Skip to content

AERA2010 | Day 5

May 4, 2010
tags: , , ,

paper session “rethinking disability: identification procedures” NOTES

paper #1 [“special achievements: comparing stand test profiles of special needs students & regular ed students”]

  • focus on math achievement
  • reg n=43,428; se n=3,166
  • standardized math test of SW US; 64 items
  • cluster analysis to derive profiles of subjects=no prior assumptions about data prior to conducted analysis
  • RESULTS: both groups = 4 cluster solutions; w/ variation in mean scores b/t groups but w/ similar trend across subsets of standardized test
  • male special ed students score in top 2 profile groups; female students in the top 2 regular groups
  • “students w/ disabilities can learn all math concepts as the students in regular education” mean scores are just lower

paper #2 [disabilities studies in education: need for plurality of perspectives on disability]

  • “disability is an idea not a thing”
  • impairment (variations that exist in human behavior, appearance, functioning, sensory acuity, and cognition) vs disability (cultural construct, evidenced by how its definition has changed over time and across places)
  • UDL (universal design for learning) provides an open approach to creating curriculum & learning opportunities for all students [see ]

UDL principles help educators customize their teaching for individual differences in each of these three brain networks. A universally-designed curriculum offers the following [from]:

Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge

Multiple means of action and expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know, and

Multiple means of engagement to tap into learners’ interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn

paper #3 [a pre- and perinatal model for autism spectrum disorder predictors]

this paper was not of interest to me. I think the presenter was an MD. Why is he at AERA?

paper #4 [an intervention-based approach to the id & treatment of adolescents at risk for emotion/behavioral disorders]

  • secondary students w/ EBD; 44.2% dropout = 25.4% of all students w/ disabilities
  • problem = “service delivery model” of dealing w/ EBD
  • prob =delayed id 13-15 yo
  • prob = 20% of kids vs. 1% treated
  • problem = defining ED is “in the eye of the beholder” “the problem of eligibility is among the most pressing”
  • investigation of a responsive intervention model (RTI model) implemented by school personnel
  • basic “vital” signs of achievement: reading/writing; math; social skills
  • Tx I – TxV (medical model response to intervention) [see for model]
  • 7th & 8th grades; 46 teachers; 10 male adolescents as subjects
  • kids w/ behavioral deficits (1) “can’t do kids” = acquisition-based (2) “won’t do kids” = performance-based [Can teachers tell the difference b/t the two?]
  • assessment of students’ ED are compared w/n their own classroom behavioral normative data, two of 10 subjects after an 8 week intervention period were referred to SPED
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: