Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents
Presenter(s)
Debra Bauder
University of Louisville
Rm 156, College of Education, University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
Phone: 502-852-0564
Fax: 502-852-1419
Email: debra.bauder@louisville.edu
Penny Ellis
Bluegrass Technology Center
961 Beasley Street, Suite 103A,
Lexington, KY 40509
Phone: (859)-294-4343
Fax: (859) 294-0704
Email: pellis@bluegrass-tech.org
Debbie Sharon
Bluegrass Technology Center
961 Beasley Street, Suite 103A,
Lexington, KY 40509
Phone: (859)-294-4343
Fax: (859) 294-0704
Email: dsharon@bluegrass-tech.org
The gap between students with and without disabilities continues to widen. Students in special education have lower school completion rates than their non-disabled peers (Benz, Lindstrom & Yovanoff, 2000; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Flexer, Simmons, Luft & Baer, 2001). As adults, individuals with cognitive disabilities are the largest unemployed group of Americans; and they are less likely to live independently in the community (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Therefore, the current practices in the education of children with disabilities, especially significant cognitive disabilities, must change in order to provide individuals with disabilities greater opportunities as adults to be productive members in their communities.
Therefore, it appears to be a daunting challenge for educators, administrators and parents to reconsider how children with significant cognitive disabilities are educated in order to ensure access to the general curriculum. Furthermore, the determination of what constitutes access and more specifically how to provide children with cognitive disabilities meaningful access to instruction that is aligned with high-level standards and supported by research based interventions (President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002; Wehmeyer, Lattin & Agran, 2001). In addition, to ensure meaningful access, there is the challenge to provide the curriculum with supports, modifications and accommodations that can ensure that curriculum goals are achievable (Pugach & Warger, 2001). Furthermore, in the greater scheme of instruction, IDEA '97 demands that educational supports and services provided to students with disabilities "lead to clear and measurable outcomes in adulthood" (Dymond & Orelove, 2001). IDEA 1997 stipulates that a child's IEP include: a) a statement describing how the child's disability affects the child's involvement with and progress in the general curriculum; b) a statement of measurable goals to enable the child to be involved with and progress in the general curriculum; and c) a statement of services, program modifications, and supports necessary for the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001; Pugach & Warger, 2001).
In light of the emphasis placed an access to the general curriculum, it is imperative on regular and special educators working together to serve all students including those with disabilities in the regular education program. A way this can be done is by providing equal access to knowledge through adjusted or altered curriculum and instruction. One approach to curriculum alternation is through Universal Design for Learning approaches. This approach to curriculum and instruction emphasizes the methods for teaching are compatible with how the brain works and the importance of flexible materials and curriculum to allow access for all students (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
It is, indeed, the flexibility found within Universal Design principles allows for such access when curriculum is developed in digital formats. Orkwis and McLane (1998) indicate that cognitive supports for content and instructional activities are achieved by:
1. Summarizing big ideas
2. Providing scaffolding (supports that are diminished or removed as students gain competence) for learning and generalization 3. Building fluency through practice 4. Providing assessments for background knowledge 5. Including explicit strategies to make clear the goals and methods of instruction
However, the UDL principles have mainly been developed for children with learning disabilities through the use of digitized text. Attention to creating materials beyond digitized text to address needs of individuals with cognitive disabilities is critical. Orkwis (1999) recognized that UDL needs to address the design of curriculum that can be attainable by "individuals with wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize engage, and remember" (http://ericec.org/digests/e586.html). By applying UDL principles all children would have access to the curriculum regardless of their ability level.
Emerging software tools allow educators to more easily alter the presentation of educational content. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) movement will be used as a framework for educators, students, parents, and school administrators to gain insight into ways educators can better serve students with severe disabilities through the general curriculum.
This session will examine effective ways technology can be used by regular and special education teachers who work with students with cognitive disabilities. This session will examine specific instructional technology strategies emphasizing unique learning styles and software that alters the presentation of instructional material.
References
Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., & Yovonoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529.
Blackorby, I., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: finding from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 399-414.
Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9(3), 109-122.
Flexer, P., Simmons, T. J., Baer, B., & Luft, P. T. (Eds.) (2001). Transition planning for secondary students with disabilities. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.
Orkwis, R. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design for learning. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC/OSEP Digest Number E586).
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. Reston VA: EERICE/OSEP Special Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423654).
Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L., (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4) 194-196.
Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Author: Washington, DC, 2002.
U. S. Congress, Public Law 105-17: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2005 Table of Contents