일반 교육 현장에 통합된 장애 학생의 일반교육과정 접근(access to general curriculum)은 이미 많은 연구들을 통해 그 중요성이 강조되어왔다. 그러나 장애 학생이 통합학급에서 일반교육과정 중...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T10810321
서울 : 이화여자대학교 대학원, 2007
학위논문(박사) -- 이화여자대학교 대학원 , 특수교육학과 , 2007. 2. 졸업
2007
한국어
서울
x, 151 p. : 삽도(일부색채).
참고문헌: p. 112-131
0
상세조회0
다운로드일반 교육 현장에 통합된 장애 학생의 일반교육과정 접근(access to general curriculum)은 이미 많은 연구들을 통해 그 중요성이 강조되어왔다. 그러나 장애 학생이 통합학급에서 일반교육과정 중...
일반 교육 현장에 통합된 장애 학생의 일반교육과정 접근(access to general curriculum)은 이미 많은 연구들을 통해 그 중요성이 강조되어왔다. 그러나 장애 학생이 통합학급에서 일반교육과정 중심의 수업에 단지 참여하는 것을 넘어서 개별적인 교수적 요구가 반영된 학습목표를 실제로 성취하는 것은 여전히 교수활동적 통합을 실현하기 위한 도전 과제가 되고 있다. 이를 위해 특히 장애 학생의 개별적인 교수적 요구와 일반교육과정 중심의 교육기준의 적절한 연계가 선행되어야 하며, 통합학급에서의 진단ㆍ평가에 참여하여 일반교육과정 기준과 연계된 개별 학습목표의 성취 정도를 확인할 수 있어야 한다. 이처럼 장애 학생의 개별적인 교수적 요구와 일반교육과정 기준이 연계될 수 있는 진단ㆍ평가 방안으로 교수적 루브릭(instructional rubrics)을 들 수 있다.
교육기준을 토대로 수행과제를 평가하는 준거와 다양한 수행의 질이 상세히 묘사되는 진단ㆍ평가 도구인 교수적 루브릭은 수행에 대한 평가뿐 아니라 교수의 도구로 사용할 수 있다는 점에서 학생 중심의 평가를 가능하게 하는 장점과 함께 장애 학생을 비롯한 다양한 학습자의 요구를 충족시키는 교수 활동을 촉진하는 방안으로 활용될 수 있다. 국내 통합교육 현장의 경우, 장애 학생이 일반교육과정 중심의 진단ㆍ평가에 통합적으로 참여하는 것을 지원하는 실제적 연구가 매우 미흡한 실정이다. 이러한 현실을 감안할 때 다양한 능력을 지닌 모든 학생들이 일반교육과정에 참여하여 양질의 교육성과를 얻을 수 있도록 보다 융통적인 교육과정, 교수방법, 진단ㆍ평가를 고안하는 ‘학습을 위한 보편적 설계’(Universal Design for Learning)에 기초하여 교수적 루브릭을 계획, 적용한다면 장애 학생을 포함한 통합학급의 학생들 모두를 위한 진단ㆍ평가 및 교수적 도구로 활용될 가능성이 높다고 하겠다. 이에 본 연구에서는 초등 5~6학년 국어과 수업에 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭을 적용하여 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동 및 장애 학생을 포함한 통합학급 학생들의 국어과 학습목표 수행 수준에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다.
본 연구의 중재는 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭의 적용을 위한 담임교사, 일반 학생 및 장애 학생 교육을 각각 실시한 후 실제 수업 상황에서 교수적 루브릭의 적용을 지원하는 것으로 구성되었다. 담임교사에게는 연구의 목적 및 진행 절차, 중재에 포함되는 중요 요소(IEP, 교수적 루브릭, 교수적 수정 등)에 대한 소개, 국어과 교육기준을 토대로 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭의 고안 방안 및 수업 적용 시의 지원 방법이 안내되었고, 일반 학생들에게는 교수적 루브릭에 대한 소개, 수행 예시물을 이용한 평가 연습, ‘교수적 루브릭 일일 적용표’를 이용한 장애 학생 지원 방법이 안내되었다. 또한 장애 학생에게는 교수적 루브릭을 사용하기 위한 자기 점검 및 평가 교육이 실시되었다.
중재 적용을 위한 교육이 끝난 후 모든 학생들은 각자 소지한 ‘일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭 양식’ 세트(일반 학생용 교수적 루브릭, 장애 학생용 교수적 루브릭, 루브릭 일일 적용표)를 이용하여 담임교사의 지도 아래 실제 국어과 수업에서 자신의 수행 상황을 점검ㆍ평가하였으며, 구체적으로 교수적 루브릭 하단의 기록 칸에 매 수업에서의 수행에 대한 평가와 함께 다음 수업에서 개선해야 할 점을 기재하도록 하였다. 장애 학생에게는 매일의 수행 목표를 토대로 적절히 수정된 과제 및 자료가 제공되었으며, ‘교수적 루브릭 일일 적용표’를 이용하여 수업 시간 동안 달성해야할 수행 목표와 이러한 목표를 달성하기 위해 필요한 수업 참여 행동을 점검하게 하였다.
실험은 초등학교 5~6학년에 재학 중인 세 명의 정신지체 학생들과 이 학생들이 소속된 세 개 학급의 일반 학생들 전원을 대상으로 실시하였으며, 연구 참여자 간 중다 간헐 기초선설계(multiple probe across participants design)를 적용하여 국어과 수업 진행 내용에 따라 각기 다른 교수적 루브릭을 세 학급에 순차적으로 적용하였다. 먼저 중재가 실시되기 이전의 일상적 환경에서 기초선 관찰이 실시된 후 주 4~5회 국어과 수업 시간에 중재를 실시하였고, 수업 중반의 25분간 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동을 관찰하였다. 수업 참여 행동의 발생률이 중재 종료 기준(연속 3회 80% 이상 발생)에 이를 때까지 장애 학생을 포함한 통합학급 학생들 전원은 교수적 루브릭을 적용하여 매 수업에서의 수행을 자기 점검ㆍ평가하였으며, 각 루브릭에 기재된 평가 결과를 토대로 학생들의 학습목표 수행 수준을 산출하였다. 중재가 종료된 직후 사회과 수업에서 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동에 대한 일반화 관찰을 3회 실시하였으며, 중재가 종료된 지 4주 후 기초선 조건과 동일한 상황에서 국어과 수업에서의 유지 관찰을 연속적으로 3회 실시하였다. 장애 학생이 포함된 통합학급 학생들 전원의 학습목표 수행 수준의 중재 전후 변화는 SPSS for Windows 12.0 프로그램을 이용한 대응표본 t검증(paired-samples t-test) 분석을 통해 차이의 통계적 유의성을 검증하였다.
본 연구를 통해 얻어진 결과는 다음과 같다.
첫째, 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭의 적용은 초등학교 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동을 증가시켰으며 증가된 수업 참여 행동은 일반화ㆍ유지되었다.
둘째, 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭의 적용은 초등학교 장애 학생을 포함한 통합학급 학생들의 중재 전-후 국어과 학습목표 수행 수준에 유의한 차이를 나타내었다.
본 연구는 장애 학생을 포함한 통합학급 전체 학생들에게 학습을 위한 보편적 설계 차원에 교수적 루브릭을 계획, 적용함으로써 장애 학생이 일반교육과정 중심의 통합적 진단ㆍ평가에 참여하며 동시에 교수적 지원 도구로서 활용할 수 있는 실제적인 방안을 제시하였다. 또한 일반교육과정 접근의 개념을 ‘수업 참여’와 ‘학습목표 성취’로 세분화하여 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동 및 전체 통합학급 학생들의 학습목표 수행 수준 변화 각각에 미친 효과를 입증함으로써 ‘장애 학생과 일반 학생 모두를 위한 혜택’이라는 양질의 통합교육프로그램이 갖추어야 할 중요한 질적 구성요소를 구체화하였다는 데 그 의의가 있다.
다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an instructional rubric for access to general curriculum on academic engagement behaviors of students with disabilities in elementary grades and performance level of objectives in Korean lang...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of an instructional rubric for access to general curriculum on academic engagement behaviors of students with disabilities in elementary grades and performance level of objectives in Korean language of inclusive class students.
A total of 91 students, 60 from two 5th grade classes and 31 from one 6th grade, and teachers of the classes including a student with mental retardation each participated in the intervention implementing an instructional rubric designed for Korean language. The instructional rubric was written in consideration of Universal Design for Learning in order for students with diverse needs to participate in as an inclusive classwide assessment, containing individual objectives and assessment criterion for those in need. The intervention program was composed of training for both teachers and students to maximally utilize the rubric as a self-assessment tool and, during Korean language class, implementing it with additional supports for students with disability, such as instructional adaptations and performance monitoring through a daily checkup manual.
Each class was provided with four instructional rubrics on a subsequent basis using multiple probe across participants design. All the participants were advised to evaluate their own performance through the instructional rubric and come up with things to target for the next class specified as performance indicators, while students with disability working on their individual but general curriculum-based objectives. Academic engagement behaviors of the students with disability during class were measured by direct observation and any changes on the level of performance the whole students showed for the objectives evaluated through the instructional rubric as a result of the intervention were analysed by the SPSS for Windows 12.0 program using paired-samples t-test method.
The results of the intervention entailed as follows:
First, academic engagement behaviors of all the three participants with disabilities drastically improved and were observed during social study class as an evidence for generalization effect. The positive changes on the target behaviors were maintained after the intervention had been terminated.
Second, changes on performance level of objectives in Korean language of inclusive class students evaluated through the instructional rubric were statistically significant and the same result was found in all three of the classes.
The results were discussed in detail into the impact of self-monitoring/evaluation skills the participants in need had improved on their own academic performances utilizing the instructional rubric and effective peer support for the students with the awareness of individual performance goals. In addition, enabling the students to participate in an inclusive classwide assessment system with cohesive instructional adaptations and systematic performance monitoring as a tailored in-class support were underscored as meaningful practices that the intervention had intended to. And, more importantly, the positive changes that happened to the peer students at the inclusive classes support the body of evidence well-planned and executed instructions for students with disabilities can benefit not only for those in need but for all the students involved.
This study had several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, there were only Grade 5-6 classes including a student with mental retardation studied. Second, the measurement of performance level of objectives in Korean language was based on self-assessment of the students participated. Third, instructional needs of the students with mental retardation were mainly considered when each rubric was constructed as a universally designed class assessment, leaving a possibility that needs of every student involved might not be properly addressed.
Future researches are expected to more focus on investigating the achievement of multiple curriculum contents that students with various disabilities in grades K-12 would have with the usage of instructional rubrics. Additionally, student-involved and needs-addressed rubrics would benefit for more diverse learners.
목차 (Table of Contents)
참고문헌 (Reference)
1. The right to learn, Darling-Hammond, , 1997
2. 유아특수교육, 이소현, 학지사, , 2004
3. 특수아동교육, 이소현, 학지사, , 2006
4. 사회성숙도검사, 김승국, 中央敵性出版社, , 1998
5. Enveloping expectations, Olson, , 2004
6. Writing assessment rubric, Schirmer, Bailey, , 2000
7. Assessing student outcomes, McTighe, Pickering, Marzo, , 1993
8. 특수교육 연차보고서, 교육과학기술부, , 2011
9. Validating an alternate assessment, Johnson, Arnold, , 2004
10. Authentic assesment for intervention, Siders, Standford, , 2001
1. The right to learn, Darling-Hammond, , 1997
2. 유아특수교육, 이소현, 학지사, , 2004
3. 특수아동교육, 이소현, 학지사, , 2006
4. 사회성숙도검사, 김승국, 中央敵性出版社, , 1998
5. Enveloping expectations, Olson, , 2004
6. Writing assessment rubric, Schirmer, Bailey, , 2000
7. Assessing student outcomes, McTighe, Pickering, Marzo, , 1993
8. 특수교육 연차보고서, 교육과학기술부, , 2011
9. Validating an alternate assessment, Johnson, Arnold, , 2004
10. Authentic assesment for intervention, Siders, Standford, , 2001
11. Peer assessment in physical education, Johnson, , 2004
12. 통합학급 운영실태 분석 연구, 김정균, 김은주, 권택환, 박현옥, 국립특수교육원, 경기도: 국립특수교육원, , 2003
13. Environments and products for all people, Center for Universal Design, , 1997
14. Rubrics and their use in inclusive science, Ormsbee, Finson, , 1998
15. What's wrong-and what's right-with rubrics, Popham, , 1997
16. Developments in curriculum-based measurement, Deno, , 2003
17. Single subject research in special education, Tawney. J. W, , 1984
18. The role of assessment in a learning culture, Shepard, , 2000
19. NCEO Framework for educational accountability, Erickson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Elliott, Moore, , 1998
20. Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments, Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, , 2005
21. Using Rubrics to Promote Thinking and Learning, Goodrich, , 2000
22. No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals, Yell, Drasgow, , 2005
23. Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms, King-Sears, , 1997
24. Rubric: Teaching students to use grading rubrics, Jackson, Larkin, , 2002
25. A framework for considering alternative paradigms, Scott, McGuire, Shaw, , 2004
26. A new vision for special education accountability, Krentz, Thurlow, , 2001
27. Empowering students through negotiable contracting, Stix, , 1997
28. Student-involved assessment for learning (4th ed.), Stiggins, , 2005
29. Tips for teaching: Making uninvited inclusion work, O'Shea, , 1999
30. Korean-Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Ⅲ, 곽금주, 박혜원, 김청택, , 2001
31. 제7차 교육과정에 제시된 평가지침 분석, 이미숙, 한국초등교육학회, "초등교육연구, , 2004
32. Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly, Andrade, "Teaching with rubrics: The good, , 2005
33. Creating instructional rubrics for inclusive classrooms, Duhaney, Salend, Whittaker, , 2001
34. Behavior management: Applications for teachers (3rd ed.), Zirpoli, Melloy, , 2001
35. Getting the big picture of IEP goals and state standards, Walsh, , 2001
36. Classroom rubrics: Systemizing what teachers do naturally, Montgomery, , 2000
37. The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write, Goodrich, , 2001
38. (March 12). Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register, "(March 12). Washington, , 1999
39. A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning (Eds.), Meyer, Rose, , 2006
40. Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.), Brown, Snell, , 2000
41. CBM을 활용한 청각장애 학생의 쓰기 표현 평가, 김선영, 김영욱, 한국특수교육학회, , 2004
42. Cooperative learning as an inclusion strategy: A closer look, Jenkins, O'Connor, , 1996
43. Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure, Fishcher, Moody, , 2000
44. Principle supports for inclusive assessment: A Kentucky story, Burdge, Kearns, Williams, Kleinert, Clayton, , 1998
45. Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write, Boulay, Andrade, , 2003
46. Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners, Kameenui, Edward J, Merrill, , 2002
47. Inclusion and school reform : transforming America's classrooms, Lipsky, Dorothy Kerzner, P.H. Brookes Pub. Co., , 1997
48. The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey, Kearns, Kleinert, Kennedy, , 1999
49. Making inclusion a reality for students with severe disabilities, Hall, Wolfe, , 2003
50. Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (6th ed.), Thorndike, , 1997
51. Universal design and its applications in educational environment, Shaw, McGuire, Scott, , 2006
52. She will succeed!: Strategies for success in inclusive classrooms, Prater, , 2003
53. Progress monitoring: Legal issues and recommendations for IEP team, Etschedit, , 2006
54. Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning, Coyne, Pisha, , 2001
55. Access to core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success, Frey, Fisher, , 2001
56. Assessments and correcting reading and writing difficulties (2nd ed.), Gunning, , 2001
57. An outsider looking in: Total inclusion and the concept of equifinality, Chow, Hemingway, Blais, , 1999
58. Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities, Warger, Pugach, , 2001
59. Building the foundation for standards-based instruction for all students, Fielder, Walsh, Matlock, , 2001
60. A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families, U.S.Department of Education, Rehabilitative Services, , 2000
61. Differentiating standards-based education for students with diverse needs, Patton, Hoover, , 2004
62. Teaching every student in the Digital Age : universal design for learning, Rose, David H, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, , 2002
63. Reflections on assessment: It's purposes, methods, and effects on learning, Strickland, "Reflections on assessment: It's purposes, , 1998
64. Stirring the head, heart, and soul : redefining curriculum and instruction, Erickson, H. Lynn, Corwin Press, "Stirring the head, , 1995
65. Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance, Arter, McTighe, , 2001
66. Performance assessment and standards-based curricula: The achievement cycle, Grathorn, A. A., , 1998
67. Science and students with mild disabilities: Principles of universal design, Cawley, Miller, Foley, , 2003
68. Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform, National Research Council, , 1997
69. Mismatch: Historical Perspectives on Schools and Students Who Don't Fit Them, Tyack, Deschenes, , 2001
70. Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning, Rose, Hitchcock, Jackson, Hitchcock, C, , 2002
71. PromotingAccess to the General Curriculum by Teaching Self-DeterminationSkills, Wehmeyer, Gipson, Agran, Palmer, , 2004
72. How Adam become a writer: Winning writing strategies for low-achieving students, Abbott, Greenwood, James, , 2001
73. Teaching self-management to elementary students with developmental disabilities, King-Sears, Carpenter, , 1997
74. An introduction to alternate assessment. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Kearns (Eds.), Kleinert, Thurlow, , 2001
75. Using a writing assessment rubric for writing development of children who are deaf, Bailey, Fitzgerald, Schirmer, , 1999
76. 기술과 수행평가에서 학습자 중심 루브릭의 개발 모형과 적용, 한지영, 韓國職業敎育學會, "직업교육연구, , 2004
77. Large-scale assessments: A teacher's guide to making decisions about accommodations, Edgemon, Jablonski, Lloyd, , 2006
78. A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Reston, VA, McLane, Orkwis, "A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. Reston, , 1998
79. 통합학급교사를 위한 특수교사의 서신지원 프로그램 적용 효과, 박은혜, 김주혜, 서울대학교교육연구소, "아시아교육연구, , 2004
80. Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms, Gardren, Whittaker, "Planning differentiated, , 2006
81. Student self-assessment: A the intersection of metacognition and authentic assessment, Goodrich, , 1996
82. Research onreading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities, Browder, Algozzine, , 2006
83. The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities, Shriner, Katsiyannas, Yell, "The No Child Left Behind Act, , 2006
84. You're going to love this kid: Teaching students with autism in the inclusive classroom, Kluth, , 2003
85. Chocolate cookies and rubrics: Helping students understand rubrics in inclusive settings, Salmon, Hall, , 2003
86. Postsecondary education and transition for students with learning disabilities (2nd ed.), Brinckerhoff, McGuire, Shaw, , 2002
87. Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data, Olsen, Ysseldyke, , 1999
88. Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion, Podell, Lehman, Soodak, "Teacher, , 1998
89. The writing rubric: Instructional rubrics can help students become self-regulated writers, Saddler, Andrade, , 2004
90. Scoring rubric for assessing students' performance on functional behavior assessment cases, Peterson, Rule, Pindiprolu, Slocun, Lignugaris/Kraft, , 2005
91. Teaching reading. Student-generated rubrics: Bringing students into the assessment process, Ferrell, Skillings, , 2000
92. Teaching langage arts, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities, Spooner, Browder, "Teaching langage arts, , 2006
93. Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Sugai, Horner, Gresham, "Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, , 2002
94. 초등 특수학급 학생의 학업성취도에 대한 특수학급 교사의 평가 실태, 신소니아, 이화여자대학교 대학원, 서울: 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위청구논문, , 2005
95. 통합환경에서 장애학생을 위한 평가의 적합화 - 초등학교를 중심으로, 정주영, , 2001
96. Connecting West Virginia content standards and objectives to IEP development: A technical brief, West Virginia Department of Education, , 2004
97. Accessing the general curriculum : including students with disabilities in standards-based reform, Nolet, Victor, Corwin Press, Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform, , 2000
98. Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments, Shriner, Lloyd, DeStefano, , 2001
99. Long-term outcome of a school-based, universal approach to prevention of depression in adolescents, Donovan, Sheffield, Spence, "Long-term outcome of a school-based, , 2005
100. Selected prewriting treatments: Effects on expository compositions written by fifth-grade students, Brodney, Kazelskis, Reeves, , 1999
101. 통합학급의 정신지체 초등학생을 위한 교수적합화에 대한 일반 교사의 지각, 정주영, 신현기, 特殊敎育學會, "특수교육학연구, , 2002
102. Combining performance assessment and curriculum-based measurement to strengthen instructional planning, Fuchs, , 1996
103. Individualized Educational Programs in resource and inclusive settings: How "individualized" are they?, Deno, Albayrak-Kaymak, Espin, "Individualized Educational Programs in resource and inclusive settings: How ""individualized"" are they?", , 1998
104. Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (Synthesis Report 40), Thompson, Lehr, Thurlow, Quenemoen, , 2001
105. Peers assessing peers: Possibilities and problems. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning, Topping, O'Donnell, "Peers assessing peers: Possibilities and problems. In K. Topping & S. Ehly (Eds.), , 1998
106. No more Friday spelling tests?: An alternative spelling assessment for students with learning disabilities, Loeffler, , 2005
107. Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective A comparative review of model programs, Manset, Semmel, , 1997
108. Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, U.S.Department of Education, , 2000
110. An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessment, Browder, Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, , 2006
111. Primary prevention in mental health for head start classrooms: Partial replication with teachers as intervenors, Forness, Serna, Nielsen, Mattern, , 2003
112. Achieving access to the general curriculum for student with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model, Wehmeyer, Agran, Lattin, , 2001
113. Students' perceptions of instruction in inclusive classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities, Vaughn, Klinger, , 1999
114. Recommendations for addressing standards and assessments on state and distinct IEP forms (Policy Directions No. 12), Whetstone, Thompson, Thurlow, , 2001
115. Using self-evaluation to improve the work productivity of trainees in a community-based restaurant training program, Heward, Grossi, , 1998
116. Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disability, Schwartz, Wehmeyer, , 1997
117. Useful practices in inclusive education: A preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying, Jackson, Billingsley, Ryndak, , 2000
118. 게시판을 활용한 통합학급지원이 장애 아동에 대한 일반 아동의 사회적 능력에 미치는 영향, 이은주, , 2002
119. Intermediate school students with severe disabilities; Supporting their social participation in general education classrooms, Shukla, Cushing, Intermediate school students with severe disabilities: Supporting their social participation in general education classrooms, , 1999
120. How do I find a book to read? Middle and high school students use a rubric for self-selecting material for independent reading, Schirmer, Lockman, , 2001
121. 일반교육과정 접근을 위한 교수적 루브릭의 적용이 장애 학생의 수업 참여 행동에 미치는 영향, 이은정, 이소현, 국립특수교육원, "특수교육연구, , 2006
122. 유아 창의성 평가를 위한 루브릭 개발 연구: 그림책을 활용한 유아예술교육 프로그램을 중심으로, 변윤희, 현은자, , 2005
123. Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left Behind”, Browder, D. M., "Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in ""No Child Left Behind", , 2003
124. Creating and assessing performance-based curriculum projects: A teacher's guide to project-based learning and performance assessment, Banks, , 1997
126. Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessments for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities, Kennedy, Kearns, Kleinert, , 1997
127. 통합된 중도장애학생을 위한 기준중심 진단-책무성 체계의 실행: 대체 진단(alternate assessment)을 중심으로, 박인호, 이은정, , 2004
128. Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment, Elliot, Webb, Roach, , 2005
129. Policy and practice: Knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment, Tindal, Crawford, , 2006
130. 장애 유아의 사회적 통합 촉진을 위한 사회적 상호작용 증진 활동이 일반 유아들의 사회적 행동에 미치는 영향, 이소현, 한국유아교육학회, "유아교육연구, , 2004
131. Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37), Lehr, Massanari, Quenemoen, Thurlow, "Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, , 2001
132. Standards, assessments, and Individualized Education Programs: Planning for success in the general education curriculum. In Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. (Eds.), Hock, "Standards, , 2000
133. 감각장애 아동을 위한 진단ㆍ평가 도구 개발 및 진단가용 웹기반 전문가 시스템 구축: 시기능 진단ㆍ평가 도구의 타당도와 신뢰도, 한성희, 박혜준, , 2004
134. Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated prinary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Walker, Shinn, "Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated prinary, , 2002