Exceptional Children, VtJL 65, No.2, pp. 253·270.
©1999 The Councilfor Exceptional Children.
Teaching Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities to Recruit Positive Teacher Attention SHEILA R. ALBER
The University ofSouthern Mississippi WILLIAM L. HEWARD BROOKE J. HIPPLER
The Ohio State University
Four middle school students with learning disabilities were taught to recruit teacher attention while they worked on assignments in two inclusive general education classrooms. The students were taught to show their work to the teacher two to three times per session and make statements such as: "How am I doing?" Training was conducted in the special education classroom and consisted ofmodeling, role-playing, correctivefeedback, andpraise. A multiple baseline across students design showed that recruitment training increased (a) the rate ofrecruiting by the students, (b) the rate ofteacherpraise received by the students, (c) the rate of instructional feedback received by the students, and (d) the accuracy with which students completed their workbook assignments. ABSTRACT:
romoting the academic and social suecess of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms is one of the primary responsibilities of both special and general education teachers. A growing number of schools are striving to educate nearly all students with special needs in general education settings (Putnam, Spiegel, & Bruininks, 1995). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) reported that although two thirds of the general education teachers they surveyed supported the concept of inclusion, only one third believed they had the sufficient
P .
Exceptional Children
time, skills, training, or resources necessary to accommodate students with special needs. Additionally, Sale and Carey (1995) reported that full inclusion did not eliminate negative social perceptions of students with special needs. Students with disabilities, many of whom have limited social repertoires in addition to deficient academic skills, are expected to succeed in general education classrooms. Inclusive education will be of limited value to students with disabilities unless they attain meaningful academic and social gains in general education settings.
253
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
GEN-
ERAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION SETTINGS
Baker and Zigmond (1990) conducted descriptive research in an urban school district of 42,000 students, K-12. They found that general education classrooms were characterized primarily by instruction directed towards large groups of students with little teacher time spent on addressing individual needs. In other observational studies, students with learning disabilities were found to receive more individual instruction and teacher praise in special education classrooms than in general education classrooms (Deno, Maruyama, Espin, & Cohen, 1990; Gable, Hendrickson, Young, Shores, & Stachowiak, 1983; Nowacek, McKinney, & Hallahan, 1990; Thurlow, Graden, Greener, & Ysseldyke, 1983). Where positive teacher attention and praise occur more frequently (e.g., a special education resource room), individuals may be more likely to emit desired behaviors. Those same behaviors may not be emitted in settings where reinforcement is either nonexistent or too infrequent to be effective (e.g., the general education classroom; Baer, 1981). Because of different teacher-student ratios in special and general education classtooms, good performances by students receiving special education services are more likely to be noticed and praised in the special education setting, and more likely to go unnoticed and unrewarded in the general education classroom. NATU RAL CONTINGENCIES OF REINFORCEMENT
The differing contingencies of reinforcement in special and general education classrooms may account for the failure by some special students to maintain and generalize newly learned skills across these settings. Behaviors typically will not extend to other settings or stimulus situations unless teachers program for generalization (Baer, 1981). One strategy for programming the generalization of skills is to aim for natural contingencies of reinforcement (Baer & Wolf, 1970). Aiming for natural contingencies of reinforcement begins with teaching only those behaviors that will be maintained by the
254
postintervention environment. Skills most likely to be maintained by the natural environment are age appropriate, normalized, and functional (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968; Baer, 1981; Kohler & Greenwood, 1986). Some target behaviors do not meet existing contingencies of reinforcement in the generalization setting because they are performed with insufficient rate, accuracy, duration, or strength (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes & Osnes, 1989). Sometimes, however, appropriately executed target behaviors are not reinforced because the natural contingencies of reinforcement in the generalization setting are dormant (i.e., behaviors that need to be reinforced go unnoticed; Stokes & Baer; Stokes & Osnes). In such instances, the natural contingencies of reinforcement are "asleep and need to be waked up and turned on" (Baer, p. 17). One possible solution to the "sleeping contingency" problem is teaching students to recruit reinforcement for their efforts in the generalization setting. While it is expected and hoped that teachers in inclusive classrooms change their behavior to accommodate and serve students with special needs, this is not always the case. For example, secondary teachers interviewed by Schumm et al. (1995) believed that students with disabilities should not receive differential support and must take responsibility for obtaining the help they need. Teaching students to recruit teacher attention is one way of helping students with disabilities take responsibility for their own learning. Recruiting is politely pointing out accomplishments to obtain positive attention (e.g., praise), which may serve to reinforce those accomplishments. The classroom is a very busy place where important efforts by students can easily go unnoticed. Teachers may not notice when their students are having difficulty, especially low-achieving students who are less likely to ask for help (Newman & Golding, 1990). Additionally, teachers may not notice when students emit desired academic and social behaviors. Teaching students to activate a dormant contingency of reinforcement by appropriately recruiting teacher attention can produce praise for competent behaviors as well as specific instructional assistance for the academic task at hand.
Winter 1999
RESEARCH
ON
TEACHER
PRAISE
The positive effects of teacher praise have been known for a long time (Gilchrist, 1916; Hall, Lund, & Jackson, 1968; Hughes, 1973; Madsen, Becker, & Thomas, 1968; McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, & Conderman, 1969; Zimmerman & Zimmerman, 1962). Recent research has shown the positive effects of contingent praise on the behavior of infants (e.g., Poulson & Kymissis, 1988); preschoolers (e.g., Connell, Randall, Wilson, Lutz, & Lamb, 1993; Fox, Shores, Lindeman, & Strain, 1986); elementary school students (e.g., Martens, Lochner, & Kelly, 1992; McGee, Krantz, Mason, & MeClannahan, 1983; Mudre & McCormick, 1989; van der Mars, 1989); adolescents (e.g., Martella, Marchand-Martella, Young, & MacFarlane, 1995; Staub, 1990; Wolery, Cybriwski, Gast, & Boyle-Cast, 1991); and adults (e.g., Haseltine & Mittenburger, 1990). In spite of its documented effectiveness as a tool for increasing desired behaviors, teacher praise occurs relatively infrequently in many classrooms. For example, in an observational study of 16 general education classrooms, White (1975) found that the overall teacher approval rate was somewhat high in 1st and 2nd grade (the highest being 1.3 approvals per min). However, a sharp decline in teacher approval rates was apparent in 3rd grade and continued throughout the 12th grade. RESEARCH
ON
RECRUITING
Previous studies in which students were taught to recruit praise from significant others have yielded positive results. Recruitment training has increased students' recruiting behaviors and teacher praise statements with (a) preschoolers learning handwriting skills (Stokes, Fowler, & Baer, 1978); (b) preschoolers with developmental delays learning to stay on task during transitions (Connell, Carta, & Baer, 1993); (c) upper elementary and middle school students performing academic tasks (Craft, Alber, & Heward, 1998; Hrydowy, Stokes, & Martin, 1984; Morgan, Young, & Goldstein, 1983); (d) elementary boys with autism completing leisure, self-care, or language activities (Harchik, Harchik, Luce, & Sherman, 1990); (e) adolescent girls in a maxi-
Exceptional Children
mum security institution learning to work more productively in vocational training areas (Seymour & Stokes, 1976); and (f) secondary students with mental retardation learning to work more productively in a vocational training setting (Mank & Horner, 1987). To date, only one study has reported data on the effects of recruiting on the academic tasks for which the students were taught to recruit their teacher's attention. Craft et al. (1998) taught four fourth graders with developmental disabilities to show their work to the general education teacher two to three times per seatwork session and to make statements such as: "How am I doing so far?" or "Look, I finished my work!" Training was conducted in the special education classroom and consisted of modeling, role-playing, error correction, and praise. A multiple baseline across students design showed that recruitment training increased (a) the frequency of students' recruiting, (b) the frequency of teacher praise received by the students, (c) the percentage of spelling worksheet items completed, and (d) the accuracy with which the students completed the assignments. Additionally, at the end of the study the general education teacher commented on improved social skills: "They fit in better, they were more a part of the group, and they weren't being disruptive because they were working." This study was designed to extend recruiting research to a new subject population (middle school students with learning disabilities) recruiting in two different general education classrooms. This study also assessed the effects of student recruiting on the frequency of instructional feedback, a variable not reported in previous recruiting studies. Four primary research questions were addressed: What are the effects of training middle school students with learning disabilities to recruit teacher attention in the special education classroom on (a) the number of recruiting responses they emit in the general education classroom, (b) the number of teacher praise statements received by the students in the general education classroom, (c) the number of instructional feedback statements received by the students in the general education classroom, and (d) the students' academic productivity and accuracy in the general education classroom?
255
METHOD
Participants and Settings Students. Four sixth graders enrolled in a large suburban, public middle school participated in this study. Henry, Ellen, and Lisa were identified as having learning disabilities. Pam was identified by her general education teacher as having difficulties in math, but was not eligible to receive special education services. Henry and Ellen received special education services in a resource room for two and three periods per day respectively, and they attended general education classrooms for math, social studies, exploratory arts, and physical education. Lisa spent the entire school day in general education classrooms and received assistance from a tutor for one period per day in the general education math classroom. All four students were selected for this study because, according to the resource room teacher, they were typically unproductive during independent work time, rarely asked for teacher help, and performed below grade level in math. Table 1 shows demographic and school related information for each student. The study began after the experimenters received approval from The Ohio State University Human Subjects Review Board. Teachers. One of the general education teachers taught math to sixth and seventh graders for five 50-min periods each day. The other general education teacher taught social studies to sixth and seventh graders for five periods each day. Both general education teachers had more than 10 years teaching experience in public schools. A tutor who had 1 year of teaching experience was present in the math classroom during the two periods when students with disabilities were present. The tutor provided special education services to students with disabilities in general education classrooms for the entire school day. She was not involved in recruitment training. The resource room teacher provided recruitment training to the four target students. Classrooms. This study was conducted in three classrooms: (a) the special education classroom, where students were trained to recruit teacher attention by the resource room teacher; (b) the math classroom (primary setting), where
256
data on student recruiting behaviors and teacher attention were collected daily; and (c) the social studies classroom (probe setting), where data were collected two to three times per week. Data on student recruiting, teacher attention, and academic productivity were collected each session during independent seatwork time in the general education math classroom for Henry, Lisa, and Pam. Although the tutor's primary responsibility was to assist the students identified as having learning disabilities, she was expected to help any student in the classroom who was having difficulty. Data on student recruiting and teacher attention were also collected in a general education probe setting two to three times per week to determine if the students generalized the skill to a setting other than math class. The probe setting for Henry, Lisa, and Pam was the social studies classroom. Because Ellen was pulled from the general education math class early in the study, the social studies classroom served as the primary setting for obtaining data on her recruiting behavior and its effects on teacher behavior. The typical and expected procedure for obtaining teacher assistance in both general education classrooms was for students to raise their hands and wait to be recognized by the teacher. The math teacher, social studies teacher, and tutor were all kept naive to the purpose of the study because their interactions with the students, in particular their responses to student recruiting efforts, were key dependent variables.
Dependent Variables Student Recruiting. A recruiting response was recorded each time a student emitted all three of following behaviors in sequence: (a) raised his or her hand; (b) waited quietly until the teacher recognized him or her either verbally (e.g., ''I'll be right with you.") or by moving to the student's desk within 20 s of the student's hand raise; and (c) voiced a question or statement to the teacher about his or her academic work (e.g., "How am 1 doing?" "I don't understand this one." "Would you please look at my work?" "Look, I'm finished with my work!"). A recruiting episode began when the teacher spoke to the student or walked to the student's desk and ended when the teacher
Winter 1999
TABLE
1
Student Information Grade Point Average a
Achievement Test Scores Years Special Ed.
General
Math
Readinl
Math b
12 - 1 Caucasian
2.7
2.5
80
93
66
111
4
12 - 9
Caucasian
2.4
2.0
91
80
73
101
3
F
12 - 2
Caucasian
3.2
2.7
100
103
72
121
3
F
11-10 Caucasian
3.0
2.7
not tested
0
Student
Sex
Henry
M
Ellen
F
Lisa
Pam
Age
Ethnicity
88 e
87 e
LanguageC IQ Scored
85 e
Note: aCPA on a 4-point scale for fall semester prior to the beginning of the study. bStandard score on Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985). cStandard score on Woodcock-Johnson Language Proficiency Battery (Woodcock & Johnson, 1980). dFull-scale IQ score on Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (Wechsler, 1974). eStandard score on Cognitive Abilities Test (Thorndike & Hagen, 1986).
walked away from the student's desk. The entire student-teacher interaction-beginning with the student's hand raise and ending with the teacher moving away from the student's desk-was recorded as one recruiting response, even if the student asked more than one question once the teacher was at his or her desk. A recruiting response was not recorded if a student • • • •
• • • • •
•
Called out the teacher's name. Got out of his or her seat. Used profanity. Made negative comments about the teacher, the lesson, or the seatwork assignment (e.g., "This is stupid!"). Spoke in a whiny tone of voice. Spoke too quietly to be heard by the teacher. Spoke loudly enough to be disruptive to the class. Made no verbal response (e.g., just pointed to the worksheet). Asked the teacher for nonacademic assistance (e.g., asked to sharpen his or her pencil, asked to go to the bathroom, complained about another student). Interrupted the teacher when she was Involved with another student or adult.
Exceptional Children
Henry was the only student who recruited inappropriately during the study. On one occasion Henry got out of his seat to ask a question, and on three occasions, he called out for the teacher without raising his hand. Teacher Praise. Praise was recorded each time a teacher made any statement to one of the four students that expressed approval of the student's academic work. Examples of praise included, but were not limited to: "Nice job." "That's right!" "Looks good." "I like the way you wrote neatly." "Wow, you're working hard today." "You got all the answers right." If the teacher emitted multiple praise statements during a single recruiting episode, only one praise statement was recorded. Praise was not recorded when the teacher praised the whole class or several students at a time (e.g., "Group three is working well today."). Each instance of teacher praise was recorded as recruited (immediately preceded by the student's recruiting response) or nonrecruited (initiated by the teacher). Instructional Feedback. Instructional feedback was recorded each time a teacher made any statement to a target student relating to one or more items on the student's academic assignment, answered questions about academic items, or provided corrective feedback to the student
257
about his or her work. Examples of instructional feedback included, but were not limited to: "Don't forget to regroup." "Show me the next step." "This one is not right. Try it again." Both praise and instructional feedback could occur within a single recruiting episode. Completion ofAcademic WOrk. Each session the general education math teacher assigned the students independent seatwork from their sixth-grade workbooks. The percentage of work completed by each student was calculated by dividing the number of workbook items answered by the total number of items assigned and multiplying by 100. Accuracy ofAcademic WOrk. The first author used answer keys provided by the math teacher to score the accuracy of each student's math assignments. Accuracy was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by the total number of items completed and dividing by 100. Observation Procedures. The primary observer (third author) and secondary observers recorded student recruiting responses, teacher praise, and instructional feedback in the general education classrooms for the duration of independent seatwork time allotted to the students: 7 to 25 min (mean: 12 min) each day in the math classroom, and 8 to 30 min (mean: 15 min) 2 to 3 days per week in the social studies classroom. For 2 weeks prior to the study, one or two observers were present in the general education classroom each day. The observers were never in the special education resource room in the presence of the students, nor did the observers have any contact with the resource room teacher in the presence of the students. Observer Training. The first author created a 100-min videotape showing a series of 10 different 10-min scenarios of student-teacher interactions involving student recruiting responses, both appropriate and inappropriate, and various types of attention from the teacher. Each 10-min scenario consisted of 8 to 12 recruiting episodes. College students played the roles of the student subjects and the first author played the role of the classroom teacher. The first author provided guided practice as the observers recorded from the first three scenarios. The data collectors then independently viewed
258
and recorded the remaining seven scenarios. After each scenario, the first author checked the accuracy of each observer's data and provided feedback. After the observers had completed training using the videotape, they began practice data collection in the math classroom. Baseline data collection began when the observers attained a minimum of 95% interobserver agreement for three consecutive observation sessions in the math classroom. PROCEDURES TO
ASSESS
AND
ENHANCE BELIEVABILITY OF DATA
Assessment ofInterobserver Agreement Student Recruiting, Teacher Praise, and Instructional Feedback. A second observer was present for 13 (30%) of the study's 43 sessions in Henry's, Lisa's, and Pam's primary setting, 9 (31%) of Ellen's 29 sessions in her primary setting, and 6 (30%) of the 20 probe setting sessions. The two observers independently and simultaneously observed and recorded the number of student recruiting responses and teacher praise and instructional feedback statements directed toward the students. Narrative notes recorded by the observers enabled the identification of each recruiting episode. Interobserver agreement (lOA) was calculated on an episodeby-episode basis by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Table 2 shows the lOA for frequency of recruiting responses and the frequency of recruited and nonrecruited teacher praise and instructional feedback. Academic WOrk Completion and Accuracy. A second observer independently scored each student's work for completion and accuracy for 11 (26%) of the 43 math assignments by each student. IDA was 100% for both completion and accuracy on the math workbook assignments for all students. Participants' Knowledge Teachers. Before data collection began, the first author told the general education teachers and the tutor that the observers would be in their classrooms to record the independent work
Winter 1999
TABLE
2
Percent Interobserver Agreement ofStudent Recruiting Responses in the Primary and Probe Settings Frequency Student
Primary
Probe
94
(17)
Ellen
100
(18)
Lisa
93
(14)
100
Pam
100
(17)
100
Henry
Academic/Nonacademic
Appropriatellnappropriate
100
Primary
Probe
88
(17)
100
(18)
(7)
100
(14)
100
(10)
94
(17)
100
.(6)
N/A
Primary
Probe
100
94
(17)
100
(18)
(7)
93
(14)
100
(7)
(10)
100
(17)
100
(10)
100
(6)
N/A
(6)
N/A
Note: Numbers in parentheses show total number of recorded events (agreements + disagreements) on which lOA data is based.
habits of the special education students. The first author also explained that the mainstreamed students should not be told of any relationship between the observers and the resource room teacher because the data on their work habits might not be valid if the students knew they were being observed. Students. The general education teachers told the students that the observers were guests who would be in the classroom to observe and learn about classroom procedures. To minimize the possibility of the students correlating their recruitment training with the observers' presence, recruitment training for each student began 3 to 7 weeks after the observers had been in their general education classrooms. Observers. To minimize observer bias, the observers were not told when recruitment training began for any of the students, the order in which the students were trained, or when any subsequent changes in experimental conditions occurred for each student. Thus, the observers were kept naive with regard to when any changes in each student's recruiting behavior might be expected.
Treatment Integrity The first author used a checklist to observe and assess the resource room teacher's implementation of the recruitment training protocol. The resource room teacher referred to her own copy of the checklist as a guide during training. The resource room teacher accurately conducted
Exceptional Children
100% of the 22 training steps in the correct order during each of the study's seven recruitment training sessions (two sessions for Henry and Ellen together, one extra session for Ellen, two sessions for Lisa, and two sessions for Pam).
Experimental Design A multiple baseline across students design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, i987) was used to analyze the effects of recruitment training on the frequency of student recruiting, teacher praise, instructional feedback, and academic work productivity in the general education classroom.
Baseline Students were observed in the math classroom while working independently on assigned workbook pages, and in the social studies classroom while working independently or in small groups on social studies assignments.
Recruitment Training The first author trained the resource room teacher how to teach her students to recruit teacher attention. The first author described and modeled each step of recruitment training. She then asked the resource room teacher to perform each teaching step several times, providing the resource room teacher with praise and corrective feedback as needed. The first author was present during each student training session to provide prompt feedback to the resource room teacher as needed.
259
Recruitment training was conducted individually with each student at the end of the school day (2:00 to 2:20 p.m.) over 2 consecutive days for Henry, Lisa, and Pam, and 3 consecutive days for Ellen. Training followed a protocol developed by Craft et al. (1998) and consisted of three parts: (a) instruction and role play, (b) morning prompts, and (c) end-of-theday check and reward. (A complete script of the training protocol is available from the first author.) Instruction and Role Play. During the first training session, the resource room teacher told the students they would learn how to get their general education teachers to look at their work. The resource room teacher asked the students why recruiting teacher attention would be helpful to them and guided their responses (e.g., getting extra help with assignments, getting feedback on accuracy, getting more work done, getting higher scores, and feeling good/happy when the teacher says "good job"). After discussing the rationale for recruiting teacher attention with the students, the resource room teacher instructed the students when, how, and how often to ask for help. The resource room teacher then modeled the recruiting procedure using a "think aloud" technique (e.g., "OK, I've finished about half of my math problems. I want to know how I'm doing so far. Now I will look for the teacher. She's not busy. I'll raise my hand now."). The resource room teacher and student then role-played five different recruiting episodes. Students were also asked to state the recruiting steps. The resource room teacher told the student that the appropriate time to recruit teacher attention was when she completed about half of her math problems, and then again when she completed the whole assignment. The student was also told that she could seek teacher help before starting a workbook page if she did not understand the assignment, but to ask for help only when the teacher was available. The resource room teacher and student gen~rated examples of appropriate times to recruit (e.g., when the teacher is not working with another student, not talking to an adult). Appropriate ways to recruit teacher attention were then described and modeled. The stu-
260
dent was told she should raise her hand and wait quietly for the teacher to recognize her. The resource room teacher and student then generated examples of appropriate recruiting statements (e.g., "How does my work look so far?" "Are these answers right?" "Look, I finished my work."). Finally, the student was told to recruit at least twice, but not more than three times, during seatwork time in math class. During the second day of training the resource room teacher reviewed the rationale and procedures for recruiting with the student. Then they role-played the recruiting procedure several times with the resource room teacher responding in various ways to the student's recruiting efforts (e.g., providing praise, providing instructional feedback, ignoring the student, telling her to wait). (Ellen received a third 20-min training session because she had difficulty restating the recruiting steps). Morning Prompt. The morning following the first day of training (and each morning thereafter throughout the continuous reinforcement phase of the generalization programming condition), the resource room teacher met with the student in the resource room for about 5 min just prior to homeroom period to review recruiting and to prompt the student to recruit in math class at least twice, but not more than three times. Prompting cards were given to Henry, Ellen, and Lisa because they did not recruit in the general education math class for two consecutive days after training. Pam was never given a prompting card because she began recruiting immediately after training and did so consistently throughout the study. The prompting cards were bright red or green file folders with three holes punched so they could be inserted into the students' notebooks. Five 2 in. x 3 in. cards were taped to the folder. Printed on each card was the student's name, the date, and three boxes to check. The prompting cards were designed so they would fit inside the student's three-ring binder notebooks and would not be visible to the general education teachers. Students were instructed to open their notebooks and check the appropriate box each time they recruited and then close their notebooks. Then students were asked to bring their recruiting cards to the resource room
Winter 1999
teacher at the end of the school day to be checked. End-of-the-School-Day Check and Reward. At the end of the school day the resource room teacher asked the student if she had recruited in math class, and if so, how many times. She also asked the students to show her their recruiting cards. If the student reported that she had recruited once, the resource room teacher praised the student and gave her a ticket. If the student recruited at least twice, the resource room teacher gave her two tickets and a can of soda. If the student did not recruit, the resource room teacher encouraged her to recruit the following day. The tickets were put into a hat for a Friday afternoon prize drawing in which several tickets were drawn, an incentive system already in place for all students in the resource room. If a student's ticket was drawn, he or she won inexpensive prizes such as pencils, erasers, and candy bars.
Generalization Programming Continuous Reinforcement. The resource room teacher continued the morning prompts and the end-of-the-day check and reward procedure on a daily basis during the continuous reinforcement portion of the generalization programming phase. Intermittent Reinforcement. During the intermittent reinforcement part of the generalization programming phase, the students were told the resource room teacher would only give a morning prompt and an end-of-the-school-day check and reward on 2 randomly selected days per week. The first author determined which days were selected by drawing two of five cards from a hat; each card had 1 of the 5 days of the week printed on it. The students did not know which days were selected until the resource room teacher addressed those students individually for prompts and rewards on the selected days. Henry and Ellen were assigned to the resource room for homeroom and for the last period of the school day. On days selected for prompts and rewards, the resource room teacher asked Henry and Ellen to come to her desk. Lisa and Pam were not in the resource room during homeroom or the last period of the day, so on selected days, the resource room teacher went to
Exceptional Children
their general education classrooms and asked them to meet with her in the resource room.
Maintenance During the maintenance phase, the students no longer met with the resource room teacher, the prompting cards were withdrawn, and tangible rewards were terminated. If students independently shared their recruiting performance to the resource room teacher, she provided praise.
Prompts to Recruit in the Probe Classroom Henry, Lisa, and Pam were observed in their social studies classroom two to three times per week throughout the study. Initially, the students were not prompted to recruit in social studies class because the probes were intended to measure possible spontaneous generalization of recruiting to another setting. Henry and Lisa did not recruit on 3 of 4 consecutive days in the social studies classroom. On the fifth session of the generalization condition, the resource room teacher began prompting Henry and Lisa to recruit in the social studies classroom and rewarded them with lottery tickets if they did recruit. No prompts or tickets were given to Pam because she consistently recruited in the probe setting immediately after training. RESULTS
Student Recruiting Figure 1 shows the rate of recruiting responses per 10 min emitted per session by each student, and Table 3 and Figure 2 show the mean rate of recruiting responses, teacher praise statements, and instructional feedback statements per 10 min. All four students seldom recruited teacher attention prior to training: Henry recruited on 2 (17%) of 12 baseline sessions; Ellen, on 1 (20%) of 5 sessions; Lisa, on 2 (13%) of 15 sessions; and Pam, on 5 (18%) of28 baseline sessions. Three of the four students recruited at the target rate of once per 10 min for the majority of the generalization and maintenance phase sessions. Henry recruited on 13 (62%) of 21 generalization programming sessions (mean rate: .86); Ellen recruited on 15 (100%) of 15 sessions (mean rate: 1.21); Pam recruited on 8 (100%) of 8 sessions (mean rate: 1.39); and Lisa recruited
261
FIGURE
1
Rate ofRecruiting Responses and Teacher Praise Statements Training
Baseline
Ili!i!iJ
.: S. c 'f! 0
~
~
5
~
0
, ,
,
• • 5
!&'~ ~
Generalization Progtammlng
mw
..
.' 0 n; 17 • ,
I
10
25
'5
30
m
35
40
45
40
45
...
...J-. 5
Maintenance
Continuous Reln_... ICRF),Intonnmont (IRF
10
.5
@
...................._.............._.....
35
CRF
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
, ,
IRF
~R ~
0 45
Sessions
Note: Rate per 10 min of student recruiting responses emitted (data points) and teacher praise statements received (bars) during independent seatwork sessions by Henry, Lisa, and Pam in a general education math classroom, and by Ellen in a general education social studies classroom. 'Session 24 on Lisa's tier shows when contingencies for work completion were changed by Lisa's parents.
on 3 (21%) of 14 sessions (mean rate: .25). During the maintenance phase Ellen and Pam continued to recruit on 100% of the sessions, while Henry recruited on 50% of the sessions, and Lisa on 25% of the sessions. Of the 60 total baseline sessions, there were only 10 (17%) sessions in which students recruited. Students, however, recruited on 56 (69%) of the 85 total generalization programming and maintenance sessions.
Teacher Praise The rate of teacher praise statements per 10 min received per session by each student is shown by the bars in Figure 1. During baseline, no instances of teacher praise, recruited or nonrecruited, were recorded for Henry and Ellen. Lisa and Pam received teacher praise on 1 of 15 and 5 of 28 baseline sessions, respectively. Table 3 shows the mean rate of praise statements received by each student during baseline, generalization programming, and maintenance. Henry, Ellen, and Pam received substantially more teacher praise in the generalization and maintenance phases.
262
Table 4 shows the percentage of recruiting responses that produced teacher praise in all phases of the study: Henry, 15 (63%) of 24 responses; Ellen, 24 (69%) of 36 responses; Lisa, 3 (38%) of 8 responses; and Pam, 10 (33%) of 30 responses. Of the 61 total instances of teacher praise statements recorded in all phases of the study, 50 (82%) were recruited by the students.
Instructional Feedback Figure 3 shows the rate of instructional feedback statements received by each student pet: session. Table 3 and Figure 2 show the mean rate instructional feedback per 10 min received by each student during baseline, generalization programming, and maintenance phases. The students received instructional feedback on 23 (38%) of the 60 total baseline sessions. By comparison, they received instructional feedback on 66 (78%) of the 85 combined generalization and maintenance sessions. Henry's rate of instructional' feedback increased from .75 in baseline to 1.64 in generalization programming; Ellen's from .07 to 1.37; Lisa's from .44 to .54; and Pam's from .21 to
Winter 1999
TABLE
3
Mean Rate ofRecruiting Reponses, Teacher Praise, and Instructional Feedback Baseline
Generalization Program
Maintenance
Student
Recruited
Praise
Feedback
Recruited
Praise
Feedback
Henry
.13 (I 2)
0
.75
.86 (21)
.67
1.64
.46
Ellen
.07
( 5)
0
.07
1.21 (I5)
.82
1.37
Lisa
.05
(I5)
.07
.44
.25 (I4)
.16
Pam
.22
(28)
.12
.21
1.39 ( 8)
.55
Recruited
Praise
Feedback
(8)
.16
1.01
1.10
(6)
.48
.80
.54
.22
(8)
.16
.52
1.18
1.18
(5)
.29
.90
Note: Mean rate of recruiting responses emitted, and teacher praise and instructional feedback statements received per 10 min during independent seatwork sessions by Henry, Lisa, and Pam in a general education math class, and by Ellen in a general education social studies class. The numbers in parentheses show the number of sessions in each phase for each student. FIGURE
2
Mean Rate ofRecruiting, TeacherPraise, and Instructional Feedback
2
2
'"
2
::::l
c:::
'E 0
0
0r-
a;
2
C.
* cr:
o
Base. (12)
~
Main. (8)
•• •
0
2 IPaml
Reauiting Praise Instructional Fdbk.
o Experimental Conditions
Note: Mean rate of recruiting responses emitted, and teacher praise and instructional feedback statements received per 10 min during independent seatwork sessions by Henry, Lisa, and Pam in a general education math class, and by Ellen in a general education social studies class. The numbers in parentheses show the number of sessions in each phase for each student.
Exceptional Children
263
TABLE
4
Percentage ofRecruiting Responses That Produced Teacher Praise and Instructional Feedback Baseline Student
Generalization Program
Instructional Feedback
Praise
Maintenance
Instructional Feedback
Praise
Praise
Instructional Feedback
Henry
0
(3)
100
71
(15)
100
67
( 6)
100
Ellen
0
(1)
100
76
(25)
84
50
(10)
80
Lisa
0
(2)
50
50
( 4)
50
50
( 2)
100
Pam
17
(6)
43
43
(14)
86
30
(10)
60
Note: Percentage of recruiting responses that produced teacher praise and instructional feedback statements during independent searwork sessions by Henry, Lisa. and Pam in a general education math classroom, and by Ellen in a general education social studies classroom. Numbers in parentheses show the total number of recruiting responses per phase. FIGURE
3
Rate ofStudent Recruiting Responses and Instructional Feedback Baselina
Training
Generalization Programming
Maintenance
Continuous Reinforcement (CRF) Intermln.,1 (lRF)
~ ~~~'Ulling :
.~ 1
~ ~
0
1
•
'.
4S
~J~
10
15
20
25
30
116
45
Se88ions
Note: Rate per 10 min of student recruiting responses emitted (data points) and instructional feedback statements received (bars) during independent seatwork sessions by Henry. Lisa. and Pam in a general education math class. and by Ellen in a general education social studies classroom. 'Session 24 on Lisa's tier shows when contingencies for work completion were changed by Lisa'sparents.
1.18. Although the rate of instructional feedback decreased for all four students during maintenance, Henry, Ellen, and Pam received substantially more instructional feedback during maintenance than they had in baseline. Table 4 shows percentage of recruiting responses that produced instructional feedback. Of the 147 total instructional feedback statements recorded
264
in all phases of the study, 79 (54%) were recruited by the students.
Completion and Accurary ofSeatwork Assignments Figure 4 shows the mean percentage of math worksheet items completed and mean percent accuracy of completed items per session by Henry, Lisa, and Pam during each phase of the
Winter 1999
FIGURE
4
Math Worksheet Completion andAccurary
~
100
100
80
80
80
60
40
40
20
20
!!! ::l
tl
.!!!
c:
.2
0
c..
100
Q5
E
Base. (12)
Gen. (21)
Main. (12)
0
o
C Q) 2Q)
c,
80
o
Base. (15)
Gen. (14)
II
% Completion
•
O/OAccuracy
Main. (8)
80 40 20
o
Base. (28)
Gen. (8)
Main. (5)
Experimental Conditions Note: Mean percentage of math worksheet items completed and mean percent accuracy of completed work by Henry, Lisa, and Pam during independent seatwork sessions in a general education math class. The numbers in parentheses show the number of sessions in each phase for each student.
study. The students achieved the following increases in mean worksheet completion from baseline to generalization programming: Henry, 49% to 76%; Lisa, 62% to 85%; Pam, 56% to 83%. Each student's mean level of worksheet accuracy also increased from baseline to generalization programming: Henry, 51% to 72%; Lisa, 71 % to 82%; Pam 65% to 91 %.
after recruitment training more so than teacher praise statements. Baseline rates of instructional feedback ranged across students from .07 to .27 and increased during generalization programming to a range of.35 to .74. Academic productivity was not measured in the probe setting because of the inconsistent type and difficulty level of the assignments.
Teacher Praise and Instructional Feedback in the Probe Setting
Participants' Opinions
Table 5 shows the mean rate per 10 min of recruiting responses and teacher praise and instructional feedback statements received during independent seatwork sessions by Henry, Lisa, and Pam in a general education social studies classroom. Teacher praise was low in the probe setting throughout the study, but increased for Henry, Lisa, and Pam after training. Rates of teacher praise ranged across these three students from 0 to .13 per 10 min in baseline, and increased to a range of .23 to .sO in generalization programming. Instructional feedback increased
Exceptional Children
Students. One week after the last day of data collection the first author individually administered a 30-item inventory designed to assess the extent to which the students found teacher approval desirable. Each student was asked to select one of four responses: (a) I would like this a lot, (b) I would like this a little, (c) I wouldn't care, or (d) I wouldn't like it; to items sampling five categories of consequences: (a) teacher praise (e.g., "very good," "you're smart"); (b) recognition (e.g., teacher sends a positive note to parents, puts the student's paper on bulletin board); (c) teacher help; (d) nonpraise re-
265
TABLE
5
Mean Rate ofRecruiting, TeacherPraise, and Instructional Feedback in Probe Setting Baseline Student
Recruiting
Maintenance
Generalization Program
Praise
Feedback
Recruiting
Praise
Feedback
Recruiting
Praise
Feedback
0
( 5)
0
.Q7
.52 (10)
.26
.56
.25
(4)
.13
.53
Lisa
.26
( 7)
.12
.26
.40 ( 6)
.23
.35
.46
(4)
.34
.12
Pam
.13 (12)
.13
.27
1.72 ( 2)
.50
.74
1.08
(3)
.54
.86
Henry
Note: Mean rate per 10 min of recruiting responses emitted and teacher praise statements received during independent seatwork sessions by Henry, Lisa, and Pam in a general education social studies classroom. Numbers in parentheses show number of sessions per phase.
wards (e.g., can of soda, free time); and (e) ignoring. Henry, Ellen, and Pam selected either "I would like it a lot" or "I would like it a little" for all eight items in the teacher praise category and both items in the teacher help category. Lisa indicated "I wouldn't care" for six of the eight items in the teacher praise category and both items in the teacher help category. Each student also responded to interview questions asking them to self-assess their recruiting performance, its effects on their teachers' behavior, the reactions of other students, and their academic performance. Henry, Ellen, and Pam indicated that the teachers helped them with their work when they asked and usually said they were doing a good job (e.g., "Ms. T ... helped me with my math problems." "She said 1 was doing a good job." "Ms. R ... gave me a lot of help when 1 asked." "I could tell she liked my work because she smiled at me."). Henry said the teacher's attention made him "feel like a good student." Ellen and Pam said that attention from the teacher made them "feel good." Henry, Ellen, and Pam also made remarks indicating that recruiting their teacher's attention helped them increase the accuracy of their performance. Henry stated that he did not recruit much in the social studies classroom because he would not earn a can of soda for recruiting there. Lisa stated that she did not like getting the teacher's attention. She said, "Whenever 1 raise my hand to ask for help the other kids think 1 don't know how to do my work. They think I'm stupid." She added, "I especially don't like it if
266
Miss R ... (the tutor) comes to my desk because she's there to help the dumb kids in the class." Lisa said she would rather do the work on her own without the teacher's attention. Teachers. One week after the last day of data collection, the teachers completed a version of the 30-item inventory in which they rated how they believed each student would feel about each consequence. For Henry, Ellen, and Pam, the three teachers usually selected "would like it a little" for items in the teacher praise, recognition, and teacher help categories. For Lisa, however, the teachers most often selected "I wouldn't care" for the items in the teacher attention categories. The first author also conducted individual interviews with each teacher. The teachers were asked if they noticed any changes in the behavior of the four target students. All three teachers noticed that Henry, Ellen, and Pam were asking for help more often. After the purpose of the study was explained, the teachers were asked specific questions regarding the appropriateness of the students' recruiting behaviors. The math teacher and tutor said that Henry and Pam recruited at an appropriate rate, at appropriate times, for appropriate reasons, and that their recruiting seemed natural. The social studies teacher thought Ellen recruited at an appropriate rate, but that the other three students should probably recruit at a higher rate. The teachers were then shown the graphs and summary data of the study. All three teachers were surprised by the data on their praise rates and stated they thought they praised the
Winter 1999
students more frequently than the data showed. The math teacher said that praise was "less important for middle school children than for younger children." The social studies teacher stated that training students to recruit may be a "more valuable skill to teach elementary age children, or children with more severe disabilities." When asked about Lisa's low rate of recruiting after training, the tutor explained that Lisa's parents worked out an arrangement with Lisa: "if Lisa's work improved," the tutor should not give her extra help or attention unless she asked. DISCUSSION
Student Recruiting, Teacher Praise, and Instructional Feedback The results of this study support and extend the findings of previous research showing that children with disabilities can be taught to appropriately recruit teacher/adult attention. These results are especially significant for Ellen and Pam who recruited at mean rates of .07 and .22 responses per 10 min respectively in baseline, compared to recruiting rates of 1.21 and 1.39 during generalization programming (see Figure 3). Both students continued to recruit consistently during maintenance. Recruiting responses were assessed in the social studies classroom to determine if the students would spontaneously generalize recruiting to another setting. Only Pam recruited in social studies class without prompts or rewards from the resource room teacher. Henry recruited more in the social studies classroom after he was prompted and offered rewards. Training students to recruit teacher attention significantly increased the frequency of teacher praise received by Henry, Ellen, and Pam. Only one instance of teacher praise was recorded for Henry, Ellen, and Lisa combined over 32 baseline sessions representing 6 V2 total hr of independent work time. After training, however, Henry, Ellen, and Pam received teacher praise on 37 (59%) of 63 total sessions, and 82% of those praise statements were recruited by the students. This is the first recruiting study to report instructional feedback as a dependent variable.
Exceptional Children
When students' recruiting efforts did not produce praise, they usually produced instructional feedback. The frequency of instructional feedback received by Henry, Ellen, and Pam was greatly increased as a function of recruitment training. For Henry, instructional feedback increased from a mean rate per 10 min of .75 during baseline to 1.64 during generalization programming; similar data for Ellen and Pam were .07 to 1.37 and .21 to 1.18, respectively.
Academic Productivity The results of this study and Craft et al. (1998) provide some empirical support for a functional relationship between training students to recruit teacher attention and increased academic productivity. Henry's and Pam's increased academic productivity results were quite likely a function of increased recruiting and teacher attention. However, because she rarely recruited or received teacher attention throughout the study, Lisa's increased academic productivity has a very different explanation. The resource room teacher reported to the first author that on the evening of the third session of the generalization programming phase, Lisa's parents phoned the tutor and asked her to refrain from providing Lisa with extra help if she maintained high levels of academic productivity. Ironically, with respect to the context and purpose of this study, Lisa's increased completion and accuracy may have been produced by her desire to avoid teacher attention.
Limitations and Future Research Students in this study were trained to recruit teacher attention in two general education settings during independent seatwork time, and their academic productivity was assessed in only one setting. In order to produce the greatest possible benefits, recruiting skills must generalize to a wide range of relevant settings and significant others. Assessing the effects of students' recruiting across several different classrooms, teachers, instructional formats (e.g., cooperative learning groups, large- and small-group instruction), and curriculum areas would greatly enhance the recruiting research to date. A limitation of this study is that students were not assessed prior to training in order to
267
determine the extent to which teacher attention functioned as a reinforcer. Lisa's data showing little or no effect of recruitment training are valuable in that they demonstrate empirically a logical conclusion: Recruitment training will probably not be effective with a student who is not reinforced by teacher attention. We recommend researchers conduct a preassessment when selecting students for recruitment training. A practical alternative for students for whom teacher attention does not function as a reinforcer may be training them to recruit instructional feedback and praise from peers. The recruiting research will be strengthened by descriptive data on the rates and types of recruiting responses used by general education students and on the frequency and type of praise, attention, and instructional feedback teachers provide to typical students. Such peer comparison data would provide important social validation for determining the parameters and judging the relative success of recruitment training.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR PRACTIcE
As students with .disabilities progress into middle and high school, they can expect fewer individual accommodations in inclusive general education classrooms (Schumm et al., 1995). Thus, special educators, administrators, parents, and students themselves must advocate for strategies that enable students to take increased involvement and responsibility for their own learning (Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998). Recruitment training can be a relatively lowcost, low-effort strategy-in this study, only two to three 20-min training sessions were neededfor increasing a student's contact with teacher attention which, in turn, can increase academic achievement and social success in general education classrooms. Both general and special education teachers must share the responsibility of promoting successful inclusion of students with disabilities. To increase the likelihood that most of student recruiting will result in praise or instructional feedback, general education teachers should be actively involved in recruittnent training. While
268
the students are trained to appropriately recruit teacher attention, general education teachers can be trained to (a) praise more frequently, (b) recognize and praise student recruiting efforts, (c) prompt student recruiting, and (d) provide corrective feedback for recruiting responses. The success of special education programs can be determined by the extent to which students generalize newly learned skills to normalized settings and maintain those skills. This study provides practitioners with useful suggestions for programming the generalization of recruiting skills. Specifically, the general education classroom should be simulated as much as possible during training. In this study the resource room teacher used the same instructional materials used in the math classroom for training. Students also role-played the full range of recruiting situations they would likely experience in the general education classroom (e.g., praise, ignoring, negative criticism). We recommend that teachers use intermittent reinforcement during training because, as the results of this study demonstrated, not all recruiting attempts in the general education classroom will be followed by teacher praise. Recruitment training may be more likely to be successful if students are initially prompted to recruit and rewarded for recruiting to criteria. Then prompts and rewards should be gradually faded. A physical prompt to recruit (e.g., the recruiting card), and a system for self-recording will provide additional support to students. Another important component of training is teaching students to limit the number of times they recruit to avoid becoming a pest (Stokes et al., 1978). Ideally, appropriate rates of student recruiting should be determined by direct observation in the general education classroom. When observation or consultation with teachers in the target setting is not possible, training should provide students with a repertoire of several recruiting routines. Teaching students to observe recruiting routines in a variety of settings and to recruit accordingly might be beneficial. Also, spontaneous generalization of newly learned recruiting skills will probably not occur (e.g., Henry), so students initially need to be prompted and rewarded for recruiting in all of their educational settings.
Winter 1999
A major goal and challenge for special educators is helping students with disabilities attain success in integrated settings. The inclusion movement has made this challenge more pronounced than ever with respect to the general education classroom. Teaching students to recruit teacher attention is one strategy for promoting successful inclusion by enabling students with disabilities to actively influence the quality of instruction they receive. REFERENCES Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). The token economy:A motivational system for therapy and rehabilitation. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.* Baer, D. M, (1981). How to plan for generalization. Austin, TX: Pro-Eel.* Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1970). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnick, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control ofhuman behavior (pp. 319-324). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman." Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 516-526. Connell, M. C, Carta, J. J., & Baer, D. M. (1993). Programming generalization of in-class transition skills: Teaching preschoolers with developmental delays to selfassess and recruit contingent teacher praise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 345-352. Connell, M. C, Randall, C., Wilson, J., Lutz, S., & Lamb, D. R (1993). Building independence during inclass transitions: Teaching in-class transition skills to preschoolers with developmental delays through choralresponse-based self-assessment and contingent praise. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 160-174. Cooper, J. 0., Heron, T. E., & Heward, w: 1. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill. *
Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., Young, C C, Shores, R. E., & Stachowiak, J. J. (1983). A comparison of teacher approval and disapproval statements across categories of exceptionality. Journal of Special Education Technology, 6, 15-21. Gilchrist, E. (1916). The extent to which praise and reproof affect a pupil's work. School and Society, 4,872-874. Hall, R. v., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1-12. Harchik, A. E., Harchik, A. J., Luce, S. C, & Sherman, (1990). Teaching autistic and severely handicapped children to recruit praise: Acquisition and generalization. Researchin Developmental Disabilities, 11,77-95.
J. A.
Haseltine, B., & Mittenburger, R G. (1990). Teaching self-protection skills to persons with disabilities. American Journal ofMental Retardation, 95, 188-197. Hrydowy, E. R, Stokes, T. E, & Martin, G. 1. (1984). Training elementary students to prompt teacher praise. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 99-108. Hughes, D. C (1973). An experimental investigation of the effects of pupil responding and teacher reacting on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 10,21-37. Kohler, E W:, & Greenwood, C R. (1986). Toward a technology of generalization: The identification of natural contingencies of reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst,9, 19-26. Madsen, C H., Jr., Becker, w: C, & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1, 343-353. Mank, D. M., & Horner, R H. (1987). Self-recruited feedback: A cost-effective procedure for maintaining behavior. Researchin Developmental Disabilities, B,91-112. Martella, R C, Marchand-Martella, N. E., Young, K R, & MacFarlane, CA. (1995). Determining the collateral effects of peer tutoring on a student with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 19, 170-191.
Craft, M. A., Alber, S. R., & Heward, w: 1. (1998). Teaching elementary students with developmental disabilities to recruit teacher attention in a general education classroom: Effects on teacher praise and academic productivity. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 31, 399-415.
Martens, B. K, Lochner, D. G., & Kelly, S. Q. (1992). The effects of variable interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 25, 143-151.
Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. (1990). Educating students with mild disabilities in general education classrooms: Minnesota alternatives. Exceptional Children, 57, 150-161.
McAllister, 1., Stachowiak, J., Baer, D. M., & Conderman, 1. (1969). The application of operant conditioning techniques in a secondary school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 277-285.
Fox, J., Shores, R, Lindeman, D., & Strain, P. (1986). Maintaining social initiations of withdrawn handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers through a response-dependent fading tactic. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 14,387-396.
McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., Mason, D., & McClannahan, 1. E. (1983). A modified incidental teaching procedure for autistic youth: Acquisition and generalization of receptive object labels. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 16,329-338.
ExceptionalChildren
269
Morgan, D., Young, K. R., & Goldstein, S. (1983). Teaching behaviorally disordered students to increase teacher attention and praise in mainstreamed classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 8,265-273.
van der Mars, H. (1989). Effects of specific verbal praise on off-task behavior of second grade students in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 162-169.
Mudre, L. H., & McCormick, S. (1989). Effects of meaning-focused cues on underachieving readers' context use, self-corrections, and literal comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 14,89-113.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self-determination to students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
Newman, R. S., & Golding, L. (1990). Children's reluctance to seek help with school work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100. Nowacek, E. J., McKinney, J. D., & Hallahan, D. P. (1990). Instructional behaviors of more and less effective beginning regular and special educators. Exceptional Children, 57, 140-149. Poulson, C. L., & Kymissis, E. (1988). Generalized imitation in infants. Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 46, 324-336. Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61, 553-577. Sale, P., & Carey, D. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion schoo!. Exceptional Children, 62,6-19. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, D., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74. Seymour, F. W:, & Stokes, T. F. (1976). Self-recording in training girls to increase work and evoke staff praise in an institution for offenders. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 9, 41-54. Staub, R. w: (1990). The effects of publicly posted feedback on middle school students' disruptive hallway behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 249-257.
White, M. A. (1975). Natural rates of teacher approval and disapproval in the classroom. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 8, 367-372. Wolery, M., Cybriwski, C. A., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents. Exceptional Children, 57, 462474. Zimmerman, E. H., & Zimmerman, T. (1962). The alteration of behavior in a special classroom situation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 5960. ABOUT THE
AUTHORS
SHEILA R. ALBER, Assistant Professor, De-
partment of Special Education, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. WILLIAM L.
#208), Professor; and BROOKE (CEC #208), Doctoral Student, De-
HEWARD (CEC
J. HIPPLER
partment of Special Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Address correspondence to Sheila R. Alber, Department of Special Education, The University of Southern Mississippi, Box 5115, Hattiesburg, MS 39406 (E-mail:
[email protected]). We thank the teachers and students who participated in the study and wish to acknowledge the support and assistance of special education teacher, Megan Solis, and undergraduate data collectors Mary Varrato and Doris Caceres.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.
Manuscript received May 1998; revision accepted June 1998.
Stokes, T. F., Fowler, S. A., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Training preschool children to recruit natural communities of reinforcement. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 11, 285-303.
*To order books referenced in this journal please call 24 hrs/365 days: (800) BOOKS-NOW (2665766) or (80l) 261-1187, or visit them on the Web at http://www.BooksNow.com/Exceptional Children.htm. Use Visa, M/C, or AMEX or send check or money order + $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item) to: BooksNow, 448 E. 6400 South, Suite 125, Salt Lake City, UT 84107.
Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1989). An operant pursuit of generalization. Behavior Therapy, 20, 337-355. Thurlow, M., Graden, J., Greener, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). LD and non-LD students opportunities to learn. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 172-183.
270
Winter 1999
