Curriculum Modifications For Students With Special Educational Needs In Regular Classroom

Farida Lodhi & Uzma Murad Panhwar

ABSTRACT:

This study focuses on accessing the general education classroom for students with special needs. The purpose of this study is to explore the necessary components for successful mainstreaming of students with special needs in the general education curriculum. Based on the needs and supports of the student, the educators should make the least restrictive environment decision. There are several models and processes in which administrators and teacher can follow in order to include these students in the general education classroom. Students with special needs are able to access the general education classroom with the proper supports, instructional strategies, and assessment procedures put into place. In addition, the general and special educators must work together for the benefit of the student.

INTRODUCTION:

Though inclusion has become a common practice in the past few years, students with special educational needs (SENs) are frequently self-contained for a majority of the day and do not receive instruction in content areas. Little emphasis has been bestowed on teaching content area information in addition to teaching functional skills. Thus, students with special needs should be taught content curriculum that is the same or similar to their non-disabled peers with the necessary supports, modifications and accommodations built in. This paper will investigate the necessary components of a modified curriculum that students with SENs would learn functional skills, as well as content knowledge.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Throughout the globe, special education has progressed over the last twenty five years, making great strides in the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education classroom. In order to continue this progression the curriculum must be made to meet the needs of all students that include the incorporation of content instruction with functional skills instruction for students with SENs.

The focus of the movement to include students with disabilities in general education has recently shifted from viewing inclusion as an innovation within special education toward viewing it within the broader context of school restructuring (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998[3]). For that reason, students with disabilities are expected and should participate within the general education curriculum. Students with disabilities must be given the same opportunity to reach the same standards set for all students (Vohs & Landau, 1999[4]). Students with disabilities should be included in all content areas, such as math, science, and social studies.

In spite of the potential positive outcomes of inclusive education, designing and implementing instruction to meet the unique needs of student within general education classes remains a significant challenge for practitioners (McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002[5]). Therefore, the purpose of this literature review is to examine the necessary components needed to incorporate functional skills as well as content instruction for students with SENs. In addition, accommodations, modifications, and assessment procedures for students with moderate mental disabilities in the general education classroom will be discussed.

PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING THE STUDY:

For this study, relevant literature and research concerning the topic of students with SENs, content, inclusion, and functional skills instruction were reviewed. Several questions guided the development of the literature review:

• Can a curriculum be composed of both content instruction, as well as functional skills instruction for students with SENs?
• Do students with SENs benefit more when included in the general education curriculum?
• What modifications/accommodations are necessary for the general education curriculum to be accessible to students with SENs?
• Are there specific instructional strategies that children with SENs benefit more than from another?

CONTRIBUTION OF STUDY TO EDUCATION:

This investigation will provide insights into the combining of content area instruction with functional skills instruction for students with SENs. Best practices for making accommodations and modifications to the general education curriculum will be identified.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

There are some limitations of this critical literature review on the infusion of content curriculum and functional instruction for students with SENs. The greatest limitation overall was the lack of research activities in Pakistan. We tried to obtain the most current and up to-date research, however since inclusion is a fairly new topic, as well as the infusion of content and functional skills instruction articles from 1988 and newer were used.

CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS & ADAPTATIONS:

There is no recipe for adapting general education curriculum to meet each student’s needs. Each teacher, each student, each classroom is unique and adaptations are specific to each situation. Keep in mind that curriculum does not always need to be modified. By providing multi-level instruction teacher will find that adapting a lesson may not always be necessary. Differentiating instruction and providing multiple ways assess allows more flexibility for students to meet the standards and requirements of the class. At other times, the curriculum can be made more accessible through accommodations. In addition, supports for one student may not necessarily be the same in all situations, e.g., a student who needs full time support from a paraprofessional for math may only need natural supports from peers for English, and no support for art. And, supports should not be determined by the disability label; instead supports should be used when the instructional or social activity warrants the need for assistance (Fisher and Frey, 2001).

There is no one accepted definition of curriculum modifications as researchers are still grappling with the exact meaning of the concept. Nevertheless, there are some definitions which tend to shed some light into the concept. Curriculum modification involves change to a range of educational components in a curriculum, such as content knowledge, the method of instruction, and student's learning outcomes, through the alteration of materials and programs (Comfort, 1990[6]; King-Sears, 2001[7]; MacMackin & Elaine, 1997[8]; Reisberg, 1990[9]). Koga & Hall (2004)[10] define curriculum modification as modified contents, instructions, and/or learning outcomes for diverse student needs. In other words, curriculum modification is not limited to instructional modification or content modification but includes a continuum of a wide range of modified educational components. However, the way that we interpret curriculum influences our understanding of curriculum modification. Reisburg (1990)[11] lists examples of the modifications of content, such as teaching learning strategies, simplifying concepts or reading levels, teaching different sets of knowledge and skills needed by students, and setting up specific objectives and examples of modifications to instructional methods, including reducing distractions, altering the pace of lessons, presenting smaller amounts of work, clarifying directions, and changing input and response modes. To this end, all of these teaching events should be considered as examples of curriculum modification.

CATEGORIES OF CURRICULUM MODIFICATIONS:

An inclusive curriculum is meant to afford all learners equal opportunities to lifelong education. However, not recognizing that special measures have to be in place for the learners with special needs would be denial of reality. Modifying the curriculum to accommodate those with special needs in inclusive classrooms is to avoid a “watered-down” curriculum which usually accompanies exclusive schools. In this century there is talk of quality education and this education is seen as one that will develop learners holistically by recognizing their individual potential. The curriculum modifications that are proposed are to be done within the context of quality education. The following discussion is based on King Sears suggestions for modifying the curriculum.

Accommodation:

The term refers to the delivery of instructional materials or the methods of learner’s performance which does not change the content or conceptual difficulty of the curriculum (King-Sears 2001)[12]. Teachers as well as the learners play a major role in the changes of instructional strategies in order to achieve the same intended instructional outcomes suggested in the overall or general curriculum. These can include incorporating different types of teaching and learning methods and techniques, such as audio-visual materials, projectors, and pictorial representation among others and modifying the amount of input, changing or modifying the time frame for learning and teaching, and the amount time devoted to the support for individual learners needs. These techniques can benefit learners in the inclusive settings in Botswana and can target special needs learners who are, for example, visually impaired, learning disabled, and hearing impaired. For example, the use of a Brailler in writing and spelling competitions, enlarged test copies, the use of closed circuit television (CCTV) or use of a magnifying glass may be made for a visually impaired student. The intention is that the content and difficulties of tasks remain the same as the tasks in which other learners in the regular class would embark on. Switlick (1997)[13] listed other examples of accommodations, such as requiring completion of every other word problem on a math worksheet, and providing for oral performance instead of written. It is therefore important to note that accommodation is not a change of educational input crafted for overall or general curriculum, but it is a modification of instructional methods and strategies which are targeted to meet individual learner’s needs.

Adaptations:

According to King-Sears (2001)[14], adaptation is a modification to the delivery of instructional methods and intended goals of student performance that does not change the content but does slightly change the conceptual difficulty of the curriculum. Adaptations of curriculum is a concept that usually require more teacher effort and time rather than simply changing instructional methods and strategies or access as in an accommodation, but it is a goal-driven process whereby teachers usually first need to state specifically the intended goals for individual learners, like providing individual learner activities, individual homework and assessments or evaluations, and further using adapted or different instructional materials and strategies and activities for individual learners needs.

Adaptations may be practices in inclusive classrooms often occur when teachers differentiate instruction especially when teachers decide to conduct lessons, mathematics or writing, which meet individual learner’s unique needs by having work on adapted assignments. Under these conditions, learners with special needs may work on their assignment in small groups with the support of the teacher. King-Sears (2001)[15] suggests that a variation of this type of lesson can be providing learners with special needs fewer or less work and points out that reducing the amount of tasks seen in an accommodated instruction should be differentiated from that provided in adapted instruction. In Botswana, learners who are visually impaired, mentally retarded can benefit from this arrangement whereby they may be asked to work in groups in problem solution and as they work in groups the teacher monitoring and support may also be maximized. Hence, the adaptation of curriculum may also include a slight change in conceptual difficulties that is later introduced to the learners. It is important to note that adaptation must take place within the same learning contents and must be put in place when teachers have come to a conclusion that a special needs learner is able to learn the same content knowledge as others.

Parallel Curriculum Outcomes (Parallel Instruction):

The other category of curriculum modification proposed by King-Sears is known as parallel curriculum outcomes which are modifications to the delivery of instruction and intended goals of learner performance. They (parallel curriculum outcomes) do not change the content knowledge and the underlying principle of the educational goals for individual learners just like adaptations. However, their differentiation lies in the extent of change in conceptual difficulty, that is, in adaptation changes are slightly made in the conceptual difficulty of curriculum, whereas in parallel curriculum outcomes there is a significant or very tangible change of conceptual difficulty. The application and practice of parallel curriculum outcomes is contingent upon the educational contexts and individual learner’s needs which are similar to accommodation and adaptation. There is a range of application to this type of modification and students with varying learner characteristics and abilities benefit from parallel curriculum outcomes. This type of modification can be used with learners who are gifted and talented as they usually require more advanced and or challenging conceptual difficulties in instruction and application. This is sometimes referred to as enrichment. In a nutshell parallel curriculum outcomes do not change the general content knowledge but only changes the conceptual difficulties for these kinds of learners which eventually create a learning environment conducive to broaden the idea of inclusion.

Overlapping Curricula (Overlapping Instruction):

This is the last category of curriculum modification suggested by King-Sears. The modification of curriculum in this case creates overlapping or common goals for learning outcomes of learners from diverse backgrounds and which involves incorporation of specific individual goals and expectations for learners with special needs enabling them to be involved in regular or general education curriculum activities by promoting the idea of partial participation. In most cases, the components of curriculum, such as background knowledge, conceptual difficulties, and methods of instruction, for special needs students are designed very differently from those for general education backgrounds. Practicing overlapping curricula sometimes requires teachers to creatively design and provide shared educational activities, such as cooperative learning and peer-mediated interventions. In such shared activities, the educational goals and expectations for the students with diverse needs overlap with those for general education students (King-Sears 2001)[16]. This curriculum can best be used by learners with emotional disturbances and behaviour difficulties, among others, in which an Individualized Education Programme (IEP) may be developed to make them have appropriate interactions with peers in a small group setting.

CURRICULA AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

USE WITH STUDENTS WITH SENs:

Students with SENs represent a special population for whom expectations are generally low. However, like all people, these students have many unique strengths and specific talents in certain areas. It is important to see beyond disability and come to know and appreciate each individual. It is a daunting challenge for educators to ensure these students have access to the general curriculum.

Curriculum:

Planning curriculum starts with the individual needs of a student rather than a disability label or the availability of a separate program that typically serves a particular type of student. After a student has been identified as having a disability, it is then possible to link student-specific goals and outcomes to general education curriculum standards. Planning should focus on an individual’s capacities and assets. Family members and friends should be involved in planning. A collaborative team should analyze the general education curriculum and routines to identify when and how the learning needs of a student, expressed in terms of foundational skills, can be addressed within the context of the general education classroom.

The following assumptions, based on Choosing Options and Accommodations for Children (COACH) (Giangreco, et al., 1998)[17], are inspiring in developing curriculum for students who are developmentally disabled:

·         Design of curriculum should be related to life outcomes that are valued

·         Families should be considered consumers and partners in the design of curriculum

·         Collaboration is essential in the design and delivery of quality education

·         Curriculum objectives should be developed based on priorities and outcomes valued by a student and his or her family rather than professionals representing different disciplines

·         Problem-solving strategies are instrumental in the design of effective curriculum and should be appropriately included

At each grade level, all students are expected to demonstrate proficiency in core curriculum areas as measured by assessment system. It may be appropriate and feasible for a student with developmental disabilities to demonstrate competence on all, part, or none of the core curriculum content for a given grade level (or unit addressed for a given grade level). When the needs of students are expressed in terms of critical or foundational skills, well-established strategies are available to identify opportunities for these skills to be addressed within the context of the general education curriculum. The five areas described below represent domains of a functional curriculum from which instructional targets can be selected and blended with the general curriculum. Browder (2001)[18] and Ryndak and Alper (2003)[19] provide extensive treatments of these curriculum areas.

1. Functional reading: Functional reading involves being able to recognize specific sight words and to use them in the performance of daily routines. Most reading instruction targets the outcome of literacy; that is, students are expected to be able to read whatever printed material they may encounter.

2. Functional math: Functional math refers to basic math skills needed to perform skills of daily living. It includes money management, time management, measurement, counting, and simple computation. In a typical general education curriculum, students learn number and computation skills needed to perform these tasks by the end of second grade. Individuals with developmental disabilities often have not mastered basic math skills needed in daily living activities by this age, and will need to learn these concurrently with their applications to time and money management.

3. Community and leisure skills: With the appropriate support, all students can participate actively in their communities. The purpose of teaching community and leisure skills is not to “ready” students to be part of their communities but to help them benefit from these experiences more fully. Community and leisure skills are included in nearly all life-skills curricula. An important way that schools can prepare students for both current and future community and leisure opportunities is to directly involve them in these activities through community-based instruction.

4. Home and personal living skills: Nearly all published curricula for students with SENs include home and personal living skills. A large body of research now exists regarding how to teach skills such as eating, dressing, using the toilet, brushing the teeth, housekeeping, food preparation, and laundry skills (Konarski & Diorio, 1985[20]; Westling & Fox, 1995[21]).

5. Communication and social skills: Communication skills are often among the top priorities for students with developmental disabilities. To be able to communicate with peers facilitates social interactions in inclusive settings. Many instructional interactions rely on communicative responses. Self-determination is also promoted through self-expression.

Three major components of communication are form, content, and function. When the form of communication is speech, teachers focus on syntax, including such skills as sentence structure, grammar, and inflection. When the form is an augmentative or alternative communication system (a non-speech system), teachers focus on teaching students to use that system effectively. Content of communication includes vocabulary and topics discussed. Function of communication relates to the purpose of communication.

Instructional Adaptations:

Special educators must be focused on developing programs of high-quality instruction for students with developmental disabilities that are anchored to the general education curriculum. These students continue to exceed our expectations if they have access to appropriate curricula and are taught using effective instructional practices.

Curriculum and instructional practices include basic skills and functional life-skills content designed to help students learn the work, domestic, or leisure skills needed for independent living: self-care skills, social interaction, recreation and leisure skills, job training, and community-based instruction (Morgan, Moore, M^cSweyn, & Salzberg, 1992[22]; Patton, Beirne-Smith, & Payne, 1990[23]). School adjustment skills such as interaction with peers, working in groups, participating, communicating, complying with schedules and requests, improving general work habits (following directions, working with others, accepting supervision, meeting demands for quality work, demonstrating occupational safety skills, recognizing the importance of attendance and punctuality, working at a satisfactory rate) are also critical (Lewis & Doorlag, 1999)[24]. Additionally, attention skills, memory skills, functional academics (using money, carrying on conversations, learning survival words), choice making, learning strategies, time management, organizational skills, generalization skills, self advocacy, community-based instruction, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, should also be included in the curriculum (Sands, et al., 2000[25]; Turnbull, et al., 2002[26]).

To succeed in general education classrooms, students with developmental disabilities must also have access to personal supports and technology supports (Fisher, Frey, & Sax, 1999)[27]. Schools that want to implement inclusive schooling practices would be well advised to ensure that general and special education teachers have access to planning time if they expect innovations in curriculum to take hold.

Teachers have been taught to successfully implement instructional adaptations found to be effective for students with SENs, including giving clear directions; appropriate, immediate feedback; and mnemonic recall strategies (Bulgren, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1997[28]; Rademacher, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1996[29]). General educators have been taught to effectively implement instructional adaptations in mathematics (Woodward & Baxter, 1997)[30] and reading and writing (Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Klingner, 1998)[31].

Self-management: Teaching a student self-management in the classroom allows that student to function independently without relying on a teacher or a one-on-one aid (Koegel, Harrower, & Koegel, 1999)[32]. Self-management allows individuals with developmental disabilities to become actively involved in the intervention process as well as more involved in their classroom environments. This increased involvement has the potential to improve autonomy by reducing dependence on adult intervention, which in turn provides a student with more opportunities to interact with classmates without the stigma of a one-on-one aid. Self-management has been suggested as an ideal intervention for students with developmental disabilities to enable them to participate in full inclusion classroom settings (Reid, 1996)[33].

Cooperative learning: A number of studies have demonstrated that teaching social skills to students with severe disabilities and their non-disabled peers in cooperative groups in integrated

settings results in increased frequency, duration, and quality of social interactions (Kamps, et al., 1992[34]; Kohler, et al., 1995[35]).

Peer tutoring: Peer tutoring consists of any instructional strategy where two students work together on an academic activity, with one student providing assistance, instruction, and feedback to the other (DuPaul & Eckert, 1998)[36]. Peer tutoring strategies and their variants have been demonstrated to be effective in producing improvements in on-task behavior and math performance (DuPaul & Henningson, 1993)[37] and in on-task behavior and social interactions (Locke & Fuchs, 1995)[38].

Friendships: Inclusive classrooms are an excellent setting in which to evaluate and design interventions to promote friendships for students with developmental disabilities; at the least, they provide these students with the opportunity to interact socially (Hurley-Geffner, 1995[39]).

Educational Strategies: Special education is in a critical period for assessing educational strategies used with students with developmental disabilities. How to educate students with developmental disabilities in the general education classroom without overburdening the general educator, or disrupting the education of students without disabilities, remains the question of the day. To achieve that goal (a) new strategies are needed for general educators and (b) the strategies for educating students with severe disabilities must be expanded and integrated with those available to regular educators.

Teachers of students with SENs come to this task with a strong foundation in instructional systems and curriculum options grounded in direct instruction, systematic instructional delivery and data-based outcome measures. Good strategies exist for designing functional curricula that are sequenced to promote rapid, generalized acquisition. What continue to be less available are clear strategies and strategies for organizing broader variables related to quality education. The strategies we need today are strategies for how students should be grouped, how school-wide systems should be set up, and how funding should be used to achieve broader educational goals of all students (including those with the most severe disabilities) (Horner, Flannery, & Snell, 1996)[40].

SUMMARY:

Learning involves conceptual change. To teach for conceptual change, we need to establish instructional frameworks that stress relevance, involve lots of predicting and confirming, and offer consistent opportunities to talk things through with others. Of course, this takes time. But many teachers have decided that the time spent in these ways is worth it, because such accommodations allow students to use what they already know to make sense out of what's new.

We have discussed several key instructional principles in this paper that can help a teacher think about curriculum and instruction in regular classroom. We look for ways to challenge students, to offer them opportunities to stretch and grow in an atmosphere that promotes collaboration and success. And, of course, we stand ready to support learners in their quest to grow as literate people.

Curriculum on its own cannot tell anyone what has been achieved in the education system. What is needed is to translate the curriculum into manageable entities that can be used in the classroom for instruction and for assessment. Curriculum and assessment though not always seen as such are key areas in the promotion of effective teaching and learning. The modified curriculum for learners with special needs, just like curriculum for any other learner, should have appropriate instruction plan and assessment plan.

These modifications should include but not limited to the following:

• Extending time limits – learners with learning difficulties e.g. reading comprehension can benefit from this arrangement.
• Individual administration - this allows for interaction with the examiner who is in a position to assess the learner’s strengths and weaknesses.
• Simplification of the language used – this is especially useful with hearing impaired and mentally retarded learners.
• Provision for audiotape, large prints or Braille materials.
• Changing the setting, e.g. moving to smaller and distraction-free settings
• Use of type written rather than handwritten tests
• Definitions of terms if its meaning is not being tested
• Give more tests with fewer items as opposed to fewer, but longer items e.g. while using
• Multiple-choice tests, reduce the number of choices to simplify the tests.

CONCLUSION:

We believe there is room for much hope and optimism for both tried and untried methods. Since there are now so many inclusionary school programs with wonderful classrooms that are literacy-rich, and striving to achieve "Literacy for All," we -- both special and general educators alike -- must make sure that "all" truly means all the children in a classroom, including those with SENs. It is a critical time for collaboration between reading specialists, language teachers, adaptive technology specialists, and special educators as we explore the many dimensions of literacy for young people with SENs. There is a long road ahead of us, and much will be learned along the journey, particularly if we take the journey together.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

·         Speeded curriculum and assessment modification in Botswana

·         Training of personnel: Training of teachers needs to have a compulsory component in “teaching and assessing learners with special needs”. Similar in-service training is also needed for the already practicing teachers.

·         Resources: There is a clear lack of resources in schools where special education students are found.

---

[1] College of Education, Karachi

[2] University of Sindh, Jamshoro

[3] Soodak, L., Podell, D., and Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers. responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 480-497).

[4] Vohs, J. and Landau, J. (1999). IDEA 1997: Improving the education of students with disabilities in an era of education reform. PEER Information Brief. Retrieved on January 11, 2008, from

http://www.fcsn.org/peer/ess/ideaib.html.

[5] McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Polychronis, S., and Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363-377.

[6] Comfort, R. (1990). On the idea of curriculum modification by teachers. Academic Therapy, 25(4), 397-405.

[7] King-Sears, M. E. (2001). Three steps for gaining access to the general education curriculum for learners with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(2), 67-76.

[8] MacMackin, M. C. & Elaine, M. B. (1997). A change in focus: Teaching diverse learners within an inclusive elementary school classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 3 (1), 32-38.

[9] Reisberg, L. (1990). Curriculum evaluation and modification: An effective teaching perspective. Intervention in School and Clinic, 26(2), 99-105.

[10] Koga, N., & Hall, T. (2004). Curriculum modification. Wakefield, MA: National Centre on Accessing the General Curriculum.

[11] Ibid

[12] Ibid

[13] Switlick, D. M. (1997). Curriculum modifications and adaptations. In D.F. Bradley & M.E. King-Sears & D. M. Switlick (Eds.), Teaching students in inclusive settings (pp. 225-239). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid

[17] Giangreco, M. F. (1998). Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children (Coach) A Guide to Educational Planning for Students with Disabilities. Brookes Publishing Co.

[18] Browder, D. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe. New York: Guilford Press.

[19] Ryndak, D. L. & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[20] Konarski, E. A. & Diorio, M. S. (1985). A quantitative review of self-help research with the severely and profoundly mentally retarded. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6(2), 229-45.

[21] Westling, D. L. & Fox, L. (1995). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

[22] Morgan, R. L., Moore, S. C., M^cSweyn, C. A., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Transition from school to work: Views of secondary special educators. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27(4), 315-323.

[23] Patton, J. R., Beirne-Smith, M., & Payne, J. S. (1990). Mental retardation. (3^rd Ed.) Columbus, OH: Merrill.

[24] Lewis, R. B. & Doorlag, D. H. (1999). Teaching special students in general education classrooms. (5^th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

[25] Sands, D. J. & Kozleski, E. B., et al. (2000). Inclusive education for the twenty-first century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

[26] Turnbull, R. & Turnbull, A., et al. (2002). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

[27] Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Sax, C. (1999). Inclusive elementary schools: Recipes for individualizing success. Colorado Springs, CO: PEAK Parent Center.

[28] Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement routine and strategies in inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(4). 198-208.

[29] Rademacher, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1996). Development and validation of a classroom assignment routine for inclusive settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(3), 163-178.

[30] Woodward, J. & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373-88.

[31] Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Schumm, J. S., & Klingner, J. K. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 57-74.

[32] Koegel, L. K., Harrower, J. K., & Koegel, R. L. (1999). Support for children with developmental disabilities in full-inclusion classrooms through self-management. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 26-34.

[33] Reid, W. (1996). The administrative challenges of block scheduling. The School Administrator, 53(8), 26-30.

[34]Kamps, D. M., Walker, D., Maher, J., & Rotholz, D. (1992). Academic and environmental effects of small group instruction arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder, 22, 277-293.

[35] Kohler, F. W., Strain, P. S., & Hoyson, M. (1995). Using a group-oriented contingency to increase social interactions between children with autism and their peers: A preliminary analysis of corollary supportive behaviors. Behavior Modification, 19, 10-32.

[36] DuPaul, G. J. & Eckert, T. L. (1998). Academic interventions for students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14(1), 59-82.

[37] DuPaul, G. J. & Henningson, P. N. (1993). Peer tutoring effects on the classroom performance of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 22(1), 134-43.

[38] Locke, W. R. & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Effects of peer-mediated reading instruction on the on-task behavior and social interaction of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3(2), 92-99.

[39] Hurley-Geffner, C. M. (1995). Friendships between children with and without developmental disabilities. In Koegel, R. L. & Koegel, L. K. (Eds.), Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiating positive interactions and improving learning opportunities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

[40] Horner, R. H., Flannery, K. B., & Snell, M. E. (1996). Educational strategies for students with severe intellectual disabilities. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (http://idea.uoregon.edu:16080/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech03.html).

Pakistan Journal of Special Education (PJSE) Vol. 9, 2008

© Department of Special Education, University of Karachi

Posted in: PJSE 2008