peers. However, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB,
2002) have led to an increase of students with severe/multiple disabilities receiving instruction in
general education settings.
The provisions of NCLB (2002) created another push towards inclusion by requiring high-
quality state standards and assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The NCLB
specifically emphasized teacher accountability and high student achievement (Birman, Desimone,
Porter, & Garet, 2000) based on the performance of all students on state standardized testing on
the general education curriculum. Additionally, NCLB mandated the following: (1) students with
disabilities must be included in state assessments, and (2) assessment scores for all students must
be calculated in the school district’s annual yearly progress (Code of Federal Regulations, 2006).
The accountability mandates of IDEA (2004) and NCLB have led to a focus on inclusive
education to ensure that all students are receiving instruction in the general education curriculum
(Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010).
Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom has been a goal of
education reformists for numerous years. IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002) emphasized that
students with disabilities should have access to and demonstrate academic progress in the general
education curriculum. To meet the requirements under IDEA and NCLB, educators must be
prepared to meet the needs of students with varying abilities in an inclusionary classroom
environment. However, the central focus of previous traditional teacher preparation in special
education has been on planning instruction and making instructional adaptations for students
with disabilities in non-inclusionary environments. Yet, it is only recently that the focus of these
procedures has been the inclusive classroom (Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007). High quality
state standards and assessment, in concert with “highly qualified” teacher requirements, have
transformed teacher education programs. Nationwide, prospective special education teachers are
required to obtain certification in special education and certification in the content area they will
be instructing.
IDEA (2004), in alignment with NCLB (2002), calls for highly qualified teachers for students in
the K-12 school system. This term describes specific standards set for all teachers and includes
gaining “full state certification as a teacher” and successful completion of a “state teacher
licensing examination.” Hence, local educational agencies are required to ensure that all teachers
are highly qualified in the content areas in which they teach and that students with disabilities be
taught by highly qualified special education teachers (Code of Federal Regulations, 2006). These
federal requirements have impacted teacher licensure and certification testing.
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-12 3
History of Inclusion
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (U.S. Bureau of
Education), which was later reauthorized to IDEA (1990), establishing a federal mandate that all
students with disabilities would receive a free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment (LRE). One purpose of IDEA was to include students with disabilities
into the educational system who had previously been excluded (National Council on Disability,
1994). According to the Code of Federal Regulations (2006), LRE focuses on including students
with disabilities in a general education setting “to the maximum extent appropriate and to ensure
that children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled” (34 CFR
300.114). The U.S. Department of Education stated IDEA presumes that the first placement
option considered for each child with a disability is the regular classroom in the school that the
child would attend if not disabled, with appropriate supplementary aids and services to facilitate
such placement (Code of Federal Regulations, 2006). Thus, before a child with a disability can
be placed outside the regular education environment, the individualized education program (IEP)
team must consider the full range of supplementary aids and services that could be provided to
facilitate the child’s placement in the regular classroom setting.
Inclusion in Public Education
IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002) focused on providing students with disabilities access to the
general education curriculum in a LRE. In accordance with LRE, students with disabilities need
to be educated with non-disabled peers and placements outside the general education classroom
should only be considered when supplemental aids and related services do not provide an
appropriate education in a general education classroom.
These federal laws have resulted in a higher percentage of students with disabilities receiving
their instruction in a general education classroom. Although most of the research on inclusion
has focused on students with high incidence disabilities, literature has revealed a dramatic
increase of students with severe/multiple disabilities receiving support in general education
settings (Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 2000).
Not only have these federal laws increased the number of students with low incidence disabilities
in inclusive settings, research also indicates multiple social and academic benefits from inclusion.
The social benefits for students with severe/multiple disabilities include social acceptance,
increased self-esteem, and improved social skills (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001; Mu, Siegel, &
Allinder, 2000). A two-year longitudinal study compared the growth of social competence of 40
students with multiple disabilities (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). Half the students received instruction
in an inclusive environment and the other half were instructed in a self-contained classroom.
After a two-year period, students receiving services in a general education setting scored
significantly higher on the Assessment of Social Competence.
In addition to gains in the social and emotional domains, students with severe disabilities have
also improved academically. Falvey (2004) stated, “As a result of a comprehensive review of the
extant literature by myself and my colleagues, we were unable to identify even a single research
article that found that segregated service delivery models are more effective than integrated
Rogers and Johnson 4
models for students with severe disabilities” (p. 10). Research has also indicated that elementary
students improved by 31.7% in mathematics and middle school students academically increased
in mathematics by 12.5% and increased in reading by 13.8% (Teigland, 2009).
This inclusionary movement has established a more diverse student population in today’s
classrooms. General educators and special education teachers are responsible for providing an
education that meets the needs of all their students. Therefore, educators need to acquire the
knowledge and skills necessary to meet the ever-changing classroom population (Jenkins &
Ornelles, 2007).
Instructional Practices
A meaningful and accessible inclusive education for students with severe/multiple disabilities
consists of appropriate accommodations and/or modifications that allow students to gain access
to the general education curriculum (Agran, Brown, Hughs, Quirk, & Ryndak, 2014). Browder
and Spooner (2011) defined general curriculum access as providing grade-aligned academic
instruction for students with disabilities. To establish curriculum accessibility, The National
Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) identified six effective instructional
practices in inclusive classrooms: multi-level instruction, cooperative learning, activity-based
learning, mastery learning, technology, and peer support. Proponents of effective instructional
strategies address similar practices as those identified by NCERI but also note differing
evidence-based practices in inclusionary settings. A strategic principle, known as Universal
Design for Learning (for more information visit CAST at http://www.cast.org/), has been
adopted in many inclusionary classrooms since it addresses the core principles of NCLB (2002)
and NCERI.
The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are anchored in the following evidence-
based practices: explicit instruction, differentiated instruction, peer mediated instruction,
curriculum-based evaluation, and assistive technology (CAST). UDL is founded on the premise
that effective instructional practices are built-in and proactive to accommodate the widest range
of all learners, including students with severe/multiple disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Embry,
2002; Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003). Additionally, UDL is used to develop and implement
assistive technology and instructional accommodations and modifications to support curricular
accessibility, align student’s IEP goals with the core curriculum, and support student progress
(Janney & Snell, 2006; Wehmeyer, 2006).
Evidence-Based Practices
A systematic review of literature was conducted to determine the most effective ways to include
students with severe/multiple disabilities within the general education classroom. An electronic
database search was conducted utilizing EBSCO Host to determine evidence-based practices for
inclusion of students with severe/multiple disabilities. Although, there is a lack of research with
this unique population, certain themes to effectively include these students emerged. These
themes included the proper use of augmentative and alternative communication devices, use of
micro-switches, embedded instruction, wait time, and utilizing appropriate specialized
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-12 5
instruction during inclusion. Using these evidence based practices can help children with
severe/multiple disabilities to be meaningfully included within the general education classroom.
Use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Devices
Communication skills are affected by sensory, motor, cognitive, and social capacities; and
impairments in any of these developmental skill areas may interfere with communication
development and socialization within the classroom (Rowland, 2011). Learners with
severe/multiple disabilities demonstrate various abilities, but they share the need for extensive
and ongoing supports to participate in home, school, and community activities (Siegel-Causey &
Bashinski, 1997).
The term AAC refers to the compilation of methods and technologies designed to supplement
spoken communication for people with limited spoken speech skills (Wilkinson & Hennig, 2007).
AAC instruction is naturally embedded within the child’s daily routines, which increases the
likelihood that students acquire and generalize communication skills (Hourcade, Pilotte, West, &
Parette, 2004). AAC is not just an output channel, but is utilized as the medium for both
expressive and receptive communication (Romski & Sevcik, 1996). Studies have shown AAC
devices to be a success in inclusive settings and include the importance of team strategies to
reinforce the use of AAC devices throughout daily routines (Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae,
2004; Stoner, Beck, Bock, Hickey, Kosuwan, & Thompson, 2006). Chung and Carter (2013)
found AAC devices to be most beneficial during inclusionary practices when the
paraprofessional working with the child is trained on the device in order to encourage device use
in interactions with their peers.
Chung, Carter, and Sisco (2012) reviewed literature on promoting relationships for students with
severe disabilities and of the 31 studies reviewed it was found that students increased positive
interactions in various inclusive settings when people within their environment were trained on
the communication devices. When AAC devices are utilized using teaming and trained
professionals, social interactions within the classroom can be increased and students with
severe/multiple disabilities can be an active participant within classroom routines for both
academics and social interactions.
Use of Micro-Switches
Micro-switch interventions have been found useful when working with students with disabilities.
Micro-switches are technical devices that people with multiple disabilities might use to control
environmental events with simple responses (Crawford & Schuster, 1993; Lancioni, O’Reilly,
Oliva, Singh, & Coppa, 2002; Mechling, 2006). Micro-switch interventions have been used for
tasks such as choice making and meaningful communication between the student and people in
his or her environment. Lancioni and colleagues (2016) found that micro-switches could be effectively utilized with students that have minimal responses such as movement of eyelids. It
was found that micro-switches could be adapted to help these students reach relevant goals and
be included within various environments. Micro-switches can give students with severe/multiple
disabilities the opportunity to be constructively engaged within the general education classroom
by using simple responses in social situations as well as academic tasks.
Rogers and Johnson 6
Embedded Instruction
Embedded instruction can be utilized to support students with moderate to severe disabilities in
general education classes. In embedded instruction, students are taught skills within the ongoing
routines of the general education classroom (Risen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, &
Jameson, 2003) which does not cause disruption to the natural flow of the class. During
embedded instruction, the classroom teacher systematically controls the presentation of
instructional examples and implements instructional procedures designed to support the student’s
acquisition of the target skill (McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002). This
instruction can support the student’s goals in the IEP by focusing on target skills throughout
daily lessons.
Students with severe/multiple disabilities often need several learning trials embedded within an
activity to ensure learning and progress within the activity. Embedded instruction allows for
multiple trials of the skill throughout natural routines rather than all at once within the context of
the subject. Paraprofessionals are often able to build in embedded instruction procedures during
general education classes without disruption to the class when properly trained. Shepis and
colleagues (2001) found that improvements to the quality of instruction provided by support staff
paralleled an increase in students’ performance. Training support staff can occur through
modeling and should be done immediately to aid in proper inclusionary practices. When
embedded instruction is utilized in general education classrooms for students with
severe/multiple disabilities, it can accommodate their unique learning needs and the
characteristics of instructional targets (McDonnell et al., 2006).
Wait Time
It often takes individuals with severe/multiple disabilities longer to interpret what is being asked
of them and they need more time to respond (Johnson & Parker, 2013). Wait time is defined as
the duration between the teacher’s instruction and the student’s response (Tincani & Crozier,
2008) and is found to be an intervention that has very strong evidence of its effectiveness
(Browder, Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009; Johnson & Parker, 2013). Wait time was first
established as an instructional practice in 1972 when studies found that the average wait time
following a question before prompting in a classroom rarely exceeded 1.5 seconds (Rudd, 2001).
Students with severe/multiple disabilities often have physical or communication difficulties
making it impossible to respond this quickly to requests.
The procedure of wait time can be utilized to guarantee that students have time to process what is
being asked, formulate a response, and execute a response prior to being prompted (Johnson &
Parker, 2013). Prompting too soon does not allow time for students to process what is being
asked and therefore, can lead to learned helplessness. Wait time procedures are often utilized
when working with students with severe/multiple disabilities because it is minimally intrusive.
Teachers and paraprofessionals can be easily trained on wait time procedures to aid in inclusion
of students with severe/multiple disabilities. Watson (2018) identified wait time as being a key
practice for full inclusion of students with disabilities. Utilizing wait time while using picture
response cards was found to be successful in increasing student accuracy for students with
intellectual disabilities (Clarke, Haydon, Bauer, & Epperly, 2015). Wait time procedures can be
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-12 7
utilized in teaching students of various ages with various disabilities (Daugherty, Grisham-
Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001).
Specialized Designed Instruction
Utilizing appropriate accommodations and modifications can aid students with severe/multiple
disabilities access to the general curriculum at grade appropriate levels alongside their peers. The
most effective adaptations in the general classroom are using prior knowledge to develop new
skills, adjusting content to make instruction concrete and relevant to the student’s life (Jenkinson,
2000), and identifying the students preferred learning style (Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1997).
Modifications can be made throughout the classroom routines to ensure students are fully
engaged. Some examples are modifying technology to ensure accessibility; students with
multiple disabilities could use the same materials as the rest of the class but complete only a
proportion of learning tasks or exercises (Jenkinson, 2000).
Use of specialized curriculum may be necessary for students with severe disabilities to be fully
included in the general education classroom. It is imperative for educational teams to work
together to develop a meaningful and individualized curriculum for each child to meet their
unique needs (Horn, Lieber, Sandall, Schwartz, & Worley, 2002). Once a specialized curriculum
is developed there should still be flexibility and the ability to adapt based on the student’s day to
day medical, educational, and social needs (Vrasmas, 2014). Utilizing the right adaptations,
modifications, and curriculum can greatly benefit students with severe/multiple disabilities
within the general education classroom.
Conclusion
Federal legislation (i.e., IDEA and NCLB) has led to contemporary educational practices for
students with severe/multiple disabilities (Olson, Leko & Roberts, 2016). In 1997, IDEA defined
the general education curriculum as “the same curriculum for nondisabled children.” IDEA
revisions in 2004 specified that all students, regardless of their abilities, have access to grade-
level content, participate in state assessments, and have individualized education programs
identifying how students will participate and progress in their grade-level curriculum.
Current studies regarding evidence-based inclusive practices for students with severe disabilities
are emerging. Findings in the literature demonstrate that students with severe/multiple
disabilities have access to a meaningful and appropriate inclusive education through IEP-
specified accommodations and modifications incorporated through a UDL environment.
Utilizing the above practices and materials can aid children with severe/multiple disabilities to be
meaningfully included with their typically developing peers within the general education
classroom. These inclusionary practices can potentially give students with severe disabilities the
ability to build relationships that extend beyond the classroom and into the community.
Rogers and Johnson 8
References
Agran, M., Brown, F., Hughs, C., Quirk, C., & Ryndak, D. (2014). Equity and full participation
for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28-33.
Browder, D. M. & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Browder, D., Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P., & Baker, J. (2009). Using time delay to teach
literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500305
Code of Federal Regulations. (2006). 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301: Assistance to states for the
education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities:
Final rule. Retrieved from http://idea.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of
their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230-238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040401
Chung, Y., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for
students who use speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 38, 94-109. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492
Chung, Y., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). Social interaction of students with severe
disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive classrooms.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 349-367.
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
Clarke, L. S., Haydon, T., Bauer, A., & Epperly, A. (2015). Inclusion of students with
intellectual disabilities in the general education classroom with the use of response cards.
Preventing School Failure. 60(1) 1-8.
Crawford, M. R., & Schuster, J. W. (1993). Using microswitches to teach toy use. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 5, 349-368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046391
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill
instruction on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in preschoolers with
developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 213-221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140102100402
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-12 9
Falvey, M. (2004). Towards realizing the influence of the least restrictive environments for
severely disabled students. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
29(1), 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.29.1.9
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for
students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 27(3), 165-174.
Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2006). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms. Theory
Into Practice, 45(3), 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B. (2010). Pre-service teacher
preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 24-33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324397
Horn E., Lieber J., Sandall S., Schwartz I., & Worley R. (2002). Supporting young children’s
IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 20, 208–223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000402
Hourcade, J., Pilotte, T. E., West, E., & Parette, P. (2004). A history of augmentative and
alternative communication for individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Focus
on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 235-244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190040501
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae S. (2004). Collaborative teaming to support
preschoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in general education early childhood
programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 123-142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214040240030101
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)
Jenkins, A., & Ornelles, C. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ confidence in teaching students with
disabilities: Addressing the INTASC principles. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 2(2).
Jenkinson, J. (2000). All students belong: Inclusive education for students with severe learning
disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 5(4), 4-13.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13595474200000032
Johnson, N., & Parker, A. T. (2013). Effects of wait time when communicating with children
who have sensory and additional disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
107, 363–374.
Rogers and Johnson 10
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School’s not really a place for reading”: A research synthesis
of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.1.1
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J., Campodonico, F., Oliva, D., Alberti,
G., & D’amico, F. (2016). Using microswitch-aided programs for people with multiple
disabilities to promote stimulation control and mild physical exercise, Journal of
Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 43(2), 242-250.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1253831
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Oliva, D., Singh, N., & Coppa, M. (2002). Multiple
microswitches for multiple responses with children with profound disabilities. Cognitive
Behavior Therapy, 31, 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070252959517
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Polychronis, S., Risen, T., Jameson, M., Johnson, J., & Kercher, K.
(2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes
with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125-138.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded
instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363-377.
Mechling, L. C. (2006). Comparison of the effects of three approaches on the frequency of
stimulus activations, via a single switch, by students with profound intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Special education, 40, 94-102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020501
Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R .M. (2000). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high
school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 142-152.
https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.3.142
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Children and youth with disabilities.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Council on Disability. (1994). Inclusionary practices for students with disabilities:
Keeping our promise. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/1994/Dec1994.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
Olson, A., Leko, M. M., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Providing students with severe disabilities
access to the general education curriculum. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 41(3), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916651975
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-12 11
Risen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Jameson, J. W. (2003). A
comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting within embedded
instruction in general education classes with students with moderate to severe disabilities.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026076406656
Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development
through augmented means. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Rowland, C. (2011). Using the communication matrix to assess expressive skills in early
communicators. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32, 190-201.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740110394651
Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). Inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell, &
F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.), 31–66. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Ownbey, J., & Parson, M. B. (2001). Training support staff to
embed teaching within natural routines of young children with disabilities in an inclusive
preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-313
Siegel-Causey, E., & Bashinski, S. (1997). Enhancing initial communication and responsiveness
of learners with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 12, 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769701200206
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Embry, P. (2002). Universal design for instruction fact sheet.
Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A
framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs
in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 40-49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680303502
Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Bock, S. J., Hickey, K., Kosuwan, K., & Thompson, J. R. (2006). The
effectiveness of the picture exchange communication system with nonspeaking adults.
Remedial and Special Education, 27, 154-165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030401
Teigland, C. (2009). What inclusive education means for overall student achievement. The
Connections of Association of Person with Severe Handicaps, 35(3), 12-14.
Tincani, M., & Crozier, S. (2008). Comparing brief and extended wait-time during small group
instruction for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17,
79-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9063-4
Rogers and Johnson 12
Udvari-Solner, A. & Thousand, J. (1997). Effective organisational, instructional and curricular
practices in inclusive schools and classrooms (pp. 147-163). In C. Clark, A. Dyson & A.
Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools. London: David Fulton.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). No Child Left Behind legislation and policies. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb.
United States. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. State Program Implementation Studies
Branch. Progress toward a free appropriate public education: a report to Congress on
the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for all handicapped children
act. [Washington]: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, [Education Division],
U.S. Office of Education.
Vrasmas, T. (2014). Curriculum for children with disabilities in inclusive education: A literature
review. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 336-341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.267
Watson, S. (2018, June 4). Accommodations, modifications and interventions in the classroom.
Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/accommodations-modifications-and-
interventions-3111346
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum
for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31, 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100405
Wilkinson, M., & Hennig, S. (2007). Augmentative and alternative communication for children
with developmental/intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20133
Authors’ note: Address correspondence concerning this article to Wendy Rogers at
