Peer-Interaction Strategies: Fostering Positive Experiences for Students With Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Music Classes

Abstract

Too often, students with disabilities in regular classrooms have limited access to the regular curriculum, and for students with severe disabilities, interactions are often with paraprofessionals, not typical classmates. The present study is grounded in action research methods in that an elementary teacher and the authors worked together for the purpose of designing, implementing, and evaluating interaction guidelines between her students with severe disabilities and their typically developing classmates. Overall, instruction and implementation of peer-interaction activities for working together and helping each other were efficient and resulted in high rates of positive interactions. Although the students with disabilities needed different kinds of support, they were capable of participating in a wide-range of music activities and interacting with their typical classmates. Differences in frequencies and quality of interactions are attributed primarily to task complexity, individual needs, and partner assignments.

Keywords

general music inclusion peer interactions students with disabilities

The fundamental premise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is that children with disabilities learn best in classrooms with typically developing peers. The latest report from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and Office of Special Education Programs (2016) showed that 95% of all children with disabilities are educated in regular classrooms for at least a portion of time with 63% in regular classrooms for the majority of the school day. Children described as having severe disabilities receive a large portion of their education in separate classrooms. IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent possible, so where are the children with severe disabilities when they are not in separate classes? It is possible that many are in regular music classes, particularly elementary classes, given the results from large surveys of music teachers (Jellison, Hicken, & Duke, 2018; VanWeelden & Whipple, 2014).

The placements of students with severe disabilities are difficult to track since this term is not among the 13 used in IDEA to define a child with a disability. Although the term severe disabilities is used in special education vernacular, there is no agreed-upon definition. The term has been applied to children who spend most of their school day in separate classrooms, and definitions have focused on children’s functional capabilities (e.g., mobility, communication) or the degree to which environments contribute to the disabilities or accommodate children’s needs (TASH, 2017).

Historically, students with severe disabilities are at the greatest risk for placements in separate classes; they often remain in these placements throughout their school years (e.g., Kurth, Morningstar, & Kozleski, 2014). When students with severe disabilities are in regular classrooms, they have limited access to the regular curriculum and participation is often limited to interactions with paraprofessionals, not peers (Ryndak et al., 2014). Teachers have been encouraged to decrease reliance on paraprofessionals and increase peer interactions and support through peer-assisted learning activities in partners and small groups—strategies that are shown in the literature to benefit all students socially and academically (e.g., Bowman-Perrott, Burke, Zhang, & Zaini, 2014). Researchers reliably point to several components as essential for supporting learning and participation of all students: (a) access to the regular curriculum; (b) appropriate instructional strategies and groupings; (c) accomodations and modifications as needed; and (d) support from and interactions with typically developing peers (e.g., Morningstar, Shogren, Lee, & Born, 2015).

The topic of interactions among children with and without disabilities remains prominent in special education research and pedagogy, particularly with regard to children with severe disabilities (e.g., Carter, Sisco, Chung, & Stanton-Chapman, 2010). However, from systematic reviews we conducted of music research with children with disabilities, social behaviors are observed frequently and peer interactions rarely (Brown & Jellison, 2012; Jellison & Draper, 2014). Only two experimental music research studies measured interactions between students with disabilities and typically developing peers. Jellison, Brooks, and Huck (1984) found that positive interactions and attitudes of typically developing students toward their peers with severe disabilities increased as a result of their interactions in small group music activities, and Humpal (1991) showed that students without disabilities were chosen more frequently as partners following participation in partner music activities. In three descriptive studies (Colwell, 1995; Jellison, 2002; Gunsberg, 1988), different types of interactions between students with and without disabilities were observed but were secondary to the main purposes of the research.

Although peer interactions are studied rarely in music classrooms, based on substantive research in psychology and special education, positive peer interactions among children with and without disabilities should be considered essential in inclusive music education practices (Jellison, 2015). Positive interactions among students will not, however, occur naturally. The frequency and quality of interactions are influenced by the degree to which activities are structured for interactions and the extent to which children learn how to interact with each other (Jellison et al., 1984).

In this study, we provided support to a motivated music teacher to facilitate interactions between her first-grade students with severe disabilities and their typically developing classmates. The teacher wanted all her students to participate fully in regular music learning experiences and learn how to interact with each other. The purpose of this research was to work with the teacher to help her meet her goals by using an action research approach. Specifically, we asked the following questions: (a) How much time is required to implement interaction guidelines specific to teacher instruction, teacher prompting, and paraprofessional assistance? (b) What is the quality of interactions between partners (child with and child without a disability) working together and helping each other in partner and small group activities? and (c) How frequently do partners follow the guidelines for working together and helping each other?

Method

This study is grounded in action research methods in that the teacher and authors are engaged in cooperative inquiry throughout several aspects of the study. Action research is used in many contexts but is used extensively in educational contexts to study teaching and learning; several studies are specific to research on inclusion (e.g., Tragoulia & Strogilos, 2013). This method is an interactive process where collaborators work through a cyclical system of planning, taking action, evaluating actions, developing further plans, and so on (e.g., Stringer, 2014).

Participants

Participants were 36 first-grade students in two sections of inclusive music classes in a small, public suburban elementary school. A large majority (79%) of the school’s students were considered at risk; 98% were non-white (78% Hispanic, 19% black, 2% white, <1% American Indian, and 2 or more races). Over half (53%) were bilingual, and 94% were eligible for free or reduced lunch.

The music teacher held bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music education. This was her sixth-year teaching elementary general music and her fourth at this particular school. She had completed additional trainings in Orff (Level 1). In the previous school year, she collaborated with one of the authors on a different research project.

The same music teacher taught both sessions of classes; classes met once every 4 days. Each music class had 15 typical students, 3 students with severe disabilities (all male), and a paraprofessional. All the students with disabilities were in separate classrooms for the majority of their school day and were included in one of their “specials” (music, art, physical education, and computer) every day. Information about each student can be found in Supplementary Table 1 (available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401).

After receiving approvals from the principal of the school and the university’s institutional review board, we asked and were given written approval from parents/guardians for their children to participate in the study. Parents of students with disabilities granted us permission to access their children’s IEP (individualized education program) goals.

Procedures

We collaborated with the teacher on all phases of the research with the exception of the actual implementation of the plan (executed by the teacher) and the data analysis and completion of the final written report (executed by the authors). In collaboration, we (a) clarified goals (and developed research questions); (b) developed an intervention plan (lessons to be implemented by the teacher); (c) engaged in immediate evaluations of outcomes following each session; (d) developed or revised plans for upcoming sessions based on evaluations; and (e) discussed the overall results and plans for continued implementation with these and other classes.

Clarifying Goals (Research Questions)

The music teacher approached us about ways to effectively include students with severe disabilities in her classes. One of her greatest concerns was the lack of interactions between her typical students and their classmates with disabilities. She reported that some typical students did not know how to help their peers with disabilities and were reluctant to engage in conversation with them. To examine this problem, we videotaped each of the first-grade classes three times. We looked at these recordings with the teacher, discussed lesson plans, and began to identify goals. We gathered more information about types of interactions from informal observations and other video recordings of her classes not used in this study. We decided to observe and measure the frequencies and quality of two types of interactions: working together and helping each other. The teacher expressed concern about the class time necessary for implementation and the role of her paraprofessionals, so we added both as additional variables for measurement. Parents, other teachers, and the administration were not involved in this project beyond the initial consent process.

Developing and Implementing the Intervention Plan

Since this study was conducted at the end of the school year, it was limited to six sessions within 5 weeks. We based our instructional guidelines for teaching children how to work together and help each other on findings from the research literature and developed corresponding plans for partners and small groups that were consistent with the teacher’s overall curricular goals. The teacher had knowledge of students’ characteristics and made the decisions for partnering students (one with and one without disabilities) for the course of the study. She also determined membership for small group activities, with one student with a disability in each group. Plans included opportunities for students to choose partners in some activities. Importantly, we developed plans that would increase the probability of students interacting and also allow students with disabilities to participate successfully, to the maximum extent possible. Lesson plans were developed for several sessions at a time and revised as needed and included music activities such as singing, playing instruments, rhythm activities, and folk dancing. The teacher completed a checklist for each lesson to ensure social validity and treatment fidelity. The checklist included whether or not she followed the lesson plan, which students were absent or late, changes in partners that were made due to absences, and any other irregularities that may have occurred during the lesson.

The guidelines (in words and with icons) were printed on large posters and hung at the front of the room. The words with representative icons showed what students do when they work together and help each other. For example, under working together, the words read “Turn and Look—Look at the person while you talk and listen” and under helping, “Wait, ask, offer.” The posters of words and icons were hung at the front of the room for the first session only and then moved to the back of the room.

During the first lesson, the teacher called attention to the poster, talked about examples, and used video models and class members to model behaviors listed on the posters. The video model showed the teacher’s fifth-grade students demonstrating positive and negative examples of working together and helping each other. The teacher engaged the students in a discussion of the examples in the videos, repeating many of the behaviors listed on the posters, and had them practice the behaviors in partners and small groups. The teacher reviewed the guidelines before partner and small group activities for the remaining sessions and prompted and reinforced the behaviors throughout all six sessions. Paraprofessionals were asked to be present, but to remain physically apart from the partners and assist students only when necessary.

Data Collection and Analysis

We set up two video cameras (Canon Vixia) mounted on tripods facing each other in opposite corners of the room to record sessions. This position resulted in views to capture all the students sitting in their assigned seats in a circle configuration and allowed for a space for students whose parents did not consent to have their students recorded. Videos of the class sessions were converted to Quicktime movie files for observation and analysis, and data were recorded using Scribe (Duke & Stammen, 2011), a computer-based observation program.

We conducted systematic observations and measured several behaviors using operational definitions (with revisions as needed) from those developed by Draper (2017). Through a process of observation and discussion, we also developed additional categories, subcategories, and operational definitions (see Supplementary Table 2, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401). As definitions were refined, one variable was eliminated for observation, helping each other. Two of the four behaviors on the poster required verbal behaviors that were often inaudible on the videos. Once definitions were agreed upon and tested, the first two authors observed each of the videos (six videos per class section) three times and determined reliability through a process of consensus.

The purpose of the first video observation was to determine the frequencies and durations for music activities, instructional formats, time for guideline instruction, and the length of time for each session. In the second observation, we identified and determined the quality of interactions that occurred during portions of the lessons structured for interactions (assigned partner, partner choice, and assigned small group). For each of the six sessions, we also randomly selected a typical student (not the assigned partner) and each student’s typical peer partner to observe during assigned partner and partner choice activities. In the third and final observations, we determined the frequency and type of teacher and paraprofessional assistance (prompting) that occurred during interaction activities. Graduate student assistants collected the data for prompting under the supervision of the first two authors.

The six sessions that we observed before the intervention helped us clarify the teacher’s goals and were used to determine the duration of class time for different music activities and duration and types of instructional formats. No additional behavioral data were collected for these sessions.

Results

Preintervention Observations

We recorded and observed six preintervention sessions, three per class section, for a total of 240 minutes of class instruction (approximately 40 minutes per session). Results for frequencies and durations of music activities and instructional formats are presented in Supplementary Table 3 (available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401). Across all preintervention sessions, the majority of class time was spent singing (66%), followed by movement (17%), music listening (9%), and music knowledge (4%). Students were engaged in whole class instruction a large majority of the time (88%). Students interacted for only a few minutes total across all six sessions.

Intervention Observations

Teacher Instruction

We recorded and observed 12 intervention sessions, six per class section, for a total of 537 minutes of class instruction (approximately 45 minutes per session). Results for frequencies and durations of music activities as well as instructional formats, and instruction of the guidelines are presented in Supplementary Table 4 (available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401).

Overall, students spent most of their class time playing instruments (25%), followed by music listening (21%), movement (18%), singing (16%), and music knowledge (12%). Most often they were engaged in whole class instruction (71%) with smaller percentages of time in assigned partner (11%), assigned small group (7%), and partner choice (4%) activities.

A total of 25 minutes 36 seconds (5%) for both classes was spent on teaching and reviewing the working together guidelines, and 21 minutes 46 seconds (4%) for helping each other. On average, only 2 minutes were used for teaching or reviewing either or both of the guidelines per session.

Teacher and Paraprofessional Prompts

The teacher used verbal prompts 91% of the time (22% general, 68% specific) compared with physical prompts (9%). The teacher had more opportunities for prompting in assigned partner activities, which were structured most frequently, and the majority (all types) were given when students were engaged in assigned partner activities (68%) as compared to partner choice (19%) and assigned small group (13%). Typically developing students received more specific verbal prompts compared to students with disabilities (58% typical, 42% with disabilities). Examples of prompting students included to work together to agree on an answer, to look at each other when talking, and to offer help to their partners.

Some small differences were seen in the number of prompts given to partners in the two classes; 21 were observed for a composition lesson activity in one class and 16 for a concert review lesson activity that involved watching a video and making a list of observations in the other class. The fewest prompts for both groups were during instrumental activities.

Only three instances of a paraprofessional prompting a student with a disability were observed, all with the same child. Two were verbal prompts to participate with his partner and the other was hand-over-hand assistance when playing his instrument.

Quality of Interactions

The quality of interactions was observed and coded for all six assigned partners for all sessions (see Supplementary Table 5, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401). Overall, quality was positive (86%) across all types of interaction activities. A total of 16 negative interactions was observed between students with disabilities and typical student(s). One partner of students accounted for 78% (seven of nine) of all negative interactions, and in the other class, each of the students with a disability had at least one negative interaction (seven total). Our notes show us that one was coded as negative because he had to leave the classroom to retrieve his AAC device (following our definition of moving away from a partner; probably not a true instance of negative) and two involved students with disabilities who were interacting for the first time with a new partner during partner choice activities. On further examination, 5 of the 16 negative interactions occurred during activities that proved difficult for partners—a mirroring activity and a rhythm composition activity.

Following the Guidelines

There were five behaviors under the guidelines for working together (Step 1: Think, Step 2: Look at the person, Step 3: Take turns, Step 4: Everyone contributes, Step 5: Thank you; see Supplemental Materials for operational definitions, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401). Across both classes, we observed students with disabilities and typical students following a majority of the five guidelines while in partners and small groups.

Students with disabilities demonstrated four of the five guidelines in partners (assigned = 87%, chosen = 75%) and small groups (76%). Typical students also demonstrated the same four of five guidelines in partners (assigned = 93%, chosen = 90%). Students followed more behaviors for the guidelines with their assigned partners than in small groups or when choosing a partner; however, there were fewer opportunities in the class activities to engage in interactions with a chosen partner or in assigned small groups. We also analyzed students’ demonstration of guidelines within each instructional format by session (see Supplementary Table 6, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401) and by guideline (see Supplementary Table 7, available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/8755123318820401).

When examining the students’ responses by guideline, the students with disabilities and their partners were most successful demonstrating guidelines one through four. Overall for each of these guidelines, the students with disabilities were able to demonstrate these behaviors in a large majority of interactions (75% to 100%). The students with disabilities had the most difficulty demonstrating Guideline 5 (thank your partner when you are done). Similarly, typical partners were most successful at demonstrating guidelines one through four (100% in assigned partner and partner choice activities) and had the most difficulty, demonstrating Guideline 5 (saying “thank you”). Since we could not easily observe children saying “thank you,” they were taught to shake hands. In retrospect, this behavior seemed inappropriate for first-grade children, a behavior that likely was unfamiliar in their daily routines and thus may have contributed to the low rate for this guideline.

Discussion

When the teacher in this project asked for ideas on ways to improve participation (inclusion) of her first-grade students with severe disabilities, we eagerly set out to help her reach her goals. Her goals were consistent with many of our values and with strategies supported in the research literature. We agreed that an inclusive classroom was one where all children participate in the same music activities (with supports and adaptations as needed) and interactions between children with and without disabilities are frequent and positive.

Overall, the strategies we developed were successful. The teacher implemented interaction guidelines using effective teaching practices: She gave clear instructions, used visuals (posters) to accompany her instructions, showed positive models (videos) that the children then practiced in class, prompted children as needed, and gave positive feedback when appropriate.

Implementation and Interaction Activities

When the teacher first approached us about her concerns, we suggested that she collect video recordings to assist in our discussions about goals and strategies. We did not consider these videos a true baseline since the lessons were not typical but they provided valuable information for planning and implementing interaction strategies.

Students participated in interaction activities for six consecutive sessions and results show positive outcomes in the frequency and quality of interactions. What is not known is whether students would continue to follow guidelines without direct instruction, reviews, and prompting in every session. Since the study was conducted at the end of the school year, we did not plan opportunities to observe generalization. Future research, however, should include measures of generalization of the guidelines through fading, alternating sessions with and without instruction, or assigning a portion of the class for free time (as in Jellison et al., 1984).

The teacher found the guidelines easy to implement and was pleased that the initial instruction and review time could be accomplished in a short period of time. Teaching and reviewing the guidelines at the beginning of each 45-minute class took only a few minutes and interaction activities were only an average of 9 minutes. Because of the ease of implementation, the teacher mentioned that she plans to incorporate the same guidelines and similar activities in her future teaching. Music teachers may be more inclined to implement these strategies and engage students in positive interactions knowing that instruction and implementation will take only a short period of time.

This teacher had previous experience setting up partner activities; therefore, partner activities were easier for her to plan and implement than small groups and choice activities. Although small group activities may be more difficult to implement initially, teachers are encouraged to implement this strategy in combination with partner activities; together both types give students a variety of opportunities for more interactions, and thus more academic and social benefits. More research will begin to answer how these strategies can be combined and implemented successfully in a variety of music classroom settings and in ways that are consistent with music teachers’ experiences, skills, goals, and time for instruction.

Frequency and Quality of Interactions; Prompts and Paraprofessionals

These strategies implemented in a short period of time were successful given the high frequency of positive interactions and the increase in interactions across the six sessions; recall that the average class time for interaction activities was only 9 minutes.

During every session, students had opportunities to interact in different types of activities, although partner assignment, complexity, and students’ understanding of their tasks influenced both the frequency and quality of interactions, thus accounting for differences in the frequency of teacher prompts. We were not surprised to see a higher interaction rate for partners of typical students; between the two of them, they likely would have understood and executed the tasks easily. Although lesson content will vary in realistic teaching situations, future research should consider carefully the complexity of the tasks. When partners were engaged in more academic types of music tasks (notate, read, write), there were fewer positive interactions and teacher prompts were higher; since typically developing students were prompted most often, they may not have understood how to help their partner with a disability in these activities. Prompts to follow the guidelines were lowest during instrument activities when typical students understood the task and as needed, provided support for their classmates without prompts. The low rate of prompting for typical peers overall demonstrates that most students were able to work together.

To promote peer interactions, the paraprofessionals’ role was clearly defined; they were asked to remain physically away from the children with disabilities to allow more peer interactions and assist only when necessary. The definition of their role and the fact that they assisted infrequently may have contributed to the high frequency of positive interactions and low instances of overall paraprofessional prompting during interaction activities. Clear communication with paraprofessionals describing appropriate boundaries for helping may be important for teachers seeking to improve classroom interactions between all students.

Since we had only six sessions, children remained with their assigned partner for most activities during the project. There were fewer opportunities for students to choose a new partner; on occasions when partners were new, new partners likely needed time to learn about each other. We had hoped to see an increase in positive interactions across the sessions for assigned partners, but a few partners were mismatched. For example, Jon and his assigned partner had the lowest overall percentage of positive interactions and guidelines completed. Jon struggled with many of the tasks, he required significant prompting from the teacher, and his partners appeared to struggle when helping him. When teachers apply these strategies in the future, it is important that they remain flexible as partner assignments may need adjustments. Jon was also the only student who was prompted and assisted by a paraprofessional. If additional support and instruction had been given to an appropriate partner, we may have observed more positive interactions.

Similar to results from Jellison (2002), observations in this study illustrate the unique qualities and capabilities of individual children who are classified under different labels, groups described by labels such as “typically developing” or “severely disabled.” We recognize that some labels may be necessary for communicating broad ideas, as we have done in this article, but we also do so with caution with respect to interpreting the findings. At the conclusion of our observations, we had yet more evidence that these labels and the label “life skills” provides little in the way of useful information for instruction or information about the range of individual children’s capabilities. Teachers can continue to best serve their students by focusing on each child’s individual qualities as opposed to the characteristics associated with a label.

With appropriate supports, students who experience severe disabilities can participate and learn in inclusive music classrooms. Recall that the strengths and needs of students were considered in the development of the lessons and also that the lessons were appropriate for all students, those with and without disabilities. All six children, assumed to have severe disabilities, participated differently and needed different kinds of support. Some students with severe disabilities may have had difficulty with communication or engaging in particular tasks or activities, but when peer support was provided as needed, they were very capable of participating more fully in a wide range of music activities with their classmates.

Conclusion

Pedagogical articles about the benefits of peer interactions in inclusive music classrooms rely heavily on research from psychology and special education (Jellison, Brown, & Draper, 2015; Jellison, Draper, & Brown, 2017) although only two music research studies have observed and measured these interactions, one with students with learning disabilities and the other with students with severe disabilities (Draper, 2017; Jellison et al., 1984). The addition of the present study contributes more insights to the application of these strategies.

This action research study is unique in that the instruction and strategies were developed in collaboration with a music teacher who had no experience working with children with severe disabilities—a teacher who was eager to create a sense of belonging for all her students, and who wanted to create a learning environment where all her students would participate and interact positively with each other. We concur that her goals were met and that she benefited greatly from the experience, so much so that she has given workshops on interaction strategies for her colleagues.

Many aspects of this peer-interaction study can be examined in systematic, stringently designed research and at different grade levels, perhaps to include measures of music learning outcomes as well as social outcomes. Even though children with all levels and types of disabilities are included in music settings, only a few dozen music studies have been conducted in inclusive school settings in more than 40 years and none at the secondary levels (Jellison & Draper, 2014). We not only encourage future music research on this topic but also encourage music teachers to implement peer-interaction strategies given the substantive research in special education and psychology. The present study adds to this research base and documents effective interaction strategies to teach children how to work together and help each other, interactions that ultimately will foster a culture of inclusion.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Materials – Supplemental material for Peer-Interaction Strategies: Fostering Positive Experiences for Students With Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Music Classes

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Materials for Peer-Interaction Strategies: Fostering Positive Experiences for Students With Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Music Classes by Ellary A. Draper, Laura S. Brown and Judith A. Jellison in Update: Applications of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplementary material is available at

References

Bowman-Perrott

Burke

M. D.

Zhang

Zaini

(2014). Direct and collateral effects of peer tutoring on social and behavioral outcomes: A meta-analysis of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 43, 260–285. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=98663239&site=ehost-live

Brown

Jellison

(2012). Music research with children and youth with disabilities and typically developing peers: A systematic review. Journal of Music Therapy, 49, 335–364. doi:10.1093/jmt/49.3.335

Carter

E. W.

Sisco

L. G.

Chung

Stanton-Chapman

(2010). Peer interactions of students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of the intervention literature. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 35, 63–79. doi:10.2511/rpsd.35.3-4.63

Colwell

C. M.

(1995). Adapting music instruction for elementary students with special needs: A pilot. Music Therapy Perspectives, 13, 97–102. doi:10.2307/mtp.13.2.97

Draper

E. A.

(2017). Observations of children with disabilities in four elementary music classrooms, Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 36(1), 12–19. doi:10.1177.8755123316660594

Duke

R. A.

Stammen

(2011). Scribe 4 (for observation and assessment). Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources.

Gunsberg

(1988). Improvised music play: A strategy for fostering social play between developmentally delayed and nondelayed preschool children. Journal of Music Therapy, 25, 178–191. doi:10.1093.jmt/25.4.178

Humpal

(1991). The effects of an integrated early childhood music program on social interaction among children with handicaps and their typical peers. Journal of Music Therapy, 28, 161–177. doi:10.1093.jmt/28.3.161

Jellison

J. A.

(2002). On-task participation of typical students close to and away from classmates with disabilities in an elementary music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 343–355. doi:10.2307/3345360

10.

Jellison

J. A.

(2015). Including everyone: Creating music classrooms where all children learn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Jellison

J. A.

Brooks

B. H.

Huck

A. M.

(1984). Structuring small groups and music reinforcement to facilitate positive interactions and acceptance of severely handicapped students in the regular music classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 243–264. doi:10.2307/3344923

12.

Jellison

Brown

Draper

(2015). Peer-assisted learning and interactions in inclusive music classrooms: Benefits, research, and applications. General Music Today, 28(3), 18–22. doi:10.1177/1048371314565456

13.

Jellison

J. A.

Draper

E. A.

(2014). Music research in inclusive school settings: 1975-2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64, 325–331. doi:10.1177/0022429414554808

14.

Jellison

J. A.

Draper

E. A.

Brown

L. S.

(2017). Learning together: The instinct to do good and peer-assisted strategies that work. Music Educators Journal, 104, 15–22. doi:10.1177/0027432117713823

15.

Jellison

J. A.

Hicken

L. K.

Duke

R. A.

(2018, March). Inclusive music education: Preliminary results of a survey of Texas music teachers’ attitudes and experiences. Paper presented at the Music Research and Teacher Education National Conference, National Association for Music Education, Atlanta, GA.

16.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 227–239. doi:10.1177/1540796914555580

17.

Morningstar

M. E.

Shogren

K. A.

Lee

Born

(2015). Preliminary lessons about supporting participating and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 192–210. doi:10.1177/1540796915594158

18.

Ryndak

D. L.

Taub

Jorgensen

C. M.

Gonsier-Gerdin

Arndt

Sauer

. . . Allcock

(2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement, and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 65–74. doi:10.1177/154076914533942

19.

Stringer

E. T.

(2014). Action research (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

TASH. (2017). Home page. Retrieved from https://tash.org/about/.

21.

Tragoulia

Strogilos

(2013). Using dialogue as a means to promote collaborative and inclusive practices. Educational Action Research, 21, 485–505. doi:10.1080/09650792.2013.832342

22.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, & Office of Special Education Programs. (2016). 38th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2016. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/38th-arc-for-idea.pdf

23.

VanWeelden

Whipple

(2014). Music educators’ perceived effectiveness of inclusion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 148–160. doi:10.1177.0022429414530563

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB