Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(3), 294–310 © <strong>Division</strong> on Developmental Disabilities Factors Impacting <strong>the</strong> Enactment of a Functional Curriculum in Self-Contained Cross-Categorical Programs Emily C. Bouck Purdue University Abstract: Factors relating to curriculum use in general education have been studied in considerable depth, yet little research has been conducted on what factors impact <strong>the</strong> enactment of curriculum in special education. This study specifically studied <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum in two rural, self-contained, cross-categorical programs. The data revealed that it was <strong>the</strong> intersection and union of seven factors (policy/legislation, community, school, teachers, paraprofessionals, students, and curriculum materials) that shaped <strong>the</strong> enacted functional curriculum in both programs. The association between <strong>the</strong> factors and <strong>the</strong> enactment of <strong>the</strong> functional curriculum holds implications for policy, research, and practice. “How we define curriculum makes a difference in how we think about it and how we plan it” (Morrison, 1993, p. 84). Little agreement exists among researchers or practitioners as to what constitutes curriculum, as it can refer to long-lasting educational programs, materials used in classrooms (i.e., textbooks), and experiences that students receive while in school (Morrison; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). Although disagreement exists, it is understood that curriculum is complex and reflects plans and activities that are to benefit students and help <strong>the</strong>m achieve specific goals (Nolet & McLaughlin). A curriculum is actually comprised of three components – <strong>the</strong> written (intended), enacted, and received curriculum. The written curriculum “is <strong>the</strong> official or adopted curriculum often contained in state or district policy”, and represents what students are expected to learn (Cuban, 1992; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000, p. 15). The enacted curriculum “is <strong>the</strong> operationalization of <strong>the</strong> intended curriculum”, and reflects <strong>the</strong> decisions a teacher This study represents <strong>the</strong> author’s doctoral dissertation. She would like to thank her dissertation committee: Drs. Troy Mariage, Cindy Okolo, Carol Sue Englert, and Sandra Wilcox. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, 5146 BRNG Hall, 100 N. University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. E-mail: bouck@ purdue.edu makes during implementation (Nolet & McLaughlin, p. 16). It encompasses <strong>the</strong> formal and informal lessons and activities, as well as teachers’ behaviors, groupings, management strategies, beliefs, and comments (Cuban). The received curriculum “is what students actually learn as a result of being in <strong>the</strong> classroom and interacting with <strong>the</strong> intended and taught curricula” (Nolet & McLaughlin, p. 17). Synder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) expanded <strong>the</strong> definition of enacted curriculum to encompass a co-construction of educational experiences by teachers and students. They suggested that an enacted curriculum is a transactional process where teachers and students interact, construct, and make meaning of <strong>the</strong> curriculum and educational experiences within context. Yet, <strong>the</strong>ir expanded definition may still be too narrow. This study proposes that <strong>the</strong> enacted curriculum is a transactional process, co-constructed by teachers and students, and influenced by each one’s history; <strong>the</strong> school; <strong>the</strong> communities in which <strong>the</strong> school, teachers, and students reside; institutional factors, such as federal and state policies; and curriculum materials. This definition is depicted in Figure 1. Factors Impacting Curriculum 294 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 According to Milner (2003) curriculum enactment and choice can be influenced by several
Figure 1. Proposed intersection of factors impacting <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum. variables, including federal policies, state standards, school factors, and teacher factors. Morrison emphasized a sphere of influence on curriculum decision making consisting of society, legislation/policy, <strong>the</strong> local school district, individual people, professional organizations, business/industry, foundations/agencies, teachers, textbooks, lobbying/special interest groups, and testing. Institutional policies and legislation. Federal policies affect curriculum enactment within special education, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002) and <strong>the</strong> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997, 2004). NCLB is built upon four pillars: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, encouraging <strong>the</strong> use of proven educational methods, and more choices for parents. This policy has led to a more rigorous general education curriculum and a presumed push towards using <strong>the</strong> general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Under NCLB teachers are to be held accountable for students’ progress on state standards, suggesting that curricula must reflect teaching to <strong>the</strong> standards, or teaching to <strong>the</strong> test (Karp, 2003; Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is <strong>the</strong> reauthorization of <strong>the</strong> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and reflects <strong>the</strong> government’s attempt to align IDEA ’97 with NCLB. It is focused on greater accountability and having highly qualified special education teachers in classrooms. IDEIA 2004 has also been attributed to an increased focus on preparing students with disabilities for fur<strong>the</strong>r education. Curriculum materials. Morrison (1993) discussed textbooks’ deterministic influence on curriculum enactment, indicating that <strong>the</strong>y tend to cater to <strong>the</strong> lowest ability students in <strong>the</strong> classroom, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> average or <strong>the</strong> more able students. Dyck and Pemberton (2002) claimed that textbooks represent a central feature of curricula, particularly at <strong>the</strong> higher grades. School and community factors. Schools can influence curriculum through a district’s curriculum and philosophy, as well as <strong>the</strong> building’s climate (Milner, 2003; Waldrip & Giddings, 1996). O<strong>the</strong>r school variables affecting curriculum are a school’s setting (rural, urban, and suburban) and size (see Bouck, 2005; Monk & Haller, 1993). For example, rural schools are more likely to expose students to in-school jobs and work experience yet generally have fewer vocational educational choices (Baer et al., 2003; Hudson & Shafer, 2002). Research has suggested that rural schools are more likely to have crosscategorical programs than urban or suburban schools (Bouck, 2005). School size research shows similar results, with smaller schools offering fewer educational opportunities than larger schools (Monk & Haller, 1993). Teacher factors. Teachers shape how curriculum is enacted in classrooms (Milner, 2003). Remillard (1997) suggested that teachers play a more direct role than textbooks in <strong>the</strong> enacted curriculum as <strong>the</strong>y make <strong>the</strong> final decision about what gets taught. Teachers’ pedagogical approaches, beliefs about course content, knowledge about <strong>the</strong> community in which students live, content knowledge, and <strong>the</strong>ir own personal experiences all influence <strong>the</strong> delivery of curriculum (see Milner; Remillard & Bryans, 2003; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). Functional Curriculum While literature has explored <strong>the</strong>se factors in general education curricula, little has been Factors and Functional Curriculum / 295
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Developme
Page 7 and 8: Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 9 and 10: ticipants (a) believed the<
Page 11 and 12: Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14: ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16: Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18: we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20: literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21: tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 25 and 26: teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28: also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30: Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31 and 32: The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33 and 34: Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
Page 35 and 36: learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38: Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40: Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44: TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46: found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48: skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50: treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52: created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54: and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58: trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60: (Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62: following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64: medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66: TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68: Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70: Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72: ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74:
communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76:
Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78:
student gave the p
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82:
contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88:
to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90:
The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94:
sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96:
Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98:
4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100:
TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102:
TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106:
TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112:
their children to
Page 113 and 114:
and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116:
prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118:
all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121 and 122:
papers were removed and the
Page 123 and 124:
was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
Page 125 and 126:
Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128:
ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130:
short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132:
plication of the t
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136:
aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?