instructional design best practices in special education

Part I: Best Practices
Learning disabilities, or specific learning disabilities, is a fairly well defined category that refers to impairments in functioning, typically related to language, perception, memory, or mathematical processing. The classification includes a number of conditions including dyslexia, developmental aphasia, and brain dysfunctions but does not include intellectual disabilities or emotional disturbances (Kavale, Spaulding & Beam, 2009). Moreover, learning disabilities manifest regardless of access to opportunity and other socioeconomic or environmental factors (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2018). Learning disabilities also need to be distinguished from intellectual disabilities. Formerly known as mental retardation, intellectual disabilities refer to low general functioning including low IQ scores and problems with adaptive behavior (Kavale, Spaulding & Beam, 2009). Therefore, intellectual disabilities are typically concurrent with impaired social functioning and other global factors.
Specific learning disabilities, on the other hand, usually manifest in specific ways. Each person will have different types of specific learning disabilities. For example, a person who is dyslexic might have no trouble with spoken language or mathematics. Some people with specific learning disabilities experience dysfunction in fine or gross motor skills or with working memory (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2018). The prevalence of specific learning disabilities in the American population is around 8-10% (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2018), which is far greater than the prevalence of intellectual disability (Tasse, 2016). Intellectual disability is generally better classified as a developmental disorder than as a cognitive disability that impacts a particular realm or type of formal processing (Tasse, 2016). Thus, intellectual disabilities are more generalized overall than learning disabilities, with clear implications for instructional practice and design.
There are no global characteristics associated with specific learning disabilities, given their tremendous diversity and scope. As such, specific learning disabilities can be more difficult to initially recognize in some children, or to offer evidence-based practice options, especially versus intellectual disabilities. For example, the “heterogeneous clusters of disorders” defining specific learning disabilities can occasionally blur the line between these and intellectual disability, though, challenging special education leaders to provide individualized attention and intervention plans (Kavale, Spaulding & Beam, 2009, p. 45). Special education can respond to both intellectual and learning disabilities through an assessment of empirical evidence informing best practices.
The legal and medical definitions of intellectual disabilities and learning disabilities have also been converging more in recent years, permitting more consistent special education practices. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) both offer definitions that encourage adaptations or modifications to the school environment, pedagogy, and curricula to help maximize the potential of all students with special needs. Common Core state standards also help guide teachers and special education leaders towards more cogent instructional design.
Given the preference for integrated classrooms and collaborative teaching models as part of a least restrictive learning environment ideal, special education aims to modify and accommodate rather than segregate students with intellectual or learning disabilities when possible. Of course, each student does need to be evaluated, assessed, and diagnosed differently with some requiring specialized instruction that cannot be given in a general education setting. Effective teacher use of evidence-based instructional strategies, or collaborative teaching with special education instructors can simplify pedagogical practices in an integrated classroom. Specific instructional techniques teachers use in the classroom, including “cognitive strategy instruction, differentiated instruction, and opportunities for independent application” have proven helpful but “were reported infrequently across the published observational research,” (McKenna, Shin & Ciullo, 2015, p. 205). Possibly due to the heterogeneous nature of specific learning disabilities, the infrequent or inconsistent use of specific strategies makes it harder to ascertain which methods of instruction or content modifications work best on which populations. More research on specific populations within the learning disabilities construct would help highlight future best practices.
For students who have been diagnosed with intellectual or specific learning disabilities, emphasis on meaningful metrics and evaluation strategies allows for ongoing assessments to help students and their parents become more involved in an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), if one is warranted under the IDEA provisions. An IEP can cover instruction strategies and adaptations to lesson plans for students with intellectual disabilities as well as for specific learning disabilities. With no universal means of helping all students due to the diversity of intellectual disability manifestation, teachers have at their disposal a number of evidence-based options for classroom design, support, and lesson modification
As with specific learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities require ongoing observation, monitoring, and assessment to ensure student responsiveness to the selected strategy. Students may demonstrate behavioral or social skills issues that warrant additional attention. As Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada (2013) point out, “most educators can change and adapt learning for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities based upon data as soon as there is recognition for the need to change instruction,” (p. 12). With either learning or intellectual disabilities, best practices begin with identification and monitoring during a pre-referral stage. If the student does not respond to initial modifications to instructional practice and content, then further interventions may be warranted, particularly if the student has been formally referred, diagnosed, and given an IEP.
All educators are advised to modify content, the level of abstraction or cognitive complexity of an assignment, and the methods used to deliver material (Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada, 2013). With specific learning disabilities, the goal would be to identify the student’s needs related to subject-specific processing issues such as linguistic or mathematical-specific learning disabilities. Students may, for example, struggle more with input and perception than with the production of outputs such as assignments or examinations. Whatever the situation, the special education leader works with the parents, student, and general education teacher to provide subject-specific, student-focused, and developmentally appropriate modifications within the least restrictive environment. As lifelong impairments, learning disabilities and intellectual abilities warrant instructional strategies and classroom designs that promote inclusion and diversity awareness.
Part II: Instructional Programming
The specific types of instructional programming that may be warranted to accommodate students with special needs may change according to emerging research. Instructional programming also depends on assessments and diagnoses. Students with high-functioning autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and some speech and language impediments are also being identified at even higher rates than those with emotional and behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and mild intellectual disabilities (Gage, Lierheimer & Goran, 2012). Intervention strategies will accordingly change as the specific needs of diverse student populations are identified in the research.
Instructional programming shifts between those that address generalized needs and a “noncategorical approach,” and those that are more individualized (Gage, Lierheimer & Goran, 2012, p. 168). An individualized approach may seem more attractive and appropriate for many students with special needs, and to their parents, but these methods are not necessarily more efficacious, do not necessarily yield more quantitative improvements in student performance, and are certainly not more cost-effective. Inclusivity is, however, a goal that is shared in common among most special education stakeholders (Gage, Lierheimer & Goran, 2012). Inclusivity is promoted through instructional programs and classroom design emphasizing collaborative teaching and coteaching with special education and general education instructors working together on the same lesson plans and course curricula. Special educators are sometimes rebranded as “schoolwide interventionists,” who can help students with special needs whether or not they have been formally assessed, referred, and diagnosed (Gage, Lierheimer & Goran, 2012, p. 169). Whether the student exhibits behavioral and emotional disabilities may also have a strong bearing on the nature of instructional design.
Educational laws and public policy has perhaps the strongest bearing on instructional strategies, impacting not only the constraints placed upon teachers but also on available funding and resources for students with special needs. Empirical research does influence public policy and legislation, but there are also specialized channels by which research influences education practice such as expert panel recommendations, which could even be localized or at least state-based (McKenna, Shin & Ciullo, 2015). The shift towards evidence-based practices has, however, been pervasive in spite of relative vagueness in legislation like the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act or the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specialists in mathematics and literacy instruction can also offer recommendations to general education and special education teachers and school administrators. For example, the National Reading Panel (NRP) makes recommendations for teachers such as increasing the amount of explicit instruction during early reading components (McKenna, Shin & Ciullo, 2015). Because of resistance to change in some schools, districts, or educational communities, though, it can be challenging for progressive educators to incorporate new methods of instructional design, even if they are evidence-based. For this reason, legislation and public policy, as well as administrative support, can be instrumental.
Special education instructional design can be ironically hindered in some situations. For instance, there is occasionally a disconnection between general education requirements—embedded in Common Core State Standards, for instance—and special education research. Special education leaders may even be unaware of the latest general education best practices, impeding the ability to promote effective collaborative teaching and inclusive classroom design. To address the shortcomings in special education, administration and leadership becomes more critical than ever. In the classroom, teachers need to focus more on task analysis, which entails breaking down each individual instructional task into its core components (Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada, 2013). Task analytic instructional methods can be used in a number of different classroom settings, different age levels, and different tasks and topics including math, science, and even vocational training (Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada, 2013). Breaking down a task into its constituent components can help students with special needs across various spectrums including both specific learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities. Special education teachers immersed in diverse special education programs, as well as regular education teachers, need to receive on-going training to effectively meet these students’ educational needs. The training can be task specific, or it can include regular professional development courses that alert instructors about emerging research or new technologies.
Teachers also need to remain open to altering the actual content of a lesson plan, even within an inclusive classroom. It is possible to alter content while still teaching for the specific content standard. When altering content, teachers can address fundamental issues such as the level of abstraction in a lesson or the complexity of a lesson or task. This is especially evident in mathematics and language composition classes. Teachers can also rely on alternative methods of teaching the same content, such as multimedia aids. As Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada (2013) also point out, students with special needs often benefit from a variety of approaches that can be adapted to suit students with specific learning disabilities. The use of technology is becoming increasingly common in inclusive classrooms (Wakeman, Karvonen & Ahumada, 2013). Using established techniques like phonics, specialized reading comprehension interventions, individualized instruction, peer instruction, and vocabulary-building exercises can be helpful for students with a wide range of disabilities (McKenna, Shin & Ciullo, 2015). In some cases, teachers need to change the ways they assess student comprehension or mastery of the unit content.
The effectiveness of these various special education programs and regular education inclusionary opportunities need to be regularly evaluated for their effectiveness at helping create learning opportunities for all students. Program evaluation can take place at least once per school year, with both qualitative and quantitative measures used to assess student, parent, and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of the instructional strategies. As all educators participate fully in the processes and goals of special education, it becomes crucial that training and evaluation procedures become more consistent and frequent throughout the school year.
References
Gage, N.A., Lierheimer, K.S. & Goran, L.G. (2012). Characteristics of students with high-incidence disabilities broadly defined. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 23(3): 168-178.
Kavale, K.A., Spaulding, L.S. & Beam, A.P. (2009). A time to define. Learning Disability Quarterly 32(1): 39-48.
Learning Disabilities Association of America (2018). What are learning disabilities? https://ldaamerica.org/advocacy/lda-position-papers/what-are-learning-disabilities/
McKenna, J.W., Shin, M. & Ciullo, S. (2015). Evaluating reading and mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 38(4): 195-207.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2018). Learning disabilities information page. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Learning-Disabilities-Information-Page
Tasse, M.J. (2016). Defining intellectual disability. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/disability/resources/publications/newsletter/2016/09/intellectual-disability.aspx
Wakeman, S., Karvonen, M. & Ahumada, A. (2013). Changing instruction to increase achievement for students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 46(2): 6-13.