Seventeen pairs of LD and non-LD students were observed for two school days. While the time allocated to various activities and tasks did not differ for the two groups, LD students received more individual instruction and more teacher approval than non-LD students. LD students also were engaged in five of seven active academic responses for longer periods of time than non-LD students, while non-LD students engaged longer in one academic response than LD students. However, the two groups' total academic responding times did not differ. Across students, only about 45 minutes of active academic responding occurred during a typical school day. Implications of the findings for instruction and special education decision making are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorgW.Time and school learning. In DenhamC.LiebermanA. (Eds.), Time to learn. Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Education, 1980.
2.
BrophyJ. E.GoodT. L.Teacher-child dyadic interaction: A manual for coding classroom behavior. Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, 1969.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtF. C.Peabody individual achievement test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1970.
5.
GaverD.RichardsH.Dimensions of naturalistic observation for the prediction of academic success. Journal of Educational Research, 1979, 72, 123–127.
6.
GoodT.GrouwsD.Teaching effects: A process-product study in 4th grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 1911, 28, 49–54.
7.
GradenJ.ThurlowM. L.YsseldykeJ. E.Academic engaged time and its relationship to learning: A review of the literature (Monograph No. 17). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
8.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ.HallR. V.Code for instructional structure and student academic response: CISSAR. Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, 1978.
9.
GreenwoodC.DelquadriJ.StanleyS.TerryB.HallR.Process-product study of relationships among instructional ecology, student response, and academic achievementUnpublished manuscript, Juniper Gardens Children's Project, 1981.
10.
HallR. V.DelquadriJ.GreenwoodC. R.ThurstonL.The importance of opportunity to respond in children's academic success. In EdgarE. B.HaringN. G.JenkinsJ. R.PionsC. G. (Eds.), Mentally handicapped children: Education and training. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1982.
11.
LeinhardtG.ZigmondN.CooleyW. W.Reading instruction and its effectsPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April1980.
12.
McKinneyJ.MasonJ.PerkersonK.CliffordM.Relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 198–203.
PowellL.SuzukiK.AtwaterJ.Gorney-KrupsawB.MorrisE. K.Interactions between teachers and learning disabled and non-learning disabled adolescents (Research Report No. 44). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1981.
16.
SchumakerJ. B.Sheldon-WildgenJ.ShermanJ. A.An observational study of the academic and social behavior of learning disabled adolescents in the regular classroom (Research Report No. 22). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1980.
17.
SkrticT. M.The regular classroom interactions of learning disabled adolescents and their teachers (Research Report No. 8). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1980.
18.
StallingsJ.Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in follow-through classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1975, 40 (Serial No. 163).
19.
StanleyS. O.GreenwoodC. R.CISSAR: Code for instructional structure and student academic response: Observer's manual. Kansas City, KS: Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, 1980.
20.
StanleyS. O.GreenwoodC. R.How much “opportunity to respond” does the minority disadvantaged student receive in school?Exceptional Children, 1983, 49, 370–373.
21.
ThompsonR. H.Interaction patterns of regular classroom teachers with mildly handicapped students in mainstreamed classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 41(5), 2065–2066A. (University Microfilms No. 8019277).
22.
WarnerM. M.AlleyG. R.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.An epidemiological study of learning disabled adolescents in secondary schools: Classification and discrimination of learning disabled and low-achieving adolescents (Research Report No. 20). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1980.
23.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.McGueM.Similarities and differences between under-achieves and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 1982, 15, 221–226.
24.
ZigmondN.VallecorsaA.LeinhardtG.Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 1980, 1 (1), 89–98.
