Citation
The use of instructional arrangements and their relationship to on-task behaviors : with learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular class children

Material Information

Title:
The use of instructional arrangements and their relationship to on-task behaviors : with learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular class children
Creator:
Lue, Martha Scott
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 120 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Classrooms ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Learning disabilities ( jstor )
Pedagogy ( jstor )
Peer teaching ( jstor )
Small group instruction ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Tutoring ( jstor )
Children with mental disabilities -- Education ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Elementary school teaching ( lcsh )
Learning disabilities ( lcsh )
Special Education thesis Ph. D
Alachua County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 114-119.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Martha Scott Lue.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
028148725 ( ALEPH )
08065282 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO ON-TASK BEHAVIORS WITH
LEARNING DISABLED, EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED,
AND REGULAR CLASS CHILDREN








BY

MARTHA SCOTT LUE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1981
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Donne puts it this way-"No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."

The above comments are especially true in the preparation of this research project. With gratefulness and thankfulness, the following persons are acknowledged:

To the doctoral committee members-Dr. Cecil Mercer, Chairperson, Dr. William Reid, Dr. Rosie Bingham, Dr. Bob Algozzine, and Dr. Rod McDavis-for their overwhelming support, their involvement in the total project from its inception to the completion;

To Cathy Morsink and Leila Cantara whose beliefs that "the

difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes but a little longer" never ceased to sustain me;

To my son, Marvin, who is much more receptive and perceptive

beyond his tender years, my thanks for his love, tolerance, patience, and understanding;

To Mother and Marvin, Sr., wish that you were here to share the moment. It does not quite feel complete without your presence;










Lastly to the writer who said, "he who forgets his past is truly doomed for the future." In essence, to the many men and women who gave of themselves, their time, and their beliefs that equality of educational opportunity should be afforded to all; thus I chose to partake.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......... ....................... ii

ABSTRACT ......... ............................ vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION ........... .......................1

Purpose of the Study .......... ................... 6
Variables ............ ........................ 6
Related Questions .......... ..................... 6
Definition of Terms .......... .................... 7
Limitations ............ ........................ 9
Delimitations ........... ....................... 9
Summary ............ ......................... 9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... .................. . I.11

Instructional Arrangements ..... ................. ....12
Large Group Instruction ...................... ... 12
Small Group Instruction ...................... ... 16
One-to-One Instruction ...... ................. ... 34
Peer Teaching ........ ..................... ... 38
Material with Student ...... .................. ... 50
Summary ......... .......................... .... 54

CHAPTER III

METHOD .......... .......................... ....56

Subjects ......... .......................... ... 56
Observers ......... ......................... ... 57
Data Collection ......................58
Description of Coding . ......... . . . . . . . .........59









Design and Data Analysis ....... ................... 60
Variables ......... ......................... 60
Analysis of Data ...... .................... ...61

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS .......... ........................... 65

Question 1 ....... .......................... ...70
LD: Time Spent ...... .... .................... 70
LD: Time On-Task ...... ................... .... 70
EH: Percentage of Time Spent .... ............... ...72
EH: On-Task ........ .................. .... 72
Regular: Time Spent ....... ................... 74
Regular: Time On-Task ..... .................. ...74
Question 2 ...... .... .......................... 77
Large Group: Time Spent ...................... ...77
Large Group: On-Task ....... ................... 79
Small Group: Time Spent ..... ................ ...82
Small Group: Time On-Task ...... ................ 82
One-to-One: Time Spent ..... ................ ... 83
One-to-One: Time On-Task .... ................. ...83
Peer Teaching: Time Spent ...... ................ 84
Peer Teaching: Time On-Task ... ............... ....84
Independent Seatwork: Time Spent ... ............. ...84
Independent Seatwork: Time On-Task ... ............ ...85
Problems and Limitations of the Study ..... ............ 85
Summary ........ .. ........................... 86

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS ........... ...90

Question 1 ....... .......................... ...91
LD: Time Spent and Time On-Task ...... ............ 91
LD: Implications ....................... 92
EH: Time Spent and Time On-Task .............93
Regular Education: Time Spent and Time On-Task ...... .... 94
Implications ......... ........................ 95
Question 2 ...... .... .......................... 95
Large Group: Time Spent and Time On-Task ........... ...95
Implications ....... .. ........................ 96
Small Group: Time Spent and Time On-Task ........... ...97
Implications ....... .. ........................ 97
One-to-One: Time Spent and Time On-Task .... ......... 98
Implications ......... ....................... 98
Peer Teaching: Time Spent and Time On-Task ... ........ 98
Implications .......... ...................... 99
Independent Seatwork: Time Spent and Time On-Task . . . . 99 Implications ........ ....................... 100
Selected Considerations and Suggestions for Future Research . 100









Use of Volunteers for Special Education ........... . .101
Relationship Between Pupil Behavior and Pupil Learning 101 Relationship of On-Task Behavior to Activities of the 101
Teacher
Use of Peer Tutors in Classrooms .... ............ ... 102
Validity of Coding Decisions .................. ....102
Summary .... .... .... ........................... 103

APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED STUDENT . . 105

B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM ... ........... ... 108

C OUTLINE OF OBSERVATION CATEGORIES .. ........ . .111

D CLASSROOM OBSERVATION REACTION FORM . ....... ... 113

REFERENCES ... ...... ......................... ...114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .... .... .................... ...116
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO ON-TASK BEHAVIORS WITH
LEARNING DISABLED, EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED, AND REGULAR CLASS CHILDREN

By

Martha Scott Lue

June, 1981

Chairman: Cecil D. Mercer
Major Department: Special Education

This study was designed to analyze the use of large group, small

group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements with learning disabled (LD), emotionally handicapped (EH), and regular education (normal) students. Additionally, the relationship of on-task behaviors across the instructional arrangements and groups (LD, EH, and normal) was also examined.

Thirty-nine fourth grade students were included in this study.

Of this group, 17 students were regular education students, and 11 each were ED and LD students who attended resource rooms.

The data regarding time spent by the three groups across the five instructional arrangements reveal some apparent trends. Except for









peer teaching, the data show that the instructional arrangements are widely used (approximately 70-80 percent of their instructional time) and differences exist for the three groups. For example, EH students spend more time in independent seatwork than either of the other groups.

The data regarding the use of instructional arrangements within the groups yielded some significant findings. LD students spent nearly one-fourth of the instructional day in independent seatwork instructional arrangement. LD students are on-task the highest percentage of time in the instructional arrangement one-to-one. EH students spent nearly half of the instructional academic day in independent seatwork. Results also indicated that EH students obtained the highest percentage of time on-task working independently or working one-to-one with the teacher and/or designated adult. Normal students, on the other hand, spent the highest percentage of total instructional time in large group, independent seatwork, and small group. Regular education students, as a whole, spent the least amount of instructional time in the instructional arrangements one-to-one and peer teaching. Regular education students spent a comparable amount of time on-task in

the instructional arrangements large group and independent seatwork. Regular education students spent the least amount of time on-task in one-to-one and peer teaching.

The data regarding the use of the five instructional arrangements among the three groups yielded some significant findings. In large group instruction, both regular education students and LD students were in large group significantly more than EH students; furthermore, regular


viii








education students and LD students spent comparable amounts of time and both groups spent significantly more time in small group than EH students. EH and LD students both spent significantly more time in one-to-one than regular students but did not differ from each other. In peer teaching, the three groups did not significantly differ on the time spent. EH students, however, spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than either of the other two groups. Moreover, LD and regular students spent equivalent times in independent seatwork.

In reference to the amount of on-task time spent in the five

instructional arrangements among the three groups, results indicate significant findings. Regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. Similarly, in small group instruction, regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of on-task time than EH students. In one-to-one, LD and EH students spent a significantly larger amount of time on-task than regular education students. In peer teaching and independent seatwork, the three groups did not significantly differ on the amount of on-task time spent.

The results reveal that instructional arrangements are differently used across the three groups and on-task behavior varies across the arrangements. Thus, for teachers to maximize their effectiveness, it is imperative for teachers to consider how they organize instruction across the five instructional arrangements.
















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


The provision of educational services to handicapped students is a matter of great interest to special educators (Gearheart,1980; Heward & Olansky, 1980; Stephens, 1977; Wallace & McLoughlin, 1975). In examining educational services for handicapped youth three aspects that must be considered are (a) the instructional arrangements (large group, small group, one-to-one, peer tutoring, and materials with the child) in which service is provided; (b) the various educational settings which may be available for learning disabled (LD) and emotionally handicapped (EH) students (e.g., regular class, resource room, special class); and (c) instructional differences among learners.

One model (see Figure 1) frequently referred to for studying service delivery for exceptional students is the cascade system proposed by Deno (1970). The services range from a basic segregated model to an integrated model. The various model levels reflect service alternatives, with larger level numbers used to identify the more segregated or restricted options. The model's goal is to move students upward to less restrictive alternatives (Meyen, 1978). Downward moves are made only when necessary and only until the student can be returned to a higher or less restrictive placement (Meyen, 1978).










Level 1 Exceptional children in regular classes, with I or without supportive services



Level 2 Regular class attendance plus supplementary instructional services


Level 3 Part-time special class


1Full-time
Level 4 special class
~/

Special stations* Assignment of Level 5 pupils to settin
governed primarily by the school syst


Level 6 Level 7


)s
ly am.


Homebound

Assignment of individuals to settings governed
Instruction primarily by health, correctional, in hospital, welfare, or
other agencies. residential, or

total care settings


*Special schools in public school systems Figure 1

Deno's Cascade System of Special Education Service


From: Deno, E. Special education as development capital. Exceptional
Children, 1970, 37(3), 224-237.










These models have evolved from an attempt to provide individualized instruction to handicapped children with special needs. In addition to the need to offer a setting which facilitates special programming, the educator must examine "how" the instruction occurs within these service delivery systems. Instructional arrangements relate to one aspect of how instruction occurs in respective settings and refers to the way that students are organized for instruction (Mercer, 1979). In the classroom, the teacher may choose one of five instructional arrangements (-Mercer & Mercer, 1981; see Figure 2):

1. large group with teacher, 2. small group with teacher,

3. one pupil with teacher,

4. peer teaching, or

5. material with pupil (independent seatwork).

Current literature in special education abounds with descriptions of models for delivery of services to individuals with handicapping conditions (Adelman, 1970; Chaffin, 1975; Deno, 1970; Dunn, 1973; Lilly, 1970). On the contrary, little literature exists concerning specific instructional modes that occur within the various educational settings. Similarly, the need to examine such factors as instructional arrangements, teaching mode, and the child's instructional history is being acknowledged (Mercer, 1979; Meyen, 1978). In essence, while certain special placements for mildly handicapped students are justified and needed, of equal importance is the manner in which instruction is organized regardless of the educational setting.




0 0
0 0
0
0 0
o 00
0 0


, OA�


Large Group With Teacher


Small Group With Teacher One Student With Teacher


KEY:

A Teacher o Student
Student receiving direct instruction in specified
* arrangement


Material


Peer Teaching


Material With Student


Figure 2
Instructional Arrangements From: Mercer, C., & Mercer, A. R. Teaching students with learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill,
1981.










In examining the literature on emotionally handicapped,

learning disabled, and regular education students from the perspective of instructional implications in the least restrictive environment, as stipulated by Public Law 94-142, a small group of characteristics emerge. The most prevalent characteristics to emerge for providing instruction in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for mildly handicapped youngsters is the issue of instructional differences among learners. Central to this argument of the least restrictive environment for mildly handicapped youngsters is the concept of "time on task" (Meyen, 1978). Bloom (1974), in discussing time and rate of learning, built on Carroll's (1963) model of school learning in which time is considered the critical variable. As a basis for presenting evidence in support of mastery learning strategies, Bloom utilized Carroll's concept of elapsed time as differentiated from the time the learner spends on tasks engaged in acts of learning. Bloom (1974) cited research conducted by Anderson (1973), Arlin (1973), and Lahaderne (1967) as illustrating a strong positive relationship between time directly engaged in learning and achievement.

Differences between attentional patterns of mildly handicapped children and their nonhandicapped peers have been demonstrated in a number of studies. Extensive reviews of the literature can be found in Keogh and Margolis (1976), Hallahan and Kauffman (1978), and Hagen and Kail (1975). Evidence from the classroom, clinical setting, and laboratory setting support the conclusion that mildly handicapped students spend less time attending to task than do their nonhandicapped peers when matched for chronological age (Meyen & Lehr, 1980).










Purpose of the Study


The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork materials with emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, and regular students. In addition, the relationship of on-task behaviors across the arrangements and groups was examined.



Variables


There are two dependent variables in this study. They were

(a) instructional time and (b) on-task behavior. The independent variables were (a) instructional arrangements and (b) categorical label of the child.


Related Questions


This study was designed to investigate the following questions:

1. What was the percentage of time that LD, EH, and normal children spend in the five instructional arrangements?

2. Were there differences in the amount of time that LD, EH, and regular students spend in large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements?

3. What was the percentage of on-task time that LD, EH, and normal children spend in each instructional arrangement?










4. Are there differences in the amount of on-task behaviors that learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and normal children exhibit in large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements?


Definition of Terms


As set forth by the Bureau of Education for Exceptional

Students, Florida Department of Education (1980), the emotionally handicapped (EH) student is one who after receiving supportive educational assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits persistent and consistent severe behavioral disabilities which consequently disrupt the student's own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits (State Board of Education Rule SBER 6A-6.3016). (See Appendix A.)

As set forth by the Bureau of Education for Exceptional

Students, Florida Department of Education (1980), the term specific learning disabled (SLD) student refers to one who exhibits a disorder in one (1) or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language. These may be manifested in disorders of reading, listening, thinking, talking, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include learning problems which are due primarily to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental retardation, to emotional disturbance, or to an environmental deprivation (6A-6.3018(l) Florida Administrative Code).










The term instructional arrangement refers to the way that classroom teachers organize their students for instructional purposes (Mercer & Mercer, 1981). For the purpose of this study, five instructional arrangements have been identified:

Large group instruction--whole croup instruction consisting

of six or more pupils with teacher or designated adult

figure.

Small group arrangements--group instruction with teacher

and/or designated adult figure with five or less

students.

A one-to-one arrangement involves didactic instruction

between one student and the teacher and/or designated adult.

Peer teaching arrangement occurs when one student who has

mastered a skill teaches another student under the teacher's

supervision. Peer teaching may involve demonstration,

modeling, feedback, and giving instruction.

Material with the child occurs with the student working with

a material independently.

The regular classroom students are in full daily attendance within a regular classroom setting.

On-task behavior is the process of the student actively engaged in paying attention, working, questioning, or responding to the desired task. An operational definition includes the subject

(1) paying attention to instruction from teacher or peer;

(2) actively working (eyes on academic material, handwriting,

etc.);

(3) questions the teacher or peer about assignment.










Limitations


This study only included fourth grade students from Alachua

County, Florida,schools. This sample of students was selected from a southeastern United States city. Due to the possible educational and cultural differences of these students, the present study should not be viewed as a representative sample of the students in the remainder of the United States.


Delimitations


Included in this study were fourth grade students from the Alachua County School System, Alachua County, State of Florida. Alachua County is in the north central part of the State of Florida. The population was fourth grade EH, LD, and normal students.


Summary


Instructional arrangements such as large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and individual seatwork are widely used with normal and mildly handicapped students. Moreover, the literature regarding the relative use of these arrangements and data concerning the relationship of these arrangements to on-task behavior is lacking. If a certain instructional arrangement or a combination of arrangements promotes exceptional students' on-task behavior then that arrangement(s) should be organized for optimal effect in the student's educational setting (Cielesz, 1980). This investigation studied the extent to which children receive instruction in these various






10



instructional arrangements and the effect that these arrangements have on on-task behavior.

















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


The following review examines the literature concerning the use of instructional arrangements with mildly handicapped and regular education students. The literature was located by several methods. An ERIC literature search was conducted. Additionally, the Current Index of Journals in Education and the Education Index were examined from 1969 to the present date. Key words used in these searches included instructional arrangements, instructional groupings, large group, small group, individualized instruction, peer teaching, and instructional differences among learners.

References selected for inclusion all met the following criteria:

1. The reference was dated subsequent to 1969.

2. The reference was published in a refereed journal.

3. The article was a report of clinical studies,

experimental research, or survey research.










Instructional Arrangements

Teaching may occur in at least five instructional arrangements. These instructional arrangements are

1. large group with teacher, 2. small group with teacher,

3. one pupil with teacher,

4. peer teaching, and

5. material with pupil.


Large Group Instruction

The large group is appropriate for numerous classroom activities, e.g., having show and tell, discussing interesting events, discussing social studies or science content, taking a field trip, watching a play or movie, brainstorming, and playing a game. Archer and Edgar (1976) suggest heterogeneous grouping as an enrichment activity which allows for fuller participation within the classroom and less exclusion from peers. They also point out that students with learning problems often gain incidental information in the heterogeneous group setting. Generally, large group instruction is inappropriate for teaching the acquisition of specific academic' skills (Mercer, 1979). In a large group the instructional needs of the students vary considerably and the teacher is usually unable to respond to these differences in an efficient manner (Mercer & Mercer, 1981).










Kiesling (1978) investigated the relationship between reading instruction time in various instructional arrangements and gains on achievement tests. The subjects were 2400 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students from the New York State elementary school district. Two test instruments were used to measure reading skills. One of these was the California Achievement Test (1970) and the second was a set of criterion-referenced tests developed by personnel in the Bureau of School and Cultural Research of the New York State Education Department.

From detailed teacher interviews, information was obtained for the number of minutes of instruction that each child received. These data were recorded by the type of instruction (large group, small group) and by type of instructor (classroom teacher, specialist, paraprofessional). For the California Achievement Test, the period between pretest and posttest was 11 weeks, and for the criterion referenced test about nine weeks.

Four modes of instruction were distinguished. Whole group

instruction was defined as the situation in which the entire class was involved in experiences such as listening to instruction and class recitation. When subgroups of the class were doing different tasks at the same time, with one of the groups working with the instructor, the instruction was termed small group. Individualized instruction was considered to be instruction tailored to individual needs determined by diagnosis. Individual help was considered to involve helping individual students in drill-skill type exercises.










Main hypotheses that were tested in the study included:

(1) Do educators allocate resources to maximize average gain, or do they follow more democratic procedures such as giving equal instruction to all or attempting to close the gap between bright and dull students?

(2) What happens to instructional effectiveness when the size of the instruction group changes?

(3) How does the relative effectiveness of types of instruction very according to the achievement level of the student? Table 1 presents the results of the main hypotheses tested.

Criticisms of this study include a need for better descriptions

of the instruction. Secondly, there is no way to be certain about the accuracy of self-reports by teachers concerning their instructional time allocations. A final limitation concerns the possible reliability problems with the criterion referenced tests employed.

Lipson (1974) argues that whole-class or large group instruction

has its own unique motivational values, and under certain circumstances, will facilitate student achievement. He further asserts that group lessons often give the learning activity more perceived importance.

Good and Brophy (1977) assert that although allowing students to proceed at their own pace is appropriate, too much individualization (when individualization is seen as the student working alone) will have a negative influence on achievement. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974) report negative correlations between subject matter achievement and high occurrences of students working alone.






Table 1


Time Allocation by Reading Ability Level: Grades 4, 5, and
(Minutes of Instruction Received Per Week, Except Where


6, Each Weighted Equally Indicated Otherwise)


Large Group Small Group Individualized (Value of) Total
Reading Level Instruction Instruction Attentiona Total Instruction Givenb Each Student

2 and 3 levels
below gradec 76 47 59 182 27.7

1 level below
grade 43 55 27 125 16.7

at proper
grade level 53 56 16 125 13.5

1 level above
grade 79 42 8 129 10.3

alndividualized instruction and individual help.

bThis is total number of teacher minutes per week used exclusively by each child; obtained by dividing large group instruction by 27, small group instruction by 9, and other instruction by
3. Thus it was assumed that teachers had three groups per class for small group instruction and that individualized attention can be given to 3 students at once. Average class size in the sample was about 27.
cThree levels below grade pertains only to grade 5.










Small Group Instruction

Adams and Biddle (1970) report that student participation is related to both group size and proximity to the teacher. Students tend to participate more when they are physically closer to the teacher. The small group arrangement usually consists of three to five students and is the major vehicle for teaching academic skills. The teacher divides students into groups according to common skill needs. For example, groups may be based on placement in a basal reader or need for instruction in selected phonemes, sight words, or specific math facts. Carnine and Silbert (1979) report that the research on small group instruction generally indicates positive benefits.

This review of related literature is presented in terms of (a) small group instruction utilizing jigsaw technique, (b) student teams, (c) resource rooms, and (d) application of the resource room model.

Jigsaw techniques. Aronson, Stephen, Sikes, Blaney, and Snapp

(1978) sought to foster peer cooperation and tutoring in the classroom through a jigsaw technique for creating interdependence among pupils by dividing the learning task among them and structuring peer interaction in teams. In the jigsaw technique, a different portion of a task is assigned to each of five to six members, so that task completion is contingent upon mutual cooperation. The authors describe their method as follows:

The material to be learned was divided into as many parts
as their were group members. Each student learned only
one part of the total material and was, in turn, responsible










for teaching his part to his groupmates. However, each group member was responsible for learning all the curriculum material for testing. Groups were
given several training sessions to improve communication and tutoring skills, and groups monitored their own interpersonal processes through self-assessment,
discussion, and feedback. All groups in the classroom
studied identical material subdivided in identical
fashion among members of the jigsaw group. (Aronson
et al., 1978, p. 123)

Lucker, Rosenfield, Sikes, and Aronson (1976) discussed the

academic achievement of fifth and sixth grade pupils from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. A total of 242 white, 25 Mexican American, and 26 black children participated in the experiment, which took place for 45 minutes a day, each day for two weeks. Learning in Jigsaw Classrooms was contrasted with the traditional whole class method, with six teachers conducting Jigsaw Classrooms and five teachers employing their usual teaching techniques.

Data on academic achievement were obtained with a 37-item test, containing true/false, multiple choice, and matching questions contributed by the teachers. Findings for the experimental versus control classes revealed a significant gain for minority group children in these two settings. The 60 minority children in the study achieved 56 percent correct responses (20.9 items) in the experimental group, compared to 49.7 percent correct responses (18.4 items) in the traditional classrooms.
Student teams. The use of student teams is another format for creating small group instruction in the classroom. Much research related to the teaching of mixed-ability groups and the use of competition has been summarized by DeVries and Slavin (1976). Their research and that of their colleagues focuses on the use of teams in










games and tournament competition (TGT). Competition is used to enhance student interest; however, efforts are made to keep the competition manageable (Good & Brophy, 1977).

High, middle, and low achievement students are assigned to mixed ability teams. Students on each team are assigned to compete against students of similar ability in order to win points for their teams. For example, in mathematics, two students may try to see who can solve the most problem equations in 15 minutes (15 pairs of students can be competing at the same time on math tasks of varying difficulty). Similarly, in language arts two students (or several students from each team) could be assigned a crossword puzzle to complete in a specified time period. Individual students or groups of students at each table who win the competition earn points for their team. Teams that accumulate the most points in a specified time period win the tournament.
The reward structure used in the TGT program is a cooperative reward structure. DeVries and Slavin discuss four features:

1. Each group member must be individually accountable to the group for his/her behavior.

2. The participation of all members must be essential.

3. All members of the group must be rewarded at the group level for a group performance.
4. The group must be rewarded as a group frequently.

The usefulness of TGT is based upon the assumption that team competition will produce conditions that facilitate learning. However, DeVries and Slavin (1976) assert that if overused or used inappropriately, the TGT










concept or educational games in general are likely to cause more

problems than they solve. Furthermore, the authors note that TGT

techniques are most suited to those subjects which have goals that

are easy to quantify--simple, concrete skills.

Resource room. One of the most prevalent service arrangements

for mildly handicapped children employing small group instruction

is the resource room. In this plan the exceptional student spends

the majority of the day in a regular class and goes to the resource

room for a specified period of time (e.g., 45 to 60 minutes) each

day. The resource room teacher, located in the school, works closely

with numerous teachers to coordinate the instructional programs of the

pupils. The various service alternatives of the resource room

presented in Figure 3 indicate how the plan can be used to accommodate

the different needs of both students and teachers.

The resource room is widely used because of its flexible service

delivery format (Mercer, 1979). Wiederholt, Hammill, and Brown

(1978) specify numerous advantages:

1. Students can benefit from specific resource support
while remaining integrated with their friends and
age-mates in the school.
2. The resource teacher has an opportunity to help more
children than does a full-time special class teacher.
This is especially true when the resource teacher
provides indirect services to children with mild or
moderate problems by consulting extensively with their
teachers.
3. Resource programs are less expensive to operate than
special self-contained classes.
4. Because young children with mild, though developing,
problems can be accommodated, later severe disorders
may be prevented.
5. Flexible scheduling means that remediation can be
applied entirely in the classrooms by the regular
teacher with some resource support or in another room
by the resource program personnel when necessary; also, the schedule can be quickly altered to meet
the children's changing situations and needs.










Resource Room Interventions


Teach child in resource room for short periods of time and return to regular class full time

Teach child within small group on weekly basis in resource room

Teach child individually in resource room on a weekly basis

Teach child on daily basis in d resource room individually or in small group


Continuous assessment


of


of teacher and child r



Resource
Room Teacher


eeds N


Regular Class-Based Interventions


Provide special materials



Provide materials and consultation


Teach child in regular class



Teach regular class
regular teacher teaches child


Figure 3


Service Alternatives for the Resource Room Teacher




Source: Adapted in part from C. D. Mercer & J. S. Payne, Programs
and services. In J. M. Kauffman & J. S. Payne (Eds.),
Mental retardation: Introduction and personal perspectives.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1975, p. 131.
(Reprinted by permission.)










6. Since the resource program will absorb most of the
handicapped children in the schools, the selfcontained special education classes will increasingly
become instructional settings for severely handicapped
students, the children for whom the classes were
originally developed. (pp. 10-11)

Wiederholt, Hammill, and Brown (1978) describe several types of resource room models. Most LD youngsters are served in one of three types: categorical, cross-categorical, or noncategorical programs. Categorical programs serve only LD youngsters. Cross-categorical programs serve exceptional children from among several categorical program areas (i.e., educable mentally retarded, emotionally handicapped, and learning disabled). Noncategorical programs meet the educational needs of youngsters with mild learning problems who may or may not be classified as handicapped.

Jenkins, Mayhall, Peschka, and Jenkins (1974) assessed the

effectiveness of resource room teachers as managers of tutors or as small group tutors. In a series of five experiments, individual children were taught both in a small group setting by a resource room teacher and in a tutorial setting by a tutor who was supervised by the resource room teacher. The experiments were performed in six different schools by six different teachers. Relative growth in words recognition, oral reading, spelling, and arithmetic were observed in each of these settings. Different children participated in each experiment, yet each child received instruction under tutorial and small group conditions.

Experiment 1--Word Recognition:

Ten learning disabled and three educable mentally retarded

primary level children (CA 7-10 years) were subjects. The subjects










were referred to the resource room for reading. Experiment 1 consisted of three replications involving two different schools and two different teachers. Each of the replications dealt with the effect of tutoring versus small group instruction on the rate of word recognition. In each replication, children Were instructed for two 10-minute sessions daily. In one session, the children were taught in a small group by the resource room teacher and in the other session they were taught by tutors who were supervised by the resource teacher. Each child learned two sets of isolated words, one under each instructional condition. During group instruction, the subjects were called upon by the teacher to identify and pronounce the words aloud from flash cards. In tutoring instruction, a tutor paired off with a student and presented flash cards. Results indicated that as a group the subjects' proficiency in word recognition grew at a faster rate when tutored by another child than when taught in a small group by a teacher.

Experiment 2--Spelling:
The subjects were four third grade learning disabled children each of whom were referred by the classroom teacher for resource room assistance in spelling and reading. The tutors were fifth graders who had received tutorial training by the resource room teacher. Two lists of 30 words each were randomly selected from a group of 60 words taken from three spelling lessons. All children were given a written pretest before instruction began on the first day. Thereafter, a daily spelling test was given immediately following each instructional session. Results of the experiment indicated that










the mean gain on tutor taught words was 17.5 as opposed to 12.0 for small group taught words. Individually, each child learned more words under tutorial instruction than under small group instruction.

Experiment 3--Multiplication:

Five fourth grade children who had been referred for resource teacher assistance in multiplication were subjects. Tutors were sixth grade students. Two sets of 18 multiplication facts were drawn from the population of facts (2 X 2) through (9 X 9). One set was randomly selected for tutorial instruction and the other for small group instruction. The number of problems answered correctly in one minute on a written exam was identified as the dependent measure. Each test contained 36 items (the 18 facts occurring twice in random fashion). Results indicated that the average gain on tutored facts was 6.0 while the average gain on small group instruction facts was 3.6.

Experiment 4--Oral Reading:

Subjects were five primary level children diagnosed either as emotionally handicapped or educable mentally retarded. All were reading at beginning first grade level. Tutors were children from a fifth grade class. Children were instructed daily under each instructional arrangement (small and tutorial). Individual two-minute reading assessments, in which correct words and errors were recorded, were given each day. Results indicated that subjects showed a higher gain in oral reading skills when tutored by the fifth grade students than on small group instruction.










Experiment 5--Self-Study:

This experiment compared tutorial instruction with individual study rather than with small group instruction. Five third grade children were referred to the resource room by the classroom teacher for assistance in multiplication. An arithmetical multiplication task was chosen upon which a student could produce immediate feedback for himself so that the availability of another person was less essential. The design, task, materials, controls, and measures were identical to those in Experiment 3. The children learned one 18-fact set of multiplication combinations from a tutor, and another 18-fact set through self-study. Results indicated that the mean improvement for subjects when tutored was 6.4 problems per minute in contrast to 20 problems per minute gain when subjects engaged in self-study.

Ferindan, VanHandel, and Kovalinsky (1971) described and reported results of a resource room instructional program for learning disabled children. Eleven students remained in regular classes most of the day receiving supplemental instruction from the LD teacher in a resource room. Treatment emphasized instruction in perception, arithmetic, and reading skills. Using Strauss and Lehtinen's (1947) early definition of perception which was stated as "a mental process which precedes thinking and integrates sensations," the authors' major goal was to correct the children's perceptual disturbances.

After eight months of treatment based on a pretest and posttest design, their results were:
a. gains in reading achievement were not significant, although the average gain for the group was eight months.










b. arithmetic gains were 18 months, resulting in statistically significant improvement.

c. gains in perceptual achievement were significant as measured by the Bender Gestalt Test.

Although the students (ages 7 to 11 years) remained in their regular classes, they were assigned to meet with a special teacher in a resource room located in the same building. Instruction consisted of perceptual training in the areas of visual motor coordination, tactile discrimination, visual memory, auditory discrimination, distance judgment, spatial relations, kinesthetics, and figure-ground perception. In addition, reading and arithmetic instruction were emphasized.

Limitations of this study clearly relate to a lack of control

group and failure to control important variables, such as differences in teaching competencies among the regular classroom teachers in which the 11 children were enrolled. However, Stephens (1977) contends that despite its limitations, this study is a valuable contribution in that the curriculum was extensively described.

Glavin, Quay, Annesley, and Werry (1971) reported results of

the Temple Resource Room Project. Children in the experimental group were assigned to a resource room program during those periods of the day in which they were functioning least effectively in their regular classes. The program emphasized academic instruction using contingency contracting. They reported that the experimental group made significantly greater gains in reading vocabulary and arithmetic fundamentals than did a comparison group. Changes in social behavior










also occurred, with the greatest improvement among the experimental group while they were in the resource room.

In the Glavin et al. study, 27 students with a mean age of 10 years constituted the experimental group. Thirty-four children with a mean age of 9 years 4 months made up the comparison group. The authors concluded that increases in attending behaviors and decreases in deviant behaviors in the resource rooms appeared immediately after placement. They also found that behaviors acquired in resource rooms were not generalized to regular classes unless mechanisms were developed between the teachers in both placements. For example, deviant social behaviors continued in the regular classes even though they were improved in resource rooms.

Glavin (1974), in a follow-up study to the study reported above, sought to determine whether gains were maintained in regular classes following a one or two year placement in regular classes. He found that generalization of social behavior never occurred in regular classes. That is, in the absence of specific procedures for maintaining the desirable behavior which was taught and displayed in resource rooms, social behavior was not improved in regular classes even though that behavior was quickly changed in resource rooms. Glavin could not account for the lack of significant results in arithmetic attainment. While the experimental group's arithmetic performance had improved more significantly than the control group's in the initial study, the difference between the two groups was not maintained in the follow-up study.










Based on Glavin's follow-up study, Stephens (1977) hypothesized that the following strategies would have improved the chances of generalizing behavior and academic achievement to regular classes:

1. Gradually phase out placement in resource rooms by having the student attend fewer and fewer days for shorter and shorter intervals.

2. Train the regular classroom teachers so that they can

reinforce the gains made by students while they were in resource rooms.

3. Develop procedures where resource room and regular teachers routinely discuss tactics for maintaining behavior of specific children.

4. Assist classroom teachers to individualize instruction so that academic gains can continue.

Although the resource room is gaining popularity as an instructional plan for serving mildly handicapped learners, its efficacy has not been extensively examined. Weiner (1969), Sabatino (1971), and Ferinden, VanHandel, and Kovalinsky (1971) studied the effectiveness of the resource room. Using a pre-posttest format, Weiner found that LD children (N=72) significantly improved academically after attending a resource room for one hour a day throughout the school year. No LD students gained markedly in self-concept (as measured by the Draw-A-Person Test). Sabatino found that daily contact (40 minute sessions) of LD youngsters with the resource room teacher produced better results than semi-weekly contact (30 minute sessions). Ferinden et al. concentrated on correcting perceptual disturbances of










11 children who remained in regular classes and received supplemental instruction from a special teacher in a resource room. Using a preposttest design, Ferinden et al. reported that after eight months of treatment, the children improved in their perception (as measured by the Bender Gestalt Test) and in their math skills (18 months). Although not significant, the average gain in reading achievement was eight months.

Application of the resource room model. A notable application of the resource room model is the Madison School Plan which was developed over a three year period in Santa Monica, California (Taylor, Artuso, Soloway, Hewett, Quay, & Stillwell, 1972). Commonly referred to as the Madison Plan, this model provides a comprehensive approach for non-categorical special educational services for mildly retarded, emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, hearing handicapped, and speech handicapped. It features a learning center located in a regular elementary school. Placement in the learning center is based on the child's readiness for regular classroom functioning. Each child is assigned to spend as much time as possible in the regular classroom. The learning center is made up of four classroom levels based on the child's pre-academic and academic skills, his/her ability to learn, and/or his/her response to regular classroom rewards and reinforcers (Sherry, 1979).

The Pre-academic I level places emphasis on learning to pay attention and following directions. There is no group instruction and children receive checkmarks as reinforcement at regular intervals. Children work individually at self-contained units with a teacher or










aide. The students do not spend any time in the regular classroom. Pre-academic II consists of children who can handle more formal demands of the regular classroom. The Pre-academic II program emphasizes remedial academic work in small group participation. Rewards are still provided for appropriate on-task behaviors. Beginning with Pre-academic II, each student is integrated into a regular classroom for a few minutes during the day.

The third level, Academic I provides asimulated regular classroom. Students work as a large group and receive grades at hourly intervals. This section of the learning center is a simulated regular classroom setting for 12 to 25 children who have primary academic problems that can be dealt with ina large teacher-class setting. Emphasis is placed on helping each student with the specific skills needed to increase the amount of time spent in a regular classroom. In the learning center Academic I, students have the ability to spend increasing amounts of time in the regular classroom and have a readiness for the more traditional system of grading in terms of effort, quality of work, and citizenship (Stephens, 1977).

In Academic II, the setting is the regular classroom composed of 28 to 35 students. Academic II follows the typical public school program. All handicapped students in the program are assigned to one of the Pre-academic I, Pre-academic II, or Academic I settings. Those students in the latter two groups are integrated for varying periods of time in Academic II. Figure 4 presents a pictorial representation of two typical learning center classrooms in the Madison School Plan.













PRE-ACADEMIC II .. 'J
Intense academic
remediation in small ([ groups--programmed
and independent. Reinforcement schedule.


ACADEMIC I
Large group setting with group instruction, oral discussions, independent study, and academic remediation to provide support for regular classroom assignment. Regular report cards.


L_..J L _J t----


OrdLerJ
Center


PRE-ACADEMIC I


I I


Highly structured to teach appropriate student-like behavior (sit still, pay attention, take turns) utilizing academic, direction-following, and exploratory tasks. Reinforcement schedule.


D7D FDDD1F1


Figure 4

Two Typical Learning Center Classrooms
Utilizing the Madison School Plan


From: Taylor, F., Artuso, A., Soloway, M., Hewett, F., Quay, H., &
Stillwell, R. A learning center plan for special education.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 1972, 4(3), 1-8.


-i










Mercer (1979) asserts that although the research regarding the

efficacy of resource rooms is beset with definition and methodological problems, it appears that until further research suggests otherwise, the resource room will continue to be used as a model to serve mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. Cegelka and Tyler (1970) enumerated five weaknesses of most efficacy research: (1) sampling is seldom a randomized process, and comparison groups are seldom comparable; (2) inadequate matching of subjects across conditions;

(3) different placement histories of exceptional children potentially interact with current program placement, making the results of efficacy studies impossible to interpret; (4) the use of inadequate measurement instruments, the investigator's choice of instruments, and/or the lack of descriptive data concerning the instruments; and

(5) failure to control for teaching procedures and curricula.

Sindelar and Deno (1978) contend that descriptions of resource models continue to abound in the literature. And, the number of evaluations of special education resource programs is growing. However, the authors note that careful and conscientious program description is often separated from program evaluation. Programs are described in articles in which they are not evaluated. At the same time, evaluations are reported for resource programs which have not been carefully described or developed. The net result is that while resource programming in service delivery multiplies, the efficacy of program variables has not been established. Table 2 presents a review of studies of resource rooms and academic achievement.






Table 2


Studies of Resource Rooms and Academic Achievement


Author(s) Population/ Comparisons Duration Measures Results Assignment

Glavin, Quay, Beh. disruptive or Resource program 2 year program, CAT Resource program Annesley, & overtly withdrawn with regular class 1st year group scored signifiWerry (1971) Experimental, N=27 placement evaluation cantly higher on
Control, N=34 reading comprehension Random assignment and arithmetic fundaof teacher mentals than regular
identifications class group


Glavin (1974) (as above) Second year 2 year program, CAT No significant evaluation follow- 2nd year post- differences between ing termination check groups of program

Sabatino (1971) Learning disabled Special class with 1 school year 14 selected 1. All 3 special
N=114 resource prog. A subtests of groups gained signifiMatched on CA, Sex, (1 hr./daily); WRAT, WISC, cantly more than
IQ, and perceptual resource program B and ITPA regular class group
impairment (1/2 hr./twice 2. Resource program A weekly); regular group superior to class placement both resource B and special class groups,
which did not differ






Table 2- Continued


Author(s) Population/ Comparisons Duration Measures Results
Assignment

Jenkins & A. EMR & LD Special class vs. A. 3 1/2 months WRAT 1. Resource program group Mayhal (1974) N=6 and N=24 special class & improved at significantly
Random assign- resource program faster rate than either ment for EMRs; resource special or regular class
B. LD, N=28 program vs. reg- group
1/2 randomly ular program B. 1 school year WRAT 1. Resource program
assigned (for reading only) group significantly outlowest 7 of vs. regular class qained regular group on
remaining 1/2 placement reading subtest
2. No difference on
arithmetic subtest










Summary of research on small group instruction. The research on small group instruction generally shows positive benefits. First, adult supervision apparently contributes to student engagement. Filby and Marliave (Rosenshine, in press) and Fisher, Filby, and Marliave (Rosenshine, in press) found that when students were working with a teacher or another adult, they were engaged from 79 percent to 88 percent of the time. In contrast, when students were working alone they were engaged only 68 percent to 73 percent of the time. Second, small group instruction seems to be a reasonable alternative to one-to-one instruction. Venerky and Shiloh (1972) reported that performance on language tasks for students working in a small group setting was superior to that for students receiving one-to-one instruction. Working with retarded children on language skills, Biberdorf and Pear (1977) reported that group instruction was more efficient in terms of material learned per unit time than individual instruction. Fink and Carnine (1975) and Fink and Sandall (1978) reported similar results. In contrast, a single study (Jenkins, Mayhall, Peschka, & Jenkins, 1974) reported that tutorials in remedial reading were more effective than instruction in small groups. The research, in general, suggests that small group instruction is effective (Carnine & Silbert, 1979).


One-to-One Instruction

One student with the teacher or tutorial teaching allows for intensive instruction with a single student and is frequently used to help students learn a new skill (Mercer & Mercer, 1981). Archer and Edgar (1976) recommend that one-to-one instruction be scheduled










daily for students with learning problems. The authors contend that with regular scheduling, the student knows that he will have some time with the teacher to ask questions and receive help.

Fink and Sandall (1980) sought to determine whether small group instruction could be used to effect children's learning, while resulting in significant savings in teaching time, when compared to one-to-one instruction. The subjects were four children who attended the Preschool for Multiply Handicapped Children at the University of Oregon. The children ranged between 52 and 66 months in chronological age and 29 and 33 months in Mental Age.

An intrasubject replication design (ABAB) was employed to assess the effects of one-to-one to small group instruction. During each "A" condition, each child was taught Using the one-to-one instruction. During each "B" condition, the children were taught using the small group strategy. In each of the conditions, the children were taught to verbally label six words. The children were tested at the end of each condition to determine the effect of the strategy on learning performance. Seven days later, the test was administered again to test for retention.

Results indicated that children's performance on the test which was administered at the end of each experimental condition showed a mean of 5.83 words labeled correctly in the one-to-one conditions and a mean of 4.71 words labeled correctly in the small group conditions. On the delayed test (seven days later), a mean of 3.15 words were labeled correctly in the one-to-one condition and a mean of 4.25 was labeled correctly in the small group condition.










The authors contend that small group instruction was clearly superior in terms of the amount of time spent in instruction. The mean number of minutes recorded per instructional setting was 11.39 in the one-to-one and 4.49 in the small group setting. Moreover, the authors suggested that small group instruction is a viable alternative to one-to-one instruction in settings wherein staff-client ratios make an equitable distribution of one-to-one instructional services impossible (Fink & Sandall, 1980).

Ronshausen (1979) investigated the effect of the Programmed Math Tutorial (PMT)--programmed tutoring in mathematics--on achievement of kindergarten and first grade children. Three field studies utilizing the Programmed Math Tutorial were completed. The field studies were undertaken to seek answers to the following questions:

1. Is the Programmed Math Tutorial, used as a supplement to

the regular class instruction, more effective than classroom instruction alone in helping first graders learn mathematics?

2. Is the revised Programmed Math Tutorial, used as a supplement to the regular classroom instruction, more effective than classroom instruction alone in helping kindergarten children learn first grade mathematics? Effectiveness in helping children learn was to be measured in terms of scores on standardized and criterion referenced mathematics achievement tests.

The Programmed Math Tutorial (PMT) was field tested in two

large school systems during the entire school year. In school system "A", first grade children who had been selected earlier to receive tutoring in the participating schools were given the Metropolitan










Readiness Tests (MRT). Using total scores, a stratified random sample was formed in each school. Children were assigned alternately to the tutored group or to the untutored control group, beginning with the lowest score. Tutors were assigned randomly to the schools after the number of children selected for tutoring was known. The following May, children in the experimental and control groups were given the Mathematics Subtest (4A Concepts, 4B Computational Skills) of the MAT, Primary II.

In school system "B", the PMT was used with both kindergarten and first grade children (so that two essentially separate field studies were completed in this school system). At the kindergarten level, 36 children were randomly selected from all readiness levels, 18 in each of two schools. The control group was formed in the same way from the same classroom. The Numbers Subtest of the MAT was used as the pretest.

First grade children in 14 schools were ranked using scores on the Numbers Subtest of the MAT. Each school hired the number of tutors it could provide, producing the desired number of tutoring time slots needed per child. Then in each school, the 3/2s lowest pretest scores were selected. The children thus selected were assigned randomly to the tutored and control groups in the ratio of about 2 to 1. There was no difference in mean pretest scores between the experimental and control groups.

After eight months of tutoring, children in the experimental and control groups were given two posttest achievement measures. Kindergarten children were given the Math Subtest of the Metropolitan










Achievement Tests, Primer, and the Primary School Mathematics Criterion Test. The latter measure was given to the first graders also, along with the Mathematics Subtests of the Metropolitan Test, Primary I.

Results indicated that in each school system, the mean score obtained by the tutored group exceeded the mean score obtained by the untutored control group, and the differences were significantly different in five of six cases ( < .001, p < .10). This result occurred at the kindergarten level as well as the first grade level in each school system B (p < .001). The mean score obtained by the tutored kindergarten group was essentially the same as that obtained by the untutored control group for first grade children on the Primary School Mathematics Criterion Test (34.5 vs 34.7), even though the difference in mean pretest scores favored the untutored control group. The authors concluded that the combination of the PMT and regular first grade instruction is more effective than classroom tutoring alone in increasing first graders Mathematics achievement. Also, they noted that kindergarter children can learn first grade math topics when the Programmed Math Tutorial is provided as a supplement to the regular classroom instruction.

Peer Teaching

In this strategy one student who has proficiency in a skill teaches another student under the teacher's supervision. Peer tutoring arrangements have been developed to ensure that greater attention is given to the needs of each student (Ehly & Larsen, 1980). Allen (1976) reports that research on peer tutoring indicates a










positive effect for the tutor (i.e., it helps the tutor with academic and/or behavioral difficulties). He also notes that the effect for the tutee is generally positive and the critical factor in establishing a mutually beneficial tutor-tutee relationship is directly related to the competence of the tutor regarding content. Mercer and Mercer (1981) report that peer teaching has been successfully used to (a) improve academic skills, (b) foster self-esteem, (c) help the shy student, (d) help students who have difficulty with authority figures, and (e) improve race relations. Surratt, Ulrich, and Hawkins (1969) specifically note that peer tutoring has been successfully used to help manage heterogeneous classrooms which include students with learning problems.

Eaton and Hansen (1978) note that students are a valuable source as peer teachers. They report that "chain teaching" can save energy and time. It involves the teacher showing one student how to perform a skill and the student in turn trains a second and so on. The related research will be reviewed in terms of (a) tutoring in the regular classroom with selected students, (b) intraclass peer tutoring with mildly handicapped youngsters, (c) peer tutoring with the entire class, and (d) a school-wide tutorial program.

Tutoring in the regular classroom. Glass and Griffith (1973) have included peer tutoring as one condition that can easily be established within the regular classroom and used by the teacher to help change the attitudes of nonhandicapped children toward their handicapped peers. Christoplos (1973) outlined a set of techniques that could be used by the regular classroom teacher to facilitate










integration of the handicapped child into the regular classroom. Peer tutoring, according to Christoplos, is one of the most practical ways in which individualization of instruction could be brought into the classroom while reducing the demand and pressure on the teacher.

Oakland and Williams (1973) examined the effectiveness of peer tutors as means of facilitating the reading achievement of other children reading below their grade placement. Thirty-three third and fourth graders (CA 9 to 11) from two elementary schools were selected to be tutees on the basis of teacher judgment and reading achievement scores from the Metropolitan Achievement Test. All children were described by their teachers as being unresponsive to the basal reading instruction and were performing at least six months below grade placement on the Work Knowledge or Comprehension subtests of the Metropolitan, and had not repeated any grades. The children were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) total tutorial program, wherein the selected group received virtually all their reading and spelling instruction through the assistance of a peer tutor rather than the classroom teacher; (b) supplementary tutorial program, wherein the 10 minute tutorial sessions supplemented regular classroom reading instruction provided by classroom teachers. Tutorial help for children in this group consisted of oral reading practice from trade books, supplementary readers, or remedial readers. A tutee and a tutor read simultaneously, with the tutor setting a comfortable pace and keeping the place on the page with his/her finger. This method of practice has been referred to as the "neurological impress method"; and (c) non-tutorial program (control group), wherein










the selected group received their reading instruction only from the classroom teacher.

Posttest scores from the Word Knowledge and Comprehension subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Test were analyzed through the use of analysis of covariance. Pretest scores from the Word Knowledge subtest and IQ were used separately as covariates in analyzing the posttest scores on Word Knowledge. Similarly, pretest scores from the Comprehension subtest and IQ were used separately as covariates in analyzing the posttest scores on Comprehension. Findings indicated that differences between the three treatment groups on the Metropolitan Achievement Test subtests of Word Knowledge and Comprehension were not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were not apparent for the third-grade children, for the fourth-grade children, or for the third- and fourth-grade children combined. Differences between groups approached significance (in favor of the Supplementary Tutorial group) only on the Comprehension subtest for the combined third- and fourth-grade groups. The authors contend that the evaluation of any peer tutoring project can be effectively done only when both the quantitative data and other pertinent information derived from observations made during the experiment are examined fully (Oakland & Williams, 1973).

Intraclass peer tutoring with mildly handicapped youngsters.

Epstein (1978) investigated the effects of intraclass peer tutoring on the academic performance of mildly handicapped children. In each of 20 primary level learning disability classes (self-contained), five children performing poorly on a word recognition test were










identified as tutors. The tutors were then randomly assigned to either the peer tutoring in reading or to one of four control conditions. Control conditions included peer tutoring math, teacherinstructed, self-instructional, and blind control.

The experimental condition of peer tutoring reading consisted of one tutee and one tutor who spent 15 minutes daily on a reading study lesson in which the tutor assisted the tutee in a review of the specifically designed reading program. In the experimental control, peer tutoring math, one tutor spent 15 minutes daily on an arithmetic lesson assisting a tutee in a one-to-one review of specifically prepared arithmetic problems. With the use of self-instructional control, one person worked alone for 15 minutes daily in the Merrill Phonics Skill test: The Sound and Structure of Words. The teacherinstructed control consisted of one person receiving no formal individual reading instruction in the Merrill Linguistic Reading Program but was a member of the teacher-instructed reading group in the reading program. In the teacher-instructed group, the teacher maintained a progress sheet on the child, as well as the remainder of the participants in the group. In the blind control experimental condition, the subject received no reading instruction other than the general classroom reading program. No progress sheet was kept on the child because the teacher was not aware of the participation of this person in the experiment.

The primary analysis of the study concerned the comparison of the five treatment groups on the word recognition posttest. The 5 X 20 Analysis of Variance revealed a significant effect for conditions (F=20.5, df=4,76, p < .001).










The 3 X 20 Analysis of Variance for the number of words

covered indicated that the conditions had a significant effect on the criterion (F=10.75, df-2,38, p < .001). The 3 X 20 Analysis of Variance on the time used to cover the words showed no significant difference among the three treatment groups.

In summary, the results of the primary analysis were as follows:

(a) the peer-tutoring reading group performed significantly better than the peer tutoring math, self-instructional, teacher-instructed, and blind-control groups on the criterion reading test, (b) the peertutoring reading group covered a significantly greater number of words than the teacher-instructed group, and (c) the peer-tutoring reading group covered fewer words than the self-instructional group, but the difference between the groups failed to reach significance, (d) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer tutoring reading group and the self-instructional group was not significant statistically, and (e) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer tutoring reading group and the teacher-instructed group was not statistically significant (Epstein, 1978).

Peer tutoring with the entire class. The use of prompting to increase peer tutoring skills in an entire third grade class was investigated by Jason and Frasure (1979). A multiple baseline design was used in establishing three tutoring components: praise, corrective feedback, and re-presenting the question. Two reversal phases were added to the basic experimental design (i.e., multiple baseline) to assess maintenance of tutoring behaviors following termination of










prompting. The effect of the intervention on academic, classroom adjustment, as well as self-esteem measures, was also evaluated.

Experimental children involved in the peer tutoring project were 19 third graders in an inner-city, parochial, elementary school. The control group consisted of 23 third grade youngsters enrolled in another parochial school in the same geographic area.

In the actual program, the third graders assumed three roles: tutor, tutee, and scorekeeper. The children, working in groups of three, rotated roles every 15 minutes. A 15 minute free play period followed the 15 minute peer tutoring program. On alternate sessions, children were tutored in arithmetic and word recognition (the materials were obtained from lessons the teacher was currently introducing and working on in her class).

Prior to the first session with the third grade children, a role play of a correct and incorrect response was demonstrated. A university observer in each group told the children: "We're going to play a teaching game. Watch how this is done. I'm the teacher and (another observer) is the student.' I lift this card and say: 'What is this?' (Answer is said.) And then I say: 'That's right.' Now if the student says the wrong answer, this is what I do (the first card is put down, the second is held up): 'What is this?' (Wrong answer is said.) 'This is a What is it?"

On the first day, the scorekeeping system was described. The observer pointed to one of the children and said, "You are going to be the scorekeeper." The Child Recording Form was then placed in front










of the child. The observer said, "There are 30 spaces for answers. If the right answer is given, write a plus in the first line. If a wrong answer is given, write a dash."

When the teaching game was finished, each child was praised by the observer and given feedback about how many of the 30 trials were correct. When the child received 90 percent accuracy for that unit, the entire class moved on to the next session.

A multiple baseline reversal design was employed. To gather baseline data, prior to the first session, all children observed a role play of the tutoring game. During Sessions 1-4 children were asked to play the teaching game.

University students prompted praise during Sessions 5-16. Following a correct response, if the tutor did not praise spontaneously, the prompter asked the tutor to praise the tutee. During Sessions 9-16, the observer prompted corrective feedback. If the tutor did not spontaneously offer the correct answer following an incorrect response, the university student told the tutor: "Tell the student this is a

." Praise was also prompted during this phase. Re-presenting questions were prompted during Sessions 13-16. After the tutor corrected the incorrect tutee response, and failed to spontaneously re-present the question, the observer said: "Ask (the tutee), 'What is this?" Praise and feedback were also prompted during this phase.

For the next six sessions (17-22), the University observers did not prompt the students. Prompting for all three tutoring behaviors occurred during Sessions 23-28. During Sessions 29-33, baseline conditions were reestablished.










In reference to tutoring behaviors, results indicated that teaching behaviors increased after prompting for both the reading and arithmetic units. During the intervention, unprompted praise increased to an average of 79 percent during reading units and to an average of 91 percent during arithmetic units. Reductions in praise were noted during the baseline phase, but high rates of praise were again attained during the last two phases.

Corrective feedback when teaching reading increased from a baseline average of 21 percent to an average of 64 percent after prompting. For arithmetic units, corrective feedback increased from a baseline average of 58 percent to 80 percent after prompting. During the return to baseline phase, feedback increased for reading but decreased slightly for arithmetic. With re-implementation of prompting, feedback increased for reading and decreased slightly for arithmetic. Increases were noted for both arithmetic and reading during the last phase.

Re-presenting questions showed averages of 2 percent for reading units and 7 percent for arithmetic units during baseline. After onset of intervention, representing questions increased to 51 percent for reading units and 40 percent for arithmetic units. During the subsequent return to baseline phase, decreases were noted but with onset of prompting, rates of re-presenting the question increased dramatically. During the last phase, decreases were noted but with onset of prompting, rates of re-presenting the question increased dramatically.

In terms of post point grades, employing an analysis of covariance, the experimental group, in comparison to controls, earned significantly










higher reading (F(1,38)=4.05, p< .05), spelling (F(l,38)=8.61, p< .01, and mathematics (F(1,38)=5.27, p<.05) grades.

School-wide tutorial program. Melaragno (1974) describes a

program being conducted in a number of schools in the Unified School District of Los Angeles in which all children in the school are involved as either tutors or learners (Melaragno, 1974). The program was explored as part of a six-year research and development project supported by the Ford Foundation (Melaragno & Newmark, 1971). The following is a detailed description of the project: Two important program features underlie the intergrade tutoring program:

(1) The program is to be a primary vehicle for reading

instruction and is not an appendix to the "regular"

program.

(2) The program is classroom-based in that teachers have

the major responsibility for carrying out the program

in their own classrooms.

In reference to personnel requirements, classes within the school are paired for tutoring with a primary grade class receiving tutors and an upper class sending tutors. This means that two teachers will work closely together in conducting tutoring and the pairing of classes is done with two dimensions being considered:

(1) the two teachers' approaches to students are taken

into account so that the most compatible pairings

possible are made; and

(2) the classes are separated by at least two years in

age and/or grade level.










One non-classroom staff member is designated to be the

school's tutoring coordinator. The coordinator has responsibility for planning the school-wide program, training classroom teachers, providing logistical support to teachers, and monitoring the total program.

In the area of teacher preparation, classroom teachers are required to participate in a six-session workshop on tutoring led by the tutoring coordinator. During the workshop, participants are taught such skills as how to train tutors, monitor tutorial behaviors, and the basic characteristics of an effective tutor-tutee relationship.

The training of tutors is conducted by the classroom teacher in two stages:

(1) The first stage is a general orientation to tutoring and

the helping relationship; students in the two classes become familiar with one another through information socialization; older students interview younger students whom they will tutor to get better acquainted and older students observe younger ones during reading instruction.

(2) In the second stage tutors are trained in the specific procedures they are to follow when they tutor a younger student. During their specific training tutors are introduced to the materials and methods they will use. In addition, tutors are trained in reinforcement procedures such as the need for frequent positive reinforcement and the minimization of negative reinforcement.










To facilitate the tutoring process, once a week teachers meet

with tutors to discuss the most recent tutoring, solve problems that have arisen, and provide additional training to tutors. Regularly the paired teachers get together to review their program and make any additional modifications.

Materials used by tutors are largely those available within the school, including reading texts, workbooks, practice worksheets, and flashcards. Some materials are prepared specially for tutors, such as record-keeping forms, logs for recording daily activities, and summaries of tutoring steps.

In reference to program monitoring, tutoring is conducted in cycles of from five to eight weeks in duration, with a two-week period between cycles. At the end of each cycle teachers complete a form recording student progress and teachers' judgments of the program. This information is summarized by the tutoring coordinator and is fed back to teacher groups for their use in determining areas that are going well and should be maintained; and areas that are in need of revision.

A product evaluation is performed in which pretest and posttest results on student progress are compared to measure the degree of growth made. Typically the product evaluation is carried out at the end of the year and utilizes standardized tests in reading, and measures of student attitudes toward school.

In the school district, tutoring procedures were initially

developed for decoding skills. A component skills package was then developed. The decoding skills package provides learners with instruction in sight vocabulary development, phonics skills such as










sounds of letters and sounds of word elements, and word attack skills such as sounding out unfamiliar words. Tutors and learners accomplish these using flash cards, practice exercises, and reading in a basal text.

Material with Student

This instructional arrangement does not require the teacher's presence. It is used extensively because it provides students with independent seatwork activities while the teacher engages in small group and one-to-one instruction with other students. These independent student activities are aimed at providing needed practice on skills in which the student has received previous instruction and acquired some mastery (Archer & Edgar, 1976; Stephens, 1977; White & Haring, 1976). The teacher may select from numerous materials such as worksheets, self-correcting materials, instructional games, tape recorder, language master, and commercial materials. Mercer and Mercer (1981) note that teachers need to be very careful with the material with child arrangement because students frequently spend much time in this setting and inappropriate materials can lead to frustration, failure, and practicing of errors.

Dezelle (1971) sought to examine the credibility of programmed instruction in mathematics as a teaching technique for junior high school educable mentally retarded children (EMR). The pupil population of this school came from five school districts, each with two or more EMR classes for junior high school children. One class in each school was selected at random to serve as an experimental class and another class as a control. A total of 132 pupils, enrolled in the 10 classes,










comprised the pool from which two groups of 30 pupils matched in age, sex, race, IQ scores, and pretest scores on the criterion instrument, were identified. Program instruction workbook texts (Sullivan, 1968) were used during a 40-minute period by the experimental group. Conventional methods were used by the control group for the same time period.

Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of programmed instruction in arithmetic for junior high school EMR pupils was inconclusive. Programmed instruction was noted as providing the same results as conventional methods. However, the experimental group adapted well to the format of the programmed instruction and were able to achieve a satisfactory level of self-direction and pursued the sequence of instruction on their own.

Vandever, Maggart, and Nassar (1976) investigated program

effectiveness on the development of word recognition for EMR children. The researchers initially assigned 15 classes of primary age educable mentally retarded children to one of three programs for learning to read. Programs included the Merrill Linguistic Series, the Sullivan programmed series, and the Edmark series. Children, rather than classes, were chosen as the unit of analysis because two of the programs were self-paced and programmed.

At the beginning of the school year students were pretested on two measures--a 150 word list from the reading program to which they were assigned and a 50-word list to measure learning and transfer.

Three reading methods that appear to be appropriate for use with EMR children, while being significantly different from each other,










were selected for use in the study. The Merrill Linguistic Series (Fries, Wilson, & Rudolph, 1966) places emphasis on learning words in simple word families. Sullivan Series (Buchanan, 1969) stresses English sound-symbol relationships which enable the child to generalize to other phonetically regular words. The material is programmed. The Edmark Series (Edmark, 1972) is a programmed whole word approach. A 150-word sight vocabulary is taught. The program is individualized and students learn only words they do not know. The child needs only (a) to be able to repeat the words, (b) to indicate the choice by pointing, and (c) to have receptive language sufficient for response to instruction.

Table 3 shows means, standard deviations, and alpha reliabilities for pretests and posttests by groups. Children, rather than classes, were chosen as the unit of analysis. Since children progressed through these programs at their own pace, each child provided a relatively independent data point (Vandever, Maggart, & Nasser, 1976). Only in the Merrill program was group instruction used.

Analysis of variance on the 150 word pretest revealed no difference between the groups prior to reading instruction, F(2,104)=.246, p< .99. Likewise, there were no differences on the 50-word pretest, F=(2,104) = .004, p <.99. Analysis of covariance with pretest scores as the covariate and posttest scores as the dependent variable revealed a significant difference on the 150-word test, F(2,193)=8.785, p< .0005. Adjusted means of 49.19, 31.34, and 39.21 words were obtained by children in the Edmark, Sullivan, and Merrill groups respectively indicating that programs produced differences in achievement. A









Table 3

Unadjusted Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Alpha Reliability
for Pretests and Posttests by Groups


Pretest Posttest 50 Words 150 Words 50 Words 150 Words
Group n M SD Alpha M SD Alpha M SD Alpha M SD Alph Edmark 29 7.14 6.79 0.92 15.17 15.93 0.96 12.72 8.98 0.94 50.83 34.69 0.99

Merrill 45 7.00 6.88 0.92 13.09 13.98 0.96 11.60 9.11 0.95 37.18 28.05 0.98

Sullivan 33 7.03 7.48 0.94 15.00 13.96 0.95 10.91 10.41 0.96 32.67 29.81 0.98










Newman-Keuls test was conducted to determine which programs differed. A significant difference at the 5 percent level was found between the mean number of words learned by children in the Sullivan Program and the mean number of words learned by children in the Edmark program favoring Edmark. Analysis of covariance on the 50 word posttest revealed no significant differences between the treatments, F(2,103) = 1,277, p< .29. Adjusted means of 12.61, 10.93, and 11.66 words were obtained by children receiving Edmark, Sullivan, and Merrill reading instruction respectively.


Summary

A variety of instructional arrangements have been used with regular and special education children. Research in the area of large group instruction indicates that large group instruction has its own unique motivational values; and under certain circumstances will facilitate student achievement (Kiesling, 1978; Lipson, 1974). Brophy and Good (1977, 1978) assert that when the development of work necessary for comprehending a concept can be presented to a large group of students at the same time, teachers will have time to provide individual students with more personalized feedback in private face-to-face contact. The research on small group instruction generally shows positive benefits (Carnine & Silbert, 1979; DeVries & Slavin, 1976; Sharan, 1980).

Various researchers have reported that when students were working with a teacher or another student on a one-to-one basis, students were engaged from 79 percent to 88 percent of the time on the










designated task (Bloom, 1974; Fink & Sandall, 1978; Hagen & Kail, 1975; Sharan, Lazarowitz, & Ackerman, 1980; Soar, 1973). The instructional arrangement, peer tutoring has been tried in a variety of academic settings, and it frequently results in increased achievement by students who do the tutoring, as well as by students who are tutored (Oakland & Williams, 1973). Peer tutoring has been effective on a one-to-one basis with tutor and tutee (Christoplos, 1973; Glass & Griffith, 1970), in entire grades (Jason & Frasure, 1979), and in school-wide programs (Melaragno, 1978).

During independent seatwork, research has indicated that

students have successfully worked on a number of activities either individually or in a small group. Studies have indicated that students are more likely to make efficient use of seatwork time if teachers provide carefully structured assignments and institute a motivation system (Vandever, Maggart, & Nasser, 1976).

It is apparent that each of these instructional arrangements have been done with various classes of children. A close examination of the literature, however, reveals limited information on the percentage of academic instructional time spent in a given instructional arrangement or the percentage of time on task in that given arrangement.

With the advent of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, more and more "special" children are placed in regular education classrooms, yet limited information is available on the predominant form of instructional arrangement(s) most beneficial to a given child. The effect that such instructional arrangements have on children's performance has not been adequately examined. This study addresses these critical concerns.
















CHAPTER III

METHOD



Chapter III presents the methods and procedures of the study. It is organized into three major sections: a description of the subjects, a description of the experimental materials, and a description of the procedures. The procedures section will include the experimental design, the dependent variables, and data collection methods.



Subjects


The subjects for this study were 39 fourth-grade students from the public school setting of the Alachua County schools. Of these students, 11 were identified as learning disabled (LD) attending a resource room, 11 of these students were identified as emotionally handicapped (EH) attending a resource room, and 17 were regular education fourth grade students in a regular class setting. Random selection was achieved by placing the name and educational diagnosis of each fourth grade pupil in the designated schools in a container, mixing the slips thoroughly, and then drawing out the required number of names required for observation.










To control for the prospect of including subjects with situational problems, each special education teacher was interviewed to determine whether any subjects were exhibiting such problems. If subjects were undergoing transfer adjustment problems, they were excluded from the investigation.

The age range of the sample was restricted to attempt to minimize the variability of observed behavior often characterized by children at different ages. Moreover, it is likely that 9-10 year olds are in the same grade in school (i.e., fourth grade).


Observers


The data collectors were students in the Department of Special Education of the College of Education at the University of Florida. The data collectors were trained to be behavioral observers by the researcher during a pre-experimental training period. The specific skills the observers acquired included (a) a thorough understanding of the dependent variables (on-task and percentage of time in instructional arrangements); (b) accurate observation of the dependent variables; (c) facility with the recording form; and (d) facility in the use of a watch.

The pre-experimental period (training period) included the following instructional procedures: (a) an explanation of dependent variables,

(b) a description of observer responsibilities, and (c) an observation of videocassette tapes in order to attain skills in recording dependent measures. These videocassette tapes depicted children on and off-task in the five instructional arrangements. The extent to which observer










skills and knowledge had been acquired were measured by two methods;

(a) a brief test was prepared by the researcher to determine the operational definitions of dependent variables, and (b) the observers' observations of the prerecorded videotapes was compared to a standard. The standard was established by the investigator viewing the tapes and recording the dependent measures (i.e., on-task, time in instructional arrangements). Before training was terminated the trainees' observations and recordings must have reached an 80 percent level of interrater agreement with the standard. Percent agreement was determined by using the formula

# of recorded occurrences
# of occurrences (standard)


To assure that the reliability was maintained throughout the study, the principal researcher visited each classroom site and observed behavior. The observation was then compared with the university students' observations to achieve a reliability of measurement score. In each case, interrater reliability was .90 and above.


Data Collection

The data were collected during daily observations of the children in their normal school environments, i.e., the classroom, within a period of 45 school days. These observations occurred during academic instructional periods throughout the entire school day. The data were recorded during the observation period by using the Classroom











Observation Sheet Form. The instrument provides for the coding within the five instructional arrangements. A time-sampling technique was utilized wherein the observer recorded the time the student was within a given instructional arrangement, and the amount of time that the subject was off-task while in the instructional arrangement. A stopwatch was utilized to record the total number of minutes each student exhibited on-task behavior within a given instructional arrangement. Seconds were rounded off to the nearest minute.


Description of Coding


Operationally defined, on-task behavior refers to performing the prescribed and accepted classroom activity as defined by the classroom teacher. This may include attending to a reciting student or lecturing teacher, verbally responding when requested to do so by the teacher, engaging in class participation or materials when directed, and performing any other activity assigned by the teacher or adult designee. Conversely, off-task behaviors include engaging in unassigned activity, movement about the room without permission, shouting, kicking, and leaving the classroom without permission.

The measures of on-task performance was determined by observing each child every 15th second and recording whether the child was ontask or off-task when observed. For example, the observer would look up at the subject when the second hand of the clock reached the 12, 3, 6, 9, and 12 points. If the child was on-task, the observer would record a 'Y' and for off-task the observer would record a "0" or "-".










These observations were completed in the following cycle- 7.5 minutes of observation and two minutes of rest.

Provided on the Classroom Observation Sheet are spaces for coding of other observational categories (see Appendix B). The reader is referred to Appendix C for an explanation of the terms utilized on the Classroom Observation Sheet. The terms include (a) Wait-(W), (b) Transition-(T), (c) Management-(M), and (d) Break-(B).


Design and Data Analysis


The initial part of the study was descriptive and included the

percentage of time the children spend receiving instruction in various instructional arrangements and the percentage of time on-task in each instructional arrangement was described. A second feature of the study involved an experimental investigation in which comparisons of percent of time in various instructional arrangements as well as percentage of time on-task was made for across the categories of children.


Variables

Two dependent variables were used in this study; they were (a) percentage of instructional time spent in a given arrangement and

(b) time spent on-task. The independent variables were (a) instructional arrangements and (b) student categories, i.e., LD, EH, and regular students.










Analysis of Data

The results of the data obtained were analyzed by means of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The percentage of time the groups were in a given arrangement was counted and represented in graphic form (see Chapter IV). The percentage of time in any arrangement was tabulated and the percentage of time on-task in any given arrangement was recorded. The alpha level was set at a = .05. Analysis of main effects in the ANOVA model represent tests of the general hypothesis, analysis of simple effects constitute tests of the specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1. There are no differences in the amount of time spent or time on-task in five instructional arrangements within each group.


a. There are no significant

of time that LD students

arrangements.

b. There are no significant

of time that LD students

tional arrangements.

c. There are no significant

of time that EH children

arrangements.

d. There are no significant

of time that EH children

tional arrangements.


differences among the percentages spend in the five instructional



differences among the percentages spend on-task in various instrucdifferences among the percentages spend in various instructional


differences among the percentages spend on-task in various instruc-










e. There are no significant differences among the percentages

of time that regular education students spend in various

instructional arrangements.

f. There are no significant differences among the percentages

of time that regular education students spend on-task in

various instructional arrangements.

A format for Hypothesis 1 and its subhypotheses la, 1c, and le are featured in Table 4. A format for subhypotheses lb, ld, and lf are featured in Table 5.

Hypothesis 2. There are no differences among the three groups in the amount of time or time on-task spent in selected instructional arrangements.

a. There are no differences among the LD, EH, and regular

education students in the percent of time spent in the

five instructional arrangements.

b. There are no differences among LD, EH, and regular

education students in the amount of time on-task in

the five instructional arrangements.










Table 4

Format for Subhypotheses la, 1c, and le


Percentage of Time in Instructional Arrangement for Each Group


Normal
A


Large Group

CD
Small Group ,U
IU
One-to-One U


Peer Teaching z
I

Independent Seatwork _ _ _ ___Percentage of Time in Instructional Arrangements Across Groups

LD EH Normal
Large Group I


Small Group
C-)
One-to-One


Peer Teaching <


Independent Seatwork










Table 5

Format for Subhypotheses lb, Id, and lf


Percentage of Time in On-Task Instructional Arrangement


Carge Group


for Each Group

LD
A


Normal
#4


Small Group


One-to-One ,, <


Peer Teaching 2-C,,
Independent Seatwork


Percentage of Time On-Task in Instructional Arrangements Across Groups

LD EH Normal Large Group V)


Small Group
/)
0
One-to-One ___Peer Teaching


Independent Seatwork
















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS


Thirty-nine fourth grade students enrolled in five public elementary schools were selected for this study. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork (materials with the child) with emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, and regular education students. The relationship of on-task behaviors across these instructional arrangements and groups was also examined.

Table 6 presents a summary table of percentage of time that EH, LD, and regular education children spend in the five instructional arrangements. Results indicate that regular education students spent the highest percentage of time of the three groups in large group instruction (x = 29.50 percent). Further analysis suggests that EH students and LD students spent 7.84 percent and 15.93 percent of the time in large group instruction. Thus, regular education students are engaged in large group instruction three times more than emotionally handicapped students and nearly twice as much as learning disabled students.










Table 6


Summary Table of Percentage of Time that EH, LD, and Regular Education
Students Spend in the Five Instructional Arrangements


Educational Independent Designation Large Group Small Group One-to-One Peer Teaching Seatwork

EH x = 7.84 x = 3.03 x = 19.20 x = 2.70 x = 41.02 sd. = 10.12 sd. = 6.74 sd. = 12.06 sd. = 6.02 sd. = 19.06


LD x = 15.93 x = 17.58 x = 15.74 x = 2.28 x = 28.83 sd. = 11.60 sd. = 12.42 sd. = 7.36 sd. = 5.18 sd. = 12.62


Regular x = 29.50 x = 19.58 x = 3.45 x = 1.97 x = 21.51 sd. = 17.34 sd. = 14.52 sd. = 5.56 sd. = 4.47 sd. = 11.14










In small group, regular education students spent a mean percentage of 19.58 total time in comparison to 3.03 mean percentage spent by EH students. LD students spent a mean percentage of 17.58 total time in small group instruction. However, in one-to-one instruction, regular education students spent the least amount of time of the three groups (x = 3.45). EH and LD students, on the other hand, spent a mean percentage total time in one-to-one instruction of 19.20 and 15.74 respectively.

In the instructional arrangement peer teaching, all three groups-LD, EH, and regular students-spent comparable mean percentage times. Regular education students spent a mean total time of 1.97 percent in peer teaching. Similarly, EH and LD students spent comparable mean total times of 2.70 and 2.27 percentage time in peer teaching instruction. In independent seatwork, EH students recorded the highest mean percentage time of the three groups (x = 41.02). Moreover, regular education and LD students recorded means of 21.51 and 28.83 mean total percentage time respectively.

Table 7 presents a summary table of percentage of on-task time that LD, EH, and regular education children spend in the five instructional arrangements. Results indicate that regular education and learning disabled students spent significantly more time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. In small group, mean on-task times were comparable for the regular education and LD students and their respected means were considerably higher than the mean on-task time of EH students. In one-to-one, the highest mean on-task time was achieved by LD students (x = 94.10 percent). EH









Table 7


Summary Table of Percentage of Time On-Task that EH, LD, and Regular Education
Students Spend in Each Instructional Arrangement


Educational Large Group Small Group One-to-One Peer Teaching Independent Designation Seatwork


EH = 28.03 x = 14.07 x = 86.37 x = 18.18 x = 74.38 sd. = 35.50 sd. = 31.50 sd. = 29.33 sd. = 40.45 sd. = 19.10


LD x = 61.35 x = 52.88 x = 94.10 x = 16.57 x = 67.85 sd. = 32.12 sd. = 35.00 sd. = 10.10 sd. = 37.07 sd. = 6.40

Regular x = 61.06 x = 55.93 x = 26.54 x = 17.25 x = 62.71 sd. = 22.61 sd. = 33.01 sd. = 42.75 sd. = 38.44 sd. = 17.82










students spent the second highest amount of on-task time with a mean percentage of 86.37 percent. Regular education students spent the lowest amount of on-task time of the three groups in one-toone with a mean percentage on-task time of 26.54 percent.

Overall, the on-task time in peer teaching was low, but comparable for the three groups. In independent seatwork, all three groups spent a high percentage of time on-task. EH students, however, were on-task slightly more with a mean percentage on-task time of 74.38. Regular education and LD students recorded mean ontask times of 62.71 and 67.85 percent in independent seatwork.

The data appear to suggest that there are variations in the

amount of time spent and time on-task by LD, EH, and regular education students in the five instructional arrangements. However, specific detailed analyses of these data are provided in the data collected for the hypotheses.

According to the methods and procedures discussed in Chapter III, the data were collected and analyzed in relation to the two hypotheses and the respective subhypotheses. The remainder of this chapter is organized according to a format which presents a hypothesis, a table or tables of results pertaining to the hypothesis, and a brief summary of the study. In addition, problems and limitations of the study are also discussed.










Question 1


Hypothesis: There areno differences in the amount of time

spent or time on-task in the five instructional arrangements within each group.


LD: Time Spent

An analysis of variance repeated measures design was done to determine if significant differences existed among the mean scores of percentage of time spent in the various arrangements by LD students. Results indicated that a significant difference occurred among the means (F (4,40) = 5.28). Follow-up procedures using tstatistics were used to compare mean differences in percentage of time spent in the instructional arrangements. Results, as depicted in Table 8, suggest that LD students spent significantly more time in: small group than peer teaching, large group than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching. LD students, on the other hand, spent significantly less time in peer teaching than independent seatwork.


LD: Time On-Task

To determine if significant differences occurred among the mean on-task scores obtained by LD students in the five instructional arrangements, the analysis of variance repeated measures design statistic was used. Results indicate a significant difference exists among the means (F (4,40) = 10.52).










Table 8

Mean Differences Within Pairs of Groups On the Amount of
Time and Time On-Task Spent by LD Students in the
Five Instructional Arrangements


Percentage of Time Time On-Task Pairs of Groups Mean Difference Mean Difference


1. Large group vs. small group 1.65 8.47

2. Large group vs. one-to-one .19 -32.75* 3. Large group vs. peer teaching 13.65* 44.78*

4. Large group vs. independent 7.90 6.5
seatwork

5. Small group vs. one-to-one 1.84 -41.22* 6. Small group vs. peer teaching 15.30* 36.31*

7. Small group vs. independent 6.25 14.97
seatwork

8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 13.46* 77.53*

9. One-to-one vs. independent 8.14 26.25
seatwork

10. Peer teaching vs. independent -21.55* -51.28*
seatwork


*Denotes significant differences at the .05 level.










Follow-up procedures using t-statistics were used to compare differences in percentage of on-task time spent by LD students within the groups. As shown in Table 8, LD students spent significantly less time on-task in large group than one-to-one. LD students spent significantly more time on-task in large group than peer teaching, small group than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching. LD students spent significantly less time in small group than one-to-one and peer teaching than independent seatwork.


EH: Percentage of Time Spent

To determine if significant differences existed among the

mean scores of percentage of time spent by EH students within the five instructional arrangements, an analysis of variance repeated measures design was used. Results indicated that significant differences exist among the means (F (4,40) = 17.33). Follow-up procedures using t-statistics were used to compare differences in the mean score of percentage of time spent in the instructional arrangements by EH students. As indicated in Table 9, EH students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than in other arrangements. EH students spend significantly more time in one-toone than peer teaching.


EH: On Task

To determine if significant differences occurred among the means on the percentage of on-task behaviors exhibited by EH students in the five instructional arrangements, the analysis of variance repeated measures statistic was used. Results indicated that










Table 9

Mean Differences Within Pairs on the Amount of Time
and Time On-Task that EH Students Spend in
the Five Instructional Arrangements


Percentage of Time Time On-Task Pairs of Groups Mean Difference Mean Difference


1. Large group vs. small group 4.81 13.97

2. Large group vs. one-to-one 6.64 -58.34*

3. Large group vs. peer teaching 5.14 9.86

4. Large group vs. independent -33.18* -46.34*
seatwork

5. Small group vs. one-to-one -16.17* -72.31*

6. Small group vs. peer teaching .33 -4.11

7. Small group vs. independent -37.99* -60.31*
seatwork

8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 16.50* 68.20* 9. One-to-one vs. independent -21.82* 12.00
seatwork

10. Peer teaching vs. independent -38.32* -56.21*
seatwork


*Denotes significant differences at .05 level.










a significant difference existed among the means (F (4,40) = 12.25). Follow-up procedures using t-statistics were used to compare differences in percentages of on-task time spent by EH students within the groups. As shown in Table 9, EH students spent significantly more time on-task in one-to-one than large group, independent seatwork than large group, one-to-one than small group, independent seatwork than small group, independent seatwork than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching.


Regular: Time Spent

To determine if a significant difference occurred within the means of the regular education students, an analysis of variance repeated measures design procedure was used. Results indicated that differences occurred among the means (F (4,64) = 14.89). To determine which of the means within the groups differed significantly, follow-up t-statistics were used. Results indicated that regular education students spend significantly more time in large group than in small group, one-to-one, and peer teaching. In addition, regular education students spent significantly more time in small group than in one-to-one or peer teaching. Finally, regular education students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than they do in one-to-one or peer teaching. Regular: Time On-Task

To determine if significant differences existed among the ontask mean scores of regular education students in the five instructional arrangements, an analysis of variance repeated measures










Table 10

Mean Differences Within Pairs of Groups on the Amount of
Time and Time On-Task That Regular Education Students Spend in the Five Instructional Arrangements


Percentage of Time Time On-Task Pairs of Groups Mean Difference Mean Difference


1. Large group vs. small group 9.93* 5.13

2. Large group vs. one-to-one 26.04* 34.52* 3. Large group vs. peer teaching 27.53* 43.81*

4. Large group vs. independent 7.99 -1.65
seatwork

5. Small group vs. one-to-one 16.12* 29.39* 6. Small group vs. peer teaching 17.60* 38.68* 7. Small group vs. independent -1.94 -6.78
seatwork

8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 1.48 9.29 9. One-to-one vs. independent -18.06* -36.17*
seatwork

10. Peer teaching vs. independent -19.54* -45.46*
seatwork


*Denotes significant differences at .05 level.








Table 11


Analysis of Variance Summary Table Depicting Differences in the Amount of Time that Regular, EH, and LD Students Spend in the Five Instructional Arrangements


Instructional Arrangement Source DF MS F


Group Between Groups 2 1667.971 8.363*
Large Within Groups 36 199.451 Significance: .001


Small Group Between Groups 2 994.065 6.656* Within Groups 36 149.344 Significance: .003


One-to-One Between Groups 2 975.162 14.091* Within Groups 36 69.203 Significance: .000


Peer Teaching Between Groups 2 1.807 0.068 Within Groups 36 26.401 Significance: .093


Between Groups 2 1383.642 6.906* Within Groups 36 200.356 Significance: .003


*p > .05










design was used. Results indicated that significant differences existed in the mean scores (F (4,64) = 7.24). Follow-up procedures using t-statistics indicated that regular education students spent significantly more time on-task in large group than in one-to-one and peer teaching, and in small group than in oneto-one and peer teaching. As illustrated in Table 10, regular education students spent significantly less time on-task in oneto-one than independent seatwork and less time on-task in peer teaching than in independent seatwork.


Question 2


Hypothesis: There are no differences among the three groups in the amount of time or time on-task spent in the five instructional arrangements.

Large Group: Time Spent

Results of an analysis of variance procedure to determine if there was a difference in the amount of time that LD, EH, and regular education students spent in the five instructional arrangements are found in Table 11. Analysis of results indicated significant differences occurred among the groups in large group, small group, one-to-one and independent seatwork. To test the significant interaction effect, Tukey's HSD posteriori multiple comparison test was applied to determine pairwise comparisons among means. Represented in Table 12 are pairwise comparisons depicting percentages of time spent in instructional arrangements among the groups. An










Table 12

Pairwise Comparisons Depicting Percentages of
Time Spent in Instructional Arrangements Among the Groups


Groups


Means


Large Groups


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD* EH vs. LD


Small Groups


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD EH vs. LD*


One-to-One


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD* EH vs. LD


Peer Teaching

Regular vs.
Regular vs.
EH vs. LD


Independent Seatwork


*Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level.


29.50 29.50 7.84


vs. 7.84 vs. 15.93 vs. 15.93


19.58 19.58 3.03


vs. 3.03 vs. 17.58 vs. 17.58


3.45
3.45 19.20


vs. 19.20 vs. 15.74 vs. 15.74


1.97 vs. 1.97 vs.
2.70 vs.


2.70 2.28 2.28


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD EH vs. LD*


21.51 21.51 41.02


vs. 41.01 vs. 28.83 vs. 28.83










examination of these results indicates that eight pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical HSD values and are significant at the .05 level. Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that the mean of the EH group was found to be significantly different from the mean of the regular education group; the mean of the LD group was found to be significantly different from the mean of the regular education group.


Large Group: On-Task

To determine if significant differences occurred among the mean on-task scores obtained, an analysis of variance procedure was used. Results of the analysis of variance summary table depicting differences in the amount of on-task behaviors exhibited by regular, LD, and EH students in the five instructional arrangements are found in Table 13. Results indicate that significant differences in the mean scores occurred among the groups in large group, small group, and one-to-one instructional arrangements.

To determine where the significant differences among the mean scores occurred in the three groups, Tukey's HSD procedure was used. As indicated in Table 14, six pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical HSD values and are significant at the .05 level. Results indicate that the mean on-task score obtained by the EH group ( = 28.03) differed significantly from the mean on-task score received by the regular education students (x = 61.05) and the LD students (x = 61.35). Thus, the EH group spent significantly less time on-task than either of the other groups in the large group arrangement.








Table 13


Analysis of Variance Summary Table Behaviors Exhibited by Regular, LD, and


Depicting Differences in Amount of On-Task El Students in the Five Instructional Arrangements


Instructional Arrangement Source DF Ms F


Large Group Between Groups 2 4335.535 5.019* Within Groups 36 863.890 Significance: .012


Small Group Between Groups 2 6560.180 5.949* Within Groups 36 1102.793 Significance: .006


One-to-One Between Groups 2 19620.524 18.169* Within Groups 36 1079.900 Significance: .000


Peer Teaching Between Groups 2 7.251 0.005 Within Groups 36 1493.199 Significance: .995


Independent Seatwork Between Groups 2 455.374 1.793 Within Groups 36 254.037 Significance: .187


*p > .05










Table 14

Pairwise Comparisons Depicting Percentages of Time
On-Task in the Five Instructional Arrangements Among the Groups


Groups


Means


Large Group


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD EH vs. LD*


Small Group


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD EH vs. LD*


One-to-One


Regular vs. EH* Regular vs. LD* EH vs. LD


Peer Teaching


Regular vs. Regular vs. EH vs. LD


Independent Seatwork


*Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level.


69.06 61.06 28.03


vs. 28.03 vs. 61.35 vs. 61.35


55.93
55.93 14.07


vs. 14.07 vs. 52.88 vs. 52.88


26.54 26.54 86.37


vs. 86.37 vs. 94.10 vs. 94.10


17.25 17.25 18.18


vs. 18.18 vs. 16.57 vs. 16.57


Regular vs. EH Regular vs. LD EH vs. LD


62.71 vs. 62.71 vs. 74.38 vs.


74.38 67.85 67.85










Small Group: Time Spent

As represented in Tablell, the analysis of variance procedure indicated a significant difference in the amount of time spent in small group instruction by the three groups. The follow-up Tukey HSD procedure as illustrated in Table12 indicated that in small group instruction, the mean of the EH group was significantly different from the mean of the LD group; the mean of the EH group was significantly different from the mean of the regular education students. Thus, in small group instruction, the percentage of time spent by EH students was significantly less than the time spent by LD and regular education students. Furthermore, the percentage of time spent by LD and normal students was equivocal. Small Group: Time On-Task

The analysis of variance summary table dipicted by Tablel3 indicates that there was a significant difference among the groups in the percentage of time on-task. As shown in Tablel4, Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. Results obtained from the Tukey HSD procedure on percentage of time on-task in small group instruction revealed that the mean score obtained by the EH group (i = 14.07) differed significantly from the mean score of LD students (- = 52.87) and the mean score of the regular education students (i = 55.93). In small group instruction, EH students spent significantly less time on-task than regular education and LD students.










One-to-One: Time Spent

As shown in Table 11, the analysis of variance procedure indicated significant differences among the mean scores of the three groups in one-to-one instruction. Results of the Tukey HSD procedure indicated that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 12, in one-to-one instruction, the mean of the regular education students (x = 3.45) was significantly different from the mean of the learning disabled students (X = 15.74). In one-to-one instruction, the mean of the regular education group (x = 3.45) was significantly different from the mean of the EH group (x = 19.20). Regular education students spent significantly less time in one-to-one than LD students; regular education students spent significantly less time in one-to-one than EH students.


One-to-One: Time On-Task

As depicted by the Analysis of Variance Summary Table (Table 13), significant differences were found among the means on the percent of on-task time spent in one-to-one instruction. To determine where

the significant differences occurred among the means of the three groups, Tukey's HSD procedure was used. Results indicated that the mean on-task score obtained by the regular education group was significantly less than the mean on-task score obtained by LD and EH students. Thus, regular education students spent significantly less time on-task in one-to-one than both EH and LD students.










Peer Teaching: Time Spent

As depicted in Table 11, no statistical significance was found among the means of the groups in peer teaching. In peer teaching, EH students spent a mean percentage total time of 2.70. LD and regular students spent mean percentage times of 2.28 percent and

1.97 percent in peer teaching.


Peer Teaching: Time On-Task

In peer teaching, the percentages of time on-task by the three groups were similar. LD students spent a mean percentage on-task time in peer teaching of 16.57. EH and regular education students obtained mean on-task scores of 18.18 percent and 17.25 percent in peer teaching instruction. As shown in Table 14, Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that no pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and were significant at the .05 level.


Independent Seatwork: Time Spent

The analysis of variance summary table shown in Table 11 indicates that there was a significant difference among the mean scores in the amount of time spent in independent seatwork by EH, LD, and normal students. Follow-up procedures using the Tukey HSD statistic indicate that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. As indicated in Table 13, results indicate that the mean time spent in independent seatwork by EH students was significantly more than the mean time spent by LD and normal students.










Independent Seatwork: Time On-Task

In independent seatwork, regular education students and LD students obtained comparable mean on-task scores in independent seatwork (W = 62.71; T = 67.85, respectively). EH students were on-task a slightly higher percentage of time in independent seatwork (T = 74.38). As shown in Table 14, no significant pairwise comparisons were indicated at the .05 level.


Problems and Limitations of the Study


The major limitations of this investigation are apparent when attempting to attribute a causal direction to the obtained results. Because no experimental manipulation was attempted, this study represents primarily descriptive data about exceptional and regular students.

The five elementary schools were initially selected. From these schools, the samples of exceptional and regular children were chosen. Clearance to do research was initially approved by the Board of Education of Alachua County. The researcher was then given permission to have the schools participate in the study. Even though clearance to do research was approved in selected schools, the researcher then contacted principals and special education teachers to set up appointments to discuss the research proposal. In several instances, while principals were receptive, they failed to pass on their enthusiasm to their teachers. As a result, some classroom teachers were not prepared to receive the researcher.









In at least one instance, the observers politely left because the students being observed were becoming very aware of the audience, thus leading to complete disruptive behavior in the classroom.

Subtle differences in teacher behavior were not examined. Teacher management strategies may have affected the on-task and off-task involvement of both exceptional and regular education students in their classroom. The child's physical location in the classroom may also have affected the behavioral responses of others and the child under investigation.


Summary

Based on daily observations of fourth grade learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular education students in various instructional arrangements, the daily classroom activities can be divided into three major parts:

(1) academic activities (reading, mathematics, science, and/or social studies);

(2) "non-academic" activities (music, art, storytime, sharing);

(3) noninstructional activities (transitions, waiting between activities, class business, etc.).

Similar findings were reported by Denham and Lieberman in the Far West Lab's report of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Denham & Lieberman, 1980). It is interesting to note that the heavy amount of time in the instructional arrangement, independent seatwork, occurred because teachers frequently divide a class into









three or more groups and if there are three groups in a class, a student can only spend on-third of the allocated time in a teacherled setting.

Other studies (Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1975; Soar, 1973) have also found that students are more engaged when they are instructed or supervised by a teacher than when they are working alone. Further the Stallings and Soar studies have found that teacher time spent working with groups of students is positively and consistently negatively related to student gains in achievement. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1975) and Soar (1973) purport the negative may occur because when a teacher is working with only one or two students, the remaining students usually must work independently.

The data regarding the use of instructional arrangements within the groups yielded some significant findings. LD students spent nearly one-fourth of the instructional day in independent seatwork instructional arrangement. LD students are on-task the highest percentage of time in the instructional arrangement one-to-one. EH students spent nearly half of the instructional academic day in independent seatwork. Results also indicated that EH students obtained the highest percentage of time on-task working independently or working one-to-one with the teacher and/or designated adult. Normal students, on the other hand, spent the highest percentage of total instructional time in large group, independent seatwork, and small group. Regular education students, as a whole, spent the least amount of instructional time in the instructional arrangements one-to-one and peer teaching. Regular education students spent a










comparable amount of time on-task in the instructional arrangements large group and independent seatwork. Regular education students spent the least amount of time on-task in one-to-one and peer teaching.

The data regarding the use of the five instructional arrangements among the three groups yielded some significant findings. In large group instruction, both regular education students and LD students were in large group significantly more than EH students, furthermore, regular education students and LD students spent comparable amounts of time and both groups spent significantly more time in small group than EH students. EH and LD students both spent significantly more time in one-to-one than regular students but did not differ from each other. In peer teaching, the three groups did not significantly differ on the time spent. EH students, however, spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than either of the other two groups. Moreover, LD and regular students spent equivocal times in independent seatwork.

In reference to the amount of on-task time spent in the five instructional arrangements among the three groups, results indicate significant findings. Regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. Similarly, in small group instruction, regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of on-task time than EH students. In one-to-one, LD and EH students spent a significantly larger amount of time on-task than regular education students. In peer teaching and independent seatwork, the










three groups did not significantly differ on the amount of on-task time spent.

The results reveal that instructional arrangements are differently used across the three groups and on-task behavior varies across the arrangements. Thus, for teachers to maximize their effectiveness, it is imperative for teachers to consider how they organize instruction across the five instructional arrangements.

Some noninstructional activities appear inevitable. Most

classroom teachers observed were fairly similar in the amount of noninstructional activities such as transitions before and after breaks, "housekeeping tasks," and waiting between activities. Even during time allocated for reading and math, interim activities (turning in and passing out papers, getting books, and waiting for help) occupied up to 20 percent in all classrooms. All these activities may be necessary because of large classrooms and varied students.
















CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS



This chapter presents a summary of the findings of this investigation. Moreover, the findings are discussed in terms of implications and selected issues.

The use of various instructional arrangements by regular educators has been the subject of much research in the education literature. Much of the interest has centered around the use of large and samll group instruction to improve academic achievement with regular education students. However, the use of various instructional arrangements with LD and EH students has been afforded minimal documentation in the special education literature.

Recent literature suggests that large group, small group, oneto-one, peer teaching and independent seatwork instructional arrangements have been used with various types of students. A close examination of the literature, however, reveals limited information on the percentage of instructional time that students spent in the instructional arrangements or amount on-task behavior that occurs in the respective arrangements.

The present study focused on analyzing the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork











instructional arrangements with learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular education children. Additional information was obtained by quantifying actual on-task behaviors displayed by children labelled as EH, LD, and regular education children in the instructional arrangements.


Question 1


The first hypothesis states that there are no differences in the amount of time spent or time on-task in the five instructional arrangements within each group.


LD: Time Spent and Time On-Task

The data concerning the amount of time spent and time on-task by LD students within the five instructional arrangements yield significant findings. Data concerning time spent within the five instructional arrangements by LD students suggest that LD students spend significantly more time in small group than peer teaching, large group than peer teaching, one-to-one than peer teaching, and independent seatwork than peer teaching.

Data regarding the percentage of on-task behaviors exhibited by LD children within the five instructional arrangements indicate that LD students spent more time on-task in one-to-one than large group, large group than peer teaching, small group than peer teaching, one-to-one than small group, and independent seatwork than peer teaching.




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ON-TASK BEHAVIORS WITH LEARNING DISABLED, EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED, AND REGULAR CLASS CHILDREN BY MARTHA SCOTT LUE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1981

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Donne puts it this way— "No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." The above comments are especially true in the preparation of this research project. With gratefulness and thankfulness, the following persons are acknowledged: To the doctoral committee members— Dr. Cecil Mercer, Chairperson, Dr. William Reid, Dr. Rosie Bingham, Dr. Bob Algozzine, and Dr. Rod McDavis— for their overwhelming support, their involvement in the total project from its inception to the completion; To Cathy Morsink and Leila Cantara whose beliefs that "the difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes but a little longer" never ceased to sustain me; To my son, Marvin, who is much more receptive and perceptive beyond his tender years, my thanks for his love, tolerance, patience, and understanding; To Mother and Marvin, Sr., wish that you were here to share the moment. It does not quite feel complete without your presence; ii

PAGE 3

Lastly to the writer who said, "he who forgets his past is truly doomed for the future." In essence, to the many men and women who gave of themselves, their time, and their beliefs that equality of educational opportunity should be afforded to all; thus I chose to partake. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the Study 6 Variables 6 Related Questions 6 Definition of Terms 7 Limitations 9 Delimitations 9 Summary 9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11 Instructional Arrangements 12 Large Group Instruction 12 Small Group Instruction 16 One-to-One Instruction 34 Peer Teaching 38 Material with Student 50 Summary 54 CHAPTER III • METHOD 56 Subjects 56 Observers 57 Data Collection 58 Description of Coding 59 iv

PAGE 5

Design and Data Analysis Variables °0 Analysis of Data CHAPTER IV RESULTS ^5 Question 1 LD: Time Spent !}i LD: Time On -Task 'j^ EH: Percentage of Time Spent 72 EH: On-Task 72 Regular: Time Spent 74 Regular: Time On-Task 74 Question 2 77 Large Group: Time Spent '' Large Group: On-Task 79 Small Group: Time Spent o2 Small Group: Time On-Task 82 One-to-One: Time Spent 83 One-to-One: Time On-Task 83 Peer Teaching: Time Spent 84 Peer Teaching: Time On-Task 84 Independent Seatwork: Time Spent 84 Independent Seatwork: Time On-Task 85 Problems and Limitations of the Study 85 Summary CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS 90 Question 1 Jl LD: Time Spent and Time On-Task 91 LD: Implications 92 EH: Time Spent and Time On-Task 93 Regular Education: Time Spent and Time On-Task 94 Implications 95 Question 2 95 Large Group: Time Spent and Time On-Task 95 Implications 96 Small Group: Time Spent and Time On-Task 97 Implications 97 One-to-One: Time Spent and Time On-Task 98 Implications 98 Peer Teaching: Time Spent and Time On-Task 98 Implications 99 Independent Seatwork: Time Spent and Time On-Task .... 99 Implications 100 Selected Considerations and Suggestions for Future Research . 100 V

PAGE 6

Use of Volunteers for Special Education 101 Relationship Between Pupil Behavior and Pupil Learning . 101 Relationship of On-Task Behavior to Activities of the . 101 Teacher Use of Peer Tutors in Classrooms 102 Validity of Coding Decisions 102 Summary 103 APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED STUDENT . . 105 B CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM 108 C OUTLINE OF OBSERVATION CATEGORIES Ill D CLASSROOM OBSERVATION REACTION FORM 113 REFERENCES 114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Il6 '^^

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ON-TASK BEHAVIORS WITH LEARNING DISABLED, EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED, AND REGULAR CLASS CHILDREN By Martha Scott Lue June, 1981 Chairman: Cecil D. Mercer Major Department: Special Education This study was designed to analyze the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements with learning disabled (LD), emotionally handicapped (EH), and regular education (normal) students. Additionally, the relationship of on-task behaviors across the instructional arrangements and groups (LD, EH, and normal) vas also examined. Thirty-nine fourth grade students v/ere included in this study. Of this group, 17 students were regular education students, and 11 each were ED and LD students v/ho attended resource rooms. The data regarding time spent by the three groups across the five instructional arrangements reveal some apparent trends. Except for vii

PAGE 8

peer teaching, the data show that the instructional arrangements are widely used (approximately 70-80 percent of their instructional time) and differences exist for the three groups. For example, EH students spend more time in independent seatwork than either of the other groups. The data regarding the use of instructional arrangements within the groups yielded some significant findings. LD students spent nearly one-fourth of the instructional day in independent seatwork instructional arrangement. LD students are on-task the highest percentage of time in the instructional arrangement one-to-one. EH students spent nearly half of the instructional academic day in independent seatwork. Results also indicated that EH students obtained the highest percentage of time on-task working independently or working one-to-one with the teacher and/or designated adult. Normal students, on the other hand, spent the highest percentage of total instructional time in large group, independent seatwork, and small group. Regular education students, as a whole, spent the least amount of instructional time in the instructional arrangements one-to-one and peer teaching. Regular education students spent a comparable amount of time on-task in the instructional arrangements large group and independent seatwork. Regular education students spent the least amount of time on-task in one-to-one and peer teaching. The data regarding the use of the five instructional arrangements among the three groups yielded some significant findings. In large group instruction, both regular education students and LD students were in large group significantly more than EH students; furthermore, regular vi i i

PAGE 9

education students and LD students spent comparable amounts of time and both groups spent significantly more time in small group than EH students. EH and LD students both spent significantly more time in one-to-one than regular students but did not differ from each other. In peer teaching, the three groups did not significantly differ on the time spent. EH students, however, spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than either of the other two groups. Moreover, LD and regular students spent equivalent times in independent seatwork. In reference to the amount of on-task time spent in the five instructional arrangements among the three groups, results indicate significant findings. Regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. Similarly, in small group instruction, regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of on-task time than EH students. In one-to-one, LD and EH students spent a significantly larger amount of time on-task than regular education students. In peer teaching and independent seatwork, the three groups did not significantly differ on the amount of on-task time spent. The results reveal that instructional arrangements are differently used across the three groups and on-task behavior varies across the arrangements. Thus, for teachers to maximize their effectiveness, it is imperative for teachers to consider how they organize instruction across the five instructional arrangements. ix

PAGE 10

\ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The provision of educational services to handicapped students is a matter of great interest to special educators (Gearheart, 1980; Heward & Olansky, 1980; Stephens, 1977; Wallace & McLoughlin, 1975). In examining educational services for handicapped youth three aspects that must be considered are (a) the instructional arrangements (large group, small group, one-to-one, peer tutoring, and materials with the child) in which service is provided; (b) the various educational settings which may be available for learning disabled (LD) and emotionally handicapped (EH) students (e.g., regular class, resource room, special class); and (c) instructional differences among learners. One model (see Figure 1) frequently referred to for studying service delivery for exceptional students is the cascade system proposed by Deno (1970). The services range from a basic segregated model to an integrated model. The various model levels reflect service alternatives, with larger level numbers used to identify the more segregated or restricted options. The model's goal is to move students upward to less restrictive alternatives (Meyen, 1978). Downward moves are made only when necessary and only until the student can be returned to a higher or less restrictive placement (Meyen, 1978). 1

PAGE 11

2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Exceptional children in regular classes, with or without supportive services 7 \ (0 Regular class attendance plus supplementary instructional services 9*0 Part-time special class Full-time special class Special stations* 49 7 Assignment of pupils to settings governed primarily by the school system. Level 6 Homebound Level 7 Instruction in hospital , residential , or total care settings Assignment of individuals to settings governed primarily by health, correctional , welfare, or other agencies. Special schools in public school systems Figure 1 Deno's Cascade System of Special Education Service From: Deno, E. Special education as development capital. Exceptional Children , 1970, 37(3), 224-237.

PAGE 12

3 These models have evolved from an attempt to provide individualized instruction to handicapped children with special needs. In addition to the need to offer a setting which facilitates special programming, the educator must examine "how" the instruction occurs within these service delivery systems. Instructional arrangements relate to one aspect of how instruction occurs in respective settings and refers to the way that students are organized for instruction (Mercer, 1979). In the classroom, the teacher may choose one of five instructional arrangements (Mercer & Mercer, 1981; see Figure 2): 1. large group with teacher, 2. small group with teacher, 3. one pupil with teacher, 4. peer teaching, or 5. material with pupil (independent seatwork). Current literature in special education abounds with descriptions of models for delivery of services to individuals with handicapping conditions (Adelman, 1970; Chaffin, 1975; Deno, 1970; Dunn, 1973; Lilly, 1970). On the contrary, little literature exists concerning specific instructional modes that occur within the various educational settings. Similarly, the need to examine such factors as instructional arrangements, teaching mode, and the child's instructional history is being acknowledged (Mercer, 1979; Meyen, 1978). In essence, while certain special placements for mildly handicapped students are justified and needed, of equal importance is the manner in which instruction is organized regardless of the educational setting.

PAGE 13

4 i

PAGE 14

5 In examining the literature on emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, and regular education students from the perspective of instructional implications in the least restrictive environment, as stipulated by Public Law 94-142, a small group of characteristics emerge. The most prevalent characteristics to emerge for providing instruction in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for mildly handicapped youngsters is the issue of instructional differences among learners. Central to this argument of the least restrictive environment for mildly handicapped youngsters is the concept of " time on task" (Meyen, 1978). Bloom (1974), in discussing time and rate of learning, built on Carroll's (1963) model of school learning in which time is considered the critical variable. As a basis for presenting evidence in support of mastery learning strategies. Bloom utilized Carroll's concept of elapsed time as differentiated from the time the learner spends on tasks engaged in acts of learning. Bloom (1974) cited research conducted by Anderson (1973), Arlin (1973), and Lahaderne (1967) as illustrating a strong positive relationship between time directly engaged in learning and achievement. Differences between attentional patterns of mildly handicapped children and their nonhandi capped peers have been demonstrated in a number of studies. Extensive reviews of the literature can be found in Keogh and Margolis (1976), Hallahan and Kauffman (1978), and Hagen and Kail (1975). Evidence from the classroom, clinical setting, and laboratory setting support the conclusion that mildly handicapped students spend less time attending to task than do their nonhandi capped peers when matched for chronological age (Meyen & Lehr, 1980).

PAGE 15

6 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork materials with emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, and regular students. In addition, the relationship of on-task behaviors across the arrangements and groups was examined. Variables There are two dependent variables in this study. They were (a) instructional time and (b) on-task behavior. The independent variables were (a) instructional arrangements and (b) categorical label of the child. Related Questions This study was designed to investigate the following questions: 1. What was the percentage of time that LD, EH, and normal children spend in the five instructional arrangements? 2. Were there differences in the amount of time that LD, EH, and regular students spend in large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements? 3. What was the percentage of on-task time that LD, EH, and normal children spend in each instructional arrangement?

PAGE 16

7 4. Are there differences in the amount of on-task behaviors that learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and normal children exhibit in large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork instructional arrangements? Definition of Terms As set forth by the Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students, Florida Department of Education (1980), the emotionally handicapped (EH) student is one who after receiving supportive educational assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits persistent and consistent severe behavioral disabilities which consequently disrupt the student's own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits (State Board of Education Rule SBER 6A-6.3016). (See Appendix A.) As set forth by the Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students, Florida Department of Education (1980), the term specific learning disabled (SLD) student refers to one who exhibits a disorder in one (1) or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language. These may be manifested in disorders of reading, listening, thinking, talking, writing, spelling, or arithmetic. They do not include learning problems which are due primarily to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, r to mental retardation, to emotional disturbance, or to an environmental deprivation (6A-6. 3018(1 ) Florida Administrative Code).

PAGE 17

8 The term instructional arrangement refers to the way that classroom teachers organize their students for instructional purposes (Mercer & Mercer, 1981). For the purpose of this study, five instructional arrangements have been identified: Large group instruction --whole group instruction consisting of six or more pupils with teacher or designated adult figure. Small group arrangements --group instruction with teacher and/or designated adult figure with five or less students. A one-to-one arrangement involves didactic instruction between one student and the teacher and/or designated adult. Peer teaching arrangement occurs when one student who has mastered a skill teaches another student under the teacher's supervision. Peer teaching may involve demonstration, modeling, feedback, and giving instruction. Material with the child occurs with the student working with a material independently. The regular classroom students are in full daily attendance within a regular classroom setting. On-task behavior is the process of the student actively engaged in paying attention, working, questioning, or responding to the desired task. An operational definition includes the subject (1) paying attention to instruction from teacher or peer; (2) actively working (eyes on academic material, handwriting, etc.); (3) questions the teacher or peer about assignment.

PAGE 18

9 Limitations This study only included fourth grade students from Alachua County, Florida, schools. This sample of students was selected from a southeastern United States city. Due to the possible educational and cultural differences of these students, the present study should not be viewed as a representative sample of the students in the remainder of the United States. Delimitations Included in this study were fourth grade students from the Alachua County School System, Alachua County, State of Florida. Alachua County is in the north central part of the State of Florida. The population was fourth grade EH, LD, and normal students. Summary Instructional arrangements such as large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and individual seatwork are widely used with normal and mildly handicapped students. Moreover, the literature regarding the relative use of these arrangements and data concerning the relationship of these arrangements to on-task behavior is lacking. If a certain instructional arrangement or a combination of arrangements promotes exceptional students' on-task behavior then that arrangement(s) should be organized for optimal effect in the student's educational setting (Cielesz, 1980). This investigation studied the extent to which children receive instruction in these various

PAGE 19

10 instructional arrangements and the effect that these arrangements have on on-task behavior.

PAGE 20

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The following review examines the literature concerning the use of instructional arrangements with mildly handicapped and regular education students. The literature was located by several methods. An ERIC literature search was conducted. Additionally, the Current Index of Journals in Education and the Education Index were examined from 1969 to the present date. Key words used in these searches included instructional arrangements, instructional groupings, large group, small group, individualized instruction, peer teaching, and instructional differences among learners. References selected for inclusion all met the following criteria: 1. The reference was dated subsequent to 1969. 2. The reference was published in a refereed journal. 3. The article was a report of clinical studies, experimental research, or survey research. 11

PAGE 21

12 Instructional Arrangements Teaching may occur in at least five instructional arrangements. These instructional arrangements are 1. large group with teacher, 2. small group with teacher, 3. one pupil with teacher, 4. peer teaching, and 5. material with pupil. Large Group Instruction The large group is appropriate for numerous classroom activities, e.g., having show and tell, discussing interesting events, discussing social studies or science content, taking a field trip, watching a play or movie, brainstorming, and playing a game. Archer and Edgar (1976) suggest heterogeneous grouping as an enrichment activity which allows for fuller participation within the classroom and less exclusion from peers. They also point out that students with learning problems often gain incidental information in the heterogeneous group setting. Generally, large group instruction is inappropriate for teaching the acquisition of specific academic' skills (Mercer, 1979). In a large group the instructional needs of the students vary considerably and the teacher is usually unable to respond to these differences in an efficient manner (Mercer & Mercer, 1981).

PAGE 22

13 Kiesling (1978) investigated the relationship between reading instruction time in various instructional arrangements and gains on achievement tests. The subjects were 2400 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students from the New York State elementary school district. Two test instruments were used to measure reading skills. One of these was the California Achievement Test (1970) and the second was a set of criterion-referenced tests developed by personnel in the Bureau of School and Cultural Research of the New York State Education Department. From detailed teacher interviews, information was obtained for the number of minutes of instruction that each child received. These data were recorded by the type of instruction (large group, small group) and by type of instructor (classroom teacher, specialist, paraprofessional ) . For the California Achievement Test, the period between pretest and posttest was 11 weeks, and for the criterion referenced test about nine weeks. Four modes of instruction were distinguished. Whole group instruction was defined as the situation in which the entire class was involved in experiences such as listening to instruction and class recitation. When subgroups of the class were doing different tasks at the same time, with one of the groups working with the instructor, the instruction was termed small group . Individualized instruction was considered to be instruction tailored to individual needs determined by diagnosis. Individual help was considered to involve helping individual students in drill -ski 11 type exercises.

PAGE 23

14 Main hypotheses that were tested in the study included: (1) Do educators allocate resources to maximize average gain, or do they follow more democratic procedures such as giving equal instruction to all or attempting to close the gap between bright and dull students? (2) What happens to instructional effectiveness when the size of the instruction group changes? (3) How does the relative effectiveness of types of instruction very according to the achievement level of the student? Table 1 presents the results of the main hypotheses tested. Criticisms of this study include a need for better descriptions of the instruction. Secondly, there is no way to be certain about the accuracy of self-reports by teachers concerning their instructional time allocations. A final limitation concerns the possible reliability problems with the criterion referenced tests employed. Lipson (1974) argues that whole-class or large group instruction has its own unique motivational values, and under certain circumstances, will facilitate student achievement. He further asserts that group lessons often give the learning activity more perceived importance. Good and Brophy (1977) assert that although allowing students to proceed at their own pace is appropriate, too much individualization (when individualization is seen as the student working alone) will have a negative influence on achievement. Stal lings and Kaskowitz (1974) report negative correlations between subject matter achievement and high occurrences of students working alone.

PAGE 24

15 J3 X) E 1— 0) ro > +->•!-+-> O C3 E 1— 00 LlI to O QJ Z3 f — -a '5 3 SO O) sr— -1-) ro +-> E C7!-t-> 1 — 1 •Io CO O f— c 1— tX) 1—) lO 0) x: o "3 0) ID N 4-) rro •> Q. 1 — E ^ 0) ro O O 3 -r(/) X -o +-) Q) in ro " •1(-> $•o +-> CD QJ E QQ. E 3 O _l X) O -r> > CD O 4J -r3 •r •r•>4-i T3 O QE ro 3 3 O 10 C3 O VO E 3 XI 1-1 QJ SE MSCO O O ro E •n+-) CO ro 0) O +J O 3 CO I— C QJ QJ O 5 IE > > O) QJ QJ T3 _J 1— ro E SCD co en »E O S -a E O ro ro 1— QJ QJ CM X5 LD CO CO o ID CM un CM CM CM CD CO ID Ln CD LD CM CO CO LD CP) o QJ XI QJ > QJ QJ "O I— ro i•— C7) QJ i. > QJ QJ Q.1— O 5QJ 0.-0 irO cn QJ > O XJ ro QJ > QJ QJ -O I — ro i. CD Q. OJ ro 3 o •r— > •r-o E -o E ro E O 4-> CJ 3 i-M (/) o QJ N ro 3 X3 E >> XI >> Xi E O O -rT3 •+-> QJ 4J O E U 3 •r3 Sro S+-> +J +-> CO CO ^ CO E CO O E -1ro E E CO -o SI— QJ •I^ ^ +J O O JZ T3 U E ro ro QJ >,C7i >>X1 Q) E > O •1— 'r— «/) +-> 3 t_) — 3 o sX -M QJ CO E •O -rQJ Q. 3 O QJ Scn CD ro 1— QJ t— > ro E CO SQJ O U 4E O CO CO •-> ro ro CO Q. O 3 3 SO CT. ^ iQJ CD QJ QJ iQ) S -— Sro +-> QJ E Q. lO -O ro QJ r4-> CM CO 3 S. E >, QJ •rX5 ^ E O E ro O QJ •r4-> +-> U +-> 3 lO Sx: 4J 4J to E -O QJ QJ jE o ro QJ -(-> <+O SQJ XI E 3 E ro QJ cn 2 s_ O — -r-t-> cn CO CO E 3 •r-r^ o I— CO •r> x: -r• I— -O CO XI CO 4J E QJ o 3 +-> CO CO o -M E QJ > QJ XI E ro O E O •rt-> E QJ +-) 4-) ro o QJ CM IM •1+J I— 3 ro O 3 XI "O ro > CO •1ra O S E •1QJ +J CL E O ro S QJ OJ

PAGE 25

16 Small Group Instruction Adams and Biddle (1970) report that student participation is related to both group size and proximity to the teacher. Students tend to participate more when they are physically closer to the teacher. The small group arrangement usually consists of three to five students and is the major vehicle for teaching academic skills. The teacher divides students into groups according to common skill needs. For example, groups may be based on placement in a basal reader or need for instruction in selected phonemes, sight words, or specific math facts. Carnine and Silbert (1979) report that the research on small group instruction generally indicates positive benefits. This review of related literature is presented in terms of (a) small group instruction utilizing jigsaw technique, (b) student teams, (c) resource rooms, and (d) application of the resource room model . Jigsaw techniques . Aronson, Stephen, Sikes, Blaney, and Snapp (1978) sought to foster peer cooperation and tutoring in the classroom through a jigsaw technique for creating interdependence among pupils by dividing the learning task among them and structuring peer interaction in teams. In the jigsaw technique, a different portion of a task is assigned to each of five to six members, so that task completion is contingent upon mutual cooperation. The authors describe their method as follows: The material to be learned was divided into as many parts as their were group members. Each student learned only one part of the total material and was, in turn, responsible

PAGE 26

17 for teaching his part to his groupmates. However, each group member was responsible for learning all the curriculum material for testing. Groups were given several training sessions to improve communication and tutoring skills, and groups monitored their own interpersonal processes through self-assessment, discussion, and feedback. All groups in the classroom studied identical material subdivided in identical fashion among members of the jigsaw group. (Aronson et al., 1978, p. 123) Lucker, Rosenfield, Sikes, and Aronson (1976) discussed the academic achievement of fifth and sixth grade pupils from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. A total of 242 white, 25 Mexican American, and 26 black children participated in the experiment, which took place for 45 minutes a day, each day for two weeks. Learning in Jigsaw Classrooms was contrasted with the traditional whole class method, with six teachers conducting Jigsaw Classrooms and five teachers employing their usual teaching techniques. Data on academic achievement were obtained with a 37-item test, containing true/false, multiple choice, and matching questions contributed by the teachers. Findings for the experimental versus control classes revealed a significant gain for minority group children in these two settings. The 60 minority children in the study achieved 56 percent correct responses (20.9 items) in the experimental group, compared to 49.7 percent correct responses (18.4 items) in the traditional classrooms. Student teams . The use of student teams is another format for creating small group instruction in the classroom. Much research related to the teaching of mixed-ability groups and the use of competition has been summarized by DeVries and Slavin (1976). Their research and that of their colleagues focuses on the use of teams in

PAGE 27

18 games and tournament competition (TGT). Competition is used to enhance student interest; however, efforts are made to keep the competition manageable (Good & Brophy, 1977). High, middle, and low achievement students are assigned to mixed ability teams. Students on each team are assigned to compete against students of similar ability in order to win points for their teams. For example, in mathematics, two students may try to see who can solve the most problem equations in 15 minutes (15 pairs of students can be competing at the same time on math tasks of varying difficulty). Similarly, in language arts two students (or several students from each team) could be assigned a crossword puzzle to complete in a specified time period. Individual students or groups of students at each table who win the competition earn points for their team. Teams that accumulate the most points in a specified time period win the tournament. The reward structure used in the TGT program is a cooperative reward structure. DeVries and Slavin discuss four features: 1. Each group member must be individually accountable to the group for his/her behavior. 2. The participation of all members must be essential. 3. All members of the group must be rewarded at the group level for a group performance. 4. The group must be rewarded as a group frequently. The usefulness of TGT is based upon the assumption that team competition will produce conditions that facilitate learning. However, DeVries and Slavin (1976) assert that if overused or used inappropriately, the TGT

PAGE 28

19 concept or educational games in general are likely to cause more problems than they solve. Furthermore, the authors note that TGT techniques are most suited to those subjects which have goals that are easy to quantify--simple, concrete skills. Resource room . One of the most prevalent service arrangements for mildly handicapped children employing small group instruction is the resource room. In this plan the exceptional student spends the majority of the day in a regular class and goes to the resource room for a specified period of time (e,g., 45 to 60 minutes) each day. The resource room teacher, located in the school, works closely with numerous teachers to coordinate the instructional programs of the pupils. The various service alternatives of the resource room presented in Figure 3 indicate how the plan can be used to accommodate the different needs of both students and teachers. The resource room is widely used because of its flexible service delivery format (Mercer, 1979). Wiederholt, Hammill, and Brown (1978) specify numerous advantages: 1. Students can benefit from specific resource support while remaining integrated with their friends and age-mates in the school. 2. The resource teacher has an opportunity to help more children than does a full -time special class teacher. This is especially true when the resource teacher provides indirect services to children with mild or moderate problems by consulting extensively with their teachers. 3. Resource programs are less expensive to operate than special self-contained classes. 4. Because young children with mild, though developing, problems can be accommodated, later severe disorders may be prevented. 5. Flexible scheduling means that remediation can be applied entirely in the classrooms by the regular teacher with some resource support or in another room by the resource program personnel when necessary; also, the schedule can be quickly altered to meet the children's changing situations and needs.

PAGE 29

20 Resource Room Interventions Regular Class-Based Interventions Teach child in resource room for short periods of time and return to regular class full time Teach child within small group on weekly basis in resource room Teach child individually in resource room on a weekly basis Teach child on daily basis in resource room individually or in small group Provide special materials Provide materials and consultation Teach child in regular class Teach regular class regular teacher teaches child Figure 3 Service Alternatives for the Resource Room Teacher Source: Adapted in part from C. D. Mercer & J. S. Payne, Programs and services. In J. M. Kauffman & J. S. Payne (Eds.), Mental retardation: Introduction and personal perspectives . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1975, p. 131. (Reprinted by permission.)

PAGE 30

21 6. Since the resource program will absorb most of the handicapped children in the schools, the selfcontained special education classes will increasingly become instructional settings for severely handicapped students, the children for whom the classes were originally developed, (pp. 10-11) Wiederholt, Hammill, and Brown (1978) describe several types of resource room models. Most LD youngsters are served in one of three types: categorical, cross-categorical, or noncategorical programs. Categorical programs serve only LD youngsters. Cross-categorical programs serve exceptional children from among several categorical program areas (i.e., educable mentally retarded, emotionally handicapped, and learning disabled). Noncategorical programs meet the educational needs of youngsters with mild learning problems who may or may not be classified as handicapped. Jenkins, Mayhall, Peschka, and Jenkins (1974) assessed the effectiveness of resource room teachers as managers of tutors or as small group tutors. In a series of five experiments, individual children were taught both in a small group setting by a resource room teacher and in a tutorial setting by a tutor who was supervised by the resource room teacher. The experiments were performed in six different schools by six different teachers. Relative growth in words recognition, oral reading, spelling, and arithmetic were observed in each of these settings. Different children participated in each experiment, yet each child received instruction under tutorial and small group conditions. Experiment l--Word Recognition: Ten learning disabled and three educable mentally retarded primary level children (CA 7-10 years) were subjects. The subjects

PAGE 31

22 were referred to the resource room for reading. Experiment 1 consisted of three replications involving two different schools and two different teachers. Each of the replications dealt with the effect of tutoring versus small group instruction on the rate of word recognition. In each replication, children were instructed for two 10-minute sessions daily. In one session, the children were taught in a small group by the resource room teacher and in the other session they were taught by tutors who were supervised by the resource teacher. Each child learned two sets of isolated words, one under each instructional condition. During group instruction, the subjects were called upon by the teacher to identify and pronounce the words aloud from flash cards. In tutoring instruction, a tutor paired off with a student and presented flash cards. Results indicated that as a group the subjects' proficiency in word recognition grew at a faster rate when tutored by another child than when taught in a small group by a teacher. Experiment 2--Spening: The subjects were four third grade learning disabled children each of whom were referred by the classroom teacher for resource room assistance in spelling and reading. The tutors were fifth graders who had received tutorial training by the resource room teacher. Two lists of 30 words each were randomly selected from a group of 60 words taken from three spelling lessons. All children were given a written pretest before instruction began on the first day. Thereafter, a daily spelling test was given immediately following each instructional session. Results of the experiment indicated that

PAGE 32

23 the mean gain on tutor taught words was 17.5 as opposed to 12.0 for small group taught words. Individually, each child learned more words under tutorial instruction than under small group instruction. Experiment 3--Mul ti pi i cation: Five fourth grade children who had been referred for resource teacher assistance in multiplication were subjects. Tutors were sixth grade students. Two sets of 18 multiplication facts were drawn from the population of facts (2 X 2) through (9X9). One set was randomly selected for tutorial instruction and the other for small group instruction. The number of problems answered correctly in one minute on a written exam was identified as the dependent measure. Each test contained 36 items (the 18 facts occurring twice in random fashion). Results indicated that the average gain on tutored facts was 6.0 while the average gain on small group instruction facts was 3.6. Experiment 4--0ral Reading: Subjects were five primary level children diagnosed either as emotionally handicapped or educable mentally retarded. All were reading at beginning first grade level. Tutors were children from a fifth grade class. Children were instructed daily under each instructional arrangement (small and tutorial). Individual two-minute reading assessments, in which correct words and errors were recorded, were given each day. Results indicated that subjects showed a higher gain in oral reading skills when tutored by the fifth grade students than on small group instruction.

PAGE 33

24 Experiment 5--Self-Study : This experiment compared tutorial instruction with individual study rather than with small group instruction. Five third grade children were referred to the resource room by the classroom teacher for assistance in multiplication. An arithmetical multiplication task was chosen upon which a student could produce immediate feedback for himself so that the availability of another person was less essential. The design, task, materials, controls, and measures were identical to those in Experiment 3. The children learned one 18-fact set of multiplication combinations from a tutor, and another 18-fact set through self-study. Results indicated that the mean improvement for subjects when tutored was 6.4 problems per minute in contrast to 20 problems per minute gain when subjects engaged in self-study. Ferindan, VanHandel , and Kovalinsky (1971) described and reported results of a resource room instructional program for learning disabled children. Eleven students remained in regular classes most of the day receiving supplemental instruction from the LD teacher in a resource room. Treatment emphasized instruction in perception, arithmetic, and reading skills. Using Strauss and Lehtinen's (1947) early definition of perception which was stated as "a mental process which precedes thinking and integrates sensations," the authors' major goal was to correct the children's perceptual disturbances. After eight months of treatment based on a pretest and posttest design, their results were: a. gains in reading achievement were not significant, although the average gain for the group was eight months.

PAGE 34

25 b. arithmetic gains were 18 months, resulting in statistically significant improvement. c. gains in perceptual achievement were significant as measured by the Bender Gestalt Test. Although the students (ages 7 to 11 years) remained in their regular classes, they were assigned to meet with a special teacher in a resource room located in the same building. Instruction consisted of perceptual training in the areas of visual motor coordination, tactile discrimination, visual memory, auditory discrimination, distance judgment, spatial relations, kinesthetics, and figure-ground perception. In addition, reading and arithmetic instruction were emphasized. Limitations of this study clearly relate to a lack of control group and failure to control important variables, such as differences in teaching competencies among the regular classroom teachers in which the 11 children were enrolled. However, Stephens (1977) contends that despite its limitations, this study is a valuable contribution in that the curriculum was extensively described. Glavin, Quay, Annesley, and Werry (1971) reported results of the Temple Resource Room Project. Children in the experimental group were assigned to a resource room program during those periods of the day in which they were functioning least effectively in their regular classes. The program emphasized academic instruction using contingency contracting. They reported that the experimental group made significantly greater gains in reading vocabulary and arithmetic fundamentals than did a comparison group. Changes in social behavior

PAGE 35

26 also occurred, with the greatest improvement among the experimental group while they were in the resource room. In the Glavin et al . study, 27 students with a mean age of 10 years constituted the experimental group. Thirty-four children with a mean age of 9 years 4 months made up the comparison group. The authors concluded that increases in attending behaviors and decreases in deviant behaviors in the resource rooms appeared immediately after placement. They also found that behaviors acquired in resource rooms were not generalized to regular classes unless mechanisms were developed between the teachers in both placements. For example, deviant social behaviors continued in the regular classes even though they were improved in resource rooms. Glavin (1974), in a follow-up study to the study reported above, sought to determine whether gains were maintained in regular classes following a one or two year placement in regular classes. He found that generalization of social behavior never occurred in regular classes. That is, in the absence of specific procedures for maintaining the desirable behavior which was taught and displayed in resource rooms, social behavior was not improved in regular classes even though that behavior was quickly changed in resource rooms. Glavin could not account for the lack of significant results in arithmetic attainment. While the experimental group's arithmetic performance had improved more significantly than the control group's in the initial study, the difference between the two groups was not maintained in the follow-up study.

PAGE 36

27 Based on Glavin's follow-up study, Stephens (1977) hypothesized that the following strategies would have improved the chances of generalizing behavior and academic achievement to regular classes: 1. Gradually phase out placement in resource rooms by having the student attend fewer and fewer days for shorter and shorter intervals. ' 2. Train the regular classroom teachers so that they can reinforce the gains made by students while they were in resource rooms. 3. Develop procedures where resource room and regular teachers routinely discuss tactics for maintaining behavior of specific children. 4. Assist classroom teachers to individualize instruction so that academic gains can continue. Although the resource room is gaining popularity as an instructional plan for serving mildly handicapped learners, its efficacy has not been extensively examined. Weiner (1969), Sabatino (1971), and Ferinden, VanHandel , and Kovalinsky (1971) studied the effectiveness of the resource room. Using a pre-posttest format, Weiner found that LD children (N=72) significantly improved academically after attending a resource room for one hour a day throughout the school year. No LD students gained markedly in self-concept (as measured by the Draw-A-Person Test). Sabatino found that daily contact (40 minute sessions) of LD youngsters with the resource room teacher produced better results than semi-weekly contact (30 minute sessions). Ferinden et al . concentrated on correcting perceptual disturbances of

PAGE 37

28 11 children v/ho remained in regular classes and received supplemental instruction from a special teacher in a resource room. Using a preposttest design, Ferinden et al . reported that after eight months of treatment, the children improved in their perception (as measured by the Bender Gestalt Test) and in their math skills (18 months). Although not significant, the average gain in reading achievement was eight months. Application of the resource room model . A notable application of the resource room model is the Madison School Plan which was developed over a three year period in Santa flonica, California (Taylor, Artuso, Soloway, Hewett, Quay, & Stillwell, 1972). Commonly referred to as the Madison Plan, this model provides a comprehensive approach for non-categorical special educational services for mildly retarded, emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, hearing handicapped, and speech handicapped. It features a learning center located in a regular elementary school. Placement in the learning center is based on the child's readiness for regular classroom functioning. Each child is assigned to spend as much time as possible in the regular classroom. The learning center is made up of four classroom levels based on the child's pre-academic and academic skills, his/her ability to learn, and/or his/her response to regular classroom rewards and reinforcers (Sherry, 1979). The Pre-academic I level places emphasis on learning to pay attention and following directions. There is no group instruction and children receive checkmarks as reinforcement at regular intervals. Children work individually at self-contained units with a teacher or

PAGE 38

29 aide. The students do not spend any time in the regular classroom. Pre-academic II consists of children who can handle more formal demands of the regular classroom. The Pre-academic II program emphasizes remedial academic work in small group participation. Rewards are still provided for appropriate on-task behaviors. Beginning with Pre-academic II, each student is integrated into a regular classroom for a few minutes during the day. The third level. Academic I provides a. simulated regular classroom. Students work as a large group and receive grades at hourly intervals. This section of the learning center is a simulated regular classroom setting for 12 to 25 children who have primary academic problems that can be dealt with in a large teacher-class setting. Emphasis is placed on helping each student with the specifi skills needed to increase the amount of time spent in a regular class room. In the learning center Academic I, students have the ability to spend increasing amounts of time in the regular classroom and have a readiness for the more traditional system of grading in terms of effort, quality of work, and citizenship (Stephens, 1977). In Academic II , the setting is the regular classroom composed of 28 to 35 students. Academic II follows the typical public school program. All handicapped students in the program are assigned to one of the Pre-academic I, Pre-academic II, or Academic I settings. These students in the latter two groups are integrated for varying periods of time in Academic II. Figure 4 presents a pictorial representation of two typical learning center classrooms in the Madison School Plan.

PAGE 39

30 C PRE-ACADEMIC II Intense academic ([ remediation in small n groups--programmed and independent. Reinforcement schedule. Order Center C ( c 4 ACADEMIC I Large group setting v/ith group instruction, oral discussions, independent study, and academic remediation to provide support for regular classroom assignment. Regular report cards. J L J OLPO c ) c PRE-ACADEMIC I « ' Highly structured to teach appropriate student-like behavior (sit still, pay attention, take turns) utilizing academic, direction-following, and exploratory tasks. Reinforcement schedule. -I u _i iCommunications Centei"XT" Science Center ) Figure 4 Two Typical Learning Center Classrooms Utilizing the Madison School Plan From: Taylor, F. , Artuso, A., Soloway, M, , Hewett, F., Quay, H., & Stillwell, R. A learning center plan for special education. Focus on Exceptional Children , 1972, 4(3), 1-8.

PAGE 40

31 Mercer (1979) asserts that although the research regarding the efficacy of resource rooms is beset with definition and methodological problems, it appears that until further research suggests otherwise, the resource room will continue to be used as a model to serve mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. Cegelka and Tyler (1970) enumerated five weaknesses of most efficacy research: (1) sampling is seldom a randomized process, and comparison groups are seldom comparable; (2) inadequate matching of subjects across conditions; (3) different placement histories of exceptional children potentially interact with current program placement, making the results of efficacy studies impossible to interpret; (4) the use of inadequate measurement instruments, the investigator's choice of instruments, and/or the lack of descriptive data concerning the instruments; and (5) failure to control for teaching procedures and curricula. Sindelar and Deno (1978) contend that descriptions of resource models continue to abound in the literature. And, the number of evaluations of special education resource programs is growing. However, the authors note that careful and conscientious program description is often separated from program evaluation. Programs are described in articles in which they are not evaluated. At the same time, evaluations are reported for resource programs which have not been carefully described or developed. The net result is that while resource programming in service delivery multiplies, the efficacy of program variables has not been established. Table 2 presents a review of studies of resource rooms and academic achievement.

PAGE 41

4-' C 0) E > •r<: u E (U •o o T3 c (U ct3 J3 10 ro E ho o oc 0) u I. 3 o (/) o 0) x> -»-> 00 10 4-> to (U sto OJ c o re 3 o to il lO n. E o o o c •r E ro C I— CP 3 -rQ. to O l/> Q«a: o «-> 3 I C E CD <0 -rS(/) CD O X> SO) Q. SO Qj u (J lO s3 Ci. O 3 I/) O O) Scn a-. <_> C I O "3 •1T3 to C C 3 C -CEO) cn O E •Io ^ ^ 4J CTr>. C S.— -r(O +j -a CO cu c O S(O Sra 3 cn O) Sc ^ 3 4-> O S(/) CD fO to +-> t/) C rtS O) t— E cj cz E 1 fO re +-> %_ Sto CJi cn O o c o c. so sCL S•.Os(0 +J re SO) fO 5OJ re >5 3 re >>^ O) r— u >>-p re >>X5 q; to > c x: CM I— QJ CJ CM u to 1 to 2 E re o re 1— f c: i. u r — o cn o •rO S-M sre tre Q.I— re c c E 3 +-) OJ o re a; C7I c >^-'i SO OJ MO sro c OJ +-> 2 II c: a; re z: sE C •r— "O c o +-> ^ I— CO cn Q.+-> re II +-> 3 4-> Z 1/5 ire s2 C to o to OJ re j=. > •r>, E o "O r•o E re X) M is_ o QJ +-> re • SO) +-> -a -(-> ^ OJ Q. c c Ol to X o re M"o re CQ O LU o ai O re oS 1— 3 »> CD — ' C f— •.to >, > O) s_ re c: i>— c re CD '1 — (/) sQE o O. QJ c re c 3 o> o i. o re O <4Scn+-> S•!re to re CD O CQ C7>"CJ x: SSu -o 4-> to Q. O QJ to ••-> \ij QJ l/> •rU to O c 0) re Q) ire c •rSO QJ 3 re o u SCL O O X! CO cn E 3 3 to SO to QJ — -o ' to >-, re 1/1 Sre Q. QJ o. •1£ 3 4-> 3 o; 3 j:z u o O c cn o +J QJ •!sre QJ So o SCM cr>x2 i/j 2 o r« Q) o C_) 4-» O to »— » <: OJ 4-> o. to 1— 0) O) #1 1—* to M HXI ct -O 3 c I to re re QJ o o o to CO -t-> •r— E S2 re re +-> « • *> sQJ c to a> O 3 0) to O >, O cn E re S1— S2 QJ QJ Q-'iCJ. 4J S(J o re re QJ T3 QJ 1 — u O SD. ca S. •r— 3 S3 to (J O -C O CM to QJ to to QJ re CL QJ 1— QJ QJ t/0 S_ i. 2 o r\ X o QJ re QJ OO 3 +-> XI Cre <: QJ to o O *rS•a e: QJ -M o Q. C QJ c o -o E •r— QJ C tc re i. 1— o re re 1— +J QJ II re oE _j 1 — 1 cn o re X) re oo

PAGE 42

Q. >> 3 r— O +-> SSC (U Cn 03 -C O 4-> E -r-ri• C 3 O O Q. E >> 3 ro r— O m c CD O ro iO SCLT« •r3 C CTi cn OJ •rS_ o Q. O) 3 C O •.SCO C7) CTo +-> o to C J3 3 1/1 +-> 5ta <: M o CM I — m >> o o u OQ > oa W) I/) lO n3 (O fO o o O) O) Q. Q. 00 01 o E Sn3 3 SO CD l/l O O) sso. O) (/I (J cc: 3 LU o (/) s 3 C CD Q. I c CM CD >> Q CM •1 — CO 4_I II l/l CM "e O 1/1 II o CD (O ^ -O T3 1^ c o c Ol •r— E ro C +J c ro O Q SCD 10 LlJ a 4J _l tO) ro c C CM l/l 2 E II ro Ol (/) o > O) ro

PAGE 43

34 Summary of research on small group instruction . The research on small group instruction generally shows positive benefits. First, adult supervision apparently contributes to student engagement. Filby and Marliave (Rosenshine, in press) and Fisher, Filby, and Marliave (Rosenshine, in press) found that when students were working with a teacher or another adult, they were engaged from 79 percent to 88 percent of the time. In contrast, when students were working alone they were engaged only 68 percent to 73 percent of the time. Second, small group instruction seems to be a reasonable alternative to one-to-one instruction. Venerky and Shiloh (1972) reported that performance on language tasks for students working in a small group setting was superior to that for students receiving one-to-one instruction. Working with retarded children on language skills, Biberdorf and Pear (1977) reported that group instruction was more efficient in terms of material learned per unit time than individual instruction. Fink and Carnine (1975) and Fink and Sandal 1 (1978) reported similar results. In contrast, a single study (Jenkins, Mayhall, Peschka, & Jenkins, 1974) reported that tutorials in remedial reading were more effective than instruction in small groups. The research, in general, suggests that small group instruction is effective (Carnine & Silbert, 1979). One-to-One Instruction One student with the teacher or tutorial teaching allows for intensive instruction with a single student and is frequently used to help students learn a new skill (Mercer & Mercer, 1981). Archer and Edgar (1976) recommend that one-to-one instruction be scheduled

PAGE 44

35 daily for students with learning problems. The authors contend that with regular scheduling, the student knows that he will have some time with the teacher to ask questions and receive help. Fink and Sandall (1980) sought to determine whether small group instruction could be used to effect children's learning, while resulting in significant savings in teaching time, when compared to one-to-one instruction. The subjects were four children who attended the Preschool for Multiply Handicapped Children at the University of Oregon. The children ranged between 52 and 66 months in chronological age and 29 and 33 months in Mental Age. An intrasubject replication design (ABAB) was employed to assess the effects of one-to-one to small group instruction. During each "A" condition, each child was taught using the one-to-one instruction. During each "B" condition, the children were taught using the small group strategy. In each of the conditions, the children were taught to verbally label six words. The children were tested at the end of each condition to determine the effect of the strategy on learning performance. Seven days later, the test was administered again to test for retention. Results indicated that children's performance on the test which was administered at the end of each experimental condition showed a mean of 5.83 words labeled correctly in the one-to-one conditions and a mean of 4.71 words labeled correctly in the small group conditions. On the delayed test (seven days later), a mean of 3.15 words were labeled correctly in the one-to-one condition and a mean of 4,25 was labeled correctly in the small group condition.

PAGE 45

36 The authors contend that small group instruction was clearly superior in terms of the amount of time spent in instruction. The mean number of minutes recorded per instructional setting was 11.39 in the one-to-one and 4.49 in the small group setting. Moreover, the authors suggested that small group instruction is a viable alternative to one-to-one instruction in settings wherein staff-client ratios make an equitable distribution of one-to-one instructional services impossible (Fink & Sandal 1 , 1980). Ronshausen (1979) investigated the effect of the Programmed Math Tutorial (PMT) --programmed tutoring in mathematics--on achievement of kindergarten and first grade children. Three field studies utilizing the Programmed Math Tutorial were completed. The field studies were undertaken to seek answers to the following questions: 1. Is the Programmed Math Tutorial, used as a supplement to the regular class instruction, more effective than classroom instruction alone in helping first graders learn mathematics? 2. Is the revised Programmed Math Tutorial, used as a supplement to the regular classroom instruction, more effective than classroom instruction alone in helping kindergarten children learn first grade mathematics? Effectiveness in helping children learn was to be measured in terms of scores on standardized and criterion referenced mathematics achievement tests. The Programmed Math Tutorial (PMT) was field tested in two large school systems during the entire school year. In school system "A", first grade children who had been selected earlier to receive tutoring in the participating schools were given the Metropolitan

PAGE 46

37 Readiness Tests (MRT). Using total scores, a stratified random sample was formed in each school. Children were assigned alternately to the tutored group or to the untutored control group, beginning with the lowest score. Tutors were assigned randomly to the schools after the number of children selected for tutoring was known. The following May, children in the experimental and control groups were given the Mathematics Subtest (4A Concepts, 4B Computational Skills) of the MAT, Primary II. In school system "B", the PMT was used with both kindergarten and first grade children (so that two essentially separate field studies were completed in this school system). At the kindergarten level, 36 children were randomly selected from all readiness levels, 18 in each of two schools. The control group was formed in the same way from the same classroom. The Numbers Subtest of the MAT was used as the pretest. First grade children in 14 schools were ranked using scores on the Numbers Subtest of the MAT. Each school hired the number of tutors it could provide, producing the desired number of tutoring time slots needed per child. Then in each school, the 3/2^ lowest pretest scores were selected. The children thus selected were assigned randomly to the tutored and control groups in the ratio of about 2 to 1 . There was no difference in mean pretest scores between the experimental and control groups. After eight months of tutoring, children in the experimental and control groups were given two posttest achievement measures. Kindergarten children were given the Math Subtest of the Metropolitan

PAGE 47

38 Achievement Tests, Primer, and the Primary School Mathematics Criterion Test. The latter measure was given to the first graders also, along with the Mathematics Subtests of the Metropolitan Test, Primary I. Results indicated that in each school system, the mean score obtained by the tutored group exceeded the mean score obtained by the untutored control group, and the differences were significantly different in five of six cases ( < .001, p < .10). This result occurred at the kindergarten level as well as the first grade level in each school system B (p < .001). The mean score obtained by the tutored kindergarten group was essentially the same as that obtained by the untutored control group for first grade children on the Primary School Mathematics Criterion Test (34.5 vs 34.7), even though the difference in mean pretest scores favored the untutored control group. The authors concluded that the combination of the PMT and regular first grade instruction is more effective than classroom tutoring alone in increasing first graders Mathematics achievement. Also, they noted that kindergarten children can learn first grade math topics when the Programmed Math Tutorial is provided as a supplement to the regular classroom instruction. Peer Teaching In this strategy one student who has proficiency in a skill teaches another student under the teacher's supervision. Peer tutoring arrangements have been developed to ensure that greater attention is given to the needs of each student (Ehly & Larsen, 1980). Allen (1976) reports that research on peer tutoring indicates a

PAGE 48

39 positive effect for the tutor (i.e., it helps the tutor with academic and/or behavioral difficulties). He also notes that the effect for the tutee is generally positive and the critical factor in establishing a mutually beneficial tutor-tutee relationship is directly related to the competence of the tutor regarding content. Mercer and Mercer (1981) report that peer teaching has been successfully used to (a) improve academic skills, (b) foster self-esteem, (c) help the shy student, (d) help students who have difficulty with authority figures, and (e) improve race relations. Surratt, Ulrich, and Hawkins (1969) specifically note that peer tutoring has been successfully used to help manage heterogeneous classrooms which include students with learning problems. Eaton and Hansen (1978) note that students are a valuable source as peer teachers. They report that "chain teaching" can save energy and time. It involves the teacher showing one student how to perform a skill and the student in turn trains a second and so on. The related research will be reviewed in terms of (a) tutoring in the regular classroom with selected students, (b) intraclass peer tutoring with mildly handicapped youngsters, (c) peer tutoring with the entire class, and (d) a school-wide tutorial program. Tutoring in the regular classroom . Glass and Griffith (1973) have included peer tutoring as one condition that can easily be established within the regular classroom and used by the teacher to help change the attitudes of nonhandicapped children toward their handicapped peers. Christoplos (1973) outlined a set of techniques that could be used by the regular classroom teacher to facilitate

PAGE 49

40 integration of the handicapped child into the regular classroom. Peer tutoring, according to Christoplos, is one of the most practical ways in which individualization of instruction could be brought into the classroom while reducing the demand and pressure on the teacher. Oakland and Williams (1973) examined the effectiveness of peer tutors as means of facilitating the reading achievement of other children reading below their grade placement. Thirty-three third and fourth graders (CA 9 to 11) from two elementary schools were selected to be tutees on the basis of teacher judgment and reading achievement scores from the Metropolitan Achievement Test. All children were described by their teachers as being unresponsive to the basal reading instruction and were performing at least six months below grade placement on the Work Knowledge or Comprehension subtests of the Metropolitan, and had not repeated any grades. The children were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) total tutorial program , wherein the selected group received virtually all their reading and spelling instruction through the assistance of a peer tutor rather than the classroom teacher; (b) supplementary tutorial program , wherein the 10 minute tutorial sessions supplemented regular classroom reading instruction provided by classroom teachers. Tutorial help for children in this group consisted of oral reading practice from trade books, supplementary readers, or remedial readers. A tutee and a tutor read simultaneously, with the tutor setting a comfortable pace and keeping the place on the page with his/her finger. This method of practice has been referred to as the "neurological impress method"; and (c) non-tutorial program (control group), wherein

PAGE 50

41 the selected group received their reading instruction only from the classroom teacher. Posttest scores from the Word Knowledge and Comprehension subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Test were analyzed through the use of analysis of covariance. Pretest scores from the Word Knowledge subtest and IQ were used separately as covariates in analyzing the posttest scores on Word Knowledge. Similarly, pretest scores from the Comprehension subtest and IQ were used separately as covariates in analyzing the posttest scores on Comprehension. Findings indicated that differences between the three treatment groups on the Metropolitan Achievement Test subtests of Word Knowledge and Comprehension were not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were not apparent for the third-grade children, for the fourth-grade children, or for the thirdand fourth-grade children combined. Differences between groups approached significance (in favor of the Supplementary Tutorial group) only on the Comprehension subtest for the combined thirdand fourth-grade groups. The authors contend that the evaluation of any peer tutoring project can be effectively done only when both the quantitative data and other pertinent information derived from observations made during the experiment are examined fully (Oakland & Williams, 1973). Intraclass peer tutoring with mildly handicapped youngsters . Epstein (1978) investigated the effects of intraclass peer tutoring on the academic performance of mildly handicapped children. In each of 20 primary level learning disability classes (self-contained), five children performing poorly on a word recognition test were

PAGE 51

42 identified as tutors. The tutors were then randomly assigned to either the peer tutoring in reading or to one of four control conditions. Control conditions included peer tutoring math, teacherinstructed, self-instructional, and blind control. The experimental condition of peer tutoring reading consisted of one tutee and one tutor who spent 15 minutes daily on a reading study lesson in which the tutor assisted the tutee in a review of the specifically designed reading program. In the experimental control, peer tutoring math, one tutor spent 15 minutes daily on an arithmetic lesson assisting a tutee in a one-to-one review of specifically prepared arithmetic problems. With the use of self-instructional control, one person worked alone for 15 minutes daily in the Merrill Phonics Skill test: The Sound and Structure of Words. The teacherinstructed control consisted of one person receiving no formal individual reading instruction in the Merrill Linguistic Reading Program but was a member of the teacher-instructed reading group in the reading program. In the teacher-instructed group, the teacher maintained a progress sheet on the child, as well as the remainder of the participants in the group. In the blind control experimental condition, the subject received no reading instruction other than the general classroom reading program. No progress sheet was kept on the child because the teacher was not aware of the participation of this person in the experiment. The primary analysis of the study concerned the comparison of the five treatment groups on the word recognition posttest. The 5 X 20 Analysis of Variance revealed a significant effect for conditions (F=20.5, df=4,76, p < .001).

PAGE 52

43 The 3 X 20 Analysis of Variance for the number of words covered indicated that the conditions had a significant effect on the criterion {F=10.75, df-2,38, p < .001). The 3 X 20 Analysis of Variance on the time used to cover the words showed no significant difference among the three treatment groups. In summary, the results of the primary analysis were as follows: (a) the peer-tutoring reading group performed significantly better than the peer tutoring math, self-instructional, teacher-instructed, and blind-control groups on the criterion reading test, (b) the peertutoring reading group covered a significantly greater number of words than the teacher-instructed group, and (c) the peer-tutoring reading group covered fewer words than the self-instructional group, but the difference between the groups failed to reach significance, (d) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer tutoring reading group and the self-instructional group was not significant statistically, and (e) the difference in the amount of time used to cover the words between the peer tutoring reading group and the teacher-instructed group was not statistically significant (Epstein, 1978). Peer tutoring with the entire class . The use of prompting to increase peer tutoring skills in an entire third grade class was investigated by Jason and Frasure (1979). A multiple baseline design was used in establishing three tutoring components: praise, corrective feedback, and re-presenting the question. Two reversal phases were added to the basic experimental design (i.e., multiple baseline) to assess maintenance of tutoring behaviors following termination of

PAGE 53

44 prompting. The effect of the intervention on academic, classroom adjustment, as well as self-esteem measures, was also evaluated. Experimental children involved in the peer tutoring project were 19 third graders in an inner-city, parochial, elementary school. The control group consisted of 23 third grade youngsters enrolled in another parochial school in the same geographic area. In the actual program, the third graders assumed three roles: tutor, tutee, and scorekeeper. The children, working in groups of three, rotated roles every 15 minutes. A 15 minute free play period followed the 15 minute peer tutoring program. On alternate sessions, children were tutored in arithmetic and word recognition (the materials were obtained from lessons the teacher was currently introducing and working on in her class). Prior to the first session with the third grade children, a role play of a correct and incorrect response was demonstrated. A university observer in each group told the children: "VJe're going to play a teaching game. Watch how this is done. I'm the teacher and (another observer) is the student.' I lift this card and say: 'What is this?' (Answer is said.) And then I say: 'That's right.' Now if the student says the wrong answer, this is what I do (the first card is put down, the second is held up): 'What is this?' (Wrong answer is said.) 'This is a . What is it?" On the first day, the scorekeeping system was described. The observer pointed to one of the children and said, "You are going to be the scorekeeper." The Child Recording Form was then placed in front

PAGE 54

45 of the child. The observer said, "There are 30 spaces for answers. If the right answer is given, write a plus in the first line. If a wrong answer is given, write a dash." When the teaching game was finished, each child was praised by the observer and given feedback about how many of the 30 trials were correct. When the child received 90 percent accuracy for that unit, the entire class moved on to the next session. A multiple baseline reversal design was employed. To gather baseline data, prior to the first session, all children observed a role play of the tutoring game. During Sessions 1-4 children were asked to play the teaching game. University students prompted praise during Sessions 5-16. Following a correct response, if the tutor did not praise spontaneously, the prompter asked the tutor to praise the tutee. During Sessions 9-16, the observer prompted corrective feedback. If the tutor did not spontaneously offer the correct answer following an incorrect response, the university student told the tutor: "Tell the student this is a ." Praise was also prompted during this phase. Re-presenting questions were prompted during Sessions 13-16. After the tutor corrected the incorrect tutee response, and failed to spontaneously re-present the question, the observer said: "Ask (the tutee), 'What is this?" Praise and feedback were also prompted during this phase. For the next six sessions (17-22), the University observers did not prompt the students. Prompting for all three tutoring behaviors occurred during Sessions 23-28. During Sessions 29-33, baseline conditions were reestablished.

PAGE 55

46 In reference to tutoring behaviors, results indicated that teaching behaviors increased after prompting for both the reading and arithmetic units. During the intervention, unprompted praise increased to an average of 79 percent during reading units and to an average of 91 percent during arithmetic units. Reductions in praise were noted during the baseline phase, but high rates of praise were again attained during the last two phases. Corrective feedback when teaching reading increased from a baseline average of 21 percent to an average of 64 percent after prompting. For arithmetic units, corrective feedback increased from a baseline average of 58 percent to 80 percent after prompting. During the return to baseline phase, feedback increased for reading but decreased slightly for arithmetic. With re-implementation of prompting, feedback increased for reading and decreased slightly for arithmetic. Increases were noted for both arithmetic and reading during the last phase. Re-presenting questions showed averages of 2 percent for reading units and 7 percent for arithmetic units during baseline. After onset of intervention, representing questions increased to 51 percent for reading units and 40 percent for arithmetic units. During the subsequent return to baseline phase, decreases were noted but with onset of prompting, rates of re-presenting the question increased dramatically. During the last phase, decreases were noted but with onset of prompting, rates of re-presenting the question increased dramatically. In terms of post point grades, employing an analysis of covariance, the experimental group, in comparison to controls, earned significantly

PAGE 56

47 higher reading (F(l ,38)=4.05 , p<.05), spelling (F(l ,38)=8.61 , p<.01, and mathematics (F(l ,38)=5.27 , p<.05) grades. School -wide tutorial program . Melaragno (1974) describes a program being conducted in a number of schools in the Unified School District of Lcs Angeles in which all children in the school are involved as either tutors or learners (Melaragno, 1974). The program was explored as part of a six-year research and development project supported by the Ford Foundation (Melaragno & Newmark, 1971). The following is a detailed description of the project: Two important program features underlie the intergrade tutoring program: (1) The program is to be a primary vehicle for reading instruction and is not an appendix to the "regular" program. (2) The program is classroom-based in that teachers have the major responsibility for carrying out the program in their own classrooms. In reference to personnel requirements, classes within the school are paired for tutoring with a primary grade class receiving tutors and an upper class sending tutors. This means that two teachers will work closely together in conducting tutoring and the pairing of classes is done with two dimensions being considered: (1) the two teachers' approaches to students are taken into account so that the most compatible pairings possible are made; and (2) the classes are separated by at least two years in age and/or grade level.

PAGE 57

48 One non-classroom staff member is designated to be the school's tutoring coordinator. The coordinator has responsibility for planning the school -wide program, training classroom teachers, providing logistical support to teachers, and monitoring the total program. In the area of teacher preparation, classroom teachers are required to participate in a six-session workshop on tutoring led by the tutoring coordinator. During the workshop, participants are taught such skills as how to train tutors, monitor tutorial behaviors, and the basic characteristics of an effective tutor-tutee relationship. The training of tutors is conducted by the classroom teacher in two stages: (1) The first stage is a general orientation to tutoring and the helping relationship; students in the two classes become familiar with one another through information socialization; older students interview younger students whom they will tutor to get better acquainted and older students observe younger ones during reading instruction. (2) In the second stage tutors are trained in the specific procedures they are to follow when they tutor a younger student. During their specific training tutors are introduced to the materials and methods they will use. In addition, tutors are trained in reinforcement procedures such as the need for frequent positive reinforcement and the minimization of negative reinforcement.

PAGE 58

49 To facilitate the tutoring process, once a week teachers meet with tutors to discuss the most recent tutoring, solve problems that have arisen, and provide additional training to tutors. Regularly the paired teachers get together to review their program and make any additional modifications. Materials used by tutors are largely those available within the school, including reading texts, workbooks, practice worksheets, and flashcards. Some materials are prepared specially for tutors, such as record-keeping forms, logs for recording daily activities, and summaries of tutoring steps. In reference to program monitoring, tutoring is conducted in cycles of from five to eight weeks in duration, with a two-week period between cycles. At the end of each cycle teachers complete a form recording student progress and teachers' judgments of the program. This information is summarized by the tutoring coordinator and is fed back to teacher groups for their use in determining areas that are going well and should be maintained; and areas that are in need of revision. A product evaluation is performed in which pretest and posttest results on student progress are compared to measure the degree of growth made. Typically the product evaluation is carried out at the end of the year and utilizes standardized tests in reading, and measures of student attitudes toward school . In the school district, tutoring procedures were initially developed for decoding skills. A component skills package was then developed. The decoding skills package provides learners with instruction in sight vocabulary development, phonics skills such as

PAGE 59

50 sounds of letters and sounds of word elements, and word attack skills such as sounding out unfamiliar words. Tutors and learners accomplish these using flash cards, practice exercises, and reading in a basal text. Material with Student This instructional arrangement does not require the teacher's presence. It is used extensively because it provides students with independent seatwork activities while the teacher engages in small group and one-to-one instruction with other students. These independent student activities are aimed at providing needed practice on skills in which the student has received previous instruction and acquired some mastery (Archer & Edgar, 1976; Stephens, 1977; White & Haring, 1976). The teacher may select from numerous materials such as worksheets, self-correcting materials, instructional games, tape recorder, language master, and commercial materials. Mercer and Mercer (1981) note that teachers need to be very careful with the material with child arrangement because students frequently spend much time in this setting and inappropriate materials can lead to frustration, failure, and practicing of errors. Dezelle (1971) sought to examine the credibility of programmed instruction in mathematics as a teaching technique for junior high school educable mentally retarded children (EMR). The pupil population of this school came from five school districts, each with two or more EMR classes for junior high school children. One class in each school was selected at random to serve as an experimental class and another class as a control. A total of 132 pupils, enrolled in the 10 classes.

PAGE 60

51 comprised the pool from which two groups of 30 pupils matched in age, sex, race, IQ scores, and pretest scores on the criterion instrument, were identified. Program instruction workbook texts (Sullivan, 1968) were used during a 40-minute period by the experimental group. Conventional methods were used by the control group for the same time period. Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of programmed instruction in arithmetic for junior high school EMR pupils was inconclusive Programmed instruction was noted as providing the same results as conventional methods. However, the experimental group adapted well to the format of the programmed instruction and were able to achieve a satisfactory level of self-direction and pursued the sequence of instruction on their own. Vandever, Maggart, and Nassar (1976) investigated program effectiveness on the development of word recognition for EMR children The researchers initially assigned 15 classes of primary age educable mentally retarded children to one of three programs for learning to read. Programs included the Merrill Linguistic Series, the Sullivan programmed series, and the Edmark series. Children, rather than classes, were chosen as the unit of analysis because two of the programs were self-paced and programmed. At the beginning of the school year students were pretested on two measures--a 150 word list from the reading program to which they were assigned and a 50-word list to measure learning and transfer. Three reading methods that appear to be appropriate for use with EMR children, while being significantly different from each other.

PAGE 61

52 were selected for use in the study. The Merrill Linguistic Series (Fries, Wilson, & Rudolph, 1966) places emphasis on learning words in simple word families. Sullivan Series (Buchanan, 1969) stresses English sound-symbol relationships which enable the child to generalize to other phonetically regular words. The material is programmed. The Edmark Series (Edmark, 1972) is a programmed whole word approach. A 150-word sight vocabulary is taught. The program is individualized and students learn only words they do not know. The child needs only (a) to be able to repeat the words, (b) to indicate the choice by pointing, and (c) to have receptive language sufficient for response to instruction. Table 3 shows means, standard deviations, and alpha reliabilities for pretests and posttests by groups. Children, rather than classes, were chosen as the unit of analysis. Since children progressed through these programs at their own pace, each child provided a relatively independent data point (Vandever, Maggart, & Nasser, 1976). Only in the Merrill program was group instruction used. Analysis of variance on the 150 word pretest revealed no difference between the groups prior to reading instruction, F(2,104)=.246, p< .99. Likewise, there were no differences on the 50-word pretest, F=(2,104) = .004, p< .99. Analysis of covariance with pretest scores as the covariate and posttest scores as the dependent variable revealed a significant difference on the 150-word test, F(2,193)=8.785, p< .0005. Adjusted means of 49.19, 31.34, and 39.21 words were obtained by children in the Edmark, Sullivan, and Merrill groups respectively indicating that programs produced differences in achievement. A

PAGE 62

ID a to E Q. »0 3 O SCD o OO >, J2 «5 {/) E -(J O -M fO -(-> O X3 d) Q. (O O 1— XI X> E S(0 ns "O to E 4-> re CO +J 0) 00 +-> 01 " i. ~-c. s: — so to 4E re 0) XI a; to 3 a •T— ' CM LO CO CO Q(/) "O r~ LO f — ) o Q o ID CO r— o r— CO 1 CM o f— ' fO c LO CTt o LO m CO VO Q t/) x: CsJ CM CJ Q. 4j CO 00 (/) Q 00 "O • J_ f — . _o o o CO / — \ *— ^ fl— ) » fT\ LO CO E r\. 1 re > CL r03 o E i~ X3 cu LU 00 53

PAGE 63

54 Newman-Keuls test was conducted to determine which programs differed. A significant difference at the 5 percent level was found between the mean number of words learned by children in the Sullivan Program and the mean number of words learned by children in the Edmark program favoring Edmark. Analysis of covariance on the 50 word posttest revealed no significant differences between the treatments, F(2,103) = 1 ,277, p<.29. Adjusted means of 12.61, 10.93, and 11.66 words were obtained by children receiving Edmark, Sullivan, and Merrill reading instruction respectively. Summary A variety of instructional arrangements have been used with regular and special education children. Research in the area of large group instruction indicates that large group instruction has its own unique motivational values; and under certain circumstances will facilitate student achievement (Kiesling, 1978; Lipson, 1974). Brophy and Good (1977, 1978) assert that when the development of work necessary for comprehending a concept can be presented to a large group of students at the same time, teachers will have time to provide individual students with more personalized feedback in private face-to-face contact. The research on small group instruction generally shows positive benefits (Carnine & Silbert, 1979; DeVries & Slavin, 1976; Sharan, 1980). Various researchers have reported that when students were working with a teacher or another student on a one-to-one basis , students were engaged from 79 percent to 88 percent of the time on the

PAGE 64

55 designated task (Bloom, 1974; Fink & Sandall, 1978; Hagen & Kail, 1975; Sharan, Lazarowitz, & Ackerman, 1980; Soar, 1973). The instructional arrangement, peer tutoring has been tried in a variety of academic settings, and it frequently results in increased achievement by students who do the tutoring, as well as by students who are tutored (Oakland & Williams, 1973). Peer tutoring has been effective on a one-to-one basis with tutor and tutee (Christoplos, 1973; Glass & Griffith, 1970), in entire grades (Jason & Frasure, 1979), and in school-wide programs (Melaragno, 1978). During independent seatwork , research has indicated that students have successfully worked on a number of activities either individually or in a small group. Studies have indicated that students are more likely to make efficient use of seatwork time if teachers provide carefully structured assignments and institute a motivation system (Vandever, Maggart, & Nasser, 1976). It is apparent that each of these instructional arrangements have been done with various classes of children. A close examination of the literature, however, reveals limited information on the percentage of academic instructional time spent in a given instructional arrangement or the percentage of time on task in that given arrangement. With the advent of P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, more and more "special" children are placed in regular education classrooms, yet limited information is available on the predominant form of instructional arrangement(s) most beneficial to a given child. The effect that such instructional arrangements have on children's performance has not been adequately examined. This study addresses these critical concerns.

PAGE 65

CHAPTER III METHOD Chapter III presents the methods and procedures of the study. It is organized into three major sections: a description of the subjects, a description of the experimental materials, and a description of the procedures. The procedures section will include the experimental design, the dependent variables, and data collection methods. Subjects The subjects for this study were 39 fourth-grade students from the public school setting of the Alachua County schools. Of these students, 11 were identified as learning disabled (LD) attending a resource room, 11 of these students were identified as emotionally handicapped (EH) attending a resource room, and 17 were regular education fourth grade students in a regular class setting. Random selection was achieved by placing the name and educational diagnosis of each fourth grade pupil in the designated schools in a container, mixing the slips thoroughly, and then drawing out the required number of names required for observation. 56

PAGE 66

57 To control for the prospect of including subjects with situational problems, each special education teacher was interviewed to determine whether any subjects were exhibiting such problems. If subjects were undergoing transfer adjustment problems, they were excluded from the investigation. The age range of the sample was restricted to attempt to minimize the variability of observed behavior often characterized by children at different ages. Moreover, it is likely that 9-10 year olds are in the same grade in school (i.e., fourth grade). Observers The data collectors were students in the Department of Special Education of the College of Education at the University of Florida. The data collectors were trained to be behavioral observers by the researcher during a pre-experimental training period. The specific skills the observers acquired included (a) a thorough understanding of the dependent variables (on-task and percentage of time in instructional arrangements); (b) accurate observation of the dependent variables; (c) facility with the recording form; and (d) facility in the use of a watch. The pre-experimental period (training period) included the following instructional procedures: (a) an explanation of dependent variable (b) a description of observer responsibilities, and (c) an observation of videocassette tapes in order to attain skills in recording dependent measures. These videocassette tapes depicted children on and off-task in the five instructional arrangements. The extent to which observer

PAGE 67

58 skills and knowledge had been acquired were measured by two methods; (a) a brief test was prepared by the researcher to determine the operational definitions of dependent variables, and (b) the observers' observations of the prerecorded videotapes was compared to a standard. The standard was established by the investigator viewing the tapes and recording the dependent measures (i.e., on-task, time in instructional arrangements). Before training was terminated the trainees' observations and recordings must have reached an 80 percent level of interrater agreement with the standard. Percent agreement was determined by using the formula # of recorded occurrences # of occurrences (standard) To assure that the reliability was maintained throughout the study, the principal researcher visited each classroom site and observed behavior. The observation was then compared with the university students' observations to achieve a reliability of measurement score. In each case, interrater reliability was .90 and above. Data Collection The data were collected during daily observations of the children in their normal school environments, i.e., the classroom, within a period of 45 school days. These observations occurred during academic instructional periods throughout the entire school day. The data were recorded during the observation period by using the Classroom

PAGE 68

59 I Observation Sheet Form. The instrument provides for the coding within the five instructional arrangements. A time-sampling technique was utilized wherein the observer recorded the time the student was within a given instructional arrangement, and the amount of time that the subject was off-task while in the instructional arrangement. A stopwatch was utilized to record the total number of minutes each student exhibited on-task behavior within a given instructional arrangement. Seconds were rounded off to the nearest minute. Description of Coding Operationally defined, on-task behavior refers to performing the prescribed and accepted classroom activity as defined by the classroom teacher. This may include attending to a reciting student or lecturing teacher, verbally responding when requested to do so by the teacher, engaging in class participation or materials when directed, and performing any other activity assigned by the teacher or adult designee. Conversely, off-task behaviors inclnde engaging in unassigned activity, movement about the room without permission, shouting, kicking, and leaving the classroom without permission. The measures of on-task performance was determined by observing each child every 15th second and recording whether the child was ontask or off -task when observed. For example, the observer would look up at the subject when the second hand of the clock reached the 12, 3, 6, 9, and 12 points. If the child was on-task, the observer would record a "+" and for offtask the observer would record a "0" or

PAGE 69

60 These observations were completed in the following cycle— 7.5 minutes of observation and two minutes of rest. Provided on the Classroom Observation Sheet are spaces for coding of other observational categories (see Appendix B). The reader is referred to Appendix C for an explanation of the terms utilized on the Classroom Observation Sheet. The terms include (a) Wait-(W), (b) Transition-(T) , (c) Management(M) , and (d) Break-(B). Design and Data Analysis The initial part of the study was descriptive and included the percentage of time the children spend receiving instruction in various instructional arrangements and the percentage of time on-task in each instructional arrangement was described. A second feature of the study involved an experimental investigation in which comparisons of percent of time in various instructional arrangements as well as percentage of time on-task was made for across the categories of children. Variables Two dependent variables were used in this study; they were (a) percentage of instructional time spent in a given arrangement and (b) time spent on-task. The independent variables were (a) instructional arrangements and (b) student categories, i.e., LD, EH, and regular students.

PAGE 70

61 Analysis of Data The results of the data obtained were analyzed by means of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The percentage of time the groups were in a given arrangement was counted and represented in graphic form (see Chapter IV). The percentage of time in any arrangement was tabulated and the percentage of time on-task in any given arrangement was recorded. The alpha level was set at a = .05. Analysis of main effects in the ANOVA model represent tests of the general hypothesis, analysis of simple effects constitute tests of the specific hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 . There are no differences in the amount of time spent or time on-task in five instructional arrangements within each group. a. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that LD students spend in the five instructional arrangements. b. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that LD students spend on-task in various instructional arrangements. c. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that EH children spend in various instructional arrangements. d. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that EH children spend on-task in various instructional arrangements.

PAGE 71

62 e. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that regular education students spend in various instructional arrangements. f. There are no significant differences among the percentages of time that regular education students spend on-task in various instructional arrangements. A format for Hypothesis 1 and its subhypotheses la, Ic, and le are featured in Table 4. A format for subhypotheses lb. Id, and If are featured in Table 5. Hypothesis 2 . There are no differences among the three groups in the amount of time or time on-task spent in selected instructional arrangements. a. There are no differences among the LD, EH, and regular education students in the percent of time spent in the five instructional arrangements. b. There are no differences among LD, EH, and regular education students in the amount of time on-task in the five instructional arrangements.

PAGE 72

Table 4 Format for Subhypotheses la, Ic, and le Percentage of Time in Instructional Arrangement for Each Group Large Group >L D \ \ Norma ( 1 \ Small Group ME iATEGOF One-to-One YZE T] EACH ( Peer Teaching ANAL NT IN Independent Seatwork LU O. oo \ r \ f Percentage of Time in Instructional Arrangements Across Groups Large Group LD EH Normal y .* Small Group GROU[ ^ One-to-One ACROSS < > Peer Teaching MPARE < > Independent Seatwork o <

PAGE 73

64 Table 5 Format for Subhypotheses lb, Id, and If Percentage of Time in On-Task Instructional Arrangement for Each Group Carge Group >m LC t 1 k EH i i Norr < nal Small Group ME CATEGC Oneto-One YZE Tl EACH Peer Teaching ANAL :ENT I^ Independent Seatwork a. r r Percentage of Time On-Task in Instructional Arrangements Large Group m a. Across LD Groups EH Normal > < Small Group S GROL < > One-to-One ACROJ < > Peer Teaching OMPARE V < Independent Seatwork > <

PAGE 74

CHAPTER IV RESULTS Thirty-nine fourth grade students enrolled in five public elementary schools were selected for this study. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork (materials with the child) with emotionally handicapped, learning disabled, and regular education students. The relationship of on-task behaviors across these instructional arrangements and groups was also examined. Table 6 presents a summary table of percentage of time that EH, LD, and regular education children spend in the five instructional arrangements. Results indicate that regular education students spent the highest percentage of time of the three groups in large group instruction (x = 29.50 percent). Further analysis suggests that EH students and LD students spent 7.84 percent and 15.93 percent of the time in large group instruction. Thus, regular education students are engaged in large group instruction three times more than emotionally handicapped students and nearly twice as much as learning disabled students. 65

PAGE 75

c: •r— o JZ •f— QJ SC O. +-> c o o Ul 3 Jj:: c 0) +-> 1—1 !q QJ 3 1•r— O t— Ll_ M QJ Dl SIC _l (O 3 4J cvj to c o o QJ Jii -D S1— CTl C O «^ r— QJ 3 Q.+J II II QJ <0 -O Q) C 00 , -o 1 X to CD C c— C (O o C To +-> •rto 4-> C « Ol O -r3 to •O QJ LU O O CM r-« o CM to II II I X to o to CVJ o CTi CM II II X to CO ^ o CO to II II , XI X lO CVJ CO I— o II II X to II II , x> X to

PAGE 76

67 In small group, regular education students spent a mean percentage of 19.58 total time in comparison to 3.03 mean percentage spent by EH students. LD students spent a mean percentage of 17.58 total time in small group instruction. However, in one-to-one instruction, regular education students spent the least amount of time of the three groups (x = 3.45). EH and LD students, on the other hand, spent a mean percentage total time in one-to-one instruction of 19.20 and 15.74 respectively. In the instructional arrangement peer teaching, all three groups— LD, EH, and regular students— spent comparable mean percentage times. Regular education students spent a mean total time of 1.97 percent in peer teaching. Similarly, EH and LD students spent comparable mean total times of 2.70 and 2.27 percentage time in peer teaching instruction. In independent seatwork, EH students recorded the highest mean percentage time of the three groups (x = 41.02). Moreover, regular education and LD students recorded means of 21.51 and 28.83 mean total percentage time respectively. Table 7 presents a summary table of percentage of on-task time that LD, EH, and regular education children spend in the five instructional arrangements. Results indicate that regular education and learning disabled students spent significantly more time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. In small group, mean on-task times were comparable for the regular education and LD students and their respected means were considerably higher than the mean on-task time of EH students. In one-to-one, the highest mean on-task time was achieved by LD students (x" = 94.10 percent). EH

PAGE 77

0) M CO o un o — CM C n 1— CO 'dCO (U "O vo CM C ir--» 1— WD to 1— 0} o O. S II II II II II II O) -fJ -O (T5 • • • C O) XI o -o 1— 1 C/) 1 X m 1 X to 1 X to o •rcn -P CO in Ln ^ f— >5Jin o CM «ao x: • • • • o c» o r-. CO o o. 0) +-> o: c cu -o E C 0) c CO O O ^ in •> (0 o •a -D -o o \ X CO 1 X to 1 X to x: +J +-> o ^ S +-> to to t— c 1 ' — ' Q. 1^ O CO O CO 1 — c O LT) CO O cr> o O x: O o s1-^ oj Ln in CO O) ro I— CO Ln CO in CO E LU "r, II II II II II II 1— C , • • • E O TJ oo 1 X 1/1 1 X to 1 X 10 C CU q; CD Q. +-> c in a; +-> o c Q. oo o Ln cvj LO 1 — S CM CO to CO to CM O O) II II II It II II (U Sr— (0 1 *^ X3 1 1 X i/l 1 X (/) I X t/) , SE E f— c (O o c: •!so +-> to •Ito •-> c 3 to CD C7> O -rQ (U 3 l/J UJ cc: -o a; LU O

PAGE 78

69 students spent the second highest amount of on-task time with a mean percentage of 86.37 percent. Regular education students spent the lowest amount of on-task time of the three groups in one-toone with a mean percentage on-task time of 26.54 percent. Overall, the on-task time in peer teaching was low, but comparable for the three groups. In independent seatwork, all three groups spent a high percentage of time on-task. EH students, however, were on-task slightly more with a mean percentage on-task time of 74.38. Regular education and LD students recorded mean ontask times of 62.71 and 67.85 percent in independent seatwork. The data appear to suggest that there are variations in the amount of time spent and time on-task by LD, EH, and regular education students in the five instructional arrangements. However, specific detailed analyses of these data are provided in the data collected for the hypotheses. According to the methods and procedures discussed in Chapter III, the data were collected and analyzed in relation to the two hypotheses and the respective subhypotheses. The remainder of this chapter is organized according to a format which presents a hypothesis, a table or tables of results pertaining to the hypothesis, and a brief summary of the study. In addition, problems and limitations of the study are also discussed.

PAGE 79

7Q Question 1 Hypothesis: There are no differences in the amount of time spent or time on-task in the five instructional arrangements within each group. LP: Time Spent An analysis of variance repeated measures design was done to determine if significant differences existed among the mean scores of percentage of time spent in the various arrangements by LD students. Results indicated that a significant difference occurred among the means (£ (4,40) = 5.28). Follow-up procedures using tstati sties were used to compare mean differences in percentage of time spent in the instructional arrangements. Results, as depicted in Table 8, suggest that LD students spent significantly more time in: small group than peer teaching, large group than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching. LD students, on the other hand, spent significantly less time in peer teaching than independent seatwork. LD: Time On-Task To determine if significant differences occurred among the mean on-task scores obtained by LD students in the five instructional arrangements, the analysis of variance repeated measures design statistic was used. Results indicate a significant difference exists among the means (£(4,40) = 10.52).

PAGE 80

71 Table 8 Mean Differences Within Pairs of Groups On the Amount of Time and Time On-Task Spent by LD Students in the Five Instructional Arrangements Pairs of Groups Percentage of Time Mean Difference Time On-Task Mean Difference 1. Large group vs. small group 1.65 8.47 2. Large group vs. one-to-one .19 -32.75* 3. Large group vs. peer teaching 13.65* 44.78* 4. Large group vs. seatwork independent 7.90 6.5 5. Small group vs. one-to-one 1.84 -41.22* 6. Small group vs. peer teaching 15.30* 36.31* 7. Small group vs. seatwork independent 6.25 V V , 14.97 8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 13.46* 77.53* 9. One-to-one vs. seatwork independent 8.14 26.25 10. Peer teaching vs. independent seatwork -21.55* -51.28* *Denotes significant differences at the .05 level.

PAGE 81

72 Follow-up procedures using t-stati sties were used to compare differences in percentage of ontask time spent by LD students within the groups. As shown in Table 8, LD students spent significantly less time on-task in large group than one-to-one. LD students spent significantly more time on-task in large group than peer teaching, small group than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching. LD students spent significantly less time in small group than one-to-one and peer teaching than independent seatwork. EH: Percentage of Time Spent To determine if significant differences existed among the mean scores of percentage of time spent by EH students within the five instructional arrangements, an analysis of variance repeated measures design was used. Results indicated that significant differences exist among the means (£ (4,40) = 17.33). Follow-up procedures using t-stati sties were used to compare differences in the mean score of percentage of time spent in the instructional arrangements by EH students. As indicated in Table 9, EH students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than in other arrangements. EH students spend significantly more time in one-toone than peer teaching. EH: On Task To determine if significant differences occurred among the means on the percentage of on-task behaviors exhibited by EH students in the five instructional arrangements, the analysis of variance repeated measures statistic was used. Results indicated that

PAGE 82

73 Table 9 Mean Differences Within Pairs on the Amount of Time and Time On-Task that EH Students Spend in the Five Instructional Arrangements Pairs of Groups Percentage of Time Mean Difference Time On-Task Mean Difference 1. Large group vs. small group 4.81 13.97 2. Large group vs. one-to-one 6.64 -58.34* 3. Large group vs. peer teaching 5.14 9.86 4. Large group vs. independent seatwork -33.18* -46.34* 5. Small group vs. one-to-one -16.17* -72.31* 6. Small group vs. peer teaching .33 -4.11 7. Small group vs. independent seatwork -37.99* -60.31* 8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 16.50* 68.20* 9. One-to-one vs. independent seatwork -21.82* 12.00 10. Peer teaching vs. independent seatwork -38.32* -56.21* *Denotes significant differences at .05 level.

PAGE 83

74 a significant difference existed among the means {£ (4,40) = 12.25). Follow-up procedures using t-stati sties were used to compare differences in percentages of on-task time spent by EH students within the groups. As shown in Table 9, EH students spent significantly more time on-task in one-to-one than large group, independent seatwork than large group, one-to-one than small group, independent seatwork than small group, independent seatwork than peer teaching, and one-to-one than peer teaching. Regular: Time Spent To determine if a significant difference occurred within the means of the regular education students, an analysis of variance repeated measures design procedure was used. Results indicated that differences occurred among the means (£ (4,64) = 14.89). To determine which of the means within the groups differed significantly follow-up t-statistics were used. Results indicated that regular education students spend significantly more time in large group than in small group, one-to-one, and peer teaching. In addition, regular education students spent significantly more time in small group than in one-to-one or peer teaching. Finally, regular education students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than they do in one-to-one or peer teaching. Regular: Time On-Task To determine if significant differences existed among the ontask mean scores of regular education students in the five instructional arrangements, an analysis of variance repeated measures

PAGE 84

75 Table 10 Mean Differences Within Pairs of Groups on the Amount of Time and Time On-Task That Regular Education Students Spend in the Five Instructional Arrangements Percentage of Time Time On-Task Pairs of Groups Mean Difference Mean Difference 1. Large group vs. small group 9.93* 5.13 2. Large group vs. one-to-one 26.04* 34. 52* 3. Large group vs. peer teaching 27.53* 43.81* 4. Large group vs. seatwork independent 7.99 -1.65 5. Small group vs. one-to-one 16.12* 29.39* 6. Small group vs. peer teaching 17.60* 38.68* 7. Small group vs. seatwork independent -1.94 -6.78 8. One-to-one vs. peer teaching 1.48 9.29 9. One-to-one vs. seatwork independent -18.06* -36.17* 10. Peer teaching vs. independent seatwork -19.54* -45.46* *Denotes significant differences at .05 level.

PAGE 85

76 XI ro ^5 CO co O o o o • o • o • O * * * * * * " * OJ QJ • "f— • T— ^ 'r— OO CO CO CO r— CO O CO Cy ) o C C 3 O O ••— 1 f ^XI I' J r*^ CM CO CO ^ CD C?) ' V f iSI r — . CT> LO Ot CO CO C — ; -E +-> CD CM •M (/I r— CO CM c C •— ' •rcu 1/1 > O Li. c iO 4-> •4— C CM i^D C\J CO C\J CO CO CO CM 'r— 'r— CO CO CO CO o "a C CJ •| — Q_ OO •4-5 C/) 4-> O C *r— I/) d. 4-> £ CD C GJ I/) t/) d) 3 fO O I/) Cl (/) Q_ c/1 OCO 3 Q3 CL 3 0_ 3 O. 3 OOJ O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 (J i. O io %o O i~ O h— O t5 SO SCD SCD St£3 S— 1 3 O CD o £= c C ^ ~o oo cu £Z GJ d CD C OJ d o c rd C -l-> +-> +-> +J 4-5 +J +-> 3 " O) •!CU -iCU -1a> -rui rc UJ CO Is OQ S CQ 3 cn 2 o *0 fO •r~ r~~ %3 fC CT) > OJ c GJ M— E O -4— ^ cu {Z i•r+J o (/) s >^ QJ +-> r— Er
PAGE 86

77 design was used. Results indicated that significant differences existed in the mean scores (F (4,64) = 7.24). Follow-up procedures using t-statistics indicated that regular education students spent significantly more time on-task in large group than in one-to-one and peer teaching, and in small group than in oneto-one and peer teaching. As illustrated in Table 10, regular education students spent significantly less time on-task in oneto-one than independent seatwork and less time on-task in peer teaching than in independent seatwork. Question 2 Hypothesis: There are no differences among the three groups in the amount of time or time on-task spent in the five instructional arrangements. Large Group: Time Spent Results of an analysis of variance procedure to determine if there was a difference in the amount of time that LD, EH, and regular education students spent in the five instructional arrangements are found in Table 11. Analysis of results indicated significant differences occurred among the groups in large group, small group, one-to-one and independent seatwork. To test the significant interaction effect, Tukey's HSD posteriori multiple comparison test was applied to determine pairwise comparisons among means. Represented in Table 12 are pairwise comparisons depicting percentages of time spent in instructional arrangements among the groups. An

PAGE 87

78 Table 12 Pairwise Comparisons Depicting Percentages of Time Spent in Instructional Arrangements Among the Groups Groups Means Large Groups Regular vs. EH* 29, .50 vs. 7, .84 Regular vs. LD* . 50 vs. 1 5 , . 93 EH vs. LD 7, .84 vs. 15, .93 Small Groups Regular vs. EH* 19. .58 vs. 3, .03 Regular vs. LD 19, .58 vs. 17. ,58 EH vs. LD* 3, ,03 vs. 17. .58 One-to-One Regular vs. EH* 3, .45 vs. 19, .20 Regular vs. LD* 3. .45 vs. 15. ,74 EH vs. LD 19, .20 vs. 15, .74 Peer Teaching Regular vs. EH 1. .97 vs. 2. ,70 Regular vs. LD 1. ,97 vs. 2. ,28 EH vs. LD 2. ,70 vs. 2. ,28 Independent Seatwork Regular vs. EH* 21.51 vs. 41.01 Regular vs. LD 21.51 vs. 28.83 EH vs. LD* 41.02 vs. 28.83 *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level.

PAGE 88

79 examination of these results indicates that eight pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical HSD values and are significant at the .05 level. Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that the mean of the EH group was found to be significantly different from the mean of the regular education group; the mean of the LD group was found to be significantly different from the mean of the regular education group. Large Group: On-Task To determine if significant differences occurred among the mean on-task scores obtained, an analysis of variance procedure was used. Results of the analysis of variance summary table depicting differences in the amount of on-task behaviors exhibited by regular, LD, and EH students in the five instructional arrangements are found in Table 13. Results indicate that significant differences in the mean scores occurred among the groups in large group, small group, and one-to-one instructional arrangements. To determine where the significant differences among the mean scores occurred in the three groups, Tukey's HSD procedure was used. As indicated in Table 14, six pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical HSD values and are significant at the .05 level. Results indicate that the mean on-task score obtained by the EH group (x = 28.03) differed significantly from the mean on-task score received by the regular education students (x = 61.05) and the LD students (x = 61.35). Thus, the EH group spent significantly less time on-task than either of the other groups in the large group arrangement.

PAGE 89

80 CM o LO r ' o o CO o o o CT^ «/> * • * * +-> c: * * 0} u) £ O o O CJ CJ c C CD sz o o o CJ u n3 Li(/) SrtJ SCTl -rLD LO *rCO "r— 1 — 1 — C ^ c r— C O ^ O CJ> C 1 — • CO *i — • *r~" o fo LO CO LO OO 1 — CO O CO 1 CO M— O O 4-> 4-' CJ C 3 3 iO +-> E (/I Lf) O O CO o r— CTl CO CTi CO CM CI^ LO CO 1 1 I/) in 00 f — r~. Ln cn CM 1 — CO o c • • • • • • •r— O Lf> CO O CM CO LO > CO ^ O CM LO LO (/) '1— CO CO LO 1 — CO o ^ CM O) -rOl •<3 r— S x: 2 -c •1-> +-> +-> +-> +-> 4J +-> +-> +-> +-> OJ • c fO o OD > CD 4— "r— D1 O -Q c i•r~ 1X3 o (/) .XZ 2 •r~ X +-> (/) Lul 03 >, o O CJ OJ +J SSo o u CD 1 Te c o OJ CO S
PAGE 90

81 Table 14 Pairwise Comparisons Depicting Percentages of Time On-Task in the Five Instructional Arrangements Among the Groups Groups Means Large Group Regular vs. EH* 69.06 vs. 28.03 Regular vs. LD 61.06 vs . 61.35 tn VS. LU vs . CI D 1 . ob Small Group Regular vs. EH* 55.93 vs. 14.07 Regular vs. LD 55.93 vs. 52.88 EH vs. LD* 1 4. U/ vs . CO oo b^: .oo Oneto-One Regular vs. EH* 26.54 vs. 86.37 Regular vs. LD* 26.54 vs . 94.10 EH vs. LD 86.37 vs. 94.10 Peer Teaching Regular vs. EH 17.25 vs. 18.18 Regular vs. LD 17.25 vs. 16.57 EH vs. LD 18.18 vs. 16.57 Independent Seatwork Regular vs. EH 62.71 vs. 74.38 Regular vs. LD 62.71 vs. 67.85 EH vs. LD 74.38 vs. 67.85 *Denotes pairs of groups significantly different at the .05 level

PAGE 91

82 Small Group: Time Spent As represented in Table 11, the analysis of variance procedure indicated a significant difference in the amount of time spent in small group instruction by the three groups. The follow-up Tukey HSD procedure as illustrated in Table 12 indicated that in small group instruction, the mean of the EH group was significantly different from the mean of the LD group; the mean of the EH group was significantly different from the mean of the regular education students. Thus, in small group instruction, the percentage of time spent by EH students was significantly less than the time spent by LD and regular education students. Furthermore, the percentage of time spent by LD and normal students was equivocal. Small Group: Time On-Task The analysis of variance summary table dipicted by TablelS indicates that there was a significant difference among the groups in the percentage of time on-task. As shown in Table 14, Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. Results obtained from the Tukey HSD procedure on percentage of time on-task in small group instruction revealed that the mean score obtained by the EH group (x" = 14.07) differed significantly from the mean score of LD students (x = 52.87) and the mean score of the regular education students (x" = 55.93). In small group instruction, EH students spent significantly less time on-task than regular education and LD students.

PAGE 92

83 One-to-One: Time Spent As shown in Table 11, the analysis of variance procedure indicated significant differences among the mean scores of the three groups in one-to-one instruction. Results of the Tukey HSD procedure indicated that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 12, in one-to-one instruction, the mean of the regular education students (x = 3.45) was significantly different from the mean of the learning disabled students (x = 15.74). In one-to-one instruction, the mean of the regular education group (x = 3.45) was significantly different from the mean of the EH group (x = 19.20). Regular education students spent significantly less time in one-to-one than LD students; regular education students spent significantly less time in one-to-one than EH students. One-to-One: Time On-Task As depicted by the Analysis of Variance Summary Table (Table 13), significant differences were found among the means on the percent of on-task time spent in one-to-one instruction. To determine where the significant differences occurred among the means of the three groups, Tukey's HSD procedure was used. Results indicated that the mean on-task score obtained by the regular education group was significantly less than the mean on-task score obtained by LD and EH students. Thus, regular education students spent significantly less time on-task in one-to-one than both EH and LD students.

PAGE 93

84 Peer Teaching: Time Spent As depicted in Table 11, no statistical significance was found among the means of the groups in peer teaching. In peer teaching, EH students spent a mean percentage total time of 2.70. LD and regular students spent mean percentage times of 2.28 percent and 1.97 percent in peer teaching. Peer Teaching: Time On-Task In peer teaching, the percentages of time on-task by the three groups were similar. LD students spent a mean percentage on-task time in peer teaching of 16.57. EH and regular education students obtained mean on-task scores of 18.18 percent and 17.25 percent in peer teaching instruction. As shown in Table 14, Tukey's HSD procedure indicated that no pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and were significant at the .05 level. Independent Seatwork: Time Spent The analysis of variance summary table shown in Table 11 indicates that there was a significant difference among the mean scores in the amount of time spent in independent seatwork by EH, LD, and normal students. Follow-up procedures using the Tukey HSD statistic indicate that two pairwise comparisons exceeded the critical value and are significant at the .05 level. As indicated in Table 13, results indicate that the mean time spent in independent seatwork by EH students was significantly more than the mean time spent by LD and normal students.

PAGE 94

85 Independent Seatwork: Time On-Task In independent seatwork, regular education students and LD students obtained comparable mean on-task scores in independent seatwork (x = 62.71; x = 67.85, respectively). EH students were on-task a slightly higher percentage of time in independent seatwork (x = 74.38). As shown in Table 14, no significant pairwise comparisons were indicated at the .05 level. Problems and Limitations of the Study The major limitations of this investigation are apparent when attempting to attribute a causal direction to the obtained results. Because no experimental manipulation was attempted, this study represents primarily descriptive data about exceptional and regular students. The five elementary schools were initially selected. From these schools, the samples of exceptional and regular children were chosen. Clearance to do research was initially approved by the Board of Education of Alachua County. The researcher was then given permission to have the schools participate in the study. Even though clearance to do research was approved in selected schools, the researcher then contacted principals and special education teachers to set up appointments to discuss the research proposal. In several instances, while principals were receptive, they failed to pass on their enthusiasm to their teachers. As a result, some classroom teachers were not prepared to receive the researcher.

PAGE 95

86 In at least one instance, the observers politely left because the students being observed were becoming very aware of the audience, thus leading to complete disruptive behavior in the classroom. Subtle differences in teacher behavior were not examined. Teacher management strategies may have affected the on-task and off-task involvement of both exceptional and regular education students in their classroom. The child's physical location in the classroom may also have affected the behavioral responses of others and the child under investigation. Summary Based on daily observations of fourth grade learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular education students in various instructional arrangements, the daily classroom activities can be divided into three major parts: (1) academic activities (reading, mathematics, science, and/or social studies); (2) "non-academic" activities (music, art, storytime, sharing); (3) noninstructional activities (transitions, waiting between activities, class business, etc.). Similar findings were reported by Denham and Lieberman in the Far West Lab's report of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (Denham & Lieberman, 1980). It is interesting to note that the heavy amount of time in the instructional arrangement, independent seatwork, occurred because teachers frequently divide a class into

PAGE 96

87 three or more groups and if there are three groups in a class, a student can only spend on-third of the allocated time in a teacherled setting. Other studies (Stal lings & Kaskowitz, 1975; Soar, 1973) have also found that students are more engaged when they are instructed or supervised by a teacher than when they are working alone. Further the Stall ings and Soar studies have found that teacher time spent working with groups of students is positively and consistently negatively related to student gains in achievement. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1975) and Soar (1973) purport the negative may occur because when a teacher is working with only one or two students, the remaining students usually must work independently. The data regarding the use of instructional arrangements within the groups yielded some significant findings. LD students spent nearly one-fourth of the instructional day in independent seatwork instructional arrangement. LD students are on-task the highest percentage of time in the instructional arrangement one-to-one. EH students spent nearly half of the instructional academic day in independent seatwork. Results also indicated that EH students obtained the highest percentage of time on-task working independently or working one-to-one with the teacher and/or designated adult. Normal students, on the other hand, spent the highest percentage of total instructional time in large group, independent seatwork, and small group. Regular education students, as a whole, spent the least amount of instructional time in the instructional arrangements one-to-one and peer teaching. Regular education students spent a

PAGE 97

88 comparable amount of time on-task in the instructional arrangements large group and independent seatwork. Regular education students spent the least amount of time on-task in one-to-one and peer teaching. The data regarding the use of the five instructional arrangements among the three groups yielded some significant findings. In large group instruction, both regular education students and LD students were in large group significantly more than EH students, furthermore, regular education students and LD students spent comparable amounts of time and both groups spent significantly more time in small group than EH students. EH and LD students both spent significantly more time in one-to-one than regular students but did not differ from each other. In peer teaching, the three groups did not significantly differ on the time spent. EH students, however, spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than either of the other two groups. Moreover, LD and regular students spent equivocal times in independent seatwork. In reference to the amount of on-task time spent in the five instructional arrangements among the three groups, results indicate significant findings. Regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of time on-task in large group instruction than EH students. Similarly, in small group instruction, regular education and LD students spent a significantly higher amount of on-task time than EH students. In one-to-one, LD and EH students spent a significantly larger amount of time on-task than regular education students. In peer teaching and independent seatwork, the

PAGE 98

89 three groups did not significantly differ on the amount of on-task time spent. The results reveal that instructional arrangements are differently used across the three groups and on-task behavior varies across the arrangements. Thus, for teachers to maximize their effectiveness, it is imperative for teachers to consider how they organize instruction across the five instructional arrangements. Some noninstructional activities appear inevitable. Most classroom teachers observed were fairly similar in the amount of noninstructional activities such as transitions before and after breaks, "housekeeping tasks," and waiting between activities. Even during time allocated for reading and math, interim activities (turning in and passing out papers, getting books, and waiting for help) occupied up to 20 percent in all classrooms. All these activities may be necessary because of large classrooms and varied students.

PAGE 99

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS This chapter presents a summary of the findings of this investigation. Moreover, the findings are discussed in terms of implications and selected issues. The use of various instructional arrangements by regular educators has been the subject of much research in the education literature. Much of the interest has centered around the use of large and samll group instruction to improve academic achievement with regular education students. However, the use of various instructional arrangements with LD and EH students has been afforded minimal documentation in the special education literature. Recent literature suggests that large group, small group, oneto-one, peer teaching and independent seatwork instructional arrangements have been used with various types of students. A close examination of the literature, however, reveals limited information on the percentage of instructional time that students spent in the instructional arrangements or amount on-task behavior that occurs in the respective arrangements. The present study focused on analyzing the use of large group, small group, one-to-one, peer teaching, and independent seatwork 90

PAGE 100

91 instructional arrangements with learning disabled, emotionally handicapped, and regular education children. Additional information was obtained by quantifying actual on-task behaviors displayed by children labelled as EH, LD, and regular education children in the instructional arrangements. Question 1 The first hypothesis states that there are no differences in the amount of time spent or time on-task in the five instructional arrangements within each group. LD: Time Spent and Time On-Task The data concerning the amount of time spent and time on-task by LD students within the five instructional arrangements yield significant findings. Data concerning time spent within the five instructional arrangements by LD students suggest that LD students spend significantly more time in small group than peer teaching, large group than peer teaching, one-to-one than peer teaching, and independent seatwork than peer teaching. Data regarding the percentage of on-task behaviors exhibited by LD children within the five instructional arrangements indicate that LD students spent more time on-task in one-to-one than large group, large group than peer teaching, small group than peer teaching, one-to-one than small group, and independent seatwork than peer teaching.

PAGE 101

92 LP: Implications The data suggest that LD students spend nearly one-fourth of the instructional day working alone (independently). While working independently, LD students are on-task slightly more than half of the time. While LD students are engaged in one-to-one instruction slightly more than 15 percent of the given instructional day, LD students are on-task in one-to-one nearly 95 percent of the time. Implications include the following observations: (1) No large group instruction was observed by the researcher and observers in the resource classrooms. Therefore, the 15.93 percent of the time. spent in large group instruction by LD students was spent in the regular classroom. Further research with LD students in large group instruction in the resource room is implicated. (2) In the instructional arrangement, one-to-one, LD students spent significantly more time on-task than any other instructional arrangements. This appears to indicate that the use of volunteers and/or tutors to facilitate decreased pupil -teacher ratio might be effective. This seems to bear out the findings of Porwall (in Cahen & Filby, 1979) who concluded that reduction in class size and pupil teacher ratio enables an increase in the individualization of instruction. (3) Both classroom and special educators must make a concerted effort to train students to work independently in the regular classroom. As was observed by the principal researcher and assistants, the most predominant instructional arrangements used in the resource

PAGE 102

93 rooms were small group instruction, one-to-one, and independent seatwork. In the regular classroom, LD students were engaged in independent seatwork significantly more than any of the other arrangements. Glazzard (1981) purports that if a student receives individualized, one-to-one tutoring for remedial purposes in a special setting, then that student must be carefully phased back into a group situation by being taught to work independently among others or that student is destined to fail within the larger group settings (Glazzard, 1981). EH: Time Spent and Time On-Task The data regarding the amount of time and time on-task spent by EH students within the five instructional arrangements yield significant findings. EH students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than in any other instructional arrangement. The data also indicate that EH children are predominantly taught in arrangements that do not involve peers. In relationship to time on-task, EH students spent significantly more time on-task in independent seatwork and one-to-one than in any of the other instructional arrangements. Implications may include: (1) Use academic games, particularly those using gameboards (Regional Support and Technical Assistance Centers Coordinating Office, 1976) for promoting interactions between emotionally handicapped and their peers. To be effective, Sal end (1981) suggests that the games should emphasize cooperation rather than competition.

PAGE 103

94 (2) Use volunteers to provide supervision of instruction in one-to-one situations (Lehr & Meyen, 1980). Volunteers may be trained to employ techniques related to intense instruction; for example, feedback to students, maintaining on-task behavior, and individualizing instruction. Regular Education: Time Spent and Time On-Task The data regarding the percentage and time on-task spent by regular education students in the five instructional arrangements yield significant findings. The data regarding time spent by regular education students within the five instructional arrangements suggest that regular education students spent significantly more time in large group than in small group, one-to-one, and peer teaching. In addition, they spend significantly more time in small group than in one-to-one or peer teaching. Finally, regular education students spent significantly more time, in independent seatwork than they do in one-to-one or peer teaching. Data regarding the time on-task spent by regular education students within the five instructional arrangements indicate that regular education students spent significantly more time on-task in large group than in one-to-one and peer teaching, and significantly more time on-task in small group than one-to-one and peer teaching.

PAGE 104

95 Impi i cations The data appear to suggest that regular students are engaged in a variety of instructional arrangements. They are on-task a high percentage of time in large group, small group, and independent seatwork. The instructional arrangements, peer teaching and oneto-one, were the least used of the arrangements and regular education students were on-task the lowest percentage of time in these arrangements. The data appear to suggest that these students can work effectively in large group, small group, and independent settings. Question 2 / ' ? The second hypothesis states that there are no differences among the three groups in the amount of time or time on-task spent in selected instructional arrangements. Large Group: Time Spent and Time On-Task Results indicate that regular education students spent significantly more time in large group instruction than EH and LD students. Regular education students were engaged in large group instruction three times more than emotionally handicapped students and nearly twice as much as learning disabled students. Emotionally handicapped students, on the other hand, were engaged the least amount of time in large group instruction. Thus, both regular education students and LD students were in large group significantly more than EH students, furthermore, regular education

PAGE 105

96 students were in large group significantly more than LD students. In large group instruction, LD and regular education students spent significantly more time ontask than EH students. Moreover, regular education and LD students spent equivocal on-task times in large group instruction. Implication The data concerning the time and time on-task spent in large group instruction by the three groups suggest several implications. While EH students spend significantly less time in large group instruction than the other two groups, they are also prone to be ontask less time than the other two groups. The findings also suggest that in mainstreamed classes, teachers must assume the responsibility of training students to work in groups as well as independently and in one-to-one. Training students to work in groups, however, does not mean that the individualization of instruction cannot take place. Teachers may work on each learner's objectives when the learner is in a variety of settings from one-to-one, to small group, or independent seatwork. Cast & Gast (1981) add that "considering the mainstreamed child, such diverse instructional environments are not only practical to the teacher, but advantageous to the learner, for they enhance skill generalizations across conditions" (p. 5).

PAGE 106

97 Small Group: Time Spent and Time Qn-Task The data regarding the percentage of time and time on-task spent in small group instruction yielded significant findings. In small group instruction, the percentage of time spent by EH students was significantly less than the time spent by regular and LD students. Furthermore, the percentage of time spent by LD and normal students was equivocal. In relationship to the amount of time on-task spent by the three groups in small group instruction, EH students spent sifnificantly less time on-task than regular education and LD students. Impl i cation The data regarding the time and time on-task spent by the three groups in small group instruction appear to suggest that EH students spend a significantly higher percentage of time off-task than the other two groups. Further findings suggest that EH students are likely to be in small group instruction far less than regular and LD students. Furthermore, while in small group instruction, LD and regular education students are likely to be ontask over half of the time. While it appears that EH students exhibit very minimal on-task involvement in small group, both classroom and regular teachers appear to have another option in the teaching of LD students-the small group.

PAGE 107

98 One-to-One: Time Spent and Time On-Task Data regarding the amount of time and time on-task spent in one-to-one instruction among the three groups yielded significant findings. Regular education students spent significantly less time in one-to-one than both EH and LD students. While in oneto-one, LD and EH students were likely to be on-task a significantly higher percentage of the time than regular education students. Impl i cations The data regarding the amount of time and time on-task spent in one-to-one instruction suggest several implications. While regular education students are less likely to receive instruction in one-to-one than the other two groups, regular education students are also less likely to be on-task. Moreover, LD and EH students are on-task in one-to-one over 75 percent of the time. This may suggest to the classroom teacher options in working and planning management strategies with LD and EH students, such as volunteer assistance and structured intra-class tutoring. Peer Teaching: Time Spent and Time On-Task No statistical significance was found among the means of the groups in the amount of time spent in peer teaching. In peer teaching, EH students spent a mean percentage total time of 2.70. LD and regular students spent mean percentage times of 2.28 percent and 1.97 percent, respectively. In relation to the percentage of time on-task spent by the three groups, all received similar means. LD students spent a mean percentage on-task time slightly lower

PAGE 108

99 (16.57) than the mean on-task received by both EH (18.18) and regular (17.25) students. No statistical significance was found among the groups in pairwise comparison procedures. Imp! i cations The data seem to suggest that the use of peer teaching is not used very much in the classrooms observed. Although students were used in a few classrooms to tutor other students, systematic and structured attempts to use students were rare. However, at one school observed, the school was fortunate enough to have the interactions of "Big Brothers" and "Big Sisters" from local service fraternities and sororities who gave of their time to interact with selected exceptional children and help with their special needs. This arrangement allowed the teacher more free time to work with other students in smaller instructional settings. Still another activity that involves peers is the use of academic games. As indicated by Ehly and Larsen (1981), students of divergent interests who participate in games learn the principles of cooperativeness, structure, and competition while yet learning from each other. Independent Seatwork: Time Spent and Time On-Task The data regarding the time and time on-task spent in independent seatwork among the three groups indicated that EH students spent significantly more time in independent seatwork than both LD and normal students. In relationship to the amount of on-task behaviors

PAGE 109

100 exhibited among the three groups in independent seatwork, all three groups obtained comparable means. Means recorded by LD, EH, and regular education students in the amount of on-task behaviors exhibited in independent seatwork were 67.85, 74.38, and 62.71 percent respectively. Impl i cations The implications found in these data may also possibly be generalized to other instructional arrangements as well. The implications here appear to address the issue of "organization" of instruction. It implies that it may be easier to control the ontask behaviors of fourth graders when they are engaged independently. It also suggests that instructional materials for fourth graders may not be sufficiently self-instructional, so that a teacher who uses independent seatwork must provide additional components of instruction, such as corrective feedback. In addition, the use of instructional games (self-correcting materials) as alternatives in seatwork is warranted. Selected Considerations and Suggestions for Future Research The present study indicated that teachers use a variety of instructional arrangements in their classrooms. There are variations in the time spent and time on-task in various instructional arrangements. Differences within and among groups exist for EH, LD, and regular education students in the arrangements. Following are suggestions for future research.

PAGE 110

101 Use of Volunteers for Special Education With regular and special teachers being given increased responsibility for providing individualized programs to meet the needs of exceptional children in the classroom, alternatives to current methods must be found. As demonstrated in one school observed, both parents and college students were effectively used as volunteers in the special classroom. In a study done on parental assistance. Hedges (1972) found that "with volunteer help, elementary school teachers transfer about 21 percent of their time from lowest to highest level functions and that pupils are given over three times the normal amount of attention" (p. 334). Relationship Between Pupil Behavior and Pupil Learning Although the variable "learning" was not investigated in the present study, there has been some research to suggest that the greater a pupil's engagement with a learning activity the more he or she is likely to learn. Various researchers have indicated that certain internal states or habits will affect learning directly, e.g., how much the pupil expects to learn or to be able to learn, the pupil's attitude toward what is to be learned, and his or her general aptitude for learning and learning style. Additional research on all of the stated variables are needed. Relationship of On-Task Behaviors to Activities of the Teacher Various researchers suggest that differences in incidence of ontask behaviors are positively related to the instructional area, the instructional context and the teaching activities. Denham (1980)

PAGE 111

102 contends that one must expect to find different types of pupil behavior and differing frequencies of pupil behavior, depending on the grade level of the child, whether the child is involved in reading and/or math, whether the child is working independently, and what the activity of the teacher is. Use of Peer Tutors in Classrooms Although peer tutoring was used in some schools to a limited extent, none of the schools observed used peer tutoring to a significant degree. Questions about the utility of peer tutoring remain to be addressed. Does peer tutoring really work? If so, under what conditions. Is the best strategy to allow students in the same room tutor one another, or is it more efficient to let fifth and sixth grade students tutor younger students? Can all students be tutors? The number of adequate studies related to these questions does not justify firm conclusions at present; however, most of the data that do exist suggest that peer tutoring has some positive learning influence on both tutor and tutee and, at the same time, frees the teacher to work with students who need special help (Good & Brophy, 1978). .... . Validity of Coding Decisions : The validity of some coding decisions regarding on/off-task behavior is almost always open to question. Is the pupil who looks at the teacher really listening? Is the pupil who looks out the window really inattentive? Pupils' on-task behaviors (involvement) appears easier to classify during periods of assigned seatwork than

PAGE 112

103 during periods when the teacher is engaged in large group instruction. In this research, validity problems are real and need to be acknowledged. Still, the reliability of the observers was excellent. When the observers were unsure of a coding decision, they recorded the decision with a written explanation of how the coding decision was made. Furthermore, when interrater reliability between the principal researcher and each observer was done, the researcher and the observer were in close agreement. Summary The data suggest that regular and special educators use a variety of instructional arrangements. Moreover, the data reveal that certain types of instructional arrangements may be unique to specific children. For example, while all five instructional arrangements are used with EH students, the most predominant form used is independent seatwork. This may suggest that EH students work better alone or are on-task more in independent seatwork activities. Another factor which appears to effect the type of instructional arrangement used is the subject area. For example, the subject of math lends itself to independent seatwork and drill work, whereas it may be more difficult to plan spelling independent seatwork activities. In relationship to the on-task involvements of the three groups in the five instructional arrangements results indicate

PAGE 113

104 that all three groups were offtask a relatively high percentage of time in many of the instructional arrangements. It is a challenge for educators to examine such variables as (1) expectancy, (2) stimulus factors, (3) response factors, and (4) consequence factors, when planning instruction for children. The essence of this research is that the teacher must continuously match the learner, the task, and the instructional arrangement for optimal student progress. Teachers need to judiciously apply these according to individual needs and topics.

PAGE 114

APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF EMOTIONALLY HANDICAPPED STUDENT According to the Alachua County Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students (1980-81), an emotionally handicapped student is one, who after receiving supportive educational assistance and counseling services available to all students, still exhibits a persistent and consistent severe enotional handicap which consequently disrupts the student's own learning process. This is the student whose inability to achieve adequate academic progress or satisfactory interpersonal relationships cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits (p. 72). Criteria for Eligibility 1. Evidence that the student has received supportive educational assistance counseling. 2. Evidence that the student exhibits a persistent and consistent severe emotional handicap as determined by documented observationsand psychological evaluation. 3. Evidence that the behavior disrupts the student's ability to achieve adequate academic progress or develop satisfactory interpersonal relationships. 105

PAGE 115

106 4. Evidence that the primary problem of the student cannot be attributed primarily to physical, sensory, or intellectual deficits. Procedures for Student Evaluation In addition to General Procedures for Determining Eligibility, the following requirements must be met. 1. Prior to the evaluation for determining eligibility, the following data shall be collected: a. Documented and dated evidence that conferences concerning the student's specific problem have been conducted. These conferences shall include, but not be limited to, the parents or guardian, administrative personnel, teaching personnel and student services personnel; and documented evidence that a social or developmental history has been compiled directly from the parents or guardian. b. Documented and dated anecdotal records or behavioral observations made by more than one person, excluding the referring teacher, which cite the specific behaviors causing the referral. c. Documented evidence of at least two interventions, one of which must be counseling. These interventions shall include, but not be limited to, change in the student's curriculum, change in techniques of instruction, interventions provided by Student Services personnel, community agency intervention, or Health and Rehabilitative Services agency intervention.

PAGE 116

107 d. A physical evaluation is required by the Director of Exceptional Student Education, or the designee, for all students where a physical problem is suspected as precipitating the behavior problem. A neurological examination shall be required if deemed necessary by a psychologist or a physician. For students entering from a public agency that deals with emotionally handicapped, or in a program organization as described on page 74, section 8E, on the Procedures, these requirements may be waived. 2. Reevaluation includes: a. Revision of individualized educational program periodically, but not less than annually. b. A minimum of a formal social-emotional evaluation of the student is conducted at least every three years or whenever conditions warrant, including at the request of the student's parents, guardian, or teachers.

PAGE 117

CO o C o O o a: CO CO <: 1. o > (0 OI CQ t/5 (0 -o hi/l +J M(U C <+-fJ 1— •r1— Tn i u O 4J 03 C fO O) O) •IS^ c OJ E o O) c »0 sIT3 c o o s4-> to c 0) •o o C_) (U E •r— CL Ho Sc CD o dJ +-) CD (O i. S(O 3 _J Q to so •r> ^ '— ^ O) CO to re T3 t— 4C 4
PAGE 118

So •I— > la sz ^ J= '-^ QJ Ji^ Cd jQ O 1 o il/l to IT3 (U o o o (1) o I o -l-> I OJ c o o +-> s. 13 Q O O (U o 3 O) o •r— +-> rO SZi Q

PAGE 119

I/) so > CO i/i -o I— (V -(-> (U o •rsc o o 10 c o > s. in o o o s. vt m la o o ? re (/) 4J C i:3 s: Q c Q. 1 s 1 \ ^— ' n 1 OJ ^ 1 to Sc= > > (0 o S4c C 4-) to c to o ro 10 (O Ol •r-o ro 4-> +-> +-> t-> -a U 'r— to ^c 3 o C o •f— u c o o o o dJ CO i. o * * to s +J o c: (U cn -t-> E "3 o; to cn -p 03 ro c +-> lO c: O) (O
PAGE 120

APPENDIX C OUTLINE OF OBSERVATION CATEGORIES The following is a list of the observation categories with very brief descriptions of each. LA = Language Arts. M = Math. W = Wait. Wait refers to periods of no activity and no movement between activities. This would often occur when a student finishes his/her work early and no other activity is initiated. T = Transition. Transition refers to the periods of change from one activity to another. This might include lining up, taking seats, or quieting down between the next activity. M = Management. Management refers to the conduct of class business that is unrelated to any instructional activity. This includes such things as the collection or distribution of milk money and making arrangements for a field trip. B = Break. Break includes any recreational or free period, such as recess, unstructured PE, lunch, milk break, and leaving class to use the restroom. 0 Other academic instruction. Other academic instruction refers to academic instruction other than reading and math. This includes social studies and science (where there is no reading or math content). ni

PAGE 121

112 Instructional Arrangements Large Group teacher and/or designated adult figure with six or more students. Small Group teacher and/or designated adult figure with five or less students, One-to-One didactic instruction occurring with one child and teacher and/or designated adult figure with child. Peer Tutoring peer teaching on a one-to-one basis. Materials with the child (Independent Seatwork) child working on assigned task (i.e., worksheet) independently without the teacher's assistance.

PAGE 122

APPENDIX D CLASSROOM OBSERVATION REACTION FORM If you wish to comment on today's observation of your classroom, please respond to these items and/or write any additional comments which would help us to improve the observation process. Circle the appropriate choice. A. The observation was conducted at a most convenient time. 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Mostly Partly False/ Mostly Completely False False Partly True True True Comments : The classroom situations observed were representative of the normal activities of my class. 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Mostly Partly False/ Mostly Completely False False Partly True True True Comments : C. The classroom observer did not district from the classroom activities nor the effectiveness of instructional activities. 1 2 3 4 5 Completely Mostly Partly False/ Mostly Completely False False Partly True True True Other comments concerning the observation: 113

PAGE 123

REFERENCES Adams, R. S., & Biddle, B. J. Realities of teaching . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1970. Adelman, H. S. Learning problems. Part 1: An interactional view of causality. Academic Therapy , 1970-71 , 6(2) , 117-123. Alachua County procedures for providing special education for exceptional students . Gainesville, FL: School Board of Alachua County, 1980-81. Allen, V. L. (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring . New York: Academic Press, 1976. Archer, A., & Edgar, E. Teaching academic skills to mildly handicapped children. In S. Lowenbraun & J. 0. Affleck (Eds.), Teaching mildly handicapped children in regular classes . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1976. Aronson, E., Stephen, C, Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. The jigsaw classroom . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978. Biberdorf, J., & Pear, J. J. Two-to-one versus one-to-one studentteacher ratios in the operant verbal training of retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis , 1977, JCI, 506, Bloom, B. S. Time and learning. American Psychologist , September 1974, 682-688. Buchanan, C. D. Teacher's guide to programmed reading (Book 1, Series One, Rev. ed.). Sullivan Associates Program. St. Louis: Webster Division, McGraw-Hill, 1968. California Achievement Tests . Complete Battery, Lower Primary (Grades 1 and 2), Form W. Monterey, CA: California Test Bureau, 1970. Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. Direct instruction reading . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1979. 114

PAGE 124

115 Carroll, J. B, A model of school learning. Teachers College Record , 1963, 64, 723-733. Cegelka, W. J. , & Tyler, J. L. The efficacy of special class placement for the mentally retarded in proper perspective. Training School Bulletin , 1970, 67, 33-68. Chaffin, J. D. Will the real "mainstreaming" program please stand upl (or . . . should Dunn have done it?) In E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Alternatives for teaching exceptional children . Denver: Love, 1975. Christoplos, F. Keeping exceptional children in regular classes. Exceptional Children , 1973, 39, 569-571. Cielesz, A. On-task behavior of educable mentally retarded, learning disabled, and regular classroom students within five different instructional arrangements . Unpublished manuscript. University of Florida, 1980. Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children , 1970, 37^(3), 229-237. DeVries, D. , & Slavin, R. Teams-Games-Tournaments: A final report on the research (Report No. 217, Center for Social Organization of Schools) . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1976. Dezelle, W. The credibility of programmed material as an instructional technique with MR pupils. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1971 , 6, 16-19. Dunn, L. M. (Ed.). Exceptional children in the schools (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1973. Eaton, M. D. , & Hansen, C. L. Classroom organization and management. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen, The fourth R: Research in the classroom . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill , 1978. Edmark reading program: Teacher's guide . Seattle: Edmark Associates, 1972. Ehly, S. W., & Larsen, S. C. Peer tutoring for individualized instruction . Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1980. Epstein, L. The effects of intra-class peer tutoring on the vocabulary development of LD children. Journa l of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11(8), 63. Ferinden, W. , VanHandel , D. , & Kovalinsky, T. A supplemental instructional program for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 1971, 4, 193-203.

PAGE 125

116 I Fink, W., & Carnine, D. U. Control of arithmetic errors using informational feedback and graphing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis . 1975, 8, 461. Fink, W. T., & Sandall, S. One-to-one vs. group academic instruction with handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. Mental Retardation , 1978, 16, 236-240. Fink, W. T., & Sandall, S. R. A comparison of 1-to-l and small group instructional strategies with developmentally disabled preschoolers. Mental Retardation , 1980, 35(18), 34-35. Florida Department of Education. A resource manual for the development and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students (VolT" II-E: Emotionally Handicapped). Tallahassee: Bureau of Educati on for Exceptional Students, 1977. Florida Department of Education. A resource manual for the development and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students (Vol. II-F: Specific Learning Disabilities). Tallahassee: Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students, June 1980. Fries, C. C, Wilson, R. , & Rudolph, M. K. Merrill linguistic reader . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1966. Gearheart, B. R. Special education for the 80' s . St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby, 1980. Glass, R., & Griffin, J. B. Affective education for the inservice elementary and special education teacher . Bloomington, IN: Center for Innovation in Teaching the Handicapped, 1973. Glavin, J. P. Follow-up behavioral research in resource rooms. Exceptional Children , 1974, 40, 211-213. Glavin, I., Quay, H., Annesley, I., & Werry, J. An experimental resource room for behavioral problem children. Exceptional Children , 1971, 38, 131-137. Good, T., & Brophy, J. Educational psychology: A realistic approach . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977. Good, T., & Brophy, J. Looking in classrooms . New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Hagen, J. W. , & Kail, R. V. The role of attention in perceptual and cognitive development. In W. A. Cruickshank & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Perceptual and learning disabilities in children (Vol. 2). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1975. Hallahan, D. P., ? Kauffman, J. M. Exceptional children: Introduction to special education . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

PAGE 126

117 Heward, W. L., & Olansky, M. D. Exceptional children: An introductory survey to special education . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1980. Jason, L. A., & Erasure, S. Increasing peer tutoring behaviors in a third grade classroom . Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, September, 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 182 632) Jenkins, J., Mayhall, W., Peschka, C, & Jenkins, L. Comparing small group and tutorial instruction in resource rooms. Exceptional Children , 1974, 40(4), 245-250. Keogh, B. K., & Margolis, J. Learn to labor and wait. Attentional problems of children with learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 1976, 9, 276-286. Kiesling, H. Productivity of instructional time by mode of instruction for students at varying levels of reading skill. Reading Research Quarterly , 1978, J3(4), 554-82. Lilly, M. S. Special education: A tempest in a teapot. Exceptional Children , 1970, 37, 43-49. Lipson, J. IPI math--an example of what's right and wrong with individualized modular programs. Learning , March 1974, 60-61. Lucker, G., Rosenfield, D. , Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. Performance in the interdependent classroom: A field study. American Educational Research Journal , 1976, 1_3, 115-123. Melaragno, R. J., & Mewmark, G. The tutorial community concept. J. W. Gathman & E. Vlynne (Eds.), New models for American education . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Melaraqno, R. J. Beyond decoding. Systematic schoolwide tutoring in reading. The Reading Teacher . 1974, 28, 157-160. Mercer, C. D. Children and adolescents with learning disabilities . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1979. Mercer, C. D. , & Mercer, A. R. Teaching students with learning problems . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1981. Mercer, C. D. , & Payne, J. S. Programs and services. In J. M. Kauffman & J. S. Payne (Eds.), Mental retardation: Introduction and personal perspectives . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1975. Meyen, E. Exceptional children and youth— An introduction . Denver: Love, 1978. Meyen, E., & Lehr, D. H. Least restrictive environment: Instructional implications. Focus on Exceptional Chi Idren, 1980, 12(7), 1-8.

PAGE 127

1^8 Oakland, T., & Williams, I. C. An evaluation of two methods of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools , 1973, ^2, 166-171. Ronshausen, N. L. The effect on mathematics achievement of programmed tutoring as a method of individualized, one-to-one instruction. Journal of Experimental Education , 1979, 47(4), 268-275. Rosenshine, B, The third cycle of research on teacher effects: Content covered, academic engaged time, and quality of instruction. In Seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the study of education . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, in press. Sabatino, D. An evaluation of resource rooms for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 1971, 4, 84-93. Sharan, S. Cooperative learning in small groups; recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research , 1980, 5(2), 241-271. Sharan, S., Lazarowtz, E., & Ackerman, Z, Academic achievement of elementary school children in small group vs whole-class instruction. Journal of Experimental Education , 1980, 4_(2), 27-30. Sherry, S. A. Behavioral characteristics of educable mentally retarded, emotionally handicapped, and learning disabled students (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1980 , 40^, 5005-A. (LViiversity Microfilms 8005498) Sindelar, P. T., & Deno, S. The effectiveness of resource programming. Journal of Special Education , 1978, 12(11), 18-28. Soar, R. Follow-through classroom process measurement and pupil growth . Final Report, College of Education, University of Florida, 1973. Stal lings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. Follow-through classroom observation evaluation, 1972-1973 . Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1974. Stephens, T. Teaching skills to children with learning and behavior disorders" Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill , 1977. Strauss, A., & Lehtinen, L. E. Psychopathology and education of the brain injured child . New York: Grune and Stratton, 1947. Surratt, P., Ulrich, R. E., & Hawkins, R. P. An elementary student as a behavioral engineer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 85-92. ^ Taylor, F. D. , Artuso, A., Soloway, M. , Hewett, F. , Quay, J., & Stillwell, R. A learning center plan for special education. Focus on Exceptional Children , 1972, 4(3), 1-8.

PAGE 128

1|9 Vandever, T. R. , Maggart, W. T. , & Nasser, S. Three approaches to beginning reading instruction for EMR children. Mental Retardation , 1976, 14, 29-32. Venezky, R. L. , & Shiloalv, Y. The learning of picture-sound associations by Israeli kindergartners (Technical Report No. 227). Madison, WI : Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, University of Wisconsin, June, 1972. Wallace, G. , & McLoughlin, J. Learning disabilities: Concepts and characteristics . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1975. Weiner, L. H. An investigation of the effectiveness of resource rooms for children with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 1969, 2^, 223-229. White, 0. R. , & Haring, N. G. Exceptional teaching: A multimedia training package . Columbus, OH: Charles E, Merrill, 1976. Wiederholt, J. L, , Hammill, D. D. , & Brown, V. The resource teacher : A guide to effective practices . Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978.

PAGE 129

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Martha Scott Lue was graduated from Howard Academy High School, Monti cello, Florida. Upon completion, she attended North Florida Junior College and Florida A & M University. Upon obtaining a B.S. in speech pathology at Florida A & M, she enrolled at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, obtaining a Master's in speech pathology. After having moved to Atlanta with her husband in 1970, she enrolled at Georgia State University in the special education Ed.S. program with a specialty in learning disabilities. It was in Atlanta that her son, Marvin, was born. In June, 1979, she enrolled in the doctoral program in special education administration at the University of Florida. Her goal aspirations are to become a writer, researcher, and an administrator. 120

PAGE 130

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 0 7n... Cecil D. Mercer, Chairperson Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Robert F. Algozzinel Associate Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. rasie Bingham Assistant Professor o Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Roderick McDavis Associate Professor of Counselor Education

PAGE 131

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Special Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Special Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June, 1981 Dean, Graduate School