the effects of partner learning during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their...

P1: VENDOR/GDB/GOQ P2: LMD/LOV QC:

Journal of Behavioral Education [jbe] PH055-342382 June 27, 2001 8:20 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3, 2000, pp. 107–121

The Effects of Partner Learning During Spellingfor Students with Severe Disabilities and Their Peers

John McDonnell, Ph.D.,1 Nadine Thorson, M. Ed.,2 Cathi Allen, M. Ed.,3

and Connie Mathot-Buckner, M. Ed.4,5

A multiple baseline across subjects design was used to examine the effects of part-ner learning on the spelling performance, academic responding, and competingbehavior of three students with severe disabilities and three of their classmateswithout disabilities. The students were enrolled in different general elementaryclasses. All students in these classes were assigned to partner learning triadsby the general education teacher. One triad in each class included the studentwith severe disabilities and two classmates without disabilities. All students inthe class received two, 20 min partner learning sessions each week. During part-ner learning, each member of the triad was asked to spell words, present wordsto be spelled, provide feedback to the speller, and check the spelling accuracy.These roles were rotated among the members of the triad after each trial. Theseroles were adapted as necessary to accommodate the academic and communica-tion skills of the students with severe disabilities. The effects of partner learningon spelling accuracy were assessed through weekly spelling tests. The effects ofpartner learning on academic responding and competing behavior were assessedusing the MS-CISSAR (Carta, Greenwood, Schulte, Arreaga-Mayer, Terry, 1988).Results of weekly spelling indicated that partner learning led to improved spellingaccuracy for students with severe disabilities and did not negatively affect thespelling accuracy of their peers. Partner learning also led to improved rates ofacademic responding and reduced rates of competing behavior for 5 of 6 students.

1Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.2Program Specialist, School and Community Inclusion Program, Department of Special Education,University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

3Program Specialist, School and Community Inclusion Program, Department of Special Education,University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

4Program Specialist, School and Community Inclusion Program, Department of Special Education,University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

5Correspondence should be directed to John McDonnell, University of Utah, Department of SpecialEducation, 1705 E. Central Campus Dr., Rm 221, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9253.

107

1053-0819/00/0900-0107$18.00/0C© 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.



108 McDonnell, Thorson, Allen, and Mathot-Buckner

The results are discussed in terms of their implications for practice and futureresearch.

KEY WORDS: partner learning; inclusion; severe disabilities; spelling.

One challenge facing practitioners involved in inclusive educational programsfor students with severe disabilities is designing instruction tailored to their uniqueeducational needs and providing a sufficient number of instructional trials to pro-mote efficient learning. If inclusive education is going to succeed, then practi-tioners need validated instructional practices based on these two key principles(McDonnell, 1998). In addition, these instructional practices must blend with theoverall structure and organization of general education classes (Fantuzzo & Atkins,1992).

Peer mediated instruction has been suggested as one approach for address-ing these critical needs (Giangreco & Putnam, 1991; Harper Meheady, & Mallet,1994; McDonnell, 1998). This approach includes strategies such as ClasswidePeer Tutoring (Delquardi, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986, NumberedHeads Together (Kagan, 1985), and Partner Learning (McNeil, 1994), Althoughthe procedural elements of these strategies differ slightly, they all are designedto allow students to serve as instructional agents for one another (Harper et al.,1994). Several research reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that peer me-diated instructional strategies consistently lead to increased student achievementand opportunities to respond to instructional tasks for students without disabilitiesand those with mild disabilities (Cohen, Kulik & Kulik, 1982; Fowler, 1988;Good & Brophy, 1987; Krouse, Gerber, & Kaufman, 1981; Thousand & Villa,1990; Topping, 1991). Studies also have shown that students without disabili-ties can serve as effective instructors for students with severe disabilities (Carr &Darcy, 1990; Charlop, Schreibman, & Tyron, 1983; Donder & Nietupski, 1981;Egel, Richman, & Koegel, 1981; Fenrick & McDonnell, 1980; Kamps, Locke,Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Kohl & Stettner-Eaton, 1985; Kohl, Moses, & Stettner-Eaton, 1983; Lancioni, 1982). Students without disabilities appear to derive manysocial benefits as well from such programs including improved self-concept, in-creased acceptance of students with disabilities, and the development of friendshipswith peers with disabilities (Peck, Donaldson, & Pezzoli, 1990; Sasso & Rude,1988).

Although the effects of peer mediated instruction for students with severedisabilities have been positive, most studies focus on strategies in which a studentwith severe disabilities was the recipient of instruction provided by a peer withoutdisabilities. The instructional roles of tutor and tutee have rarely been reversed;presumably, because students with severe disabilities do not have the academic andcommunication skills to provide instruction to their peers. Furthermore, in most ofthese studies peer tutoring was implemented in separate special education classes.One exception was a study conducted by Kamps, Barbetta, Leonard, and Delquadri



Partner Learning in General Education Classes 109

(1994) in which they examined the impact of the Classwide Peer Tutoring programon reading skills and social interactions of students with autism enrolled in generaleducation classes. The peer tutoring program consisted of approximately 30 min ofmutual instruction between the students with autism and peers without disabilitieson reading fluency and comprehension. The results showed that the students andtheir peers improved both in reading fluency and comprehension skills. In addition,the tutoring program resulted in general increases in the total duration of socialinteractions between students during free time.

The purpose of the present study was to extend the research base on peermediated instruction as an approach for supporting students with severe disabili-ties in general education classes. We were also interested in examining a strategyin which students with severe disabilities would serve in both the tutor and tu-tee roles in general education classes. Consequently, the present study examinesa partner learning process in which one student with severe disabilities and twopeers without disabilities provided each other with spelling practice and review.The process was designed to ensure that students received instruction tailored totheir own educational needs, implemented within the typical structure of students’general education classes, and to maximize their interaction with their peers with-out disabilities. We evaluated partner learning in terms of its effects on the student’sacademic engagement and competing behavior, and spelling test performance.

METHOD

Settings and Participants

Students participating in the study attended two elementary schools and weremembers of three different grade-level classes. Each school had participated in stateand/or federal outreach projects administered by the senior author. The teachersand administrators in each building had made a strong commitment to includingall children with disabilities in the general education program. In addition, staffin these schools had received training and technical assistance on strategies forsupporting the participation of children with disabilities in the regular curriculum.All of the schools were in suburban and middle class neighborhoods.

Participants in the study included three students with severe disabilities whowere placed in general education classes and three students without disabilitiesenrolled in the same general education class. Special education teachers in eachschool that had agreed to take part in the study identify a pool of potential studyparticipants with severe disabilities. This group included all students in the schoolwho were (1) classified as having moderate to profound mental retardation ormultiple disabilities and (2) were included in the general education class for mostof their instruction. Table I provides basic demographic information about thestudents selected for participation in the study.




Table I. Student Demographic Data

Number of studentsTime in general without disabilities

Student IQ Classification education class in class

1 37 Severe intellectual disabilities 3 hours 262 45 Severe intellectual disabilities 3 hours 243 40 Severe intellectual disabilities 4.5 hours 21

Student 1 participated in a typical fourth grade class for 3 hrs per day. Shewas pulled out of the general education class for speech, reading, math instructionfor the remainder of the school day. In her grade level class, she completed thesame work as the other students or was provided parallel instruction on the goalsand objectives included in her Individualized Education Program (IEP). She wasprovided no additional curriculum modifications or paraprofessional support inher grade level class.

Student 2 participated in a typical fifth grade class for 3 hrs per day. She alsoreceived instruction on her IEP goals and objectives in a resource program forthe rest of the school day. While she participated to some extent in the activitiesof the general education class, the bulk of the instruction she received was donethrough parallel instruction or independent seat work. During time in her generaleducation class she worked independently on individual goals. She received noparaprofessional support when she was in her grade level class.

Student 3 was enrolled in a fifth grade class for 4.5 hrs per day. During theremainder of the school day she received instruction on IEP goals and objectivesin a resource program. During the time she spent in her general education class shewas provided parallel instruction or completed independent seat work tied to tiedto her IEP goals and objectives. She received no paraprofessional support while inthe grade level class.

The general education teachers were asked to form heterogeneous partnerlearning triads that included students of differing spelling performance levels (i.e.,above average, average, or below average spelling performance) and personal char-acteristics (i.e., gender, ethnicity). Once the triads were established, we identifiedthe potential pool of students without disabilities in the class who matched the gen-der of the target student with severe disabilities and were performing at or aboveaverage in spelling. From this pool, one peer in adifferenttriad from the studentwith severe disabilities was randomly selected for participation in the study.

Dependent Measures

The effectiveness of partner learning was assessed in terms of its impact onthe level of academic responding and competing behaviors during spelling lessons,and weekly spelling test scores.




Academic Responding and Competing Behavior

The Code for Instructional Structure and Academic Response—MainstreamVersion (MS-CISSAR) (Carta, Greenwood, Schulte, Arreaga-Mayer, Terry, 1988)was used to collect data on these two variables. This instrument has undergoneextensive validation and has been used to address a number of research questionsfocusing on the academic performance of students who are at-risk of school failure(Greenwood, Carta, & Atwater, 1991).

Greenwood and his colleagues (1993) describe academic responses as thosestudent behaviors made directly in response to academic tasks, commands, orprompts. The specific student behaviors included in this subcategory are (a) writ-ing, (b) manipulating objects that are relevant to completion of an academic tasksuch as a computer, (c) reading aloud, (d) reading silently, and (e) engaging inverbal behaviors related to the academic task such as talking with a peer aboutsubject matter as part of a collaborative learning group.

Competing behaviors are defined as those responses that are unacceptablebecause they are against commonly accepted social conventions, classroom rules,or teacher directions. The behaviors in this subcategory of the MS-CISSARSinclude (a) aggression toward others, (b) disrupting the academic task, (c) talk-ing with peers or the teacher about subjects not directly related to the academictask, (d) looking around the classroom and not attending to the academic task,(e) noncompliance with teacher directions or commands, (f) self-stimulatory be-havior, and (g) self-abuse.

Data on academic responding and competing behavior were summarized asthe percent of observation intervals in which the behaviors occurred.

Scores on Weekly Spelling Tests

Each Friday students were given a spelling test on the words introducedduring the week. For students with severe disabilities, these words were selectedby their general and special education teachers consistent with their IEP goalsand objectives. The spelling words for Students 1 and 2 were drawn directlyfrom the general education spelling curriculum. The spelling words for Student3 were drawn from the Edmark reading program. The number of words in-cluded in each student’s weekly spelling lists ranged from 5 to 20 words, andwas adjusted by their teachers to based on their previous weekly spelling per-formance. The weekly spelling lists for peers without disabilities was guidedby the approved spelling curriculum for the school and were selected by theclassroom teacher. A total of 20 words was introduced each week to peersthroughout the study. For both students and peers, the performance on weeklyspelling tests was summarized as the percent of words on the list spelledaccurately.




Experimental Design and Conditions

A multiple baseline across subjects design was used to assess the effectivenessof partner learning on rates of academic responding and competing behavior, andspelling test scores (Tawney & Gast, 1984). The experimental conditions consistedof Baseline and Partner Learning. Students with severe disabilities (1 through 3)and their peers (4 through 6) were yoked for the initiation of the experimentalconditions. That is, Students 1 and 4, Students 2 and 5, and Students 3 and 6 hadthe same number of baseline probe sessions and initiated partner learning at thesame time.

Baseline

Participating students were observed weekly during the first 20 min of reg-ularly scheduled spelling lessons. For 5 of 6 participating students, these lessonstypically included whole class presentations by the general education teacher andindependent practice on the targeted spelling words or other related languageconcepts. For Student 3, the typical instructional activities included independentpractice on spelling or other academic skills. The special education teachers didnot provide any direct instruction to the students with severe disabilities or thepeers without disabilities during the spelling lessons. However, the teachers didobserve the students with severe disabilities in the general education classroomtwice weekly to monitor their behavior. Data for baseline probe sessions 4 and5 for Student 3 are not reported because of unanticipated changes in regularlyscheduled instructional activities.

Partner Learning

Partner learning was scheduled for all students in the class for twenty mintwice per week during the regularly scheduled spelling lessons. Before each partnerlearning session, the general education teacher developed two word lists. The firstlist included the words that the student with severe disabilities would spell. Thewords on this list were selected jointly by the general and special education teacherusing the procedures described above. The second list was for the students withoutdisabilities in the class and included all of the spelling words introduced during theweek. During an instructional trial, each student in a triad served in one of threepartner learning roles. The first role was the “word wizard.” The word wizard wroteand verbally spelled a word. The second role was the “word conjurer.” The wordconjurer, selected a word from the appropriate word list (the individually designedlist for the student with severe disabilities or the general word list for studentswithout disabilities), presented the word to the speller, and provided feedback tothe speller. The “word keeper” held the word lists, checked the written and verbal




spelling of the word with the word conjurer, and showed the written word fromthe list to the speller as part of the standard error correction procedure if he or shemade a mistake.

For example, the word conjurer randomly selected a word from the spellinglist and presented it (i.e., Spell “ ”.) to the word wizard. The word wizardwas given 5 s towrite the word and spell it verbally to the other members ofthe triad. Once the word wizard wrote and verbally spelled the word, the wordconjurer and the word keeper jointly checked the spelling accuracy. The word con-jurer then provided feedback to the speller (i.e., I agree or I disagree). If the wordwizard did not spell the word correctly, the word keeper would show him/her theword on the list and the steps would be repeated until the word wizard spelled theword correctly. These roles were rotated after each instructional trial. Students re-ceived at least one trial on each word on the list during the partner learning sessions.

Partner learning lessons were designed to accommodate the academic andcommunication skills of students with severe disabilities and to maximize theirparticipation in the tutoring process. For example if a student could not read theword to be spelled, the word keeper would read and model the word for her andthen she would present it to the word conjurer. Similarly, once the word conjurerhad spelled the word the student and the word keeper would jointly check theaccuracy. If necessary the word keeper would prompt the student to reinforce theword conjurer or to implement the error correction procedure.

The roles of the general and special education teachers during partner learningincluded organizing the word lists for the triads, initiating and monitoring transitionactivities, monitoring the activities of the group during partner learning, monitoringthe designated learning roles, providing feedback to triads about their performance,and providing assistance to triads when questions arose about the spelling tasks.

Procedures

Implementation Training for the Classroom Teachers and Students

Two of the authors provided 1 hr of training to participating classroom teacherson the partner learning process. Training was done one-to-one with each partici-pating teacher prior to the initiation of partner learning in their classrooms. Duringtraining, the elements of the partner learning process were discussed and exampleshow the students would implement the process were presented.

Following the completion of baseline probe sessions for each student and peer,the classroom teacher provided instruction to all students in her class on the partnerlearning process. The teachers described the steps of the process and modeled theroles of the word conjurer, word wizard, and work keeper for students. The generaleducation teacher and special education staff gave the triads additional training andassistance on the process and their roles during partner learning sessions as needed.




Observation Procedures

The observations of the student’s level of academic responding and compet-ing behavior were conducted weekly during one of the regularly scheduled partnerlearning sessions. At the beginning of the session, two of the researchers positionedthemselves in discrete locations of the classroom but close enough to the triads thatincluded each of the target students to record data. One researcher observed thetriad that included the student with severe disabilities, and the second researcherobserved the triad that included the peer without disabilities. Data were collected ona portable lap top computer using the MS-CISSAR software. Each 1 min interval isdivided into three, 20 s segments in which the observer records the ecological con-text of the lesson, data on the teacher, and the students response in that order. Thesoftware prompts the observer to record data every 20 seconds through a low tone.At the end of each 20 s interval, the observerlooksat the events,recordsthe informa-tion on the lap top computer, and thenrestsbriefly before the next interval begins.

Reliability of Observation Data

Prior to the initiation of the study, three of the authors learned to implementthe MS-CISSAR using video tapes of children with low incidence disabilities en-rolled in inclusive classrooms but who were not participating in the study. Trainingcontinued until all of the observers met a criterion of 90% agreement across ob-servation intervals for 2 consecutive sessions.

Interobserver agreement on the rates of academic responding and competingbehavior by students was conducted during three sessions. One reliability probewas conducted with each student with severe disabilities. During the sessions, twoof the researchers independently observed the target student. Interrater reliabilitywas assessed for all behaviors coded during each observation interval. The levelof agreement between the observers was calculated by dividing the number ofagreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements, and multiplying by100. Interrater reliability ranged from 90.2% to 93.6% with an average of 91.7%across the sessions.

RESULTS

Academic Responding and Competing Behavior

Figure 1 presents the rates of academic responding and competing behaviorfor Students 1 through 3. The rates of academic responding for Student 1 increasedfrom baseline (an average of 39% of observation intervals across probes) to PartnerLearning (an average of 75% of observation intervals across probes). Student1’s rates of competing behaviors also decreased slightly during Partner Learning




Fig. 1. Percent of observation intervals of academic responding and competing behavior for stu-dents with severe disabilities.




(M = 9% of observation intervals across probes) from the baseline condition (M=19% of observation intervals across probes). Partner Learning also led to substantialincreases in academic responding for Student 2 during Partner Learning (M= 83%of observation intervals across probes) from baseline (M = 32% of observationintervals across probes). Student 2 also decreased their rates of competing behaviorduring Partner Learning (M = 11% of observation intervals across probes) frombaseline sessions (M = 32% of observation intervals across probes). Althoughsimilar patterns were seen with Student 3, the changes from Baseline to PartnerLearning in both academic responding (M = 62% of observation intervals acrossprobes to 72%) and competing behavior (M= 19% of observation intervals acrossprobes to 17%) was less appreciable.

Figure 2 presents the rates of academic responding and competing behaviorfor students without disabilities. Student 4 had moderate increases in their ratesof academic responding during Partner Learning (M = 58%) from the baselinecondition (36%). However, their rate of competing behavior remained essentiallythe same during Baseline (M= 17%) and Partner Learning (M= 14%). There wasa substantial amount of overlap of data points for Subject 5 between Baseline andPartner Learning for both academic responding (M= 53% to 70%) and competingbehavior (M = 13% to 17%). Finally, Student 6 had substantial increases in theirrates of academic responding during Partner Learning (M = 73%) over Baseline(M = 24%). Their rates of competing behavior decreased slightly during PartnerLearning (M = 10%) from Baseline (M = 17%).

Scores on Spelling Tests

Table II presents the mean percentage correct on spelling tests for all studentsduring Baseline and Partner Learning conditions. All of the students with severedisabilities (Students 1–3) increased the percentage of words they spelled cor-rectly during Partner Learning from Baseline. The mean percent of words spelledcorrectly increased by 11%, 40%, and 62% for Students 1, 2, and 3 respectively.The mean spelling performance of peers remained very high and stable from thebaseline condition to Partner Learning.

Table II. Mean Post-Test Scores by Phase

Baseline Partner Learning

Student Mean Range Mean Range

Student 1 85 80–90 96 65–100Student 2 40 20–60 80 20–100Student 3 28 15–35 90 80–100Student 4 89 98–100 95 75–100Student 5 96 95–100 96 95–100Student 6 99 95–100 100




Fig. 2. Percent of observation intervals of academic responding and competing behavior for studentswithout disabilities.




DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that the Partner Learning strategy was aneffective approach for supporting students with severe disabilities during spellinglessons in general education classes. The data showed that partner learning wasmore effective than the traditional lecture instructional formats used with Students1 and 2, and to the parallel instruction provided to Student 3 in increasing theirspelling accuracy. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing thatpeer tutoring can be an effective strategy for promoting the acquisition of academicand other developmental skills by students with severe disabilities (Carr & Darcy,1990; Charlop et al, 1983; Donder & Nietupski, 1981; Egel et al, 1981; Fenrick& McDonnell, 1980; Kamps et al, 1989; Kohl & Stettner-Eaton, 1985; Kohl et al,1983; Lancioni, 1982). In addition, the partner learning strategy was superior to tra-ditional lecture formats and parallel instruction in promoting these students’ ratesof academic responding during spelling lessons. Interestingly, the rates of aca-demic responding of students with severe disabilities during partner learning werecomparable to their peers without disabilities. This finding is consistent with otherstudies that have found that when provided appropriate accommodations and sup-ports that the academic engagement of students with severe disabilities in generaleducation classes is similar to peers without disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury,Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1995; Logan, Bakeman, & Keefe, 1997; McDonnell,Thorson, McQuivey, & Kiefer-O’Donnell, 1997).

An important advantage of the partner learning strategy for students withsevere disabilities enrolled in general education classes is that it can be tailoredto their individual needs. For example, the spelling words presented to the stu-dents in this study were based on their own IEP objectives and their previousperformance in spelling instruction. Furthermore, the structure of partner learningallows teachers to use a wide range of adaptations and accommodations to meet theunique learning needs of students with severe disabilities. A second advantage isthat partner learning allows students with severe disabilities to receive the type ofdirect instruction teaching format shown to be associated with their achievement(Snell & Brown, 2000; Westling & Fox, 2000). For example, this group of studentsreceived repeated opportunities to practice targeted spelling words during partnerlearning lessons. In addition, they were provided with clear and succinct responseprompts, reinforcement, and error corrections.

Partner learning did not result in substantial increases in spelling performanceof the students without disabilities who participated in the study. However, thisfinding is not surprising given that the average test scores of these students duringbaseline ranged between 89 and 99% correct. Two of the 3 students without disabil-ities had higher rates of academic responding during partner learning when com-pared to the traditional lecture and independent seat work instruction they receivedduring baseline sessions. These findings are important because many general and




special educators are concerned that the implementation of instructional strategiesdesigned to accommodate the needs of students with severe disabilities in generaleducation classes may negatively impact the quality of the education services re-ceive by students without disabilities. These data suggest that such concerns maynot be warranted.

It is not clear from the study what impact partner learning had on the perfor-mance of students without disabilities who were in triads with students with severedisabilities. We decided to focus the study on the overall utility of partner learningin inclusive classrooms because previous research suggests that there are a numberof positive educational and social benefits for individuals who tutor students withsevere disabilities (Peck et al, 1990; Sasso & Rude, 1998). Our observations, andthe anecdotal reports of the general education teachers, suggest that there were nonegative effects of partner learning for these students. However, these are issuesthat should be addressed in future research studies.

Although it was not a primary focus of the study, we also attempted to as-sess the perspectives of general education teachers about the relative utility of thepartner learning strategy in meeting the spelling needs of students with severedisabilities and their peers. Using a post-hoc written survey, we asked the generaleducation teachers participating in the study to rate the overall effectiveness ofpartner learning as an instructional strategy for all students on a five point Likertscale (Poor= 1; 5= Excellent), two of the teachers rated the strategy as “Ex-cellent” and one rated it as “Very Good”. One teacher commented that “. . . thetime spent in this process was much more effective than the worksheets from thespelling program.” Another wrote that partner learning had led to an “increasein confidence for low students—it’s beneficial for them.” In addition, all three ofthe participating teachers indicated that they planned to continue to use partnerlearning their classrooms.

Several weaknesses of this study should be noted. First, the small number ofsubjects restricts the external validity of the study and thus limits the generaliza-tions that may be made beyond the study sample. Second, because of unforseenchanges in the instructional activities of Student 3 we were unable to follow theconvention of collecting baseline data points immediately before the implemen-tation of the intervention (Tawney & Gast, 1994). This hampers our ability todemonstrate clear experimental control of partner learning for this student.

Despite of these limitations, the present study suggests that partner learningcan be an effective tool for supporting effective instruction for students with severedisabilities in general education classes. Equally important, this strategy was eas-ily infused within the typical structure of the general education classes in whichthese students were enrolled. Additional research on partner learning is needed in-cluding (a) replication across other subject areas, (b) replication at the secondarylevel, (c) examination of the impact of partner learning on the social interac-tions between students with severe disabilities and their peers without disabilities,




(d) the effects of partner learning on the acceptance of students with severe disabil-ities by their peers without disabilities, (e) long-term effects of partner learningon the academic performance of both students with and without disabilities, and(f) an in depth analysis of the perceived acceptability and utility of partner learningby general education teachers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported in part by the Division of Services for At-RiskStudents, Utah State Office of Education. The opinions expressed herein do notnecessarily reflect the position of the Utah State Office of Education. The authorswould like to thank Andrea McDonnell for her feedback on earlier drafts of thismanuscript.

REFERENCES

Carr, E. G., & Darcy, M. (1990). Setting generality of peer modeling in children with autism.Journalof Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20,45–60.

Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Schwartz, I. S., & Miller, P. A. (1990).Code for instructional structureand student academic response: Mainstream Version (MS-CISSAR).Kansas City, KS: JuniperGardens Children’s Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas.

Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., & Tyron, A. (1983). Learning through observation: The effects ofpeer modeling on acquisition and generalization in autistic children.Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology, 11,355–365.

Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring.American Educa-tional Research Journal, 19,237–248.

Delquardi, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peertutoring.Exceptional Children, 52,535–542.

Donder, D., & Nietupski, J. (1981). Nonhandicapped adolescents teaching playground skills to theirmentally retarded peers: Toward a less restrictive middle school environment.Education andTraining of the Mentally Retarded, 16,270–276.

Egel, A. L., Richman, G. S., & Koegel, R. L. (1981). Normal peer models and autistic children’slearning.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14,3–12.

Fantuzzo, J., & Atkins, M. (1992). Applied behavior analysis for educators: Teacher centered andclassroom based.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,37–42.

Fenrick, N., & McDonnell, J. (1980). Junior high school students as teachers of the severely retarded:Training and generalization.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15,187–194.

Fowler, S. A. (1988). The effects of peer-mediated interventions on establishing, maintaining, andgeneralizing children’s behavior changes. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.),Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied setting(pp. 143–171). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F., & Putnam, J. (1991). Supporting the education of students with severe disabilities inregular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds).,Critical issuesin the lives of people with severe disabilities(pp. 245–270). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987).Looking into classrooms(4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Greenwood, C. R., & Delquadri, J., (1991). Code for instructional structure and student academic

response (CISSAR). In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.),Dictionary of behavioral assessment(pp. 120–122). New York: Pergamon.

Harper, G. F., Maheady, L., & Mallette, B. (1994). The power of peer-mediated instruction: Howand why it promotes academic success for all students. In J. S. Thousand, R. A. Villa, & A. I.




Nevin (Eds.),Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering studentsand teachers(pp. 229–242). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kagan, S. (1985).Cooperative Learning.Riverside, CA: University of California-Riverside.Kamps, D. M., Barbetta, P. M., Leonard, B. R., & Delquardri, J. (1994). Classwide peer tutoring: An

integration strategy to improve reading skills and promote peer interactions among students withautism and general education peers.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,49–62.

Kamps, D. M., Locke. P., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Increasing academic skills of studentswith autism using fifth grade peers as tutors.Education and Treatment of Children, 12,38–51.

Kohl, F. L., Moses, L. G., & Stettner-Eaton, B. A. (1983). The results of teaching fifth and sixth gradersto instructional trainers with students who are severe handicapped.Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 32–40.

Kohl, F. L., & Stettner-Eaton, B. A. (1985). Fourth graders as trainers of cafeteria skills to severehandicapped students.Education and Training of the Mental Retarded, 20,60–68.

Krouse, J., Gerber, M., & Kaufman, J. (1981). Peer tutoring: Procedures, promises, and unresolvedissues.Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1, 107–115.

Lancioni, G. E. (1982). Normal children as tutors to teach social responses to withdrawn mentallyretarded school mates: Training, maintenance, and generalization.Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 15,17–40.

Logan, K. R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engagedbehavior of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.Exceptional Children, 63,481–498.

McDonnell, J. (1998). Instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education settings.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33,199–215.

McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., McQuivey, C., & Kiefer-O’Donnell, R. (1997). The academic engagedtime of students with low incidence disabilities in general education classes.Mental Retardation,35,18–26.

McNeil, M. (1994). Creating powerful partnerships through partner learning. In J. S. Thousand, R. A.Villa, & A. I. Nevin (Eds.),Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empoweringstudents and teachers(pp. 243–261). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Peck, C. A., Donaldson, J., & Pezzoli, M. (1990). Some benefits nonhandicapped adolescents perceivefor themselves form their social relationships with peers who have severe handicaps.The Journalof The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15,241–249

Sasso, G., & Rude, H. (1988). The social effects of integration on nonhandicapped children.Educationand Training in Mental Retardation, 23,18–23.

Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (2000).Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th Edition). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984).Single Subject Research in Special Education. New York:MacMillan Publishing Company.

Thousand, J. & Villa, R. (1990). Sharing expertise and responsibilities through teaching teams. InW. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.),Support networks for inclusive schooling: Interdependentintegration(pp. 151–166). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Topping, K. (1991). Achieving more with less: Raising reading standards via parental involvement andpeer tutoring.Support for Learning, 6, 112–115.

Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2000).Teaching students with severe disabilities (Second Edition). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill.

the effects of partner learning during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their...

Documents