Teacher interactions with handicapped and nonhandicapped students in 38 mainstreamed classrooms were observed using an interval time-sampling procedure and behavioral categories derived from the Brophy-Good Teacher-Child Dyadic Interaction System. Six aspects of teacher-student interactions were considered: Academic Questions, Extended Feedback, Praise, Criticism, Work Interactions, and Total Amount of Interactions. Results of discriminant analysis indicated that handicapped students received fewer questions and were provided with less teacher feedback than their nonhandicapped peers. It was concluded, therefore, that mainstreamed handicapped students were less involved in academic exchanges than the nonhandicapped subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BockD. (1975). Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw Hill.
2.
BrophyJ. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 733–750.
3.
BrophyJ. (1982). Research on self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, New York.
4.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1970). Brophy-Good system (teacher-child dyadic interaction). In SimonA.BoyerA. (Eds.), Mirrors for behavior: An anthology of observation instruments, continued. 1970 supplement (Vol. A) (pp. 831–833). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc.)
5.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
6.
BryanT. (1974). An observational analysis of classroom behavior of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 26–34.
7.
BryanT.WheelerR. (1972). Perception of learning disabled children: The eye of the observer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 37–41.
8.
CentraJ.A.PotterD.A. (1980). School and teacher effects: An interaction model. Review of Educational Research, 50, 273–291.
9.
ChapmanR.B.LarsenS.C.ParkerR.M. (1979). Interactions of first grade teachers with learning disordered children. Review of Educational Research, 389–410.
10.
CoulterC. (1976). Training observers for naturalistic observational research (Report No. 76–79). Austin: University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
11.
DunkinH.BiddleB. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12.
FornessS.R.EsveltK. (1975). Classroom behavior of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 382–385.
13.
GoodT.D. (1980). Classroom expectations: Teacher-pupil interactions. In McMillanJ. (Ed.), The social psychology of school learning (pp. 79–132). New York: Academic Press.)
14.
GottliebJ. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise?American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115–126.
HallahanD.P.ReeveR.E. (1980). Selective attention and distractibility. In KeoghB. (Ed.), Advances in Special Education, 1, 141–181.
17.
HudsonF.GrahamS.WarnerM. (1979). Mainstreaming: An examination of the attitudes and needs of regular classroom teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 58–62.
Public Law 94–142 (November 29, 1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
24.
RicheyD.McKinneyJ. (1978). Classroom behavioral styles of learning disabled children. Jour nal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 297–302.
25.
ThomasA. (1979). Learned helplessness and expectancy factors. Review of Educational Research, 49, 208–221.
26.
ThompsonR.H.VitaleP.A.JewettJ.P. (1984). Teacher-student interaction patterns in mainstreamed classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 51–61.
27.
TorgesenJ.K. (1977). The role of non-specific factors in the task performance of learning disabled children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 27–34.
28.
VellutinoF.R. (1977). Alternative conceptualizations of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal-deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 334–354.
