AA-AAAS Bibliography: Search

Search Filters

Keywords

Search Results

878 results.

  • Wallace, T., & Tichá, R. (2012). Extending curriculum-based measurement to assess performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. In C. A. Espin, K. L. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. M. Way (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 211–222). University of Minnesota Press.

  • Wallace, T., Tichá, R., & Gustafson, K. (2008). Study of general outcome measurement (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Year 1 (Technical Report No. 27). Research Institute on Progress Monitoring, University of Minnesota. https://www.progressmonitoring.org/techreports/tr27sigcog.pdf

  • Ward, T. (2008). Voice, vision, and the journey ahead: Redefining access to the general curriculum and outcomes for learners with significant support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.241

  • Ward, T., Van De Mark, C. A., & Ryndak, D. L. (2006). Balanced literacy classrooms and embedded instruction for students with severe disabilities: Literacy for all in the age of school reform. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Paul H. Brookes.

  • Ware, J. (2014). Curriculum considerations in meeting the educational needs of learners with severe intellectual disabilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp. 491–503). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282236.n31

  • Warlick, K., & Olsen, K. (1999). How to conduct alternate assessments: Practices in nine states. Mid-South Regional Resource Center (MSRRC), Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky. http://marces.org/mdarch/pdf/1000013.pdf

  • Warlick, K., & Olsen, K. (1999). Who takes the alternate assessment? State criteria (Revised). Mid-South Regional Resource Center (MSRRC), Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED431259.pdf

  • Warren, T., Cagliani, R. R., Whiteside, E., & Ayres, K. M. (2021). Effect of task sequence and preference on on-task behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 30(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09358-1

  • Wehmeyer, M. L. (2011). Access to general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (1st ed., pp. 544–556). Routledge.

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., & Agran, M. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Paul H. Brookes.

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lee, S.-H. (2017). Individualized education programs to promote access to the general education curriculum for students with intellectual disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 119–129). Routledge.

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2017). Access to general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 662–674). Routledge.

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K., Verdugo, M. A., Nota, L., Soresi, S., Lee, S.-H., & Lachapelle, Y. (2014). Cognitive impairment and intellectual disability. In A. F. Rotatori (Ed.), Special education international perspectives: Biopsychosocial, cultural, and disability aspects (Vol. 27, pp. 55–89). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320140000027002

  • Wells, M. V. B. (2016). Special education teachers’ sense of efficacy and reading achievement of students with severe disabilities (Publication No. 10157921) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

  • Weng, P. L., & Bouck, E. C. (2016). An evaluation of app-based and paper-based number lines for teaching number comparison. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(1), 27–40. http://www.daddcec.com/etadd.html

  • Wermer, L., Brock, M. E., & Seaman, R. L. (2018). Efficacy of a teacher training a paraprofessional to promote communication for a student with autism and complex communication needs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357617736052

  • Whetstone, P. J. (2002). Alternate assessment of students with disabilities: A policy study of Colorado and Wyoming (Publication No. 3060001) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

  • White, M. T., Garrett, B., Kearns, J. F., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2003). Instruction and assessment: How students with deaf-blindness fare in large-scale alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.28.4.205

  • White, S. C. (2021). Impact of selected reading intervention strategies on state-required reading assessments (Publication No. 28863830) [Doctoral dissertation, Charleston Southern University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

  • Wiener, D. (2002). Massachusetts: One state’s approach to setting performance levels on the alternate assessment (Synthesis Report No. 48). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Synthesis48.html