Learning handicapped students were observed as they worked in dyads during a microcomputer-based writing activity. Their interactions were coded into initiation-response sequences of verbal and nonverbal behaviors. These behaviors were analyzed to determine (1) the probability of each type of behavior occurring as an initiation and as a response, (2) the dependencies between frequently occurring initiations and responses, and (3) the relationship of these initiation-response sequences to group performance on the writing task. Strategies employed by the dyads and the relationship of their interactions to group productivity and use of group resources are discussed Directions for future research on the group participation skills and needs of these students are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarenbaumE.NewcomerP.NodineB. (1987). Children's ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 175–188.
2.
BosC. (1988). Process oriented writing: Instructional implications for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 521–527.
3.
BryanT.DonohueM.PearlR. (1981). Learning disabled children's peer interactions during a small-group problem-solving task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 13–22.
CosdenM. (1989). Cooperative groups and microcomputer instruction: Combining technologies. The Pointer, 33, 21–28.
6.
CosdenM.PearlR.BryanT. (1985). The effects of cooperative and individual goal structures on learning disabled and nondisabled students. Exceptional Children, 52, 103–114.
7.
CosdenM.A.SemmelM.I. (1987). Developmental changes in micro-educational environments for learning handicapped and nonhandicapped elementary school students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 3, 1–13.
8.
CosdenM.GoldmanS.HineM.S. (1989). Learning handicapped students' interactions during a microcomputer-based group writing activity. Tech. Rep. #57. University of California, Santa Barbara, Project TEECh.
9.
CosdenM.GerberM.M.SemmelD.S.GoldmanS.R.SemmelM.I. (1987). Microcomputer use within micro-educational environments. Exceptional Children, 53, 399–409.
10.
DickinsonD. (1986). Cooperation, collaboration, and a computer: Integrating a computer into a first-second grade writing program. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 357–379.
11.
DodgeK.PettitG.McClaskeyC.BrownM. (1986). Social competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51, Serial No. 213.
12.
Dudley-MarlingC. (1985). The pragmatic skills of learning disabled children: A review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 193–199.
13.
GerberM.SemmelM.I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148.
14.
GoldmanS.CosdenM.HineM.S. (1988). Microcomputer based collaborative writing by learning handicapped students: Cognitive characteristics. Tech. Rep. #55. University of California, Santa Barbara, Project TEECh.
HineM.S.GoldmanS.CosdenM. (1990). Error monitoring by learning handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 23, 407–423.
17.
JohnsonD.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonC.SkonL. (1981). The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
18.
JohnsonR.JohnsonD.StanneM. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 668–677.
19.
KerrN.BruunS. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
20.
Knight-ArestI. (1984). Communicative effectiveness of learning disabled and normally achieving 10- to 13-year-old boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 237–245.
21.
LloydJ.CrawleyE.P.KohlerF.StrainP. (1988). Redefining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 43–52.
22.
O'DonnellA.DansereauD.HallR.RocklinT. (1987). Cognitive, social/affective and metacognitive outcomes of scripted cooperative learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 431–437.
23.
PetersonP.WilkinsonL.HallinanM. (Eds.). (1984). The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
24.
SalomonG.GlobersonT. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.
25.
SlavinR. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.
26.
SlavinR. (1984). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.
27.
SlavinR.MaddenN.LeaveyM. (1984). Effects of cooperative learning and individualized instruction on mainstreamed students. Exceptional Children, 50, 434–443.
28.
SmithK.JohnsonD.JohnsonR. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy vs. concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651–663.
29.
SpekmanN. (1981). Dyadic verbal communication abilities of learning disabled and normally achieving fourth- and fifth-grade boys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 139–151.
30.
Tateyama-SniezekK. (1990). Cooperative learning: Does it improve the academic achievement of students with handicaps?Exceptional Children, 56, 426–437.
31.
WebbN. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475–484.
32.
WebbN.EnderP.LewisS. (1986). Problem solving strategies and group processes in small group learning computer programming. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 245–261.
