research on curriculum for students with moderate and...

Research on Curriculum for Students with Moderate andSevere Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

Jordan ShurrCentral Michigan University

Emily C. BouckPurdue University

Abstract: Curriculum content is an essential component of the field of special education for students withmoderate and severe disabilities. This study updates the twenty-year curriculum content review by Nietupski,Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth (1997) and provides an overview of the last 15 years of research onthis topic. A hand search of ten relevant journals within the field was conducted to identify and categorize theresearch on curriculum content for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Results indicate avery low percentage of the research literature focused on curriculum content for this population. Curriculararticles published in the past fifteen years primarily focused on functional life skills, with a recent increase incognitive academics. The articles consist mainly of quantitative methods and non-data based studies. Over halfdid not clearly list the educational context of focus. Implications of these findings for the education of studentswith moderate and severe intellectual disability and directions for future research are discussed.

Curriculum has been described as the contentof instruction (Williams, Brown, & Certo,1975) as well as a “defined course of study”(Browder, 2001, p. 2). Curriculum, a founda-tional component of education, can be simplyreferred to as the “what” of teaching or theknowledge and concepts driving pedagogyand assessment in instruction. However, cur-riculum in public education does not existabsent of controversy (Giroux, 1994). Discus-sion of curriculum can lend itself to conver-sation on the intent of education (e.g., jobcreation, citizenship; see Beane, 1998) or therole of science as a knowledge base (e.g., evo-lution, climate change; see Aguillard, 1999).Curricular research has played a significantrole in the identity and continual formation ofthe field of special education for students withmoderate and severe intellectual disability(Dymond & Orelove, 2001; Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, & Shrikanth, 1997).

Curriculum in the Research Literature

Dymond and Orelove (2001) summarized thehistory of special education for students withmoderate and severe intellectual disability.The curricular content of the 1970’s was dom-inated by the idea of developmental stagesfollowed by an emphasis in the mid 1970’stoward functional life skills and the criterionof ultimate functioning (Brown, Nietupski,& Hamre-Nietupski, 1976). In the 1980’s anecological approach to curricular content(Brown et al., 1979) dominated the researchliterature followed by an emphasis on socialinclusion as a curricular element. More re-cently, concepts such as self-determination(Wehmeyer & Schalock, 2001) and emphasison the adoption of the general education cur-riculum (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002;Browder et al., 2007; Cushing, Clark, Carter,& Kennedy, 2005) have guided the researchand services for this population of students.

During this time, Nietupski et al. (1997)completed a review of the literature on curric-ular content for students with moderate andsevere intellectual disability. Nietupski et al.presented the trends in curricular research interms of quantity, focus, and research meth-odology. The authors reported a low and de-clining number of curricular-focused articlesover the twenty-year span of 1976–1996. Their

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Jordan Shurr, Department ofCounseling and Special Education, 321 Educa-tion and Human Services Building, Central Michi-gan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859. Email:[email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2013, 48(1), 76–87© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

76 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2013

results in terms of research focus coincidedwith the curricular practice timeline presentedby Dymond and Orelove: nearly half (44%) ofthe curricular articles during the time framefocused on functional life skills content. How-ever, research on inclusive practices experi-enced an increase from the beginning to theend of the twenty-year span, and by the endfunctional life skills and inclusion were theprimary topics of curricular content. In termsof methodology, the researchers found quan-titative methods and non-data based studiesdominated the curricular literature of thetime with very little examples of qualitativemethodology. From the beginning (1976–1980) to the end (1991–1995) of the study,quantitative methodology increased from48% to 69% and non-data based (i.e. positionpapers, theoretical papers, and program de-scriptions) literature experienced a significantdecline from 52% to 27%. The review byNietupski et al (1997) highlighted the futuredirections and needs within curricular re-search, namely greater emphasis on overallcontent in the research, more variety in re-search methodology, and an increase in re-search incorporating multiple skills together.

Legislative Influence on Curricular Research

Curriculum does not exist in a vacuum—evenfor students with moderate and severe intel-lectual disability (Bouck 2008; Milner, 2003).Aside from shifting philosophies, curriculum,practice, and research are influenced by arange of factors including federal legislation(i.e., The Individuals with Disabilities Im-provement Act [IDEA], 2004). IDEA (2004,§ 601 [c] [5] [A]) required that students eli-gible for special education services “have ac-cess to the general education curriculum inthe regular classroom, to the maximum extentpossible, in order to meet developmentalgoals.” The intention of access to the generaleducation curriculum, although questionedby some (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers,2011), was to facilitate high expectations forstudents with disabilities and help elevate thepoor post-school outcomes of students, in-cluding those with the most severe intellec-tual disability (IDEA, 2004). Despite disputeof the terms or conditions of sufficient access(Halle & Dymond, 2008) and what constitutes

the general education curriculum (Spooner,Dymond, Smith, & Kennedy, 2006), an abun-dance of research is focused on providinggeneral curriculum access for students withmoderate and severe intellectual disability(Agran et al., 2002; Browder et al., 2007; Cush-ing et al., 2005; Fisher & Frey, 2001; Spooneret al., 2006; Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran,2001). Within the shifting philosophy in thefield and legislation is the mounting tensionbetween an emphasis on curricular contentfrom the general education curriculum andthat of functional life skills (Alwell & Cobb,2009; Ayres et al., 2011; Spooner et al., 2006).The evident division draws attention to thepotential for an emphasis on academic con-tent to overshadow functional life skills andvice versa (Ayres et al., 2011).

Regardless of the debate or its outcome,curricular research related to the educationof students with moderate and severe intel-lectual disability is important and needed.First and foremost, curricular research guidespractice—or in other words, the educationwhich students with moderate and severe in-tellectual disability receive (Browder, 2001).The curriculum students are provided canimpact their assessment in school as well aspost school outcomes school (e.g., access tovocational experiences and skill develop-ment, skills in independent living; Ayres et al.,2011; Browder, 2001; Downing, 2006; Kearnset al., 2010; Kleinert, Browder, & Towles-Reeves,2009). Further, curriculum can and shouldimpact teacher preparation (Browder, 1997,Ryndak, Clark, Conroy, & Stuart, 2001).Hence, there is a significant value in having apulse on curriculum related literature for thispopulation.

In light of the significance of the findingsfrom the past review (Nietupski et al., 1997),current legislation (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2002)affecting special education, as well as the cur-rent tensions in direction of curricular con-tent for this population (Ayres et al., 2011), anupdated review of the recent trends in curric-ular research is in order. The purpose of thissystematic review is to examine the last fifteenyears of curricular research for students withmoderate and severe intellectual disability.Specific questions in the present investigationincluded: (a) how was curricular research rep-resented in the overall research of the ten key

Curricular Review / 77

journals?, (b) what was the curricular foci ofthe past fifteen years?, (c) what methodswere used to conduct curricular research?,and (d) which educational environments werehighlighted in the curricular research?

Method

Using ten key journals significant to the field,this systematic review applied a structured ap-proach to identify and describe the researchliterature relative to curriculum content forstudents with moderate and severe intellectualdisability. Each journal was examined for arti-cles with a focus on curricular content for thispopulation of students. The identified articleswhere then systematically categorized by fo-cus, research methodology, and context andfinally checked for inter-rater reliability.

Journals Reviewed

Journals were selected for their emphasis onspecial education and inclusion of researchspecifically related to students with moderateand severe intellectual disability. All journalsare referred to by their current title as of 2011.All issues under previous names are impliedby the use of the current journal title. The sixjournals reviewed by Nietupski et al. (1997)were retained in this present study due totheir continued applicability within the fieldof special education for this population: Edu-cation and Training in Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities, Intellectual and Developmental Dis-abilities, Teaching Exceptional Children, The Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Research andPractice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, andThe Journal of Special Education. Four additionaljournals were included in this review to reflectthe breadth of research for this population inbroadly focused special education journals(i.e., Exceptional Children and Remedial and Spe-cial Education) and specific disability-focusedjournals including students with intellectualdisability (i.e., Focus on Autism and Other Devel-opmental Disabilities and Research in Developmen-tal Disabilities).

Procedure

Each journal was reviewed over the 15-yeartime span of 1996 through 2010. Specifically,

each article within each issue of each journalwas screened against the predetermined inclu-sion and exclusion criteria. To do so, the firstauthor read each article’s abstract for meetingthe inclusion criteria, and, if necessary, theentire text to make a determination. To assureadherence to the criteria, inter-rater reliabilitywas conducted with regards to the inclusion ofarticles.

Articles were excluded if they were (a) aneditorial, reader comment, introduction tospecial topics, annotated bibliography, inter-view, or special feature on a historical figureor (b) primarily focused on behavior manage-ment or intervention, pedagogy, or technol-ogy applications. Articles were included if they(a) focused on enhancing skills or participa-tion; (b) included at least one individual ora population with moderate, severe, or pro-found intellectual disability by described byname or IQ score (below 55), regardless of aco-occurring diagnoses; (c) included at leastone individual or a population between theage of 3–22; (d) used or focused on school orschool-based community settings within theUnited States; and (e) the location of theresearch or practice occurred within a U.S.school-based setting.

Categorization

Following identification as curricular articles,25% of the curricular articles were catego-rized individually by both authors in termsof primary focus, research methodology em-ployed, and curricular context used or fo-cused on. Disagreements in this test of cate-gorization led the authors to further clarifythe distinctive labels within each category(e.g., specific definitions for functional lifeskills, or the general education context).These refined categorization labels were thenused to categorize all included curricular arti-cles by primary focus, research method, andcontext.

Curricular Focus

Seven categories existed for curricular focus.Six were retained from the previous review(Nietupski et al., 1997): functional life skills,interactions, communication, sensorimotor, cogni-tive-academic, and other. The present study in-


cluded the category mixed to classify curriculararticles that presented an equal combinationof two or more of the original six categories.

Functional life skills. A curricular focus offunctional life skills represented articles ad-dressing “the variety of skills that are fre-quently demanded in natural domestic, voca-tional, and community environments” (Brownet al., 1979, p. 83). Brown et al. further de-fined functional life skills as age appropriate,meaning activities typically performed by anindividual’s same-age peers without disabili-ties. Included within this category was contentaddressing domestic or self-help, community,vocational preparation and training, andrecreation and leisure skills (Brown et al.).Studies in this category also included thoserelated to instruction in self-determination(e.g., Wehmeyer, Garner, Yeager, & Lawrence,2006), choice making (e.g., Guess, Benson, &Siegel-Causey, 1995), and health and safety(e.g., Madaus et al., 2010) due to their impacton functioning in everyday life.

Interactions. Articles in this category ex-hibited a clear focus on curricular activitiesspecifically intended to increase or enhanceinteractions of individuals with moderate orsevere intellectual disability with their peerswithout disabilities. Included articles focusedon specific skills and issues regarding the con-tent of instruction for including students inclassroom, school, or community settings.

Communication. The primary emphasis ofarticles deemed communication-focused wasstudent expression. Specifically, the categoryof communication represented content inexpressive and receptive communication aswell as augmentative and alternative commu-nication.

Sensorimotor. Sensorimotor refers to devel-opmental skills involving one or more senses(e.g., vision or ambulation; Nietupski et al.,1997). Articles were included within this areawhen the primary focus was on building ormaintaining sensorimotor skills alone and noton sensorimotor skills as a means to achievean end, such as learning to move ones hand inorder to make a choice (i.e., this examplewould instead be described as a functional lifeskill).

Cognitive-Academic. Articles deemed cogni-tive or academic in nature included a focuson cognitive development or traditional aca-

demic subjects (i.e., mathematics, science,reading, social studies, writing, and spelling).Included within this category were articles fo-cused on general academic standards, pre-academic skills, or specific general curriculumcontent related skills.

Mixed. Mixed articles represented thosedecidedly split between two or more of thetopics listed above. One example included astudy on curricular content taught in a per-sonnel preparation program for pre-serviceteachers of students with severe disabilities,including a range of topics (i.e., self-careskills, reading, and social skills; Agran & Alper,2000).

Other. Articles that met the criteria for in-clusion yet did not clearly fit into any of thecategories listed above were grouped as other.For example, Ault’s (2010) review of the liter-ature on religion in special education andtransition planning was included within thiscategory.

Methodology

Classification of articles by research method-ology was also used to describe the curricularliterature. Five classifications were used tocategorize the methodologies: quantitative,qualitative, and non-data based—as in the ini-tial review (Nietupski et al., 1997); two addi-tional classifications were added—literature re-view and mixed methods. Quantitative studiesincluded those with single subject, groupcomparison, meta- or other statistical analysesdesigns. Qualitative research was comprisedof studies under the qualitative umbrella suchas case studies and ethnographies (Brant-linger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richard-son, 2005). Non-data based studies includedposition papers, theoretical papers, and pro-gram descriptions. The literature review cate-gory was created to group studies from thequantitative and non-data based categorieswith a shared primary focus on reviewing theprevious literature and reporting those find-ings. These articles were described as having acentral focus on discussion or summary of acompilation of previous research on the topic.The mixed methods category included thosearticles with a clear mix of quantitative andqualitative research methodologies, such as


Browder et al.’s content analysis of alternateassessments (2003).

Context. Context was used to categorizecurricular articles through a focus on theenvironment utilized in a research study orthe context highlighted in a non-data basedarticle. Seven location categories were used todiscriminate studies: general education, specialeducation, community, special school, mixed, other,and unspecified. General education includedthe classroom or other areas within a schoolnot primarily occupied by students with dis-abilities (e.g. general education classroom,cafeteria, playground). The special educationcontext referred to settings occupied solelyor primarily by students with disabilities (e.g.,segregated special education classroom, speechtherapy room). Community represented school-sponsored settings apart from school grounds(e.g., grocery store, restaurant). The specialschool context was used to describe schoolsthat serve only students with disabilities.Mixed contexts referred to articles conductedat or focused on two or more settings. Otherincluded contexts not listed above, such asone article conducted in a laboratory setting(Fidler, Most, & Guiberson, 2005). “Unspeci-fied” signified research or non-data based ar-ticles that did not clearly state the location ofthe investigation or contextual focus.

Reliability

Data from both the inclusion search and cat-egorization was initially coded by the first au-thor and checked for reliability by the second.Inter-rater reliability was conducted for 25%of the 5,812 articles for inclusion (n � 1,454)and 29% of the 134 (n � 39) included curric-ular articles. Reliability was calculated by di-viding the sum of agreements by the sum ofthe agreements plus disagreements, multi-plied by 100. Reliability for inclusion criteriaamong raters was 97% with a range of 91%–100% among the ten journals. Within the cur-ricular categorization of articles, data indi-cated 85% reliability for both focus andmethodology and 69% reliability for context.Specific details and implications of the lowcontext reliability are provided in the discus-sion section.

Results

A total of 5,812 articles represent the 15-yearspan of research from the ten selected jour-nals. Results are reported both as an overallrepresentation of the fifteen years and alsosummarized in three five-year spans (1996–2000, 2001–2005, and 2006–2010) to illustratethe trends in the research, as well as to main-tain consistency with Nietupski et al.’s (1997)original review.

Inclusion

Of the 5,812 articles searched, 2% (n � 134)were found to have a curricular focus. Table 1provides a depiction of the distribution ofcurricular articles among selected journals.Within the five-year spans, the percentage ofcurricular articles ranged from 2% (n � 48) ofthe 1,941 published articles in 1996–2000 to3% (n � 47) of the 2,067 articles published in2001–2005 and back to 2% (n � 39) of the1,804 published articles in 2006–2010. Overthe three five-year spans, the curricular re-search identified among the journals de-clined. In the initial span, 1996–2000, 48 arti-cles were identified as primarily curricular,which accounts for 36% of the curricular ar-ticles over the fifteen years. The followingspan, 2001–2005, produced 47 articles (35%

TABLE 1

Percentage of Curricular Articles per Journal

JournalPercent

(%)

Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities 21%

Research and Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities 17%

Teaching Exceptional Children 17%Exceptional Children 11%Research in Developmental Disabilities 10%Remedial and Special Education 7%The Journal of Special Education 6%The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Analysis 4%Intellectual and Developmental

Disabilities 4%Focus on Autism and Developmental

Disabilities 2%


of the included literature), followed by 39 inthe final span of 2006–2010 (29% of the in-cluded literature). Curricular research expe-rienced a 19% reduction in quantity from thefirst to the last five-year span. On average, theten journals yielded 9.6 curricular articles peryear in the first span (1996–2000), followed by9.4 (2001–2005), and 7.8 per year in the finalspan (2006–2010), for a fifteen-year averageof 8.9 articles per year.

The highest percentage of curricular arti-cles per total published articles over the fif-teen-year span were found in the journalsResearch and Practice for Persons with Severe Dis-abilities (6% of the published articles, n � 23),Education and Training in Developmental Dis-abilities (5% of the published articles, n � 28),and Exceptional Children (4% of the publishedarticles, n � 15). Over half (56%, n � 74) ofthe curricular articles identified from all pub-lished articles (n � 134) came from the threejournals: Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities (21% of the curriculararticles, n � 28), Research and Practice for Per-sons with Severe Disabilities (17% of the curric-ular articles, n � 23), and Teaching ExceptionalChildren (17% of the curricular articles, n �23). The remaining 44% (n � 60) of curricu-lar articles came from the other seven journalsincluded in the search.

Categorization

Focus. Nearly half of all identified curricu-lar articles (43%, n � 58) were focused pri-marily on functional life skills (see Figure 1for a graphical representation of article focusoverall as well as for each of the five-yearspans). The following two most frequent cur-ricular foci included cognitive-academics(19% of the curricular literature, n � 25) andmixed content (16% of the curricular litera-ture, n � 21). Over the five-year spans, func-tional life skills experienced a 4% increasefrom 1996–2000 to the 2006–2010 span. Arti-cles with a focus on cognitive and academicrelated content saw a substantial 365% in-crease from 6% in the initial five year span to36% in the final span of the included studies.Research with a focus on interactions saw adecrease over the three time spans from 6%in 1996–2000 to 2% in 2001–2005 and finallyto 0% in 2006–2010 with a fifteen year aver-age of 3%. Communications related curricu-lar studies decreased by 90% over the five-yearspans from an initial 21% of the literaturebase in 1996–2000 to merely 3% of the articlesin the 2006–2010 span. Articles focused onsensorimotor and other remained relativelystable minorities of the included studies, 2%(n � 3) and 6% (n � 8) respectively.

Figure 1. Percentage of Curricular Article Focus by 5-Year Span. Note: FLS � Functional Life Skills, INT �Interactions, COM � Communication, SEN � Sensorimotor, COG � Cognitive-Academic, MIX �Mixed, OTH � Other


Research Methodology. Over half of the cur-ricular articles used one of two methods:quantitative design (34%, n � 46) and non-data based (30%, n � 40) (see Figure 2 for agraphical representation of research method-ology across the 15-year span). Literature re-views (19%, n � 25), qualitative studies (15%,n � 20), and mixed method designs (2%,n � 3) followed in prevalence. All of the de-signs remained relatively stable over the five-year spans, with the exception of qualitativestudies, which dropped from 21% of curricu-lar articles in 1996–2000 to 8% in 2006–2010.

Context. Unspecified contexts (i.e., thosesettings that could not be determined fromthe text) accounted for over half (52%, n �70) of the included curricular studies. To-gether, unspecified and mixed contexts rep-resented 81% (n � 109) of the settings ofincluded articles. The remaining one-fifthwere special education (7%, n � 9), generaleducation (6%, n � 8), special schools (3%,n � 4), community and other settings (com-bined at 3%, n � 4). General education set-tings experienced a slight increase from 2% in1996–2000 to 10% of the literature in 2006–2010. Research with unspecified context alsoexperienced an increase in prevalence from46% in the first five-year span to 51% in the

final five-year span. Figure 3 provides an over-view of the distribution and trends on re-ported context in the curricular articles.

Discussion

This study employed a systematic review tohighlight the current status and trends of cur-ricular research for students with moderateand severe intellectual disability from 1996–2010. Findings indicate that curricular articlesconstitute a very low percentage of the re-search published in the primary journals de-voted to special education and individualswith moderate and severe intellectual disabil-ity. Within the limited literature, the majorityof curricular articles over the fifteen-year spanfocused on functional life skills content whileinstruction in cognitive academic skills expe-rienced a significant increase over the reviewspan to rival functional life skills as the mostcommon focus of curricular research from2006–2010. However, problematic is that themajority of curricular studies did not providea clearly defined environmental context orfocus. Results of this review shed light on thethemes and directions of curricular researchfor students with moderate and severe intel-

Figure 2. Percentage of Research Methodology of Curricular Articles By 5-Year Span. Note: QUAN �quantitative, QUAL � qualitative, MIX � mixed research, LIT � literature review, NDB � Non-databased


lectual disability during 1996–2010 and ex-tended the findings of the previous review byNietupski et al. (1997).

Curricular articles represent a very smallportion (2%) of the overall literature amongthe ten journals within the fifteen-year span.The set of 134 curricular-related articles inthe present study is drastically less than thosereported by Nietupski et al. (1997). On aver-age, the present review found 77% fewer arti-cles per five-year span than the previous re-view, which raises the question “why?” Theauthors hypothesize at least two possible ex-planations for this discrepancy: (a) a previoussaturation within the literature reduced thepublication of curricular research, or (b) ashift in emphasis from curricular contentspecific to students with severe disabilities toadaptation of the general education curricu-lar content. In terms of the saturation per-spective, it is important to consider whetheror not there is a need for curricular researchfocused on students with moderate and severeintellectual disability. Nietupski et al. (1997)indicated curricular content, although notdominant, accounted for 16% of the literaturefrom 1976–1995; the present authors ques-tion whether this research alone is sufficientto guide and support practice. Educationalopportunities for students with disabilitieschange and in many cases improve over time

due to technological advances and changes insocial perspectives of disability (Rose & Meyer,2000). IDEA (2004) alone more pointedly re-fers to access to the general education curric-ulum as a mandate for instruction of all stu-dents with disabilities. The fifteen-year span(1996–2010) reviewed here includes conceptssuch as self-determination and college inclu-sion, as well as new technological applicationsadding to the curricular content repertoirefor these students. With this in mind, we con-clude the field is in fact not saturated withcurricular research and hence saturation isnot a plausible explanation for the lack ofresearch. Instead, more research is necessaryto continue to keep track with the advances ineducation and society so as to provide highquality opportunities and experiences for in-dividuals with moderate and severe intellec-tual disability.

Another, more plausible, explanation forthe lack of prevalence of curricular researchmay be the increased emphasis on access tothe general education curriculum and stan-dards (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, &Baker, 2006; Cushing et al., 2005; Downing,2006; Lee et al., 2006). Both the 1997 and2004 reauthorizations of IDEA emphasizedthe access of all students to the general edu-cation curriculum. An increased legislativeemphasis on the general education curricular

Figure 3. Percentage of Context of Curricular Articles By 5-Year Span. Note: GEN � General Education,SPED � Special Education, COMM � Community, SPES � Special School, Mix � Mixed, OTH �Other, UNSP� Unspecified


content for this population could explain theoverall decrease in curricular focused articles.However, a focus on general education curric-ular content creates some concern as it isunclear that the general curriculum can suffi-ciently ensure the basic principles of IDEAand assist students in making successful post-school transitions (Ayres et al., 2011; Dymond& Orelove, 2001). Ayres et al. equated an ex-clusive focus on general education standardsfor instructional content as a denial of stu-dents’ individualized education rights affordedby IDEA.

Related to the argument that the smallamount of curricular research for studentswith moderate and severe intellectual dis-ability can be explained by a shifting focus(i.e., access), is an increasing emphasis oncognitive/academic curriculum in the litera-ture. Although, functional life skills emergedas the most prevalent topic (43%) of curricu-lar articles across the 15 years, the most recentfive-year (2006–2010) time span experiencedan increased prevalence of articles addressingcognitive academics nearly equal to functionallife skills focused articles. While the preva-lence of articles on functional life skills sug-gests Brown et al.’s (1979) seminal work inthis topic has remained an essential compo-nent of the curriculum for students with mod-erate and severe intellectual disability, basedon the emerging data trend over the fifteen-year span, cognitive academics may surpassfunctional life skills as the most researchedcurricular content in the future. The focus onincreased academic curricular content alignswith the shifted focus on access to the generaleducation curriculum and further highlightsthe growing philosophical divide betweenfunctional life skills and general academics(Ayres et al., 2011).

Taking a closer look at the cognitive-academic data indicates half of the articles in2006–2010 are non-data based and the major-ity of these do not clearly specify the educa-tional context. Several articles stand as excep-tions to this data such as Mims, Browder,Baker, Lee, and Spooner’s (2009) study onincreasing comprehension during shared sto-ries and Kliewer’s (2008) ethnographic re-search on literacy access. However, given theimportance for specificity in research contextfor the purpose of applicability in practice and

future research and the need for rigorous re-search methodologies (Browder et al., 2007;Odom et al., 2005), the recent surge in aca-demics-related curricular articles as a wholeleaves something to be desired. In order toeffectively guide practice and scholarship, re-search in the area of cognitive and academiccurricula should increasingly employ researchmethodologies such as quantitative, qualita-tive, and mixed methods. In addition, thisresearch should increasingly provide explicitdescriptions of the context, to increase theapplicability of the research (Odom et al.,2005).

Although what and where to teach aretwo separate issues, the context of instructionis often closely tied to the content (Jackson,Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008). Due to thebreadth of the continuum of educational con-texts for this population, curricular research-ers have a duty to specify the context used inorder to accurately describe the environmentand conditions for the purposed of replica-tion and application (Odom et al., 2005). Ad-ditionally, the increased rigor demanded ofeducational research (NCLB, 2002), the re-cent debate between functional life skills andacademic content, and the large number ofunspecified contexts observed in this studyindicate the need for future research to in-clude more clarity in context descriptions.

Limitations and Future Directions

Limitations of this study include the extentto which comparison of the findings in thisreview can be made with those in the pre-vious review (Nietupski et al., 1997). Al-though careful planning and considerationwere given to the procedures and opera-tional definitions used in the review by Ni-etupski et al., the researchers in this studydeemed some changes necessary for the pur-pose of additional clarity (i.e., the addedrestriction of U.S. only studies to avoid con-flicts in disability terminology). In addition,the authors added four relevant journals forthis review. Exceptional Children and Researchin Developmental Disabilities provided a sub-stantial amount of the curricular-related lit-erature, followed by Remedial and Special Ed-ucation. However, the journal, Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities,


produced the least amount of curricular ar-ticles per journal (2%), yet accounted for7% of the articles searched for inclusion.While inclusion of this journal may havelowered the overall percentages of curricu-lar articles within the literature, the generalconsistency in results from each journalcombined as well as the results from theprevious study (6%-34% range among jour-nals containing curricular articles) and thepertinent focus of the journals led the re-searchers to justify their inclusion as con-tributing to the overall findings of this study.

While the inter-rater reliability for inclu-sion, focus, and methodology were all reportedat or above 85%, the inter-rater reliability forcontext was much lower at 69%. Upon closerreview, it was found that in each of the dis-agreed upon articles, one reviewer used eitherunspecified or mixed contexts to describe thelocation. Hence, both reviewers were able toidentify clear-cut contexts (e.g., special edu-cation, general education, community-basedsettings), but struggled with mixed and un-specified contexts, which reiterates the lack ofclarity over context within the research. Fu-ture research should include more precisedefinitions for the curricular context of focus.

The minimal research based on instruc-tional content is particularly troubling as itleaves a gap for directing the educationalopportunities and experiences for this pop-ulation. While potentially limiting the poolof curricular research, articles focused ontechnological applications (e.g., Cihak, Fahren-krog, Ayres, & Smith, 2010) and instruc-tional methodology (e.g. Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009)were not included in this review. Althoughthese studies may imply instructional con-tent, the primary focus did not include thecontent of instruction. Clear curricular-spe-cific research that helps to direct the field incontent plays a vital role in the education ofstudents with moderate and severe intellec-tual disability by informing practice andbuilding the knowledge base of the field(Nietupski et al., 1997). Future research inmoderate and severe intellectual disabilityshould include an increased concentrationon curricular content.

Conclusion and Implications

What is the current state of curricular re-search for students with moderate and severeintellectual disability? The results of this studyindicate curricular research continues to be aminority of the literature within the field. Asresearch inevitably guides practice and helpsbuild field as a whole (Browder, 1997), anincreased emphasis on the content of instruc-tion is necessary. The current pool of curric-ular articles suggests scholarship in special ed-ucation for this population continues to berooted in functional life skills but is experienc-ing a rapid emergence of general curriculum-related academics. In addition, the increasedvariety in research methodology observed canbe said to have a strengthening effect on theresearch base as a whole. The reported lack ofclarity in context among curricular articlescan lead to reduced research replication aswell as difficulty in accurately applying theresearch findings to practice. It is imperativethat clarity in reporting context in scholarshipbecomes more common. Overall, our assess-ment of the literature on curricular contentfor this population is cautiously optimistic.There are many exciting studies from the pre-vious fifteen year span that significantly add tothe knowledge base of instructional content,however much work yet to be done, particu-larly in the area of increased quantity of arti-cles and clarity in reporting context.

References

Agran, M., & Alper, S. (2000). Curriculum and in-struction in general education: Implications forservice delivery and teacher preparation. The Jour-nal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handi-caps, 25, 167–174.

Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Ac-cess to the general curriculum for students withsignificant disabilities: What it means to teachers.Education and Training in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.

Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Loui-siana Public schools: a decade following: Edwardsv Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 182–188.

Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skillscurricular interventions for youth with disabili-ties: A systematic review. Career Development forExceptional Individuals, 32, 282–293.

Ault, M. J. (2010). Inclusion of religion and spiritu-


ality in the special education literature. The Jour-nal of Special Education, 44, 176.

Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., &Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’tbrush my teeth: What happens when the curricu-lar focus for students with severe disabilities shifts.Education and Training in Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 46, 11–21.

Beane, J. A. (1998). Reclaiming a democratic pur-pose for education. Educational Leadership, 56(2),8–11.

Bouck, E. C. (2008). Factors impacting the enact-ment of a functional curriculum in self-containedcross-categorical programs. Education and Train-ing in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 294–310.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach,M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studiesin special education. Exceptional Children, 71,195–207.

Browder, D. M. (1997). Educating students withsevere disabilities: Enhancing the conversationbetween research and practice. The Journal of Spe-cial Education, 31, 137–144.

Browder, D. M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment forstudents with moderate and severe disabilities. NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela,K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning instructionwith academic content standards: Finding thelink. Research and Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities, 31, 309–321.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rick-elman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007).Creating access to the general curriculum withlinks to grade-level content for students with sig-nificant cognitive disabilities. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 41, 2–16.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims,P. J., & Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay toteach literacy to students with severe developmen-tal disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.

Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flow-ers, C., Algozzine, B., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Acontent analysis of the curricular philosophiesreflected in states’ alternate assessment perfor-mance indicators. Research and Practice for Personswith Severe Disabilities, 28, 165–181.

Brown, L., McLean, M. B., Nietupski, S. H., Pum-pian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). Astrategy for developing chronological age appro-priate and functional curricular content for ado-lescents and young adults with significant disabil-ities. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.

Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S.(1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. Hey,don’t forget about me! (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: TheCouncil for Exceptional Children.

Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C.

(2010). The use of video modeling via a videoiPod and a system of least prompts to improvetransitional behaviors for students with autismspectrum disorders in the general educationclassroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,12, 103–115.

Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Ken-nedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general educa-tion curriculum for students with significant cog-nitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38,6–13.

Downing, J. (2006). On peer support, universal de-sign, and access to the core curriculum for stu-dents with severe disabilities: A personnel prepa-ration perspective. Research and Practice for Personswith Severe Disabilities, 31, 327–330.

Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What con-stitutes effective curricula for students with severedisabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109–122.

Fidler, D. J., Most, D. E., & Guiberson, M. M. (2005).Neuropschological correlates of word identifica-tion in Down syndrome. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 26, 487–501.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the corecurriculum: Critical ingredients for student suc-cess. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148–157.

Giroux, H. A. (1994). Teachers, public life, andcurriculum reform. Peabody Journal of Education,69(3), 35–47.

Guess, D., Benson, H. A., & Siegel-Causey, E.(1995). Concepts and issues related to choice-making and autonomy among persons with se-vere disabilities. In K. M. Huebner, J. G. Prickett,T. R. Welch, & E. Joffee (Eds.), Hand in hand:Selected reprints and annotated bibliography on workingwith students who are deaf-blind (73–80). New York,NY: AFB Press.

Halle, J. W., & Dymond, S. K. (2008). Inclusiveeducation: A necessary prerequisite to accessingthe general curriculum? Research and Practice forPersons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 196–198.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004,P.L. 108-44.

Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M.(2008). The dynamic relationship between con-text, curriculum, and student learning: A case forinclusive education as a research-based practice.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabili-ties, 33, 175–195.

Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard-Jones, K., Hall, M., & Jones, M. (2010). What Does“College and Career Ready” mean for Students withSignificant Cognitive Disabilities? Lexington, KY:University of Kentucky.

Kleinert, H. L., Browder, D. M., & Towles-Reeves,E. A. (2009). Models of cognition for studentswith significant cognitive disabilities: Implications


for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79,301–326.

Kliewer, C. (2008). Joining the literacy flow: Foster-ing symbol and written language learning inyoung children with significant developmentaldisabilities through the four currents of literacy.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabili-ties, 33, 103–121.

Lee, S., Amos, B. A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y.,Shogren, K. A., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer, M.(2006). Curriculum augmentation and adapta-tion strategies to promote access to the generalcurriculum for students with intellectual and de-velopmental disabilities. Education and Training inDevelopmental Disabilities, 41, 199–212.

Madaus, J. W., Pivarnik, L., Scarpati, S., Richard, N.,Hirsch, D. W., Carbone, E., Gable, R. K., Patnoad,M. (2010). Teaching food safety skills to studentswith disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,42(4), 44–51.

Milner, H. R. (2003). A case study of an AfricanAmerican English teacher’s cultural comprehen-sive knowledge and self-reflective planning. Jour-nal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 175–196.

Mims, P. J., Browder, D. M., Baker, J. N., Lee, A., &Spooner, F. (2009). Increasing comprehension ofstudents with significant intellectual disabilitiesand visual impairments during shared stories. Ed-ucation and Training in Developmental Disabilities,44, 409–420.

Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., &Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular re-search in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 insix selected journals. The Journal of Special Educa-tion, 31, 36–55.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner,R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005).Research in special education: Scientific methods

and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children,71, 137–148.

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2000). The future is in themargins: The role of technology and disabilityin educational reform. Retrieved from: http://udlonline.cast.org/resources/images/future_in_margins.pdf

Ryndak, D. L., Clark, D., Conroy, M., & Stuart, C. H.(2001). Preparing teachers to meet the needs ofstudents with severe disabilities: Program config-uration and expertise. The Journal of The Associa-tion for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 96–105.

Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy,C. H. (2006). What we know and need to knowabout accessing the general curriculum for stu-dents with significant cognitive disabilities. Re-search and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,31, 277–283.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001).Achieving access to the general education curric-ulum for students with mental retardation: A cur-riculum decision-making model. Education andTraining in Mental Retardation and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 36, 327–342.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schalock, R. L. (2001). Self-determination and quality of life: Implications forspecial education services and supports. Focus onExceptional Children, 33(8), 1–16.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Garner, N., Yeager, D., & Lawr-ence, M. (2006). Infusing self-determination into18–21 services for students with intellectual ordevelopmental disabilities: A multi-stage, multiplecomponent model. Education and Training in De-velopmental Disabilities, 41, 3–13.

Williams, W., Brown, L., & Certo, N. (1975). Basiccomponents of instructional programs. Theory intopractice, 14, 123–136.

Received: 11 October 2011Initial Acceptance: 16 December 2011Final Acceptance: 8 February 2012


research on curriculum for students with moderate and...

Documents