This article presents results from an observational study analyzing the effect of instructional variables on the engaged behavior of 29 students with moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disabilities who were included full time in general education elementary classrooms. Results indicated that one-to-one, small group, and independent work arrangements were associated with higher engaged behavior than whole class instruction. Three instructional contexts associated with the highest levels of engaged behavior were identified. Results are discussed in relation to building effective instructional contexts for students with severe disabilities in general education elementary classes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB.MorsinkC. V.AlgozzineK. M. (1988). What's happening in self-contained special education classrooms?Exceptional Children, 55, 259–265.
2.
BakemanR.McArthurD.QueraV. (1996). Detecting group differences in sequential association using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446–457.
3.
BrophyJ. E.GoodT. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WhittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: McMillan.
4.
BulgrenJ. A.CartaJ. J. (1993). Examining the instructional contexts of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 182–191.
5.
CartaJ. J.AtwaterJ. B.SchwartzI. S.MillerP. A. (1990). Applications of ecobehavioral analysis to the study of transitions across early education settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 298–315.
6.
CartaJ. J.GreenwoodC. R.SchulteD.Arreaga-MayerC.TerryB. (1988). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Mainstream version (MS-CISSAR). Kansas City: Juniper Gardens Children's Project Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.
7.
ClarkD. L.AstutoT. A. (1994). Redirecting reform. Phil Delta Kappan, 75, 512–520.
8.
CooperD. H.SpeeceD. L. (1990). Maintaining at-risk children in general education settings: Initial effects of individual differences and classroom environment. Exceptional Children, 54, 117–128.
9.
GiangrecoM. F.PutnamJ. (1991). Supporting the education of children with severe disabilities in the regular education environment. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A.BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 245–270). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
10.
GreenwoodC. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus nonrisk students. Exceptional Children, 57, 521–535.
11.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD.Arreaga-MayerC. (1990). Ecobehavioral analysis of classroom instruction. In SchroederS. (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities (pp. 33–63). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
HollowoodT. M.SalisburyC. L.RainforthB.PalombaroM. M. (1995). Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with and without severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 242–253.
13.
HuntP.Farron-DavisF.BecksteadS.CurtisD.GoetzL. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special classes. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200–214.
14.
HuntP.StaubD.AlwellM.GoetzL. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290–301.
15.
KampsD.CartaJ. J.DelquadriJ. C.Arreaga-MayerC.TerryB.GreenwoodC. R. (1989). School based research and intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 359–390.
16.
KampsD. M.LeonardB. R.DuganE. P.BolandB.GreenwoodC. R. (1991). The use of ecobehavioral assessment to identify naturally occurring effective procedures in classrooms serving children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1, 367–397.
17.
KeefeE. B. (1994). Ecobehavioral analysis of integrated settings for students with moderate to profound disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
18.
LoganK. R.KeefeE. B. (in press). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
19.
LoganK. R.MaloneD. M. (1996). Comparing instructional contexts for students with and without severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.
20.
LoganK. R.MaloneD. M. (in press). Observed instructional variables for students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Education and Training in Mental Retardation.
21.
MarstonD.DenoS. L.KimD.RogersD. (1995). Comparison of reading intervention approaches for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 20–37.
22.
O'SullivanP. (1988). Quantitative and qualitative aspects of reading instruction for mildly handicapped elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
23.
SindelarP. T.SmithM. A.HarrimanN. E.HaleR. L.WilsonR. J. (1989). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 195–207.
24.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.GradenJ.AlgozzineB. (1983). What's “special” about the special education resource room for learning disabled students?Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 283–288.
25.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. L.ChristensonS. L.WeissJ. (1987). Time allocated to instruction of mentally retarded, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and nonhandicapped elementary students. Journal of Special Education, 21, 43–55.
