Exceptional learners is the term used in the United States to refer to students with disabilities (as well as those who are gifted and talented). The majority of students with disabilities have cognitive and/or behavioral disabilities, that is, specific learning disability (SLD), intellectual disability (ID), emotional disturbance, (ED), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The remaining have primarily sensory and/or physical disabilities (e.g., blindness, deafness, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy). Many of the key research and policy issues pertaining to exceptional learners involve their definitions and identification. For example, prior to SLD being formally recognized by the U.S. Department of Education in the 1970s, its prevalence was estimated at approximately 2% to 3% of the school-age population. However, the prevalence of students identified for special education as SLD grew rapidly until by 1999 it reached 5.68% for ages 6 to 17 years. Since then, the numbers identified as SLD has declined slowly but steadily. One probable explanation for the decrease is that response to intervention has largely replaced IQ-achievement as the method of choice for identifying SLD. The term intellectual disability has largely replaced the classification of mental retardation. This change originated in the early 2000s because of the unfortunate growing popularity of using retard as a pejorative. Although ID used to be determined by a low IQ-test score, one must also have low adaptive behavior (such as daily living skills) to be diagnosed as ID. That is the likely reason why the prevalence of students with ID at under 1% is well below the estimated prevalence of 2.27% based solely on IQ scores two standard deviations (i.e., 70) below the norm of 100. There are two behavioral dimensions of ED: externalizing (including conduct disorder) and internalizing (anxiety and withdrawal) behaviors. Research evidence indicates that students with ED are underserved in public schools. Researchers have now confirmed ADHD as a bona fide neurologically based disability. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes three types of ADHD: (a) ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type; (b) ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type; and (c) ADHD, Combined Type. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes two types of ASD: social communication impairment and repetitive/restricted behaviors. The prevalence of ASD diagnosis has increased dramatically. Researchers point to three probable reasons for this increase: a greater awareness of ASD by the public and professionals; a more liberal set of criteria for diagnosing ASD, especially as it pertains to those who are higher functioning; and “diagnostic substitution”—persons being identified as having ASD who previously would have been diagnosed as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled. Instruction for exceptional children, referred to as “special education,” differs from what most (typical or average) children require. Research indicates that effective instruction for students with disabilities is individualized, explicit, systematic, and intensive. It differs with respect to size of group taught and amount of corrective feedback and reinforcement used. Also, from the student’s viewpoint, it is more predictable. In addition, each of these elements is on a continuum.

No abstract

Children traditionally labeled learning disabled, mildly emotionally disturbed, and mildly mentally retarded are considered within a behavioral rather than a categorical framework. A historical analysis reveals that the three areas have evolved from highly similar foundations. In addition, no behavioral characteristics can be found that are associated exclusively with any one of the three areas. Children who are usually identified as learning disabled, mildly disturbed, or mildly retarded reveal more similarities than differences. Consequently, successful teaching techniques do not differ among the three areas. A noncategorical orientation is recommended in which children are grouped for instruction according to their specific learning deficits rather than their assignment to traditional categories.

We investigated the relative effects of self-recording of attentive behavior and self-recording of academic productivity with 5 upper elementary-aged special education students in their special education dassroom. Following baseline, both self-recording treatments were introduced according to a multielement design. After the multielement phase, we assessed the pupils' performance under a choice condition, faded the overt aspects of the treatment program according to a withdrawal design, and probed maintenance over 5 weeks. Results revealed that both treatments produced dear improvements in arithmetic productivity and attention to task, neither treatment was dearly and consistently superior to the other, pupils preferred the self-recording of attention treatment, the effects were maintained for all pupils, achievement test scores improved, and pupils generally recorded accurately.DESCRIPTORS: academic behavior, alternating treatments, attending behavior, children, dassroom behavior, on-task behavior, self-monitoring, self-recording The therapeutic value of the reactive effects of self-recording has been dearly established with diverse behaviors and individuals (for reviews, see Gardner & Cole, 1988;Kazdin, 1974;Mace & Kratochwill, 1988;Nelson, 1977). In school situations, many studies have shown that self-recording promotes attention to task. However, in their examinations of this literature, Klein (1979) and Snider (1987) suggested that academic performance, rather than attending, would be a more appropriate target for self-recording.Two studies compared self-recording treatments focused on academic performance and attention to task. Rooney, Polloway, and Hallahan (1985) themselves whether they were paying attention, and then record their "yes" or "no" answer on a prepared answer sheet. The second procedure required that each time the pupils completed a specially marked problem on their worksheets they compare their answer for the marked problem to the answer on an answer sheet and record whether they had answered correctly. Rooney et al. did not find dear differences between effects of these procedures.In another comparison, Harris (1986) used a reversal design with elementary-aged students. She used essentially the same procedure for self-recording of attention as did Rooney et al. (1985) and compared it to a self-recording-of-productivity procedure in which the pupils were taught to make an overall judgment of performance (count number of spelling words practiced) at the end of each class period. She also reported no differences between treatments, but the pupils preferred the productivity treatment. However, to correct for order effects inherent in the use of the reversal design, she counterbalanced the order in which pupils received the two treatments (i.e., ABCBC versus ACBCB). This essentially created a between-groups design with 2 subjects in each cell and, thus, complicated interpretation of the results.In addition to the design difference, the selfrecording procedures that Rooney et al. (1985) and ...

No abstract