Full-day classroom observations of learning disabled, emotionally disabled, educable mentally retarded, and nonhandicapped students (N = 122) were conducted. A 10-second interval recording system was used to document tasks and student responding during written language instruction in regular and special education settings. Regardless of categorical designation, extreme variability was found in the amount of time individual students spent in writing activities or in receiving written language instruction. Implications for improving written language instruction for students with mild handicaps include increasing allocated time, teaching written language as an integrated process, and coordinating written language activities with different content areas. Collaborative problem solving between regular and special educators is needed to accomplish these changes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonL. W. (1984). Instruction and time-on-task: A review. In AndersonL. W. (Ed.), Time and school learning (pp. 143–163). New York: St. Martin's Press.
2.
AndersonP. L. (1987). Writing assessment. In ReynoldsC. L.MannL. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education, Vol. 3 (pp. 1670–1671). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BridgeC. A.HiebertE. H. (1985). A comparison of classroom writing practices, teachers' perceptions of their writing instruction, and textbook recommendations on writing practices. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2), 155–172.
4.
BrophyJ.GoodT. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: MacMillan.
5.
Center for Educational Statistics. (1987). The condition of education: A statistical report. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Educational Products Information Exchange Institute. (1977). Report on a national study of the nature and the quality of instructional materials (Tech. Rep. No. 76). New York: EPIE Institute.
7.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.AndersonL. A. (1986). Expository writing instruction for special needs students. PRISE Reporter, 18, 1–3.
8.
EnglertC. S.RaphaelT. E.FearK. L.AndersonL. A. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 (1), 18–46.
9.
GradenJ.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ. (1983). Instructional ecology and academic responding time for students at three levels of teacher-perceived behavioral competence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 241–256.
10.
GrahamS. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14 (8), 1–16.
11.
GrahamS. (1983). Effective spelling instruction. Elementary School Journal, 83, 560–568.
12.
GrahamS. (1987). Handwriting. In ReynoldsC. L.MannL. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education, Vol. 3 (pp. 758–759). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (Eds.) (1988). Research and instruction in written language [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 54 (6).
14.
GrahamS.MacArthurC. A. (1987). Written language of the handicapped. In ReynoldsC. L.MannL. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education, Vol. 3 (pp. 1678–1681). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
GrahamS.MillerL. (1979). Spelling research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 12 (2), 1–16.
16.
GrahamS.MillerL. (1980). Handwriting research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 13 (2), 1–16.
17.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ.HallR. V. (1978). Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR. Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
18.
HaynesM. C.JenkinsJ. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.
19.
HilcocksG. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.
20.
LeinhardtG.ZigmondN.CooleyW. (1980). Reading instruction and its effectsPaper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
21.
NewcomerP. L.BarenbaumE. M.NodineB. F. (1988). Composition of the story production of LD, normal-achieving, and low-achieving children under two modes of production. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11 (2), 82–96.
22.
NodineB. F.BarenbaumE.NewcomerP. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8 (3), 167–179.
23.
ReynoldsM. C.WangM. C.WalbergH. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53 (5), 391–398.
24.
SkrticT. (1987). An organizational analysis of special education reformUnpublished manuscript.
25.
StainbackW.StainbackS. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
26.
StanleyS. O.GreenwoodC. R. (1980). CISSAR: Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Observer's manual. Kansas City, KS: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, Juniper Gardens Children's Project.
27.
ThurlowM.GradenJ.GreenerJ. W.YsseldykeJ. E. (1983). LD and non-LD students' opportunities to learn. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 172–182.
28.
ThurlowM. L.YsseldykeJ. E.GradenJ. L.AlgozzineB. (1984). Opportunity to learn for LD students receiving different levels of special education service. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 55–67.
