Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T02:53:54.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of Curriculum Content and Methods for Severely Handicapped Students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Carolyn Marsh
Carolyn Marsh*
Affiliation:
Disabilities NSW Department of Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developments in curriculum content and method for severely handicapped students are reviewed as they have appeared in published literature over the last ten years. Curriculum content is presented from a normalisation perspective, referring to selected domains, criterion of ultimate functioning, environment, functional and age appropriate skills. The review of curriculum method indicates effective instructional skills to be maximising of instructional time, task analysis, data collection, applying levels of assistance, management of consequences, trial distribution, and generalisation. The implications of these developments are greatest for educational administrators who face changes in location of instruction, management of classes and level of skills needed for teachers of severely handicapped students.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , November 1987 , pp. 32 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, P.E. & Cuvo, A.J. (1984). Simulated and naturalistic instruction of community functioning skills with mentally retarded learners. Direct Instruction News, 4 (2), 14–15.Google Scholar
Bates, P., Morrow, S.A., Pancsofar, E. & Sedlak, R. (1984). The effect of functional vs non-functional activities on attitudes/expectations of nonhandicapped college students: What they see is what we get. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 9 (2), 73–78.Google Scholar
Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., Messina, R. & Schroeder, J. (1982). Principle of partial participation and individualised adaptions in educational programs for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7 (2), 17–27.Google Scholar
Becker, W., Englemann, S. & Thomas, D.R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
Brady, L. (1983). Curriculum development in Australia. Victoria: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Brinker, R.P. & Thorpe, M.E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51 (2), 168–175.Google Scholar
Brown, L., Branston, M.B., Hamre-Nietupske, S., ‘ Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenwald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age –appropriate functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.Google Scholar
Csapo, M. (1981). Comparison of two prompting procedures to increase response fluency among severely handicapped learners. Association for the Severely Handicapped Journal, 6, 39–47.Google Scholar
Eaton, M.D. (1978). Data decisions and evaluation. In Haring., N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Eaton, M.D. & Hansen, C.L., The Fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Englemann, S. & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Favell, J.E. Favell, J.E. & McGimsey, J.F. (1978). Relative effectiveness and efficiency of group vs individual training of severely retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83 (2), 104–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Fredericks, H.D., Anderson, R. & Baldwin, V. (1979). Identifying competency indicators of teachers of the severely handicapped. American Association for Education of Severely and Profoundly Handicapped, 4 (1), 81–95.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. (1981). Curriculum development for exceptional children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Haring, N. & Brown, L. (Eds.). (1976). Teaching the severely handicapped, Vol. 1. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
Haring, N.G., Liberty, K.A. & White, O.R. (1980). Rules for data-based strategy in instructional programs. Current research and instructional implications. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. & Brown, L., (Eds) Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 159–192.Google Scholar
Heiss, W.E. (1981). Two models for developing curriculum materials. In Goldstein, H., (Ed.) Curriculum development for exceptional children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Holvoet, J., Guess, D., Mulligan, M. & Brown, L. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (II): A teaching strategy for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5 (4), 5–13.Google Scholar
Liberty, K.A., Haring, N.G. & Martin, M. (1981). Teaching new skills to the severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 5–13.Google Scholar
Martin, M., Burke, M.E. & Findlay, S. (1985). Curriculum issues: A strategy for devising functional curricula for severely handicapped adolescents. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Development Disabilities, 11 (3), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCormick, L., Cooper, M. & Goldman, R. (1979). Training teachers to maximize instructional time provided to severely and profoundly handicapped children. American Association for Education of Severely Profoundly Handicapped Review, 4 (3), 301–310.Google Scholar
Moore, W., Fredericks, H.D., Towes, J., Rogers, G. & Petersen, J. (1982). The training and utilization of volunteers in classrooms for the handicapped. The Association of Special Education Teachers Journal, 16, 26–30.Google Scholar
Mulligan, M., Guess, D., Holvoet, J. & Brown, L. (1980). The individual curriculum sequencing model I: Implications from research on massed, distributed or spaced trial training. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 325–336.Google Scholar
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Clancy, P. & Veerhusen, K. (1986). Guidelines for making simulation an effective adjunct to in vivo community instruction. JASH, 11 (1), 12–18.Google Scholar
Nirji, B. (1969). The normalisation principle and its human management implications. In Kugel, R. & Wolfensberger, W., (Eds.). Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Oliver, P.R. (1983). Effects of teaching different tasks in group versus individual training formats with severely handicapped individuals. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 79–91.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Direct instruction for skill mastery. Paper presented to School of Education, University of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. & Brown, L. (1980). Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Sailor, W. & Guess, D. (1983). Severely handicapped students. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Snart, F. & Hillyard, A. (1985). Staff ratios and allocated instructional time for multihandicapped students. Exceptional Children, 51(4), 289–296.Google Scholar
Snell, M.E. (Ed.). (1983). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped, (2nd ed.). Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
United Nations Declaration of Right of the Mentally Retarded. (1971).Google Scholar
United Nations Declaration of Rights of the Disabled. (1975).Google Scholar
Van Etten, G., Arkell, C. & Van Etten, C. (1980). The severely and profoundly handicapped. Louis, St., Missouri: C.V. Mosby.Google Scholar
Warren, S.F., Rogers-Warren, A., Baer, D. & Guess, D. (1982). Assessment and facilitation of language generalisation. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. & Brown, L., (Eds.). Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 227–258.Google Scholar
Wehman, P., Renzaglia, A. & Bates, P. (1985). Functional living skills for moderately and severely handicapped individuals. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed.Google Scholar
White, O.R. (1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form versus function. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B. & Brown, L., (Eds.). Methods for instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.Brookes.Google Scholar
Wilcox, B. & Bellamy, G.T. (1982). Design of high school programs for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalisation in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalisation. Mental Retardation, 21, 234–239.Google Scholar