Twenty-six LD students were observed over two entire school days to examine the extent to which instructional approaches and opportunities to learn varied according to service delivery level. Although instructional approaches varied, no differences were found in students' opportunities to learn through active academic responding. Thus, academic responding time was low for all students, averaging less than 45 minutes per day. Furthermore, variability among students was great, even within one service delivery level. Relationships among student response times and achievement gains generally confirmed the positive relationship between active academic responding and achievement and the negative relationship between inappropriate responding and achievement. Implications of the findings for LD service provision are explored.
DenhamC.LiebermanA. (Eds.) Time to learn. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, 1980.
3.
DenoE.Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 229–240.
4.
DeshlerD.D.AlleyG.R.WarnerM.M.SchumakerJ.B.Instructional practices for promoting skill acquisition and generalization in severely learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 415–421.
5.
DunnL.M.MarkwardtF.C.Peabody individual achievement test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1970.
6.
FelsenthalH.KirschI.Variations in teachers' management of time and time spent on reading instruction: Effects on student learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 159 614).
7.
FrederickN.WalbergH.RasherS.Time, teacher comments, and achievement in urban high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 1979, 73, 63–65.
8.
GradenJ.ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E.Academic engaged time and its relationship to learning: A review of the literature (Monograph No. 17). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982. (a).
9.
GradenJ.ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.Instructional ecology and academic responding time for students at three levels of teacher-perceived behavioral competence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1983, 36, 241–256.
10.
GreenwoodC.R.DelquadriJ.HallR.V.Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR. Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, 1978.
11.
GreenwoodC.DelquadriJ.StanleyS.TerryB.HallR.Process-product study of relationships among instructional ecology, student response, and academic achievement. Unpublished manuscript, Juniper Gardens Children's Project, 1981.
12.
HallahanD.P.MarshallK.J.LloydJ.W.Self-recording during group instruction: Effects on attention to task. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 407–413.
13.
HouckC.GivenB.Status of SLD programs: Indications from a teacher survey. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 320–325.
14.
JacobsenK.The relationship of individual student time allocated to reading and math achievement: Report from the Project on Studies of Administration and Organization for Instruction. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, November1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 906).
15.
KarweitW.SlavinR.Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 1981, 18, 157–171.
16.
LeinhardtG.ZigmondN.CooleyW.W.Reading instruction and its effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April1980.
17.
McCormickL.CooperM.GoldmanR.Training teachers to maximize instructional time provided to severely and profoundly handicapped children. AAESPH Review, 1979, 4 (13), 301–310.
PotterM.MirkinP.Instructional planning and implementation practices of elementary and secondary resource room teachers: Is there a difference? (Research Report No. 65). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
20.
PowellL.SuzukiK.AtwaterJ.Gorney-KrupsawB.MorrisE.K.Interactions between teachers and learning disabled and non-learning disabled adolescents (Research Report No. 44). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1981.
21.
SargentL.R.Resource teacher time utilization: An observational study. Exceptional Children, 1981, 47, 420–425.
22.
SchumakerJ.B.Sheldon-WildgenJ.ShermanJ.A.An observational study of the academic and social behavior of learning disabled adolescents in the regular classroom (Research Report No. 22). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1980.
23.
SkrticT.M.The regular classroom interactions of learning disabled adolescents and their teachers (Research Report No. 8). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1980.
24.
ThompsonR.H.Interaction patterns of regular classroom teachers with mildly handicapped students in mainstreamed classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 41 (5), 2065–2066A. (University Microfilms No. 8019277).
25.
ThurlowM.L.GradenJ.GreenerJ.W.YsseldykeJ.E.LD and non-LD students' opportunities to learn. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1983, 6, 172–183.
26.
ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E.Teachers' beliefs about LD students (Research Report No. 66). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
27.
ZigmondN.VallecorsaA.LeinhardtG.Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1980, 1 (1), 89–98.
