![]()
ADDHelpline is your ADD Information Source
If you are interested in learning more about how you can receive EEG Neurotherapy right in your home, using your own computer, enter your email address below.
Regular Features THE
PARENT COACH ASK
THE ADVOCATE PARENTS
TALK MOTIVATION
TIPS ORGANIZATION
TIPS ADHD
IN THE NEWS
Study on ADD and TV |
Back To Education Articles Index
ADHD--Building
Academic Success
Appalachia
Educational Laboratory
Table
of Contents
If human
potential were determined at birth, we would have little need for schools.
However, we know that environment plays a powerful role in individual growth.
We create schools to develop that potential and broaden opportunity. Yet many
children labeled at-risk--including those disabled by
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)--fail to thrive, or even
survive, in current school environments.
As
schools attempt to help all students meet new goals for learning set by state
and national standards, education policymakers, administrators, and teachers
must determine how to create learning environments that nurture those students
who fail to learn in traditional school settings. This brief will examine how
the mismatch between school environments and children with ADHD contributes to
school failure, and will review suggested changes in policy and practice that
can help schools become places of growth and development for all students,
including those with ADHD.
For
children with ADHD, "school too often starts with failure . . . and goes
downhill from there."1 With failure rates double to triple those of other
children, about 50 percent repeat a grade by adolescence.2 Thirty-five percent
eventually drop out of school and only5 percent complete college.3 One study
found that, by age eleven, 80 percent were at least two years behind in
reading, writing, spelling, and math.4 Even children with normal to superior
intelligence show "chronic and severe underachievement."5
Unusually
high suspension and expulsion rates further compromise school achievement and
completion. A long-term study found that 46 percent of children with ADHD had
been suspended and 11 percent had been expelled.6 Taken together, expulsion
and dropout rates approach 50 percent--an alarming statistic, since children
with ADHD compose up to seven percent of the population.7
The
three main characteristics of ADHD--inattention, impulsivity, and
hyperactivity--can interfere with academic performance. Children with ADHD pay
attention to what is novel or stimulating and may have trouble focusing on
important information rather than on extraneous details or background noise.
They may be unable to sustain attention, especially during repetitious, rote,
or prolonged tasks, or in situations of decreasing novelty.
Hyperactivity--motor and verbal--will probably be seen as misbehavior when
children are expected to sit quietly. Finally, impulsivity causes difficulty
in any task requiring a delay: raising hands to answer questions, reading or
listening to directions, asking questions to clarify information, planning,
and organizing.8
Deficiencies
in executive brain functions tied to motivation, analysis, goal-setting, and
problem-solving can seriously impair academic performance among children with
ADHD.9 In addition, up to 50 percent of children with ADHD have coexisting
learning disabilities, especially in spelling, reading, writing, and
math.10,11
Traditional
classroom practices make schooling an ordeal for many children with ADHD.12
From kindergarten on, their biologically based inability to inhibit behavior
and control responses13 prevents them from meeting typical school demands for
self-control and self-direction: to stay in their seats until given permission
to get up, to raise their hands before talking, to pay attention when the
teacher speaks, to follow directions, to complete repetitive work within time
constraints, and to become increasingly independent and organized.1
Some
observers, including Pelligrini and Horvat, suggest that many school problems
experienced by children with ADHD do not result solely from the inborn,
biological factors that underlie the disorder, but from a mismatch between the
child and the environment (school).14,12,15,16,17,1 The same observation
applies to at-risk students in general. Based on their review of the
literature, Rossi and Montgomery believe risk is "best conceptualized as
societal, home, or school dysfunction rather than as qualities inherent in
children."
Research
shows that many within-school variables can influence children's behavior. For
instance, attention span can be affected by (a) interest due to gender
preference, (b) task difficulty, and (c) task duration--children pay more
attention to subjects that interest them, their attention wanders if they
don't understand the material, and their attention wanes over time.14
Challenging--but not frustratingly difficult or boring--tasks also motivate
children to learn.
School
success or failure depends on "goodness of fit": how well
within-child variables (such as biological predispositions) interact with
environmental variables (such as classroom expectations). In the classroom as
in the world, "biology and environment are interactive."14 Again,
the at-risk literature echoes this sentiment: "The degree of fit' between
a child's abilities and the demands of school life, the extent to which there
is consonance between home and school expectations, and the extent to which
school activities appear rewarding influence a child's readiness to meet
school requirements."
ADHD is
not like strep throat, which one either has or doesn't have; instead, the
severity and consequences of ADHD symptoms relate to environmental demands on
behavior. For example, a child with ADHD may not stand out at recess, but will
be more easily spotted in situations requiring "sustained effort,
inhibition, organization, and self-regulation." Similarly, a child may
exhibit fewer symptoms in a whole language classroom that encourages activity
and collaboration than in classrooms requiring long periods of quiet,
independent seat work.17
Worksheet-dependent
classrooms cause double trouble for these active, social children. They not
only ignore the child's learning styles and strengths, but they also label as
misbehavior the child's natural tendency to interact with the environment.
Well-meaning
programs to help failing children often consist of trying to change the child
to fit the school environment. They may pull children out of the classroom,
apply some sort of remedial strategy, then attempt to reinsert them
successfully into the original situation and setting. Or schools retain
children in a grade with hopes that they will catch up to the prescribed
learning sequence the next time around.
While a
few intervention programs have demonstrated success (e.g., Robert Slavin's
Success for All), many remedial strategies are ineffective.21 Too often, they
assume that the child is the problem. This one-sided view not only isolates
the child from the context of the learning environment, but it also precludes
the exploration of environment-based solutions.14 Certainly, many frustrated
teachers have experienced environmental constraints (limited time, lack of
resources, and too many other students) when attempting to meet individual
learning needs. Reeve warns, "unless the school environment is altered to
make it match the unique constellation of needs presented by students with
AD[H]D, negative outcomes will continue."1 Surely, schools should
consider both the learner and the learning environment when planning
intervention strategies.
A
transactional model of school-child relationships shifts the main work of
educators away from correcting deficiencies in special-needs and at-risk
children to accommodating weaknesses while "designing instructional
environments that match [their] strengths."14 This model raises the issue
of schools' readiness to teach children with diverse needs, as well as
children's readiness to learn.18
A
transactional, two-way model of school performance encourages schools and
families to meet halfway to share responsibility for children's learning.
Through collaboration, schools, families, and community support systems can
improve the fit between children and school environments to increase the
probability of success.
Experts
recommend multi-modal treatment for ADHD--a combination of academic,
behavioral, and medical interventions to help children succeed at home and
school. Multimodal treatment requires teamwork and assumes shared
responsibility for school success. It involves a child's parents or
caretakers, health-care professionals, and school personnel--teachers,
administrators, special educators, and school psychologists--working together
to design effective intervention plans that address individual weaknesses and
build on strengths.
Interventions
may include giving information and training to parents and teachers about
ADHD, behavior modification techniques, counseling, social skills training,
medication, and classroom accommodations. To meet schools halfway, families
can seek information, training, and counseling, as well as possible drug
therapy for the child; and they can communicate and collaborate with schools
and teachers to support learning. To meet families halfway, schools can help
provide information and access to school and community support services,
communicate and collaborate with families, and make appropriate accommodations
in the school environment.
Accommodations
in the school environment range from specific plans for individual children to
more comprehensive changes in school procedures, practices, and policies.
Schools must provide specific accommodations to disabled individuals by law,
while comprehensive changes in school environments depend on the discretion
and will of educators, administrators, school governance bodies, and
policymakers.
Specific
accommodations that compensate for individual weaknesses can be critical to
the success of children with ADHD and should be part of the child's IEP or 504
plan. Since no two children with ADHD have the same strengths and weaknesses,
specific accommodation plans should be developed for each child. The U.S.
Department of Education counsels that "Plans should, at a minimum,
identify students' characteristics and special learning needs and provide
sound ideas for strengthening their academic and social performance."16
In a
1991 memorandum, the Department suggested some possible modifications for
children with ADHD in regular education classrooms:
Providing
a structured learning environment; repeating and simplifying instructions
about in-class and homework assignments; supplementing verbal instructions
with visual instructions; using behavioral management techniques; adjusting
class schedules; modifying test delivery; using tape recorders, computer-aided
instruction, and other audiovisual equipment; selecting modified textbooks or
workbooks; and tailoring homework assignments. Other provisions range from
consultation to special resources and may include reducing class size; use of
one-on-one tutorials, classroom aides and note takers; involvement of a
"services coordinator" to oversee implementation of special programs
and services, and possible modification of nonacademic times such as
lunchroom, recess, and physical education.22
Behavior
management techniques. Children with ADHD perform best with clear expectations
and immediate feedback. They may need extra help from behavior modification
plans to meet classroom expectations such as completing work and restraining
movement. While such plans may temporarily change a behavior, thereby
improving grades--children complete more assignments, resulting in a higher
average--they do not address learning problems. Modified behaviors, moreover,
do not automatically generalize to other settings. Research has shown the
following types of behavior modification to be effective for students with
ADHD.23
Positive
reinforcement the place to start when developing plans ranges from frequent
positive feedback (praise) to token reward systems, in which children can earn
treats and privileges for specified behavior.
Behavior
reduction strategies negative feedback; short, immediate reprimands; and
redirection effectively reduce undesirable behaviors and should be used along
with positive reinforcement.
Response
cost, which combines positive reinforcement (earning tokens that can be
exchanged for privileges or rewards) and punishment (deducting tokens for
undesirable behavior), can increase on-task behavior and work completion.
Correspondence
training rewards children for matching their words (intentions) to actions:
they promise to complete a task, then do it; or do the task, then report it.24
Modifying
test delivery. Children with ADHD may have problems with executive function
and written language, so they may better demonstrate knowledge of material
through oral testing, performance testing, or other alternative demonstrations
of accomplishment. Students can be provided extra time to complete tests or
quiet testing areas away from distractions.
Tailoring
homework. Children with ADHD may benefit from modified or shorter assignments.
Even older students may need help managing their time and keeping track of
assignments, textbooks, and other instructional materials. Daily assignment
sheets that parents can monitor at home, subject dividers and pencil pouches
for notebooks, an extra set of textbooks to keep at home, and assistance
planning and executing long-term assignments can boost homework completion.
Reducing
class size. Barkley10 recommends small classes for children with ADHD. He says
that "12-15 is ideal, while 30-40 is unmanageable." Other strategies
for lowering the pupil-adult ratio include using classroom aides, team
teaching with resource personnel, and enlisting parent volunteers.
One-on-one
tutorials. Class-wide peer tutoring--which pairs students for
drill-and-practice activities--has been shown to be effective for children
with ADHD. It provides them the immediate feedback they need, while reducing
demands on teachers' time.25
Since
fostering self-esteem is critical to their treatment, children with ADHD need
to develop and recognize their increasing academic competence.26 The best
intervention strategies maximize a child's success and are designed so that
the child takes credit for the success.27 They also consider a child's
individual strengths and weaknesses within the context of particular classroom
situations and requirements. Busch offers sound advice: "Accommodate the
child's difficulties . . . and teach to the child's strengths and
abilities."28
A
teacher who must manage a classroom that includes several children with
special needs--all requiring individual accommodations--takes on a tremendous
burden. Comprehensive changes that make schools and classrooms more nurturing
may eliminate the need for so many individual accommodations--lifting the
burden from teachers while improving student outcomes.1 Many current local,
state, and national school reform efforts focus on changes in school
environments in order to make schooling a better experience for all children.
Unfortunately,
little research specific to interventions for ADHD exists to guide educators
and policymakers. While the knowledge base is growing, a review of the
literature shows "serious gaps" regarding effective academic
strategies, and even less is available from the policy perspective.23,29
Fortunately, the research is beginning to show that what is good for all
students works with children with ADHD (Maurice McInerney, personal
communication, January 8, 1995). In addition to specific research on ADHD,
educators and policymakers can turn to related research--such as the at-risk,
school reform, and motivation literature--to begin the process of building
nurturing environments.
In their
review of the literature on at-risk students and school-reform efforts, Rossi
and Montgomery report that policymakers have proposed "significant
changes in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and organizational strategies
. . . to create a challenging, nonstigmatizing learning environment that meets
student needs."18 When proposing such comprehensive changes, policymakers
should consider four issues to provide at-risk children the opportunity and
motivation to learn: academic success; relevance of the school program;
positive, supportive relationships with teachers at school; and supportive
conditions beyond school.21
Multimodal
treatment for ADHD attempts to improve academic success, in-school relations,
and out-of-school support through individual accommodations and collaboration
among school personnel, families, and community support systems (including
medical professionals). Relevance of curriculum, however, goes beyond the
legal requirements of individual accommodation and into the realm of
policymaking. The following sections look at proposed changes in curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and organization and how they relate to children with
ADHD.
Curriculum.
A curriculum that is irrelevant to students' social and economic interests has
been shown to contribute to poor performance, dropping out, and rebellious
behavior. To be intrinsically motivating to any student, curricula need to be
"interesting, challenging, and providing opportunities for initiative and
creative effort."21 Many observers echo these sentiments regarding
children with ADHD. Barkley30 says that interesting, challenging, and
meaningful experiences are more apt to keep children with ADHD motivated and
engaged. Since students with ADHD function in the realm of the immediate, he
says, they may not work for delayed rewards such as grades: the reward must be
in the task itself.31
Weaver
says that offering children with ADHD "meaningful learning
experiences" helps them focus and concentrate."17 Her research has
shown that children with ADHD respond well to a meaningful, whole-language
curriculum that "offers . . . choice and ownership, and that supports
learners in taking more responsibility for their own learning and their
behavior." She then supplies organizational and other support to
individual students as needed.
Kohn19
favors a constructivist, student-centered curriculum that allows students to
choose alternative assignments, connects learning to real-life experiences,
and embeds less interesting tasks in more appealing activities. A curriculum
that emphasizes collaboration, content, and choice, he says, internally
motivates students to learn and reduces the need for rewards and punishments
to stimulate interest and control behavior.
Collaboration
promotes learning through active interaction with information and other
people. An increasingly popular form of classroom collaboration cooperative
learning has been shown to engage students and increase achievement.
Experts16,17,32 recommend cooperative learning for students with ADHD.
Content,
in Kohn's discussion, includes both what is taught and how it is taught. Kohn
believes that many school tasks are "not worth doing" because they
overemphasize rote memorization, discourage creativity, and fragment
information. This combination can be disastrous for children with ADHD, who,
because of their biologically driven need for stimulation, have little
tolerance for boredom.32 Instead, he supports a curriculum that relates topics
to students' lives and concerns, involves children through inquiry and
meaningful experiences, and teaches responsibility and problem-solving through
real-life applications.
Choice,
or self-determination, is critically linked to motivation. Kohn, like Weaver,
advocates involving children in substantial decisions about their learning,
from a choice of reading and writing assignments to alternative ways to
demonstrate learning.
To
promote interest and increase the social and economic relevance of curricula,
policy-makers have proposed incorporating real-world experiences into the
curriculum, integrating vocational and academic instruction, and developing
school-to-work programs and apprenticeships.21
Instruction.
Research has shown that instructional strategies from the effective-teaching
literature benefit children with ADHD in regular education classrooms. These
include previewing the lesson, providing direct instruction, connecting
information to students' prior knowledge and personal experience, checking for
understanding, and preparing students for transitions to the next activity.33
Studies
have also found that task stimulation--adding stimulation to instruction,
rather than reducing it--can improve performance and behavior in children with
ADHD.23 To help improve cognitive outcomes, Zentall34,8 recommends that
teachers add novelty, stimulation, and activity to teaching materials and
methods. Methods include active learning and high response
opportunities--building more verbal response and motor activity into academic
tasks (e.g., group work, choral responding, flip cards, talking), and adding
color to instructional materials (e.g., colored notebook paper or colored
print), especially for rote tasks.
Computer
instruction, especially games without excessive animation, has been shown to
increase attention in students with ADHD.35 Computers also allow individuals
to work at their own rates and levels, provide immediate feedback, and help
develop problem-solving skills. Word processing programs with spell checks
accommodate students who have difficulty with writing and spelling.
Finally,
experts recommend instructional strategies that draw on children's strengths
rather than emphasizing their weaknesses. Zentall32 has found that children
with ADHD are "learn by doing, trial and error learners" who will
work "to get something (stimulating, active, novel)" or "to get
out of or away from something (repetitious, boring)."
Some
strategies or theories that help schools identify and address students' areas
of strength include learning styles,36 multiple intelligences,37 and human
dynamics.38
Assessment.
Disabilities can penalize children with ADHD on tests and cause poor
performance. Impulsivity causes errors on multiple-choice items,8 memory
problems impede retention of factual information, impairment of executive
function interferes with essay writing, and hand-writing difficulties consume
limited time. Authentic or alternative assessments that allow students to
"demonstrate what they have learned rather than how well they take a
test"21 may provide educators and policymakers with clearer information
about the effectiveness of both individual accommodations and changes in
school environments.
Many
state and federal agencies and professional organizations are developing
assessment measures tied to new content-area standards and curriculum
frameworks. Due to concerns that schools often exempt special education
students from state-level assessments--leaving policy-makers little data for
measuring their progress toward education goals or determining
accountability--the National Center on Education Outcomes has recommended that
state and federal agencies develop guidelines for including these students in
assessments and "develop and study . . . modifications, accommodations,
and alternatives" that will allow them to participate.39 Eligible
students with ADHD are currently provided modifications such as extra time,
separate testing areas, and the use of calculators on college entrance and
General Equivalency Diploma (GED) examinations.
Organization.
Part of the misfit between schools and at-risk children may result from mixing
economics and education--using free market values of competition and survival
of the fittest (or "smartest")40 to achieve the mutually exclusive
goal of universal excellence. As in many Olympic events, classroom time is one
variable that separates the winners from the losers.
As the
National Education Commission on Time and Learning41 reports, time
"governs how material is presented to students and the opportunity they
have to comprehend and master it," so that "the boundaries of
student growth are defined by schedules for bells, buses, and vacations
instead of standards for students and learning." The Commission believes
that "fixing [this] design flaw" opens the door for needed reforms:
accommodating young children at different levels of readiness; radically
changing teaching and learning by encouraging practices like block scheduling,
team teaching, and integrating disciplines; ending the practice of grouping
children by age; adjusting classrooms to meet the individual student's needs
and learning styles--"offering more frequent breaks, providing more
opportunities for hands-on learning, encouraging group work"; and
allowing more individualized instruction.
Research
shows that schools' scheduling practices affect students' attention and
activity levels. Children's ability to remain on task and their need for
breaks naturally varies according to age and developmental level. Organizing
instruction and breaks around students' developmental needs could help
maximize concentration, reduce inappropriate activity, and improve time on
task for all children, including those with ADHD.14
Lack of
time in school also limits teachers' opportunities for planning, collaboration
with others--including peers, parents, and support personnel--and staff
development. Multimodal treatment for students with ADHD requires that
teachers have this extra time within the school day, yet in reality, few do.
Organizational
constraints influence other decisions about teaching and learning that
adversely affect children with ADHD. For instance, class size may help
determine choice of teaching methods and learning activities, as anyone brave
enough to do anything with 25-30 children can imagine. Understandably,
teachers may choose to assign independent seat work rather than attempt
collaborative, hand-on activities. They make this choice as much for
management and crowd control as for educational benefit, of course, but a
preponderance of seat work exacerbates the symptoms of students with ADHD and
does little to promote genuine learning for anyone.
Policymakers
have proposed new organizational strategies to increase support for at-risk
students. To combat impersonalization at the secondary level caused by large
schools and frequent class changes, they have created smaller academic units
within large schools ("schools within schools") and
interdisciplinary teacher teams.21 These strategies allow teachers and
students to get to know each other and help teachers collaborate to address
individual student problems. Collaboration and consistency among teachers
especially benefit students with ADHD, who function best with routine,
structure, and consistent expectations.
Because
educators and policymakers must forge ahead to improve education outcomes for
all students, including those with ADHD, they must carefully monitor student
progress and evaluate whether programs and policies yield desired results. A
school environment that nurtures the growth and development of children with
ADHD would, at the very least, decrease dropout, suspension, expulsion,
failure, and retention rates; and increase enrollment in college and
postsecondary training programs in this population.
To build
nurturing environments for children with ADHD and other at-risk students,
policymakers and educators may want to ask the following questions:
Does
instruction draw on students' strengths or focus on weaknesses?
Does the
curriculum interest, challenge, and engage students?
Is the
curriculum relevant to students' social and economic needs?
Do
classroom assessment instruments penalize children with disabilities or
measure what they know?
Do
children with ADHD participate in state assessment measures? Do schools
provide accommodations that allow them to participate?
Do
school schedules and calendars take precedence over students' individual
developmental and learning needs?
Do
teachers have time to meet student needs, collaborate with peers, and develop
their knowledge and expertise?
Does
short-term efficiency (school and class size) matter more than long-term
effectiveness (learning and growth)?
Do
schools aggregate and monitor outcome data for students with disabilities
(dropout, suspension, expulsion, failure, and retention rates; and enrollment
in college and post secondary training)?
Conclusion
As a
nation, we can no longer afford to let at-risk children, including those with
ADHD, fail in school. Their failure not only increases the risk of
"dropping out . . . unemployment . . . claiming welfare benefits . . .
problems with authority, and . . . penal incarceration,"42 but also
deprives society of contributions they could have made had their potential
been developed. Each wasted life is a tragedy. As educators responsible for
the nourishment and growth of future generations, we must find better ways to
help children meet our standards and expectations. We need to take a hard look
at how we can reach and teach43 them where they are.
1.
Reeve, R. (1994). The academic impact of ADD. Attention, 1(1), pp. 8-12.
2.
Ingersoll, B. (1988). Your hyperactive child. New York: Doubleday.
3. Weiss
& Hechtman, as cited in Fowler, M. (1992). The CH.A.D.D. educator's
manual. Plantation, FL: Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder.
4.
Anderson, Williams, McGee, & Silva, as cited in Zentall, S. (1993).
Research on the educational implications of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. Exceptional Children, 60(2), pp. 143-153.
5.
Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas, & Nemeth, as cited in Hawkins, J., Martin,
S., Blanchard, K., & Brady, M. (1991). Teacher perceptions, beliefs, and
interventions regarding children with attention deficit disorders. Action in
Teacher Education, XII(2), p. 5.
6.
Barkley et al., as cited in Fowler, M. (1992). The CH.A.D.D. educator's
manual. Plantation, FL: Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder.
7.
Edwards. G. (1995). Book reviews: Attention deficits and hyperactivity in
children (1994), by Stephen P. Hinshaw. ADHD Report, 3(1), p. 13.
8.
Zentall, S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 60(2), pp. 143-153.
9.
Barkley, R. (1994). It's not just an attention disorder. Attention, 1(2), pp.
22-27.
10.
Barkley, R. (1994). What to look for in a school for a child with ADHD. ADHD
Report, 2(3), pp. 1-3.
11.
Dykman, R., Ackerman, P., & Raney, T. (1993). Research synthesis on
assessement and characteristics of children with attention deficit disorder.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
12.
Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, M. (1992). Hyperactivity: Why won't my child
pay attention? New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
13.
Barkley, R. (1994). More on the new theory of ADHD. ADHD Report, 2(2), pp.
1-4.
14.
Pelligrini, A., & Horvat, M. (1995). A developmental contextualist
critique of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Educational Researcher,
24(1), 13-19.
15.
Barkley, R. (1994). Choosing a teacher for a child with ADHD. ADHD Report,
2(4), pp. 1-3.
16.
United States Department of Education. (1994). Teaching strategies: Education
of children with attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
Weaver, C. (1992). Understanding and educating attention deficit
hyperactivechildren. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Department of
English.
18.
Rossi, R., & Montgomery, A. (1994). Becoming at risk of failure in
America's schools. In Rossi, R., & Montgomery, A. (Eds.), Educational
reforms and students at risk: A review of the current state of the art (pp.
1-45). Washington, DC: Office of Research, United States Department of
Education.
19.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
20.
Barkley, R. (1994, April). Workshop manual: Attention deficit-hyperactivity
disorder. Worcester, MA: University of Massachusetts Medical Center.
21.
Legters, N., McDill, E., & McPartland, J. (1994). Rising to the challenge:
Emerging strategies for students at risk. In Rossi, R., & Montgomery, A.
(Eds.), Educational reforms and students at risk: A review of the current
state of the art (pp. 47-92). Washington, DC: Office of Research: United
States Department of Education.
22.
Davila, R., Williams, M., & MacDonald, J. (1991). Memorandum of chief
state school officers re: Clarification of policy to address the needs of
children with attention deficit disorders with general and/or special
education. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
23.
Fiore, T., Becker, E., & Nero, R. (1993). Research synthesis on education
interventions for students with attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Education.
24.
Paniagua, F., Morrison, P., & Black, S., as cited in Fiore, T., Becker,
E., & Nero, R. (1993). Research synthesis on education interventions for
students with attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Education.
25.
DuPaul, G., Bankert, C., & Ervin, R. (1994). Classwide peer tutoring: A
school-based academic intervention for ADHD. ADHD Report, 2(4) pp. 4-5.
26.
Brooks, R. (1992, Fall/Winter). Fostering self-esteem in children with ADD:
The search for islands of competence. CHADDER, pp. 14-15.
27.
Brooks, R. (1994). Enhancing self-esteem in children and adolescents with
ADHD. ADHD Report, 2(3), pp. 8-9.
28.
Busch, B. (1993). Attention deficits: Current concepts, controversies,
management, and approaches to classroom instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 42,
pp. 5-25.
29.
Richter-Sand, K. (1995). The impact of ADD on families and school
relationships. ADHD Report, 3(1), pp. 8-11.
30.
Barkley, R. (1990), as cited in Weaver, C. (1992). Understanding and
educating\attention deficit hyperactive students: Toward a systems-theory and
whole language perspective. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,
Department of English.
31.
Barkley, R. (1994, April 29). Symposium address. Beechwood, OH: The Institute
of Adult Development and the Institute for Child and Adolescent Wellness.
32.
Zentall, S., as cited in Fowler, M. (1992). CH.A.D.D. educator's manual.
Plantation, FL: Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder.
33.
McInerney, M. (1994). Effective practices for educating children with
attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: Chesapeake Institute.
34.
Zentall, S., as cited in Dykman, R., Ackerman, P., & Raney, T. (1993).
Research synthesis on assessment and characteristics of children with
attention deficit disorder. Washington, DC: Chesapeake Institute.
35.
Dailey, E., & Rosenberg, M. (1994). ADD, computers, and learning: Using
computers to help children with ADD become efficient learners. Attention,
1(2), pp. 8-16.
36.
Cornett, C. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles,
Phi Delta Kappan Fastback #191. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
37.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind. New York: Harper & Row.
38.
Seagal, S., & Horne, D. (1994). Understanding student learning: Decoding
human dynamics. Doubts & Certainties: A Forum on School Transformation
from the NEA National Center for Innovation, IX(2), pp. 1-5.
39.
United States Department of Education. (1994). To assure the free appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: Sixteenth annnual report
to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
40.
Hallowell, E., & Ratey, J. (1994). Driven to distraction. New York:
Pantheon Books.
41.
Jones, J., Barrett, M., Byers, B., Cross, C., Doyle, D., Schwartz, C.,
Higgins, N., Shelton, W., & Walker, G. (1994). Prisoners of time: Report
of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning. Washington, DC:
National Education Commission on Time and Learning.
42.
Weiss & Hechtman, as cited in Hawkins, J., Martin, S., Blanchard, K.,
& Brady, M. (1991). Teacher perceptions, beliefs, and interventions
regarding children with attention deficit disorders. Action in Teacher
Education, XIII(2), pp. 52-59.
43. Rief,
S. (1993). How to reach and teach ADD/ADHD children. New York: The Center of
Applied Research in Education.
This
publication is based on work sponsored wholly or in part by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education,
under contract number RP91002002. Its contents do not necessarily reflect the
views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
|