Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory
Elizabeth M. Riddle
Lev Vygotsky, born in the U.S.S.R. in 1896, is responsible for
the social development theory of
learning. He proposed that social interaction profoundly
influences cognitive development.
Central to Vygotsky's theory is his belief that biological and
cultural development do not occur
in isolation (Driscoll, 1994).
Vygotsky approached development differently from Piaget.
Piaget believed that cognitive
development consists of four main periods of cognitive growth:
sensorimotor, preoperational,
concrete operations, and formal operations (Saettler, 331).
Piaget's theory suggests that
development has an endpoint in goal. Vygotsky, in contrast,
believed that development is a
process that should be analyzed, instead of a product to be
obtained. According to Vygotsky, the
development process that begins at birth and continues until
death is too complex to to be
defined by stages (Driscoll, 1994; Hausfather,1996).
Vygotsky believed that this life long process of development
was dependent on social interaction
and that social learning actually leads to cognitive development.
This phenomena is called the
Zone of Proximal Development . Vygotsky describes it as "the
distance between the actual

development level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978). In other words, a
student can perform a task under
adult guidance or with peer collaboration that could not be
achieved alone. The Zone of Proximal
Development bridges that gap between what is known and what
can be known. Vygotsky
claimed that learning occurred in this zone.
Therefore, Vygotsky focused on the connections between people
and the cultural context in
which they act and interact in shared experiences (Crawford,
1996). According to Vygotsky,
humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech
and writing, to mediate their social
environments. Initially children develop these tools to serve
solely as social functions, ways to
communicate needs. Vygotsky believed that the internalization
of these tools led to higher
thinking skills. When Piaget observed young children
participating in egocentric speech in their
preoperational stage, he believed it was a phase that
disappeared once the child reached the stage
of concrete operations. In contrast, Vygotsky viewed this
egocentric speech as a transition from
social speech to internalized thoughts (Driscoll, 1994). Thus,
Vygotsky believed that thought and
language could not exist without each other.
Application of the Social Development Theory to Instructional
Design
Traditionally, schools have not promoted environments in which

the students play an active role
in their own education as well as their peers'. Vygotsky's
theory, however, requires the teacher
and students to play untraditional roles as they collaborate with
each other. Instead of a teacher
dictating her meaning to students for future recitation, a teacher
should collaborate with her
students in order to create meaning in ways that students can
make their own (Hausfather, 1996).
Learning becomes a reciprocal experience for the students and
teacher.
The physical classroom, based on Vygotsky's theory, would
provide clustered desks or tables and
work space for peer instruction, collaboration, and small group
instruction. Like the
environment, the instructional design of material to be learned
would be structured to promote
and encourage student interaction and collaboration. Thus the
classroom becomes a community
of learning.
Because Vygotsky asserts that cognitive change occurs within
the zone of proximal
development, instruction would be designed to reach a
developmental level that is just above the
student's current developmental level. Vygotsky proclaims,
"learning which is oriented toward
developmental levels that have already been reached is
ineffective from the view point of the
child's overall development. It does not aim for a new stage of
the developmental process but
rather lags behind this process" (Vygotsky, 1978).

Appropriation is necessary for cognitive development within the
zone of proximal development.
Individuals participating in peer collaboration or guided teacher
instruction must share the same
focus in order to access the zone of proximal development.
"Joint attention and shared problem
solving is needed to create a process of cognitive, social, and
emotional interchange"
(Hausfather,1996). Furthermore, it is essential that the partners
be on different developmental
levels and the higher level partner be aware of the lower's level.
If this does not occur, or if one
partner dominates, the interaction is less successful (Driscoll,
1994; Hausfather, 1996).
Instructional Strategies and Their Implementation in Instruction
Scaffolding and reciprocal teaching are effective strategies to
access the zone of proximal
development. Scaffolding requires the
teacher to provide students the opportunity to extend their
current skills and knowledge. The
teacher must engage students' interest, simplify tasks so they
are manageable, and motivate
students to pursue the instructional goal. In addition, the
teacher must look for discrepancies
between students' efforts and the solution, control for
frustration and risk, and model an idealized
version of the act (Hausfather, 1996).
Reciprocal teaching allows for the creation of a dialogue
between students and teachers. This
two way communication becomes an instructional strategy by
encouraging students to go beyond
answering questions and engage in the discourse (Driscoll,

1994; Hausfather, 1996). A study
conducted by Brown and Palincsar (1989), demonstrated the
Vygotskian approach with
reciprocal teaching methods in their successful program to teach
reading strategies. The teacher
and students alternated turns leading small group discussions on
a reading. After modeling four
reading strategies, students began to assume the teaching role.
Results of this study showed
significant gains over other instructional strategies (Driscoll,
1994; Hausfather,1996).
Cognitively Guided Instruction is another strategy to implement
Vygotsky's theory. This strategy
involves the teacher and students exploring math problems and
then sharing their different
problem solving strategies in an open dialogue
(Hausfather,1996).
The Effectiveness of the Social Development Theory in
Achieving Its Goals
Vygotsky's social development theory challenges traditional
teaching methods. Historically,
schools have been organized around recitation teaching. The
teacher disseminates knowledge to
be memorized by the students, who in turn recite the
information back to the teacher
(Hausfather,1996). However, the studies described above offer
empirical evidence that learning
based on the social development theory facilitates cognitive
development over other instructional
strategies.

The structure of our schools do not reflect the rapid changes our
society is experiencing. The
introduction and integration of computer technology in society
has tremendously increased the
opportunities for social interaction. Therefore, the social
context for learning is transforming as
well. Whereas collaboration and peer instruction was once only
possible in shared physical
space, learning relationships can now be formed from distances
through cyberspace. Computer
technology is a cultural tool that students can use to mediate
and internalize their learning.
Recent research suggests changing the learning contexts with
technology is a powerful learning
activity (Crawford, 1996). If schools continue to resist
structural change, students will be ill
prepared for the world they will live.
Conclusion
Lev Vygotsky lived during the Russian Revolution, a time of
great change in his culture. If
Vygotsky’s assertion that biological and cognitive
developmental do not occur in isolation, then
his environment of change greatly influenced his own cognitive
processes. Presently our society
is also going through a culture of change due to the infusion of
computer technology. Perhaps
this lends some insight to why Vygotsky's theory of social
development is receiving increasing
attention, seventy years after it's conception.
References
Driscoll, Marcy P. (1994). Psychology of Learning for
Instruction. Needham, Ma: Allyn &&

Bacon.
Crawford, Kathryn. (1996) Vygotskian approaches to human
development in the information era.
Educational Studies in Mathematics. (31) 43-62.
Hausfather, Samuel J., (1996) Vygotsky and Schooling:
Creating a Social Contest for learning.
Action in Teacher Education.
(18) 1-10.
Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational
Technology. Egnlewood, Co:
Libraries Unlimited.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of
higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, James V. Sohmer, Richard. (1995). Vygotsky on
learning and development. Human
Development. (38 ) 332-37.
431
Improving Meaningful Use
of Accommodations by
Multilingual Learners
Lynn Shafer Willner, Kouider Mokhtari
Learn what educators need to know about recent changes in

online test
accommodations, and explore ideas for integrating
accommodations and
accessibility features into close reading instruction of digital
texts.
For more than two decades, accommodations have served as the
primary strategy for ensuring the valid participation of
multilingual learners
(MLLs) in high-stakes assessments (e.g., the National
Assessment of Educational Progress) and in annual
statewide assessments. MLLs’ participation in annu-
al statewide testing continues to be required in the
most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the Every Student Succeeds
Act of 2015. A key factor in ensuring the validity of
student test participation is each student’s ability to
effectively use the accommodations and other allow-
able supports that are provided with the test.
In this article, we examine what classroom educa-
tors need to know about the recent transition away
from an accommodations- only test participation
strategy and how they might more effectively inte-
grate accommodations into instruction, especially
with digital texts. In particular, we recommend close
reading and critical reading strategies that connect to
and expand student assets. To maintain consistency
with an assets- based philosophy, we refer to stu-
dents identified in the Every Student Succeeds Act as
English learners (ELs) as MLLs. We do this to empha-
size that MLLs continue to draw on a wide range of so-
ciocultural and native- language resources and reper-
toires well past what many states call emergent (i.e.,
beginning) levels of English-language development
(G. Valdés, personal communication, July 20, 2016).

How Useful Are Test Supports if MLLs
Do Not Know How to Use Them?
A one- time trip to the computer lab to run through
the online test’s practice items may not provide stu-
dents with enough practice to be effective. To ensure
that MLLs have an opportunity to learn to use test-
ing accommodations and other tools available with
online tests, these tools and accommodations should
be an integral part of daily instruction.
To highlight this point, the sample professional
development (PD) activities at the end of this article
give educators an experience of using accessibility
features to support deeper thinking during paper-
based close reading activities (using the tools and
approach shown in Figure 1), an experience of ap-
plying the same type of close reading strategies to
digital texts, and models to discuss as they consider
how to refine their close reading instruction to help
their MLLs connect with text.
How and Why Have Testing
Accommodations Evolved?
Over the past two and a half decades, large- scale
assessments have moved away from sole reliance
on accommodations as a strategy for supporting
MLLs’ access to a strategy that embeds accommoda-
tion use within broader issues of accessibility. This
movement occurred in three waves: (1) an initial
borrowing of ideas for accommodations for MLLs
from the field of disabilities; (2) a gradual narrowing
of accommodations for MLLs around support for
students’ linguistic and cultural needs; and (3) the

FEATURE ARTICLE
The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 pp. 431–439
doi:10.1002/trtr.1637 © 2017 International Literacy
Association
Lynn Shafer Willner is an accessibility and language
standards researcher at WIDA at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison, USA; e-mail [email protected]
Kouider Mokhtari is the Anderson-Vukelja-Wright
Endowed Professor of literacy education at The University
of Texas at Tyler, USA; e-mail [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
432
FEATURE ARTICLE
The Reading Teacher Vol. 71 No. 4 January/February 2018
literacyworldwide.org
use of accessibility principles, including universal
design for learning (UDL), to improve the fundamen-
tal design of tests, create more options for taking
tests, and improve communication and coordination
among general education teachers, language devel-
opment specialists, and disabilities specialists.
First Wave of Changes
Beginning in the 1990s, testing ac-
commodations were provided as
a way to allow students with dis-
abilities and MLLs to participate

in paper- based large- scale assess-
ments. Testing accommodations
were required because most test
items in these assessments failed
to adequately reduce specific ac-
cess barriers for students with dis-
abilities and MLLs; in effect, testing
accommodat ions were imple-
mented to provide work- arounds
for items with basic designs that
included barriers for MLLs , MLLs
with disabilities, and/or other stu-
dents with disabilities.
However, as detailed previous-
ly in The Reading Teacher (Shafer Willner, Rivera, &
Acosta, 2009), there were serious drawbacks in the
design of testing accommodations: They were being
developed, implemented, and administered well af-
ter the initial paper- based test items had been de-
veloped (Russell, Hoffman, & Higgins, 2009; Shafer
Willner & Rivera, 2011).
Moreover, during the 1990s and the early 2000s,
there was little research and guidance on how
best to design accommodations to meet MLLs’ lin-
guistic needs during testing.
Developers of state guidelines
for MLL test accommodations
borrowed liberally from existing
state accommodation guide-
lines for students with cognitive
and physical disabilities (Shafer
Willner, Rivera, & Acosta, 2008).

Second Wave of Changes
The second wave of changes to
testing accommodations was
initiated in 2006, when the U.S.
Department of Education (2006)
formed the LEP Partnership for
states needing additional assis-
tance in supporting MLLs (who,
in the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2002, were referred to as limited English pro-
ficient students) during annual, state- required sum-
mative assessments. Using LEP Partnership project
research (e.g., Acosta, Rivera, & Shafer Willner, 2008;
Shafer Willner et al., 2008) as a catalyst, state test ac-
commodation guidelines for MLLs were redesigned.
States gradually began to more carefully guide the
assignment of accommodations according to stu-
dents’ proficiency levels in English, academic literacy
in English and their native language, prior schooling,
and content instruction in their native language, us-
ing guidance from Acosta et al. (2008) and Kopriva,
Emick, Hipolito- Delgado, and Cameron (2007). Indeed,
Kopriva et al. found that when MLLs were assigned
accommodations that matched their linguistic and
cultural needs during testing, they were better able to
show what they knew than MLLs who were assigned
incomplete accommodations (i.e., assigned accom-
modations without matching them to more linguis-
tically responsive criteria) and MLLs who were not
assigned any accommodations at all.
Gradually, the use of more linguistically responsive
approaches in state test accommodation guidelines
for MLLs resulted in the inclusion of a smaller set of

more precisely selected linguistic accommodations.
Figure 1
Using Accessibility Features as Part of a Thinking
Notes Strategy
Note. For more information, see Hanify (2012), MrReevesELA
(2012),
and Teaching Tolerance (2014) . The color figure can be viewed
in the
online version of this article at
http://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
PAUSE AND PONDER
■ Are you aware of how and why
testing accommodations for MLLs
have evolved during the past 25
years?
■ What implications does the shift
from accommodations to
accessibility have on the supports
available during online testing?
■ What type of classroom lessons
might lead to more valid, meaningful
use of embedded accessibility
features and accommodations
during online testing?
http://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
433

FEATURE ARTICLE
A word- to- word dual- language dictionary, extended
time, and in states that allowed it, test directions
translated into the native language were the three
most common accommodations for MLLs that re-
mained in state test accommodation guidelines.
Over time, fewer and fewer states embedded
disabilities- oriented accommodations into their ac-
commodation guidelines for MLLs. Between 2000
and 2001 and between 2010 and 2011, the medi-
an number of linguistic testing accommodations
dropped from nine to two; many other adjustments
were reclassified as administration considerations.
The most common of these were individual or small-
group administration; directions read, repeated, or
clarified in English; and administration of the test
in a separate room (Shafer Willner & Rivera, 2014).
Third Wave of Changes
The third wave of changes to the concept of accom-
modations was ushered in more broadly as tests
moved online. Improvements in digital technologies
made it possible for test item designers to more ef-
fectively apply UDL principles, first to clearly iden-
tify the targeted construct being assessed and then
to devise adjustments and alternate pathways (e.g.,
those outlined in Figure 2) that minimized the im-
pact of non- construct- related barriers (CAST, 2015).
These adjustments infused test items with great-
er flexibility and individualization, improving test

accessibility for a wider range of students (National
Center on Educational Outcomes, 2011; Russell &
Kavanaugh, 2011; Thurlow, Quenemoen, Thompson,
& Lehr, 2001). Shafer Willner and Monroe (2016b)
highlighted a paradox revealed by UDL: By focusing
first on a smaller group of students with more inten-
sive needs, educators can design multiple points of
access for more students. (By analogy, sidewalk curb
cuts were originally designed for people who use
wheelchairs, but also benefit bike riders and anyone
pushing or pulling something across a street, such as
a baby stroller or cart. But even so, there are trade-
offs: Improved accessibility should not be interpreted
as being automatically equivalent to universal ac-
cess. For instance, curb cuts may present new bar-
riers for those who are blind and rely on curbs to
navigate.)
Fueled by the transition to technology- enhanced
assessments and more accessible approaches to cur-
ricular design and test development, test developers
could expand the number of modalities available
with a single test item and meet a greater variety of
diverse learning needs and preferences. In contrast
to traditional, paper- based test items, online test
items might employ embedded audio, video, word-
to- word translation glossaries, adjustment of text,
magnification of the view on a computer screen,
and screen readers, which can provide audio for al-
ternate text descriptions.
Online test formats have the long- term potential
to eliminate the development and provision of mul-
tiple versions of test materials and the “provision
of additional test proctors with specialized skills…

such as the ability to speak the student’s first lan-
guage” (Russell et al., 2009, pp. 2–3). The online test
format might also reduce demands on school- based
educators to develop and implement accommoda-
tions during test administration.
As development of statewide online assessment
progressed between 2009 and 2013, still more accom-
modations—which on the paper tests had only been
available to students with disabilities—were also
reclassified as accessibility features, available to all
students taking the assessment. Reclassified accessi-
bility features included a highlighter, color overlays,
line guides, color contrast, a screen magnifier, and
a notepad. Technology- based formats might offer a
way to address Meyer and Rose’s (2005) call to ad-
dress unique student learning needs and preferences
from the outset.
The recently updated Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing summarized the changes found
in the third wave, noting that some testing “adap-
tations” still function as accommodations, whereas
others simply are not part of the target being mea-
sured by the test; instead, they provide more stu-
dents with a fairer chance “to respond to test tasks
or test items” (American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, &
Figure 2
What Are UDL Principles (CAST, 2015)?
■ Improve student engagement by stimulating interest
and motivation for learning.
■ Improve representation of learning by presenting

information and content in different ways.
■ Improve how students can act and express learning in
different ways.
Differentiated instruction approaches commonly draw
inspiration from UDL principles. Shafer Willner and
Monroe (2016b) provided a discussion of how to carefully
ensure that differentiated instruction builds on MLLs’
strengths and assets.
434
FEATURE ARTICLE
National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014,
p. 52). Table 1 shows the reconfiguration of support
now available with online assessments. Many states
and assessment consortia have integrated these new
categories into their test administration guidelines,
both for online and paper- based assessments.
Why Integrate Online Test Preparation
Into Classroom Instruction?
Rather than limiting support only to students with
disabilities or language- oriented labels, educators
can think beyond labels to provide strategies and
supports that personalize learning for all students.
By using an accessibility approach to instructional
design, fewer students are left in the margins (Meyer

& Rose, 2005), less able to access instruction and as-
sessment (National Center on Educational Outcomes,
2011; Russell & Kavanaugh, 2011).
MLLs benefit when they participate in activities
with similar expectations as their classmates rather
than being tracked into activities with simplified or
modified expectations. To that end, access to practi-
cal tools and strategies to enable students to unpack
Table 1
Updated Categories of Supports Available During District and
State Assessments
Term Examples To whom allowed Definition
Accommodations On a mathematics
assessment: Word- to-
word dual- language
dictionary, extended
time, test directions
translated into students’
native language
Students with
documented
disabilities (i.e., having
an Individualized
Education Plan or 504
plan) and MLLs (refer to
the test administration
manual)
Allowable adjustments to the test
presentation, response method, timing,
and setting in which assessments are

administered, reducing barriers that
are the result of a documented need;
accommodations do not change what the
test measures (the construct) and provide
comparable test results as from students
who do not receive accommodations.
Accessibility
features (also
called universal
tools)
Highlighter, color
overlay, line guide,
color contrast, screen
magnifier, notepad
All students taking the
assessment; assigned
based on preference
or need
Selectable embedded features or handheld
instruments used to carry out a particular
purpose; these may either be embedded in
the online test or provided to students by
test administrators for online or paper tests.
Administration
considerations
Individual or small-
group administration;
directions read,
repeated, or clarified in
English; administration

of the test in a separate
room
Any student taking
the test, as needed, at
the discretion of the
test coordinator (or
principal or designee)
Adjustments to the standard test
administration considerations that provide
flexibility to schools and districts in
determining the conditions under which the
test can be administered most effectively,
provided that all standardized testing and
security requirements are met (Some of
the items listed as test administration
considerations still might be listed in a
student’s Individualized Education Plan to
support the provision of accommodations.)
Modifications Providing alternate,
easier test items and
reading aloud the
reading test; may be
seen as providing an
unfair advantage
Not allowed to
anyone during testing
Individualized adjustments to instruction and
assessment that make the curriculum easier
or lower learning expectations; although
sometimes allowed during classroom
instruction, these adjustments change

the construct being measured, creating
nonstandard test administrations and altering
the interpretation of student test scores.
Note. Adapted from The WIDA Accessibility and
Accommodations Framework: Considerations Influencing the
Framework’s Development (p. 3), by
L. Shafer Willner and M. Monroe, 2016, Madison, WI: WIDA.
Copyright 2016 by the Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System, on behalf of
WIDA. Adapted with permission.
435
FEATURE ARTICLE
complex language, dense informational texts, and
discourse structures is critically important (Wong-
Fillmore & Fillmore, 2012).
How Else Might Close Reading
Instruction Support and Connect
With MLLs?
How might teachers get started in providing close read-
ing instruction that is more accessible to MLLs? There
is more to do than merely providing them with vocab-
ulary lists and sentence frames. MLLs can benefit from
scaffolded opportunities that give them time to slow
down and pay more attention as they participate in
multiple explorations of a text. Two often- overlooked
types of scaffolding focus on uncovering embedded

cultural assumptions and supporting students as they
position themselves in relation to the text.
Students from nondominant cultural groups ben-
efit from explicit road maps of the cultural assump-
tions embedded at the discourse level in texts (Rose
& Martin, 2012). There are different organizational
patterns and language features found in regularly
occurring uses of academic language. In other words,
because communication genres (e.g., recounts, ar-
guments, explanations) are used for different pur-
poses, they are shaped by distinct language choices
(Gibbons, 2015). MLLs benefit from explicit instruc-
tion on purpose- oriented language choices.
For example, while jointly deconstructing texts
(Rothery, 1994), educators can move beyond decon-
textualized instruction of language features and
reveal for MLLs an explicit road map of cultural
expectations and values found in the language of
schooling. For example, with informational recounts
(e.g., in a science report), a writer can take many dif-
ferent types of information, use multiple ways to or-
der this information, and still have it make sense.
However, this cannot be done with an explanation.
An explanation has to go in a particular order to
make meaning (Shafer Willner, Lundgren, Monroe,
& Cortada, 2017). (It should be noted that an exten-
sive research background and additional techniques
for enacting this approach, known as genre- based
pedagogy, are beyond the scope of this article.)
Because MLLs are more likely to be members of
nondominant racial and ethnic minorities, they are
often subjected to deficit labeling and seen as needing
“fixing.” To avoid treating MLLs as though they are ei-

ther failed native speakers (May, 2014) or students with
disabilities (Klingner & Artiles, 2006), it is important
to provide MLLs with different opportunities to learn
how to use close reading and critical reading strate-
gies and tools in a way that recognizes and promotes
their own abilities not only to connect to and expand
on their own sociocultural and linguistic assets (Moll,
Amanti, Neff, & González, 2005) but also to critically
position themselves in relation to texts (LaRusso et al.,
2016). (Selections from the Teaching Tolerance, 2014,
lessons for close and critical reading are suggested for
educator PD at the end of this article.)
Meaningful practice opportunities with more
complex text are especially important for students
who have limited exposure to technology. They in-
crease the chance that students remember and ap-
propriately use their accommodations and accessi-
bility features during testing.
Why Explore the Use of Close Reading
Strategies in the Digital Environment?
As students move between paper- based texts and
digital texts, it is important for them to explore
which paper- based strategies might work effectively
in the online environment. Within this digital en-
vironment, the act of close reading from a screen is
shaped by particular rules and affordances.
For example, it can be more challenging to read text
on a computer screen than on paper. Consequently,
it is common for people to favor reading styles that
ease the burden of reading printed text on a computer
screen. Nielsen (2000) explained,

Because it is rather tedious to read text on a computer
screen and because the online experience seems to
foster some amount of impatience, users tend not to
read the stream of text fully. Instead users scan text
and pick out keywords, sentences, and paragraphs of
interest while skipping over those parts of the text they
care less about. (p. 104)
Similarly, Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2010)
argued that information communication technolo-
gies such as the Internet have changed the way we
teach and assess reading and writing. Leu et al. de-
fined online research and reading comprehension
around five major functions: identifying important
questions, locating information, analyzing informa-
tion, synthesizing information, and communicating
information. An expanding research base has showed
that MLLs benefit from explicit instruction on close
and critical reading instruction that incorporates dig-
ital reading comprehension strategies such as those
identified (Daniel & Mokhtari, 2015; Mokhtari, 2016).
436
FEATURE ARTICLE
Meaningful instruction around digital reading
and listening strategies can transfer to online test-
ing situations. Testing is tiring, and students tend
to lose focus as the test progresses. As a basic test-
taking strategy, educators can show students how

to use two tools, embedded highlighters and line
guides, to track text and focus their attention as
they work through a test.
However, training on how to use digital tools can
go deeper. As proposed earlier in this article, educa-
tors can instruct MLLs on how to strategically unpack
meaning as they navigate digital texts. In this sense,
accommodations and accessibility features are not
temporary crutches; rather, they function as power-
ful mediating tools that expand student opportuni-
ties to access and learn curricular concepts and skills.
A variety of options are now available to enhance
close reading of text in the digital environment. For
example, Garton (2013) showed a wide variety of
tools that can be used to annotate different types
of digital media using shared documents (Google
Documents); screen captures (the Diigo browser ex-
tension); highlighting, commenting, and freehand
drawing (PDF Zen); and digital video annotations
(Video Ant). When students need a break from tra-
ditional close reading instruction, these strategies
might be applied with digital microstories to reen-
gage student interest and concisely demonstrate
critical thinking (see Fisher, 2014).
Yet, more than print may be considered as text in
the digital environment. The additional modalities
available in the digital environment allow educators
to take advantage of an expanded definition of text
to include sound, visuals, and symbols (Kress, 2011).
For example, combined listening/reading activities
involving closed captioning of recorded video, links
to oral translators, and alternate text descriptions
can provide MLLs with multiple pathways for making

meaning as the class explores more complex texts.
Educators might complement strategic close
reading activities with listening skills. Both begin-
ning and established readers can benefit from inter-
active text deconstruction experiences that include
listening carefully to authentic sound samples to
help them slow down and focus on the text for par-
ticular purposes.
Using close reading, close listening, and visual
support strategies, MLLs with disabilities can also
receive more intensive support when processing
text. As shown in the case study in Figure 3, there
are both accommodation and accessibility strategies
for reducing visual processing demands. If combined
with effective close reading strategy instruction,
their use can allow MLLs with visual disabilities to
participate more fully in instruction and assessment.
In the end, just as learning an additional lan-
guage is more than learning a list of words and
phrases, the act of reading digital text is more
than tracking and processing words on the screen.
Students like Jose (see Figure 3) need authentic op-
portunities using accommodations and accessibility
features to explore text meaningfully.
Sample PD Activities
This section provides sample PD activities designed
to raise awareness of the different types of accom-
modations and accessibility features allowed with
online assessments. It also provides a window into
the challenges that may arise when transferring

Figure 3
Case Study of Print- Based Accommodation/
Accessibility Feature Assignment
Jose is a sixth- grade MLL who has an Individualized
Education Plan for dyslexia. It is important to ensure
that his assessment scores are more likely to reflect
his knowledge of the test construct, not his disability.
His school- based team developed an Individualized
Education Plan that included documentation of the two
types of accommodations and accessibility features that
Jose is allowed to use during testing: One type provides
read- aloud support (close listening), and the other type
allows adjustments to text.
1. Read-aloud accommodation support during
instruction and assessments: In his online
mathematics assessment, Jose is allowed to
use a text-to-speech reader. A slightly different
accommodation is available with his annual
summative English-language proficiency (ELP)
assessment, which is also online: a recorded human
voice as audio, which allows him to have the text on
the page read and repeated to him.
2. Accessibility features and accommodations that
might make online reading easier for students with
vision impairments: Students like Jose who have
print disabilities might benefit from accessibility
features to adjust font size or the color contrast of
the background. Additionally, some students with
print disabilities (as well as students with certain
physical disabilities) have difficulty with new online
item designs that compress the text layout on the
screen. Jose is assigned an accommodation that
provides vertical alignment of text on the screen
and adds extra spacing between lines of text.

437
FEATURE ARTICLE
close reading strategies and use of accessibility
features and accommodations from paper to digi-
tal texts, and models of how to meaningfully foster
deeper reading comprehension for MLLs.
The PD activities provided here might be inte-
grated with other PD focused on customizing in-
struction and assessment to better meet diverse
student needs and strengths, such as through UDL
or differentiated instruction. The following activi-
ties and the sample procedure assume that par-
ticipating educators have had previous exposure to
and experience with close reading strategies.
1. Before the PD session, ask educators to bring
a laptop or other device that has access to the
Internet. They will be using it to read a text
online.
2. Open the PD session by asking participants to
respond to the following questions in a K-W-L
chart. (This activity can take place as educa-
tors gather in the room for the session begins.)
Create two charts and ask participants to write
their responses on sticky notes and place them
on the charts at the front of the room.

■ K: What do you already know about accom-
modations available to MLLs?
■ W: What two questions do you have today
about accommodations for MLLs?
3. Provide an overview of the PD, including these
objectives: While attending this PD session,
educators will do the following:
■ Develop a clearer understanding of how
views of accommodations have shifted to-
ward accessibility
■ Build awareness of the importance of using
accommodations and embedded accessibil-
ity features during instruction, especially
with digital reading
■ Build awareness of resources for teaching
close reading to MLLs
4. Activity 1: How have testing accommodations
changed during the past decade?
■ Distribute print copies of this article and
ask educators to read it. (Jigsaw option:
Divide into three groups, with each group
reading one section of the article, discuss-
ing that section with their common group,
and then sharing it back so each new group
contains someone who read one of the
three assigned sections.)
■ Remind educators to annotate as they read,

using the directions shown in Figure 1.
(Option: The presenter might share with
participants the online resources created
by Hanify, 2012, or MrReevesELA, 2012.)
■ Debrief on the reading using the close read-
ing questions. Divide into small groups of
three or four to work together for approxi-
mately 15 minutes. (If doing a jigsaw, have
each group consist of members who each
read a different section.) Share the respons-
es you made using the four annotations.
■ Have small groups share their summary
thoughts with the whole group.
5. Activity 2: How might print reading be differ-
ent from online reading? How might you ef-
fectively use embedded accessibility features
when reading?
■ Have participants use their laptops or
other devices to read “Self-Regulation and
Technology: The Wave of the Future” (Tran
& Mandal, 2013).
■ As they read the article, have participants
use the accessibility features embedded in
their browser (i.e., Chrome, Microsoft Edge/
Internet Explorer, Safari, Firefox). Ask them
what accessibility features they might use
to do the following:
■ Scan through text
■ Search for specific answers
■ Identify and analyze keywords and

phrases
■ Refocus their attention when they be-
come distracted
■ Have participants discuss and reflect on the
following questions with an elbow partner:
■ What worked well for you as you trans-
ferred reading strategies from print to
online reading?
■ What types of explicit instruction might
students need to help them trans-
fer between paper and online reading
activities?
6. Activity 3: How might MLLs use particular
types of close reading strategies to support
engagement and meaning making?
■ Jigsaw: Divide into four groups, with each
group examining one of the following les-
sons from Teaching Tolerance (2014): “GIST,”
438
FEATURE ARTICLE
“Window or Mirrors,” “Reading Against the
Grain,” or “Agree/Disagree Statements.”

■ Have each group consider how their close
reading/listening lessons might support
students’ ability to position themselves in
relation to the story and their cultural and
linguistic histories. How might this type
of close reading/listening support MLL en-
gagement and access to meaning?
■ Form new groups so each new group con-
tains someone who read one of the four
assigned sections. Have each group share
highlights from their discussions.
■ Debrief the activity as a whole group.
7. Draw some final conclusions and complete
the K-W-L chart:
■ L: What did you learn today about instruc-
tional activities and strategies that best
prepare MLLs to use accommodations and
accessibility features during online testing?
Concluding Thoughts
Our main goals in this article were to help build edu-
cator awareness of the ways in which testing accom-
modations have evolved over the past 25 years and
the instructional and assessment benefits of inte-
grating them into instruction. Explicit instruction on
how to use accommodations and accessibility fea-
tures when reading and deconstructing text can be
a key part of ensuring that MLLs receive meaningful
practice opportunities with more complex text.
We encourage schools and districts to consider

integrating these tools in their PD with the goal of
providing MLLs and non- MLLs with long- lasting ac-
cess to online instruction and assessment. We sug-
gest that general educators should collaborate with
other school personnel, including English as a sec-
ond language educators, special educators, reading
specialists, and curriculum and assessment coordi-
nators, in taking some or all of the actions delineated
in the Take Action! sidebar to benefit MLL academic
achievement outcomes through improved teacher
professional practice and schoolwide strategy.
R E F E R E N C E S
Acosta, B., Rivera, C., & Shafer Willner, L. (2008). Best
practices
in state assessment policies for accommodating English
language
learners: A Delphi study. Arlington, VA: The George Washing-
ton University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational
and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
CAST. (2015). About universal design for learning. Retrieved
from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WW
O7IYTyuUk
Daniel, M., & Mokhtari, K. (Eds.). (2015). Research-based
instruc-
tion that makes a difference in English learners’ success. Lan-
ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–95 § 114
Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).
Fisher, M. (2014). Close reading relief: Re-engage students with
digital microstories. Little Switzerland, NC: MiddleWeb.
Retrieved from https://www.middleweb.com/14597/engage-
students-digital-microstories/
Garton, J. (2013, December 10). Digital annotation tools for
close
reading [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://fusionfinds.
wordpress.com/2013/12/10/digital-annotation-tools-for-close-
reading/
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learners.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hanify, T.J. (2012). Thinking notes: A strategy to encourage
close reading
[Video]. Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/
videos/student-annotated-reading-strategy
Klingner, J., & Artiles, A.J. (2006). English language learners
struggling to learn to read: Emergent scholarship on
linguistic differences and learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 386–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00222194060390050101
TAKE ACTION!
As a classroom educator interested in preparing
MLLs to meaningfully participate in district and state
assessment, consider taking the following actions:
1. Expand your working knowledge of new and evolving
changes in online test accommodations for your stu-

dents by searching online, reading supporting docu-
ments cited in this article, and using other resources
provided (including those in the More to Explore
sidebar).
2. Initiate a monthly teacher study group to discuss new
and emerging advances in tools and strategies to help
students more easily access complex language, texts,
and discourse structures in digital texts.
3. Develop a plan or strategy for addressing how you
individually, and your school in general, are preparing
MLLs to meaningfully participate in district and state
assessments.
4. Find out whether your school or district can offer
PD activities aimed at customizing instruction and
assessment to better meet diverse student strengths
and needs.
5. Document the degree to which your participation
in PD activities results in an enhancement of your
instructional practices and your students’ academic
achievement outcomes.
http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WWO7IYTyuUk
http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.WWO7IYTyuUk
https://www.middleweb.com/14597/engage-students-digital-
microstories/
https://www.middleweb.com/14597/engage-students-digital-
microstories/
https://fusionfinds.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/digital-
annotation-tools-for-close-reading/

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/student-annotated-
reading-strategy
https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/student-annotated-
reading-strategy
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050101
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050101
439
FEATURE ARTICLE
Kopriva, R.J., Emick, J.E., Hipolito-Delgado, C.P., & Cameron,
C.A. (2007). Do proper accommodation assignments make
a difference? Examining the impact of improved decision
making on scores for English language learners. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 11–20. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00097.x
Kress, G. (2011). Discourse analysis and education: A
multimodal social semiotic approach. In R. Rogers (Ed.),
An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp.
205–226). New York, NY: Routledge.
LaRusso, M., Kim, H.Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T.,
Jones, S., … Snow, C. (2016). Contributions of academic
language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning
to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 9(2), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.10
80/19345747.2015.1116035
Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2010).

Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the
Internet and other information and communication
technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
May, S. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction,
and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual
turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education
(pp.
7–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D.H. (2005). The future is in the margins:
The role of technology and disability in educational reform.
In D.H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally
designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital
technologies
(pp. 13–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Mokhtari, K. (Ed.). (2016). Improving reading comprehension
through metacognitive reading instruction for first and second
language readers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2005). Funds of
knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to
connect homes and classrooms. In N. González, L.C. Moll,
& C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices
in
households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 71–88). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
MrReevesELA. (2012). Thinking notes [Video]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAwjxIDC-DY
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2011). Don’t forget
accommodations! Five questions to ask when moving to

technology-
based assessments (NCEO Brief No. 1). Minneapolis: National
Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
Retrieved from https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/
view/386
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN:
New
Riders.
Rose, D., & Martin, J.R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to
learn:
Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School.
Sheffield,
UK: Equinox.
Rothery, J. (1994). Exploring literacy in school English.
Erskineville,
Australia: Disadvantaged Schools Program, Metropolitan
East Region, NSW Department of School Education.
Russell, M., Hoffman, T., & Higgins, J. (2009). Meeting the
needs
of all students: A universal design approach to computer-
based testing. Innovate, 5(4), 1–8.
Russell, M., & Kavanaugh, M. (2011). Assessing students in the
margins: Challenges, strategies, and techniques. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Shafer Willner, L., Lundgren, C., Monroe, M., & Cortada, J.
(2017, March). Providing ELLs with disabilities with access
to complex language. WIDA Focus Bulletin. Retrieved from
https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2101
Shafer Willner, L., & Monroe, M. (2016a). The WIDA

accessibility
and accommodations framework: Considerations influencing the
framework’s development. Madison, WI: WIDA.
Shafer Willner, L., & Monroe, M. (2016b). Using a “can do” ap-
proach to ensure differentiated instruction intentionally
supports
the needs of language learners. Washington, DC: Colorín Colo-
rado.
Shafer Willner, L., & Rivera, C. (2011). Are EL needs being
defined appropriately for the next generation of computer-
based tests? AccELLerate!, 3(2), 12–15.
Shafer Willner, L., & Rivera, C. (2014, April). Trends in state
English
language learner test accommodations guidelines: 2000–01 to
2011–
12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. (2008). Descriptive
analysis of state 2006–2007 content area accommodations
policies
for English language learners. Arlington, VA: The George
Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in
Education.
Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B.D. (2009). Ensuring
accommodations used in content assessments are respon-
sive to English language learners. The Reading Teacher, 62(8),
696–698. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.8.8
Teaching Tolerance. (2014). Close and critical reading. Mont-
gomery, AL: Southern Policy Law Center. Retrieved from
https://www.tolerance.org/classroom-resources/teaching-

strategies/close-and-critical-reading
Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C.
(2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment
and accountability systems (NCEO Synthesis Report 40).
Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes,
University of Minnesota.
Tran, J., & Mandal, T. (2013). Self-regulation and technology:
The
wave of the future. Toronto, ON, Canada: Inclusion Design
Research Centre. Retrieved from https://www.snow.idrc.
ocad.ca/node/255
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). LEP Partnership.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-
partnership/index.html
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Fillmore, C. (2012). What does text
complexity mean for English learners and language minority
students? Stanford, CA: Understanding Language Initiative,
Stanford University School of Education.
MORE TO EXPLORE
■ Cleaver, S. (2014). Strategies for close reading. Shelton,
CT: We Are Educators. Retrieved from https://www.
weareteachers.com/strategies-for-close-reading/ (This
teacher-friendly website has various free resources to
support student learning, including a list of 11 expert
tips to strengthen students’ close reading skills.)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00097.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00097.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035
https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAwjxIDC-DY
https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/view/386
https://ici.umn.edu/index.php?products/view/386
https://www.wida.us/get.aspx?id=2101
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.8.8
https://www.snow.idrc.ocad.ca/node/255
https://www.snow.idrc.ocad.ca/node/255
https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-partnership/index.html
https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/lep-partnership/index.html
https://www.weareteachers.com/strategies-for-close-reading/
https://www.weareteachers.com/strategies-for-close-reading/
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 2018,
37(2), 1-12.
doi: 10.14434/pders.v37i2.24881
© Division for Physical, Health and Multiple Disabilities
PDERS
ISSN: 2372-451X
http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/pders/index
Article
STRATEGIES TO INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH

SEVERE/MULTIPLE
DISABILITIES WITHIN THE GENERAL EDUCATION
CLASSROOM
Wendy Rogers
Kutztown University
Nicole Johnson
Kutztown University
_____________________________________________________
_________________________
Abstact: Federal legislation such as IDEA (1997) and NCLB
(2001) have led to
an increase in the number of students with significant
disabilities receiving
instruction in the general education classroom. This
inclusionary movement has
established a more diverse student population in which general
and special
education teachers are responsible for providing instruction that
meets the needs
of all their students. Although most research focuses on
effective inclusionary

practices for students with high incidence disabilities (e.g.,
learning disabilities),
literature has revealed a dramatic increase in the number of
students with
severe/multiple disabilities receiving support in general
education settings.
Therefore, it is imperative that educators acquire the effective
inclusive practices
necessary to meet the unique needs of students with
severe/multiple disabilities. A
review of literature was conducted to determine effective ways
to include and
support students with severe/multiple disabilities within the
general education
classroom.
Keywords: inclusion; severe disabilities; multiple disabilities
http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/pders/index
Rogers and Johnson 2
Introduction

The National Center for Educational Statistics (2016) found that
there were 132,000 children
with multiple disabilities between the ages 3 and 21 being
served in federally supported
educational programs in the 2013-2014 school year. Individuals
with multiple disabilities, which
refers to persons with concomitant impairments (e.g.,
intellectual disability and blindness,
intellectual disability and orthopedic impairment), usually need
support in major life activities
that include domestic, leisure, community access, and
vocational programming. Often these
students receive educational services in separate special
education classrooms and do not have
the opportunity to be fully and effectively included with their
nondisabled peers. However, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and
No Child Left Behind (NCLB,
2002) have led to an increase of students with severe/multiple
disabilities receiving instruction in
general education settings.
The provisions of NCLB (2002) created another push towards

inclusion by requiring high-
quality state standards and assessments (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). The NCLB
specifically emphasized teacher accountability and high student
achievement (Birman, Desimone,
Porter, & Garet, 2000) based on the performance of all students
on state standardized testing on
the general education curriculum. Additionally, NCLB
mandated the following: (1) students with
disabilities must be included in state assessments, and (2)
assessment scores for all students must
be calculated in the school district’s annual yearly progress
(Code of Federal Regulations, 2006).
The accountability mandates of IDEA (2004) and NCLB have
led to a focus on inclusive
education to ensure that all students are receiving instruction in
the general education curriculum
(Harvey, Yssel, Bauserman, & Merbler, 2010).
Including students with disabilities in the general education
classroom has been a goal of
education reformists for numerous years. IDEA (2004) and
NCLB (2002) emphasized that
students with disabilities should have access to and demonstrate

academic progress in the general
education curriculum. To meet the requirements under IDEA
and NCLB, educators must be
prepared to meet the needs of students with varying abilities in
an inclusionary classroom
environment. However, the central focus of previous traditional
teacher preparation in special
education has been on planning instruction and making
instructional adaptations for students
with disabilities in non-inclusionary environments. Yet, it is
only recently that the focus of these
procedures has been the inclusive classroom (Cook, Cameron, &
Tankersley, 2007). High quality
state standards and assessment, in concert with “highly
qualified” teacher requirements, have
transformed teacher education programs. Nationwide,
prospective special education teachers are
required to obtain certification in special education and
certification in the content area they will
be instructing.
IDEA (2004), in alignment with NCLB (2002), calls for highly
qualified teachers for students in
the K-12 school system. This term describes specific standards

set for all teachers and includes
gaining “full state certification as a teacher” and successful
completion of a “state teacher
licensing examination.” Hence, local educational agencies are
required to ensure that all teachers
are highly qualified in the content areas in which they teach and
that students with disabilities be
taught by highly qualified special education teachers (Code of
Federal Regulations, 2006). These
federal requirements have impacted teacher licensure and
certification testing.
Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 37(2), 1-
12 3
History of Inclusion
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (U.S. Bureau of
Education), which was later reauthorized to IDEA (1990),
establishing a federal mandate that all
students with disabilities would receive a free and appropriate
public education in the least
restrictive environment (LRE). One purpose of IDEA was to

include students with disabilities
into the educational system who had previously been excluded
(National Council on Disability,
1994). According to the Code of Federal Regulations (2006),
LRE focuses on including students
with disabilities in a general education setting “to the maximum
extent appropriate and to ensure
that children with disabilities…are educated with children who
are nondisabled” (34 CFR
300.114). The U.S. Department of Education stated IDEA
presumes that the first placement
option considered for each child with a disability is the regular
classroom in the school that the
child would attend if not disabled, with appropriate
supplementary aids and services to facilitate
such placement (Code of Federal Regulations, 2006). Thus,
before a child with a disability can
be placed outside the regular education environment, the
individualized education program (IEP)
team must consider the full range of supplementary aids and
services that could be provided to
facilitate the child’s placement in the regular classroom setting.
Inclusion in Public Education

IDEA (2004) and NCLB (2002) focused on providing students
with disabilities access to the
general education curriculum in a LRE. In accordance with
LRE, students with disabilities need
to be educated with non-disabled peers and placements outside
the general education classroom
should only be considered when supplemental aids and related
services do not provide an
appropriate education in a general education classroom.
These federal laws have resulted in a higher percentage of
students with disabilities receiving
their instruction in a general education classroom. Although
most of the research on inclusion
has focused on students with high incidence disabilities,
literature has revealed a dramatic
increase of students with severe/multiple disabilities receiving
support in general education
settings (Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 2000).
Not only have these federal laws increased the number of
students with low incidence disabilities
in inclusive settings, research also indicates multiple social and

academic benefits from inclusion.
The social benefits for students with severe/multiple disabilities
include social acceptance,
increased self-esteem, and improved social skills (Kliewer &
Biklen, 2001; Mu, Siegel, &
Allinder, 2000). A two-year longitudinal study compared the
growth of social competence of 40
students with multiple disabilities (Fisher & Meyer, 2002). Half
the students received instruction
in an inclusive environment and the other half were instructed
in a self-contained classroom.
After a two-year period, students receiving services in a general
education setting scored
significantly higher on the Assessment of Social Competence.
In addition to gains in the social and emotional domains,
students with severe disabilities have
also improved academically. Falvey (2004) stated, “As a result
of a comprehensive review of the
extant literature by myself and my colleagues, we were unable
to identify even a single research
article that found that segregated service delivery models are
more effective than integrated

models for students with severe disabilities” (p. 10). Research
has also indicated that elementary
students improved by 31.7% in mathematics and middle school
students academically increased
in mathematics by 12.5% and increased in reading by 13.8%
(Teigland, 2009).
This inclusionary movement has established a more diverse
student population in today’s
classrooms. General educators and special education teachers
are responsible for providing an
education that meets the needs of all their students. Therefore,
educators need to acquire the
knowledge and skills necessary to meet the ever-changing
classroom population (Jenkins &
Ornelles, 2007).
Instructional Practices
A meaningful and accessible inclusive education for students
with severe/multiple disabilities
consists of appropriate accommodations and/or modifications

that allow students to gain access
to the general education curriculum (Agran, Brown, Hughs,
Quirk, & Ryndak, 2014). Browder
and Spooner (2011) defined general curriculum access as
providing grade-aligned academic
instruction for students with disabilities. To establish
curriculum accessibility, The National
Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI)
identified six effective instructional
practices in inclusive classrooms: multi-level instruction,
cooperative learning, activity-based
learning, mastery learning, technology, and peer support.
Proponents of effective instructional
strategies address similar practices as those identified by
NCERI but also note differing
evidence-based practices in inclusionary settings. A strategic
principle, known as Universal
Design for Learning (for more information visit CAST at
http://www.cast.org/), has been
adopted in many inclusionary classrooms since it addresses the
core principles of NCLB (2002)
and NCERI.
The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are

anchored in the following evidence-
based practices: explicit instruction, differentiated instruction,
peer mediated instruction,
curriculum-based evaluation, and assistive technology (CAST).
UDL is founded on the premise
that effective instructional practices are built-in and proactive
to accommodate the widest range
of all learners, including students with severe/multiple
disabilities (Scott, McGuire, & Embry,
2002; Scott, McGuire, & Foley, 2003). Additionally, UDL is
used to develop and implement
assistive technology and instructional accommodations and
modifications to support curricular
accessibility, align student’s IEP goals with the core
curriculum, and support student progress
(Janney & Snell, 2006; Wehmeyer, 2006).
Evidence-Based Practices
A systematic review of literature was conducted to determine
the most effective ways to include
students with severe/multiple disabilities within the general
education classroom. An electronic
database search was conducted utilizing EBSCO Host to

determine evidence-based practices for
inclusion of students with severe/multiple disabilities.
Although, there is a lack of research with
this unique population, certain themes to effectively include
these students emerged. These
themes included the proper use of augmentative and alternative
communication devices, use of
micro-switches, embedded instruction, wait time, and utilizing
appropriate specialized
12 5
instruction during inclusion. Using these evidence based
practices can help children with
severe/multiple disabilities to be meaningfully included within
the general education classroom.
Use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)
Devices
Communication skills are affected by sensory, motor, cognitive,
and social capacities; and
impairments in any of these developmental skill areas may
interfere with communication

development and socialization within the classroom (Rowland,
2011). Learners with
severe/multiple disabilities demonstrate various abilities, but
they share the need for extensive
and ongoing supports to participate in home, school, and
community activities (Siegel-Causey &
Bashinski, 1997).
The term AAC refers to the compilation of methods and
technologies designed to supplement
spoken communication for people with limited spoken speech
skills (Wilkinson & Hennig, 2007).
AAC instruction is naturally embedded within the child’s daily
routines, which increases the
likelihood that students acquire and generalize communication
skills (Hourcade, Pilotte, West, &
Parette, 2004). AAC is not just an output channel, but is utilized
as the medium for both
expressive and receptive communication (Romski & Sevcik,
1996). Studies have shown AAC
devices to be a success in inclusive settings and include the
importance of team strategies to
reinforce the use of AAC devices throughout daily routines
(Hunt, Soto, Maier, Liboiron, & Bae,

2004; Stoner, Beck, Bock, Hickey, Kosuwan, & Thompson,
2006). Chung and Carter (2013)
found AAC devices to be most beneficial during inclusionary
practices when the
paraprofessional working with the child is trained on the device
in order to encourage device use
in interactions with their peers.
Chung, Carter, and Sisco (2012) reviewed literature on
promoting relationships for students with
severe disabilities and of the 31 studies reviewed it was found
that students increased positive
interactions in various inclusive settings when people within
their environment were trained on
the communication devices. When AAC devices are utilized
using teaming and trained
professionals, social interactions within the classroom can be
increased and students with
severe/multiple disabilities can be an active participant within
classroom routines for both
academics and social interactions.
Use of Micro-Switches

Micro-switch interventions have been found useful when
working with students with disabilities.
Micro-switches are technical devices that people with multiple
disabilities might use to control
environmental events with simple responses (Crawford &
Schuster, 1993; Lancioni, O’Reilly,
Oliva, Singh, & Coppa, 2002; Mechling, 2006). Micro-switch
interventions have been used for
tasks such as choice making and meaningful communication
between the student and people in
his or her environment. Lancioni and colleagues (2016) found
that micro-switches could be
effectively utilized with students that have minimal responses
such as movement of eyelids. It
was found that micro-switches could be adapted to help these
students reach relevant goals and
be included within various environments. Micro-switches can
give students with severe/multiple
disabilities the opportunity to be constructively engaged within
the general education classroom
by using simple responses in social situations as well as
academic tasks.

Embedded Instruction
Embedded instruction can be utilized to support students with
moderate to severe disabilities in
general education classes. In embedded instruction, students are
taught skills within the ongoing
routines of the general education classroom (Risen, McDonnell,
Johnson, Polychronis, &
Jameson, 2003) which does not cause disruption to the natural
flow of the class. During
embedded instruction, the classroom teacher systematically
controls the presentation of
instructional examples and implements instructional procedures
designed to support the student’s
acquisition of the target skill (McDonnell, Johnson,
Polychronis, & Risen, 2002). This
instruction can support the student’s goals in the IEP by
focusing on target skills throughout
daily lessons.
Students with severe/multiple disabilities often need several
learning trials embedded within an
activity to ensure learning and progress within the activity.

Embedded instruction allows for
multiple trials of the skill throughout natural routines rather
than all at once within the context of
the subject. Paraprofessionals are often able to build in
embedded instruction procedures during
general education classes without disruption to the class when
properly trained. Shepis and
colleagues (2001) found that improvements to the quality of
instruction provided by support staff
paralleled an increase in students’ performance. Training
support staff can occur through
modeling and should be done immediately to aid in proper
inclusionary practices. When
embedded instruction is utilized in general education
classrooms for students with
severe/multiple disabilities, it can accommodate their unique
learning needs and the
characteristics of instructional targets (McDonnell et al., 2006).
Wait Time
It often takes individuals with severe/multiple disabilities
longer to interpret what is being asked
of them and they need more time to respond (Johnson & Parker,

2013). Wait time is defined as
the duration between the teacher’s instruction and the student’s
response (Tincani & Crozier,
2008) and is found to be an intervention that has very strong
evidence of its effectiveness
(Browder, Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009; Johnson &
Parker, 2013). Wait time was first
established as an instructional practice in 1972 when studies
found that the average wait time
following a question before prompting in a classroom rarely
exceeded 1.5 seconds (Rudd, 2001).
Students with severe/multiple disabilities often have physical or
communication difficulties
making it impossible to respond this quickly to requests.
The procedure of wait time can be utilized to guarantee that
students have time to process what is
being asked, formulate a response, and execute a response prior
to being prompted (Johnson &
Parker, 2013). Prompting too soon does not allow time for
students to process what is being
asked and therefore, can lead to learned helplessness. Wait time
procedures are often utilized
when working with students with severe/multiple disabilities

because it is minimally intrusive.
Teachers and paraprofessionals can be easily trained on wait
time procedures to aid in inclusion
of students with severe/multiple disabilities. Watson (2018)
identified wait time as being a key
practice for full inclusion of students with disabilities. Utilizing
wait time while using picture
response cards was found to be successful in increasing student
accuracy for students with
intellectual disabilities (Clarke, Haydon, Bauer, & Epperly,
2015). Wait time procedures can be
12 7
utilized in teaching students of various ages with various
disabilities (Daugherty, Grisham-
Brown, & Hemmeter, 2001).
Specialized Designed Instruction
Utilizing appropriate accommodations and modifications can aid
students with severe/multiple
disabilities access to the general curriculum at grade

appropriate levels alongside their peers. The
most effective adaptations in the general classroom are using
prior knowledge to develop new
skills, adjusting content to make instruction concrete and
relevant to the student’s life (Jenkinson,
2000), and identifying the students preferred learning style
(Udvari-Solner & Thousand, 1997).
Modifications can be made throughout the classroom routines to
ensure students are fully
engaged. Some examples are modifying technology to ensure
accessibility; students with
multiple disabilities could use the same materials as the rest of
the class but complete only a
proportion of learning tasks or exercises (Jenkinson, 2000).
Use of specialized curriculum may be necessary for students
with severe disabilities to be fully
included in the general education classroom. It is imperative for
educational teams to work
together to develop a meaningful and individualized curriculum
for each child to meet their
unique needs (Horn, Lieber, Sandall, Schwartz, & Worley,
2002). Once a specialized curriculum
is developed there should still be flexibility and the ability to

adapt based on the student’s day to
day medical, educational, and social needs (Vrasmas, 2014).
Utilizing the right adaptations,
modifications, and curriculum can greatly benefit students with
severe/multiple disabilities
within the general education classroom.
Conclusion
Federal legislation (i.e., IDEA and NCLB) has led to
contemporary educational practices for
students with severe/multiple disabilities (Olson, Leko &
Roberts, 2016). In 1997, IDEA defined
the general education curriculum as “the same curriculum for
nondisabled children.” IDEA
revisions in 2004 specified that all students, regardless of their
abilities, have access to grade-
level content, participate in state assessments, and have
individualized education programs
identifying how students will participate and progress in their
grade-level curriculum.
Current studies regarding evidence-based inclusive practices for
students with severe disabilities

are emerging. Findings in the literature demonstrate that
students with severe/multiple
disabilities have access to a meaningful and appropriate
inclusive education through IEP-
specified accommodations and modifications incorporated
through a UDL environment.
Utilizing the above practices and materials can aid children with
severe/multiple disabilities to be
meaningfully included with their typically developing peers
within the general education
classroom. These inclusionary practices can potentially give
students with severe disabilities the
ability to build relationships that extend beyond the classroom
and into the community.
References
Agran, M., Brown, F., Hughs, C., Quirk, C., & Ryndak, D.
(2014). Equity and full participation
for individuals with severe disabilities: A vision for the future.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H.

Brookes.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S.
(2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57, 28-33.
Browder, D. M. & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching students with
moderate and severe disabilities.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Browder, D., Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P., & Baker, J.
(2009). Using time delay to teach
literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 75, 343.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500305
Code of Federal Regulations. (2006). 34 CFR Parts 300 and
301: Assistance to states for the
education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for
children with disabilities:
Final rule. Retrieved from
http://idea.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007).

Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of
their students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education,
40(4), 230-238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040401
Chung, Y., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions
in inclusive classrooms for
students who use speech-generating devices. Research and
Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 38, 94-109.
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492
Chung, Y., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). Social
interaction of students with severe
disabilities who use augmentative and alternative
communication in inclusive classrooms.
American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 117, 349-367.
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
Clarke, L. S., Haydon, T., Bauer, A., & Epperly, A. (2015).
Inclusion of students with
intellectual disabilities in the general education classroom with
the use of response cards.

Preventing School Failure. 60(1) 1-8.
Crawford, M. R., & Schuster, J. W. (1993). Using
microswitches to teach toy use. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 5, 349-368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046391
Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, L. (2001). The
effects of embedded skill
instruction on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in
preschoolers with
developmental delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 21, 213-221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140102100402
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500305
http://idea.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040401
https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807714492
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-117.5.349
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01046391
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140102100402
12 9

Falvey, M. (2004). Towards realizing the influence of the least
restrictive environments for
severely disabled students. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities,
29(1), 9-10. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.29.1.9
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social
competence after two years for
students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational
programs. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 27(3), 165-174.
Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (2006). Modifying schoolwork in
inclusive classrooms. Theory
Into Practice, 45(3), 215-223.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3
Harvey, M. W., Yssel, N., Bauserman, A. D., & Merbler, J. B.
(2010). Pre-service teacher
preparation for inclusion: An exploration of higher education
teacher-training institutions.
Remedial and Special Education, 23(1), 24-33.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324397

Horn E., Lieber J., Sandall S., Schwartz I., & Worley R. (2002).
Supporting young children’s
IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning
opportunities. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 20, 208–223.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000402
Hourcade, J., Pilotte, T. E., West, E., & Parette, P. (2004). A
history of augmentative and
alternative communication for individuals with severe and
profound disabilities. Focus
on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 235-244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190040501
Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Liboiron, N., & Bae S. (2004).
Collaborative teaming to support
preschoolers with severe disabilities who are placed in general
education early childhood
programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24,
123-142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214040240030101
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400

(2004)
Jenkins, A., & Ornelles, C. (2007). Pre-service teachers’
confidence in teaching students with
disabilities: Addressing the INTASC principles. Electronic
Journal for Inclusive
Education, 2(2).
Jenkinson, J. (2000). All students belong: Inclusive education
for students with severe learning
disabilities. Tizard Learning Disability Review, 5(4), 4-13.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13595474200000032
Johnson, N., & Parker, A. T. (2013). Effects of wait time when
communicating with children
who have sensory and additional disabilities. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness,
107, 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.29.1.9
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_3
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508324397
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140002000402
https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576040190040501
https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214040240030101

https://doi.org/10.1108/13595474200000032
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School’s 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.
Lancioni, G. E., Singh, N. N., O’Reilly, M. F., Sigafoos, J.,
Campodonico, F., Oliva, D., Alberti,
G., & D’amico, F. (2016). Using microswitch-aided programs
for people with multiple
disabilities to promote stimulation control and mild physical
exercise, Journal of
Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 43(2), 242-250.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1253831
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Oliva, D., Singh, N., & Coppa,
M. (2002). Multiple
microswitches for multiple responses with children with
profound disabilities. Cognitive

Behavior Therapy, 31, 81-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070252959517
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Polychronis, S., Risen, T., Jameson,
M., Johnson, J., & Kercher, K.
(2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in
general education classes
with small group instruction in special education classes.
Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125-138.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T.
(2002). Effects of embedded
instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in
general education classes.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363-
377.
Mechling, L. C. (2006). Comparison of the effects of three
approaches on the frequency of
stimulus activations, via a single switch, by students with
profound intellectual
disabilities. Journal of Special education, 40, 94-102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020501

Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R .M. (2000). Peer
interactions and sociometric status of high
school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general
education classrooms.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
25(3), 142-152.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Children and
youth with disabilities.
Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Council on Disability. (1994). Inclusionary practices
for students with disabilities:
Keeping our promise. Retrieved from
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/1994/Dec1994.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §
6319 (2002).
Olson, A., Leko, M. M., & Roberts, C. A. (2016). Providing
students with severe disabilities
access to the general education curriculum. Research & Practice
for Persons with Severe

Disabilities, 41(3), 143-157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916651975
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1253831
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070252959517
https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020501
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/1994/Dec1994
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916651975
12 11
Risen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., &
Jameson, J. W. (2003). A
comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting
within embedded
instruction in general education classes with students with
moderate to severe disabilities.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 241-259.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026076406656
Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech
barrier: Language development

through augmented means. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
Rowland, C. (2011). Using the communication matrix to assess
expressive skills in early
communicators. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32, 190-
201.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740110394651
Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (2000). Inclusion and school
restructuring. In M. E. Snell, &
F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities
(5th ed.), 31–66. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Ownbey, J., & Parson, M. B.
(2001). Training support staff to
embed teaching within natural routines of young children with
disabilities in an inclusive
preschool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-313
Siegel-Causey, E., & Bashinski, S. (1997). Enhancing initial
communication and responsiveness
of learners with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and

Other Developmental
Disabilities, 12, 105-120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769701200206
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Embry, P. (2002). Universal
design for instruction fact sheet.
Storrs: University of Connecticut, Center on Postsecondary
Education and Disability.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Foley, T. E. (2003). Universal
design for instruction: A
framework for anticipating and responding to disability and
other diverse learning needs
in the college classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education,
36, 40-49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680303502
Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Bock, S. J., Hickey, K., Kosuwan,
K., & Thompson, J. R. (2006). The
effectiveness of the picture exchange communication system
with nonspeaking adults.
Remedial and Special Education, 27, 154-165.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030401

Teigland, C. (2009). What inclusive education means for overall
student achievement. The
Connections of Association of Person with Severe Handicaps,
35(3), 12-14.
Tincani, M., & Crozier, S. (2008). Comparing brief and
extended wait-time during small group
instruction for children with challenging behavior. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 17,
79-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9063-4
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026076406656
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740110394651
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-313
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769701200206
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680303502
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030401
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9063-4
Udvari-Solner, A. & Thousand, J. (1997). Effective
organisational, instructional and curricular
practices in inclusive schools and classrooms (pp. 147-163). In
C. Clark, A. Dyson & A.
Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools. London: David

Fulton.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). No Child Left Behind
legislation and policies. Retrieved
from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb.
United States. Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. State
Program Implementation Studies
Branch. Progress toward a free appropriate public education: a
report to Congress on
the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for all
handicapped children
act. [Washington]: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and
Welfare, [Education Division],
U.S. Office of Education.
Vrasmas, T. (2014). Curriculum for children with disabilities in
inclusive education: A literature
review. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 336-341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.267
Watson, S. (2018, June 4). Accommodations, modifications and
interventions in the classroom.

Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/accommodations-
modifications-and-
interventions-3111346
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in
the general education curriculum
for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31, 322–326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100405
Wilkinson, M., & Hennig, S. (2007). Augmentative and
alternative communication for children
with developmental/intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation
and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 58-69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20133
Authors’ note: Address correspondence concerning this article
to Wendy Rogers at
[email protected]
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html#nclb
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.267
https://www.thoughtco.com/accommodations-modifications-
and-interventions-3111346

https://www.thoughtco.com/accommodations-modifications-
and-interventions-3111346
https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100405
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1253831
https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1253831
https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20133
Improve Your Verbal Questioning
KENNETH E. VOGLER
M ost teachers are well aware that verbal question-ing can aid
student learning. Asking questions
can stimulate students to think about the content being
studied (Carlson 1997; Good and Brophy 2000;
Graesser and Person 1994; Wilen 2004; Wilen 2001),
connect it to prior knowledge (Good and Brophy 2000;
Graesser and Person 1994; Wilen 2001), consider its
meanings and implications (Carlson 1997; Good and
Brophy 2000; Graesser and Person 1994; Seymour and
Osana 2003; Wilen 2004), and explore its applications
(Carlson 1997; Good and Brophy 2000; Graesser and
Person 1994; Wilen 2001). Researchers have found that
teachers ask about 300-400 questions per day (Levin
and Long 1981), and depending on the type of lesson,
as many as 120 questions per hour (Carlson 1991; Carl-
son 1997; Graesser and Person 1994). With teachers
asking this many questions, it is essential that they be
skilled in using verbal questioning. Unfortunately,
research on teachers' use of verbal questioning has
shown that this skill is typically less effective than it
could be (Anderson and Burns 1989; Dantonio 1990;
Graesser and Person 1994; Seymour and Osana 2003).

A common problem with many teachers' use of ver-
bal questioning is a lack of knowledge about ques-
tioning taxonomies and sequencing, knowledge essen-
tial for productive verbal questioning (Barnes 1979;
Good and Brophy 2000; Lucking 1978; Pollack 1988;
Rice 1977; Wilen 2001). Without an understanding of
the different cognitive levels of questions, teachers
could quite possibly be asking questions at only one
or two cognitive levels, probably asking low cognitive
level questions that require students to merely recall
knowledge or information, rather than asking high
cognitive level questions that require students to per-
form higher order thinking (see Martin 1979; Redfield
and Rousseau 1981; Wilen and Clegg 1986; Wilen
2001; Wimer et al. 2001). Without an understanding
of the sequence to ask questions, delivery techniques
such as the use of wait time, prompting, probing, and
refocusing become less effective. And if the questions
are poorly worded or the sequence is haphazard, even
skillfully used delivery techniques will not prevent stu-
dent confusion and frustration (Good and Brophy
2000). This article will begin by comparing different
question taxonomies, recognizing the importance of
knowing the right question to ask and when to ask it,
as well as understanding that verbal questioning is a
skill that must be practiced before it can be effectively
used. Next, it will review relevant research on question
sequencing and patterns. Finally, it will present an
activity using colleague classroom observations to
improve teachers' verbal question sequencing.
Question Taxonomies
Taxonomies are human constructs used to classify
questions based on the intellectual behavior or mental

activity needed to formulate an answer (Morgan and
Schreiber 1969). They are very similar to a continuum.
Questions that may have only one "correct" answer and
require only minimal mental activity are at one end of the
continuum. More complex questions requiring greater
mental activity are at the other end of the continuum.
Arguably, the most well-known question taxonomy
was created by Benjamin Bloom and his associates-
known formally as Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive
Domain, or more commonly, Bloom's Taxonomy.
Bloom's Taxonomy is comprised of six levels of intel-
lectual behavior (Bloom 1956).
1. Knowledge. The knowledge level is the lowest level.
At this level, students are only asked to recall informa-
tion.
Kenneth E. Vogler is an assistant professor in the Department of
Instruction and
Teacher Education at the University of South Carolina.
98
I
99Verbal Questioning
2. Comprehension. At the comprehension level, stu-
dents are asked only to put information in another
form.
3. Application. At this level, students are asked to
apply known facts, principles, and/or generalizations to

solve a problem.
4. Analysis. A question at the analysis level asks stu-
dents to identify and comprehend elements of a
process, communication, or series of events.
5. Synthesis. At this level, students are asked to engage
in original creative thinking.
6. Evaluation. This is the highest questioning level.
Students are asked to determine how closely a concept
or idea is consistent with standards or values.
Bloom's Taxonomy is just one of a number of ques-
tioning taxonomies. Table 1 compares Bloom's Taxon-
omy with the questioning taxonomies of Krathwohl
(2002) and Gallagher and Ascher (1963).
As shown in table 1, Krathwohl's Taxonomy, some-
times referred to as "the revised Bloom's Taxonomy"
or simply "the revised Taxonomy" (see Airasian and
Miranda 2002; Byrd 2002; Krathwohl 2002), uses the
same number of categories as Bloom's Taxonomy, but
there are some differences. Knowledge, the first cate-
gory in Bloom's Taxonomy, was renamed Remember,
and Comprehension was renamed Understand. These
category changes do not reflect a difference in the cog-
nitive level of the questions between the two tax-
onomies, but in their description. The terms "Remem-
ber" and "Understand" were chosen because they are
commonly used by teachers to describe their work
(Krathwohl 2002). For example, a question from the
Remember category would be, "What is a noun?" An

example of a question from the Understand category
is, "What is another way of stating the results of your
experiment?" Of the remaining categories, Applica-
tion, Analysis, and Evaluation were changed to Apply,
Analyze, and Evaluate. And finally, Synthesis switched
places with Evaluation and was renamed Create.
Gallagher and Ascher (1963) use memory, and three
different types of thinking, to describe the question lev-
els in their taxonomy. The lowest question level is Cog-
nitive-Memory. A Cognitive-Memory question only
requires simple processes such as recognition, rote
memoryý and selective recall. For example, "What do
you call the angle of elevation of a roof?" Convergent
Thinking is the next level, and is a combination of
Bloom's Application and Analysis levels. It is convergent
because there is only one expected answer, but it
requires an analysis and integration of given or remem-
bered data. An example from this category would be,
"How would you sum up in one sentence why the main
character decided to leave home?" Divergent Thinking,
the next level in this taxonomy, requires using indepen-
dently generated data or a new direction or perspective
on a given topic. For example, "Suppose the United
States had won the Vietnam War. What impact would
that have on foreign policy in Southeast Asia?" Evalua-
tive Thinking is the highest level in this taxonomy. This
level requires dealing with matters of judgment, value,
and choice. An example from this category would be,
"Should an applicant's race be a factor in college admis-

sions decisions? Explain."
Question Sequencing and Patterns
Being a skillful questioner requires not only an
understanding of the cognitive levels of individual
questions, but also an understanding of question
sequencing and patterns (Barnes 1979; Good and Bro-
phy 2000). Question sequencing is a series of questions
designed so that each question builds on the answer to
the previous one (Wragg and Brown 2001). Wragg and
Brown analyzed more than a thousand questions asked
by teachers during classroom discussions. They found
that 53 percent of questions stood alone and 47 per-
cent were part of a sequence of two or more questions.
But of the questions that were part of a sequence, only
10 percent were part of a sequence of more than four
questions (Wragg and Brown 2001).
Researchers have noted six patterns of questions
(Brown and Edmondson 1989; Good and Brophy
2000; Taba 1971; Wilen and White 1991; Wilen 2001;
Wragg and Brown 2001). The first pattern is called
extending and lifting (Taba 1971). This questioning
pattern involves asking a number of questions at the
same cognitive level, or extending, before lifting the
level of questions to the next higher level. For example,
a science teacher reviewing a chapter on cell division
could ask the following series of questions: "What four
TABLE 1. Comparison of Different Questioning
Taxonomies

Gallagher
Bloom Krathwohl and Ascher
Knowledge Remember Cognitive-memory
Comprehension Understand Convergent thinking
Application Apply
Analysis Analyze Divergent thinking
Synthesis Evaluate
Evaluation Create Evaluative thinking
Sources. Airasian, P. W., K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R.
Pin-
trich, J. Raths, and M. C. Wittrock. 2001. A taxonomy for
learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of
edu-
cational objectives. Ed. L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl.
New
York: Longman. Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational
objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David
McKay. Gallagher, J. J., and M. J. Ascher, 1963. A preliminary
report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer
Quar-
terly 9 (1): 183-94.
Vol. 79, No. 2
November/December 2005
events must occur in order for any cell to divide?"
"What is mitosis?" "What are the five phase of mitosis
division?" "What is meiosis?" "What are the five phases
of meiotic division?" "How is cell division different in
prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells?" In this pattern,

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx

Similar to Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx (20)

More from croysierkathey

More from croysierkathey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lev Vygotsky’s Social Development Theory Elizabeth M. Riddle.docx