Curriculum and Context: Trends in Interventions With Transition-Age Students With Severe Disabilities

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic literature review was to determine trends in the curricular focus and instructional context of intervention research conducted with transition-age students with severe disabilities between 1975 and 2014. A total of 138 studies met inclusion criteria. Across the last three decades, interventions focused on functional skills declined while academic interventions increased. The most frequently used instructional contexts were special education classrooms, simulated activities, mass trials, and either a researcher or nonresearcher as the instructor. Differences in instructional context were present according to curricular focus. Findings suggest the need for interventions that span the breadth of curriculum promoted in the literature with specific emphasis on increasing interventions in areas predictive of positive post-school outcomes. Interventions are also needed that reflect instructional contexts that align more strongly with contexts valued within the field of severe disabilities.

Inclusive curricula for students with severe intellectual disabilities or profound and multiple learning difficulties: a scoping review

“…The intentional integration of curriculum, assessment and reporting practices is a shared perspective when looking to improve the overall design of curriculum structures (Colley, 2018; Imray, 2017; Imray and Hinchcliffe, 2012; Lacey, 2011; Rees et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2018). Some other suggestions to best navigate between a standardised curriculum and individualised planning approaches are explored, including the suggested movement towards a more thematic construction to curriculum and the extension of outcomes to include pre‐formal development milestones (Courtade et al., 2012; Dymond et al., 2018; Imray, 2017; Lacey, 2011; Rees et al., 2017).…”

“…A recommendation across sources is that curriculum structures should prioritise skills development (academic, adaptive, and functional) in response to distinct learner attributes and post‐school life expectations. Many included articles reinforce that a curriculum structure that shifts to a thematic design, focussing on planning domains of communication, community participation, quality of life and happiness and independence, particularly in the later years of schooling, is of great positive benefit for students and teachers alike (Courtade et al., 2012; Bobzien, 2014; Dymond et al., 2018; Imray, 2017; Kontu and Pirttimaa, 2010; Lacey, 2011; Lyons and Arthur‐Kelly, 2014; Pennington et al., 2016; Rees et al., 2017). Ayres et al.…”

“…Research of formal curriculum provision for young people with special educational needs more generally is underrepresented and is an area that requires particular attention (Davis and Florian, 2003; Dymond et al., 2018; Moljord, 2018). The recent systematic reviews completed by Dymond et al.…”

“…The recent systematic reviews completed by Dymond et al. (2018) and Moljord (2018) investigated educational provision and research activities for students with S/PMLD and raised concerns regarding the lack of attention paid to curriculum provision and development. In addition, Moljord (2018) identified that investigation into curriculum structures for students with severe disabilities is a critical area of focus for future research that has been decreasing in recent years (Shurr and Bouck, 2013).…”

“…The decrease in research into this field of study has affected the development and availability of evidence and appropriately functional curriculum structures for this cohort of students. The lack of research evidence in both number and quality within the field is concerning (Dymond et al., 2018; Moljord, 2018).…”