Inclusive Education

Research & Practice

Xuan Bui, Carol Quirk, Selene Almazan, Michele Valenti

Inclusion Works!
Over 20 years of research has consistently demonstrated that the inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education classrooms results in favorable outcomes. Positive outcomes
have been shown for both students with high incidence disabilities (learning disabilities and
other mild disabilities) and those with low incidence disabilities (intellectual, multiple, and
severe disabilities). This body of research includes quantitative studies where the standard is
replication as well as qualitative studies that aim for complete, detailed descriptions in order to
answer how questions.
Placement Matters: Studies investigating the
Placement in general education
effects of placement in general education
results in:
classrooms reveal positive outcomes in the areas
Improved IEP quality
of IEP quality, time of engagement, and
More student engagement
individualized supports. Significant increases in
IEP quality on measures of age-appropriateness,
Increase in instructional time
functionality, and generalization were found
Maintenance of
when students moved into general education
individualized supports
classes from special education settings even
though the special educator remained the same
(Hunt & Farron-Davis, 1992). Within the general education classroom, there was an increase in
the amount of instruction on functional activities as well as basic academic skills such as literacy
for students with severe disabilities (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994). In
addition, students were observed to be less engaged and often more alone in self-contained
classrooms.
Similar student engagement outcomes were reported in a study involving nine elementary
students with severe disabilities who were observed in both special and general education
settings. General education classrooms delivered more instruction, provided a comparable
amount of 1:1 instruction time, addressed content more, and used non-disabled peers more
and adults less (Helmstetter, Curry, Brennan, & Sampson-Saul, 1998). Furthermore,
comparisons of the two settings revealed a significant difference in non-instructional time. In
self-contained classes, 58% of the time was classified as non-instructional versus 35% of the
time in general education classes.
To answer the question of individualizing supports, McDonnell and colleagues compared the
instructional contexts of students with low incidence disabilities and their typical peers in
1

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

general education settings. The students with severe disabilities were 13 times more likely than
their peers without disabilities to receive instruction directed exclusively toward them during
whole class activities, and were 23 times more likely to receive 1:1 instruction (McDonnell,
Thorson, & McQuivey, 2000). This challenges the prevalent notion that students with
disabilities cannot receive individualized supports in general education classrooms.
Outcomes for Students with Disabilities: Most research studies examining educational
outcomes have found positive effects for inclusion. Baker and colleagues reviewed three metaanalyses that addressed the issue of the most effective setting for the education of students
with disabilities. A small-to-moderate positive effect for inclusive placement was found in all
three meta-analyses (Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1994). More recently, Waldron, Cole, and Majd
(2001) investigated the effects of inclusive programs for students with high incidence
disabilities and their typical peers. This two-year study found that 41.7% of students with
learning disabilities made progress in math in general education classes compared to 34% in
traditional special education settings, without the presence of nondisabled peers. Gains in
reading were comparable in both settings. When comparing progress with their typical peers,
43.3% of students with disabilities made
comparable or greater progress in math
For students with high incidence
in inclusive settings versus 35.9% in
disabilities, a higher percentage of make
traditional settings. Similar academic
academic progress in general education
gains were reported in a study
classes compared to students in
examining the use of class-wide peer
traditional, resource settings.
tutoring on the achievement of students
with high incidence disabilities in
inclusive classrooms. Significant increases in spelling, social studies and other academic
indicators were observed (Pomerantz, Windell, & Smith, 1994).
Positive educational outcomes are not in the area of academics alone. The National
Longitudinal Transition Study examined the outcomes of 11,000 students with a range of
disabilities and found that more time spent in a general education classroom was positively
correlated with:
a) fewer absences from school,
b) fewer referrals for disruptive behavior, and
c) better outcomes after high school in the areas of employment and independent
living (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2006).
Meta-analyses and comparative studies examining the educational outcomes of students with
low incidence disabilities in inclusive versus segregated classrooms have found either no
difference in outcomes or positive effects for inclusion (Hunt & Goetz, 1997). There is a body of
empirical evidence that shows students with severe disabilities are able to acquire skills in a
range of areas within inclusive classrooms. McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998) report that
students demonstrate higher levels of social interaction with typical peers, social competence
and communication skills improve (e.g., Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis & Goetz, 1996), and
academic gains are made (McDonnell, Thorson, McQuivey, & Kiefer-ODonnell, 1997). In
2

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

addition, Kliewer and Biklen (2001) found that

inclusive learning environments facilitated the
acquisition of literacy and adaptive skills as well
as enhancing students social relationships. In
this domain of social outcomes, Fisher and Meyer
(2002) conducted a two-year longitudinal study
to examine social competence for 40 students
with severe disabilities in inclusive and self(Falvey, 2004)
contained classrooms. Students in the inclusive
settings had significantly higher mean scores on
the ASC (Assessment of Social Competence) after a two-year period, and although students in
self-contained classrooms made gains, they were not statistically significant. Falvey (2004)
notes that no studies conducted since the late 1970s have shown an academic advantage for
students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities educated in separate settings.

No studies conducted since the

late 1970s have shown an
academic advantage for students
with intellectual and other
developmental disabilities
educated in separate settings.

Effect on typical peers: Concerns are often raised about the impact that students with
disabilities, especially those with challenging behavior, have on the learning of typical students.
Hollowood and colleagues investigated the degree to which the presence of students with
severe disabilities affected the time allocated for instruction, the actual time used for
instruction, and students engaged time. Results indicated no differences across the three
domains when comparing classrooms that included students with severe disabilities and
classrooms without students with severe disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, &
Palombaro, 1995). The finding that
engaged time for typical learners is
What is the impact on typical peers?
not negatively impacted by the
No difference in instructional time and
presence of students with severe
student engagement
disabilities was also replicated in
Presence of students with disabilities
other studies (Peltier, 1997; Staub
& Peck, 1995).
results in greater number of typical

students making reading and math

In the area of academic progress,

progress compared to non-inclusive
Waldron, Cole, and Majd (2001)
general education classes
report that more students without
disabilities made comparable or greater gains in math and reading when taught in inclusive
settings versus traditional classrooms where no students with disabilities are included. This
suggests that inclusive classrooms provide greater access to the general education curriculum
that benefits all students. Further evidence for the positive effects of inclusion on students
without disabilities is reported by McGregor and Vogelsberg (1998). They found:
o inclusion does not compromise general education students outcomes,
o typical peers benefit from involvement and relationships with students who have
disabilities in inclusive settings, and
o the presence of students with disabilities in general education classrooms leads to new
learning opportunities for typical students.

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

Making Inclusion Work

Recognition that inclusion benefits both students with and without disabilities has led to
research that seeks to define the necessary contexts, instructional practices, and curricular
efforts that result in improved learner outcomes. Some of this research, especially for students
with high incidence disabilities, is well documented and its effectiveness clearly established.
For students with low incidence disabilities, the body of empirical evidence is smaller but favors
inclusive settings with its use of strategies such as varied instructional arrangements and peer
supports.

Peer Mediated Instruction & Intervention: The use of peer mediated instruction and
intervention is often cited in the literature as one of the most effective strategies for inclusive
classrooms. In several studies focused on students with mild disabilities, the use of peermediated strategies results in improved academic outcomes for all students including those
considered at-risk academically (Sailor, 2002). In a review of the literature, Fisher, Shumaker,
and Deshler (1995) reported significant increases in reading, spelling, math, social studies, and
other academic indicators for studies
investigating the use of class-wide peer
Peer Tutoring Results in:
tutoring models (CWPT) where students
Academic gains for students
serve as tutors and tutees in acquiring basic
with high incidence disabilities
academic skills and factual knowledge.
and students considered at-risk
Positive outcomes are accrued when training
Increased engagement and
for tutors is emphasized and in some cases,
results in large effect on student outcomes
academic responses for
(Stenhoff & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2007).
students with low incidence
Increases for both elementary and high
disabilities
school aged students were noted.
Specifically for students with moderate to severe disabilities, CWPT has also shown to result in
increased levels of engagement and academic responses as well as academic gains. Dawson
and colleagues investigated the effects of CWPT for students with intellectual disabilities and
their typical peers in general education classrooms. Results showed increases in spelling
accuracy as well as greater levels of engagement with typical peers and a decrease in
competing behaviors when compared to teacher-led instruction (Dawson, Delquadri,
Greenwood, Hamilton, Ledford, Mortweet, Reddy, Utley, & Walker, 1999). Similar outcomes
were reported by McDonnell and colleagues in a study that focused on the use of CWPT along
with a multi-element curriculum and accommodations for students with severe disabilities
(McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner, Thorson, & Fister, 2001).
More recent studies modeled after CWPT investigated the use of Peer-Assisted Learning
Strategies (PALS) as a method for improving academic outcomes for students with high
incidence disabilities and struggling typical peers. Features of PALS include reciprocal tutoring
4

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

roles, opportunities to respond and experience success, structured activities, and supplemental
practice of skills taught in the core curriculum. Fifteen years of pilot studies, component
analyses, and large-scale experiments have shown improvement in the reading achievement of
low, average, and high achieving students including those with high incidence disabilities
(McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2007). In the large-scale field studies involving second through
sixth grade classrooms, effect sizes of .22 to .56 were reported when compared to classrooms
using a traditional teacher led approach to reading. Furthermore, Fuchs and his colleagues
report greater social acceptance for students with learning disabilities in classrooms using PALS
presumably due to the greater level of reciprocal engagement of those settings (Fuchs, Fuchs,
Mathes & Martinez, 2002).
In addition to the structured use of tutoring arrangements, the successful use of peers as
supports in inclusive classrooms has also been documented for students with low incidence
disabilities. In a study investigating the effects of peer delivered self-monitoring strategies on
middle school students with significant disabilities, results showed an increase in percentages
of occurrence across eleven identified academic survival skills for all students (Gilberts, Agran,
Hughes & Wehmeyer, 2001). The role of peer training is a critical feature in the effective use of
peer-mediated instruction. Two studies investigated the issue of contribution of peers to the
generalization of social behaviors for elementary students with autism. In both studies,
increases in social interaction with typical peers were noted with greater generalization of skills
observed from groups with trained peers and less from groups with untrained or stranger peers
(Kamps, Royer, Dugan, Kravits, Gonzalez-Lopez, Garcia, Carnazzo, Morrison, & Garrison Kane,
2002).

Peer support interventions that involve one

or more peers without disabilities providing
academic and social support to a student
with disabilities indicate that:
Typical peers have higher levels of
engagement during support role
Peers with severe disabilities spent
more time engaged in activities aligned
with the general curriculum

Peer support interventions are also

emerging as an effective alternative
to traditional paraprofessional
support models for students with
low incidence disabilities (Carter,
Cushing, Clark & Kennedy, 2005).
Several descriptive studies have
documented the disengagement of
teachers when a one-on-one
paraprofessional service delivery is
used (Giangreco, Broer & Edelman 2001). Since the level of engagement and sense of
ownership that general educators have with students with disabilities is a critical factor to
success in inclusive classrooms, other support strategies must be explored. Cushing and
Kennedy (1997) trained typical peers to adapt class activities, provide frequent feedback, and
promote communication among other support strategies for three students with severe
disabilities in general education classrooms. Results indicated that serving as a peer support
resulted in higher levels of engagement for students without disabilities which is consistent
with previous studies employing peer-mediated techniques. This challenges the assumption
that having a typical peer support a student with a disability takes away from their participation
in the classroom. In looking for optimal configurations, Carter and colleagues studied the effect
5

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

of using two peers in a support role for students with severe disabilities. Data from the
investigation showed an increase in social interaction as well as an increase in the amount of
time students with disabilities were engaged in activities aligned with the general curriculum
(Carter, Cushing, Clark & Kennedy, 2005). In these peer support arrangements, the
paraprofessionals role is broadened and shifts to providing guidance and support to the
students serving as a peer support (Carter, Cushing & Kennedy, 2008).

Instructional & Curriculum Adaptations: Instructional and curriculum adaptations can be

conceptualized in two categories. Routine adaptations include the use of varied grouping
arrangements, materials, and goals while specialized adaptations are those made above and
beyond routine ones that are in direct response to specific challenges faced by students (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 1998). Weymer and colleagues use the term curriculum augmentations to refer to
efforts to augment or expand the general education curriculum to provide additional skills or
strategies that help students succeed (Wehmeyer, Lance, & Bashinski, 2002). Research on
curriculum and instructional adaptations that support students with disabilities in general
education classrooms is varied.
For students with learning disabilities, many studies describe instructional methods that extend
the typical adaptations and help to promote progress in the core content areas for all students
(including those without disabilities). These include graphic or advanced organizers, selfregulation strategies, semantic maps, mnemonics, chunking, questioning, and visualizing
strategies (Baker, Gersten, & Scanlon,
Effective adaptations for students with
2002). Swanson and Hoskyn (2001) also
mild disabilities:
confirmed the use of advanced organizers
as an effective strategy for positively
Graphic/advanced organizers
influencing student performance. The use
Mnemonics
of content enhancement routines, a type
Content enhancement routines
of advanced organizer, was shown to have
Strategy instruction
dramatic results for students with learning
Supplementing grade level
disabilities in general education classrooms
where the average unit quiz grade
textbook with other materials
increased by ten percentage points (Lenz,
Inquiry approach to science
Schumaker, Deshler, Boudah, Vance,
Kissam, Bulgren, & Roth, 1993).
In addition to these, strategy instruction (teaching students how to learn) has been shown to
improve academic achievement across grade levels for both students with and without
disabilities (Fisher, Shumaker, & Deshler, 1995). Other techniques that have resulted in
improved learner outcomes in inclusive classrooms include the use of materials other than
grade level textbooks in the area of social studies (Gersten, Baker, Smith-Johnson, Dimino, &
Peterson, 2006) and employing an inquiry-based approach to science with a focus on varied
ways of communicating learning (Pulincsar, Magnusson, Collins, & Cutter, 2001).

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

In contrast to the vast array of evidence for the effects of adaptations for students with learning
disabilities, research has recently begun to emerge related to the implementation of curriculum
accommodations and modifications for students with significant disabilities (Fisher & Frey,
2001). For example, there are few studies examining the use of strategies such as graphic
organizers for students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. In a review of the
literature, Lee and colleagues found no studies applying techniques such as chunking and
mnemonics while many studies examined self-directed learning strategies such as choice
making. However, very few of those studies were conducted in academic content areas (Lee,
Amos, Gragoudas, Lee, Shogren, & Theoharis, 2006).
Historically, the focus of research on instructional strategies for students with severe disabilities
has been on functional life skills that were taught outside of the general education curriculum
(Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) report
that less than 10% of studies with students with severe disabilities focused on academics, with
some research showing success in functional academics and access skills in general education
environments. Clearly, the use of curriculum adaptations such as content specific modifications
is necessary for the successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities. While there is
ample descriptive literature of methods and examples for making adaptations for these
students, there is limited empirical
For students with severe disabilities:
evidence to date (Fisher & Frey, 2001).

Less than 10% of studies focused on

academics
Research on the implementation of
adaptations is just emerging
Current evidence shows limited use
of accommodations and
modifications for students with
severe disabilities
Presence of modifications increases
academic responding and decreases
competing behavior

Some descriptive studies investigated

how students with severe disabilities
access the core curriculum in general
education classrooms. Salisbury and
colleagues found that modifying
curriculum based on students IEPs
resulted in successful physical, social,
and instructional inclusion of students
with mild to severe disabilities in
kindergarten through fourth grade
(Salisbury, Mangino, Petrigala, Rainforth,
Syryca, & Palombaro, 1994). More
recently, Fisher and Frey (2001) describe the experience of three students (elementary, middle,
and high) with significant disabilities and the supports/services necessary for them to access
the core curriculum in general education classrooms. The prominent use of individualized,
content specific modifications and accommodations were noted for all students. Examples of
these individualized content specific modifications included reading picture books, having a
picture communication symbol version of a textbook chapter, and unit vocabulary added to a
students speech output device.
Soukup and colleagues (2007) also examined the use of adaptations for students with severe
disabilities in general education classrooms as well as the relationship between access to the
general education curriculum and classroom variables. Researchers found that students with
7

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

severe disabilities worked on grade level standards in 60% of the intervals and worked on
standards linked to any grade for 20% of the intervals. Curriculum adaptations (changes to
content representation, presentation, or student engagement) were observed in 18% of the
intervals with no observations of curriculum augmentations (learning-to-learn strategies). In
terms of classroom variables, large and small group instructional arrangements were predictive
of greater access to the general education curriculum. Soukup and her colleagues conclude
that students receiving instruction in general education were significantly more likely to be
working on activities linked to the general education standards, although they were doing so
without the types of adaptations that research suggests is critical for making progress (Soukup,
Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). Following up on this work, Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup,
and Palmer (2010) studied the impact of curriculum modifications on student and teacher
behaviors. Researchers observed 45 students with a range of disabilities and found that the
presence of curriculum modifications predicted increased student engagement and decreased
competing behaviors that would disrupt learning. In addition, the presence of modifications
also resulted in teachers engaging in fewer management behaviors.

Collaborative Practices: The inclusion of students with disabilities in general education

classrooms necessitates collaboration between administrators, general educators, special
educators, parents, and related service providers in order to deliver quality services to all
students. In a survey to experts in the field of severe disabilities, Jackson and colleagues
reported that collaboration was often cited as a foundation to the implementation of inclusive
education (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000). In many schools, collaboration takes the form
of co-teaching where a general and special educator work together to deliver instruction to
students with and without disabilities.
In a meta-synthesis of 32 qualitative studies, Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007) found
that teachers generally supported co-teaching but the instructional techniques employed did
not necessarily reflect prevailing best practices in the literature. The predominant model of coteaching was one teach, one assist even though this is not a highly recommended practice in
that the special educator often plays a
subordinate role. In addition, evidenceResearch on co-teaching:
based practices such as peer mediated and
A few studies document
strategy instruction were infrequently
moderate effect size for student
observed. Some quantitative studies do
outcomes
exist that document the efficacy of co Qualitative studies show
teaching. Murawski and Swanson (2001)
conducted a meta-analysis of this research
predominance of one teach,
and found only six studies worthy of the
one assist which is not
considered highly recommended report. Results from these studies indicated
an overall effect size of .40 on academic
Infrequent observations of
achievement, social outcomes, attitudes,
specialized adaptations
absences, and referrals. Findings from both
the qualitative and quantitative
8

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

investigations suggests that co-teaching currently falls short of realizing its potential for
delivering quality services to students in general education classrooms.
Collaboration among teachers and related service providers is also a critical factor in
implementing effective inclusive education. Soto and colleagues found that general educators
who have regular opportunities to collaborate and consult with professional peers show
evidence of increased instructional skills as well as decreased tendencies to make referrals to
special education (Soto, Mller, Hunt, & Goetz, 2001). Two studies by Hunt and colleagues
further document the effectiveness of collaboration as a strategy for improving student
outcomes in inclusive settings. In both studies, researchers document the successful teaming
of teachers, related service providers, and parents in implementing support plans for students
with severe disabilities and typical peers considered academically at-risk. Teams met on a
monthly basis to delineate specific instructional adaptations and support strategies for
students. Consistent implementation of these plans resulted in increases in academic skills,
engagement in class activities, interactions with peers, and student-initiated interactions for all
students (Hunt, Doering, Hirose-hatae, Maier, & Goetz, 2001; Hunt, Soto, Maier, & Doering,
2003).

Room to Grow
Reframing Inclusion: As the language of inclusive education has evolved from
mainstreaming to integration to inclusion, so too has the practice. Mainstreaming operated on
the notion of readiness for general education while integration focused on the enhancement of
students social development. From a legislative, moral, and efficacy standpoint, the general
education classroom is now the placement of choice for students with disabilities. These earlier
descriptors of inclusion clearly framed it as a special education issue. In other words, it was
about the separateness of special education versus belongingness with general education
(Sailor, 2002).
Researchers and advocates of inclusion have placed a considerable amount of focus on meeting
students needs through individualized
Reframing inclusion using a larger
instruction and adaptations of the general
education curriculum for students with
universal design rubric may move the
disabilities (Spooner, Baker, Harris,
practice away from the separateness
Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder, 2007). Thus,
of special education to the
special educators are typically responsible
for retrofitting lessons (e.g., modifying the belongingness of general education.
-Sailor, 2002
curriculum, providing intervention,
teaching remedial skills) that have been
designed by the general education teacher. So while general and special education may have a
shared agenda, to a certain extent, the separateness of special education still exists.

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

Reframing the issue of inclusion by using the larger rubric of universal design may indeed
move the practice so that it belongs to general education.
The universal design concept assumes high standards for all students and serves as a blueprint
for creating flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments that accommodate learner
differences (Rose, 2001). The underlying premise of universal design is that teachers should
plan instructional supports during the beginning of lesson planning instead of modifying
materials as an afterthought (Hitchcock, 2001). In applying this concept, the burden shifts from
the individual to the curriculum and curriculum design. Reframing the issue of inclusion in this
way takes a sustainable approach to instruction where diversity is considered the norm and
should be anticipated in all aspects of instruction and learning.

Shaping Attitudes: Inclusion is a philosophy that urges schools, neighborhoods, and

communities to welcome and value everyone, regardless of differences. Central to the
philosophy of inclusion are the beliefs that everyone belongs, diversity is valued, and we can all
learn from each other" (Renzaglia, Karvonen, Drasgow & Stoxen, 2003). Holding such an
attitude can greatly impact the participation of students with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms. According to a study conducted by Robertson, Chamberlain, and Kasari (2003),
when teachers have positive perceptions of their relationship with students with disabilities,
the students behavior problems were reported to be lower, and the students were more
socially included with peers. Prater (2003) also identified teacher attitudes as one of several
elements that are critical in promoting the success of students with disabilities in general
education settings.
In addition to the role that teacher attitudes
play in the success of inclusive classrooms,
it is widely acknowledged that an inclusive
school culture begins with the committed
leadership of principals. Praisner (2003)
examined principals attitudes toward
inclusion including their placement
perceptions. Out of 408 principals
surveyed, only one in five held positive
attitudes toward inclusion. Factors that
were associated with positive attitudes included experiences with students with disabilities and
exposure to special education concepts. Furthermore, principals who had positive attitudes
were more likely to place students in less restrictive settings. Clearly, teacher and
administrator attitudes are critical factors that shape the experiences of students with
disabilities. These findings hold particular implications for personnel supporting and providing
technical assistance to teachers and staff. Efforts aimed at providing teachers and
administrators with meaningful contact with people with disabilities as well as information on
special education concepts makes a difference in the quality of students educational
programming.

Survey of Principals:
Experience and exposure to
special education concepts
resulted in positive attitudes
Principals holding a positive
attitude were more likely to
place students in less restrictive
settings

10

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

REFERENCES
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Scanlon, D. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling
the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process and for providing meaningful access to the general
education curriculum. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 17, 65-77.
Browder, D. M. & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the
requirement for accountability in No child left behind. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163.
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students
access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 30, 15-25.
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (2008). Promoting rigor, relevance, and relationships through peer
support interventions. Tash Connections, 20-23.
Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (1997). Academic effects of providing peer support in general education
classrooms on students without disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 139-151.
Dawson,H., Delquadri,J., Greenwood, C., Hamilton, S., Ledford, D., Mortweet, S., Reddy, S., Utley, C., Walker,D.
(1999). Class-wide Peer Tutoring: Teaching Students with Mild Retardation in Inclusive Classrooms. The
Council for Exceptional Children, 524-536.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and
Special Educatio,n 22(3), 148-157.
Fisher, J. B., Shumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive practices: A review of
literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(4), 1-20.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 23-33.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. (2002). Preliminary evidence on the social standing of students
with learning disabilities in PALS and No-PALS classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 8591.
Gersten, R., Baker S. K., Smith-Johnson, J., Dimino, J., & Peterson, A. (2006). Eyes on the Prize: Teaching Complex
Historical Content to Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 264-280.
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. (2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities:
Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 26(2), 75-86.
Gilberts, G. H., Agran, M., Hughes, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2001). The effects of peer delivered self-monitoring
strategies on the participation of students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26(1), 25-36.
Hitchcock, C. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in universally designed learning environments.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 2330.

11

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

Hunt, P., & Farron-Davis, F. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with
placement in general education versus special education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 17(4), 247-253.
Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F. Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of
students with severe disabilities in general education versus special education. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(3), 200-214.
Hunt, P., Doering, K., Hirose-hatae, A., Maier, J., & Goetz, L. (2001). Across-program collaborqtion to support
students with and without disabilities in a general education classroom. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 26(4), 240-256.
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming to support students at risk and students
with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 315-332.
Helmstetter, E., Curry, C.A., Brennan, M., & Sampson-Saul, M. (1998). Comparison of general and special education
classrooms of students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 33, 216-227
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what
experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 25, 129-141.
Kamps, D., Royer, J., Dugan, E., Kravits, T., Gonzalez-Lopez, A., Garcia, J., Carnazzo, K., Morrison, L., & Garrison
Kane, L. (2002). Peer training to facilitate social interaction for elementary students with autism and their
peers. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 173-187.
Lee, S. H., Amos, B. A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y., Shogren, K. A., & Theoharis, R., (2006). Curriculum augmentation and
adaptation strategies to promote access to the general curriculum for students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 199-212.
Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of curriculum modifications on access to
the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213-233.
Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Boudah, D. J., Vance, M. Kissam, B., Bulgren, J. A., & Roth, J. (1993).
The unit planning routine: A guide for inclusive unit planning (Research Report). Lawrence: University of
Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., & McQuivey, C. (2000). Comparison of the instructional contexts of students with
severe disabilities and their peers in general education classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 25, 54-58.
McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). Promises and limitations of peer-assisted learning strategies in
reading. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 97-112.
Murawski, W. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of the co-teaching research: Where are the data?
Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive education programs, practice and outcomes for students with
severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 3-29.

12

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership,
52(4), 33-35.
McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, R. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices: Pedagogical and Research Foundations. A
synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. University of Montana, Rural
Institute on Disabilities.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully
included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 21(2), 53-71.
McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C., & Kiefer-ODonnell, R. (1997). Academic engaged time of students with
low incidence disabilities in general education classes. Mental Retardation, 35(1), 18-26
McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusion of student with
moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes: The effects of class wide
peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum and accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(2),
141-160.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). Schools not really a place for reading: A research synthesis of the literate lives of
students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1) 1-12.
Pomerants, D. J., Windell, I. J., & Smith, M. A. (1994). The effects of classwide peer tutoring and accommodations
on the acquisition of content area knowledge by elementary students with learning disabilities. LD Forum,
19(2), 28-32.
Prater, M.A. (2003). She will succeed: Strategies for success in inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children,
35(5), 58-64.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.
Pulincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible to all: Results of a
design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 15-32.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C.C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 140-149.
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B., & Kasari, C. (2003). General education teachers relationships with included
students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(2), 123-130.
Rose, D. (2001). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 6667.
Salisbury, C. L., Mangino, M., Petrigala, M., Rainforth, B., Syryca, S. & Palombaro, M. M. (1994). Promoting the
instructional inclusion of young children with disabilities in the primary grades. Journal of Early Intervention,
18(3), 311-322.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of
Qualitative Research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.

13

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010

Soto, G., Mller, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative
and alternative communication: An educational team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 17, 62-72.
Spooner, F., Baker, J.N., Harris, A.A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. (2007). Effects of training in universal design
for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108-116.
Stenhoff, D. M. & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild
disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 8-30.
Swanson, H., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite
analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 109-119.
Waldron, N., Cole, C., & Majd, M. (2001). The academic progress of students across inclusive and traditional
settings: A two year study Indiana inclusion study. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability &
Community.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., and Levine, P. (2006). The Academic Achievement and Functional
Performance of Youth with Disabilities: A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).
(NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International
Wehmeyer, M. L., lance, D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with
mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 37, 223-234.
Falvey, Mary A. (Spring 2004) Toward realization of the least restrictive educational environments for severely
handicapped students. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(1), 9-10.
Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L., Rainforth, B., & Palombaro, M. M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms
serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61(3), 242-253.
Sailor, W. (2002). Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education: Research Agenda Task Force.
Nashville, TN
Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the
general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
Staub, D. & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for non-disabled students? Educational Leadership, 52, 3640.
Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research. Contemporary
Education, 68, 234-238.

14

MARYLAND COALITION FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2010