CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter shall be discussing the findings of related researches to this study. It shall provide a discussion on the significance of this study to the existing literature. The contents of this portion of the study is gathered and collated from its secondary data.
Attention in Classrooms
Students’ cognitive performance and allocation of attention can depend on the degree of consistency between their past and present experiences in the classroom. Previous findings indicated that performance change due to evaluation and social comparison manipulations were simultaneously affected by students’ past personal academic experiences. With the growing diversity among children in today’s classrooms, teacher education programs are increasingly called on to prepare teachers who are able to respond competently to the demands of inclusive classrooms (Munby & Hutchinson, 1998). General education teachers are largely responsible for meeting the educational needs of all their students. However, many general educators do not perceive themselves as adequately prepared to provide a meaningful education to students with diverse needs (Hinders, 1995; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991), Existing preservice teacher education programs may be inadequate in terms of their abilities to prepare teachers to meet the needs of the diverse student population they will face in the 21st century (Maheady, Mallette, & Harper, 1996). Consequently, if teachers are to be successful in the classrooms of the future, teacher preparation programs must provide training in the knowledge and skills necessary for working with children with a wide range of ability levels in the same classroom.
Although there is substantial evidence that contingent teacher praise, approval, and other forms of positive reinforcement have positive effects on student behavior and achievement (Alber & Heward, 2000; Maag, 2001), some researchers have argued against the use of praise and rewards for student performance (Ryan & Deci, 1996). Kohn, who has gained considerable notoriety and popularity by giving speeches and writing papers and books for educators and business managers, has claimed that the use of “extrinsic motivators” such as incentive plans, grades, and verbal praise damage the “intrinsic motivation” of students and employees to learn and work (Kohn, 1993). Kohn has argued passionately and articulately–but without sound empirical bases–that not only is praise ineffective, it is actually harmful to students. He has claimed that praise increases pressure to “live up to” the compliment, insinuates unrealistic expectations of future success, insidiously manipulates people, establishes a power imbalance, insults people if awarded for unchallenging behaviors, and undermines intrinsic motivation.
Conventional wisdom holds that an extra measure of patience is required to be a good teacher of children with disabilities. This faulty notion does a great disservice to students with special needs and to the educators who teach them. Although patience is a positive and valued trait, in the classroom the idea that teachers must be patient with special education students often translates into slowed-down instruction, lowered expectations for performance, fewer opportunities to respond, and fewer in-class and homework assignments. A related piece of wisdom goes like this: Students with disabilities can learn, but they learn more slowly; therefore, they should be given extra time and instruction should be conducted at a slower pace. Although this reasoning possesses a degree of logic and common sense, research has found that slowing the pace of instruction makes things worse, not better, for students with learning problems. To illustrate, Carnine (1976) conducted an experiment in which instruction was presented to four first-grade remedial reading students at two paces: slow (intertrial interval of 5 seconds) and fast (intertrial interval of 1 second or less). Fast-paced instruction resulted in more learning trials presented by the teacher, more responses per lesson by the students, better accuracy of student responses, and better on-task behavior. Systematic replications of this study have yielded a similar pattern of results (Carnine & Fink, 1978; Darch & Gersten, 1985; Ernsbarger et al., 2001; Koegel, Dunlap, & Dyer, 1980; Williams, 1993).
Just as teaching too slowly impedes learning, teaching with excessive sensitivity to and patience for students with disabilities may lead to lower expectations, fewer assignments, and students’ participation only when the students “feel like it.” Educational research is unequivocal in its support for the positive relationship between the amounts of time children spends actively responding to academic tasks and their subsequent achievement (Brophy & Good, 1986; Fisher & Berliner, 1985; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984; Heward, 1994). When other key variables are held constant, such as quality of curriculum materials, students’ prerequisite skills, and motivation, a lesson in which students emit many active responses will produce more learning than will a lesson of equal duration in which students make few responses (Gardner, Heward, & Grossi, 1994; Sterling, Barbetta, Heward, & Heron, 1997). Frequent opportunities to respond, high expectations, and fast-paced instruction are especially important for students with learning and behavioral problems, because for children who are behind to catch up, they simply must be taught more in less time. If the teacher doesn’t attempt to teach more in less time the gap in general knowledge between a normal and handicapped student becomes even greater. (Kame’enui & Simmons, 1990, p. 11)
Instead of patient teachers, students with disabilities need teachers who are impatient–impatient with instructional methods and materials that do not help their students acquire and subsequently use the knowledge and skills required for successful functioning in school, home, community, and workplace. Instead of waiting patiently for a student to learn, attributing lack of progress to some inherent attribute or faulty process within the child, a teacher should use direct and frequent measures of the student’s performance as the primary guide for modifying instructional methods and materials to improve effectiveness. Nevertheless, there is widespread belief in education that creativity is a key to effective teaching. Like patience, creativity is a desirable and positive characteristic in teachers. Many thousands of ineffective lessons have been turned into effective ones by teachers who have creatively adapted instructional materials; developed prosthetic devices; or changed the mode, form, timing, or other dimension of a stimulus prompt. The kind of creativity most often implied by this notion, however, has little to do with systematically monitoring and analyzing a student’s interaction with carefully planned materials and lesson plans to detect flaws in the instructional design that the teacher might then repair in some creative fashion (Heward & Dardig, 2001).
It is one thing for a teacher to creatively design and adapt instructional materials, examples, and procedures to add an extra degree or two of effectiveness to an already effective set of teaching skills. It is quite another thing for a teacher to be “creative” in the absence of a sound curriculum and repertoire of critical instructional skills. Instead of being told that being creative is the key to good teaching, teachers should be trained to realize that the first and most important requisite to effective teaching is obtaining the knowledge and skills necessary to select and properly use research-based instructional tools (Lovitt, 1996). Furthermore, teachers often hear that their profession is an art, not a science, and that not only is it permissible to teach in different ways from time to time, but such change is good for students. Adding variety to instructional activities and materials in an attempt to make lessons more interesting and fun for students is one way in which teachers frequently try to be creative. A teacher being creative in this way, however, must be careful not to inadvertently reduce students’ opportunities to practice the target skill(s).
Telling teachers they must be creative may work against the systematic adoption of research-based curriculum and instructional tools. Since frequently changing methods and materials is a primary way for teachers to demonstrate their creativity. Some teachers feel that teaching the same way becomes boring and it is their right to be creative in the classroom (Purnell & Claycomb, 2001). Teachers are not in the classroom for their own enjoyment, however, they are in the classroom as professionals to do a job; children are not in the schools to be pawns for educators who want to try one unproven method after another because of fad, fashion, or creative whim (Engelmann, 1992). We may think that unlimited creativity is a good thing for teachers, but imagine how you would feel if the pilot on your next flight announced that he wanted to be creative and was going to try a new idea that he had heard about for landing airplanes. Teacher creativity will always have an important place in the classroom, but the need and direction for that creativity should be guided and subsequently evaluated by students’ achievements, not the whims of teachers.
Action Research in the Classroom
Action research is deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted. Spiraling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition characterize it. The linking of the terms “action” and “research” highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1982). While the concept of action research can be traced back to the early works of John Dewey in the 1920s and Kurt Lewin in the 1940s, it is Stephen Corey and others at Teachers College of Columbia University who introduced the term action research to the educational community in 1949. Corey (1953) defined action research as the process through which practitioners study their own practice to solve their personal practical problems. Very often action research is a collaborative activity where practitioners work together to help one another design and carry out investigations in their classrooms. Teacher action research is, according to John Elliott, “concerned with the everyday practical problems experienced by teachers, rather than the ‘theoretical problems’ defined by pure researchers within a discipline of knowledge” (Elliott, cited in Nixon, 1989). Research is designed, conducted, and implemented by the teachers themselves to improve teaching in their own classrooms, sometimes becoming a staff development project in which teachers establish expertise in curriculum development and reflective teaching.
The prevailing focus of teacher research is to expand the teacher’s role as inquirer about teaching and learning through systematic classroom research (Copper, 1990). The approach is naturalistic, using participant-observation techniques of ethnographic research, is generally collaborative, and includes characteristics of case study methodology (Belanger, 1992). Moreover, action research has been employed for various purposes: for school-based curriculum development, as a professional development strategy, in pre-service and graduate courses in education, and in systems planning and policy development. Some writers advocate an action research approach for school restructuring. (Holly, 1990; Jacullo-Noto, 1992; Lieberman, 1988; Oja & Smulyan, 1989; Sagor, 1992) Action research can be used as an evaluative tool, which can assist in self-evaluation whether the “self” is an individual or an institution.
There is a growing body of evidence of the positive personal and professional effects that engaging in action research has on the practitioner (Goswami & Stillman, 1987; Lieberman, 1988). Action research provides teachers with the opportunity to gain knowledge and skill in research methods and applications and to become more aware of the options and possibilities for change. Teachers participating in action research become more critical and reflective about their own practice (Oja & Pine, 1989; Street, 1986). Teachers engaging in action research attend more carefully to their methods, their perceptions and understandings, and their whole approach to the teaching process. Lawrence Stenhouse once said, “It is teachers who, in the end, will change the world of the school by understanding it” (cited in Rudduck, 1988). As teachers engage in action research they are increasing their understanding of the schooling process. What they are learning will have great impact on what happens in classrooms, schools, and districts in the future. The things teachers learn through the critical inquiry and rigorous examination of their own practice and their school programs that action research requires will impact the future directions of staff development programs, teacher preparation curricula, as well as school improvement initiatives.
Furthermore, teachers’ action research questions emerge from areas they consider problematic, from discrepancies between what is intended and what actually occurs. As Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) suggest, the unique feature of teachers’ questions is that they emanate solely neither from theory nor from practice, but from “critical reflection on the intersection of the two” (p. 6). Teacher research will force the re-evaluation of current theories and will significantly influence what is known about teaching, learning, and schooling. It has been said that teachers often leave a mark on their students, but they seldom leave a mark on their profession. Through the process and products of action research teachers will do both. (p.7)
The traditional action research approach described above has been extended into a form known as “participatory action research”. An important change is the realignment of the roles of researcher and subject into more collaborative and synergistic forms. Formerly, responsibility for theorizing rested primarily on the shoulders of the researcher. In participatory action research, this responsibility is shared with client participants. In other words, members of the organization we study are actively engaged in the quest for information and ideas to guide their future actions. (Whyte et al., 1991, p. 20) This increased client participation is a major change. The single most distinguishing characteristic that contrasts participatory action research from earlier forms is the “co-researcher status” that is accorded to the client participants (Elden and Chisholm, 1993). Researchers and clients bring their own distinctive sets of theoretical knowledge into the action research process. Action researchers bring their knowledge of action research and general information systems theories. Client participants bring situated, practical theory into the action research process. As a result, control over the social setting is realigned. The setting is free to self-reorganize rather than be artificially determined by the external researchers. In this way, participatory action research is based on assumptions that reality is situated (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and social systems are self-referencing (von Foerster, 1984). Participatory action research can be seen as being founded on more recent organizational philosophy.
In participatory action research, it is not necessary for researchers to extensively research theories surrounded the immediate problem setting in anticipation of action planning. It is assumed that the researcher cannot acquire the depth of understanding that client professionals will have already achieved through years of living within the social context under study. An indirect effect of the full collaboration of all participants is that participatory action research extends the social scope of action research. This extension has been noted both in studies beyond the level of a single production unit or plant, and in studies beyond the Anglo-American culture (Elden and Chisholm, 1993).
Music as Therapy
Activities and techniques incorporating music stimuli play potentially rich and varied roles in therapy for persons with autism. Music therapy techniques can, for example, facilitate and support the desire to communicate (Thaut, 1984); break patterns of isolation and engage the individual in external experiences (Baker, 1982; Thaut, 1984); reduce echolalic responses impeding functional language use (Bruscia, 1982); decrease stereotyped motility patterns (Scoraci, Deckner, McDaniel, & Blanton, 1982); teach social skills (Reid, Hill, Rawers, & Montegar, 1975); and facilitate increased language comprehension (Litchman, 1976). Because of individual differences within the autistic population, no universal rules of therapy can be applied. While one individual may respond positively to a certain technique, another might easily be harmed.
Characteristics of impaired socioemotional functioning can include lack of eye contact, lack of physical responsiveness, aloofness, lack of peer relations, often obsessive preoccupation with objects, and maintenance of environmental sameness. While these may change in intensity as the individual matures, social aloneness markedly remains (Thaut, 1984). Thaut (1984) further suggests that problems with social relations are also more amenable to initial therapy than are other underlying disorders. Autistic persons, especially in the early stages of relationship building, often physically reject or ignore social contact attempts by other persons. Music therapy can provide instead an initial object relation with an instrument. Instead of threatening, the shape, sound and feel of the instrument will often fascinate the individual. The instrument can thus serve as an intermediary between client and therapist, providing an initial point of contact (Thaut, 1984). At the same time, a trained music therapist can structure this experience from the outset in order to minimize motility rituals or sensory overload that may draw the individual back into himself or herself.
Listening experiences can provide additional tactile and visual experience and help to raise awareness of sound and of another person creating that sound. Music and musical experiences can provide infinite kinds of relationships which can be the key to successful therapy with autistic persons. Alvin (1975), in working with autistic children, was able to draw them slowly outward by using music to develop a series of relationships between the client and the instrument, the client and the therapist’s instrument, the client and the music, the client and the therapist’s music, the client and therapist, the client and other clients, and so on. Once the barrier has been interrupted and contact established, the music therapist could pursue a variety of structured musical experiences that continue to engage these individuals and draw them further from their internal, ritualistic world. While the process can be slow and arduous, music therapy provides an unusual and pleasurable tool that can be easily adapted to meet the changing needs of the client. As, the individual progresses, and relationships begin to form music therapy can provide an effective means of teaching social skins as well. Schmidt, Franklin, & Edwards (1976) found music to be highly effective in shaping and reinforcing appropriate, social behaviors. Reid, Hill, Rawer, & Montegar (1975) found music to be instrumental in teaching social skills which,, in turn, facilitated the normalization of a child who had previously been isolated from everyday events.
Also significant in music therapy with autistic persons, is that all of the musical experiences can be structured for success. Although interactions may be limited by language problems, social relations can become warm and mutually satisfying if the autistic individual learns that he or she can succeed in the adapted, therapeutic environment. Nelson, Anderson, & Gonzales (1984) suggest that, in a sense, the social disability of autism may be the most treatable part of the disorder, especially in the context of music therapy, since it depends more on the quality of the experiences in their environment than on their underlying neuropsychological characteristics.
Music therapy techniques in the area of communication attempt to address speech/vocalization production processes and to stimulate mental processes in respect to conceptualization, symbolization, and comprehension (Thaut, 1984). On the most basic level, the music therapist works to facilitate and support the desire or necessity for communication. Improvised accompaniment to the individual’s habitual expressions or behaviors can demonstrate a communicative relationship between a particular musical sound and the client’s behavior. Autistic persons might perceive such sounds more easily or readily than verbal approaches, and awareness of the music and of a relationship between the music and the individual’s own actions might serve to motivate communication (Thaut, 1984).
As the autistic individual begins to display communicative (verbal or nonverbal) intentions and responses, music can be used to encourage speech and vocalizations. Alvin (1975) suggests that learning to play wind instruments is in some ways, equivalent to learning to make speech vocalizations. It can also strengthen awareness and functional use of lips, tongue, jaws, and teeth. The use of strong melodic/rhythmic patterns in. verbal instructions has been found to be beneficial in maintaining better attention to and comprehension of the spoken word (Thaut, 1984; Mahlberg, 1973). Nelson et al (1984), in a review of the literature, found reports, of music games being associated with a client’s first purposeful speech production. Litchman (1976) found significant increases in language comprehension when music was, used in the learning environment. Alvin (1975) also points out how music can serve as an important link between parent and child, providing a channel of communication and a model of how both parties can relate to each other.
Music therapy has also proved useful in reducing instances of noncommunicative speech patterns, which can impede progress in learning functional language skills. Bruscia (1982) had dramatic results when using music therapy in the assessment and treatment of echolalia. The treatment procedures employed reduced the subjects’ echolalia from 95% of total utterances to fewer than 10% in any setting. Consistent throughout much of the literature is also the finding that skills and abilities acquired in the music therapy setting generalize widely across. In autistic persons one sees constant manifestations of pathological behavior in the perceptual-motor area. Perceptual and motor disturbances have been linked by a suggested relationship between motor behavior and the faulty processing of sensory input (Thaut, 1984; Nelson, et al., 1984). Characteristics of perceptual disturbances frequently encountered include tactile and kinesthetic receptor preference, hypo- and hypersensitivity to sensory input such as staring, visual and tactile detail scrutiny, covering ears etc. preoccupation with isolated sensory impressions, and avoidance of new sensory experience. Motor disturbances are often manifested in delayed gross and fine motor development, poor body awareness/image, self-injury, and motility disturbances such spinning of self or object, toe walking, rocking, and/or hand flapping. Music therapy techniques are initially aimed at decreasing these behaviors, or breaking these stereotyped motility patterns. Rhythmic activities and movement to music at tempi other than that of body rocking, for instance, can be helpful in this regard (Thaut, 1984). Soraci, Deckner, McDaniel, & Blanton (1982) found that music possessing particular rhythmic characteristics was effective in reducing stereotypic behaviors. When engaged in stereotypes the individual is effectively “tuned out” from attending to events in the environment, but, when stereotypes were reduced or suppressed, the individual could be induced to, engage in productive learning activities. The music therapist can also structure the musical experience to ensure that movement responses to music are adaptive and nonrepetitive in nature (Nelson, et al., 1984).
The autistic individual can begin to exercise perceptual processes, and learn to relate tactile, visual, and auditory stimulation through manual exploration of instruments. Movement to music can also aid in the integration of tactile/kinesthetic and auditory perception and the differentiation of self/nonself (Thaut, 1984). Action songs may be beneficial in helping develop auditory-motor coordination and more refined body awareness/image (Alvin, 1975). Playing with mallets or on a keyboard can practice functional use of fingers and hands. On a more complex level, perceptual learning sequences can first isolate, and then combine, concepts of pitch, loudness, and tempo, by having the client respond in kind on percussion instruments.
From the most basic level to the most complex, music therapy techniques can meet the individual at his or her developmental level, breaking stereotyped behavior patterns and working toward the integration of different sensory experiences and appropriate motor responses.
References:
Alber, S. R., & Heward, W. L. (2000). Teaching students to recruit positive attention: A literature review with recommendations for practice and future research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 177-204.
Alvin, J. (1975). Music Therapy for the Autistic Child. London: Oxford University Press.
Baker, B. (1982). The use of music with autistic children. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 20(4), 31-34.
Belanger, J. (1992). Teacher as researcher: Roles and expectations. An annotated bibliography.
Berger, P. and T. Luckmann. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge., New York: Anchor Press.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069-1077.
Bruscia, K.E. (1982). Music in the assessment of echolalia. Music Therapy, 2(l), 25-41.
Carnine, D. (1976). Effects of two teacher presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.
Carnine, D., & Fink, W. T. (1978). Increasing the rate of presentation and use of signals in elementary classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 35-46.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-10.
Copper, L. R. (1990, April). Teachers as researchers: Attitudes, opinions and perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Boston, MA.
Corey, S. (1953). Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Darch, C., & Gersten, R. (1985). The effects of teacher presentation rate and praise on LD students’ oral reading performance. British Journal of Psychology, 55, 295-303.
Elden, M. and R. F. Chisholm. (1993) “Emerging Varieties of Action Research: Introduction to the Special Issue,” Human Relations, (46) 2, pp. 121-142.
Engelmann, S. (1992). War against the schools’ academic children abuse. Portland, OR: Halcyon House.
Ernsbarger, S. C., Tincani, M. J., Harrison, T. J., Frazier-Trotman, S., Simmons-Reed, E., & Heward, W. L. (2001, May). Slow teacher/fast teacher: Effects on participation rate, accuracy, and off-task behavior by pre-K students during small-group language lessons. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, New Orleans, LA.
Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
Gardner III, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63-71.
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (Eds.). (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, D. S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Heward, W. L. (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner III, D. M. Sainato, J. O. Cooper, T. E. Heron, W. L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T. A. Grossi (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283-320). Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Heward, W. L., & Dardig, J. C. (2001, Spring). What matters most in special education. Education Connection, 41-44.
Hinders, K. (1995). Dual certification and the regular education initiative. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 200-208.
Holly, P., & Southworth, G. (1990). The developing school. London: The Falmer Press.
Jacullo-Noto, J. (1992, April). Action research and school restructuring: The lessons learned. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (Eds.). (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Koegel, R. L., Dunlap, G., & Dyer, K. (1980). Intertrial interval duration and learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 91-99.
Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54-63.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Litchman, M.D. (1977). The use of music in establishing a learning environment for language instruction with autistic children (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1976). University Microfilms International, No. 773557.
Lovitt, T. C. (1996). What special educators need to know. In W. L. Heward (Ed.), Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (5th ed., pp. 84-86). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Maag, J. W. (2001). Rewarded by punishment: Reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in education. Exceptional Children, 67, 173-186.
Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (1996). The pair-tutoring program: An early field-based experience to prepare preservice general educators to work with students with special learning needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 277-297.
Mahlberg, M. (1973). Music therapy in the treatment of an autistic child. Journal of Music Therapy, 10(4),189-193.
Munby, H., & Hutchinson, N. (1998). Using experience to prepare teachers for inclusive classrooms: Teacher education and the epistemology of practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 75-82.
Nelson, D., Anderson, V., & Gonzales, A. (1984). Music activities as therapy for children with autism and other pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Music Therapy, 21.(3),100-116.
Nixon, J. (1989, Winter). The teacher as researcher: Contradictions and continuities. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 20-32.
Oja, S. N., & Pine, G. J. (1989). Collaborative action research: Teachers’ stages of development and school contexts. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 96-115.
Oja, S. N., & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Purnell, S., & Claycomb, C. (2001). Implementing reform: What Success for All teaches us about including students with disabilities in comprehensive school restructuring. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State School Boards of Education.
Reid, D.H., Hill, B.K., Rawers, R.J. & Montegar, C.A. (1975). The use of contingent music in teaching social skills to a nonverbal hyperactive boy. Journal of Music Therapy, 12(l), 2-18.
Rudduck, J. (1988). Changing the world of the classroom by understanding it: A review of some aspects of the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(1), 30-42.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 33-38.
Sagor, R. D. (1992, April). Collaborative action research: A cultural mechanism for school development and professional restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Schmidt, D.C., Franklin, R. & Edwards, J.S. (1976). Reinforcement of autistic children’s responses to music. Psychological Reports, 39(2), 571-577.
Semmel, M. I., Abemathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58(1), 9-24.
Soraci, S., Deckner, C.W., McDaniel, C. & Blanton, R.L. (1982). The relationship between rate of rhythmicity and the stereotypic behaviours of abnormal children. Journal of Music Therapy, 19(l),46-54.
Sterling, R., Barbetta, P. M., Heward, W. L., & Heron, T. E. (1997). A comparison of active student response and on-task instruction on the acquisition and maintenance of health facts by fourth grade special education students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 151-165.
Street, L. (1986). Mathematics, teachers, and an action research course. In D. Hustler., T. Cassidy, & T. Cuff (Eds.). Action research in classroom and schools. London: Allen and Unwin.
Thaut, M.H. (1984). A music therapy treatment model for autistic children. Music Therapy Perspectives, 1(4), 7-13.
von Foerster, H. (1984) “Principles of Self-Organization — In a Socio-Managerial Context.” in H. Ulrich and G. J. B. Probst, (eds.) Self-Organization and Management of Social Systems: Insights, Promises, Doubts and Questions, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 2-24.
Whyte, W. F., D. J. Greenwood and P. Lazes. (1991) “Participatory Action Research: Through Practice to Science in Social Research.” in W. F. Whyte, (ed.) Participatory Action Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 19-55.
Williams, V. (1993). Effects of two teacher presentation rates during smallgroup social studies instruction on active student response, on-task behavior, and academic achievement by elementary students with severe behavior disorders. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment