Many students identified as trainable mentally retarded are moving to less restrictive placements. These moves may provide increased opportunities to interact with peers without disabilities and regular educators. The specific aim of the study was to characterize the interactions of students with moderate and severe mental retardation with their peers and instructors during physical education activities in regular elementary school settings and to examine the relationship between the nature of physical education activities and interaction patterns using direct observational methodology. Ten subjects with moderate to severe mental retardation were observed during regular physical education classes. Behavioral data and activity conditions were recorded using an IBM-compatible laptop computer. This study was a first step toward identifying social and environmental variables associated with successful participation of students with mental retardation in regular physical education settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchieV. W., & SherrillC. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed children in physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 319–322.
2.
BlockM. E., & VoglerE. W. (1994, January). Inclusion in regular physical education: The research base. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 40–43.
3.
BrinkerR. P., & ThorpeM. E. (1986). Features of integrated educational ecologies that predict social behavior among severely mentally retarded and nonretarded students. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 150–159.
4.
ChurtonM. W. (1987). Impact of the education of the handicapped act on adapted physical education: A 10-year overview. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4(1), 1–8.
5.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
6.
CraftD. H. (1994, January). Implications of inclusion for physical education. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 54–55.
7.
EllisD. N., & CronisT. G. (1994). Monitoring the Effects of a Change in Educational Placement on the Classroom Interactions of Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities. Final Report, Grant funded by the Division of Special Education Services of the Alabama State Department of Education.
8.
GoodmanH., GottliebJ., & HarrisonR. H. (1975). Social acceptance of EMR s integrated into a non-graded elementary school. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 412–417.
9.
GottliebJ., & BudofM. (1973). Social acceptability of retarded children in non-graded schools differing in architecture. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 78, 15–19.
10.
IanoR. P., AyersD., HellerH. B., McGettiganJ. F., & WalkerV. S. (1975). Sociometric status of children in an integrative program. Exceptional Children, 40, 267–271.
11.
KarperW. B., & MartinekT. J. (1982). Differential influence of various instructional factors on self-concepts of handicapped and non-handicapped children in mainstreamed physical education classes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 831–835.
12.
KarperW. B., & MartinekT. J. (1983). Motor performance and self-concept of handicapped and non-handicapped children in integrated physical education classes. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 37, 91–95.
13.
MacLeanW. EJr., TappJ. T.Sr., & JohnsonW. L. (1985). Alternate methods and software for calculating interobserver agreement for continuous observation data. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 7, 65–73.
14.
MelagranoV. J., & LoovisE. M. (1991). Status of physical education for handicapped students: A comparative analysis of teachers in 1980 and 1988. Adapted physical activity quarterly, 8, 28–42.
15.
RizzoT. L., DavisW. E., & ToussaintR. (1994, January). Inclusion in regular classes: Breaking from traditional curricula. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 24–26.
16.
RyndersJ., JohnsonR., JohnsonD., & SchmidtB. (1980). Producing positive interaction among Down's Syndrome and nonhandicapped teenagers through cooperative goal structuring. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 268–273.
17.
SherrillC., Heikinaro-JohanssonP., & SlingerD. (1994, January). Equal-Status relationships in the gym. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 27–31.
18.
SiglerG., MabeeW., & LazarA. (1978). Children's attitude toward handicapped students as a result of mainstreamed settings. Mental Retardation Bulletin, 6, 92–97.
19.
StagerS. F., & YoungR. D. (1981). Intergroup contact and social outcomes for mainstreamed EMR adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 497–503.
20.
TappJ., WehbyJ., & EllisD. N. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental studies: MOOSES. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 27(1), 25–31.
21.
VoglerE. W., DePaepeJ., & MartinekT. (1990). Effective teaching in adapted physical education. In Doll-TepperG., DahmsC., DollB., & von SelsamH. (Eds.), Adapted physical activity - An inter-disciplinary approach. Heidelberg: Springer.
22.
WangM. C., & BakerE. T. (1986). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 503–521.
23.
WatkinsonE. J., & TitusJ. A. (1985). Integrating the mentally handicapped in physical activity: A review and discussion. Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 2, 48–53.
24.
WatkinsonE. J. (1987). The development and evaluation of integrated programs. Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Journal, 53, 13–20.
