A Framework for Evaluating Inclusive School Programs for Primary Students with Language and Learning...

P1: GVH/lov P2: FJT/fzi QC: GLB

Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities [jodd] pp506-374603 June 18, 2002 12:19 Style file version June 18th, 2002

A Framework for Evaluating Inclusive SchoolPrograms for Primary Students With Language andLearning Disabilities

Genevieve Manset-Williamson1,3 and David C. Rogers2

In this paper, a framework for evaluating inclusive school environments forstudents with language and learning disabilities is described. The frameworkfor this evaluation is based on a sociocultural perspective with an emphasison evaluating program adaptability, opportunities to communicate orally, andaccess to higher order cognitive tasks and content. The framework is appliedin a case study of an inclusion program in an urban elementary school.

KEY WORDS: language disorders; inclusion; learning disabilities.

INTRODUCTION

Research on the efficacy of inclusive programs is plagued by problemswith definition. Curriculum, instructional approaches, and class size differso widely in practice that they do not define special, inclusive, or generaleducation. The lack of clearly defined treatments has made it difficult todraw conclusions about the relative efficacy of inclusion programs. It hasalso sparked discussions about what distinguishes special education frommainstream instruction. The search for a definition, driven in part by inclu-sion research, is leading to the deconstruction of long-standing, and not fullyunderstood, general and special education practices. This loss of confidencein a clear definition of special education is being replaced by efforts to

1School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.2Dept. of Special Education, College of Education, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud,Minnesota.

3To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Education, Indiana University,ED 3220 Bloomington, Indiana 47405; e-mail: gmanset@indiana.edu.

216 Manset-Williamson and Rogers

define key characteristics of instructional environments and their impacton students with disabilities. Out of necessity, the focus of study is movingfrom “Which placement is better?” to “What must instructional environ-ments contain in order to be effective for students with disabilities?” Thiscase study reflects the latter question. This study is based on an organiza-tional framework for evaluating inclusive school environments that drawsfrom the theories of Vygotsky and research in effective teaching. This frame-work is then applied to an evaluation of an inclusive urban school programfor students with language and learning disabilities.

Background

Researchers of classroom ecology and their implications for studentswith disabilities recognize the lack of understanding of environments whereteachers are expected to teach all students, regardless of their ability level(Baker and Zigmond, 1995; Speece and Keogh, 1996). Speece and Keogh(1996) provided researchers with a challenge by stating

It is a fair criticism that research on classroom factors lacks an organizing frame-work, making study difficult. However, it is also fair to point out that research thattreats factors external to the child as nuisance variables misses a valuable opportu-nity to explain child variance. The work in this volume suggests that an organizingframework is possible and needed. That is, individual classrooms, like children, haveunique features but are not so variable as to defy description. (p. 264)

This paper serves as a response to this challenge by proposing an or-ganizing framework for evaluating inclusive environments that is based onboth theory and research. Evaluating inclusive school environments in away that is both valid and pragmatic requires an approach that is essentiallytriadic. That is, research in student characteristics and instructional environ-ments is applied to the evaluation of inclusion programs. The evaluation ofthe environments themselves provides information about the nature of stu-dent characteristics as they interact with instructional environments. Untilrecently, student characteristics, skills, and deficits, and as a consequencetheir academic needs, have been defined primarily outside of instructionalcontexts. The isolated, “medical” model of evaluation with the students asthe only focus does not account for the fact that teaching and learning arealways dynamic exchanges within social contexts. A child’s disability evolvesin and is formed by school environments. In the early part of this century,celebrated Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky provided a revolutionary ap-proach to learning, development, and disabilities by situating them withintheir social context. This sociocultural approach makes particular sense withthe study of students with disabilities in inclusive environments becauseof the emphasis in inclusion on where a child is taught. In addition, the

A Framework for Evaluating Inclusive School Programs 217

approach requires a focus on process and classroom ecology rather than onsimply outcomes.

A limitation associated with evaluation of inclusion programs to dateis the heavy focus on basic skills outcomes as an indicator of successfulinclusive programming. While important, if basic skills are the only outcomethat is given attention, then there is a natural tendency to simply relocatea “traditional” special education program within the mainstream classroom(Pugach, 1995). In many cases, this most typically takes place in the form ofintensive tutorial within the regular classroom (Baker and Zigmond, 1995;Manset and Semmel, 1997). An evaluation of classroom ecology as opposedto narrow outcomes requires a closer examination of the educational needsof students with disabilities beyond basic skills.

A further justification for an approach to evaluation that focuses onclassroom ecology lies in the complex nature of developing inclusion pro-grams for students with high-incidence disabilities. Educators must designprograms that can be sustained over a number of years, incorporate severalclassrooms, and serve a relatively large proportion of the student population.Teachers must anticipate and design classroom programs for 6% to perhaps10% (higher, in some schools) of their students whose needs are not fullyknown until well into the school year. The complexity of this task, a result ofthe sheer number of students, teachers, and support staff involved, requiresa conceptual framework that is fluid enough to adjust to changing demandsand yet provides a standard against which programs can be evaluated as theyare developed and implemented.

Evaluation Framework

The following evaluation framework is based on Vygotksian principleswhich ground learning, development, and disabilities within their social con-text. The context in this case is an inclusion program for primary studentswith speech impairments, many of whom are at risk for learning disabilities.These theories provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of inclusiveenvironments along three parameters: (a) adaptability of instruction; (b)richness of communicative environment; and (c) opportunities for develop-ing higher order cognitive skills (see Table I).

Adaptability of Instruction

Vygotsky is perhaps best known for his concept of the zone of proximaldevelopment (ZPD). A child’s ZPD is defined by “. . . those functions that

Table I. Evaluation Framework for Inclusive School Programs

Qualities of thelearning environment Indicators

1. Adaptability Relatively low student–staff ratioStaff have access to a range of teaching techniquesOpportunity for “real time” instructional engagementInstruction directed within student’s ZPDInstruction represents balanced approach

2. Richness of communicative Opportunity to communicateenvironment Provided instruction in language skills necessary for

mediating the learning environment3. Access to higher order Mainstream curriculum made available and accessible

cognitive tasks and content Students are engaged in higher order tasks

have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation” (Vygotsky, 1978,p. 86). Learning occurs at the point when a task can be accomplished or aconcept understood with assistance. There are differing means in which toprovide this assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Determining the correctapproach, pace, and level of instruction requires dynamic engagement be-tween student and teacher. Because of the nature of whole class instruction,students must not only learn concepts and skills at school, but they mustalso be acculturated to the means in which assistance is provided within aclassroom. That is, they must be able to adapt to the specific means in whichlearning is most commonly mediated within that environment (Kozulin &Presseisen, 1995). The teacher, on the other hand, strives to maximize thelearning of most (not necessarily all) students by deciding on the form andlevel of his/her instructional effort. Students in general are able to adapt un-der a variety of instructional conditions. Students with language or learningdisabilities, however, as a result of their disability, have limited adaptive abil-ity. Therefore, to meet the instructional needs of all the students, particularlyin inclusive classrooms, teachers must be skilled in a variety of instructionalapproaches. In addition, they must be prepared to teach at a variety of levelsof the curriculum, as well as have the resources to maintain some flexibility(Sayre, 1996). Students must also have a high level of academic respond-ing in order for teachers to continually assess and adjust their instruction(Greenwood et al., 1994). Note that a focus on adaptability deemphasizesone correct curriculum for students with disabilities. Organizing for adapt-ability reflects the uniqueness of each student’s needs in highly heteroge-neous settings through a balance. Balance can be thought of as instructionthat varies between teacher- and student-directed instructions, as well asbetween higher order (i.e., holistic, such as paragraph writing) and lowerorder (i.e., basic, such as spelling) skills.

Enriched Communicative Environment

The second concept borrowed from Vygotsky and applied to the eval-uation of inclusive classrooms is the idea of language as a mediating toolin learning. As stated earlier, instruction is dynamic. It is mediated by boththe learner and instructor as they attempt to establish the level and pace inwhich learning is maximized. Language, according to Vygotsky, is the pri-mary psychological tool used in the mediation of the learning environment(Luria, 1961; Vygotsky, 1978). Language skills necessary for mediating thatenvironment include answering and asking questions, clarifying, defining,correcting, or indicating miscommunication. Students with either speech orlanguage disabilities not only have deficits in skills that are associated withreading (i.e., phonological processing, semantic and syntactic maturity), butare often limited in the pragmatic aspects of language (Lapudat, 1991; Mann,1986). Programs should therefore be assessed for both the opportunity tocommunicate and the instruction that focuses particularly on the languageskills necessary for mediating classroom environments. Students who canmodel communication skills are also a key element for enriched commu-nicative environments.

Opportunity to Develop Higher Order Skills

The third concept applied in this framework to inclusive environmentsis related to Vygotsky’s perspective on disability, which is generally trans-lated as “defectology.” The reference here is to Vygotsky’s theory related toprimary and secondary defects in children with disabilities (Gindis, 1995;Vygotsky, 1993). A primary defect is the innate, biological impairment.Vygotsky wrote that it was not the primary defect that was handicappingso much as the distortion in social interaction that results in being lockedout of higher forms of cognitive development because of that primary defect.For students with language and learning disabilities, the extreme deficits incommunication and basic skills may limit access to higher forms of knowl-edge both because they are pulled away from content area classes to con-tinue to work on these basic skills and because the instruction itself isnot made accessible to them. Programming for students with disabilitiesshould therefore allow them exposure to higher order concepts and skillswhile including adaptations to assure accessibility. Effective programmingshould at least provide students with access to the mainstream curricu-lum, particularly as states move to require similar content standards for allstudents.

METHODS

Setting

This case study was conducted in an urban elementary school inNew York state. At the time of the study, 86% of the student body wasof African American descent. Over 77% of students were considered eli-gible for the free lunch program. Fifty percent of the third-grade studentsand 44% of the sixth graders could not read on grade level as defined by thestate. The school was a district center for students with communication dis-orders, and so many of the students with speech impairments traveled fromother parts of the district to attend their intensive communication program.Although officially the average class size for kindergartens was 17 students,and the average for Grades 1–6 was 25, in practice it was quite different.The relatively large number of special education classrooms, which typi-cally had 12 students in them, deflated the average across classrooms. Weobserved and the teachers confirmed that many of the primary classroomshad enrollment of 35 or more students. At the time of this study, the schoolwas identified as a “focus” school by the state, indicating that because ofthe overall low test scores on state-mandated exams, the school was underconsideration for a full review.

This case study is the inclusion program in its 3rd year of implemen-tation. The program consisted of two classrooms of 28 students each:6 students with communication disorders in each class, 1 with a visual im-pairment, and 1 with an unspecified emotional/behavioral disorder. Themajority of the students were relatively low achieving academically, andteachers reported that it was common for their students identified with acommunication disorder to be labeled as having a learning disability bythird grade. Two teachers with elementary certification and half time byone teacher with speech and special education certification team taughtin the two classrooms. One classroom had first-grade students, and oneclassroom had students in both first and second grades. A shared space(empty classroom) was utilized almost continuously by program studentsfor between-class grouping—particularly in math and reading. The class-rooms were also supported by Title I pullout program and a speech ther-apist, who provided intensive language instruction for those students withcommunication disorders. The speech therapist worked in the classroomfor the purpose of general language enrichment. She also met with stu-dents identified as having communication disorders in her office for indi-vidual sessions for approximately 3 half-hour sessions per week. The al-ternative to this inclusion program for students with speech impairmentswas a self-contained classroom taught by a teacher with speech certification.

As stated earlier, the enrollment in these classrooms was approximately12 students.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection consisted of 3 days of intensive, within-class observation.The participants in the inclusive program were observed for 3 continuousdays with the use of momentary time sampling and continuous narrativetechniques. Approximately 90% of all instructional time (i.e., not lunch,PE, art, or music) was observed. At the signal provided by a tape recorder(“ready, record”) every 2 min, observers would code ecological variablesdesignated for this study. Each day, a student with a disability described ashaving a typical schedule by his classroom teacher was used as a referencepoint for coding. Two days were spent in one classroom, and the 3rd daywas spent in the other. Descriptive data were analyzed for each variable ob-served. The variables identified in this coding system include the number ofstaff in the room, certification of the teacher, teacher behavior, instructionalgrouping used, materials, academic domain, and the students’ task. The ob-servers had marked as many descriptors that applied within each categoryimmediately after being signaled. Between the 2-min structured coding, theobserver made qualitative notes describing the context of the instruction.Before the formal evaluation procedure, description of the program was de-scribed for the evaluator, and informal observation held prior to the morestructure observations. Twenty-five percent of the observation was coded bya second researcher. Reliability coefficients on each of the variables codedranged from a low of .83 (Materials) to a high of .99 (Teacher definition). Themean reliability coefficient across all variables was .91. A descriptive analysisof outcomes is presented in terms of the percentage of time they were ob-served to occur over the 3 days of observation relative to the other variablesin that category. Qualitative information was used to provide descriptiveexamples of classroom practices.

RESULTS

Teacher Certification and Behavior

Observations were split between 2 days in one of the inclusive class-rooms and 1 day in the second classroom. Each of these classrooms had ateacher certified in elementary education (see Table II). The third teacher

Table II. Frequency Distribution for Classroom Environmental Variables: Teacher Certifica-tion and Behavior

Count(number of times observed) %

Teacher (by certification)Elementary education (Teacher a) 100 47.2Elementary education (Teacher b) 59 27.8Special education/speech therapist (Teacher c) 50 23.5Paraprofessional 3 1.4

Teacher behaviorClassroom management 33 15.6Reading aloud 8 3.8Observation (standing/sitting in one place) 20 9.5Observation (walking around the room) 25 11.8Teacher-directed instruction 90 42.6Discussion 30 14.2Other 5 2.4

was certified in both special education and speech therapy, and split her timebetween working with children from both classrooms. Target students withdisabilities were observed to spend approximately 74% of their time witheither of the two general educators and 24% of their time with the specialeducator.

Teachers spent the majority of their time (43%) in teacher-directed in-struction with either lecture or closed question format (see Table II). Analmost equal percentage of time was spent in classroom management activi-ties (16%) and in general class discussion (14%). These data indicate that themajority of the time observed teachers were engaged with students, primarilyin controlled instructional activities rather than in open-ended conversation.

Academic Domain and Instructional Grouping

Students spent the majority of time observed in language arts activitiessuch as general reading and language arts (50%), and spelling/handwriting(9%) and speech/language instruction4 (6%; see Table III).Twenty percentof the time was spent in mathematics-related activities. A relatively smallamount of time included science instruction (2%) that was embedded in alanguage arts project. Each day began with calendar time, when studentsdiscussed the date, weather, and the schedule of events for that day.

Within these academic domains, students spent the majority of theirtime in either whole class (34%) or split-class groupings of 14 students (49%;

4Students were not observed in their individual speech therapy sessions, which occurredapproximately three times a week for a half hour.

Table III. Frequency Distribution for Classroom Environmental Variables:Instructional Grouping and Academic Domains

Instructional groupingWhole class (28 students) 73 34.4Small group 11 5.2Cooperative groups 9 4.2Individual 12 5.7Split class (14 students) 104 49.0Other 3 1.4

Academic domainReading/language arts 105 50.3Mathematics 42 20.1Spelling/handwriting 18 8.6Calendar 6 2.9Other 21 10.0

see Table III). A relatively small amount of time was spent in small (5%) orcooperative groups (4%), or in individualized instruction (6%; see Table III).

Materials and Student Task

The primary material used during lessons were books (29%). Studentsspend almost equal amount of time, working with workbooks/sheets (14%)and paper and pen (16%; see Table IV). Twenty-four percent of the timematerials fell under the “other” category, which primarily was the use of achalk on felt board by the teacher. Manipulatives were used 5% of the time.

Students were required to be involved in discussion/answering ques-tions (38%). When they were not expected to contribute to discussion orlisten quietly (11%), they were engaged through writing; through eitherclosed writing activities (8%), producing writing (5%), or taking a writtentest (8%). Eight percent of the time the task was to read aloud, and 6% ofthe time students read silently (see Table IV).

DISCUSSION

Adaptability of Learning Environment

Although students in general demonstrate the capability to learn undera wide variety of instructional conditions, including differences in group-ing, teaching approaches, and opportunities for engagement, students withdisabilities will only learn under conditions that are highly specified for the

Table IV. Frequency Distribution for Classroom Environmental Variables: Student Task andMaterials

Students’ taskTest 20 9.5Writing (closed task) 19 9.0Writing (producing) 12 5.7Producing other product 2 0.9Discussion/answer question 81 38.4Reading aloud 17 8.1Reading silently 12 5.7Transition (within or between classrooms) 18 8.5Listen (not respond) 24 11.4Other 6 2.8

Instructional materialsBook 60 29.0Workbook/worksheet 30 14.4Paper/pen 33 15.8Manipulative 12 5.8Other 49 23.5None 25 12.0

individual. And not only do these conditions differ between students withdisabilities, but they may also change over time for a student. All of thissupports the argument that students with disabilities will learn best in envi-ronments that are highly adaptable to their learning needs. In the evaluativeframework used here, indicators of adaptability in the learning environmentinclude a relatively low student-to-staff ratio, staff access to a range of teach-ing techniques, opportunity for “real time” instructional engagement, andinstruction directed within students’ ZPD. What distinguished “inclusive”classrooms from the general education classrooms in this school was the rel-atively low student-to-staff ratio and the combination of expertise that theteachers represented. In this inclusive program, 3 teachers were responsi-ble for 56 students, resulting in a teacher-to-student ratio of approximately1:19. A full-time paraprofessional split her time between the two classrooms.Although in this low resource school, the ratio—1 teacher to 19 students—was considered low compared with the ratio of 1:35 that was common inthe primary classrooms in the school, this allowed for increased adaptabilityby providing time for teachers to individualize instruction as well as moreclosely observe individual student progress and needs. We emphasize, how-ever, that the teacher-to-student ratio was low relative to the school as awhole but not in comparison with the schools’ separate special educationclassrooms, where there were 12 students per teacher. Although there isno conclusive evidence of the ideal teacher-to-student ratio for either stu-dents with or without disabilities, certainly there should be significantly fewer

students per teacher in classrooms that include a high proportion of studentswith disabilities or at risk for school failure. This is particularly importantwhen attempting to increase adaptability of the environment.

Decreasing student-to-staff ratio with the team teaching of three teach-ers representing elementary education, special education, and speech cer-tification allowed for an expansion of resources that go beyond simply thelow teacher-to-student ratio represented in special education classrooms.The combination of teacher expertise, styles, and preferences contributesto the adaptability of a classroom because teachers have a greater range ofinstructional options from which to draw. The observations confirmed thatthe students with disabilities were not only taught by the special educationteacher, but experienced as much instruction from their general educator aswell. Beyond instructional time, teachers had an opportunity to expand ontheir instructional knowledge and techniques by collaborating and observingeach other teach. The team approach contributes further to the adaptabilityof programs because of the contribution of differing expertise and teachingstyles.

A further indication of the adaptability of the environment resides in theopportunity for “real-time” instructional engagement, and that instructionis directed within a student’s ZPD. That is, both teacher and student areactively engaged in the learning process at the same time, and in such away that they are adjusting to each other’s pace, degree of difficulty andintensity. In addition, the difficulty and pace of the instruction are ideallymatched to the student’s ZPD, and there is opportunity to adjust and growas the student learns. These indicators can be observed in the instructionalgroupings used by the teachers in the program. As was described in theResults section, students spent the majority of their time in either wholeclass (28 students) or split-class (14 students) groupings. Exceptions to thiswere in the 4% of the instructional time set aside for math/science learningcenters where students worked in cooperative or partner reading, or the5% of the time when students were in small groups. Given the pattern ofthe instructional grouping, students spent very little time in small groupor one-to-one instruction where the opportunity for real-time instructionalengagement and adjusting to individual students’ ZPD could be maximized.Instead, all students received the same level and type of teacher-directedinstruction in groups where students who are lower achieving, less adaptable,and with delayed language skills could easily be overlooked. In addition,because the level of instruction is not appropriate for the individual student,the students most at risk for school failure will not be engaged. The programevaluated represents one disadvantage of inclusive programming with itslarger class size and teacher-to-student ratios as compared with traditionalpullout programs. Strategies that may be used to increase both real-time

instructional engagement and instructional focus within the ZPD include theuse of small ability groups, the rotation of groups through learning stations,individualized practice at desks, and other media, such as audio tapes andmicrocomputers.

An adaptable instructional environment also includes a balance in in-structional approaches to meet the varying instructional needs of all students.In this program, students were observed engaged in whole class lessons inreading and language arts, science and math content, and in writing skillsactivities. Emphasis appeared to be in higher order skills (discussed in thenext section) and little intensive, direct instruction in basic literacy or mathskills. There was also little opportunity to practice these skills. Students withlittle adaptive ability and at risk for failing to develop basic skills may mostfeel the absence of balance in this curriculum.

Richness of Communicative Environment

The relatively small teacher-to-student ratio and emphasis on individ-ualized and small group instruction can contribute to the adaptability ofthe learning environment. Besides adaptability of instruction, students withdisabilities, and particularly those with communication disorders, requireopportunity to hear and express language in classrooms where whole class,primarily teacher-directed instruction provides little opportunity for stu-dents with disabilities to practice language skills. This may be particularlytrue for classrooms with high enrollments where teachers feel pressure tomaintain an orderly and quiet environment in which students can work. In-dicators of a communicatively rich environment include tasks that involvediscussion as opposed to teacher-directed instruction and group structuresthat allow students an opportunity to speak.

In this inclusion program, the most common task that was requiredof students was to be involved in discussions or conversations where theywere expected to answer direct questions, provide opinions, or elaborateon answers. These discussions occurred again most often, however, in ei-ther whole class or split-class instruction. The number of students in thesegroupings limits the opportunity for students with language delays to speak,particularly if they are not inclined to do so. For instance, in a half hourdiscussion, if each student in a group of 14 had equal opportunity to speakand the teacher did not speak at all, each student would have approximately2 min to add to the discussion. In general practice, the teacher dominatesdiscussion, and students with language delays avoid speaking. Under thisorganizational pattern, the actual time a student with a communication dis-order may spend speaking in any given day is small. Finding other ways in

which to organize classrooms such as small groups or pairs of students addto the communication opportunities in the classroom.

Access to Higher Order Cognitive Tasks and Content

For environments in general, indicators that students had access tohigher order cognitive tasks and content are as follows: (a) students areengaged in holistic tasks, such as producing writing (as opposed to closedworksheets), reading whole text (either aloud or silently), problem-solvingin mathematics, and discussions of content beyond a literal interpretationand (b) there is opportunity to adapt higher order cognitive tasks so that theyare simply not exposed to these tasks, but they are rendered acceptable.

It was evident from observation that teacher prioritized having everystudent in the class included in class activities rather than pulled out in fortutorial and small groups. There was also evidence that the content of thesewhole class or split-class activities included higher order content. A major-ity of the time spent in these whole class or split-class activities were lessonsin which the teacher combined directed instruction that required literal re-sponses and with open discussion that required an interpretive comment.For example, in one lesson, students were told that they will soon be readinga story about a character trying to beat a “world record.” To prepare for thestory, the teacher read from a book of world records, described the book, andasked students for a definition of the term record. One student was asked tolook up the definition in the dictionary. Then they had an open discussionabout breaking records. Finally, the teacher read from the class basal readerthe story of breaking a world record. Later that morning, students createda class record book, using large pieces of paper taped to the wall. Studentsdecided on the type of class records they would keep (fastest runner, high-est jumper) and would later have competitions. In this example, which wastypical of the literacy lesson observed, the instructor was working to activatestudents’ prior knowledge and deepen their level of comprehension and vo-cabulary. This is certainly an example of focusing on the higher order aspectsof reading.

When not involved in a lesson with direct instruction or discussion,students spent approximately 21% of their time writing. Most of that writingtime was spent in closed writing tasks, for example copying off the board,filling in worksheets, or taking a spelling test. It is evident that the bulk of thewriting observed was spent on basic, lower order tasks, although students atone point produced writing in a pen pal letter they were writing and editing.Given that there was little direct skill instruction in reading, the heavieremphasis on basic writing skills may be appropriate.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Variability in curriculum, instruction, and quality in both special educa-tion pullout and full inclusion programs renders it impossible to draw conclu-sions about the relative efficacy of either programming type. The problemsassociated with comparative evaluation have led to an examination of thenature of effective instructional environments for students with disabilities.In this paper, we describe a framework based on research and theory thatcan be used for evaluating inclusive environments as they are designed andimplemented. In the case study in which the framework was applied, eachof the features identified as essential to inclusive environments for primarystudents with language or learning disabilities was observed: an adaptableenvironment, rich with opportunities to communicate and with opportuni-ties to develop higher order skills. With close observation, it was also notedwhere changes in instruction or classroom organization would enhance eachof these features. Moving to alternatives to whole class or split-class in-struction, for instance, is one way to provide a more adaptable environmentand provide students with even more opportunity to communicate. Addingopportunity for direct instruction in lower order reading and mathematicswill contribute to adaptability as well by providing a balance to the holisticskills focus in the classroom. These are changes that can be made without agreat addition of resources or expertise but could make a big difference inoutcomes.

It may also be evident that it is far more practical to infuse the featuresdescribed here into mainstream classrooms than into separate special edu-cation classrooms. Although well-designed special education programs mayprovide an adaptable environment, it is difficult to replicate the student mod-eling in communication skills and the access to higher order content that ismore readily found in general education classrooms. If the elements of thisframework are accepted, then students will be better served if efforts areto redesign general education classrooms rather than to improve the moretraditional service delivery models. On the other hand, returning studentsfull time to mainstream classrooms will not guarantee an environment that isoptimal for their learning, that is, a classroom environment that is adaptable,communicatively rich, and where there is access to higher order skills andcontent.

REFERENCES

Baker, J. M., and Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for studentswith learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. J. Spec. Educ. 29:163–180.

Gindis, B. (1995). The social/cultural implication of disability: Vygotsky’s paradigm for specialeducation. Educ. Psychol. 30: 77–81.

Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Marquis, J., and Walker, D. (1994). Confirming a performance-based instructional model. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 23: 652–668.

Kozulin, A., and Presseisen, B. Z. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools:Vygotsky’s and Feuresteins’ perspective in a study of student learning. Educ. Psychol. 30(2):67–75.

Lapadat, J. C. (1991). Pragmatic language skills of students with language and/or learningdisabilities: A quantitative synthesis. J. Learn. Disab. 24(3): 147–158.

Luria, A. (1961). The Role of Speech in the Regulation of Normal and Abnormal Behaviors,Liveright, New York.

Mann, V. (1986). Why some children encounter reading problems: The contribution of difficul-ties with language processing and phonological sophistication to early reading disability. InTorgeson J., and Wong, B. (eds.), Psychological and Educational Perspectives on LearningDisabilities, Academic Press, Orlando FL.

Manset, G., and Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilitieseffective? A comparative review of model programs. J. Spec. Educ. 31(1): 155–180.

Pugach, M. C. (1995). On the failure of imagination in inclusive schooling. J. Spec. Educ. 29:212–223.

Sayre, J. E. (1996). The view from a Montessori classroom: A response to Au and Carroll andGreenwood. In Speece, D. L., and Keogh, B. K. (eds.), Research on Classroom Ecologies:Implications for Inclusion of Children With Learning Disabilities, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Speece, D. L., and Keogh, B. K. (1996). Research on Classroom ecologies: Implications forInclusion of children with learning disabilities. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Tharp, R. G., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and School-ing in Social Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes,Harvard College, Cambridge, MA.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 2: The Fundamentals ofDefectology (Knox, J. E., and Stevens, C. B., Trans.), Plenum, New York.

A Framework for Evaluating Inclusive School Programs for Primary Students with Language and Learning...

Documents

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES IN …

Children with Disabilities HRBA, Equity and Inclusive Development Mozambique, May 2012

Physical disabilities - Inclusive Education

Teaching children with disabilities in inclusive settings; 2014

Developing interactives that are inclusive of people with disabilities

Forum on Evaluating Educator Effectiveness: Critical Considerations for Including Students with Disabilities…

Why Inclusive Education? · Why Inclusive Education? A guide to the definition, the evidence, and useful resources. Why Inclusive Education? hildren with disabilities develop better

INCLUSIVE PRACTICES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIESweb.utk.edu/~mbc/InclusivePracticesforStudentswith... · INCLUSIVE PRACTICES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ... •Dyscalculia:

Evaluating Inclusive Excellence in UW-Extension ... · knowledge about non-traditional ... disabilities, physical access, emotional access • Language access: English-dominant programming

A Handbook for Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in ... · to be inclusive of persons with disabilities. To enable sustainable employment for persons with disabilities in the

Addressing Learning Disabilities in the Inclusive Classroomschd.ws/hosted_files/conventions2017/e3/Addressing Learning... · Addressing Learning Disabilities in the Inclusive

Inclusive education FAQ - Light for the World · Inclusive education can have a positive influence on both children with and without disabilities. Inclusive education promotes the

Towards Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities: A Guideline

Students with Learning Disabilities in an Inclusive ... · Students with Learning Disabilities in an Inclusive Writing Classroom Jacobs, Patricia, patrjac@ufl.edu University of Florida,

Inclusive Educational Practices for Children with Developmental Disabilities

The Psychological Considerations in Inclusive Design for the Acquired Disabilities (Caleb Tang)

Inclusive Education Practices for Disabilities in

Making the future of work inclusive of persons with disabilities...Making the future of work inclusive of people with disabilities A joint publication by Fundacin ONCE and the ILO

Intellectual Disabilities and Inclusive Education-2015-16 batch

Assistive Technology for Students for Low Incidence Disabilities in Inclusive Settings