Academic and environmental effects of small group arrangements in classrooms for students with autism and other developmental disabilities

  • Debra Kamps
  • Dale Walker
  • Jill Maher
  • David Rotholz
Article

Abstract

The use of small group instructional formats with children who have autism and developmental disabilities has received mixed results in the research literature (Reid & Favell, 1984). The purpose of the two studies reported herein was to address this controversy by comparing the performance of students in one-to-one instruction to those transitioned to small groups for a variety of teachers, students, settings, and under different training circumstances. In the first study, 41 students, ranging in age from 5 to 21 years old, from six classrooms, participated; and 25 students from six classrooms participated in the second study. Measures of environmental effects included academic gains via pre- and posttests, on-task and self-stimulatory behavior levels, correct responding, and frequencies of teacher behaviors during both one-to-one and small group formats. Results of both experiments indicated that students were able to successfully transition to small group formats across several curriculum areas including language, math, readiness, and shopping. Further, experienced teachers and administrators were able to train a second group of staff to use the small group procedures effectively. The successful application for this number of students and teachers within natural learning environments is unprecedented and provides important documentation for both the utility and practicality of small group instruction with students who have developmental disabilities.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.),Hey don't forget about me (pp. 1–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Baumgart, D., Vandeventer, P., Ford, A., Nisbet, J., Schroeder, J., & Gruenewald, L. (1981). Longitudinal transition plans in programs for severely handicapped students.Exceptional Children, 47, 624–630.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. C., & Stanley, J. C. (1963).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, D. A. (1988). Statistics for small groups: The power of the pretest.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 142–146.Google Scholar
  6. Favell, J. E., Favell, J. E., & McGimsey, J. F. (1978). Relative effectiveness and efficiency of group versus individual training of severely retarded persons.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 104–109.Google Scholar
  7. Frankosky, R. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1978). Individual and group contingencies and collateral social behaviors.Behavior Therapy, 9, 313–327.Google Scholar
  8. Kamps, D., Walker, D., Locke, P., Delquadri, J. & Hall, R. V. (1990). A comparison of one-to-one instruction by peers, one-to-one instruction by adults, and small group instruction with children with autism.Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 197–215.Google Scholar
  9. Kirk, R. E. (1982).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  10. Koegel, R., Egel, A. L., & Dunlap, G. (1980). Learning characteristics of autistic children. In W. Sailor, B. Wilcox, & L. Brown (Eds.),Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 259–301). Baltimore MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  11. Koegel, R. L., & Rincover, A. (1974). Treatment of psychotic children in a classroom environment: I. Learning in a large group.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 45–59.Google Scholar
  12. Lovaas, I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3–9.Google Scholar
  13. McEvoy, M. A., Nordquist, V. M., Twardosz, S., Heckman, K. A., Wehby, J. H. & Denny, R. K. (1988). Promoting autistic children's peer interaction in an integrated early childhood setting using affection activities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 193–200.Google Scholar
  14. Pearson, M. E., Pearson, A., Fenrick, N. & Greene, D. (1988). The implementation of sample, delay techniques to enhance the language of delayed children in group settings.Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 12, 342–348.Google Scholar
  15. Peck, C. A. (1985). Increasing opportunities for social control by children with autism and severe handicaps: Effects on student behavior and perceived classroom climate.Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 10, 183–193.Google Scholar
  16. Polloway, E. A., Cronin, M. E., & Patton, J. R. (1986). The efficacy of group versus one-to-one instruction: A review.Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 22–30.Google Scholar
  17. Reid, D. H., & Favell, J. E. (1984). Group instruction with persons who have severe disabilities: A critical review.Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 9, 167–177.Google Scholar
  18. Rincover, A., & Koegel, R. L. (1977). Classroom treatment of autistic children: II. Individualized instruction in a group.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 5, 113–126.Google Scholar
  19. Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., & Fitzgerald, J. R. (1987). Group instruction with profoundly retarded persons: Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of a remunerative work skill.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 97–105.Google Scholar
  20. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984).Single subject research in special education. Colombus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  21. Walker, D. (1986).A review of the literature on the use of group instruction with students who have autism and other developmental disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, Juniper Gardens Children's Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  22. Whorton, D. M., Walker, D., McGrale, J., Rotholz, D., & Locke, P. (1988).Alternative instructional strategies for students with autism and other developmental disabilities: Peer tutoring and group teaching procedures. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.Google Scholar
  23. Williams, G. E., & Cuvo, A. J. (1986). Training apartment upkeep skills to rehabilitation clients: A comparison of task analytic strategies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 39–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Kamps
    • 1
  • Dale Walker
    • 1
  • Jill Maher
    • 1
  • David Rotholz
    • 2
  1. 1.Juniper Gardens Children's ProjectUniversity of KansasKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Disabilities StudiesUniversity of MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations