Printer Friendly Version (pdf, 4.1M)

Designing from the Ground Floor: Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards

Theory of Learning for Students with the most Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Determining Competence in Academic Domains

The cognition vertex of the assessment triangle includes the theory of learning or the development of competence in the content domain areas of reading, mathematics, and science.

Because their learning is perceived to be so significantly different than typical children, the curriculum for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities has not traditionally focused on academic content but encompassed a separate curricular focus. Indeed, in many cases it is thought that the student's Individual Education Program or IEP is the curriculum for each individual student. While the IEP certainly represents educational priorities and supports to achieve those educational priorities for the individual student, it does not represent the entire range of curriculum; nor does it represent the academic standards upon which a curriculum should be based (Giangreco, Cloninger, Iverson, 1999; Grisham-Brown, Kearns, 2001).

Therefore, we turn to the literature to determine what areas within the domains of reading, mathematics, and science have been taught.

First, in a survey of experts in severe disabilities, Kleinert and Kearns (1999) found the highest degree of congruence on the core of effective practices found in the performance domain. However, even though Kentucky's alternate assessment has always had its foundation in the general curriculum standards, experts questioned whether:

• the ‘critical functions' of the standards aimed high enough,
• if these adapted ways of achieving the standards captured the meaning or intent of the standards, and
• whether a ‘functional' application for each academic expectation should even be offered, given the tendency to establish separate curricular models for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted for empirically based research from 1975-2003 related to the instruction of students and adults with disabilities in the academic areas of reading, math, and science at UNC-Charlotte. The literature had to be published in peer-reviewed journal in English with at least one participant with diagnosis of significant cognitive disabilities (moderate, severe, mental retardation, autism, or developmental disability). The intervention in the literature had to use a recognized experimental or quasi-experimental design (including single subject designs).

Nationally recognized standards or components of the academic content areas were used to organize the literature. The National Reading Panel (2000) identified five components that make up the content of reading. These components included fluency, vocabulary, phonics, phonemic awareness, and comprehension. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Education began in 1989 and continued through 2005 to describe mathematical content standards around which the curriculum should be organized. Numbers and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and data analysis, and probability were recognized as skill areas necessary for students to be effective. Finally, in 1996, the National Research Council approved seven strands for science to help the nation's students achieve science literacy. These strands consist of science as inquiry, physical science, life science, Earth and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social perspectives, and the history and nature of science.

Reading

As you will see on the graphs for each slide, all data was categorized into the related academic areas for what is commonly accepted as the curricular focus. The five components of Reading, the five content standards for mathematics, and the seven strands for Science were used to identify areas of strength and weakness for instruction with students with significant disabilities. Studies were also analyzed using quality indicators identified by Gersten, et al. (2005) for experimental studies and Horner, et al. (2005) for single subject studies. As there were very few experimental studies with this population, we were unable to apply Gersten. However, we were able to apply the criteria recommended for quality within single subject research in special education (Horner et al., 2005) as there were 88 single subject design studies. Fifty-two (59%) met all criteria for quality indicators. An additional 27 (31%) had all criteria except a measure of procedural fidelity leaving only nine (10%) studies that missed two or more criteria. Of the 52 studies that met all criteria, 40 (77%) focused on sight word instruction. These 40 studies included 155 participants and were conducted in nine different geographic locations.

The teaching of sight words was included in the category of vocabulary. Fluency was less likely to be the reading of a passage and the recording of errors than it was the tracking of error rate over time for symbol identification. Comprehension may be the reading of safety signs in the community and selecting the correct gender specific restroom. Most studies related to phonics were conducted by two sets of researchers in the 1980s.

Kliewer and Biklen (2001) described the need to get past what students are perceived as being unable to do and help them become involved in literacy through adapted and modified texts, materials, and routines. Joseph and Seery (2004) conducted a literature review of empirical studies that used phonetic strategies or instruction with students with mild or moderate retardation. Outcomes demonstrated that while the process of learning to read (i.e., phonetic instruction) is not being taught to students with mental retardation, these students may benefit from direct/explicit instruction in phonic analysis.

Mathematics

Notably, only-one third of the intervention studies were in the content area of mathematics. Experimental studies that focused on mathematics were predominately conducted with students with moderate disabilities. Over 80% of studies were either conducted in a separate classroom or in the community. This setting suggests that the type of instruction was on functional skills rather than academic content and is supported by the numbers in the graph.

Measurement included time and money. Numbers and operations included counting and number identification. Data analysis included self-graphing and self-monitoring data. Geometry was primarily the identification of shapes. There is very little about teaching students anything past shape identification. While traditionally these areas have been thought of as out of reach, extended standards and entry points created by curriculum specialists can help teachers find meaningful ways to address complex standards (e.g., understand the concepts of over/under related to spatial understanding, reading the mathematical equation of 7 > 3 to a student and providing choices for responses allows the student an opportunity to demonstrate understanding of the concept of greater than or less than).

Previous  |  Next