Members of placement teams expend considerable time and effort on determining least restrictive environments for learning disabled children and youth. Unfortunately, the placement team must use criteria which are vague and subject to interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to delineate three observable and measurable variables in the regular classroom—response opportunity, teacher-student interaction, and social acceptance—which the team can use to make the initial placement decision and to evaluate educational progress in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrodenM.C.BruceC.MitchellM.CarterV.HallR.V.Effects of teacher attention on at tending behavior of two boys in adjacent desks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 199–203.
2.
BrodenM.CopelandG.BeasleyA.HallR.V.Altering student responses through changes in teacher verbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 479–487.
3.
BrophyJ.GoodT.Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston1974.
4.
BruininksV.L.Actual and perceived peer status of learning disabled students in mainstreamed-programs. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 51–58.
5.
BryanT.An observational analysis of classroom behaviors of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 26–34. (a)
6.
BryanT.Learning disabled children's comprehension of nonverbal communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 501–506.
7.
BryanT.Peer popularity of learning disabled children: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 307–311.
8.
BryanT.WheelerR.Perception of learning disabled children: The eye of the observer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 484–488.
9.
BryanT.WheelerR.FelcanJ.HenekT.“Come on dummy”. An observational study of children's communication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1976, 9, 661–669.
10.
ChapmanR.B.LarsenS.ParkerR.Interactions of first-grade teachers with learning disordered children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 225–230.
11.
DelquadriJ.GreenwoodC.R.HallR.V.Opportunity to respond: An update. Invited address presented at the fifth annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Dearborn, MI, June, 1979.
12.
Federal Register. Vol. 42, No. 163 Tues., Aug. 23, 1977, (121a 550(1), (2)).
13.
GlassR.MecklerR.Preparing elementary teachers to instruct mildly handicapped inregular classrooms: A summer workshop. Exceptional Children, 1972, 39(2), 152–156.
14.
GoodT.Which pupils do teachers call on?Elementary School Journal, 1970, 70, 190–198.
15.
HallR.V.DelquadriJ.HarrisJ.W.Opportunity to respond: A new focus in the field of applied behavior analysis. Invited address to the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis, Third Annual Convention, Chicago, May 14–17, 1977.
16.
HallR.V.LundD.JacksonD.Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 1–12.
17.
JacksonP.Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston1968.
18.
JacksonP.LahaderneH.Inequalities of teacher-pupil contacts. Psychology in the Schools, 1967, 4, 204–211.
19.
JenkinsJ.R.DenoS.H.MirkinP.K.Measuring pupil progress toward the least restrictive alternative. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 4, 81–91.
20.
KenowitzL.ZweibelS.EdgarE.Determining the least restrictive educational oppor tunity for the severely and profoundly handicapped. In HaringN.G.BrickerD.D. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped, Vol. III. Columbus: Special Press, 1978.
21.
KirbyF.D.TolerH.C.Modification of preschool isolate behavior: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 309–314.
22.
KitanoM.D.SteihlJ.ColeJ.T.Role taking: Implications for special education. Journal of Special Education, 1978, 12, 59–74.
23.
LeonardiA.DugganT.HoffheinsJ.AxelrodS.Use of group contingencies to reduce three types of inappropriate classroom behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children, Washington, DC, March, 1972.
24.
LeyserY.GottliebJ.Improving the social status of rejected pupils. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 459–461.
25.
LongJ.D.WilliamR.L.The comparative effectiveness of group and individually contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 465–474.
26.
MartinR.KellerA.Teacher awareness of classroom dyadic interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 1976, 14, 47–55.
27.
MassadV.I.EdsilB.C.Acquisition of phonetic sounds by preschool children: Effects of response and reinforcement frequency. In SembG. (Ed.), Behavior analysis and education. Lawrence, KS: Department of Human Development1972.
28.
MorrisonA.MclntyreD.Teachers and teaching. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969.
ScrantonT.RyckmanD.Sociometric status of learning disabled children in an integrative program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 402–407.
31.
SkinnerM.E.Effects of an inservice program on the attitudes, knowledge, and student teacher interaction patterns of regular classroom teachers. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1979.