Improving Outcomes For College Students With Disabilities: Ten Strategies For Instructors

College Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 128-133

  Tincani, Matt ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

disabilities; grade improvement; teaching strategies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875257351     PISSN: 87567555     EISSN: 19308299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.52.4.128-133     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Alberto, P. A., and A. C. Troutman. 1995. Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Englewood, NJ: Merrill.
2. DuPaul, G. J., R. A. Ervin, C. L. Hook, and K. E. McGoey. 1998. Peer tutoring for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behavior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31:579-92.
3. An analysis of disability support services in higher education. Gamble, D. 2000. ERIC, ED 445445.
4. Greenwood, C. R., J. C. Delaquardi, and R. V. Hall. 1984. Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In Focus on behavior analysis in education, ed. W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, and J. Trap-Porter, 58-88. Columbus, OH: Merill.
5. Austin, J. A. 2000. Behavioral approaches to college teaching. In Handbook of applied behavior analysis, ed. J. A. Austin and J. E. Carr, 449-72. Reno, NV: Context Press.
6. Barbetta, P. M., and C. L. Skaruppa. 1995. Looking for a way to improve your behavior analysis lectures? Try guided notes. Behavior Analyst 18:155-60.
7. Binder, C. 1993. Behavioral fluency: A new paradigm. Educational Technology 33:8-14.
8. Calkin, A. B. 1996. Learning Russian. Journal of Precision Teaching and Celeration 14:57-71.
9. Gumpel, T. P., and R. Frank. 1999. An expansion of the peer-tutoring paradigm: Cross-age peer tutoring of social skills among socially rejected boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 32:115-18.
10. Heward, W. L. 1994. Three low-tech strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction, ed. R. Gardiner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, and T. A. Grossi, 283-320. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
11. Heward, W. L. 2000. Exceptional children: An introductory survey of special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Horn, L., and J. Berktold. 1999. Students with disabilities in postsecondary education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
13. Hughes, C. A., and S. K. Suritsky. 1994. Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 27:20-24.
14. Malott, R. W. 1984. In search of human perfectibility: A behavioral approach to higher education. In Focus on behavior analysis in education, ed. W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, and J. Trap-Porter, 218-45. Columbus, OH: Merill.
15. Ohio State University Office for Disability Services. 2000. Instructor handbook: Teaching students with disabilities. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
16. Paul, S. 2000. Students with disabilities in higher education: A review of the literature. College Student Journal 34:200-10.
17. Polson, A. D. 1995. Fostering multiple repertoires in undergraduate behavior analysis students. Behavior Analyst 18: 293-99.
18. Schmetzke, A. 2001. Online distance education— "Anytime, anywhere" but not for everyone. Information Technology and Disabilities 7, http://www.rit.edu/-easi/itd/itdv07n2/axel.htm.