The basic components of the diagnostic-prescriptive concept are described as they were imple-mented into the program structure of an entire instructional unit for trainable mentally retarded children. The model herein is referred to as the Functional Analysis Program (FAP). The focus is on the resource materials and operational processes incorporated within the FAP structure. Analysis of student progress data on selected standardized tests indicated that in most areas assessed, statistically significant progress was evident in academic functioning. The results support research suggesting that traditional self-care programs may limit the learning potential of the trainable population.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckerW. C., EngelmannS., & ThomasD. R. (1975). Teaching 2: Cognitive learning and instruction. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
2.
BellamyT., & ButtarsK. L. (1975). Teaching trainable level retarded students to count money: Toward personal independence through academic instruction. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 10, 18–26.
3.
BoehmeA. (1969). The Boehme Test of Basic Language Concepts. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
4.
BrownL., & PerlmutterL. (1971). Teaching functional reading to trainable level retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 6, 74–84.
5.
BruningJ. L., & KintzB. L. (1968). Computational handbook of statistics. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, Co.
6.
CainL., & LevineS. (1961). A study of the effects of community and institutional school classes for trainable mentally retarded children. (USHEW Cooperative Research Program No. SAE 8257), San Francisco.
7.
DrewC. J., & MartinsonM. C. (1971). Educational methodology: An examination of approach. Exceptional Children, 38, 117–120.
8.
DrewC. J., FrestonC. W., & LoganD. R. (1972). Criteria and reference in evaluation. Focus on Exceptional Children, 4(1), 1–10.
9.
DrewC. J. (1976). Introduction to designing research and evaluation. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co.
10.
DunnL. M. (1958). The effectiveness of special day class training for severely (trainable) mentally retarded children. (Research Project). Nashville: George Peabody College for Teachers.
11.
GoldsteinH. (1956). Report number two on study projects for trainable handicapped children. Springfield, Ill.: Superintendent of Public Instruction.
12.
HottleJ. V. (1958). An evaluation of Tennessee day class programs for severely mentally retarded children. Nashville, Tenn: George Peabody College for Teachers.
13.
JastakJ. F., BijouS. W., & JastakS. R. (1965). The Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, Delaware: Guidance Associates.
14.
KirkS. A., & KirkW. D. (1971). Psycholinguistic learning disabilities: Diagnosis and remediation. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
15.
MechamM. J., JexJ. L., & JonesJ. D. (1967). Utah test of language development manual of instructions. Salt Lake City, Utah: Communication Research Associates, Inc.
16.
RobinsonH. B., & RobinsonN. M. (1965). The mentally retarded child: A psychological approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
SantinS. E. (1971). Report on an experiment in the teaching of reading to adolescent trainable retarded. Ontario, Canada: Guelph University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 050 501).
