Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 301-326

  Kleinert, Harold L ^a   Browder, Diane M ^b   Towles Reeves, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Assessment; High stakes testing; Performance assessment; Special education; Student cognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349602485     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654308326160     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agran, M, C Blanchard, and M Wehmeyer (2000). Promoting transition goals and self-determination through student self-directed learning: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 351-364.
2. Agran, M, M King-Sears, M Wehmeyer, and S Copeland (2003). Teachers' guides to inclusive practices: Student-directed learning. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
3. Almond, P, and S Bechard (2005). In-depth look at students who take alternate assessments: What do we know now?. Retrieved March 16, 2006, fromhttp://www.measuredprogress.org/Resources/SpecialEd.html.
4. Baddeley, A (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon/Oxford University Press.
5. Bergeron, R, and R Floyd (2006). Broad cognitive abilities of children with mental retardation: An analysis of group and individual profiles. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 417-432.
6. Black, P, and D Wiliam (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
7. Black, P, and D Wiliam (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139 146-144 148.
8. Bradford, S, M Shippen, P Alberto, D Houchins, and M Flores (2006). Using systematic instruction to teach decoding skills to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 333-343.
9. Bray, N, K Fletcher, and L Turner (1997). Cognitive competencies and strategy use in individuals with mental retardation. In W MacLean, Jr (Ed.), Ellis' handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory, and research, 3rd ed (pp. 197-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Brinker, RP, and ME Thorpe (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51, 168-175.
11. Browder, D (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford.
12. Browder, D, L Ahlgrim-Delzell, C Flowers, M Karvonen, F Spooner, and R Algozzine (2005). How states define alternate assessments. Research and Policy in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 209-220.
13. Browder, D, S Wakeman, F Spooner, L Ahlgrim-Delzell, and B Algozzine (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392-408.
14. Browder, DM, M Karvonen, S Davis, K Fallin, and C Courtade-Little (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267-282.
15. Browder, DM, F Spooner, L Ahlgrim-Delzell, C Flowers, M Karvonen, and R Algozzine (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 28, 165-181.
16. Browder, DM, F Spooner, L Ahlgrim-Delzell, A Harris, and S Wakeman (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children.
17. Brown, L, J Nietupski, and S Hamre-Nietupski (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning and public school services for severely handicapped children. In M Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! (pp. 8-12). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
18. Cole, D, and C Meyer (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education, 25, 340-351.
19. Collins, B, H Kleinert, and L Land (2006). Addressing math standards and functional math. In D Browder and F Spooner (Eds.), Teaching reading, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 197-227). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
20. Commission on Instructionally Supportive Assessment (2001). Building tests that support instruction and accountability: A guide for policymakers. Washington, DC: Author.
21. Denham, A, and E Lahm (2001). Using technology to construct alternate portfolios of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 10-17.
22. Ellis, N (1963). The stimulus trace and behavioral inadequacy. In N Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency (pp. 134-158). New York: McGraw-Hill.
23. Farlow, LJ, and ME Snell (1994). Making the most of student performance data (Innovations). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
24. Flowers, C, D Browder, and L Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201-216.
25. Fryxell, D, and C Kennedy (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students' social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 20, 259-269.
26. Geary, D (1995). Reflection of evolution and culture in children's cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50, 24-37.
27. Gindis, B (1999). Vygotsky's vision: Reshaping the practice of special education for the 21st century. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 333-340.
28. Heward, W (2006). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
29. Hughes, C, and M Agran (1993). Teaching persons with severe disabilities to use self-instruction in community settings: An analysis of applications. Journal of the Association of Persons With Severe Handicaps, 18, 261-274.
30. Hunt, P, D Staub, M Alwell, and L Goetz (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperating groups. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 19, 290-231.
31. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (1997). 20 U.S.C. ï¿1/2 1400 et seq.
32. Kaiser, A, and J Grim (2006). Teaching functional communication skills. In ME Snell and F Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities, 6th ed (pp. 447-488). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
33. Kearns, J, E Towles-Reeves, H Kleinert, and J Kleinert (2006). Learning characteristics inventory (LCI) report. Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.naacpartners.org/products/Files/Research_Focus_LCI.pdf.
34. Kentucky Alternate Portfolio Project (2006). Kentucky Alternate Assessment-Revised: 2006 administration guide. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Human Development Institute. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/kap.
35. Kleinert, H, A Denham, V Groneck, J Clayton, M Burdge, and J Kearns (2001). Systematically teaching the components of self-determination. In H Kleinert and J Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 93-134). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
36. Kleinert, H, and J Kearns (2004). Alternate assessments. In F Orelove, D Sobsey and R Silberman (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach, 4th ed (pp. 115-149). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
37. Kleinert, H, and M Thurlow (2001). An introduction to alternate assessment. In H Kleinert and J Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1-15). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
38. Kohl, F, M McLaughlin, and K Nagle (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73, 107-123.
39. Konold, KE, S Miller, and KB Konold (2004). Using teaching feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(6), 64-69.
40. Lave, J, and E Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. Lehr, C, and M Thurlow (2003). Putting it all together: Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Policy Directions No. 16). Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm.
42. Lemke, JJ (2000). Across the scale of time: Artifacts, activities, and meaning in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 273-290.
43. Mastropieri, M, and T Scruggs (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effective instruction, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
44. McGrew, KS, ML Thurlow, and AN Spiegel (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 339-352.
45. National Alternate Assessment Center (2005). Access and alignment to grade level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. San Antonio, Texas: Pre-session of the Chief Council for State School Officers.
46. National Center on Educational Outcomes (2003). Accountability for assessment results in the No Child Left Behind Act: What it means for children with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/NCLBdisabilities.pdf.
47. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754).
48. No Child Left Behind Act (2002). 20 U.S.C. 70 ï¿1/2 6301 et seq.
49. Pellegrino, J (March 14, 2005). The challenge of knowing what students with severe disabilities know, Paper presented at the Joint Expert and Partners Meeting, New Hampshire Enhanced Assessment Initiative and National Alternate Assessment Center, Baltimore.
50. Pellegrino, J, N Chudowsky and R Glaser (Eds.) (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, National Academies Press.
51. Robinson, C, and J Robinson (1978). Sensorimotor functions and cognitive development. In ME Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (pp. 102-153). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
52. Roeber, E (2002). Setting standards on alternate assessments. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (Synthesis Report 42). Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis42.html.
53. Ryndak, DL, AP Morrison, and L Sommerstein (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 5-22.
54. Sigafoos, J, DA Cole, and R McQuarter (1987). Current practices in the assessment of students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 12, 264-273.
55. Snell, M and F Brown (Eds.) (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
56. Sprague, J, and R Horner (1984). The effects of single instance, multiple instance, and general case training on generalized vending machine use by moderately and severely handicapped learners. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 273-278.
57. Thompson, S, R Quenemoen, M Thurlow, and J Ysseldyke (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
58. Thompson, S, and M Thurlow (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.
59. U.S. Department of Education (2003). Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Federal Register, 66, 68698-68708.
60. U.S. Department of Education (April 28, 2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
61. U.S. Department of Education (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
62. Vygotsky, L JE Knox and CB Stevens (Eds.) (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 2. New York: Plenum.
63. Webb, NL (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectation and assessment in mathematics and science education. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. (NISE Research Monograph No. 6). Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers.
64. Wehmeyer, M, and S Palmer (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131-144.
65. Wehmeyer, M, and M Schwartz (1998). The relationship between self-determination and quality of life for adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33(1), 3-12.
66. Werts, MG, M Wolery, A Holcombe, and DL Gast (1995). Instructive feedback: Review of parameters and effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 55-75.
67. Westling, D, and L Fox (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities, 3rd ed (pp. 181-189). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
68. Wolery, M, M Ault, and P Doyle (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. White Plains, NY: Longman.