Explain how understanding typical and atypical development of K-8 students can be used by all educators to respond to the learning and behavioral
****Please read the directions carefully, must use original work!!!!*** Please read the rubric as well. This is due within 28 hours.
Educators should understand the learning and behavioral characteristics of students with moderate to severe disabilities when providing direct services and supports within the school setting. In turn, teachers can use such knowledge to collaborate with general educators and other professional colleagues when planning meaningful learning activities and social interactions with peers and adults. Expected student progress is made more viable when the selection, development, and adaptation of learning experiences for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities consider individual abilities and other related factors.
Create a matrix to compare and contrast the typical and atypical cognitive, linguistic, and social-emotional development of K-8 students without disabilities, with dyslexia, with mild disabilities, and those with moderate to severe disabilities. Include 3-5 characteristics per student disability type and developmental criteria.
Additionally, write a 250-500 word summary in which you:
Explain how understanding typical and atypical development of K-8 students can be used by all educators to respond to the learning and behavioral needs of students with moderate to severe disabilities.
Explain how collaboration between special educators, general educators, and related service providers regarding learning and behavioral characteristics of students can help create safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments that engage students with disabilities in meaningful learning activities and social interactions.
Support your matrix and summary with a minimum of three scholarly resources.
Typical and Atypical Student Development Matrix – Rubric
Compare and Contrast Typical and Atypical Cognitive, Linguistic and
Social-Emotional Characteristics 22.5 points
Criteria Description
Compare and Contrast Typical and Atypical Cognitive, Linguistic and Social-Emotional
Characteristics of Students
5. Target 22.5 points
Matrix comparing and contrasting typical and atypical cognitive, linguistic and
social-emotional development of students K-8 without disabilities, with dyslexia,
with mild disabilities and those with moderate to severe disabilities is
comprehensive.
4. Acceptable 18.9 points
Matrix comparing and contrasting typical and atypical cognitive, linguistic and
social-emotional development of students K-8 without disabilities, with dyslexia,
with mild disabilities and those with moderate to severe disabilities is complete and
descriptive.
3. Approaching 16.65 points
Matrix minimally compares and contrasts typical and atypical cognitive, linguistic
and social-emotional development of students K-8 without disabilities, with
dyslexia, with mild disabilities and those with moderate to severe disabilities, but
only provides a surface comparisons.
2. Insufficient 15.52 points
Matrix inadequately compares and contrasts typical and atypical cognitive,
linguistic, and social-emotional development of students K-8 without disabilities,
with dyslexia, with mild disabilities and those with moderate to severe disabilities
and/or provides erroneous comparisons.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Collapse All
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Learning and Behavior Needs of Individuals with Moderate to Severe
Disabilities 22.5 points
Criteria Description
Learning and Behavior Needs of Individuals with Moderate to Severe Disabilities
5. Target 22.5 points
Description of how matrix information could support educators in addressing the
specific learning and behavior needs of individuals with moderate to severe
disabilities is expertly written.
4. Acceptable 18.9 points
Description of how matrix information could support educators in addressing the
specific learning and behavior needs of individuals with moderate to severe
disabilities is accurate and detailed.
3. Approaching 16.65 points
Description of how matrix information could support educators in addressing the
specific learning and behavior needs of individuals with moderate to severe
disabilities is adequate, but written at a cursory level.
2. Insufficient 15.52 points
Description of how matrix information could support educators in addressing the
specific learning and behavior needs of individuals with moderate to severe
disabilities is insufficient and/or provides erroneous examples.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Collaboration with General Educators and Related Service Providers 22.5 points
Criteria Description
Collaboration with General Educators and Related Service Providers
5. Target 22.5 points
Description of how matrix information could support collaboration with general
educators and related service providers to ensure inclusion of individuals with
moderate to severe disabilities in meaningful learning activities and social
interactions within the general education setting is comprehensive.
4. Acceptable 18.9 points
Description of how matrix information could support collaboration with general
educators and related service providers to ensure inclusion of individuals with
moderate to severe disabilities in meaningful learning activities and social
interactions within the general education setting is competent.
3. Approaching 16.65 points
Description of how matrix information could support collaboration with general
educators and related service providers to ensure inclusion of individuals with
moderate to severe disabilities in meaningful learning activities and social
interactions within the general education setting is ambiguous.
2. Insufficient 15.52 points
Description of how matrix information could support collaboration with general
educators and related service providers to ensure inclusion of individuals with
moderate to severe disabilities in meaningful learning activities and social
interactions within the general education setting is implausible.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Mechanics of Writing 3.75 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Target 3.75 points
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-
developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are
varied and engaging.
4. Acceptable 3.15 points
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder
comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some
practice and content-related language.
3. Approaching 2.78 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct
but not varied.
2. Insufficient 2.59 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Research Citations and Format 3.75 points
Criteria Description
Research Citations and Format (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Target 3.75 points
All sources are credible, appropriate, and strongly support the submission. All
required aspects of APA format are correct within the submission.
4. Acceptable 3.15 points
All sources are credible, adequate, and support the submission. All required aspects
of APA format are correct within the submission.
3. Approaching 2.78 points
Some citations may be missing where needed; or some of the sources do not
support the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but some aspects are
missing or mistaken.
2. Insufficient 2.59 points
Many citations are missing where needed; or many of the sources are inappropriate
for the submission; or APA is attempted where required, but many aspects are
missing or mistaken.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Total 75 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
