Engagement for Students With Severe Intellectual Disability: The Need for a Common Definition in Inclusive Education

Abstract

Classroom engagement is an area of frequent discussion and study in the field of education, though engagement is defined differently for various student populations. The purpose of this article is to examine how engagement is defined for students without disability, at risk, or with mild disability as compared to those with severe intellectual disability. We discuss engagement for both populations of students and the resulting implications for inclusive practice. Finally, we emphasize the importance of utilizing a universal definition within the framework of the Universal Design for Learning to enhance learning outcomes for all students, including those with severe intellectual disability.

IEP/Transition Planning Participation Among Students With the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Findings From NLTS 2012

“…By helping to set goals and map out their futures, students with the most SCDs should be more likely to achieve those goals, as has been found for other students with disabilities (Martin et al, 2007; Shogren et al, 2007). Raising professional expectations for the participation of these students and adapting interventions developed for students without disability, at risk, or with mild disability is a first step (Hollingshead et al, 2017). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one strategy that has been broadly advocated for as a means of providing sufficiently flexible curriculum and instructional strategies so that all students can find the right balance of support needed to thrive (Hollingshead et al, 2017; Meyer et al, 2014).…”

“…Raising professional expectations for the participation of these students and adapting interventions developed for students without disability, at risk, or with mild disability is a first step (Hollingshead et al, 2017). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is one strategy that has been broadly advocated for as a means of providing sufficiently flexible curriculum and instructional strategies so that all students can find the right balance of support needed to thrive (Hollingshead et al, 2017; Meyer et al, 2014). School wide, universally designed programs targeting school climate, student engagement, and the development of positive behaviors are also likely to produce positive effects on attendance, participation, and behavior, as has been shown for students with disabilities in general (Sinclair et al, 2005; Sugai et al, 2000).…”

Cognitive and Emotional Engagement for Students with Severe Intellectual Disability Defined by the Scholars with Expertise in the Field

“…All in all, academic learning time was an outcome of this era, which acknowledged that students learned more when they were engaged. More sophisticated understanding of engagement is needed as precise definitions and conceptions of what engagement is and is not continue to elude scholars (Finn & Zimmer, 2012;Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004;Hollingshead, Carnahan, Lowrey, & Snyder, 2017). Since the early 2000s, there have been several models that offer frameworks to conceptualize engagement (Fredricks et al, 2004).…”

“…In the literature, there is no mention of emotional engagement in reference to students with severe ID (Hollingshead et al, 2017). Most mentions of emotions for this population are limited to research on happiness (e.g., Green & Reid, 1996;Lancioni, Singh, O'Reilly, Oliva, & Basili, 2005).…”

“…With broader definitions, instructional practices have begun to shift from discrete skill instruction to more comprehensive approaches, including best practices for students without disabilities (Ruppar et al, 2015). Just as the discussion on engagement for students without severe ID has expanded in the last 20 years (Fredricks et al, 2004), so must our understanding of engagement for students with severe ID (Hollingshead et al, 2017). Engagement as a complex construct, consisting of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional components (Finn & Zimmer, 2012;Fredricks et al, 2004), must be addressed as conversations continue to grow around instructional practices for these learners.…”